Why Oppose the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill

What This Bill Really Does

• Centralises governance rules: The Secretary approves and issues codes of conduct and standing orders for all councils (Schedule 7, cls 15 & 27, with flow-ons to 36B & 40), replacing locally adopted rules with central templates.
• Narrows the purpose of local government: Replaces s.10 with a cost-effectiveness and “economic growth” lens and inserts a restrictive s.11A list of “core services” (Clause 6 & Clause 7), sidelining broader well-being and community-led priorities.
• Lets Ministers dictate what councils must measure and report: Expands regulation-making to prescribe groups of activities and benchmarks (s.259, Clause 21). The Secretary can set performance measures and make “minor and technical” changes with reduced consultation (s.261B, Clause 22).
• Tilts finances toward developers: Changes to development contributions (s.200, Clause 20) allow third-party funding to reduce contributions via deduction and pro-rata rules (new s.200(4A)), shifting growth costs from developers to ratepayers.
• Weakens transparency safeguards: Repeals the definition of “public notice” (s.5), and creates carve-outs in consultant/contractor spend reporting when activity groupings change (Schedule 10, cl 32B & related exemptions).
• Reweights decision principles: Amendments to s.14 and conflict resolution settings push councils toward narrow efficiency and away from social, cultural, environmental considerations (Clause 8).
• Redefines community outcomes: Recasts “community outcomes” around infrastructure/services/regulatory functions (s.5), constraining councils’ mandate to pursue broader, locally determined goals.

Why This Threatens Democratic Safeguards

• Loss of local autonomy: Central approval of codes and standing orders removes a core element of self-governance; councils are treated as subordinate agencies.
• One-size-fits-all regulation: Minister-prescribed activity groups and centrally set benchmarks ignore local context and diversity.
• Political targets over community needs: Secretary-set performance measures, alterable with minimal process, risk top-down metrics displacing local priorities.
• Ratepayer cost shift: Development contribution deductions enable private gain while socialising growth infrastructure costs.
• Transparency gaps: Removing “public notice” clarity and adding reporting carve-outs create loopholes that weaken public accountability.
• Narrowed mandate: A restricted purpose and “core services” list limit councils’ ability to respond to community well-being, culture, environment, and long-term resilience.

The Bigger Pattern

Concentrate power, reduce scrutiny, standardise control. Rebrand it as “system improvement.” Replace locally made rules with centrally issued directives. Prescribe what must be measured and how it must be reported. Tie financial settings to a narrow definition of purpose and “core services.” Weaken transparency definitions and create reporting carve-outs. The result is predictable: fewer democratic counterweights and less room for communities to set their own course.

If You Care About Local Democracy and Accountability

This bill is not harmless housekeeping — it is a structural centralisation. It turns councils from community representatives into administrators of centrally decided priorities.

If you believe local government should be locally led…
If you believe councils must remain accountable to their communities, not to Wellington…
If you believe transparency and true subsidiarity protect us from abuse…
Then now is the time to oppose this bill.

“Local government is not a branch office of central power — it is the community’s voice.” — Ukes Baha