Councillors opposed to plan to remove wellbeing provisions
At a Local Government New Zealand conference last week, Local Government Minister Simon Watts announced new legislation, removing the four wellbeing provisions — social, economic, environmental and cultural — in favour of a "renewed focus on core services".
"Kiwis are frustrated with rising rates, expanding bureaucracy, and poor value for money," he said.
"This Bill puts councils back to work on the basics, their core services, so ratepayers see real results for what they pay," he said.
Cr Mandy Mayhem said the wellbeing provisions were "exactly" what the city should be delivering.
"Dunedin has been highlighted as a great place to visit recently. We need to keep climbing and being aspirational," she said.
"Without a wellbeing focus, however, I fear the opposite will occur."
She said many of the council's plans and strategies used the wellbeing provisions as a lens — removing them would reverse community partnership work.
"It is ridiculous and very undemocratic."
Cr Carmen Houlahan attended the conference and said few people were impressed by the announcement.
"It is unclear how some of this legislation will work when many things are core business of councils and have been for many years," she said.
"The majority of our current budget is being spent on infrastructure so I don't see this changing dramatically."
Cr Christine Garey said the call to refocus on core services was "a bit rich".
"Eighty-six percent of [the council's] capital spend in the nine-year plan are for Three Waters, roading and footpaths, waste minimisation — everyone would agree [these] are core services.
"There's an irony in this attack on the wellbeings which have been in and out of favour as governments have changed over the years."
Cr Sophie Barker said she agreed councils should be focused on delivering core services but the four wellbeings were an "important part" of shaping the city's future.
"Especially when government keeps pulling out of delivering services itself, and also dumping unfunded mandates on us," she said.
"The National Party campaigned on localism ... now they seem to be taking a dictatorial stance towards councils like we're naughty children, rather than elected representatives of our people."
Cr Andrew Whiley also said he agreed with the importance of focusing on core services, but central government needed to have clearer plans to support councils with long-term infrastructure spending and community investment.
"We cannot lump all the required expenditure on today's and future ratepayers but the work has to be done," he said.
The Bill was expected to be passed by the end of the year.
ruby.shaw@odt.co.nz
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Energy Reserve Ensures Security For Next Decade
Energy Minister Simon Watts and Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones have welcomed an agreement by Genesis, Mercury, Meridian, and Contact to establish a strategic energy reserve, which will boost energy security and support affordable energy prices. 'New Zealand needs reliable and stable power so our households and businesses can keep their lights on, even when the wind isn't blowing, the sun isn't shining, and our hydro lakes are low,' Mr Watts says. 'Last year's dry winter highlighted vulnerabilities in our energy system with a shortage of fuel and generation led to high prices and unacceptable pressure on Kiwi industries, businesses, and households. 'This could have been avoided if New Zealand had enough fuel for electricity generation to meet our energy needs. Actions by the previous government, including a ban on new gas exploration and a drive to immediately achieve 100 percent renewable electricity, combined with disappointing drilling results from our gas fields, have left us in this difficult situation. 'I have been extremely clear with power generators that the Government expects them to deliver additional supply so we can reduce the risk of winter power shortages during periods of low lake levels. This will reduce the need for significant commercial power price spikes and the need for businesses to reduce their power use.' Genesis, Mercury, Meridian, and Contact have jointly agreed to a 10-year fuel stockpile, building resilience in the market to ensure consumers have access to fuel even when lake levels are low. 'This announcement is a positive step to show the power generators are responding. It will act as an important buffer during periods of high electricity demand in winter and when renewable generation is low,' Mr Jones says. 'While this is positive news, there is still more to do to ensure New Zealand does not see a repeat of last winter.' The Coalition Government is taking strong actions to further strengthen New Zealand's energy system. These are focused on: Ensuring the security of gas and fuel supplies. Supporting investment certainty and removing regulatory barriers through Fast-track and RMA reforms. Strengthening market competition via the work of the Energy Competition Task Force. 'All of this work is critical to easing the cost of living for Kiwis, ensuring the security and affordability of our energy system, and ultimately removing a significant barrier to economic growth,' Mr Watts says.
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Rats And Mice To Sort Out: Parliament's Tiny Laws
, Editor: The House The bills Parliament considers that are heavily reported by the media are generally the most contentious, the most impactful or the most far-reaching, with special emphasis on the most contentious. Bills that generate little animosity get little attention. Bills that will have scant impact receive scant love. And bills with a geographical reach that is negligible, get about that much coverage. As a result, it is easy to assume that all the things Parliament does are big and important. But sometimes Parliament manages the triple-whammy - a bill that everyone agrees on, which has negligible impact, and is also incredibly specific. So let's break with tradition look at it. This is especially true of two less common types of law: the unusual 'local bills' and the rare, and highly specific 'private bills'. These bills can be brought to the House for debate by any MP and each has a very specific impact. Local bills have a geographically specific impact, while private bills deal with a specific thing, an organisation, group, trust, charity, church, or even a specific person. The topics can be so unlikely that they might be accidentally mistaken for a lacklustre political spoof. On Wednesday for example, the House spent more than an hour on third reading speeches for a bill with an encompassing name - the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, but that affected just one single building. It was not riveting stuff. The MP in charge was National's Simon Watts, who-whether intended ironically or not-rather grandly announced, "This is a moment we have all been waiting for". The bill had an admirable purpose - fixing an issue with the ongoing costs and rental income for a community asset; but why did such a local issue need to be debated and passed by the House? It was a fault of history. As always, history has a lot to answer for. Heritage drafting meets modern needs The background for many modern local and private bills is very similar - fixing problems caused by historic legal drafting. Local organisations (including local government ones), are sometimes brought into being, empowered, or had constitutions enacted under specific legislation, written and passed by Parliament just for them. That includes many things like clubs, churches, amenities, and charities. Even patches of land or parks. That kind of empowering legislation used to be more common many decades ago, but does still happen. Unfortunately drafters are not prophetic seers, and the very specific rules and purposes included in these old laws inevitably cause issues over time. Now, when such an organisation wants to act outside its early restrictions they need Parliament to amend the original law. Let's consider this week's example. The 1923 Harbour Board etcetera law in question included stipulations for the use of a waterside property. Community activities like swimming and watersports were allowed but private gain was specifically outlawed. Just three years later, it became the Takapuna Boating Club but has since fallen into disrepair because it isn't able to raise money, for example from a café, to help cover maintenance costs. And so a new bill was required to carefully loosen those constraints. As Simon Watts noted during the debate: "It is important that while we preserve the community purpose, we don't pass a law that ends up being too restrictive in the future, meaning that another North Shore MP in a hundred years from now will have to come back and lament on the old laws that we're doing right now." That may all seem bizarrely specific and trivial, but it is, sadly, not unusual. Many local (and especially private) bills only exist to fix archaic legislation. In doing so they offer MPs a debate that is refreshingly amicable and without the usual layers of import and consequence. With so little at stake Parliament can be almost fun. Debating everything and very little This debate had MPs reminiscing about beach days, eulogising Sir Peter Blake and talking of plans to play Mahjong at the club. Simon Watts revealed his caucus referred to the bill as the "Takapuna Ice Cream Bill". Cameron Brewer suggested the bill's sponsor would get a weekend ticker tape parade through Takapuna's shopping thoroughfare. There were many oddities, but the highlight may have been ACT MP Simon Court enthusing like an awestruck fan over a dreamy possibility. "I would suggest to the member Mr Steve Abel, who spoke before, that on top of mahjong, there might even be a venue where he might be able to play some of his famous songs that he composed when he was a famous New Zealand folk singer." In the Speaker's chair, National's Barbara Kuriger chortled, "One never knows where one's endorsements might come from". The slightly breathless nature of the debate was helped along by the fact that National Party MPs seemed keen to make it last as long as possible, because they weren't in favour of some member's bills due to be debated afterwards. Governing party MPs get very little exercise in extemporising in the House about so very little. For example, Cameron Brewer's speech seemed to dawdle over every topic he could think of vaguely connected with the locality, including ice cream, cafés, local magazines and long-past America's Cups. He was not alone in the approach. When he finally concluded, Labour's Phil Twyford took the next call: "Well, the member Cameron Brewer did well to remain on his feet for nine minutes and 48 seconds, but it came at a terrible human cost. Those of us in the House this afternoon - we're the living evidence of that."
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
FMC Responds To The Government's Proposed Overhaul Of Conservation Law And Access Charging
The purpose of our public conservation land is conservation 'The purpose of the conservation estate and the Department of Conservation is in its name: Conservation,' says FMC President Megan Dimozantos, responding to the government's proposed changes to conservation law, including the introduction of access charges. 'We don't yet know enough detail behind these announcements to signal support or otherwise. We have significant concerns about the rhetoric of uninhibited economic growth on the conservation land— that could undermine conservation values, restrict public access, and see parts of our conservation estate up for land disposals.' On Saturday, the government announced conservation reform proposals, building on a public consultation held by DOC earlier this year. FMC supports a streamlined legislative framework in principle, but strongly opposes removing the New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) from the approval process for key planning documents. The NZCA is vital in ensuring decisions about public conservation land are transparent, robust, and reflect a broad range of perspectives. We do not support a system that concentrates decision-making solely in the hands of the Minister. FMC is deeply concerned about proposals that could enable the disposal or development of public conservation land—including conservation parks and stewardship land—without adequate safeguards. With only 40% of the estate fully protected, vast areas such as Forest Parks and Conservation Parks could be opened up to inappropriate development. FMC supports efficient concession processes, but not at the expense of properly assessing impacts on conservation and recreation. We welcome the government's commitment that Kiwis won't be charged to access their backyard—but questions remain about how access charging will work in practice. How visitors will be identified, compliance enforced, and whether revenue will exceed costs remain unclear. Freedom of access for Kiwis should be protected in legislation, and any revenue raised must be legally ringfenced for reinvestment in the places it comes from. FMC submitted on both the modernisation and access charging proposals earlier this year and looks forward to engaging further. 'While we support some elements in principle, we remain concerned about the broader direction signaled by this announcement,' says Dimozantos. 'Public conservation law exists first and foremost to protect the land—not to serve as a platform for economic growth.'
