But what worries me a little bit, Simon, is you can easily set a cap But if councils don't reduce their spending or you have services that they have contracts that roll off, won't some services start to get reduced? Or on the other side of it, won't they start to charge fees and services more to make up for a lack of their ability to increase rates? How do you control that?

Well, Andy, first and foremost, it's going to depend where you are in the country.

That Waitaki example is really about a $595 increase per annum and under a rates cap about $140.

Councils are going to need to prioritise.

And one of the things that we're doing to help them to do that is obviously the changes around legislating and fixing the basics, the core services versus wellbeing.

That's one thing.

Minister Bishop's sitting in the chair in the House as I speak, passing the RMA legislation reform that'll take 45% of the consenting out of the local government sector.

Is that being considered?

Does that include any fees or charges going up that we might have to pay more for?

Well first and foremost the cap is on, uh, the rates portion of the bill.

The increase last year 14%, this year 9%, under this, uh, cap it'll be 4%.

Uh, and that, look you know, Auckland is in one area but, uh, if you're in Waitaki then you've got a 17% increase.

That's more than a can of baked beans.

It's actually 600 bucks a year increase on the average rate of three and a half thousand.

So, uh, that is gonna be a big, uh, uh, benefit.

Yeah but if they lose, if we l- start losing bridges, is that smart?

What's the point?

Well, no one lives in a suburb called Averages, right? The key of $34 is across the country.

But if you're living in Waitaki, down the bottom of the south, with a 17% increase, it's a 600 increase on an average bill of three and a half grand.

And That's not a material by any stretch.

And also then you've got to think about the compounding as well.

As these bills increase, three numbers, 14.2% increase last year, 9.2% average increase in rates this year.

Under us, it's going to be 4% going forward.

What about those councils that are tapped out debt-wise but have genuine jobs to do?

What's the point?

point?Well, no one lives in a suburb called averages, right? Uh, the key of $34, uh, is across the country.

But if you're living in Waitaki, uh, down the bottom of the south with a 17% increase, it's a 600 increase on an average bill of three and a half grand.

And, you know, that's not immaterial by any stretch.

Uh, and also then you've got to think about the compounding as well.

You know, as these bills increase, uh, three numbers, 14.2% increase last year, 9.2% in average increase in rates this year.

Uh, under us it's gonna be 4% going forward.

What about those councils that are tapped out debt-wise but have genuine jobs to do?

What's the point?

Well, no one lives in a suburb called averages, right? Uh, the key of thirty-four dollars, uh, is across the country, but if you're living in Waitaki, uh, down the bottom of the south with a seventeen percent increase, it's a six hundred increase on an average bill of three and a half grand, and you know, that's not immaterial by any stretch.

Uh, and also then you've got to think about the compounding as well.

You know, as these bills increase, uh, three numbers, fourteen point two percent increase last year, nine point two percent in average increase in rates this year.

Uh, under us, it's gonna be four percent going forward.

That's gonna be the limit, and if you think about the compounding effect of that over years, that's some pretty big savings over a five- to ten-year period for a household.

What about those councils that are tapped out debt-wise but have genuine jobs to do?

Well, most of the, uh, councils in the country borrow through the Local Government Funding Authority.

Uh, why do we need a rates cap? Do you think councils are wasting money?

Well, uh, to be fair, Ingrid, when you look at the rates increases last year, average 14.2%, this year 9.2%.

You know, if you're in Waitaki, 17% increase year on year, that's a $600 increase on an average bill of three and a half grand.

That's unaffordable.

Under our model, that'll be capped at 4%, uh, and that means people have certainty.

At the moment, they've got a roller coaster of rates increases, uh, and it's the biggest household, uh, one of the biggest household expenditure items that they have no, households have no control over.

Uh, and, you know, we're putting in place a cap that means that they're gonna have certainty on what they pay.

So that, and it's on its own, adds to the council costs.

You're not gonna be able to now.

I announced it in December of last year.

This is new legislation.

We don't have a framework in place.

We've had to create it from scratch.

We've done a lot of work around taking that advice from other countries, looking what they're doing.

Uh, the bill's on the table.

Did you meet with Tauranga City Council today?

You're not gonna be able to, are you?

Announced it in December of last year.

This is new legislation.

We don't have a framework in place.

We've had to create it from scratch.

We've done a lot of work around taking that advice from other countries, looking at what they're doing.

Uh, the bill's on the table.

Did you meet with Tauranga City Council today?

Uh, I mean, that seems, the whole thing seems pretty incredible really, that you can have so many reports, you can have so many warnings, and somehow no one thinks to tell the boss.

Ryan, you know, firstly acknowledge the, the victims that occurred, uh, and happened that, their families, first responders.

You know, this report brings back that tragedy and, uh, I acknowledge them, but you're absolutely right.

You know, reading that report, I've been in this job six years, it's the most confronting report that I've had to read in the context of, uh, uh, loss of life, and, and as is noted, when it's preventable, it, uh, hurts even more.

And I think, uh, you know, the reality is, is, is twofold.

First, uh, the ownership of this issue, which has been done by the council, but as me as minister for local government, I think about New Zealand-wide and I think, well, does that, does that risk or issue in regards to lack of processes and systems, you know, what is that assessment across the broader country? So I'm gonna be taking action on that immediately following the report that I received yesterday.

You don't want to tie, uh, things up in red tape and in paperwork, and then, you know, the campgrounds, campgrounds around the country just stay closed whenever there's a drop of water that falls from the sky.

No, and I, I think that is, is reasonable.

What did you make of them? Is it what you expected or were you disappointed with what you received from the local governments across the country?

Andy, first and foremost, the deadline was midnight on Sunday.

So we've had a few days and officials have been working through those.

But you're right, we've got 18 proposals through from councils, which first and foremost actually signifies that we've got a large number of councils that are up for change and have got some views on how they want to do that.

This was a voluntary process.

It wasn't anything other than that.

So, you know, we could have had No proposals, to be honest, technically, but we didn't.

Andrew Mashman- Various Councils, maybe you know having having different sort of arrangements proposed, I mean that's quite complicated isn't it we're going to see some regional boundaries realigned.

Wouldn't you have expected a bigger turnout?

Uh, Headstart was completely voluntary, and what we've seen is with the proposals coming in that councils, uh, are up for that.

Look, they told us in the consultation we did over Christmas that they wanted a process that went faster than our original process.

We gave them that, uh, and as a result, we've got some, uh, pretty comprehensive proposals on the table.

We're gonna work through those.

Uh, but you know, I think it's pretty im-- it's pretty important to show that actually we've got councils and leadership out there that say, "You know what? We can do things, uh, more efficiently.

Uh, we can get, uh, a clearer, more responsible model to operate under." Uh, and that's gonna flow through to, to better value for ratepayers as well.

Are these amalgamations that can work and not drown small communities beneath big communities?

Of those who didn't, how many couldn't versus how many wouldn't, do you think?

Well, we've got eighteen proposals.

I guess the context is, is that we've only had one amalgamation in the last thirty-five years, so to actually have proposals on the table, uh, which is a significant number more than that, uh, is a good step forward.

But it's fair to say that there are, you know, a wide range of councils, uh, that have, uh, put their hand up and said, "Look, we can make this work," and actually all of the councils in the grouping have also agreed.

But there's also some councils that said, "Look, we just can't, uh, get ourselves sorted within the time period." This has always been a voluntary process.

We wanted to put it out to the councils, 'cause the councils told us in the feedback that we got from the consultation they wanted to get on with this, uh, faster than what we were proposing.

So look, I'm, I'm pretty happy with the proposals that we've got.

So what happens now? Of those who did submit a proposal, do you just tick that off? If they, if they're happy, you're happy or not?

Of those who didn't, how many couldn't versus how many wouldn't, do you think?

Well, we've got 18 proposals.

I guess the context is, is that we've only had one amalgamation in the last 35 years.

So to actually have proposals on the table, uh, which is a significant number more than that, uh, is a good step forward.

But it's fair to say that there are, you know, a wide range of councils, uh, that have, uh, put their hand up and said, "Look, we can make this work." And actually, all of the councils in the grouping have also agreed, but there's also some councils that said, "Look, we just can't, uh, get ourselves sorted within the time period." This has always been a voluntary process.

We wanted to put it out to the councils because the councils told us in the feedback that we got from the consultation, they wanted to get on with this, uh, faster than what we were proposing.

So look, I'm, I'm pretty happy with the proposals that we've got.

So what happens now? Of those who did submit a proposal, do you just tick that off? If they, if they're happy, you're happy or not?

Wouldn't you have expected a bigger turnout?

Uh, Head Start was completely voluntary, and what we've seen is with the proposals coming in that councils are, are up for that.

Look, they told us in the consultation we did over Christmas that they wanted a process that went faster than our original process.

We gave them that, uh, and as a result, we've got some, uh, pretty comprehensive proposals on the table.

We're gonna work through those.

Uh, but you know, I think it's pretty, it's pretty important to show that actually we've got councils and leadership out there that say, "You know what? We can do things, uh, more efficiently.

Uh, we can get, uh, a clearer, more responsible model to operate under." Uh, and that's gonna flow through to, to better value for ratepayers as well.

Are these amalgamations that can work and not drown small communities beneath big communities?

I mean, this government has been fairly anti-Reo.

With respect, I think people watching this really don't give a hoot about this conversation.

We inherited a recession.

We inherited high inflation.

We've got an economy growing.

That's what Kiwis care about.

This is, honestly, we've wasted five minutes talking about a topic that I think the majority of Kiwis do not give a hoot on.

Is that why you decided not to ban the public sale of them?

So is this what councils have been asking for, a reporting tool?

Melissa, good afternoon.

Yes, it is.

Look, this is the first step as part of our broader work to strengthen dog control and importantly to crack down on dangerous dogs.

One of the challenges is that the guidelines that we've updated today haven't been updated in the last decade.

In simple terms, if you've got a dog bite in Christchurch, it might be measured and different in Dunedin.

So if we aren't able to even capture that information, then we're thinking about reviewing and changing the legislation to fix the problem.

anything in legislation though, right?

I don't know whether she's got any sort of oversight on it, but she goes, "It's all about local communities and local voices and local this and local that." So she sounds like she's against it, so, so maybe they don't know where they're at.

Well, what it's actually about [chuckles] Mike, is the fact that, uh, rates are a major driver of the pressure that households are facing under the cost of living, and we want to put in place a proposal where those rates are capped so that, uh, councils are able to operate and do operate on the increases within a band.

Yeah, they, at the moment they're unregulated.

They are a monopoly.

I mean, you're right on the right side of this overall, and I think it's probably popular apart from anything else, but there are a number of councils that do have limited rating bases and major problems, and by capping them, you've created a bigger headache for them, haven't you?

Look, what we're doing, and we're not heading the sand to that issue, but we have built into the policy, uh, a process where in exceptional circumstances, you know, you have a big weather event and you need to replace all your roads, then they are going to be work... able to work with the regulator and get a, a plan where they can spend a little bit more, but they need to come back in within the cap.

A bit like the, uh, inflation ban.

We're going to have an independent regulator, and they're going to be watching over these guys.

I don't know whether she's got any sort of oversight on it, but she goes, "It's all about local communities and local voices and local this and local that." So she sounds like she's against it, so, so maybe they don't know where they're at.

Well, what it's actually about [chuckles] Mike, is the fact that, uh, rates are a major driver of the pressure that households are facing under the cost of living, and we want to put in place a proposal where those rates are capped so that, uh, councils are able to operate and do operate on the increases within a band.

Yeah, they-- At the moment, they're unregulated.

They are a monopoly.

But there are a number of councils that do have limited rating bases and major problems, and by capping them, you've created a bigger headache for them, haven't you?

Look what we're doing, and we're not heading the sand to that issue, but we have built into the policy, uh, a process where in exceptional circumstances, you know, you have a big weather event and you need to replace all your roads, then they are gonna be work... able to work with the regulator and get a, a plan where they can spend a little bit more, but they need to come back in within the cap.

A bit like the, uh, inflation ban.

We're gonna have an independent regulator, and they're gonna be watching over these guys.

And how important is it to have concrete numbers like this in a conversation where it's highly debated around immigration and the FTA?

Oh, well look, as a government, we're strongly supportive of the relationship and the growth of the relationship.

The FTA signed between India and New Zealand is a major milestone, a step forward in regards to our relationship.

What these numbers show is that the Kiwi Indian, uh, community in New Zealand is growing, is contributing significantly, and importantly, that significant growth is also flowing through in terms of benefits for the community and society.

That's a really exciting thing that we are seeing playing through.

And actually, at one level, it's not a surprise.

We know that the Kiwi and India community are such hardworking people.

And what kind of opportunities do you see coming from this report, especially in the larger debate around this topic?

Uh, how would you feel about working with the Opportunity Party, Simon?

[laughs] Uh, don't be ridiculous.

I mean, they're a left-wing party.

I mean, their strategy to get into government is to tax people more and put everyone on welfare.

Well, that's completely against the principles, uh, that, uh, that I, uh, believe in and that our party values believe in.

Uh, we're focused on our plan and executing our, uh, uh, aspect, uh, fiscally, um, economic management, making sure that we're delivering outcomes for New Zealanders around safer communities, making sure that we've got better high, high-paying jobs, making sure that we've got economic growth.

I mean, the, the Modi visit over the weekend, we had the third most powerful leader in the world here in New Zealand doing a deal, uh, with New Zealand that's gonna have massive benefit for our farmers, our exporters, actually pretty much all Kiwis.

But what are you getting at there? Do you think they're wasting money on climate change?

Uh, how would you feel about working with The Opportunity Party, Simon?

Oh, [laughs] uh, don't be ridiculous.

I mean, they're a left-wing party.

I mean, their strategy to get into government is to tax people more and put everyone on welfare.

Well, that's completely against the principles, uh, that, uh, that I, uh, believe in and that our party values believe in.

Uh, we're focused on our plan and executing our, uh, uh, aspect, uh, fiscally, um, economic management, making sure that we're delivering outcomes for New Zealanders around safer communities, making sure that we've got better high, high-paying jobs, making sure that we've got economic growth.

I mean, the M- the Modi visit over the weekend, we had the third most powerful leader in the world here in New Zealand doing a deal, uh, with New Zealand that's gonna have massive benefit for our farmers, our exporters, actually pretty much all Kiwis.

But what are you getting at there? You, do you think they're wasting money on climate change?

Okay, uh, how would you feel about working with the Opportunity Party, Simon?

Oh, [laughs] uh, don't be ridiculous.

I mean, they're a left-wing party.

I mean, their strategy to get into government is to tax people more and put everyone on welfare.

Well, that's completely against the principles, uh, that, uh, that I, uh, believe in and that our party values believe in.

Uh, we're focused on our plan and executing our, uh, uh, aspect, uh, fiscally, um, economic management, making sure that we're delivering outcomes for New Zealanders around safer communities, making sure that we've got better high, high-paying jobs, making sure that we've got economic growth.

I mean, the, um, the Modi visit over the weekend, we had the third most powerful leader in the world here in New Zealand doing a deal, uh, with New Zealand that's gonna have massive benefit for our farmers, our exporters, actually pretty much all Kiwis.

But what are you getting at there? You, do you think they're wasting money on climate change?

Does this strip the voting rights of the independent statutory board members, the Māori members in Auckland?

Yes.

So this is a specific board set up for Auckland Council.

Short answer is that for the independent Māori statutory board, those members will only be able to vote on council committees where the law specifically enables it.

And what that means is that that committee is set up under a different act.

So they retain their voting rights? If it's related to a specific act, so it relates to where they're doing the management of natural and physical resources, if they're on a subcommittee doing that, then they're able to vote.

Anything else, they're not able to.

So would you consider getting rid of them?

Does this strip the voting rights of the independent statutory board members, the Māori members in Auckland?

Yes.

So this is a specific board set up for Auckland Council.

Short answer is that for the independent Māori statutory board, those members will only be able to vote on council committees where the law specifically enables it.

And what that means is that that committee is set up under a different act.

So they retain their voting rights? If it's related to a specific act, so it relates to where they're doing the management of natural and physical resources, if they're on a subcommittee doing that, then they're able to vote.

Anything else, they're not able to.

So would you consider getting rid of them?

Of course, Cameron from ACT will be saying, I've been saying this all along, what's taking you so long?

Look, the reality is there's been a lot of feedback from councils and individuals across the country.

This is a matter that's been in law, go back two, three parties before this government, and we've taken a look at it.

It is a significant issue by terms of feedback we've had, and we're going to be making the change.

So I've got a bill on the table in the House at the moment, and we'll do an amendment.

But importantly...

The principle here is that people who aren't democratically elected should not have voting rights and the spending of ratepayer money.

Are there