Welcome to the 17th Newsletter for CityWatch NZ
Candidate nominations for the 2025 Local Government Elections are opening in July, and CityWatch NZ will be featuring more election-related content and coverage. Key election dates are provided along with a Q & A on the STV electoral system. Don Hewison provides his Layperson’s Guide to the Local Government Act 2002 as a useful educational resource for aspiring candidates and concerned residents.
In late June, Hamilton City Council’s Finance and Monitoring Committee voted in support of two recommendations from Council staff. The committee first decided not to increase the Council’s debt limit to 350% of total revenue. The second recommendation was to put $500,000 into the next stage of forming a new finance company. This proposed new finance company would offer loans to ratepayers who cannot afford rates and developer contributions. Mark Flyger gives his opinion on the scheme, which he describes as a potential “debt-trap” for struggling homeowners.
Mike West provides the “Pipes or Pipe-dreams“ article about infrastructure from his 2016 election campaign, with an updated preface about how Hamilton City is still facing the same issues today.
Jean Dorrell provides another commentary this month where she asks if potholes are yet another traffic calming measure.
John McDonald provides feedback on the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill currently before Parliament, describing it as an attempt to allow authorities to take land from people by “executive decree” and denying people their right to a court hearing.
For this month’s global perspective we summarise how people and organisations in the USA are resisting the expanding surveillance systems of number plate recognition cameras, vast databases, and the associated AI processing.
The Coalition Government is pushing forward with major reforms to the Resource Management Act, with significant consultations taking place in July.
Links are provided to open consultations and petitions at the end of this newsletter.
2025 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS
Councils in New Zealand are holding local government elections this October (with the exception of Tauranga City Council).
The important dates for the election process are listed below.
Candidate Nominations Open: 4 July 2025
Candidate Nominations Close: Noon, 1 August 2025
Voting Opens: 9 September 2025
Close of Voting: Noon, Saturday 11 October 2025
CityWatch NZ’s main 2025 election page is online and linked here. It will be updated with links to other more specific election pages over the next few months.
Questions often arise about the complicated Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. Voters have concerns about how to make sure their vote counts and how to avoid their vote being wasted. We have posted a Q & A article based on the information available on the Department of Internal Affairs website.
The article can be found at the link below.
Q & A: The Single Transferable Vote (STV) System in Local Elections 2025
In the STV electoral system you rank candidates with numbers in your order of preference. “1” being your first preference, “2” being your second preference, “3” being your third preference, “4” being your fourth preference choice, and so on.
Which councils are using STV in the 2025 elections?
Dunedin City Council, Far North District Council, Gisborne District Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council, Hamilton City Council, Kāpiti Coast District Council, Marlborough District Council, Nelson City Council, New Plymouth District Council, Otago Regional Council, Palmerston North City Council, Tauranga City Council, Porirua City Council, Ruapehu District Council, Wellington City Council, Whangarei District Council
The Department of Internal Affairs website is one of the most reliable sources of information on which councils are using the STV system in this election.
https://www.stv.govt.nz/index.shtml
Q & A: The Single Transferable Vote (STV) System in Local Elections 2025
These two quotes below Department of Internal Affairs website should help resolve some of the common misunderstandings with STV.
“You can vote for as many or as few candidates as you like.”
How to vote using STV, The Department of Internal Affairs
“The transfer of votes is done in order of voters' preferences. This means that surplus votes are not "wasted" but are available to help other candidates to get elected.”
How candidates are elected, The Department of Internal Affairs
There are concerns about how votes can be wasted in an STV system due to lack of education about how the system works. The Q & A article addresses those issues.
How do I stop my vote being wasted in STV?
1. Make sure you vote and get your ballot paper returned before voting closes (That is before noon on 11 October 2025).
2. Make sure you rank (with numbers) all the candidates that you want to have on your local council (or board).
3. Avoid your vote becoming an “Informal” vote. The “Informal” votes are not counted toward any candidate. To avoid your vote becoming an “Informal” vote in an STV system, use the number “1” once, don’t use ticks, and don’t use the same number more than once.
4. Ranking multiple candidates can reduce the chances your vote will be wasted. Your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th (and so on) preferences can be counted and can be important. If you only give a ranking number to one or two candidates, your vote can be wasted if those candidates win easily or are eliminated early in the counting. When multiple seats are available in an STV election the surplus or ‘spill over’ votes can be important in determining which candidates win seats in the council chamber (or on the board).
Q & A: The Single Transferable Vote (STV) System in Local Elections 2025
A LAYPERSON’S GUIDE TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT
CityWatch NZ contributor and adult educator Don Hewison (ScEdD, ChEdD) is making available his latest version of “Investigating New Zealand’s Local Government Act 2002 - A Layperson’s Guide’”.
Investigating New Zealand’s Local Government Act 2002 – A Layperson’s Guide
The document is intended as a starting point for existing councillors, aspiring candidates, council staff, and concerned people to explore the basis of local government in contemporary New Zealand.
“The writer of this report is experienced in adult education, and is not a lawyer, accountant, or social scientist. The methodology, outcome of the investigation, literature review, discussion, and findings are presented from the viewpoint of encouraging people to think, listen to and discuss issues with others. The focus should be on how we can work together to rebuild the democracy we ought to have.
The study leading to the production of the Layperson’s Guide only covers those parts and sections of the Local Government Act considered to be necessary to help someone gain an understanding of the structure of local government, and the methodology of interpretation. Once an introduction to the understanding and interpreting of legislation is developed, then it should be possible to continue deeper into the Local Government Act 2002, and other legislation.”
Don Hewison, Investigating New Zealand’s Local Government Act 2002 - A Layperson’s Guide
HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL REJECTS DEBT-LIMIT INCREASE
In a somewhat unexpected development, Hamilton City Council staff recommended the council not apply for a debt limit increase with the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA). On the 24th of June 2025, Hamilton’s Finance and Monitoring Committee voted unanimously to support the staff recommendation.
In the past, Hamilton City Council has welcomed more relaxed debt-limits and the opportunity to grow the Council’s total debt.
Most councils in New Zealand borrow from LGFA, and each council is “currently able to borrow up to 285% of its revenue based on the LGFA’s current financial covenants policy”.
The LGFA has recently approved a “bespoke Net Debt/Total Revenue covenant for high growth Councils” offering those councils an opportunity to increase their debt limit to 350% of total revenue.
Hamilton City Council votes to reject increasing its debt-to-revenue limit to 350%
Does this indicate a shift to greater financial discipline within the Council?
Does the Council feeling more comfortable because the new water company is taking on a large amount of debt and that company will start with a higher debt-to-revenue limit of 500%?
…Or are they aware of growing concerns within the local community about the debt levels and the risk of further downgrades of Council’s international credit rating?
THE PROPOSED NEW FINANCE COMPANY SEEKS COUNCIL FUNDING
Hamilton’s Finance and Monitoring Committee has also recommended that the Council borrows $500,000 to “invest“ in developing the “Ratepayer Assistance Scheme” (or “The RAS”). The proposal did not have unanimous support, as Councillors Bydder, Pike, Taylor, Wilson, and Huata voted against the recommendation.
Hamilton City Council votes to fund work towards creating new multi-council finance company
The proposed new RAS finance company will be a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO). The Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), Cameron Partners, and “a group of metro councils” are all developing the proposal.
The RAS would largely function to loan out money so that ratepayers can cover the costs that their council has imposed on them. Essentially these would be reverse-mortgages to people struggling to pay their rates. It also plans to loan out money for “property improvements” and developer contributions/levies.
The RAS is expected to benefit from a high credit rating due to its “structure” and ability to “impose a ‘rates-like’ levy”.
Mark Flyger gives his opinion on the scheme (originally published at Better Hamilton).
OPINION: Hamilton’s proposed “Ratepayer Assistance” Scheme Risks Becoming a Debt Trap
Mark raises a number of concerns, both for the struggling homeowners and for Council transparency more generally. The new finance company has a potentially murky governance structures and is deliberately structured to sit “off balance sheet” as an entity. This has implications for the oversight of Council’s finances.
“But behind the glossy branding lies a plan that risks pushing already struggling homeowners further into debt.
Marketed as a solution to the cost-of-living crisis and housing affordability, the scheme’s reality is far less reassuring.
At its core, it operates like a reverse mortgage—offering financial assistance now in exchange for long-term debt repayments later, secured against a ratepayer’s property.
This is not genuine support. It is deferred debt disguised as help.
Under the proposal, a newly created Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) would lend money to homeowners to cover their rates. Repayments would be made later through levies on the property—effectively saddling vulnerable households with growing financial obligations.
Presumably the CCO board will also extract directors’ fees and the like, paid for by our poorer ratepayers.”
Mark Flyger, Hamilton’s proposed “Ratepayer Assistance” Scheme Risks Becoming a Debt Trap
ARE POTHOLES FOR TRAFFIC CALMING?
Jean Dorrell’s opinion piece this month covers the issue of potholes.
“I was driving, looking for a street I hadn’t been to before on the west side of the river when I noticed that the driver in front of me was zig-zagging across the road like he was on a slalom course. I was concerned he may be intoxicated so I slowed down to increase the distance between us. He slowed down as well.
Then bang! And thump! My head almost hit the car roof as my car went down and up and down and up. I realised the driver in front of me was not drunk. He just knew the best driving path to avoid the worst of the potholes. And I realised that I also drive like this on Heaphy Terrace and Hukanui Road, two roads which I frequent often enough to know all the potholes (although new ones appear regularly and the abundance of road cones mean I am always zig-zagging anyway).
Ironically, potholes actually work quite well as traffic calming measures. If there are enough of them, all local drivers will drive at 30 kmph or less. And non-local drivers will be slowed down by the folk who know the road and want to protect their car. Maybe this is the HCC plan.
I have noticed many potholes appearing near the speed bumps, especially the new speed bumps. The car goes up, the car goes down. If you’re looking for a secure profession in Hamilton, I would suggest considering wheel alignment.”
Jean Dorrell, Potholes as a Traffic Calming Measure?
“PIPES NOT PIPE DREAMS” AND ONGOING SPENDING ISSUES
Mike West wrote an article back in 2016, for his Hamilton City Council election campaign. He has provided that article to CityWatch NZ with an updated introduction. Nine years later, it reflects persistent issues in Hamilton City. Other councils around New Zealand share similar issues.
“When I stood for Council in 2016, I was passionate about many issues that our Council wasn’t addressing. A huge concern for me then was the amount of money being spent on vanity projects and the lack of infrastructure spending.
Below is an article I published during my 2016 election campaign when I used the slogan "Pipes not Pipe Dreams". Interestingly, a developer I know who owned an inner-city property with the intention of developing it into residential dwellings was recently denied consent from council as the wastewater pipes in the area aren't up to standard. And from what I have been told there are many other development ready projects in the same boat. If only council had focused on pipes and not pipe dreams.
Sadly, since then the situation has only gotten worse. Hamilton City Council along with other councils around New Zealand, have done such a poor job of investing in our water infrastructure that Central Government wants it taken out of their hands. The potential for this to burden ratepayers with even more costs is frightening. The creation of Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’S) to manage our water could cost us dearly, especially if the remaining functions that Council performs go unchecked and Councils unquenchable thirst for spending isn’t reined in. It's of grave concern that rates are currently projected to double in the next five years, but on top of that how expensive will water be?
Please read my 2016 article below as very little has changed….”
Mike West, updated introduction to Investing in Infrastructure to Support Hamilton’s Growth
Mike West’s full article can be read at this link below.
OPINION: Investing in Infrastructure to Support Hamilton’s Growth
CRITICISM OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC WORKS ACT AMENDMENTS
John McDonald provides his critical feedback on the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill. This was sent to Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee on 13 June 2025.
OPEN LETTER: John McDonald – Feedback on the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill
John McDonald raised a number of concerns about the bill which would allow a minister, or a council Chief Executive, to take private land for “fast track” projects without going through a court process. These concerns include how the bill appears to give “arbitrary powers” to council chief executives “in a dubious way with minimal scrutiny”. Impacted landowners receive a threatening notice from the authorities. This “Notice of intention to take land for critical infrastructure project” letter only gives them 10 day’s notice to respond.
He also raised the issue of the lines between public works and for-profit corporate ventures being blurred. The recent trends towards public-private partnerships, toll roads, and privatised utilities are blurring the lines between public good and private benefit. He asks whether we will be treated as “equal before the law” when a government has partnered with another entity operating for private gain?
“This bill is a threat to private property rights and appears to be an attempt to enhance the ability for governments to take land in a non-consensual fashion by what is effectively executive decree…
…Removing the ability for victims of government ‘land taking’ schemes to object to the Environment Court is concerning from the perspective of maintaining well-established rights to due process and natural justice.”
John McDonald, feedback on the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill.
GROWING RESISTANCE TO NUMBER PLATE RECOGNITION CAMERAS IN THE USA
A broad range of individuals and groups from across the political spectrum are mobilising against the growing use of AI and camera surveillance for vehicle tracking in the USA.
In New Zealand the term Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is used, the term Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) is more commonly used in the USA.
Opposition activity has included:
The “DeFlock” online map has been created for those concerned with the growing surveillance network to record the location of cameras and raise awareness of the issue.
The Institute for Justice has been filing lawsuits on issues of “privacy and government overreach” as “a civil liberties organization”. The Institute claims that the City of Norfolk’s surveillance system is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. They describe the system’s impact on city residents is an “AI-assisted database that enables the warrantless surveillance of their every move”. The Institute for Justice is expecting a trial date late in 2025 and promises “to fight for the right of every American to travel without being tracked by government surveillance”.
A wide range of groups from the libertarian magazine Reason through to the San Diego Chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America are covering the scandal where immigration enforcement agents unlawfully gained access to ALPR data.
The Secure Justice organisation has reported that “There is no statistical evidence that ALPRs are effective at giving law enforcement investigative leads” and “There is not even a moderate correlation between ALPRs and stolen vehicle recoveries” based on analysis of 16 years of police data from Piedmont in California.
Over 16 US states have passed privacy rules restricting the use ALPR cameras or limiting the storage of the data, with more states legislating on the issue.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT REFORMS
A large amount of consultation is taking place around Resource Management Act reforms. The consultations that close in July and August are over at the Ministry of the Environment and make up the first two large entries in this newsletter’s Open Consultation section.
Wide-reaching would be an understatement when describing the scope of these reforms.
Key documents for the first consultation finishing on 27 JULY 2025 include:
Attachment 1.1: Proposed provisions – New National Policy Statement for Infrastructure
Attachment 1.7: Proposed provisions – New National Environmental Standards for Papakāinga
Attachment 1.8: Proposed provisions – New National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards.
Those interested in plans to install larger or taller cell towers, the installation of many small 5G units in urban areas, and permitted distances from “sensitive activities“ (schools, residential buildings, etc) should look at Attachment 1.5 on Telecommunication Facilities.
Those interested in putting multiple dwellings on land should look at Attachment 1.6 on Granny Flats and Attachment 1.7 on Papakāinga.
Those interested in risk modelling and managed retreat issues should look at Attachment 1.8 on Natural Hazards.
OPEN CONSULTATIONS, PETITIONS, AND EVENT NOTICES
INFRASTRUCTURE, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRIMARY SECTOR NATIONAL DIRECTION CONSULTATION
CLOSES SUNDAY 27 JULY 2025
Overview
The Government is calling for feedback on proposals to change and inform development of national direction under the resource management system.
Package 1: Infrastructure and development
The Government’s aim is to make it easier for councils to plan and deliver infrastructure. This package contains proposals for four new national direction instruments and amendments to four existing national direction instruments.
Instruments in Package 1: Infrastructure and development:
New National Policy Statement for Infrastructure
Amendments to the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation
Amendments to the National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission (change title to the National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks)
Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission Activities (change title to National Environmental Standards for Electricity Network Activities)
Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities
New National Environmental Standards for Granny Flats
New National Environmental Standards for Papakāinga
New National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards
Links:
GOING FOR HOUSING GROWTH: PROVIDING FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEW RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
CLOSES SUNDAY 17 AUGUST 2025
Overview
Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga – Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and the Ministry of Environment — Manatū Mō Te Taiao want to hear your views about the Going for Housing Growth Pillar 1 proposals and how they could work in the new resource management system.
The Going for Housing Growth programme is part of the Government’s broader plan to tackle Aotearoa New Zealand’s ongoing housing shortage. It’s structured around three pillars that make system changes to address the underlying causes of the housing supply shortage.
These are:
Pillar 1: Freeing up land for urban development, including removing unnecessary planning barriers
Pillar 2: Improving infrastructure funding and financing to support urban growth
Pillar 3: Providing incentives for communities and councils to support growth.
Together, these three pillars have an objective of improving housing affordability by significantly increasing the supply of developable land for housing, both inside and at the edge of our urban areas.
We encourage you to read the discussion document and to share your views. Your feedback will help inform further policy development.
Links:
https://consult.environment.govt.nz/resource-management/going-for-housing-growth/
INQUIRY INTO PORTS AND THE MARITIME SECTOR
CLOSES 11:59 PM SUNDAY 13 JUNE 2025
“Transport and Infrastructure Committee opens inquiry into ports and the maritime sector
Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee has formally launched an inquiry into the nation’s ports and the maritime sector. The committee is acutely aware that, as an island nation with a trade-dependent economy, efficient and competitive ports and marine industries are essential to sustaining economic growth and prosperity.
Andy Foster, chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee said: “From the first explorers, Polynesian and European, the sea has always been vitally important to New Zealand. We are a trading nation. Our ports are critical to exports and imports alike. Having myself visited most of our ports already, I am very aware of the diversity of our ports. They are of widely differing scale. They have different functions in the national maritime system. They compete and they collaborate. They serve quite different regional economies, and have varying maritime focus, and both unique and shared opportunities and challenges."
“The Government is very focused on lifting productivity and economic performance. That is essential to lifting every New Zealanders standard of living. To this end, through this inquiry we will be seeking opportunities to help raise the performance of our ports and maritime sector and therefore help benefit our export producers and importers alike.”
The committee has established this Inquiry to examine the current state of play, challenges, and future opportunities within the ports and maritime sectors. This includes key connections to the ports’ respective land and maritime hinterland economies, their transport connections and inland ports.
The committee intends to meet with key players and interested parties across the sector and to undertake site visits as appropriate to further its understanding.
Public submissions are also being called from interested individuals and organisations. Public submissions will be open for six weeks and will close at 11.59pm on Sundayy, 13 July 2025.
The committee’s intention is to follow up on submissions where these will add to our understanding of the sector.”
Link:
OVERSEAS INVESTMENT (NATIONAL INTEREST TEST AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILL
CLOSES 11:59 PM WEDNESDAY 23 JULY 2025
“This bill proposes a range of amendments to the Overseas Investment Act, including to:
change the purpose statement of the Act
consolidate the national interest, benefit to New Zealand, and investor tests into a single test
require the regulator to grant consent within 15 working days unless there are reasonable grounds to consider that a risk to national interest exists
create a new regulation-making power enabling regulations to specify new classes of screened transactions that must undergo a national interest assessment.”
Link:
”REQUIRE A VOTE IN PARLIAMENT OF 75% TO APPROVE THE USE OF URGENCY” PETITION
CLOSES FRIDAY 12 SEPTEMBER 2025 AT 11.59PM NZST
The petition can be found at this link…
https://petitions.parliament.nz/c9194f5c-e810-4b70-2c93-08dd90d84c50
The petition text is copied below…
Petition request
That the House of Representatives amend the Standing Orders to require that a vote must be taken on the use of urgency or extraordinary urgency, and a threshold of 75% must be met before urgency or extraordinary urgency is accorded.
Petition reason
Parties on all sides of the political spectrum have complained about the use of urgency. We believe urgency is a valuable tool when truly necessary, but it can also be anti-democratic. Urgency can mean Select Committees don't hear from the public, experts or government agencies, and can deny the public a say on important issues. In our view, urgency does not support good lawmaking. We think it should be restricted to truly urgent situations, as decided by a Parliamentary majority of 75%.
“SAVE THE CHATEAU TONGARIRO HOTEL” PETITION
CLOSES SUNDAY 31 AUGUST 2025 AT 11.59PM NZST
The petition can be found at this link…
https://petitions.parliament.nz/c9ffd862-08cd-46a0-5a8d-08dc72d04919
The petition text is copied below…
“The future of the Chateau Tongariro Hotel hangs in the balance, with negotiations underway and decisions pending from government officials. There is a strong desire from the local community, as well as from people across New Zealand and around the world, to see this iconic building saved. By imploring the Government to act with urgency to save the Chateau, we seek to preserve a treasured piece of our cultural heritage along with the economic prosperity and tourism excellence that it represents.”
Posting of event information, petition information, consultation viewpoints, or other content on the CityWatch NZ newsletter or website does not constitute endorsement of those views by CityWatch NZ or its editors. This section is often based on information readers have sent to us on issues they think are important or checks of government websites for broadly-relevant consultations.
If there is a political/regulatory consultation, petition, or event you think might be of interest to CityWatch NZ readers, email the details to contact@citywatchnz.org