sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Local Government Minister Simon Watts says government capping annual council rate increases at 4%, but will only be passed after the election

Public Policy / news
Local Government Minister Simon Watts says government capping annual council rate increases at 4%, but will only be passed after the election
[updated]
Simon Watts announcing the Government's plans on rates capping - Anna Whyte
Simon Watts announcing the Government's plans on rates capping - Anna Whyte

The Government has confirmed its plan to cap annual council rates increases, with a target range of between 2% and 4%.

While the Government's new rules will only come into effect in 2029 - if the proposed change is passed through Parliament after the election - councils will need to consider the range from mid-next year when putting together their long term plans. 

Local Government Minister Simon Watts said that for too long, "ratepayers have been hit with steep and unexpected rates increases, adding pressure to household budgets at a time many New Zealanders are already feeling the squeeze."

“Under this legislation, councils will be required to keep annual rates increases within an initial target range of 2 per cent to 4 per cent, putting a brake on excessive increases and giving ratepayers greater certainty."

However, the Government is only taking the Bill through its first reading prior to the election, meaning whichever parties win the election would need to pass it. 

Time bound exemptions will be available for councils under exceptional circumstances, such as when the region or city is recovering from a natural disaster, or when a council can demonstrate "prudent financial management and a justified need to operate above or below the target range."

The range will be reviewed every six years and water services are excluded from the cap.

Asked why a council would need to apply for an exemption to go below a 2% rise, Watts said there was a need for councils to "continue to replace, retain, and in effect allow for growth, and so ensuring that there is a process of investment in capital is an important aspect". 

"If it was zero, then in effect there would be a risk that assets were not being upgraded and invested in, and they may deteriorate, and that is going to leave a problem for the future."

Rates have been an ongoing, contentious topic with public pushback against rate increases and the Government.

Local Government NZ President Rehette Stoltz said capping rates was a blunt tool.

"Introducing a 4% cap when councils’ costs are increasing at a much higher rate will hamstring already-constrained councils’ ability to maintain investment in the services and infrastructure that people rely on them to provide.

“Local government only gets 10% of the country’s tax take but councils are responsible for about a third of all public infrastructure investment in New Zealand," Stoltz said. 

“Councils can’t be expected to deliver more infrastructure, support growth and meet communities’ expectations with fewer levers – the maths just doesn’t add up and something will have to give."

Watts said the median increase last year was 14.2% and 9.2% the previous year.

ANZ economists said council rates inflation hit an average of 12.2% in 2024 after three years of annual increases between 7% and 10% - up from the 4.7% average per year between 1992 and 2019.

A S&P Global Ratings report released in March said New Zealand councils would have less capacity to raise revenue after rises in general property rates are capped, which could “exacerbate leverage in the already highly indebted sector.”

Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown has described rates capping as a "fascinating piece of nonsense from Wellington".

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

35 Comments

So Central govt will be stepping in with the necessary funding for infrastructure replacement? Too little too late. They have had 3 years to do this and only pull it out within 3 months of an election, and the cost of maintaining infrastructure will require more than 4% in many districts regardless. 

Up
6

Hopefully they don't step in with funding. Paying for property servicing costs with income taxes is an insane outcome.

Up
2

National want income earners subsidising asset owners, even more than they already do. And we wonder why we have stagnating productivity, rising inequality, and collapsing social cohesion. 

 

Up
7

How are they wanting income earning subsidising asset owners when they are trying to cap rates. Councils are the asset owners??

Up
0

If councils are the asset owners they are so on behalf of the community....do central government not also represent the community with the advantage of access to the cheapest credit available?

Up
1

Ratepayers are

Up
0

The investment my home needs currently exceeds what I can afford - and yet I don't have a bottomless pit of money that I can use to do the necessary work. Why are Councils any different? Do they think that ratepayers have endlessly deep pockets and we should just give them everything they ask for.  

Look at the Whangarei District Council - they have given out $29m over the last three years in grant funding but then rate us more and more each year to fix the basics. 

I'm sorry, but cut all the grant funding, and rent & rate free subsidies being given to countless "charitable" organisations who reside in council owned facilities. There are so many people on the gravy train, and it is the poor rate payer who just gets whacked every time.  

Up
6

Sounds like an objective that could be implemented simply by winning a (local) election.

Up
0

Not that simple when a lot of voters are on said gravy train. 

Up
6

A few months ago, a regular commenter on interest.co.nz told of being on holiday at the same time as the CEO of an NZ city.

The unnamed CEO at some point shared their opinion that ratepayers were merely a minor hindrance on that CEO's grand little empire.

Of course, I thought that CEO could have been from Lower Hutt or Wellington, but they could easily have come from Whangarei as well by the sound of it.

Up
4

That - and the post prior - is/are bollocks. 

Society is US. WE. US. 

So many self-centred people - one wonders what they'll think on their death-beds (they'll have time via having few visitors). Dang, I wish I'd spent more time being nice to others. Too late. 

 

 

Up
5

Does personality change or simply intensify on the deathbed?

Up
0

There was a study done years ago, of deathbed regrets. 

Biggest was wasting time 'making money'. 

That may well have changed, of course. Neoliberalism is, after all, a religion. 

Up
5

Here is a link to the list of Wellington city council bureaucrats that are being paid over $200,000:

https://wellingtonrichlist.nz/

Other thank the mayor (lowest paid on the list at $201,947) the rest are not elected.  I don't consider them US at all.

I draw your attention to the multiple people whose jobs all sound the same (Finance managers and Personnel/HR managers).

These don't include the CEO of Tiaki Wai (the new Wellington region water company) at $645,000.

 

Up
2

Nope, our ever-loving central government have amalgamated and redistricted and regulated local government onto corporate behemoths.  

Up
1

I'm sorry, but cut all the grant funding, and rent & rate free subsidies being given to countless "charitable" organisations who reside in council owned facilities. There are so many people on the gravy train, and it is the poor rate payer who just gets whacked every time.  

Better get rid of the rates rebates for retirees then too as this will be subsidised by all other ratepayers.

Up
1

rate AND RENT subsidy (100% subsidy) for a cultural centre occupying a prime location in the CBD, or rates relief for the elderly....I know which one I would support.  

Up
0

Infrastructure replacement and/or maintenance and/or modernisation? A good question certainly but if far too many of the councils had not neglected the importance of such responsibilities and functions, it likely would not needed to have been asked.

Up
0

But bit but... how will Councils fund vanity projects, or over spend on frills around infrastructure ture projects?

Up
2

Debt from private providers.

Up
0

Where is the workable funding plan to address infrastructure projects.

National is the party of no new taxes. No new taxes means on-going public spendings cuts.

Shanubeel points to the conversations we need to be having.

  https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2019049001/what-labour-s-tax-changes-could-mean-for-property-prices

Neither Labour nor National seem wiiling to have adult conversations about taxes.

Up
7

The vast majority of the rates, and rates increases are driven by water and roading. Water gets an explicit carve out so the increases will continue largely. And if you think the roads are bad now, there will be tears after an inflation increase in civils pricing (as there has been for the 10+ years).

Realistically, we are just going to end up paying for roading with income taxes which is a crazy outcome.

Up
1

"...water services are excluded from the cap"

More virtue signaling for the election. Tiaki Wai, the new council owned Wellington regional water company can & has charged whatever they think they can get away with.

Up
4

The virtue-signalling is by the Canute-imitators like Bishop and Brown. 

They want their cake and to eat it too - while not paying for it. 

'Prices' for everything will henceforth outpace 'incomes' (on average). Welcome to the peak era of the Limits to Growth. You cannot make things 'cheaper' by legislating same - that is ideology; the problem is physics. Water, power, infrastructure-maintenance and health - are already beyond us, maintenance-level-wise. Yet we get these small-scoped bleatings about vanity and vanity-projects. I wonder why suddenly now? 

Up
0

Incorrect. Wgtn people have been complaining about their councils never ending  list of vanity projects since Celia Wade Browns revisions of her Island Bay cycleways a decade ago.

Up
4

A cycleway is not a vanity project. 

A bitumen-surfacer 4-lane highway to nowhere, to facilitate cars, is a vanity project (doomed to near-term obsolescence)

Up
4

Yes, it is virtue signaling, that's the intent. These are National's water reforms so they are hardly going to implode what they set up. Wellingtonians constantly elected councils (until Whanau that is) who oversaw declining or rock bottom 3 waters spend, nobody else is going to pay for that mess sorry guys.

Up
1

It would be interesting to see what the WCC spent the 3waters money on, given councils were given some funding for it before it was scrapped.

Up
1

At a guess, consultants and marketing gurus.

Up
3

It's hardly a surprise, spend is laid out in the long term plans. 

IMO it's all much simpler. Minimal spend on water renewals is the preference of voters, and councillors are correctly implementing their wishes. Kiwis simply hate investment, or more specifically, paying for investment. Lines are the same, but we already (correctly) don't leave it up to consumers.

Up
0

Good. Special interest groups should be the first to get the chop. 

Up
1

Like mining and tourism? And business?

Goodo.

Bring it on. 

Up
2

The roading lobby?

Up
4

Local government doesn't get much in the way of market signals from user acceptance, revenues and the like as they have a mandated monopoly and operations are run by unelected permanent staff, who are protected from public scrutiny by the likes mandatory codes of conduct for elected councillors. 

An income cap is an awfully blunt central government instrument to get local government to focus on the essentials like infrastructure: but will they? A lot of decision making seems to be done on other criteria than need.

Living in Dunedin, with an underutilised stadium that is still haemorrhaging millions a year beyond debt servicing and a central city redevelopment whose costly cosmetic aspects seem to have done real damage to our CBD's vitality, it is with bated breath I await changes that will make local government efficient, effective and citizen focussed.

Roll on AI and citizen's assemblies.

Up
1

Something similar here in NP where there was a fight between the Taranaki Regional Council and the NPDC over Yarrow's stadium. Went to court and the TRC had better lawyers than NPDC and a prime case of the law is an ass, as are numerous clauses within various Acts. A more recent version of an Act/Regulation was applied by the judge whereas NPDC had used an older version. An amalgamation years ago of the Regional Council and District council would have prevented this. These CEO's have big ego's with Councillors often getting in the way.

Up
1