
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

RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
Enrolment changes could have 'significant' impact on democratic participation
Photo: NZ ELECTORAL COMMISSION Justice officials say closing enrolments ahead of advance voting could result in lower turnout and reduce confidence in the electoral system. And electoral law experts are also questioning why the changes need to stretch for the whole advanced voting period. As part of a suite of Electoral Act changes, same-day election enrolments are set to be scrapped . It reverses a change brought in for the 2020 election, which allowed for enrolments and updating details up to and including on election day. It then goes even further, ensuring voters have to enrol or update their details before advance voting begins. The government is also legislating to require 12 days of advance voting. The changes are primarily being made to improve the timeliness of the official vote count, and so give voters certainty of a result. The growth in the number of special votes has been putting a strain on processing a result, with the timeframe for a final vote count stretching into three weeks at the last election. The justice minister said the uncertainty could be avoided if more people enrolled in a timely manner. "We never know what the circumstances are going to be after an election," Paul Goldsmith said. "We don't know what pressure the country will be under. An extra week, extra two weeks, if we do nothing could be longer, then that just creates extra uncertainty that we can easily avoid by people enrolling in a timely fashion." In its Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), the Ministry of Justice did not recommend the option of closing enrolment earlier. "Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant," officials said. Special votes take much longer to process than a standard vote, as they need to go through a lot more scrutiny. Officials noted a positive aspect of closing enrolments earlier was it would mean enrolment processing was done by the close of polling, allowing special vote counting to begin promptly. The ministry acknowledged there was value in a timely and smooth transfer of power following an election, but it was uncertain whether any package of changes could reduce the count timeframes. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The RIS acknowledged the growth of special votes in both volume and as a proportion of the total number of votes, with the largest proportion being those who were not enrolled or needed to update their details. About 300,000 to 350,000 people cast a special vote because they were not enrolled, or not enrolled at the correct address by writ day, or on the dormant roll. Māori, Asian, and Pasifika communities, as well as younger people, are more likely to cast special votes. "This option will create a barrier to participation and may be seen as a step backwards for accessibility, in light of changes to enable greater participation over recent elections. Closing enrolment earlier could harm confidence and trust if people are not able to vote because they missed the deadline or if more votes are disallowed," officials said. At the 2020 election, the rules were changed to allow people to enrol to vote on election day, as they have been able during the advanced voting period since the 1990s. It was a response to what the then-government said was 19,000 voters feeling "disenfranchised" by being turned away in 2017. Goldsmith did not believe the new bill would mark a return to that disenfranchisement. "We've got to balance the fact that we want to have an outcome of an election in a timely manner. It does actually matter if we have an uncertain outcome. People don't start coalition negotiations until they know the final outcome, and if that's drifting into four weeks than that creates more uncertainty." Electoral law expert Graeme Edgeler doubted the changes would prevent people from knowing the outcome of an election, as the Election Night result usually gave a good indication of the makeup of the next government. "Two weeks or three weeks, does it really matter? There's nothing stopping the politicians who look like they've been elected from negotiation before the final special votes are out," he said. "The results, we know they tended to change one or two seats or something like that. The time delay just doesn't seem like a particularly good reason for this." Electoral law expert Graeme Edgeler. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Edgeler did not think removing the ability to enrol on election day would not make too much of a difference, as it had only been in place for two elections. But he was concerned at closing the enrolment period before advanced voting started. "Requiring people to have a think about the election two weeks before the actual vote happens is probably more of a big change than the same-day enrolments." On Election Day 2023, 110,000 people enrolled or updated their details. Labour's justice spokesperson Duncan Webb questioned whether the trade-off to get votes counted faster was worth it. "Counting the vote took an extra week, last election. I think 110,000 votes are worth it. I think every single New Zealander is entitled to have a voice in who represents them in this place. If it takes another week, that's OK by me because democracy is worth waiting for," he said. Celia Wade-Brown, the Green Party's spokesperson for democracy and electoral reform, said it would lead to fewer people participating in democracy. "This government is reducing the number of people, particularly those who are mobile, who move around, who change addresses, and preventing them from voting. This should be a government for all New Zealanders." Labour Party justice spokesperson Duncan Webb. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Opposition parties were not consulted on the Electoral Act changes. University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said some parts of electoral law, such as changing the voting age or the term of Parliament, were protected by entrenchment provisions, requiring a 75 percent majority of MPs or a referendum. Everything else was left to a simple majority of votes in Parliament like any other piece of legislation. "Because the government has a majority in Parliament, if it wants to do this, it can. It's just a question of whether it's the right thing to do," he told Checkpoint . "Democracy is more than just what a current government wants it to be. It has to be, what is the best rules for our polity, us as a group, to choose our leaders." Geddis said the growth in special votes had been causing strain, but questioned why the government had taken this option. "The government's response has essentially been to bring down a guillotine and say, 'well tough.' All of those people who haven't enrolled or changed their details before voting starts, 'tough. Your votes just won't count. We're just not going to listen to you.'" While officials did not recommend closing the enrolment period, they were in favour of introducing automatic enrolment updates. This option has formed part of Goldsmith's package of reforms, and would allow the Electoral Commission to update people's enrolment details using data from other government agencies. The option would make it easier for electors to keep enrolments up to date, and reduce the number of special votes over time. It was something Edgeler was in favour of. "Allowing the government to do the work for you in that area, you've told one government department you've moved and got a new address, allowing that to be used for election purposes as well will hopefully mean that fewer people need to update their enrollment details during the election period itself." He said there would need to be a significant publicity campaign from the Electoral Commission reminding people of the deadlines. While that would be up to the Electoral Commission in how that was communicated, Goldsmith said they had received more funding at the Budget. "Their core role up to now is to encourage people to enrol. But they've also been saying 'but by the way, you don't really need to, you can just rock up and enrol on election day.' "And so we've now got a clear message: get yourself organised, get enrolled, make sure you're enrolled before election day starts."


NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Attracting overseas investment: A step forward, but not far enough
The Government's Overseas Investment (Amendment) Bill is more good than bad, writes Bryce Wilkinson. THE FACTS The Government's Overseas Investment (Amendment) Bill is more good than bad. It is more welcoming of incoming overseas investment. That is good for several reasons. First, billions of dollars need to be invested in infrastructure.


Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Government Must Not Neglect Speech Rights When Addressing Terrorism Laws
The Government must not let terrorism law reform inadvertently silence legitimate speech. Incitement to violence is already illegal; we should not ban the ability for individuals to freely advertise what they think, says Jillaine Heather, Free Speech Union Council Member. 'Recent reports of proposals to make it a criminal offence to publicly express support for designated groups or causes raise serious red flags. Peaceful protest, political commentary, or particular symbols could fall within the law's scope if definitions are not tightly drawn. We should not open the door to prosecuting Kiwis for expressing controversial or unpopular views. 'If certain opinions and discourse are banned, it will simply drive the conversation and ideologies underground to crop up in more dramatic ways. Censorship is a natural impulse to opinions we detest, but the wider picture must be considered. We're actually better off when we let individuals advertise their views. 'It's also concerning that these reforms are being developed behind closed doors, without public consultation. Transparency and accountability are key if we're to trust the Government's actions. 'New Zealand has already rejected 'hate speech' laws and the Department of Internal Affairs' proposed online content regime. Why would we open the door to this now? Banning speech is always a bad idea, no matter the good intentions."