Formal Opposition to
Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill
(Government Bill 180–1, Simon Watts)
From: Ukes Baha | 16 August 2025
Submitted in response to the call for public submissions on the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill
Summary of Position
I oppose the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill in its current form.
While framed as reducing pressure on rates and improving performance, the bill functions as a central government takeover of councils. It narrows the statutory purpose of local government, imposes a restrictive list of “core services”, and gives Ministers and officials direct powers over governance rules, performance measures, and financial priorities. These changes undermine local democracy, reduce responsiveness to community needs, shift costs to ratepayers, and entrench central control at the expense of transparency and autonomy.
1. Centralised Control of Governance Rules
Reference: Schedule 7, clauses 15, 27, 36B, 40 (as amended) – Secretary approves and issues codes of conduct and standing orders.
Problem:
- Codes of conduct and standing orders, historically adopted locally, would be issued by the Secretary (central government).
- Removes councils’ right to determine their own governance arrangements and imposes a one-size-fits-all template.
- Recasts councils as subordinate delivery arms rather than independent local democracies.
2. Narrowing the Purpose of Local Government
Reference: Clause 6 (replaces s.10 Purpose); Clause 7 (inserts s.11A Core services).
Problem:
- Replaces broad well-being with narrow obligations: cost-effectiveness, local economic growth, and a limited list of “core services”.
- “Core services” (network infrastructure, public transport, waste, CDEM, libraries/museums/recreation) exclude housing, environment, social and community development initiatives.
- By tying financial management to “core services” (see Clause 18 amending s.101), funding for wider community priorities is threatened.
3. Ministerial Overreach and Regulatory Powers
Reference: Clause 21 (amends s.259 regulation-making powers); Clause 22 (amends s.261B performance measures).
Problem:
- Minister may prescribe groups of activities for LTPs/annual plans and set benchmarks for “best practice”.
- The Secretary may impose performance measures and make “minor and technical” changes without full consultation.
- Allows politically driven standards and reporting to override community-led planning.
4. Financial Bias and Developer Favouritism
Reference: Clause 20 (amends s.200 development contributions).
Problem:
- Third-party funding can reduce development contributions, shifting growth infrastructure costs onto ratepayers.
- Risks under-funding essential services while protecting developer margins through deduction rules and pro-rata allocations.
5. Weakening of Transparency Safeguards
Reference: Clause 5(2) (repeals “public notice” definition); Schedule 10 clause 32B (consultant/contractor spend) with exemptions tied to regrouping.
Problem:
- Removing the “public notice” definition dilutes clarity around public notification obligations.
- Reporting of consultant/contractor expenditure is undermined by carve-outs where activity groupings change, creating disclosure gaps.
6. Reduction of Local Flexibility in Decision-Making
Reference: Clause 8 (amends s.14 principles); Clause 11 (governance statements must report compliance with new governance principles).
Problem:
- When principles conflict, resolution is directed in a way that privileges narrow efficiency over social, cultural, and environmental considerations.
- Encourages a cost-driven, corporate style of governance, discouraging long-term, place-based decisions.
7. Long-Term Democratic Erosion
Reference: Combined effect of clauses altering s.10, s.11A, s.14, s.259, s.261B, Schedule 7 and Schedule 10.
Problem:
- Embeds central control across rules, measures, and financial settings.
- Normalises councils as state service-delivery units rather than independent representatives of their communities.
- Reduces meaningful responsiveness to diverse local needs and aspirations.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The bill is not a system improvement but a system erosion. It centralises control, narrows local purpose, biases financial rules toward developers, and weakens transparency and autonomy.
I recommend the Committee:
- Withdraw the bill in full.
- Retain local adoption of codes of conduct and standing orders.
- Preserve the broader statutory purpose of local government and remove restrictive “core services”.
- Protect councils’ autonomy in financial management; remove developer-favouring amendments to development contributions.
- Strengthen, not weaken, transparency obligations, retaining clear public notice requirements.
- Limit ministerial and Secretary powers to impose activity groupings, performance measures, and governance rules.
Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com