The Coalition’s proposed shakeup of local government is well underway. Time is now running out for councils to decide on the shape of their mergers.
This is not the first time local councils have undergone major structural reform. Let’s see whether any lessons have been learned.
In the 1980s, New Zealand had around 850 separate elected local authorities serving our 3.3 million population. This included 250 city, county, and borough councils operating alongside hundreds of single-purpose boards including pest destruction boards, drainage boards, and harbour boards.
Controlling all of this was difficult for any sitting government, especially as communities had been empowered with a mechanism in the 1974 Local Government Act that enabled any merger efforts by central government to be defeated.
A poll provision in the Act gave locals an effective power of veto over unpopular amalgamation proposals. If the Local Government Commission planned to combine councils, residents could block the move if 15 percent of voters signed a petition requesting a public referendum – and if more than 50 percent of registered voters opposed it.
Despite that extremely high bar, fearing the loss of their local identity and concerned about rate increases, communities routinely mobilised in sufficient numbers to block amalgamation attempts.
Frustrated by local opposition, the Lange Labour Government introduced the 1988 Local Government Amendment Act that removed the veto rights of communities and granted Sir Brian Elwood’s Local Government Commission temporary powers to issue binding reorganisation schemes.
Using this mechanism, Labour was able to force through amalgamations that consolidated the number of local authorities to 86.
Prior to the reforms, local body rates were low. With minimal bureaucratic overheads, smaller councils were able to contain compliance and administrative costs. Councillors and board members were highly accessible with street level engagement commonplace. Local working bees and other community-led initiatives that helped maintain parks and public spaces, fostered a level of social cohesion rarely seen today.
That sense of community diminished in many areas following the 1989 amalgamations. While those promoting reform said the benefits would eliminate inefficiency and duplication, creating organisations that would deliver lower rates – the very same arguments being used by the government today – the record shows otherwise.
In the immediate aftermath of the 1989 reforms, New Zealand experienced some of the highest rate increases in our history. Hundreds of local boards that were often volunteer-driven were replaced with professional bureaucracies, as highly paid managers drove up costs. Cross-subsidisation of rates was rife with larger councils demanding higher payments from new ratepayers to fund more costly amenities and higher debt.
And now, almost forty years on, the reality is that while Labour’s reforms most certainly resulted in the widespread consolidation of local government, the mergers failed to deliver the downward pressure on rates that was promised, as larger councils expanded their balance sheets and borrowed aggressively.
In other words, if amalgamation weakened accountability and drove costs up in 1989, is there any reason to believe that even more heavy-handed mergers can deliver the opposite today? And if ratepayers are already disillusioned under the present system, what chance is there that they’ll feel better off after the reforms?
So, what are the Coalition’s amalgamation demands?
In November last year, consultation was invited on a plan to “simplify” local government. It was claimed that 11 regional councils, 11 city councils, 50 district councils, and 6 ‘unitary authorities’ involved too much fragmentation to deliver the streamlined system planned under the resource management reforms.
In response to the feedback, the “Head Start” programme was announced in May, giving local authorities three months to submit amalgamation proposals to the Government before the 9 August deadline. The Coalition believes that by working with neighbouring councils to combine regional and territorial functions into one or more unitary authorities, restructured councils will better support the new planning system, reduce duplication, and deliver services more efficiently.
Any council that fails to agree on a plan will have a default arrangement imposed, so the Government can phase out regional councils altogether and deliver fewer, larger unitary authorities after the 2028 local body elections.
Without a doubt, these reforms represent the most significant restructuring of local government since 1989. But – as was the case back then – local residents and ratepayers have been locked out of the process.
Under current law, Schedule 3 of the 2002 Local Government Act requires that any council reorganisation proposal can only proceed if it wins majority support in a binding referendum run by the Local Government Commission.
However, the Coalition has sidelined the referendum safeguard by replacing the Local Government Commission’s statutory restructuring responsibilities with its Ministerial‑driven Head Start process. With the public’s right to approve or reject proposed changes now removed, councils are being forced to reorganise without the consent of the communities they serve.
Not only is this heavy-handed and anti-democratic, it is also deeply ironic.
Back in 1988, when Labour was pushing through the legislation to deliver local government reform, National was fiercely opposed: by stripping communities of their democratic right to demand a referendum on amalgamations, they accused Labour of totalitarianism – and insisted the public should have the right to determine the makeup of their local authority.
National argued that no government had the moral authority to abolish councils, redraw boundaries, or impose new structures without first securing the consent of the people affected, and they condemned Labour for centralising power, ignoring local voices, and forcing through changes under urgency.
National took the same stance in 2021 when Labour’s Nania Mahuta abolished long‑standing petition rights over Maori wards. Again, they argued that stripping ratepayers of the ability to challenge structural changes was an unacceptable erosion of democratic safeguards.
Yet today, National is doing exactly what it once condemned — removing the public’s right to approve or reject major local body restructuring and forcing councils into amalgamation without community consent.
The party that once insisted that local democracy must not be sidelined is now sweeping it aside.
By suspending the referendum safeguard, the Coalition’s Head Start programme has not only silenced communities and blocked the Local Government Commission, but they have imposed on councils an impossibly tight timeframe to decide on amalgamation proposals before the election.
Their justification is familiar: in 1988 Labour said reform was urgent, the system was fragmented, and central direction was necessary. National is now saying virtually the same thing.
But political urgency should not eliminate democratic rights. A restructuring of the magnitude of what’s being proposed should not be imposed by Wellington. National once understood that principle. It needs to honour it again.
Communities need to be given the opportunity to properly consider the restructuring options that are being planned by their councils – so they can constructively engage in the process.
A growing number of Mayors from all around the country are now asking for more time. They want local referenda restored so communities can decide their own futures – as Wellington Mayor and the chairman of the Wellington Regional Forum Andrew Little recently explained: “For me, the bottom line is this – local people should decide the future of their local governments. Local government belongs to the people of this city and this region. It does not belong to mayors or councillors. It certainly does not belong to the Beehive or unelected council chief executives.
“Any change to our local governance arrangements must have public buy-in. That means people need proper information and enough time.”
Looking objectively at the shape of local government in New Zealand, there are clearly situations where combining councils makes a great deal of sense – as voters in Wellington’s Hutt City and Porirua City demonstrated when they supported the concept of a merger in non-binding referenda that were held during last year’s local body elections.
In addition, folding regional council responsibilities into district and city councils, to turn them into unitary authorities again appears to be sensible, as the six unitary authorities that are already operating this structure – Auckland Council, Chatham Islands Council, Gisborne District Council, Marlborough District Council, Nelson City Council, and the Tasman District Council – demonstrate only too clearly.
However, given New Zealand’s geography and sparse population, expecting full mergers between distant and disparate councils defies common sense – as this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Kaipara District Councillor and former Mayor Craig Jepson explains:
“Switzerland thrives with highly localised governance, strong subsidiarity, and empowered communities. It is ‘over‑governed’ on paper but well‑governed in practice. New Zealand, by contrast, is under‑governed — too much power sits with bureaucracies, not communities. Amalgamation would make that worse.
“The proposal to amalgamate Whangarei District Council, Far North District Council, and Kaipara District Council into a single super‑authority is being sold as efficiency. In reality, it risks creating a distant, debt‑laden bureaucracy that weakens rural communities, strips local voices, and repeats Auckland’s mistakes on a smaller scale.
“Kaipara District Council is one of the strongest arguments against amalgamation. While Whangarei and the Far North carry significant debt, Kaipara has next to none. We have kept rates comparatively low, invested wisely, and delivered real results — not through empire‑building, but through being small, nimble, and accountable.
“Our roading success is the clearest example. When Kaipara brought roading back in‑house, we proved what local control can achieve. The Northland Transport Alliance had become unanswerable, inefficient, and poor at the basics. Once Kaipara took ownership, performance improved, costs stabilised, and accountability returned.
“This is what small councils can do: act quickly, fix problems, and stay close to the people they serve.
“Amalgamation would bury that success under layers of bureaucracy, consultants, and corporate directors — the very structures that failed Auckland.”
There are many reasons the Coalition should press pause on their local government reforms, but the most important is their fundamentally undemocratic and draconian approach. They are not only disrespecting the wishes of local communities but trampling on their rights to determine how their assets are managed and how their voices are represented around the decision-making table.
Not only should the reforms be put on hold until after the election, but the rights of ratepayers to have the final say should be restored so that they are the ones who decide whether to retain the status quo, become a unitary authority, or merge with one or more neighbouring councils.
One final point. It’s increasingly obvious that in many parts of the country iwi leaders have gained a disproportionate influence over local government. Through the help of council staff – but without ratepayer approval – multiple advisory positions have been created on council committees and a wide variety of co-governance arrangements have been put in place. These include Mana Whakahono a Rohe agreements, Memoranda of Understanding, Joint Management Agreements, Iwi Participation Arrangements, Strategic Partnership Agreements, and Cultural Impact Agreements – to name but a few!
In some regions, iwi authority has now become so dominant that they are proposing Head Start mergers to restructure local government around tribal boundaries and a Maori world view.
With iwi influence over councils coming at the expense of democratic accountability and ratepayer rights, the future of local government is now under genuine threat.
The Coalition, which was elected on a mandate to end co‑governance and race‑based policies, must now ensure that none of those existing iwi–council agreements are carried forward into larger, more powerful merged councils to further erode public control over local democracy.
In other words, just as Mana Whakahono a Rohe agreements have now been ruled out of the new planning framework, so too all other agreements established between councils and iwi must likewise be ruled out of the amalgamation process.
As the Coalition’s first term in Government comes to a close, their focus must be on strengthening democracy, not weakening it. They also need to be clear: pausing their local government reforms until after the election to enable locals to have the final say on the shape of their local council merger is not a delay — it’s democracy in action, and the only legitimate way to reshape local government.
Please note: To register for our free weekly newsletter please click HERE.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
*Do you agree that the final decision on council amalgamation should be made by locals after the election?
*Poll comments are posted below.
*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.
THIS WEEK’S POLL COMMENTS
| we were all forced in to having Fluoride put back in to all our water supplies too despite new evidence proving isn’t safe for everyone if you remember and councils threatened by Simeon Brown if they didn’t comply. despite many protests. | Linda |
| Local residents in the council areas should have the democratic right to vote on this critical restructuring so the voters have their voices heard in major decisions affecting the future of their areas.. Auckland Council, since amalgamation, is a classic example of why such amalgamation should not go ahead. Non-elected iwi representation should also be banned from voting and deciding on council decisions, | David |
| It seems our Council, Waipa, are happily pushing ahead, with Amalgamation, taking absolutely no notice of the Ratepayers who will pay for Amalgamation. We already have one of the highest rated rises in the Country and Amalgamation will cost a fortune. I’m also sure very few will want to amalgamate with Hamilton and their almost $1b debt, even after the water CCO loans have been removed from the Council books. | Norma |
| variety of mayors and councils agenda’s require transparency first and foremost | Iride |
| Amalgamate. Keep separate books. Ban extra staff and ban higher pay scales | Leigh |
| Rushed amalgamation is bad amalgamation. | Grant |
| We need to cut council staff by at least 50% and the UNACCOUNTABLE CEO’s salary by 50 % and then vet the applicants thoroughly as the ones we have had are visibly corrupt like the department heads in council | Greg |
| Far to many decisions are being made by Council staff and approved by councillors that have had too little experience in business. | Gaire |
| Why the rush to push this huge and momentous change through before the election in 3 months’ time? This issue is too important to rush through in the few weeks left of this parliament. Local councils and constituents should be given adequate time to consider and respond to the proposed new legislation. Further, there should be no separate and “privileged” unelected Maori/iwi positions – these should be abolished. | Laurence |
| “Locals” can be the death of participation if allowed to run free, however putting controls onto non-core spending and debt has to be prioritised. | Mr B |
| The same old story – to hell with the people – politics rule!!! | Roy |
| Putting the power back into the hands of the ratepayers is the start of the return of democracy! | Elizabeth |
| A no-brainer to sort the current devious, undemocratic threats to bullied ( by bureaucrats) elected councils. Must be a no titiri zone. | Kevin |
| Bigger is not better Bigger is NOT more accountable | Ray |
| I have been involved in several amalgamations including New Plymouth City Council and North Taranaki District Council. The amalgamation of Auckland’s various Boroughs, the creation of the Auckland Super City all on the promise of reduced costs for the Ratepayers. I am still waiting for that to happen!! | Ian |
| They would not know what to do | Warren |
| And Act and NZ First should refrain from supporting National’s turncoat, rushed procedure in Parliament. | DAVID |
| Nobody is going to believe the narrative after the abomination that was Auckland Super City, sold on efficiency. Now look at this behemoth of debt and cost blowouts. | Peter |
| Of course! | Murray |
| Strongly disagree with councils amalgamating. Power should be in the hands of the ratepayers not more overpaid bureaucracies. | David |
| Too many things being rushed through by successive govts, sometimes with only a few days to make a submission. National re letting democracy down | Gail |
| Larger Councils diminish local voices and entrench bloated bureaucracy. | Peter |
| Undeniably | Fred |
| The coalition government have not honoured their promise to remove all traces of co-governance from legislation. They use weasel words when they make reforms but leave references to co-governance, te tiriti, iwi etc. in the new legislation. | Grant |
| If amalgamation is taken to its logically inevitable conclusion, there will be only a single “local” authority for the entire country. ie a Beehive committee. Stop Now! | Murray |
| After the election and no Co Governance to be asllowed | leo |
| Yes. Amalgamation will not solve the inherent local body problems of over staffing and control of councils by staff as well as the need for structural change. | Roger |
| In my opinion previous forced amalgamations have by and large been bad for smaller councils with centralisation and asset stripping depriving many of access to services and face to face interaction with appropriate personnel plus loss of core maintenance of roading in rural areas. | Fletcher |
| It does feel like we are being bulldozed and they want it done before the electon, why? Amalgamation did not help as there were community boards doing well and amalgamated with one that wasn’t put the ALL of the “original old boards” in the amalgamated region into debt. | Jackie |
| The bigger is better group is totally wrong all the high paid ‘advisors’ | Peter |
| Let the people decide, not bureaucracy. | Mat |
| Our democracy needs to be strengthened not watered down | Cam |
| It’s called democracy!! | Kevin |
| The real problem is not the local councils., but the Regional Councils overstepping their authority. More thought is needed. | Doug |
| power to people not faceless beaurocrats who have no ideas of local needs & don’t listen to people. locals who know the area should have say. Auckland is the biggest FAILURE of AMALGAMATION, you try to talk to them, they do not listen or keep their word. | Chris |
| Bigger is not necessarily best | DOUGLAS |
| Do it now! It’s a big issue- why wait? GET IT DONE! | John |
| In particular, locals must have the right to get iwi out of local government. | John |
| I am not even sure we need this process at all. | Ian |
| Imposition from the “BEEHIVE” is ANTI democratic.. Less from above and more from local. When will they learn that ! | Vince |
| Of course we LOCALS MUST have the final say. History ALL around NEW ZEALAND shows that BIGGER is NOT BETTER. Just look at Dauckland – you would have to be a DORK to want to live there these days. | Brian |
| The only thing the browns bring to the table is more cost | James |
| If we are still a democracy then the people should decide. Not a Government that won’t face up to an excess of MPs and the Maori seat issue which National has side stepped many times. The Govt needs to get its house in order and cut the excessive costs the taxpayer is burdened with. | Bill |
| This is common sense, something the government does not seem to have. Actually we should be petitioning to reduce government, they are too big. | Gareth |
| I live in Waimakariri and do not want my rates bill jacked by enforced merging with the Peoples Republic of Christchurch. | David |
| I do not believe any councils require amalgamating Small is usually efficient we do not need what happened to Auckland, nothing saved as promised, more staff higher overheads | malcolm |
| Unless the coalition step up and remove the maori /iwi bullshit greed grab ,we are further subjected to more power/funds gifted to these blood suckers . You are history National unless you stop bowing down to the maori mafia . Roll on election time . | Ray |
| Absolutely | David |
| why the hurry and what is the long term objective ? | john |
| Amalgamation does not best serve local communities. Spiraling council debt for unwanted projects results in unnecessary rates increases without local community consent. | Chris |
| This is a no brainer. | Russel |
| Let us see whom we are dealing with | Allan |
| AND this must bed in ‘one person one vote’ totally exclusive of ethnicity in all councils. | Anne |
| Of course local ratepayers should decide – this whole thing is getting out of hand. We get a lot of talk about “democracy” but no longer see it in action! | Scott |
| Auckland is a prime example of a disastrous amalgamation. Rural ratepayers noisy fund all the absurd social engineering events , and inner city expansion for the CBD and massive CBD development whilst rural Auckland gained nothing except massive rate increases. | TOIny |
| We need democracy restored and race based policies removed | Patricia |
| If they amalgamate, history proves, they just add ANOTHER layer on top and sub contract all the work to Downer at top dollar – the ratepayer ends up screwed – ask Aucklanders | Trevor |
| The coalition has failed to implement the policies they had supposedly agreed to regarding the dangerous, undemocratic specil powers to Iwi. | Duncan |
| Accountability | Patricia |
| aBSOLUTELY | GALE |
| The people running Hastings Council were elected by the community.They voted on recognition not competency and policy viewpoints. We now have idiots running the asylum. Mayoral response and govt signoff after considered evaluation will be far less risky. | Alexandra |
| Looks like Luxon wants to go out with a bang! It seems he and his party are intent on destroying even more unity in the country.Aucklanders did not want amalgamation, Key rushed it through undemocratically formthe rugby world,cup.Could never work out what that had to do with council,amalgamation.It has been a disaster and as we all expected rates hugely increased, and services severely deplated. North Shore lost a lot, just seen as a cash cow for central city and South Auckland. Why should we pay a cent toward this train that is still not running and cost us billions.We will never use it and paid for our own busway. Totalitarianism indeed. But out National. Let councils and locals make their own decisions on what they want. | Gail |
| Follow the Swiss model and listen to the Mayor from Kaipara | Neville |
| YES | COLIN |
| There is definitely room for some amalgamating councils but it should still be at a”local” community of interest level. | Joan |
| Forced amalgamation will result in increased bureaucracy and increased rates. | Gerry |
| More work needs to be done. National have started work on this belatedly and are trying to force it though, which is not good as the result will prove to be a mess | David |
| I do agree the co governance structures must be made illegal before the restructuring process begins. Otherwise separatism will be imbedded in local government forever and will be impossible to remove. This costs ratepayers a lot of money each year as a plethora of unnecessary co governance meet ti discuss issues that should be the domain of elected councillors. committees | Chris |
| Uphold Democracy | Gavin |
| Needs to be more specific re scrapping the necessary clauses altogether | Kay |
| YES… LOCAL means locals, we pay the rates, we know the local history of management or mismanagement. We know the personalities. We know the “Doers” and we know the Yackers and the Dreamers. We pay the fee,y we MUSt have the choice.. | Bruce |
| Larger councils have only produced bloated rates is my experience | Neil |
| It is our future, not the future of temporary appointments | Raymond |
| fact based not implausible scenarios makes common sense | Gavin |
| NZ has become ever increasingly authoritarian, ever since Winston Peters forced Jacinda Ardern onto us in 2016. Now the unelected minions of the left who still infest local and national government are constantly trying to wield the whip hand over us with the help of racist tribal activists. They should all be summarily sacked. Peters, despite his traitorous betrayal of New Zealanders in 2016 is poised to be the major coalition partner in the the next government. God help us. | John. |
| Different size Councils and those that have been prudent and Democratic should not be forced to amalgamate with undemocratic or large inefficient Councils | Peter |
| it is called democracy !! Great work Muriel !!! | norman |
| Bring back real democracy | Jean |
| auckland is the nightmare example of where this is leading | Danny |
| Let’s live Democracy not just Preach it !! | Geoff |
| We seem to have a dictatorial structure ‘managing’ New Zealand, much of which has not been openly discussed by real kiwis who expect openness and true representation via the community INSTEAD of the intrusion and restriction of politically driven social division by leaders who seems reluctant to present OPEN DISCUSSION amongst society! Why does NZ leadership need selective and restricted release of national matters? This seems to be following a pattern after the devastating lockdowns with many wide-spread businesses, society and family structures breaking apart – again with restricted dialogue imposed. What ever happened to open education through dialogue with the goal of honest and unrestricted learning – leading to growth? | Stuart |
| The benefits of operating at scale for large projects are not achieved by centralising power and control over all local decision-making and disenfranchising communitites. | Bill |
| Change delayed is not what most want!! | DAVID |
| The current attempt is half cocked at best. Not surprising seeing as Simon Watts is in charge – he has been a disaster as Local Government Minister. | pdm |
| The CORRUPT STRANGLE HOLD, of localised council structure has to be got rid of, the whole lot of it…. ALL OF IT IS ROTTEN TO THE CORE, BY THE CORRUPTION OF MARI- ISATION TAKE OVER OF OUR NATION!! | David |
| We are paying for the council so have the right to be heard. No taxation without representation ! | Terry |
| Rate payers need to have a say. | Terry |
| Rushing this thru is a big mistake. Aucklands Supercity is a glowing example of the failure of big centralized councils. | Grant |
| What exactly are they trying to fix? It seems to me that the councillors are being treated as front people to take the flack for Paid employees decisions and poor prioritising of other people’s money (rates). Nuts and bolts should be top priority. And they are not and this is clearly illustrated by the woeful state of water services in the Wellington region. | Pat |
| Via binding referendum that occurs every 15 years. | Mike |
| Democracy not Autocracy! | Kevin |
| Local control and management via democratic processes is under direct threat, as described. There is a narrow window to turn it around. | Bazza |
| There is no reason for it to be rushed through with the election just 90 days away. | Nev |
| Communism, identity tribalism and Government totalitarianism has no place in a democracy. Local ratepayers should have the final say as they live in their communities. Thus, they are most affected by local matters. | Eileen |
| That would be the Democratic way of approving such a change. | John |
| Local ratepayers should control local structure. History shows amalgamation rarely delivers a reduction in costs with communities clearly losing a say in their governance. | Philip |
| Government needs to be sent a strong message and only the ballot seems to have any real impact. | Martin |
| Citizens SHOULD decide | Mike |
| I believe there neads to be careful discussion as bigger is not always better although we do have far to many people involved in councils far to much duplication | Peter |
| You only need to look at what has happened to the people of Rodney to answer this question. The amalgamation of the Rodney District into Auckland City was and is a complete disaster. We in Rodney are lumbered with all costs incurred in Auckland without any of the so-called benefits. Just look at the costs of the CRL and the impact of those costs upon us, and we will never if ever use this rail link. Mayor Brown and his lot of useless councillors couldn’t give a toss about Rodney residents, their moto has to be screw the hell out of them. Our useless councillor on the Auckland council “in my eyes” is like a wet rag, his single voice never ever will get relief for us. Therefore the only answer is let those who pay for these pratts have the say whether amalgamation is right for them! | Peter |
| No trust in the ability of local body elected reprsentatives | Lindsay |
| Big is not always better look at Auckland | Colin |
| Auckland under Brown is a disaster. He is a bully and doesn’t even represent his own councillors adequately. The Coalition is a total failure in that it’s election manifesto was never followed through. Iwi who have to be paid to do anything that might benefit or country such as get vaccinated, complete Census, maintain land gifted too their control are too self interested and supported by woke media and academia. Our productivity and education is at the bottom of the heap, we are getting weighed down but the practice of giving Iwi a say in everything. Look at City Rail for a terrible example of over representation and costs and delays. | Graham |
| Too rushed and for what benefits. Local councils should be community elected and worth the support of those in the community there will be lower overheads and targeted spend | Howard |
| Central government is responsible for local government structure, including ousting the proliferation of race based influence by Maori. Ratepayers and communities do not at large have breadth of knowledge to define local governance structure just need importantly to retain the vote for who represents them in local governance. | Stan |
| why repeat same mistakes yet again? | Collin |
| If they were to rule out iwi co governance and reduce the bureaucracy sure have at it but I am suspicious of the national governments motives | Graham |
| Auckland Council is a shinning example of an amalgamation gone wrong | Roger |
| Is it time to pick up spears yet…? | Max |
| All councils must be held accountable by the public | James |
| Yes, intelligent planning and clear prioritised objectives need to be met by any of the changes. | Andrew |
| Bigger Councils mean more Beaurocrats | Ross |
| The council problem is their staff and councilor are so woke they waste masses of money on woke things like, cycle trails, net zero, badly run social housing etc. Slash council staff to stop rate in leases, 100% over past 6 years in Wellington. | David |
| Surely as ratepayers we have the rights to be involved & have a,say in our local council | Dominique Greenslade |
| Democracy in action! | Dennis |
| Governments are taking more and more control over our lives. They are deciding that parents are no longer responsible for deciding what age our kids can use social media. They went from speed cameras over places of accidents to speed cameras over places with no danger to anyone but high index of small overspeed , to hidden speed cameras and the future of placing speed control cameras, which will give them access to when and where we are traveling to and from. They have decided that water should be centralised without any consultation, they have allowed councils to increase our rates to incredible amounts above inflation, they have rejected the ever increased demand for a real democratic NZ by ignoring demands for the extinction of the Waitangi tribunal, Maori seats, and race based parties, which is against the human rights that preaches that we all have the same rights, they keep increasing our taxes, again without consultation, and pretending that they are levies, or other pseudo-named taxes to a point where now we are become a poor third world country. Even when they authorised the compensation to maoris that did not exist when the treat were signed by people that were not born at the time of the treat using our taxes. Government does not have money. They are supposed to administer our money for ours and the country benefits. Political major parties are failing us regardless of the parties they represent, being the Labour party or the National party. MMP took the right for the majority of NZer to choose who will govern us, and allowing a narcissistic Wiston Peters to go with labour who received a much smaller percentage of votes, when National was the party with most of votes. They have made us wear masks, stay at home, close businesses , loose jobs, put in danger our young people during covid. They stopped us from seeing our loved ones for the last time, going to funeral or inviting friends and families to our weddings. Soon they are going to specify how many times we can shower, go to doctors, travel, change our cars. Soon we will be living on a 1984 dystopian society, as written by George Orwell. We are becoming a nation where government watches our moves, control what we do and decide for us what is right and what is wrong, if we should allow immigration to change the values of our country and taking away our freedom of expression. If we don’t stop this happening now, it will be too late to say something later. | luciane |
| We need to get this right | John |
| Yes for proper delivery | Murray |
| By ratepayer, not councillors or employees of coucil | Alec |
| The Minister for Local Government who pushed through the mergers which formed the disastrous Auckland Council was Rodney Hide. It would be fascinating to ask him now whether he thinks it achieved its promise of greater efficiencies and lower rates. | Juliet |
| Rather obvious, really. | Gordon |
| I’m fed up with our one eyed Uni-Party that said no to co-governance with fingers crossed firmly behind its back. If it had to be done in a rush then why not 2.5 years ago? | Doug |
| The government MUST pass legislation making councils,correct these rules they have put in place on false premises. It must be done BEFORE the election as no trust in their promises being kept. If not implemented prior to election we know they are likely to not do what they promised after the election | Gail |
| I used to vote for The National Party up until 3 elections ago, I never vote them anymore they remind me too much of Labour’s party, l still always vote for the Centre Right parties as I will be this coming election and am very worried the left wing parties will get back in, this coming election is very important for NZ. | Paul |
| Will the god damn, awful Political mess that the country is in, going to heal, before we get to the polls? I don’t think so…. The NATIONAL GOVT. have clearly made a proper hash of everything that they have touched since they took office, looking to being kicked into touch, just like the LAST LOT, in the last election lets hope we can make it thru the dreadful mess! | David |
| Of course the public needs to have the final say over merger proposals. It is outrageous that the Coalition thought otherwise! | Dave |
| Why has National left these reforms to the last minute? It is ridiculous to expect decisions in such a tight timeframe. And why have they left the public out of the process? They really are as bad as Labour! | Murray |
| A public referendum should have been part of the process from the outset. And all of those iwi agreements definitely need to be scrapped. | Paul |
| Bigger councils delivering lower rates – what a joke! | Helen |
| Getting rid of the stranglehold that local iwi have over councils would be a very positive move for the country. The Coalitions needs to announce this ASAP! | Bryan |