Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. The interesting thing is that the title clause should really talk about what this bill seeks to deliver, and the one that’s proposed at the moment—although it might be commonly known because it’s been on the Order Paper for quite some time since this bill was actually reported back in November of last year—talks about system improvements. My question for the Minister is: why does the bill have a name that does something completely the opposite in terms of the direction?

Now, it may have been a focus on system improvements perhaps, prior to the late landing of these Amendment Papers that have now littered the Table of the Parliament, but when we look at the content of these Amendment Papers—for example, the removal of voting rights from democratically elected councils, who determine what that skill set base should be—when it talks about the desire of councils to focus on a whole range of other stuff that this Government would like them to, where it goes against the grain of localism, which, again, this Government seemed to campaign into office around, why is it that there is no Amendment Paper in the Minister’s name seeking to amend the name of this bill to truly reflect what it seeks to deliver? That’s the first question.

Often, we hear this a lot in this House, don’t we—that the label should be what’s on the tin; when you open it up, you should know exactly what you’ll get. How on earth can you get, from “(System Improvements)” from what has been contained in this particular bill? There could be a whole range of different suggestions: the “(Anti-democratic)”, the “(Anti-localism)” bill, perhaps. My colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking asked the Minister whether he was keen for her to prepare an Amendment Paper around the provision of grants or thereabouts. We on this side of the Chamber are very willing, at very late and short notice, I guess—take a leaf out of the Government’s book in terms of when they land their Amendment Papers—to assist with a particular title that is going to truly and accurately reflect that. I’ll leave that there. I’ll come back to the commencement and the like in due course.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am going to start, then, with the commencement, because most of the Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent—presumably that is soon—but then there’s a “However”, in clause 2, about section 26(2), (3), and (5). I think those are references to what’s in Schedule 10, but it would be useful for the Minister of Local Government to clarify what it is that comes into force at a later date, and why. What is the rationale for those aspects coming in at a later date? That is my first question.

Then, if the Minister can also clarify that the fast-track amendments in his Amendment Paper—they come into force on the day after Royal assent, because I don’t think they’re in that “However” clause. That means that, for any fast-track applications that could be in the substantive decision phase—as long as there have not been draft conditions or a draft decision—if we’re at the time that is the day after Royal assent, these provisions will apply to those fast tracks, and the councils will have six months to do a development contribution for them once the fast track is approved, if it is approved. Those are my questions around the commencement.

Now, moving back up to clause 1. We are on clause 1, which is page 3 of the bill as reported back from the select committee. As my colleague Tangi Utikere was saying, he had some suggested different names for it, because we do have this as the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill. Tangi Utikere was referring to localism and getting rid of localism, but I would put to the Minister that a better word, rather than being anti localism, is just “centralisation”. In fact, it could be the “Local Government (Centralisation) Amendment Bill”. I think that’s one thing that would work.

Of course, these Amendment Papers are also significantly changing the bill as well. The bill that went through the select committee is now in a very different form from what we will have before us when, one day, all these amendments are put into the bill. Normally, that would be for the third reading, but I don’t think that’s going to happen, because I think we’re going to go straight on to the third reading.

The Amendment Papers have identified this problem that was identified by submitters in 2024 when the Fast-track Approvals Bill was at the Environment Committee. The Government didn’t listen then. The Government has been warned all year that there is a significant problem for councils, who are not able to impose development contributions on these fast-tracks out of sequence. This amendment is supposedly fixing that problem, but we know it is not fixing the problem for Delmore, it is not fixing the problem for Sunfield, it is not fixing the problem for the donors of the National Party, so it’s not fixing anything. Another more appropriate title, I think, would be the “Local Government (Not Fixing a Well-signalled Problem and a Complete Failure Again) Amendment Bill”. That’s one more suggestion.

Tangi Utikere referred to my discussion with the Minister, because another major change—that again has come after the select committee process; that has come in as a separate Amendment Paper—is the changes to non-elected members and the delegations and any voting rights that any of them might have, even if they are established under statute. The Minister told us, “Oh, well, sometimes decision making on grants can be delegated.” We could fix that, but he has not done that, so it could be the “Local Government (Really No System Has Been Improved At All) Amendment Bill”.

Another would be about something this bill had been doing when it went to select committee, and for the whole time this Government has been talking about it, and that is to get rid of that terrible word that this Government is so scared of—because they do everything against it—and that is “wellbeing”. It could be that this bill is the “Local Government (Removing the Banned Term ‘Wellbeing’) Amendment Bill”. I think that is the most fitting title.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. The Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill—I think that name is completely wrong. It is not fitting for this bill, a bill that is trying to remove the wellbeings that local government has been doing for some time. You get a National Government and they remove the wellbeings, but local government continues to look after the wellbeing of the people they represent, because, actually, it’s a really important role of councils. Once again, we have a National Government removing the wellbeings. They’re not just removing the wellbeings; they’re also prescribing what councils need to focus on. By doing that, they’re pretty much telling councils what they should not focus on.

If you are a ratepayer and you value heritage, tough luck; this Government does not think councils should be involved with heritage. If you value art galleries, you’re out of luck; this Government does not think councils should focus on art galleries. If you believe councils should work in economic development—bring in some All Blacks tests, raise GST revenue for this Government—tough luck; this Government does not think councils should focus on economic development. Climate adaptation? Tough luck. It’s not one of the prescribed core services of councils. Public spaces and places? Sorry, ratepayer, you’re out of luck; this Government does not believe councils should prioritise public spaces and places. Environmental protection enhancement? Nope. Housing? If you’re a ratepayer who believes that councils should look at after housing, tough luck; this Government does not believe councils have a role in that space. Community support and funding? Once again, tough luck. Even though our volunteers contribute so much—for every dollar that’s invested by a council, they return at least $8—unfortunately, when you look at this Government’s prescribed list of core services, that is not included.

What we’re seeing is roads, reticulation, rubbish, and rates—the four “R”s. We’re going back to the 1980s. This Government does not care about community; they care about the past. And this is why I have an amendment that is time stamped 16 September 2026, 9.09.02. I know the Minister of Local Government—who’s previously been sitting in the chair—has said no to every single Amendment Paper; I think he will like this one and I think he should consider it. Also, Andy Foster, I hope New Zealand First consider this, because we’ve supported you and this is a good one. My amendment is to remove “System Improvement”, and put in “(Building the Past)”, because this is what this Government is doing. They are building the past; they’re not improving anything; they are going backwards. This is a bill that, when passed, will just see councils go backwards, and communities will suffer.

This is just one of three amendments that the Greens have put forward for the title of this bill, which should not be called “System Improvements”, so that one is “Building the Past”.

The other amendment in the name of Francisco Hernandez is time stamped 16 September 2026, 9.09.03, and this one I think is also very clear with how this Government act around local government, and the role that they like to play. This one is also a simple one where we remove “System Improvements” and it’s simply called the “Local Government (Do as You’re Told) Amendment Bill”, because this is what we’ve seen from this Government. A National Government that campaigned on localism suddenly get into power and all they do is “You do as you’re told local government. Do as you’re told. We know best; you do not. Even though we don’t have experience in the local government sector, we’ll tell you how to act and what to do, and what is important for your communities that have elected you.” That’s right. This Government do not care about local government, and that is why that amendment in the name of Francisco Hernandez is called “Do as You Are Told”.

A third amendment that we have tabled as well—[Time expired]

Committee of the whole House

Apologies to my colleague Mike Davidson in full flight. I did want to take a brief call around these preliminary clauses, and I had a couple of suggestions which I think are really helpful, and I think the Minister should consider. The first thing I want to talk about is the issue of commencement. I’m struggling to think if I’ve seen a bill that has so many different Amendment Papers from the Government: four different amendments, one tabled so recently that it doesn’t even have a number, it is just referred to by the time it was tabled. That is quite unusual, and I have to say that for people who want to look at this bill and actually understand what it looks like, it’s almost impossible to piece it all together. You have to kind of look at it very carefully, you have to look at the new clauses and go through and amend them all. And it’s so different that I think it deserves to come in at a later stage.

The reason I say that is because I believe that it would benefit from some additional scrutiny that it hasn’t been able to have. The Amendment Papers haven’t been able to have a post-legislative scrutiny. I know that’s been talked about quite a bit as a concept, and that’s mainly because we’ve had so many bills go through in urgency under this Government. Now, this is slightly different from many of those other cases in the sense that this did have a select committee stage. In fact, it was so long ago that it was when I was chair of—well, at least part of it was when I was chair of the Governance and Administration Committee. I have to say I don’t recognise this bill now. It is so different, it’s almost totally, totally different.

So I do think something to consider that would be beneficial for people looking at this bill—and let’s not pretend that these Amendment Papers have been introduced without impact. The last amendment, I appreciate, has mainly got little—I think there’s hyphens and there’s capitalisation, and those type of things I think we can we can live with; although sometimes those things can have a big impact as well, but they’re not the major things. But Amendment Paper 755 specifically that gets rid of the rights of people to vote when their democratically elected councils—local bodies—have decided that they should be able to vote is very, very concerning. The fact that it has turned around such a long history, especially in relation to Auckland Council, which is my council—it’s extremely disturbing to see that. I think a way of remedying this—and so this is a helpful suggestion of a way of getting around potentially quite a big political problem for the Minister—is to add in to the commencement an additional subclause, (5), to say that all of these particular sections will come into force either on Royal assent or at a date set aside in Order in Council, apart from the changes that are implemented by Amendment Papers 755, 803, 565, and—it is regrettable that that we don’t have a better, more formal term—additionally, the last tabled amendment, which was tabled on 16 September, 11.37 a.m. this very morning.

I do think that is a helpful suggestion, and I think that that would give the opportunity for scrutiny to be put towards those particular Amendment Papers. And then either that could come into place after a period of time—say, I would suggest a year—then if there were any issues—which there may be issues, because we’ve had a bill tabled for a year in this case, and only this morning we’ve had a tabled amendment fixing up a few changes. The likelihood of there being errors in this bill because of the four different amendments that have been put forward is extremely high. It would be beneficial if those particular changes had a bit more time. It would mean that it could be remitted back to the committee of the whole House, I believe, and then it could be brought in with those changes fixed.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’re getting pretty close to it, but I will take one from Mr Utikere.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, there we have it: the former chair of the Governance and Administration Committee doesn’t even recognise the bill because there’s been so much time and so much change. That’s, of course, what you get when this bill was reported back in November of last year. It is a very apt observation, because the bill has been changed quite significantly without select committee input.

I want to make my comments strictly related to clause 2, and to ask the Minister of Local Government—who hasn’t responded to questions around the titles, or taken up the offers of some assistance in that space, or indeed the commencement. But it is extremely rare to have a Minister who had his first set of Amendment Papers that were published earlier in the year—there was a lot of conversation about what was coming—and then just yesterday morning, the most recent—well, not the most recent; the penultimate most recent amendment was landed, which identified a few things. And then again, today, this morning, while this very committee was working its way through the relevant parts of this bill, yet another tabled amendment—as my colleague Camilla Belich says—so late in the piece that it doesn’t even have a descriptor or an identifier. Three sets of amendments in the Minister’s name.

Now, surely, Minister, that must give some weight to the suggestion that the commencement provisions perhaps actually can last a little bit of time. When we’re thinking about the nature of what is going to come into force, what is the rush in terms of the day after Royal assent? Many of these particular provisions relate to a number of things that are yet to get under way. If we think about the nature of the standardised code of conduct process, when we think about the nature of some non-bespoke but standardised Standing Orders, they are not going to be stood up the day after Royal assent. So there really is no rush to give effect to many of these provisions.

If there is a rush to give effect to those provisions, then I’d be keen for the Minister to identify which particular provisions he is hanging on for an earlier commencement date under clause 2(1). It is clear, as has been indicated by colleagues, that there are other provisions that come in in a default of 2030 for clause 26(2), (3), and (5). If the regulation-making powers are not called into effect, then, essentially, the default is just under four years away.

The question for the Minister is why is it that there is a—well, we’ll call it a willingness, but a desire to, basically, have this come in on the day after Royal assent, given that he himself has had to table a number of Amendment Papers to correct what are clearly some very sloppy approaches to Government decision-making in this House. I know we’re getting used to urgency, and it seems to be the new norm and modus operandi, but is there any willingness on the part of the Minister to look at amending the commencement provisions in order to reflect what is a track record of shoddiness?

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

💬 Mike Davidson: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I want to hear something significant.

Committee of the whole House

It’s always significant, Mr Chair—always significant—and, hopefully, I can last the time with this one. I want to continue with the amendments that my colleagues and I have put forward because I actually think this is really important.

We have seen a number of amendments that have been dropped late in the piece from the Minister of Local Government on this bill, and so it’s really important that we do interrogate it. That also includes the title of this bill, which is the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, and we’ve clearly worked out that that’s just not the case. Therefore, when we looked just recently at what is happening with these Amendment Papers, we’ve seen more and more concern that it’s gone beyond just the trying to prescribe exactly what councils do, but it’s actually then removing some of the democratic rights that they should be afforded when they are voted in by their local communities. I’m referring to the Amendment Paper that would remove non-elected members off committees, joint committees, and subcommittees. They’d remove their voting rights and their ability to make up a quorum.

The Minister has talked about how this is about democracy, but I just continue to think he forgets that the democracy is actually the local election where people elect the councillors and the community boards, and then, as part of that localism and democracy, those elected members can determine who sits on those committees to actually make decisions. Obviously, those decisions they’d make have been delegated down, and they cannot strike rates and other things that are substantial. Those decisions can only be made by elected members in a council decision, and so it’s actually a really good way of how democracy works to get better decisions for the local community. If local communities did not like that, then every three years, the local communities have the ability to not elect those councillors—they can kick them out.

What we’re seeing from this bill and from what the Minister is trying to put forward from not just the original bill but then the amendments, is that he’s trying to actually suppress localism. Clearly, a party that campaigned and talked about how important localism is has gone into Government and has totally forgotten what they spoke about.

This amendment in the name of Celia Wade-Brown which is time-stamped 16 September 2026, at 9.09.08, is, once again, a simple amendment, but a good one. I think it’s right on the money, where we we are going to replace “(System improvements)” in the title and put in “(Suppression of Localism)”.

I know, Minister, that you have said no to all the amendments that we’ve put forward so far. I actually think this one’s pretty good, and it would be great if you considered this one, along with the other ones we’ve put in, for the title. They’re all pretty spot on the money for what this bill is actually trying to achieve. I think it’s a little bit disingenuous to say that it’s system improvements when it’s clearly not, and so I would love the Minister’s opinions on these amendments that were put forward by the Green Party on the title.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as merely being an attempt to criticise the bill.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as merely being an attempt to criticise the bill.

Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as merely being an attempt to criticise the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading