Talk:Territorial authorities of New Zealand

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Names

this paragraph here:

"With the exception of Hutt City Council and Chatham Islands Council, each territorial authority is named after the area it covers, with the words "City Council" or "District Council" added. The Hutt City Council covers Lower Hutt (Lower Hutt City (Name of City Council) Act 1991); the Chatham Islands Council covers a district known as Chatham Islands Territory, and has no encompassing region (Chatham Islands Council Act 1995)."

doesn't make much sense to me. None of the names of TLAs in New Zealand are abstractions. Hutt City still represents the area it is named for (that being the Hutt, but not all, but then you'd have to make Waikato District fall under this category, and then maybe Thames-Coromandel, and then Manawatu, etc, etc). Any thoughts?

I believe the reason for the note is to point out that, while there are two cities called Hutt, (Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt) - the council for Lower Hutt breaks the naming convention used for the rest of the councils. There is both an Upper Hutt District Council (Upper Hutt) and a Hutt District Council(Lower Hutt). The convention used for the other councils (excluding the Chatam Islands) would dictate that it should be called Lower Hutt District Council. By calling it simply Hutt District Council - it could be mistaken that this is the council for both Hutts. Malathos 20:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alright. what I am saying is that it's not a rare thing: Auckland City, Waikato District, Manawatu District, Wellington City, Nelson City and Southland District all do that too. Kripto. I think the note should go.

Islands outside the Territorial authorities of New Zealand

I was unable to find the reference in your edit summary for this article, but the changes you made to this article seem implausible. Waiheke Island is part of the Auckland City Council, and has a population of many thousands. Is there another Waiheke Island that I'm not aware of? If so, the link should be changed.

Our article on Mayor Island/Tuhua says it was inhabited until 1901. If it is inhabited again, our article should be updated.

The Territorial authorities section of the stats department page says "All off-shore islands, with the exception of Mayor, Motiti and White Islands in the Bay of Plenty Region, are included in territorial authorities."

For the time being, I'll remove Waiheke Island from the list as the most obvious problem.

If you can fix these problems, please add a link to your source in the article (not just the edit summary).-gadfium 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must concede that I do not have local knowledge, my contributions are entirely based on Internet research. My source for this edit was [1] or rather the Excel file [2] that can be downloaded from there. In the Excel file, I found a total of six islands belonging to the Area Outside Territorial Authority. There, the island under debate is called Bays-Waiheke Island, whatever that means, perhaps a part of Waiheke Island? There is no island in existence called Bays-Waiheke Island, so I wrongly concluded that Waiheke Island is meant and that Bays is some sort of qualification. The excel file I mentioned gives these population figures for Mayor Island: 12 (1991), zero (1996), three (2001). There is no information about the type of settlement, it might just be a research station. Perhaps there is another question to be resolved: The Wikipedia article talks about "islands where the Minister of Local Government is the territorial authority". Perhaps these islands are only a subset of the "Area Outside Territorial Authority" or even islands "Outside Territorial Authority".--Ratzer 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Auckland territorial authority

The new Auckland governance structure does pose a problem: it's a unitary authority (combined regional and territorial authority) run by Auckland Council. The main problem is unlike the other councils, we cannot simply cut "council" of the end of it, otherwise we would call it just "Auckland", which will confuse the territorial authority with the main urban area of the new authority.

My proposal is to refer to the new Auckland territorial authority as "Greater Auckland", similar to Greater London, to differentiate between the two. What does everyone think? Laydan M (mailbox) 05:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard the latest news on the subject, but for the time being I think it would be more appropriate to refer to it as "the proposed Auckland City", or something like that, until such a time as the name and composition of the new authority has been gazetted. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good: but it would be better "the proposed Auckland territorial authority", as we don't know whether it's going to be a district, city, metropolis, etc. and after all it is still a territorial authority.Laydan M (mailbox) 00:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

This article needs a history section, which would help editors of other articles to determine when territorial authorities were established. --Una Smith (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First cut done Lestag (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there were united and regional concils before the 1989 reform and some of these pioneered subsequent functions of regional councils

Teritorial and Regional authorities *as we know them today* ( current functions duties and powers ) were established in 1989Lestag (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funding - income and expenditure

Can knowledgeable people please add a section on funding. I've asked for this in Regions of New Zealand too, where there is now only a brief ref to income from rates, but that is just a tiny part of the story. Only part of rates goes to regions, most goes to Territorial Authorities, and regions get other income too. Also what do Regions and TAs spend, including regions contracting TAs for some services, etc. Cheers, Bricaniwi (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose merging Districts of New Zealand into Territorial authorities of New Zealand. The former is a subset of the latter and the former's article's information is all available on the latter's article. I don't think there's even a significant difference in terms of powers and responsibilities between territorial authorities that call themselves districts vs cities. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to make sense. Maybe someone will tell us why that's not a good idea but I for one can't think of a good reason. Schwede 66 08:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything wrong with this proposal, so I support it. I'm prepared to reconsider if anyone finds a fishhook in it. Nurg (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's true that the former is a subset of the latter, I think they're different things. From looking at the articles within, Districts of New Zealand seems to refer to the district itself, while Territorial authorities of New Zealand refer to the councils that administer them. For instance, the first entry on the districts page is Far North District, while the first on the TLA page is Far North District Council. Not opposed to a merge in principle but I think we'd need to be careful on how we do it to not conflate the two things as I think they're still distinct. Turnagra (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair i guess, though I'll note currently Regions of New Zealand has information on both the geographic areas and the governments of those areas, would seem weird to split that. Like, districts (the physical areas) are just the jurisdictions of territorial authorities. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I don't oppose the merge - was more just saying that when it does happen we should probably think about the best way of going about that. I also think the pages of the councils and districts themselves should stay separate (eg. we shouldn't merge Waimakariri District Council with Waimakariri District. Turnagra (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, while they are not the same thing there is not enough extra information to justify the existence of Districts of New Zealand. Peetel (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this merge, I think the overlap between "districts" and "territorial authorities" is so high it makes sense to combine them. I also second Turnagra's comment that we should also mention that there is a minor distinction, but the distinction is so minor it does not justify separate articles. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge. I think we don't need separate list of territorial authorities and the districts and cities assigned to them since there's one authority for each of these divisions; we can easily link both the councils and the districts/cities on the same list. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]