Submission Sunday: Local Government Bill
The Bill might be boringly titled, but the content strips out protections, accessibility, and inclusion requirements – which is deeply concerning long-term.
I know it’s no longer Sunday, but I did start writing this post on Sunday; it’s taken a little while to get back to it.
There are several upcoming Bills with nasty hooks in them, so these Submission Sunday posts are mostly encouragement to make a submission yourself, if you have the time and inclination. They are very boringly titled, but they are stripping out protections, accessibility, and inclusion requirements – which is deeply concerning long-term. My focus is on disability - but you could replace this with any group and the arguments still hold.
The Pae Ora Bill closed on Monday - I only just got one in (I am so TIRED of making submissions and it feels a lot like groundhog day). I had written about the proposed changes earlier in the year:
You are always welcome to shamelessly plagiarise any or all of the submission material. A quick and dirty way to slap a submission together is to use ChatGPT, pop in a few initial thoughts, and ask ChatGPT to rewrite it from your point of view with reference to relevant material (and/or include other points you think are relevant). You’ll have to double check it. I am conflicted about using AI, but also, when we are tired and fed up, it can be a useful tool to pull something together.
Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill
This Bill:
Removes councils’ responsibility for the “four well-beings” (social, economic, environmental, cultural), which have been of benefit to disabled persons and families
Narrows council priorities to “core services” like roads & water – and means that accessibility and building accessible facilities takes a back seat
Excludes disabled voices from decision-making
Undermines accessibility, inclusion & community participation
Recentralises control without providing extra funding
You can find the submission portal here. Submissions close next week on the 27 August.
Disabled children, families, and communities depend on councils for accessible transport, inclusive playgrounds, safe footpaths, libraries, and community facilities. Cutting these supports risks increasing isolation and reducing opportunities for disabled people to live ordinary lives in their communities.
Concerns - longer version
While the Bill claims to reduce pressure on council rates and improve council performance, the proposed changes will undermine the ability of local councils to meet the needs of disabled local residents. Key areas of concern in relation to disability are:
Removal of the “Four Well-beings”
The bill removes councils’ responsibility to consider social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being. For disabled people and their families, these provisions were critical: they recognised that council roles extend beyond infrastructure to fostering inclusive communities, accessible public spaces, and cultural participation. Removing this broader mandate and requiring councils to narrow their focus to “core services” such as roading and water, means that there will be a neglecting of the investment in accessibility, inclusive design, and disability-friendly facilities.
Exclusion of Disability Voices
By narrowing the purpose of local government to “core services” and emphasising efficiency, the Bill risks marginalising community wellbeing, inclusion, and accessibility. Disabled people and their families rely on councils for accessible transport, inclusive playgrounds, footpath safety, community facilities, and accessible communications. If these are deprioritised, disability voices will be further silenced.
New requirements for performance measures (e.g., contractor expenditure) could be broadened to include accessibility and equity indicators. At present, the bill misses an opportunity to hold councils accountable for progress on inclusive and accessible services.
Impact: Disability inclusion risks remaining invisible in council reporting and performance monitoring.
Reduced Accessibility
Disabled people already face significant barriers in accessing council services and public spaces in Aotearoa New Zealand[1]. If councils are forced to limit their focus, accessibility and inclusion initiatives will be among the first to be cut, undermining obligations under both the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and the New Zealand Disability Strategy.
Impact: Disabled people face increased exclusion, reduced locally accessible infrastructure, and find it harder to participate in community life. Families who are already carrying additional costs, may have to increase this cost burden when councils do not provide accessible services.
Narrowing Council Spending Priorities
Councils will be required to give “particular regard” to network infrastructure and core services.
Services that matter to disabled people and families, such as accessible public transport, libraries, community facilities, and inclusive recreational opportunities, are deprioritised under this narrow focus.
Impact: Disabled children and whānau experience fewer opportunities for social connection, education, and recreation, leading to greater isolation. Long-term this leads to poorer outcomes for disabled persons.
Central Government Overreach (but without funding)
Central government control over local government functions should not be increased unless accompanied by increased central funding. Currently, councils are expected to meet wide-ranging needs with limited revenue streams (mainly rates). If central government narrows councils’ mandate without providing additional funding, disabled communities will lose vital opportunities for advocacy, co-design, and accessible service provision.
While improved performance and transparency are positive, the bill centralises decision-making with the Secretary for Local Government, with limited recognition of community diversity. The removal of the requirement to consider tikanga Māori in CCO director appointments further erodes equity commitments. Local disabled persons and their families will bear the cost if councils are forced to cut services.
If central government narrows councils’ mandate without providing additional funding, disabled communities lose opportunities for advocacy, co-design, and accessible service provision. International evidence shows that when local governments are stripped of autonomy without adequate resourcing, equity and inclusion initiatives are disproportionately undermined[2]. In Aotearoa, scholars have already cautioned that reducing local government’s wellbeing role risks silencing diverse communities and weakening democratic responsiveness[3].
Impact: Governance that does not actively consider inclusion weakens local democratic process, perpetuates barriers, and creates additional costs for disabled people and families.
The National Local Authority Survey on Accessibility report by the Office for Disability Issues (2020)[4] assessed how councils are progressing on accessibility across areas like leadership, transport, participation, and public spaces. They found that:
39% of councils rated accessibility of participation processes as “developing.”
Only ~30% reported disabled people are “at the table” in significant decision-making; just 13% of councils employ disabled people in leadership roles.
74% of councils rated transport accessibility as less than “good,” highlighting widespread gaps.
Local councils already lack adequate accessibility frameworks and consultation practices. Reducing their obligations without funding support is likely to degrade outcomes further. The proposed Bill risks further excluding disabled people because of its austerity focus.
How the Bill Fails to Uphold the UNCRPD
Violation of State Obligations (Article 4): The Bill’s failure to specify that reforms must protect or enhance disability inclusion contravenes the UNCRPD’s general obligation for States to actively ensure the full realization of disabled persons’ rights. Unless the Bill explicitly embeds disability considerations in performance metrics, governance responsibilities, and consultation frameworks (with corresponding funding) the State is effectively abdicating its duty.
Threat to Accessibility (Article 9): The Bill’s push to relax regulatory requirements and limit “non-core” services risks sidelining accessibility initiatives. For instance, funds and efforts for accessible infrastructure, transportation, communication formats, and inclusive public spaces may be deemed outside “core services” and deprioritized. Without explicit statutory backing for accessibility, councils under financial or administrative pressure may scale back or eliminate crucial programs, undermining the UNCRPD mandate for accessible public services.
Jeopardizing Independent Living (Article 19): Centralizing control without proportional funding makes it difficult for councils to maintain local services and supports for independent living. Local tailoring of services is often the only way to meet diverse accessibility needs. A one-size-fits-all central direction risks reducing choices and inclusion in local communities.
Erosion of Meaningful Participation (Article 29): By narrowing the purpose of local government and focusing oversight on cost efficiency and central performance metrics, the Bill risks shrinking the scope of public consultation. Disabled people and representative organizations may be excluded from decision-making processes, eroding their right to participate effectively in “political and public life on an equal basis” with others.
In its current form, the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill places councils at risk of deprioritizing accessibility, sidelining disabled voices, and eroding their capacity to support inclusive, independent living. This runs directly counter to the UNCRPD’s Articles 4, 9, 19, and 29. If the Bill does not embed disability inclusion at its core it risks failing New Zealand’s obligation under international law.
How the Bill Fails to Uphold the Disability Strategy:
The Strategy’s vision is for New Zealand to be a non-disabling society. The Bill’s push to tighten council mandates and reprioritize "core services" risks side-lining the outcomes of accessibility, choice and control, and leadership by disabled people. Without explicit provisions for ensuring councils maintain accessible consultations, infrastructure, and responsiveness, the Bill undermines the Strategy's vision of a non-disabling society built on collective responsibility.
How the Bill Contravenes Enabling Good Lives Principles:
Undermining Self-determination & Person-centredness: By narrowing council roles and reducing flexibility, the Bill jeopardizes disabled people’s ability to shape local services that reflect their individual needs and aspirations.
Ignoring Mainstream First & Ordinary Life Outcomes: Streamlining services to cost-efficiency may see councils scale back inclusive community infrastructure and universal access, undermining disabled people’s integration into everyday community life.
Blocking Easy-to-use & Relationship Building Supports: Regulatory relief and a tight focus on efficiency risk making council processes (e.g., consultation, performance reporting) less accessible and less supportive of relationship-driven engagement.
By failing to integrate these frameworks, the Bill risks reversing decades of progress toward inclusive, responsive governance. Embedding the NZ Disability Strategy vision and EGL’s principles into the Bill is essential to honour New Zealand’s legal and ethical obligations toward disabled people.
Concluding remarks
The proposed changes risk excluding disabled voices, reducing accessibility, and diminishing the ability of local councils to respond effectively to disabled communities.
Any reforms to local government must prioritise inclusion, accessibility, and adequately funded local decision-making to protect the rights and wellbeing of disabled New Zealanders.
[1] Office for Disability Issues. (2020). Findings of the National Local Authority Survey on Accessibility. Wellington: New Zealand Government. https://www.whaikaha.govt.nz/assets/News/old-ODI-content/2020-06-18-Findings-of-the-National-LA-Survey-on-Accessibility.pdf
[2] Ryan, F. (2019). Crippled: Austerity and the Demonization of Disabled People. London: Verso.
[3] Bevan, P. (2021). Local government, wellbeing, and inclusion in Aotearoa New Zealand. Policy Quarterly, 17(1), 27–34. https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/6911
[4] Source: https://www.whaikaha.govt.nz/assets/News/old-ODI-content/2020-06-18-Findings-of-the-National-LA-Survey-on-Accessibility.pdf
I have to say Dr Bex, your dedication is inspiring. It seems obvious that a lot of these bills are insulting to the intelligence and humanity of Kiwis. How can a government be called a democracy iwhich seeks to exclude any voices?