Welcome to the 14th Newsletter for CityWatch NZ
April is looking like a busy month for consultations on local government issues. Water service reforms and speed limit changes are taking place at many councils. Many significant bills are also being progressed through Parliament.
The bill to legalise congestion charges is currently before a select committee, giving the public an opportunity to send feedback into Parliament. The bill will effectively turn existing roads into toll roads with a complicated, and expansion-ready, charging system. CityWatch NZ Editor John McDonald provides commentary on this bill and its implications in an opinion piece.
We have two opinion pieces from Councillor Andrew Bydder. One explains how councils list subsidies as income to increase their borrowing limits and get deeper into debt. The other opinion piece covers the issues with Hamilton City Council’s consultation document for changing speed limits.
The Coalition Government is in the process of reversing the Labour Government’s speed reductions. Councils are running consultations to keep the current speed limits or return them to the higher pre-Labour speed limits. Geoff Kreegher covers the results of the consultation on the proposed Wairere Drive speed limit reduction and Hamilton City Council’s use of ‘leading questions’ regarding the new supermarket’s resource consent.
Due to the “Local Water Done Well” reforms, councils are running consultation exercises before creating new Council Controlled Organisations. These new organisations may take over the management of local water services. John McDonald provides two opinion pieces related to the “Local Water Done Well” reforms and the associated problems.
Members of Parliament are currently considering a bill to enable a 4-year term between general elections, along with a bill changing how nationwide referendums are conducted.
Links are provided to relevant events, in-progress petitions, and open consultations at the end of this newsletter.
CONGESTION CHARGES AND THE TIME-OF-USE BILL
The Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill is currently before Parliament. Public feedback to the select committee is closing 11.59pm on Sunday, 27 April 2025 and feedback can be sent via this webpage.
This bill is designed to legalise time-of-use charging and congestion charging, allowing councils to turn existing roads into sophisticated toll roads. The new charges will likely be variable and change due to the time-of-day or congestion levels. In official documents, bureaucrats and politicians have been planning future expansions of the schemes, including the charges increasing over time.
The Ministry of Transport summarised both sides of the arguments around this type of road charging scheme in their briefing to Cabinet in July 2024.
“The arguments against increased use of local variable charges include:
a. charges are regressive and inequitable and would fall disproportionately on low- income groups and the disabled. As such, the public transport system needs to be a credible alternative to cars before charging occurs.
b. increasing charges for those experiencing the most congestion would be unfair as they have already paid for these roads.
c. government tracking of movements is totalitarian and a risk to personal freedom and privacy.
d. the net benefits are marginal with considerable risk that actual costs will exceed the benefits.
The arguments for increased use of local variable charges include:
a. to be effective transport revenue tools need to reflect the costs that users impose on society.
b. pricing signals are needed as the existing average charge-based system is poor at identifying the true value at time.
c. it is unfair that users are not paying charges that reflect the actual costs of their network use.”
Cabinet Business Committee: Minute of Decision, Land Transport Revenue Action Plan: Time of Use Charging, 8 July 2024
The bill was supported by all political parties in Parliament during its first reading, with the exception of Te Pāti Māori who voted against it. Readers are welcome to guess for themselves which of the points on the above two lists will appeal to each political party.
CityWatch NZ Editor John McDonald provides commentary on the bill and related documentation. The current bill appears focused on Auckland’s congestion issues. However, the bill also deliberately enables the expansion of the schemes into a nationwide tracking and charging system.
OPINION: Commentary on the Time of Use Charging Amendment Bill
“The bill seems primarily aimed at enabling Auckland Council to set up a scheme on some of Auckland’s most congested roads. What we can expect from the initial scheme will be select roads/areas in Auckland City with ANPR cameras installed for monitoring entry and exit points, with the camera system supporting the issuing of charges and fines. However, the bill has been crafted with a longer-term view to enabling the larger agenda of a nationwide tracking system using in-vehicle devices (likely GPS or similar technology) and dynamic time-of-use charging. This longer-term plan will effectively turn all public roads into toll roads in an effort to replace the current road-user charging (RUC) system.”
John McDonald, OPINION: Commentary on the Time of Use Charging Amendment Bill
The opinion piece highlights other issues with the bill and similar road pricing systems internationally. This includes: high setup costs which tend to financially benefit multinational technology companies, the use of financial punishments to change travel behaviours, and how executives driving company cars benefit most in Sweden’s congestion charging system (at the expense of other road users).
The opinion piece finishes with the following questions of the proposed schemes and the role of local councils generally.
“Is it the primary role of local government to change your behaviour through incentives and punishments, or should they be instead focusing on providing services to the public?
Is it healthy to have your regular drive to work become a behavioural psychology experiment?
Is getting stuck in Auckland rush hour traffic not already punishment enough?
For these schemes to achieve their stated aims, will those extra charges be enough extra punishment to stop enough people travelling on the roads?
Even if those extra charges work to reduce congestion, is that a good thing for society?
Do the ends justify the means?”
John McDonald, OPINION: Commentary on the Time of Use Charging Amendment Bill
CityWatch NZ’s ongoing coverage of congestion charging can be found using the following link
https://www.citywatchnz.org/category/transport/road-pricing-congestion-charges/
HOW COUNCIL FINANCES WORK
Hamilton City Councillor Andrew Bydder uses the metaphor of buying a $1million, gold-plated Rolls Royce to explain the bizarre world of city council accounting practices.
The story offers insight into how council debt levels are rapidly increasing and why many extravagantly expensive projects are getting approved by councils around the country.
Because it has a high safety rating, The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA, Waka Kotahi) offers you a free $500,000 (a 50% subsidy) to help you buy the metaphorical, gold-plated Rolls Royce. A new Toyota hatchback for $40,000 would also do the job well, but because of the magic of LGFA financing the council has a strong incentive to spend big and borrow even more.
“Unfortunately, you don’t have a spare $500,000. You are at your credit limit*, and your family business has been losing money for the last 20 years*. If you were a company director, you would have been jailed for trading while insolvent. Every year, you borrow more money to pay the interest on your current debt*. You have also done future budgets, and you cannot repay any debt for the next three years*. Assuming there are no problems, maybe sometime after that, you might be able to start repayments. Of course, history tells us there are always problems!
You go to your bank and claim NZTA’s $500,000 as annual income, not a gift. Your bank is special, so doesn’t have to consider your annual expenses or ability to repay debt, and doesn’t care what you spend it on, partly because you are a shareholder in the bank.
You have a deal with this special bank that it will lend you $2.80 for every $1 of income*. Using the NZTA offer to buy the Rolls that you don’t actually need will give you access to a whopping $1.4m. You can use $500,000 to complete the deal and still have an extra $900,000 to spend on whatever you want.
It is a fantastic deal, in the sense that it is a fantasy which no bank would ever consider. Yet the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) is the special bank and this is exactly what it does. It is a fantastic deal – as long as you have no intention of ever repaying the debt*. You have a secret contract with the bank that your customers guarantee the debt.”
Councillor Andrew Bydder, OPINION: Gold-plated White Elephants
Any * in the quote above indicates the current situation with Hamilton City Council’s finances.
SPEED LIMIT CHANGES AND MISLEADING CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS
The Coalition Government is in the process of reversing Labour’s broad speed limit reductions. This central government mandate is causing councils run consultations on the topic as to whether to keep the current speed limits, or alternatively restore the pre-Labour speed limits.
Andrew Bydder comments on a misleading Hamilton City Council consultation document which advocates for keeping lower speed limits on a few of the major roads in Hamilton.
The council staff are advocating for keeping the speed limit on Cobham Drive at 50km/h. They are trying to convince the public that increasing the speed limit to 60km/h would only provide 0.05 seconds worth of reduced travel time along a 1.5 km stretch of road.
“Increasing the speed from 50km/h to 60 km/h for the 1,540m length of road would save just a twentieth of a second per car, according to council staff. The direction to the public reading the consultation document is clear: it is so close to zero that it is not worth any risk at all. We may as well keep the 50 km/h limit.
When you have a speed and a distance, it is easy to work out the time. Even at a conservative 55km/h to allow for accelerating and braking at each end of the road, mathematics gives a very different answer, that is around 200 times larger than the staff figure. That is too big to be an error. It is deliberate, and it is insulting. We, the public, are not being consulted. We are being misled.”
Councillor Andrew Bydder, OPINION: Consult or Insult?
CityWatch NZ contributor Geoff Kreegher covers the results of the Wairere Drive speed limit reduction consultation and Hamilton City Council’s use of leading questions regarding the new supermarket’s resource consent.
Council Uses Leading Questions in Wairere Drive Speed Reduction Consultation
According to the Council, support for the proposed new 60km/h speed limit increased 20% (2021 consultation) to over 64% (2025 consultation). How did this happen?
Back in 2021, Hamilton City Council staff wanted the speed limit reduction considered independently of the resource consent for the new supermarket. In 2025, staff abandoned that principle and made the supermarket’s resource consent central to the consultation options and Council chamber debates.
“Option 1: Reduce the speed limit from 80km/h to 60km/h, or
Option 2: Retain the current 80km/h speed limit and do not make any changes.”
The 2021 consultation options, Page 32, Infrastructure Operations Committee Agenda, 7 December 2021
“Option 1: Reduce the speed limit from 80km/h to 60km/h and allow the PAK’nSAVE supermarket to be developed under the current resource consent.
Option 2: Keep the current 80km/h speed limit, do not make any changes and prevent the PAK’nSAVE supermarket from being developed under the current resource consent.”
The 2025 consultation options, Page 25, Traffic, Speed Limit and Road Closure Hearings Panel Agenda, 2 April 2025
Council staff have prepared a “Key Findings” slide based on the 2025 survey results. They are not being upfront that they change options for the latest survey’s main question. Those changes led the public into thinking that the supermarket development is not possible without the speed limit reduction. Resource consents can also be changed, which could avoid this dilemma.
CityWatch NZ contributors plan to attend the public forum to remind the council that it is possible to build large retail developments without needing to lower the speed limit and install more speed bumps.
“LOCAL WATER DONE WELL” REFORMS AND ISSUES WITH WATER SERVICES
Councils around the country are running consultations for the creation of new Council Controlled Organisations to manage their local water services. John McDonald provides two opinion pieces this month, which are based on the document he sent to a Parliamentary select committee for the “Local Water Done Well” reforms. The articles cover issues associate with both the past and future of water services in New Zealand.
One of the articles covers some of the recent history of council water services in New Zealand, including the Mangawhai sewerage system case with its massive cost blow-outs and the Kaipara District Council charging unlawful rates. In 2012-2013, Central government politicians sided with the Council against the ratepayers who challenged the mismanagement.
Other examples in the opinion piece include the notorious Wellington Water CCO and the decades of underinvestment (or funding misallocation) which is leading to the deterioration of water service infrastructure.
“In the past, they have tended to collect money from ratepayers to cover depreciation of their water infrastructure (as they’ve had to by law since 1996), but then they have spent much of that money on other stuff – from playgrounds to potholes…
…In the 2017 fiscal year, for example, only 81 per cent of depreciation was spent on water.
In some places, Wellington for example, the numbers were far worse. As Newsroom reported in 2021, the percentage of depreciation spent on drinking water supply in the capital in 2019 was 36 percent, the figure for wastewater was 51 percent, and for stormwater 44 percent. Under-funding had been going on for decades.”
Nikki Mandow, Why NZ (really) needs water reform – in five charts, Newsroom, 26 March 2023
The articles finishes with the following questions about the current water reform programme…
“Will the “Local Waters Done Well” bill’s proposed regulatory system be effective at stopping similar cost blow-outs from occurring?
Will the “Local Waters Done Well” reforms be effective at preventing “bad decisions, mismanagement, and incompetence” leading to huge debts and great burdens being placed on communities of ratepayers and billpayers?
Will the new regulatory system instead create new layers of bureaucracy where any effective accountability for wrongdoing becomes lost?”
John McDonald, OPINION: Serious Mismanagement and Lack of Accountability with Water Services
The other article focuses on the question “What will councils become once they are no longer providing major core services?”. John McDonald argues that councils will become more divisive and unpopular if they spend a greater proportion of their rates revenue on cultural activities after outsourcing core services to other corporate entities.
“Functional water infrastructure is a unifying interest for most people in an urban area and a common good provided by their council. Most people agree these are essential services for an urban area and are willing to pay for them…
…In a multicultural society, everyone (or even the majority) is not going to share the same culture. Cultural spending is likely to be more controversial as it will likely benefit one cultural group and not be valued as much by other cultural groups in society.
When they stop including water services on a rates assessment, a city council risks becoming a coalition of cultural clubs with a threat-based fundraising approach. It is particularly divisive in a multicultural society to be forcing people to pay for cultural activities for which they have no interest.
I think people have been tolerant of their council's cultural spending while it was only a minor fraction of council spending that was down-the-list behind the major spending on water and transport infrastructure. However, many councils have been spending larger amounts on sports venues, convention centres, theatres, and other cultural facilities in recent decades. There is also the trend towards councils providing less of their core services using in-house capabilities.”
John McDonald, OPINION: Is Removing Water Services from Rates an Existential Threat to Councils?
There are “Local Water Done Well” consultations running at councils around the country with many closing in April. Links listed below.
Links for “Local Water Done Well” Open Consultations at City Councils
Tauranga City Council, closes 28 April 2025
Hamilton City Council, closes 27 April 2025
Greater Wellington, closes 22 April 2025
Upper Hutt City Council, closes 27 April 2025
Hutt City Council, closes 20 April 2025
Porirua City Council, closes April 20 April 2025
Wellington City Council, closes 21 April 2025
Christchurch City Council, closes 6 April 2025
Dunedin City Council , closes noon 30 April 2025
Note this list is not exhaustive, check your local council website if it is not listed above.
OPEN CONSULTATIONS, PETITIONS, AND EVENT NOTICES
TERM OF PARLIAMENT (ENABLING 4-YEAR TERM) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
CLOSES 1:00 PM THURSDAY 17 APRIL 2025
“This bill would create an option to extend the Parliamentary term to four years at the start of each term. The term could be extended to four years only if the overall membership of Parliament’s subject select committees was proportional to the party membership in the House of Representatives of the non-executive members.
This would mean that the opposition would have greater representation on select committees than if the membership were determined by the total membership of the House. The intention would be to ensure that a longer term of Parliament has improved checks and balances on the Government via the subject select committees.
The bill would do so by empowering the Governor-General to make a proclamation at the start of the term, on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Governor-General could only issue a proclamation if the House of Representatives passed a resolution in the first three months of the term confirming the proportionality requirements of subject select committees.
The Bill would also entrench the key provisions enabling a 4-year term of Parliament, alongside the existing provision that provides for a maximum 3-year term of a Parliament.
If passed, the changes of the bill would be put to the public via a referendum. If a majority of the public voted in favour of the referendum, the provisions of the bill except for section 3 would come into effect.”
Links:
REFERENDUMS FRAMEWORK BILL
CLOSES 1:00 PM THURSDAY 17 APRIL 2025
“The Referendums Framework Bill would create a set of provisions for referendums to take place alongside either the first or second general election following its enactment. The bill would enable a referendum to be held if required for another Act to come into effect. These changes would only apply at either of the next two elections.
The bill would provide a legislative framework for the conduct of referendums. The framework would be largely the same as that used for the next general election. This would mean that the referendum and the election would be held using similar infrastructure and rules. This includes the regulatory regime for referendum-related advertising by third-party promoters”
Links:
LAND TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT(TIME OF USE CHARGING) AMENDMENT BILL
CLOSES 11:59 PM SUNDAY 27 APRIL 2025
“This bill proposes to establish a framework to set up time of use charging schemes in New Zealand. It would enable local authorities to identify areas of high congestion, propose indicative scheme areas, and set out potential charging zones for approval by the Minister of Transport.”
Links:
Note that the links to actual bill text and related Ministry of Transport documentation were not working on the Parliament website as of 6pm, 31 March 2025. Those documents can be accessed with the following links:
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2024/0113/latest/d16385769e2.html?
HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL: THE FUTURE OF WATER SERVICES
CLOSES SUNDAY 27 APRIL 2025
“This year’s decision on future waters services for Hamilton is one of the biggest decisions our Council will ever make. Billions of dollars in investment and the ability to deliver the most efficient, sustainable, and environmentally responsible waters service – that’s best for our city and the wider region – will depend on decisions made this year.
We want our community to help shape these decisions.
Which option do you think would be best suited to deliver waters services in the future?
Option 1: Forming a joint waters company with Waikato District Council (supporting Council’s preferred option)
Option 2: Forming an in-house business unit”
Link:
https://haveyoursay.hamilton.govt.nz/whats-next-water
HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL: COBHAM DRIVE SPEED INCREASE 60KM/H BACK TO 80KM/H
CLOSES WEDNESDAY 30 APRIL 2025
“We want your feedback on the proposal to keep the 60km/h speed limit on a section of Cobham Drive, between the intersection of Normandy Avenue and Tristram Street, for safety. The central Government’s new speed limit rules will increase this speed limit to 80km/h by 30 June 2025 if this proposal is not approved.
Keeping the 60km/h speed limit supports the safety of all road users. This section of Cobham Drive is a busy road which connects the central city and Hamilton south. An average of 23,000 vehicles use this road every day, and it provides access to key destinations such as Hamilton Gardens, Waikato Hospital and PAK’nSAVE.
Crash data shows a 70% decrease since the speed limit was lowered in June 2023.
Retaining the speed limit means no changes to the road are needed. If the speed limit increases to 80km/h, the new signage required on this road (speed limit signs and curve advisory signs) is estimated to cost $20,000.”
Link:
https://haveyoursay.hamilton.govt.nz/cobham-drive-speed-limit-reduction
HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL: PROPOSED 2025/26 FEES AND CHARGES
CLOSES SUNDAY 27 APRIL 2025
“You can read the full list of Council’s proposed fees and charges, which shows the current price, amount of change, new price, and what the change is based in our schedule of proposed 2025/26 fees and charges. Or you can read a physical copy at the Council building, 260 Anglesea Street, Hamilton, and all Hamilton City Libraries branches.”
Link:
https://haveyoursay.hamilton.govt.nz/proposed-202526-fees-and-charges
PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS ARE NOW BEING CALLED FOR THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL (AUCKLAND FUTURE FUND) BILL
CLOSES TUESDAY 08 APRIL 2025
“The Auckland Future Fund was introduced as part of Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan 2024-2034. The fund is an investment vehicle that seeks to provide the council with an additional source of income. The council is assuming average annual returns of 7.24 percent per annum from the fund over the long term, after management costs. Of the projected return, 5.24 percent will be returned to the council as an annual cash distribution, with the remainder retained to provide for growth of the fund.
The Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill seeks to provide legislative protection for the governance and operations of the fund with the intent of maintaining or increasing the real value of its capital over time.”
Link:
“SAVE THE CHATEAU TONGARIRO HOTEL” PETITION
CLOSES SUNDAY WEDNESDAY 30 APRIL 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 largely based on information readers have sent to us on issues they think are important.
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