Majority of southern ratepayers hit hard: Many rates rises above national average increase
Only the Invercargill City Council (7.11%), the Otago Regional Council (5.50%) and the Southland District Council (7.23%) were below the national average rates increase of 8.39% for 2025.
Of the 78 councils across New Zealand, less than half (34) were below the national average rates increase, and now the Taxpayers' Union is calling for ratepayers to sign a petition calling for a cap to be put on rates hikes.
Taxpayers' Union local government campaigns manager Sam Warren said the union had created a Rates Dashboard so ratepayers could track and compare their council's annual rates increases with councils across New Zealand.
It also showed the average cumulative rates increase over the present three-year council term, which was an ''astonishing'' 34.4% — more than two and a-half times inflation over the same period.
''The dashboard shows that the average Kiwi household now faces a rates bill more than a-third higher than just three years ago.
''These numbers represent real pain being felt by ratepayers, including reports of ratepayers being forced out of their homes.
''They show why United Kingdom or Australian-style rates capping is so urgently needed.
''Councils should be forced to keep rates under the level of inflation unless approved by local referenda.''
He said more than 28,000 New Zealanders had signed the Cap Rates Now petition.
However, Dunedin Mayor Jules Radich said Dunedin's 10.70% rates increase this year was necessary, because the city had underinvested in infrastructure over the past two decades.
''Our rates are a bit higher than the national average because we've got more ground to make up with water in particular.
''We are embarking on a programme to bring our water services and infrastructure up to standard.
''We're an older city and we're suffering from a lack of expenditure on pipes and plumbing and the water infrastructure over the last 20 years in particular.
''So we're having to make up that ground, but also we're looking to try to balance the increasing levels of debt of council with rates, and we're looking to maintain the water infrastructure within council ownership.''
He said feedback from residents in the nine-year plan consultation, showed there was ''a definite preference'' for the Dunedin City Council to retain control of its own water infrastructure.
''So what that means is, it will cost us a little bit more in the short term to fund that infrastructure, but in the longer term, we'll save a considerable amount of money over the course of the nine-year plan.
''I think it's $158million that we save by funding the water infrastructure upgrades and renewals ourselves, as opposed to forming a council-controlled organisation.''
He said many councils further north were banding together and forming council-controlled organisations, and as a result, they were loading all of the infrastructure upgrades on to debt.
''And in some cases, that debt is heading towards a maximum of about 500% of revenue. We are well under that.
''Even though some people complain about the level of council debt, we are at a realistic level,'' he said. 2025 rates rises % rise 3-year cumulative rise* Central Otago District Council 12.47% 47.95% Clutha District Council 16.59% 39.85% Dunedin City Council
10.70% 38.53% Environment Southland 8.80% 37.13% Gore District Council 8.82% 46.60% Invercargill City Council 7.11% 24.28% Otago Regional Council 5.50% 45.76% Queenstown Lakes District Council 13.50% 50.23% Southland District Council 7.23% 31.15% Waitaki District Council 9.79% 34.79%
*(as of July 10, 2025) Top 10 rates rises in 2025
Clutha District Council - 16.59%
Upper Hutt City Council - 15.78%
Hamilton City Council - 15.50%
Waipa District Council - 15.50%
Hastings District Council - 15.00%
Selwyn District Council - 14.20%
Grey District Council - 13.73%
Queenstown Lakes District Council - 13.50%
Westland District Council - 13.20%
Taranaki Regional Council - 12.90%
john.lewis@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
ACT's Campaign Calculus To ‘Keep The Government' And Keep Its Edge
Article – RNZ The party's challenge this term has been – and remains – how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. , Deputy Political Editor Analysis: For the ACT Party, the challenge this term has been – and remains – how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. That tension has ebbed and flowed – most clearly on display during the Treaty Principles debate and now reemerging around the Regulatory Standards Bill. But ACT's annual rally on Sunday gave a clear indication of how the party intends to navigate the tightrope for the remaining 15 or so months. For one, David Seymour centred his keynote speech on the cost-of-living, a recognition that that remains the biggest risk to the coalition's reelection. Of course, he did it in distinct ACT-style, making a comparison with his Cabinet colleagues' recent criticisms of the big banks, supermarkets or power companies. 'It would be the easiest thing in the world… to write and give a speech saying they're crooked and they need to be punished somehow,' Seymour told supporters. 'But that would be the curse of zero sum thinking.' Though Seymour denied it later, it was hard not to see the comment as a veiled criticism of National and NZ First ministers, given their recent attention on such industries. They might scapegoat those industries, Seymour implied, but ACT won't. Seymour's speech gave a nod to the voters ACT would be targeting next year – landlords, farmers, firearms users, small business owners – all hotly contested constituencies within the coalition. And he was not shy about reminding the 450-strong audience of other differences too. 'Our partners… abandoned us in defining the Treaty Principles,' he told supporters. But beyond the differences came a curious confirmation: that ACT would be campaigning next year to 'keep this government'. The seemingly benign commitment is an open admission that a centre-right election victory will almost certainly require a repeat of the three-way coalition. Asked later by RNZ about the declaration, Seymour made it more explicit: 'We need to keep these parties in power.' These parties. NZ First included. That's perhaps not that surprising given current polling, but it is quite a difference from ACT's approach in 2023 – which saw Seymour viciously attack NZ First and its leader Winston Peters. It's also different from Peters' message several weeks ago as he handed over the deputy prime ministership to Seymour. Then, Peters said he intended to 'remove any doubt' next election. Of course, behind the scenes, ACT and NZ First would much prefer to eliminate the other and become the sole coalition partner. National, for its part, would like to get back over 40 percent to regain choice. But none can afford to bring the whole caboodle down in the process. And there, again, is the tightrope. One foot in Cabinet, the other in campaign mode ACT is currently polling roughly 9 percent – a fraction above its 2023 election result and consistent with its average across last year. Historically, a stint in government has proved electoral quicksand for support parties, but ACT and NZ First seem to be defying the trend. In large part, that's due to the political landscape with the major parties languishing in the low 30s, leaving more room for the minor parties. But ACT has also made a deliberate effort not to vanish into Cabinet. The party has kept one foot in government and the other in campaign mode – trumpeting its policy wins, while also criticising its coalition partners when convenient. It has certainly not shied away from provocation, as evidenced even by its choice of guest speaker on Sunday: anti-woke crusader Dr James Lindsay. Look to the 'gutsy' pay equity cuts, the Treaty Principles Bill, and now the Regulatory Standards Bill. On each occasion, the backlash was immense, but so too was the airtime. And each time Seymour declared unapologetically: we're not here to be liked, we're here to be right. He said as much again in his Sunday speech: 'People will pile on and say I'm defending big business, or whatever, but political risks are part of leadership.' The strategy carries risks indeed. Former National leader Simon Bridges, in his 2021 memoir, reflected on the personal toll of such tactics: yes, the party vote stayed up, but not so his personal ratings. David Seymour is experiencing something similar. His own favourability ratings are routinely poor. In the most recent Post/Freshwater Strategy poll, just 25 percent had a favourable view of ACT, while 47 percent were unfavourable – the second worst result of any party, after only Te Pāti Māori. But for a minor party, that trade-off seems worth it, with visibility counting for more than likability. The cost of instability ACT's strategy has also, at times, fed the perception of coalition instability, or of National being dragged around by its smaller partners. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has repeatedly dismissed that, instead framing the dynamic as simply the 'maturation of MMP'. But voters are still adjusting to that reality. The latest example of friction would appear to be Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, bubbling away in the background. NZ First has made clear it wants changes to the legislation, but Seymour says he's yet to even hear what they are. Furthermore, he firmly believes he's under no obligation to make changes and that the coalition agreement already requires National and NZ First's support. The apparent impasse remains unresolved. For all that, though, the governing parties are aware the public does not look kindly on instability. Seymour learned that the hard way in the weeks before the 2023 election when he floated the idea of ACT signing a 'confidence-only' deal if National refused to cooperate during negotiations. Almost immediately, the party's support dropped several points in the polls. That lesson still looms over the coalition today, especially given the narrow margins and economic headwinds. All three coalition parties would do well to remember the common enemy. They may be competing for votes inside the tent, but the real fight lies outside it: with the opposition.
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
A Radical Tax Plan To Avoid An Economic 'Car Crash'
Have you ever wished the tax you paid on your income was going into savings, rather than to the government? That's the idea behind a plan developed by former Finance Minister Sir Roger Douglas and University of Auckland economics professor Robert MacCulloch. They first developed the proposal in 2016 but have updated it for 2025. "Back in 2016, the original version said we're going to struggle with paying the welfare bills and there are going to be budgetary problems due to the aging population, from health to pension spending and we have to work out how to protect the welfare state so there are not cuts to those services," MacCulloch said. "At the time, Bill English had an economic advisory group that I used to go to in the Beehive and… he didn't have any interest whatsoever. I remember him saying, 'look that's for future governments to deal with and people will have to adapt'." But MacCulloch said the governments since then had done nothing to address the issue. Treasury and Inland Revenue have both raised questions in the past year about how the government will collect enough revenue to fund the increasing cost of NZ Super and healthcare. By 2060, 26 percent of New Zealanders will be over 65, up from 16 percent in 2021. MacCulloch and Sir Roger said that income tax on earnings up to $60,000 a year should instead be redirected into individual savings accounts to fund each person's healthcare pension and risk cover. That would replace much of the current public system with private provision. People who did not have enough in their individual accounts could still be helped by the public system, which would be funded on taxes collected on income over $60,000 a year. This would mean larger numbers of middle- and higher-income people paying for their themselves, while the system helped lower-income people. "It retains that wealth redistribution - so is not at all like the US system which leaves many low income people without proper healthcare. It's more like France where everyone is covered and everyone can choose whether they go public or private." MacCulloch said that would mean government costs were reduced, the quality of outcomes increased and the plight of low-income earners improved. He said too many low-income people had no savings in KiwiSaver. This model would help to address that. According to the model, an individual could save around $21,000 annually: $9450 into a health account, $7350 for superannuation, and $4200 for risk cover. A drop in corporate taxes would help fund employer contributions. "Our savings-not-taxation reform offers scope for efficiency gains in healthcare. It does so by opening up choice for individuals," MacCulloch said. "Rather than the government dictating where to go, people can choose their preferred public or private supplier." They would keep the pension but raise the age of eligibility to 70 over a 20-year period. Subsidies and interest-free loans for tertiary students would be means tested. They would scrap grants to the movie industry, winter energy subsidies to wealthy households, favourable tax treatment for owners of rental housing, and allowances to sectors such as forestry, fishing, and bloodstock. The money saved from these changes would be directed towards helping low earners build savings and cover the welfare needs of those who are chronically unwell. "Perhaps more than any other feature of our reform, it's the 'miracle of compound interest' that governments like New Zealand's are not taking proper advantage of," MacCulloch said. "If we can do this, it'll help our financial situation." He said the problem the government now had was that it was not set to return to surplus in any meaningful way. "What the government calls a return to surplus is a projection [of] a tiny surplus in 2029 and then [the deficit] blows out again with health and pension spending." He said many countries around the world were having to make changes because of similar pressures. But he said there was still limited political interest. "What I can tell you is by not going down this road, what they're not telling you is a slow motion car crash crisis is enveloping New Zealand and it's not my job to save the country with this. "I did the proposal. They have no interest. I've given up on them. But you know what? Without doing something like this, they're gradually descending into a situation where our entire health system is going to become run down." He said New Zealand had missed a chance to require compulsory retirement savings. "The average KiwiSaver balance is $30,000. A mandatory retirement scheme was set up by Keating around 2000 in Australia and the average balance in the Aussie system scheme is $300,000." He said the power of compound interest meant that large balances grew much faster, which meant New Zealand was being left increasingly behind. But his plan would allow New Zealanders to take advantage of that. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the Government was not considering changes to the tax system of the sort proposed by Sir Roger and MacCulloch.
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Who Benefits From Outsourcing Planned Surgery: Follow The Funding
I still remember metaphorically sitting at the knee of legendary union leader Bill Andersen while listening to him opine pearls of wisdom. The most important question, when assessing a particular proposal or initiative, was 'who benefits?' This was the opening paragraph of my column published in Newsroom on 13 June: Who benefits? Follow the money. Levering off the expression 'follow the money' popularised by the film 'All the President's Men' about the Watergate scandal which brought down United States President Richard Nixon in 1974, and in the context of Aotearoa New Zealand's health system, I argued that: It is becoming increasingly clear that Government funding decisions are strongly oriented towards the for-profit private health sector rather than addressing the critical needs of our health system. I discussed this with specific reference to outsourcing (privatising) elective or planned (non-acute) surgery, public private partnerships, and funding urgent care facilities. My conclusion was: Following the funding will confirm whether or not the Government changes direction for the good of the public and their health system. The answer lies with who benefits. Benefitting private health insurers and telehealth providers Since my column was published further reporting has reinforced my conclusion that the Government's health focus is on benefiting the for-profit private health sector and enhancing privatisation. On 19 June Radio New Zealand health reporter Ruth Hill revealed on Morning Report that from 1 July taxpayers would foot the bill for cancer drugs administered in private facilities for private patients: Private health insurers benefit from publicly funding cancer drugs for private patients. This amounts to a 12-month subsidy to private health insurers while at the same time leaving the vast majority of New Zealanders who don't have private health insurance missing out. The decision is a conscious government action to benefit the for-profit private health sector instead of investing in the public hospital oncology workforce (specialists and nurses) with the objective of enabling people can get free care there. Meanwhile, NZ Doctor journalist Steve Forbes in a paywalled article (3 July) reported concerns over how 'extravagant' funding gives telehealth providers a huge advantage over general practices in the Government's new Online GP Care service. This service provides telehealth for casual patients who are not enrolled in a general practice. The rate paid to telehealth providers for casual unenrolled patients is similar to the funding rate paid to general practices for their enrolled patients through capitation. The General Practice Owners Association (GenPro) convincingly argues that telehealth providers should be paid the same (much lower) casual rate that is paid to general practices for casual unenrolled patients. GenPro Chair Dr Angus Chambers succinctly explains the differential this way: A [telehealth] provider offering the new online medical service would receive $65 for a consultation with a 14-year-old casual non-enrolled patient whose caregiver holds a Community Services Card. In contrast, a general practice would only receive $20.45. The Government's favouritism towards private telehealth providers has reinforced the view among many general practices that instead of seeing telehealth as an aid or enabler for GPs, it is seen as an alternative. Privatising planned (non-acute) surgery Back on 13 May Radio New Zealand investigative reporter Anusha Bradley had covered on Morning Report Health New Zealand's (Te Whatu Ora) intention to privatise planned surgery waitlists by outsourcing them to private hospitals on two to three-year contracts, along with extending the working hours of doctors in public hospitals: Privatising planned (non-acute) surgery. Expecting public hospital specialists (and nurses) to work longer hours in evenings and on weekends and public holidays on more complex planned cases enables private hospitals to 'cherry pick' the less complex high volume (ie, revenue generating) cases. Bradley reported Nelson Hospital based surgeon Ros Pochin, Chair of the New Zealand Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons questioning what surgeons might be able to do this extended hours' work. In her words: Most surgeons already work long hours, including evenings and weekends. There are some surgeons who work purely privately, but most work privately and publicly so there isn't a cache of private surgeons sitting there twiddling their thumbs in the evenings and weekends who can suddenly call in. She added that most surgeons were already working long hours, including after-hours: There's only 800 of us in the country. We already work out-of-hours, as we all do on call. I'm about to start a week of continuous on-call myself, which I'll do 81 hours straight day and night. And so we get very little time off as it is. Outsourcing is essentially an admission that we have not got an adequately funded and resourced health system. Interestingly Health Minister Simeon Brown chose to ignore Health New Zealand advice that outsourcing to private hospitals was more expensive than expanding public hospital. Health New Zealand also advised the health minister that outsourced operations could only be delivered if there were senior clinical staff available, 'whilst ensuring Health NZ remains able to safely manage the clinical workload of our public hospitals'. Further, he was warned of the risk that private hospital capacity would be 'insufficient' due to workforce availability. Particularly important is the advice Brown received from the Chair of his Health Workforce and System Efficiencies Committee, Middlemore Hospital general surgeon Andrew Connolly: It is vital those establishing contracts recognise there are clinical obligations and responsibilities in the public sector that must not be weakened by outsourcing. Health New Zealand must consider such risks in the contracting process. Connolly is now the deputy chair of the newly appointed board of Health New Zealand. This will be interesting. His advice to the health minister became even more imperative following Brown's subsequent decision discussed below. Privatising planned surgery morphs into public-private partnerships The above-mentioned outsourcing reported by Anusha Bradley, including the warnings ignored by Simeon Brown, was trumped by the Minister's subsequent decision that private hospital contracts would be almost permanent – 10 year contracts which are longer than the terms for public service chief executive appointments. These 10-year contracts for cherry-picked surgery has rightly been called Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) by economist Brian Easton in a column published by Pundit on 4 July: PPPs based in private hospitals. PPPs enable in varying ways for private partners to maximise profit opportunities in the design, construction and operation of health facilities. These PPP opportunities have been quickly recognised by private investors as reported by Hamish McNeilly in The Post (5 July): PPPs encourage private investors change plans. The investors undisclosed company had resource consent granted to build private student accommodation in Dunedin. Now they have changed their plans by seeking to build a new private hospital instead. The only way these PPPs by another name can maximise private profits will be for the crisis-ridden rundown public hospitals to be even further rundown. This includes growing the private hospital specialist workforce at the expense of the public hospital specialist workforce. Non-evidence based decision-making On 17 June Treasury received the following request under the Official Information Act: I would appreciate any Treasury papers on the proposal that HNZ should outsource treatment to private hospitals on ten year contracts. I am especially interested in how they will impact on the government's fiscal position. On 9 July Treasury responded: I am refusing your request under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act as the information requested does not exist or, despite reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be found. Given that the information requested would have been recent, not historical, it is obvious that Treasury's advice was neither sought nor provided. The only information received by the health minister from his official advisers (Health New Zealand and his expert committee) was apprehensive at best. Responsibility for this poor and risky decision-making rests solely and squarely on Health Minister Simeon Brown and his government colleagues. Ideology, not evidence based, has prevailed – again! Ian Powell Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand. Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.
