
Local Democracy Under Threat? Officials Warn Against Removing Council 'Four Wellbeings'
The report shows the approach taken by the government can be expected to overall improve clarity and concerns about spending "beyond core infrastructure" - but would undermine stability and localism.
It shows the Department of Internal Affairs would have preferred to keep the status quo.
The Local government (System Improvements) Amendment legislation passed its first reading last night, with the select committee reporting back in November.
The government and the minister have made their views clear, stating that councils have "lacked fiscal discipline", that they "are not mini-Parliaments; they are service delivery agencies", and that residents have become increasingly concerned about rates.
The opposition parties have argued it is a power grab that degrades the rights of democratically elected councils.
Removing 'four wellbeings' to have little impact
A key part of the bill is the government's proposal to remove all 10 mentions of the "four wellbeings" - social, economic, environmental and cultural - from the law governing councils.
However, the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) on the bill from Internal Affairs said that in isolation, this change was "unlikely to benefit communities more than the status quo".
"Previous regulatory impact statements have suggested that despite various changes to the purpose by successive governments, there has been limited impact on council decision-making, activities, and service levels, regardless of intended focus.
"Refocusing the purpose of local government will likely have limited impact on its own and may create implementation costs and issues."
The paper highlighted that the "proposed changes will likely disrupt the sector" and had led councils to do "costly compliance exercises in the past to determine which activities fit within a narrower purpose".
Despite this narrowing, it said the purpose of local government "should reflect the broad range of responsibilities local authorities have under all primary and secondary legislation in New Zealand" - pointing to the 47 statutes councils already have responsibilities under.
It noted that departmental feedback from agencies, including the Infrastructure Commission and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, as well as the independent Future of Local Government Review (FLGR) - effectively binned by the government a year ago - had "contrary views to those of ministers".
"Feedback suggested that removing the four wellbeings could be seen as disempowering local government, and while focusing councils on low rates may succeed, it would likely come at the expense of key council services and infrastructure development."
It noted the FLGR had found successive governments' changes to councils' purpose were disruptive, and recommended the four wellbeings be entrenched in law to provide greater certainty.
Removing the wellbeings "could impact [Treaty of Waitangi] settlement arrangements between iwi or hapū and councils".
However, some councils had told the minister, "they felt it would also help them to manage community expectations and do fewer things better".
In a table assessing the costs and benefits of the legislation, the officials found that "restraint" (addressing concerns about spending beyond core services) and "clarity" (providing useful direction about what councils should be expected to do) were improved compared to the status quo.
However, "stability" (minimising disruption and allowing councils to plan effectively) and "localism" (recognising the broad role of councils valued in communities and empowering them to decide for themselves) would be worse than the status quo.
Effect on rate rises?
The RIS suggested that other changes proposed by the government, including additional performance monitoring and rate capping, were "more likely" to support the government's objectives.
While ministers have continued to say the changes are targeted at a lack of fiscal discipline by councils, the RIS stated "cost pressures on councils are being driven by capital and operating cost escalation, flowing from supply chain upheaval and a tight labour market during the Covid-19 pandemic, and accelerated headline inflation since".
"Infrastructure costs have long been a major cause of rate increases, with councils needing to upgrade infrastructure, especially for water and wastewater treatment plants, and invest in more infrastructure to meet growth demands.
"Around two-thirds of capital expenditure for councils is applied to core infrastructure, not including libraries and other community facilities, or parks and reserves."
Local Government Minister Simon Watts, at the first reading speech on Thursday, said, "We looked at the evidence and it showed that whenever the four aspects of community wellbeing are included in the purpose of local government, rates go up as councils are focused on too many things".
Internal Affairs' analysis showed rate increases were "about two percent higher when the four wellbeings are in the Act", so while it bears out the minister's statement, the effect cannot explain the full weight of rate rises across the country.
The data used also did not account for population growth or distinguish between residential or commercial ratepayers.
"Usually, where rates have increased faster, this is because costs for councils have risen faster.
The current infrastructure deficit for local government is evidence of prolonged underinvestment, where rates (along with other revenue sources) did not increase enough to enable responsible asset management.
"For example, despite rates appearing to increase more towards 2007, the Infrastructure Commission has identified the period from 1995 to 2008 as a time when rates were consistently below their post-World War II average as a share of gross domestic product, and this coincided with a deterioration of the stock of transport, water and waste assets."
Limited consultation and scope for analysis, rates capping process uncertain
The analysis stated that the minister only allowed officials to examine two options: the status quo and his preferred approach.
"The data and evidence used in carrying out this analysis was generally low quality due to limitations on options exploration and consultation.
"There was a heavy reliance on previous regulatory impact statements that covered the same or reverse law changes."
The inclusion of the wellbeings has been added to or removed from the law four times since the Act came into force in 2003, so there were more than enough previous analyses to draw from.
It remains unclear whether rate capping, which the minister wants "before Christmas", would be included in the bill after the select committee reports back in November.
In a response to RNZ, the minister said decisions had not yet been made on whether rates capping would be added to the current bill, or in new legislation.
"This week I confrimed that the government is exploring a rates capping system with policy work underway since Cabinet agreed in April. I will bring advice back to Cabinet for consideration later this year. I intend to progress work on a rate-capping system suited to New Zealand that is flexible enough to support our housing growth aspirations and which allows us to respond to the infrastrcuture deficit while limiting spending on nice-to-haves.
"We want ratepayers to get value for money and with issues like average rate increases in 2024 of 9.6 percent vs CPI inflation at 2.2 percent , constraining increases is an option we are actively considering."
However, the analysis repeatedly highlights that efforts to "limit council revenue from rates" are part of the government's intended package of reform, and a section laying out a timeline of changes includes a redacted entry that follows the implementation of the changes described in the bill.
The disclosure statement prepared by the department noted that the RIS was limited to assessing the impacts of refocusing the purpose of local government.
It said the Regulations Ministry had determined other aspects of the bill did not need to be assessed, "on the grounds that these proposals would have no or only minor economic, social, or environmental impacts".
The ministry also asked the minister to provide an analysis on rates capping when reporting back to Cabinet on the overall bill in December.
The statement also showed Watts had asked for consultation relating to transparency and accountability with the Free Speech Union lobby group, the Taxpayers Union lobby group, the New Zealand Initiative think tank, Transparency International, and other ratepayer groups and academics.
On performance management, the department also sought feedback from a reference group, and on regulatory relief, the department was instructed to consult LGNZ, Local Government Professionals NZ, Federated Farmers, and Business NZ.
Officials also shared a clause of the draft bill with the Local Government Funding Agency.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

1News
15 hours ago
- 1News
NZ passport redesign to have English words above te reo Māori
New Zealand's passport is being redesigned to place the English words above the te reo Māori text — with the new look being rolled out atl the end of 2027. Since 2021, newly issued passports have had the words "Uruwhenua Aotearoa" printed in silver directly above "New Zealand Passport". Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden today confirmed the positions of the text would be swapped in future to reflect the coalition's commitment to using English first "as it is the language most widely spoken by the New Zealand public". She said the redesign – which would be unveiled later this year – was being done as part of a scheduled security upgrade, ensuring no additional cost to passport-holders. Passports with the new design would start being issued only after the existing stock of booklets had been used up. ADVERTISEMENT A spokesperson for Internal Affairs told RNZ the department was working towards an "end-of-2027 release date" for the updated passport. The ACT Party celebrated van Velden's move on social media, saying the change would "restore English before te reo Māori – without costing taxpayers". The Department of Internal Affairs, in 2021, promoted the passport's existing "unique design" as one to "be proud of" and highlighted the more prominent use of te reo Māori both on the cover and throughout the book. The change came as part of a deliberate push by the coalition to give English primacy over te reo Māori in official communications. New Zealand First's coalition agreement with National stipulated that public service departments had their primary name in English and be required to communicate "primarily in English" except for entities specifically related to Māori. It also included an as-yet-unfulfilled commitment to make English an official language of New Zealand. On Wednesday, NZ First leader and Foreign Minister Winston Peters objected to the Green Party's use of the term "Aotearoa New Zealand" during Parliament's Question Time. ADVERTISEMENT "No such country exists," Peters said. "The name of this country in all the documents, and the membership of the United Nations, is New Zealand. "We are not going to have somebody unilaterally – without consultation, without consulting the New Zealand people – change this country's name." Speaker Gerry Brownlee insisted Peters respond to the question in a "reasonable fashion" and pointed to his ruling earlier this year that it was not inappropriate for MPs to refer to "Aotearoa New Zealand". "The New Zealand Geographic Board also recognises and uses the term 'Aotearoa New Zealand'," Brownlee told MPs. "It would be utterly ridiculous for this House to ban such use if the Geographic Board itself is using that." Returning to the issue yesterday, Peters requested Brownlee reconsider on the basis that the Geographic Board had no jurisdiction to alter the country's name. But Brownlee was unmoved. ADVERTISEMENT He noted that the word "Aotearoa" was regularly used as a name of the country, including on New Zealand passports, which he said Peters would be familiar with — given his role as Minister of Foreign Affairs. "He would have – over some five years or more – presented the New Zealand passport at various passport stations around the world and never questioned the fact that our passport has the word Aotearoa on the front of it," Brownlee said. "I'd further say that through all of those years ... there has been not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, no condemnation whatsoever from a government he was part of. "That is the end of the matter."


Otago Daily Times
15 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Government to strengthen election 'treating' offences
By Giles Dexter of RNZ The government is moving to strengthen the offence of treating, by creating a buffer zone around polling stations where free food, drink and entertainment is banned. It is a move officials said was "blunt" and "superficial", but would make it more straightforward to identify offending. Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It is already an offence, but the law is poorly understood and rarely prosecuted. New Zealand has strict rules in place aimed at preventing voters from being unduly influenced. Election advertising or campaigning is not permitted within 10m of a voting place during advanced voting, and not at all on election day itself. It means voters can head to the ballot without someone else trying to change their mind. But the line between hospitality and influencing is where the confusion comes in, and what the government is hoping to clear up. "There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating. This will make the rules crystal clear," Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said. Rather than clarify what is or is not treating - or whether it amounts to corrupt intent - the government has instead established a new offence, creating a 100m buffer around polling stations. Within that buffer, free food, drink and entertainment will not be allowed, with a maximum penalty of $10,000. Not the preferred option In a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), Ministry of Justice officials said controlled areas around voting places would make it more straightforward to identify and prosecute offending and was more readily enforceable than the status quo. "The offence will not require that a person intends to corruptly influence an elector. Instead it will only require that they knowingly provided food, drink and entertainment within the controlled area," they said. But it was not their preferred option. "A key drawback of this option is that it is a blunt tool which does not exclusively capture harmful or corrupt behaviour. It draws a superficial line around voting places which may be arbitrary if the influencing behaviour occurs just outside the controlled area." In its inquiry into the 2023 election, the Justice Committee heard concerns from submitters that there may have been breaches of the treating rules at Manurewa Marae. The marae was used as a polling booth at the 2023 election. The marae's then-chief executive, the late Takutai Tarsh Kemp, won the Tāmaki Makaurau seat that year. The Electoral Commission had looked into complaints about the provision of food at the marae, and found it did not meet the test for treating. University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said this had likely influenced the government's decision to strengthen the offence. "Because of concerns about how that particular polling place was operating, they've decided to put in this law that says if you're basically trying to do something nice for voters within 100m of a polling place, that will become an offence," he said. "There's a lot of reasons why you might want to have things like free barbecues, someone on guitar singing, making it more of a community, communal experience. Because that actually might get people to engage with the electoral process more. "So I do wonder if this is another example of where a problem arose, and in response to that a hammer has been taken out to smash the walnut, and we end up overreacting." Manaakitanga concerns Officials recommended clarifying the law to make it easier to understand and more enforceable, as well as a lower intent threshold and penalty. "A lower threshold would make a clear connection between the incentive given and the outcome sought by providing it. This option seeks to make it clearer that genuine intent is required to improperly influence a voter, and this is different to customary practices such as manaakitanga." The controlled areas option was seen as having the potential to have a disproportionate effect on voting places that serve Māori communities. "It is consistent with the practice of manaakitanga to welcome and show appreciation for people with food, drink, and/or entertainment. This option would prohibit and criminalise these cultural practices in the areas around voting places." The ministry's preferred option was to amend the bribery offence to prohibit the use of food, drink or entertainment. "Treating is similar to bribery in the sense that an incentive is provided with the intention of procuring a specific outcome. The key difference is the incentive that is offered - for bribery, it is something of pecuniary value, and for treating it is food, drink, or entertainment. The purpose of combining these into a single offence is to remove the distinction to make it easier to understand and apply." Under this option, officials said it was unlikely manaakitanga would be inappropriately captured.

RNZ News
16 hours ago
- RNZ News
'Blunt tool': Government to strengthen election 'treating' offences
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER The government is moving to strengthen the offence of treating, by creating a buffer zone around polling stations where free food, drink and entertainment is banned. It is a move officials said was "blunt" and "superficial", but would make it more straightforward to identify offending. Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It is already an offence, but the law is poorly understood and rarely prosecuted. New Zealand has strict rules in place aimed at preventing voters from being unduly influenced. Election advertising or campaigning is not permitted within 10 metres of a voting place during advanced voting, and not at all on election day itself. It means voters can head to the ballot without someone else trying to change their mind. But the line between hospitality and influencing is where the confusion comes in, and what the government is hoping to clear up. "There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating. This will make the rules crystal clear," Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said. Rather than clarify what is or is not treating - or whether it amounts to corrupt intent - the government has instead established a new offence, creating a 100-metre buffer around polling stations. Within that buffer, free food, drink and entertainment will not be allowed, with a maximum penalty of $10,000. In a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), Ministry of Justice officials said controlled areas around voting places would make it more straightforward to identify and prosecute offending and was more readily enforceable than the status quo. "The offence will not require that a person intends to corruptly influence an elector. Instead it will only require that they knowingly provided food, drink and entertainment within the controlled area," they said. But it was not their preferred option. "A key drawback of this option is that it is a blunt tool which does not exclusively capture harmful or corrupt behaviour. It draws a superficial line around voting places which may be arbitrary if the influencing behaviour occurs just outside the controlled area." In its inquiry into the 2023 election, the Justice Committee heard concerns from submitters that there may have been breaches of the treating rules at Manurewa Marae . The marae was used as a polling booth at the 2023 election. The marae's then-chief executive, the late Takutai Tarsh Kemp , won the Tāmaki Makaurau seat that year. The Electoral Commission had looked into complaints about the provision of food at the marae, and found it did not meet the test for treating. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said this had likely influenced the government's decision to strengthen the offence. "Because of concerns about how that particular polling place was operating, they've decided to put in this law that says if you're basically trying to do something nice for voters within 100 metres of a polling place, that will become an offence," he said. "There's a lot of reasons why you might want to have things like free barbecues, someone on guitar singing, making it more of a community, communal experience. Because that actually might get people to engage with the electoral process more. "So I do wonder if this is another example of where a problem arose, and in response to that a hammer has been taken out to smash the walnut, and we end up overreacting." Officials recommended clarifying the law to make it easier to understand and more enforceable, as well as a lower intent threshold and penalty. "A lower threshold would make a clear connection between the incentive given and the outcome sought by providing it. This option seeks to make it clearer that genuine intent is required to improperly influence a voter, and this is different to customary practices such as manaakitanga." The controlled areas option was seen as having the potential to have a disproportionate effect on voting places that serve Māori communities. "It is consistent with the practice of manaakitanga to welcome and show appreciation for people with food, drink, and/or entertainment. This option would prohibit and criminalise these cultural practices in the areas around voting places." The ministry's preferred option was to amend the bribery offence to prohibit the use of food, drink or entertainment. "Treating is similar to bribery in the sense that an incentive is provided with the intention of procuring a specific outcome. The key difference is the incentive that is offered - for bribery, it is something of pecuniary value, and for treating it is food, drink, or entertainment. The purpose of combining these into a single offence is to remove the distinction to make it easier to understand and apply." Under this option, officials said it was unlikely manaakitanga would be inappropriately captured. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.