Local Government Amendment Bill Introduced To Remove Council Wellbeing Provisions
Requirements on councils to prioritise core services will also be imposed.
The local government Minister is introducing a bill to remove four wellbeing provisions from the Local Government Act to 'refocus' councils on their core functions.
Minister Simon Watts said the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill would help restore discipline and transparency, and push councils to focus on things like roading, core infrastructure, water and rubbish.
'Kiwis are frustrated with rising rates, expanding bureaucracy, and poor value for money. This bill puts councils back to work on the basics, their core services, so ratepayers see real results for what they pay,' Watts said.
The bill will remove four well-being provisions – social, economic, environmental and cultural – which were reintroduced by Labour in 2019 after being removed by the previous National government in 2012.
It will also impose a requirement on councils to prioritise core services when managing finances and setting rates.
Other reforms
New financial performance measures for councils, with a requirement for regular public reporting.
Mandatory disclosure of contractor and consultant spending.
Stronger transparency and accountability requirements.
Regulatory relief to reduce unnecessary compliance burdens.
'Local government has drifted from their core responsibilities. This bill draws a line in the sand – focus on the essentials and deliver value for your community,' Watts said.
'This refocusing of our councils will help to deliver better value for money, and ultimately help address the number one issue people are dealing with right now, which is cost of living.'
Watts said the bill was a major milestone for local government reform.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
Have we lost the art of the argument?
It's a whole-of-politics problem – but is more vexing for the left, because it is progressives who seek change most profoundly. Duncan Greive attempts to persuade you all. There's a clear and present danger in contemporary politics – which is conducted on global platforms and accessible from anywhere – to find yourself drawn to and deeply invested in races which occur thousands of miles away and can only obliquely impact your life. For many of us it's US politics, a subject so transfixing that a former National leader has a podcast devoted to it, and one in which the recent result of a single city's Democratic primary – not even the actual mayoral race – felt more gripping than our own political drama. Zohran Mamdani's victory in the New York Democratic primary felt important, a shifting of the bounds of acceptable policy. It has transfixed people all over the world, with its promise of a new style of leftist populism that is manifestly very popular, particularly when set against the tainted establishment approach of Andrew Cuomo. Simon Wilson at the NZ Herald wrote observantly about the lessons Mamdani's victory might contain for Labour here. But in the context of the US, New York is Wellington Central – the most liberal 3% of a much more ideologically diverse country. I found another US politician more persuasive, one with a powerful theory about change and how to achieve it. Sarah McBride is a first-term congressional representative from Delaware, and notable as the first openly trans person to serve in that institution. On a recent podcast appearance she tabled an argument she summarised as 'we've lost the art of persuasion' – we meaning the Democrats. It presents an explanation for why the progressive left has had trouble convincing people of its positions in recent years. Essentially, McBride's theory is that the left has stopped trying – whether they're aware of that or not. How to change a mind It boils down to the way complex issues are increasingly framed in absolutist versus nuanced terms, and the way that seems to be having the opposite effect of what you presume is intended. Instead of bringing moderates over to a side, the absolutist style chases them away; effectively saying that unless you buy the whole of an argument, you're unwelcome. I'm talking less about our political leaders than their partisans – who might target a slower-moving or more uncertain middle, versus the near-hopeless task of persuading the persuaded. This can be framed in terms of compulsion ('you must believe this') versus persuasion ('let me make my case'). As with so much of our current culture, it was trending a particular way, then supercharged during Covid. It exists in many issues which have high salience to a group along with relevance to wider society – climate change, education reform, crime and policing, trans rights. It often starts with an entrenched and emotive position – say, that trans women should be allowed to compete in elite sports – which polling suggests (we have too little done here, but can extrapolate from international results) gets less popular the more it is discussed. McBride spoke directly to this, noting that in the last few years, during which trans issues have been more present in the public conversation than ever before, 'by every objective metric, support for trans rights is worse now than it was six or seven years ago.' She took care to make clear that is partly the result of a deliberate campaign from opponents. But she also believes that the style of argument – passionate but frequently dismissive of even good faith questions – has not helped achieve its stated aims. That the making of the case (from trans people, but more often their allies) has often hurt more than helped. 'I think some of the cultural mores and norms that started to develop around inclusion of trans people were probably premature for a lot of people,' she said. 'We became absolutist – not just on trans rights but across the progressive movement – and we forgot that in a democracy we have to grapple with where the public authentically is and actually engage with it. 'We decided that we now have to say and fight for and push for every single perfect policy and cultural norm right now, regardless of whether the public is ready. And I think it misunderstands the role that politicians and, frankly, social movements have in maintaining proximity to public opinion, of walking people to a place,' she said. Compromising, in other words. She was talking about trans issues in America, but you could substitute the fight and the location for dozens of others the world over. The rights and wrongs of a particular issue have become less material than the crucial question: is the approach, that style of argument, working? That seems to be the most important element, but one which is not considered nearly so crucial as the moral integrity of the position. It's often about where you spend your energy; in progressive circles it can appear to be scrutinising your supposed allies for ideological purity, then issuing infractions or ostracising those found wanting. It leads to a more ideologically aligned tent, sure, but one smaller than it was before. And because these arguments play out in public, mostly on social platforms, they have the effect of making any quiet observer with private questions or doubts feel like they too are unwelcome. This is an all-of-politics problem, but it is strikingly more prevalent on the left. For example, the level of disagreement between Act and NZ First, our two minor parties of the right, is vast, whereas Te Pāti Māori and The Greens can feel like one movement, such is the level of agreement. NZ First and Act seem to almost enjoy disagreeing disagreeably, whereas even relatively minor differences between leftist parties and supporters can feel anguished to the point of being unresolvable. What might a different technique look like? Instead of policing your own side, the alternative is trying to persuade an open but cautious middle. To do the latter requires a very different approach and perhaps a more strategic theory of change. One which necessarily involves taking a position some distance from where you might seek to ultimately end up. We live in a democracy, and even if you, like Te Pāti Māori's Rawiri Waititi, believe it represents the 'tyranny of the majority', that is unlikely to change. As McBride says, movements which progress incrementally and in lockstep with public opinion – ahead of but not out of reach – are more likely to be durable, and far less likely to see a harsh over-correction in response. Civil rights in the 60s and gay rights more recently were games of inches, she says, with legislation and public support walked forward, with an eye on perfection but not a demand that we achieve it immediately. What's hard is that so many of these issues are highly charged, feel urgent, and really do impact people unequally. The planet is heating now. If you consider the police a racist institution, why would you reform it piecemeal and not wholesale? How many generations must wait for a true honouring of Te Tiriti? Trans rights really are backsliding in many places. To give up on that perfect solution can feel like a form of betrayal. But only if understood in those terms. If it's instead framed as a negotiation with a longer time horizon, one which might take years but will more likely endure, then it might be more palatable. To many passionate activists, such compromise might be unacceptable. Also, sometimes fury seems the only appropriate response to reality, and you're less concerned with the outcome than a gut howl. But the question needs to be asked: have the 10 years or so in which this has been the dominant style of argument felt like progress to you? The dangers of the coalition Adjacent to the style of argument is the notion of a coalition. As well as the coalition governments of MMP, all parties are coalitions to some extent – National is famously a mix of farmers and businesspeople. But on the progressive left there is also a kind of moral coalition. How that manifests is a sense that to be a true ally you must believe in a very specific view on a broad basket of issues. That can feel like it goes for everything from charter schools to climate change obligations to LGBTQ rights to tax reform. Each is of consuming interest to various people; yet if you hold a contrary (or even unsure) view on any topic – especially if you're crazy enough to air it – you're at risk of being tossed from the group. To be clear, there is a proportion of the online right which is gleefully encouraging this dynamic, beckoning with open arms to anyone who might feel unwelcome on the left despite agreeing with the majority of its stances. They're beyond activists' control, however – unlike the current progressive approach to persuasion. In his conversation with McBride, podcast host Ezra Klein argued that the absolutist approach to argument has come from 'the movement of politics to these very unusually designed platforms of speech, where what you do really is not talk to people you disagree with but talk about people you disagree with to people you do agree with.' Platforms like Facebook, X and Instagram incentivise the production of content which stakes out increasingly extreme positions, because a more moderate (and often popular to general audiences, according to polling) stance is unlikely to provoke the engagement that expands the reach of any given post. It leads to a paradox, whereby extremely online coalitional activists of both sides draw their parties to ever more fringe positions. The reason it seems to be more damaging to the left's intentions is that even quiet observers of these hard lines can be made to feel rejected. Those on the right are harangued and insulted, but there is less intimation from their peers that they are no longer welcome – just that they're an idiot. There might be good reasons for a high threshold to acceptance: solidarity among different causes is a fundamental tenet of many reforming organisations, from unions to NGOs. But it does have a troublesome interaction with democracy, in that demanding agreement with every joined up position inevitably means losing some small but meaningful support. It's hard to win an election that way, particularly on a national rather than citywide scale. It's a more vexing problem for the left, because it is progressives who seek change most profoundly. The conservative part of the right is about the status quo, seeking to defend an existing position, or return to an imagined vision of the past. The left seeks progress – to change the future. In this way, persuasion matters more, which is why it's strange that it is often practised less, and exists within a framework which allows for little dissent. Is there a better way? There is a deep disdain for moderates or incrementalism today across all sides – big centrist parties have either been hauled to the fringes or seen more radical parties make big gains, if not usurp them entirely. It's easier to describe another approach than perform it, and would require a major change in the philosophy and style of our current politics, and it's made far harder by social platforms which are so resistant to that approach. Yet it's worth at least considering. Activists of many stripes might believe that their goals are sufficiently important as to justify staking out positions well away from public opinion, and sometimes seem indifferent to the fact their actions seem to make their causes less popular. Think of Extinction Rebellion protestors gluing themselves to motorways or splashing paint on artworks, even as the politics of climate change regress, in near lockstep with the more disruptive demonstrations. It's deeply unfashionable (I look forward to the comments lol), but maybe the best way to achieve small yet lasting gains is step back from expectation of perfect policy – at least for now. Holding out for them feels crucial, but if the way you're going about it makes the position less popular, maybe it's worth arguing for something more achievable, to take that first step. In the hope it might actually change a mind, and get you incrementally closer to what you really want, rather than ever further away.
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Icehouse Ventures boss says venture capital market is hot again as new fund feeds on golden visas
Paul says things are heating up. 'I'll be the first one to call it – and maybe I'll be wrong – but it's hot right now. There's some really large raises happening. Rocket Lab is is surging. Funds are raising more money. Is it ′21? No, but it's a heck of a lot more vibrant than the last couple of years.' Paul says part of the renaissance is down to 'investor migrants flooding in' on the back of the new Active Investor Plus (AIP) or 'golden visa' programme introduced in April. Of the $16m raised for Seed Fund IV so far, $4m is from immigrant investors, Paul says. There have been 'dozens of queries' from the new arrivals, which Icehouse is working through. Paul says most are under the growth category, which requires total investments of $5m. Immigration Minister Erica Stanford said in June that more than 100 applicants have been approved in principle. Late last week, she said a total of 215 applications have now been received, with total indicated investments topping $1 billion (or $1.3b, including a number of people who had applications under the old system converted to the golden visa programme – which promises to process 80% of applications within four months. The application fee: $27,470). WNT Ventures managing partner Carl Jones also told the Herald that the golden visa push had revved up interest, generating multiple approaches. There is no public list of AIP applicants, Jones said, but immigration agents often steer interested investors toward specific venture capital firms – and New Zealand is a small town. High-net-worth Kiwis returning to New Zealand have also helped, Paul says. The Government has just topped up the Crown-backed Elevate fund-of-fund, which co-invests with venture capital firms – but that's at the Series A level, one step up the food chain from the 'seed' level (usually about $3m investments) where Icehouse Ventures' new fund sits. Hits and heartbreaks Most start-ups fail. Venture capital firms work on the hope that a few big hits will outweigh the many misses. Paul says there have been 14 failures, including the likes of Upside Bio, which sought to cultivate lab-grown skin for burn victims (from a graft taken from a patient) and Chicken-free chicken maker Sunfed Meats. There were also the ones that got away, or the 'heartbreaks' as Paul calls them. Icehouse trailed and failed to access two of hot retail crime reporting firm Auror's early raises. Education startup Kami - sold to US private equity last year for $300m - also slipped through his grasp. But then there are the hits. Fund I invested in now unicorn Halter, Tradie software Tradify, which sold last year to a UK buyer at a 23x multiple on Icehouse's initial investment, Dawn Aerospace, which recently sold its first spaceplane in a US$17m deal, and Sharesies. Fund II followed in 2018 and invested in e-waste recycler Mint Innovation, electric boat maker Vessev, Partly, Basis and nuclear fusion moon-shot Open Star. 'Of the 360 companies we've funded, Tracksuit has been fastest to $1m, fastest to $10m, and fastest to $20m revenue," Icehouse Ventures' Robbie Paul says. Pictured: Tracksuit cofounder Connor Archbold. Photo / Dean Purcell Most recently, Seed Fund III was among the first investors in New Zealand's fastest growing start-up, Tracksuit (the brand-tracking firm that Paul says was the fastest investment to reach $20m in annual revenue), Sean Molloy and Sean Simpson's stealth energy start-up Ternary Kinetics, Watchful (smart security cams, started by ex-cop Josh Pasrsons), Ideally (AI-driven customer intelligence) Starboard (marine intelligence) and Zincovery. First Seed Fund IV investment Seed Fund IV's first investment has been named as Harth, an artificial intelligence-powered platform for collaborative building design, co-founded by Scott Barrington, founder of Modlar, a building design tool used by 95% of the world's top 100 architecture firms, and Tom Batterbury, co-founder of Auror and New Zealand EY Entrepreneur of the Year in 2022 (with Auror co-founders Phil Thomson and James Corbett). Coming out ahead The funds' performance is overlapping. Icehouse has made follow-up investments from its later-stage funds in Halter, for example, as the virtual fencing firm has grown. Icehouse now has more than $80m invested in the smart cow collar/virtual fencing firm at a $200m holding value. Seed Fund I raised $11m in 2016, Seed Fund II raised $26m in 2018 and Seed Fund III raised $45m in 2022. Paul says Seed Fund III had a $30m target, but was ultimately oversubscribed. Asked about performance, Paul says: 'At a high level, anybody who put $1 into Seed Fund I has had $2 back and the remaining is worth $5.50 so everybody is playing with house money.' Seed Fund III has appreciated to $37m and Seed Fund IV to $54m but positive returns still hang in the balance with their multi-year horizons. Chris Keall is an Auckland-based member of the Herald's business team. He joined the Herald in 2018 and is the technology editor and a senior business writer.
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Local decisions from polytechnics back in local hands
Regional governance of polytechnics will grow the economy, Minister for Vocational Education Penny Simmonds writes. Vocational education is one of the most important tools we have to grow our economy, support local jobs and give New Zealanders practical pathways into meaningful work. That is why this government is making big, necessary changes to rebuild a system that works — for learners, for employers and for the future of New Zealand. From January 1, 2026, regionally governed polytechnics will be re-established, subject to legislation currently before Parliament. This is a major step forward in restoring local decision-making and ensuring our vocational training system is responsive, flexible and financially sustainable. Under the overly centralised model of Te Pūkenga, it has been difficult for polytechnics to meet the real needs of their communities. Local employers, industries and learners have told us clearly: one-size-fits-all doesn't work. It is time for change. Returning decision-making to the regions is where those closest to local labour markets understand what skills are needed and how best to deliver them. Regional polytechnics will once again be able to tailor training to the priorities of their communities — and they will do so in partnership with employers and industry leaders. That is great news for Otago, where Otago Polytechnic helps power the regional economy by equipping people with the skills employers need. Restoring local governance means Otago Polytechnic can now respond more directly to economic demand and growth opportunities. The government is phasing in these changes carefully to ensure stability and success. While some polytechnics will be ready to transition to regional governance from January 1, others will stay within Te Pūkenga for now as they work towards financial and operational viability. Decisions on their future will be made in the first half of next year. These reforms are part of the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill, which is currently before the education and workforce select committee. We expect the Bill to pass in October, following a thorough public consultation process. I want to thank all those who took the time to make submissions. Your feedback has shaped a better, stronger model that reflects the needs and ambitions of local communities. Te Pūkenga will continue to operate as a transitional entity for up to a year, to manage unallocated programmes and support a smooth handover. The legislation also provides tools for responsible management, including provisions for mergers or closures where a polytechnic cannot return to financial viability. Vocational education serves more than 250,000 learners every year. That's a quarter of a million people building their futures, their industries and their communities. Our job is to make sure they are getting the right skills, in the right place, at the right time. This is about more than education. It is about regional jobs, stronger local economies and ensuring industries have access to the skilled workforce they need to grow. Regional polytechnics don't just train people — they employ thousands across the country and they help regions thrive. We are rebuilding a vocational education system that delivers on its promise — equipping people with the skills they need, supporting local businesses and backing regional success. That's the kind of system New Zealand deserves. And that's exactly what we are building. • Penny Simmonds, the National MP for Invercargill and Minister for Vocational Education, is a former chief executive of SIT.
