City Vision opposes the coalition government’s attacks on localism
Myers Park (Waitematā Local Board) after the recent upgrade
The coalition government’s Local Government (System Improvements) Bill asserts that the purpose of local government should be a narrow focus on infrastructure and economic growth, with no attention or funding spared for the environment, housing, arts, culture, or social services. Under the current legislation, the overarching purpose of local government is to ensure communities’ social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing (the ‘four wellbeings’). The government’s bill removes these, instead providing a short (and woefully inadequate) list of what it considers ‘core services’.
City Vision wholeheartedly opposes this attack on localism, and on local councils’ ability to respond to their communities’ needs and aspirations. As Richard Northey says in his submission, speaking from four decades’ experience in both central and local government, ‘The purpose of government at all levels, from parish councils, to city councils, to central government, to the United Nations, is to promote and advance the overall wellbeing of all those who live, work, play and do business in the area that the body covers.’
Auckland Council has taken a strong stand against the changes and will submit in opposition to the Bill.
Councillor Julie Fairey said of the Government’s moves, “It’s not supposed to be a parent-child relationship. It should not be the case we have this parent coming in over the top all the time.”
Local Boards have the opportunity to add their views to the Auckland Council submission join in taking a strong stand for local control and deciding what is best for local communities. C&R-controlled local boards have opposed efforts by City Vision to push back on the removal of the four wellbeings.
WLB member Richard Northey drafted the following submission, which was blocked by Chair Genevieve Sage and the three C&R members.
We urge Aucklanders to make their own submission and stand up for community wellbeing.
Here are the key points to cover:
Oppose removing the ‘four wellbeings’ as the purpose of local government.
Oppose the clause defining ‘core services’ and recommend that the ‘four wellbeings’ should continue to determine what services councils provide.
Oppose removing the current requirement for councils to consider applicants’ knowledge of tikanga Māori when appointing directors of council-controlled organisations.
Oppose giving the Secretary of Local Government the power to set performance measures, and recommend that these should continue to be set by councils in consultation with their communities.
Oppose giving the Secretary of Local Government the power to set standing orders and codes of conduct, and instead recommend that the Secretary of Local Government should provide best-practice guidelines.
Recommend that the sections of the Bill relating to the above changes should not proceed.
Optional: mention that you support proceeding with the following administrative changes:
Requiring Councils to include their code of conduct in the statutory briefings for newly elected members.
Requiring Councils to foster the responsibility of elected members to work collaboratively to set the direction of their respective councils.
Requiring fostering the free exchange of information and expression of opinions by elected members.
Modernising public notice requirements (i.e. not necessarily being published in newspapers).
Clarifying the authority of an acting or interim chief executive.
Clarifying that third party contributions to capital projects for which development contributions are charged can be targeted to a specific component of a project.
Extending the maximum period of a chief executive’s second term, where extended without advertising the position, to 5 years.
Submissions close at 11.50pm Wednesday 27 August
Local Government (System Improvements) Bill Submission
Richard Northey, 21 August 2025
Introduction.
Although it is called a System Improvements Bill, this Bill has effectively four main components
The first is to “refocus”, in other words greatly change, the purpose of local government to: “play a broad role in meeting the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions.”
The second is to seek to require local government to act in ways that advance the philosophical beliefs and aims of the current government, in particular, the primacy of facilitating economic growth over other outcomes and reducing the role of Maori tikanga in decision-making.
The third is to centralise a number of significant current local government roles and powers into central government and government agencies.
The fourth is to make a number of changes that it believes would improve the local government system, and do clearly fit into the category of potential system improvement proposals.
Changing the Purpose of Local Government
The specific changes proposed here are a back to the future return, essentially to the terms used by the National government when it was in power prior to 2017.
It is, therefore, not a surprise. However, the sky did not fall when the legislated purpose of local government changed then. In fact, the government’s analysis of the pattern of allocation and the relative, inflation-adjusted amount of local government spending did not change significantly between the two different purpose clauses. Roles such as urban planning and renewal, environmental programmes, arts facilities and events. and of community and local economic development continued under both regimes. The Bill’s regulatory impact statement itself makes it clear that local government expenditure increases are principally caused by the increased cost and extent of infrastructure spending, much of it required by central government
However, I argue that the government’s proposed purpose clause constitutes a category mistake (as philosophers would identify it) with respect to what a purpose or outcome clause is really about. What they are proposing is not a clause about the purpose of local government but rather one about the role of local government. This is something that might be an additional clause in the Bill rather than replacing what is an already fully appropriate purpose clause. Their proposed clause even specifically describes it as “a broad role”. The same is true of the proposal to add a (c) to the Purpose of Local Government “to support local economic growth and development”, a purpose better already set out currently as “local economic wellbeing”.
My view is that the purpose of government at all levels, from parish councils, to city councils, to central government, to the United Nations, is to promote and advance the overall wellbeing of all those who live, work, play and do business in the area that the body covers. The current four wellbeings: economic, environmental, social and cultural, appear to reflect this well.
My recommendation is that the current purpose of local government remain unchanged. This would mean that the proposed amendments to Section 3 (Purpose), Section 5(1) Interpretation of community outcomes, and Section 10 the Purpose of Local Government not proceed.
Obliging Local Government to advance the philosophical aims and beliefs of the current government
Together with the changes to the Purpose Clause that advance this agenda, there is a proposed entirely additional clause, 11A Core services, to be considered in performing their role. The following are specifically defined as the core services of a local authority: network infrastructure, public transport services, waste management, civil defence emergency management (rather than natural hazards as previously), libraries, museums, reserves, and other recreational facilities.
This proposed clause appears to be not only unnecessary but also harmful. It is too prescriptive, omitting some key traditional and vital roles that are strongly supported by their communities. Particularly for rural Councils, roles in providing health service facilities and community halls are often vital. In urban areas it includes public spaces, public housing, community centres and art centres. For all Councils, the planning, regulatory, and developmental functions are inexplicably omitted. The provision is inflexible, making no provision for evolving needs related to digital and other technological advances and changes arising from matters such as climate change. This clause should not be proceeded with, rather than endeavouring to cobble together an appropriate comprehensive list of services. The Council consulted on Long-Term Plans and local government elections are the best places to decide what are core services for that district. Not proceeding with this clause would also make unnecessary proposed changes to Section 101.
Another philosophically derived change is the proposed removal of the current requirement for councils to consider the relevance of tikanga Māori knowledge when appointing council controlled organisation directors. Requiring Councils to at least consider, at an early stage of the process, whether a particular director’s role would benefit from such knowledge appears appropriate, and the current provision should be retained rather than removed.
The Secretary of Local Government is empowered to insist on particular performance measures, and to change them as they see fit, rather than have them set, as now, by Councils after obligatory consultation with their community. This centralised power should not proceed.
Moving Powers to Central Government from Local Government
An undesirable change is for the Secretary of Local Government to issue one standardised code of conduct and one set of standing orders, to be binding on all Councils, Local Boards and Community Boards. It would be useful to have the Secretary issue best practice guidelines on these matters, but they should be drafted by Auckland Council and Local Government New Zealand rather than by StandardsNZ as proposed.
However, local bodies are so different, allowing only one standard set of these would be an inappropriate straitjacket and locally inappropriate for some Councils. This would depend to some extent on the size and number of elected members of the Council, which could require more formality in the standing orders and in the code of conduct than for a small community board. Similarly, local Māori kawa, or Pasifika ways of meeting, for instance, may well be appropriate to incorporate in some Councils’ standing orders but not in others. The Waitemata Local Board compiled an Appendix to its own distinctive standing orders in response to issues raised by Gael Baldock. Each Council’s Standing Orders need to remain a local decision ultimately. A Proposal to have the Code of Conduct breaches investigated and recommended on independently of the Council would be helpful.
There are proposed amendments to financial management provisions which the Bill’s explanatory note says are intended to facilitate the government’s signalled intention to introduce rates capping or a rate peg in future. The level of rates should be ultimately a matter for decisions by a Council in consultation with its communities and be a key issue in local government elections. Particularly for Councils facing major cleaning up after a disaster, having a bulge in expenditure for a locally supported major capital project, or are required by government legislation or policy to carry out, such as major catch-up work on water or other infrastructure, introducing a rates cap would be totally inappropriate and unfair and probably unworkable in some circumstances.
Other proposed additions for financial management requirements, such as developing and reporting on a government-determined additional series of financial and non-financial benchmarks risks bringing about unnecessary bureaucratic costs and complexity.
Proposals to Improve the Local Government System
There is a proposal to require chief executives of local authorities to facilitate information sharing between council and CCO staff and elected members, including a regulation-making power for some of the processes associated with information requests. This would appear to reduce some of the current frustrations of elected members and should improve some Council decision-making, so probably should be supported.
There would be elected member support for a proposed requirement for Councils to report on contractor and consultant expenditure, but clearer definition of these is required.
Three other proposed new requirements on Councils should be supported. These are:
Requiring Councils to include their code of conduct in the statutory briefings for newly elected members.
Requiring Councils to foster the responsibility of elected members to work collaboratively to set the direction of their respective councils.
Requiring fostering the free exchange of information and expression of opinions by elected members.
There are some proposals under the heading Providing regulatory relief to Councils that appear to be useful, practical and worthy of support. They are:
Modernising public notice requirements- i.e. not necessarily being published in newspapers,
Clarifying the authority of an acting or interim chief executive,
Clarifying that third party contributions to capital projects for which development contributions are charged can be targeted to a specific component of a project, and
Extending the maximum period of a chief executive’s second term, where extended without advertising the position, to 5 years.
