Have Your Say On The Public Service Amendment Bill
The Governance and Administration Committee is seeking public submissions on the Public Service Amendment Bill. The Bill includes provisions relating to:
the purpose and role of the public service
responsibilities of public service chief executives
performance review and conduct oversight functions of the Public Service Commissioner
long-term planning and continuity requirements for public service agencies
Tell the Governance and Administration Committee what you think
Make a submission on the bill by midnight on 31 August 2025.
For more details about the bill:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Further Erosion Of Employee Rights
If a current government bill is passed, wage and salary earners on $180,000 a year or more will lose a key part of their employment rights. Employers, employees and other interested parties have only a very short time to assess the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, and to submit - for or against - to the select committee. Inland Revenue 2024 statistics record just over 125,000 employees as earning above that level. The Bill will if passed: Mean all new employees paid above that level cannot raise an unjustified dismissal personal grievance – unless their employer has agreed they can; After a 12 month transitional period, all current employees will lose that right - unless their employer agrees to retain it; (During this transitional period they can still raise an unjustified dismissal personal grievance or other proceedings contesting their dismissal.) Employees whose pay rise takes them above $180,000 will then lose the right; Other legal claims in respect of dismissals are also affected. Wellington law firm Bartlett Law says the changes, as government policy, have important implications for employers and employees. They have expressed concern that the Bill is a further erosion of employee rights. It follows on from the extension of no-fault trial periods to all employees and the recent changes to the pay equity legislation. A "dismissal" includes any termination of employment; not only termination for serious misconduct. Constructive dismissal claims may also be barred. Employers will not have to tell an employee paid $180,000 or more why their employment was terminated. Their dismissal can be instant, unexplained, and without remedy. They need get no prior warning. The firm says its experience over more than 30 years shows no connection between level of salary and likelihood of unjustified dismissal. Its experience includes senior staff, including chief executives, being unjustifiably dismissed. It says the change has no real advantage for employers. If the Bill passes, the focus will shift to a wide range of other possible litigation, instead of a well-established current process. Employees subject to the Bill will also lose several good faith rights. Currently when an employer is proposing to terminate an employee's employment, the employee is to be provided with information about the proposal and must have the opportunity to comment on the information before the termination decision is made. The Bill takes away these rights. Employers could dismiss instantly with or without justification, in any situation including redundancy. The firm predicts thousands of affected employees will seek "contracting in", which will be legally possible, but can only happen if both parties agree. There will be no obligation or incentive on employers to do so. The Bill includes other significant changes to employee rights, including refusing remedies to 'at fault" employees.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Rate hikes and reforms force councils into tough decisions
The sector faces unprecedented fiscal pressure – and ratepayers are running out of patience. This is not business as usual. Come October, newly elected mayors and councillors will inherit this perfect storm. But unlike their predecessors, they are running out of road – growth in debt is becoming unsustainable and the Government is taking an ever-closer interest in council performance. The next three years will demand brutal choices: which services to cut, which projects to abandon, and how to navigate the most sweeping government reforms in decades. Those who succeed will need more than management skills. They will need the political courage to tell their communities hard truths. The financial reckoning is stark. Department of Internal Affairs benchmarks published last week reveal dramatic disparities between councils in rates per household, debt per capita and capital spending. In many cases, debt is rising faster than revenues. Some councils face massive infrastructure deficits while pursuing new facilities. Others watch transport and water project costs blow out while basic maintenance gets deferred. Across the country, councils with grand ambitions are being mugged by grinding reality. Making matters worse, the 2025-28 council term coincides with multiple central government reforms that will reshape local government's foundations. First comes the Resource Management Act replacement. The new system will shift responsibilities from individual councils to regional entities and national standards. While potentially streamlining planning processes, the transition will demand new skills and complex co-ordination, along with significant upfront costs. Then there is water reform. The coalition's 'Local Water Done Well' leaves councils responsible for delivering viable water services alone or through shared entities. By September, every council must produce a Water Services Delivery Plan that satisfies the new water regulator and the Commerce Commission. Some councils are pursuing joint ventures with neighbours, hoping to achieve economies of scale. Others are establishing at-arm's-length, council-controlled organisations, seeing it as the best way to maintain local control while meeting new standards. Still others plan to soldier on in the status quo, somehow convinced they can manage the regulatory burden in-house. Each path has its challenges. The Local Government (System Improvements) Bill adds another layer of change. It scraps councils' broad 'wellbeings' mandate – the ability to promote spending on loosely-asserted social, economic, environmental and cultural benefits – in favour of the Prime Minister's 'doing the basics brilliantly'. The bill prioritises core services, introduces new financial performance measures, mandatory disclosure of contractor and consultant spending and standardised codes of conduct. Most controversially, it opens the door to rates capping, which the minister says is being developed 'at pace'. Capping rates is appealing to angry ratepayers, but international experience shows it can be a blunt instrument. Councils in capped jurisdictions often defer maintenance, cut core services or find creative workarounds that cost more. Ratepayer referendums on major non-core projects could prove more effective, giving communities direct say over expensive projects while preserving councils' ability to fund essentials. Newly elected mayors face tough choices on services and projects due to unsustainable debt growth. Photo / NZME Democratic decay compounds these challenges. Voter turnout at local elections barely reaches half that of national elections. Despite last-minute surges, some councils couldn't fill all seats. Several mayoralties attracted just one candidate. This reflects decades of centralisation that have hollowed out local government's relevance. Why would talented people seek office when councils control less and matter less? Why would voters care? The erosion shows in public discourse. Councillors face increasing criticism and abuse, much of it personal and vitriolic. Social media amplifies every rates increase, every pothole, every perceived failure. Yet councils desperately need capable people who can absorb regulatory complexity, scrutinise multi-million dollar infrastructure proposals, and communicate financial realities to their communities. Those elected in October face three immediate priorities. Cost growth must be controlled without gutting essential services, a delicate balance requiring financial acumen and political skill. Reforms will test their ability to shape change rather than resist. Most importantly, they must rebuild trust with communities exhausted by rate hikes and service failures. Ratepayers being mugged by reality should be watching closely. They should not accept more empty promises, excuses, delays or double-digit rate increases. Success in the next council term will require a different kind of leadership. The old model, where councils could muddle through and keep hiking rates, is dead. The new environment demands leaders who can make hard choices quickly, communicate them clearly, and stick to them despite the inevitable backlash. This means not making their own costly promises, being prepared to say no to others' dreams and schemes, and telling uncomfortable truths about what councils can and cannot afford. The question is whether enough of them have stepped forward – and, crucially, whether enough voters will notice and reward them.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Greenpeace Turns On NZ First Over Its Support For Corporate Land Grab Bill
During today's public submission hearings on the ACT Party's Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, Greenpeace took direct aim at NZ First, highlighting the hypocrisy of NZ First's support for the Bill at first reading - despite its long-standing opposition to foreign ownership. The party's sole representative was notably absent for most of the hearing. Greenpeace accused the party of abandoning its values and backing a law that would see some of the country's most ecologically sensitive land sold to multinational corporations, even if those corporations have a criminal history and have broken environmental laws in other jurisdictions. "If NZ First does bend the knee to another of ACT's ideological policies then so be it," said Toop. "The voters' cards will fall as they may, and they may very well fall under 5%, but that will be the bed that NZ First makes for itself by signing up to a Bill that would see New Zealand being sold off to the highest bidding foreign corporation." The organisation opposed the bill on several grounds including that it removes the requirement that the Government check whether a foreign buyer of sensitive land has committed serious crimes abroad, such as breaking environmental or labour laws, or evading paying taxes. Sensitive land is outlined in Schedule 1 of the Bill and includes the conservation estate, offshore islands, lake beds, the marine and coastal zone, wāhi tapu and other culturally significant sites, and land adjoining these areas. "The Bill makes it harder for the government to decline the sale of lake beds, offshore islands and the conservation estate to multinational corporate cowboys," says Toop. "If this Bill is enacted the Government will no longer be able to impose the bare minimum of environmental conditions on the sale, things like biodiversity protection, heritage preservation, and allowing ongoing public access to public lands." The organisation also condemned the move to scrap the special tests for foreign forestry investment, pointing out that much of the devastation caused by the forestry slash and erosion, such as during Cyclone Gabrielle, is caused by foreign-owned forestry companies. Toop pointed out that Global Forest Partners, the 8th largest landowner in New Zealand in 2019 was registered in the Cayman Islands and asked whether the committee thought the forest industry had paid their fair share to rebuild bridges and roads destroyed by their industry. She suggested they hadn't and "were instead metaphorically - or literally - bathing in the Cayman Islands' warm, tax-free waters while New Zealand taxpayers footed the clean-up bill." "Greenpeace believes that all corporations, whether New Zealand owned or overseas owned, should be regulated to ensure that they don't harm the environment, but the Overseas Investment Act currently provides an additional tool that enables the Government to regulate overseas corporations, in particular, to achieve better environmental and community outcomes." "It is simply not reasonable to pass an amendment bill that says offshore forestry investments - which have already brought such demonstrable harm to the country - will receive less scrutiny and have fewer conditions imposed on them," Toop said. In a pointed moment during the hearing, Toop held up a placard reading NO, referencing Winston Peters' infamous "NO" placard and stated: "If the NZ First member of the committee had shown up he might recall that sign. Or perhaps it's been forgotten - as NZ First does seem to have forgotten a few things lately, like what it is they purportedly stand for." "This ACT party bill literally removes the benefit to New Zealand test so that it is easier to sell off New Zealand to multinational corporations. You'll have to forgive me for failing to see how that, by any stretch of the imagination, puts NZ First." Toop also criticised the Government's rushed consultation process - with the Government only allowing five hours of oral submissions on the Bill, all via Zoom. "It is undemocratic, but it's not surprising - especially from a Government who recently engaged in voter suppression. Add to that the new FBI office in our capital city, and you'd be forgiven for thinking you hadn't woken up in Aotearoa - you'd woken up in Trump's America." "Is it really too much to ask that this Government start governing for New Zealanders, not governing in service of foreign corporations and their offshore shareholders?"
