Rachel Tukaki Kingi for Upper Hutt

14/06/2026

One thing I've noticed in recent community discussions is that terms like amalgamation, super city and unitary authority are often used as if they mean the same thing. They don't.

Currently, Upper Hutt residents are governed by two councils – Upper Hutt City Council and Greater Wellington Regional Council. A unitary authority is simply a council that carries out both local and regional functions under one organisation.

Nelson, Tasman, Marlborough and Gisborne already operate this way. Whether a similar model would be right for Upper Hutt is a separate question entirely, but understanding the difference between these governance structures is important before we decide what our future should look like.

Over the past few weeks I've attended community meetings, watched public Q&A sessions, spoken with councillors and spent time reading the Government's local government reform documents. The more I learn, the more I think we need to be asking broader questions than simply whether we support or oppose amalgamation.

I've shared some of my thoughts in this week's Upper Hutt Connection article.

https://uhconnection.co.nz/letters-to-the-editor/amalgamation-what-is-the-real-question-here-rachel-tukaki-kingi/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAScCgtjbGNrBJwKBGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHm_vDuy5Rj_gNkmKpZAfVKhjNtSodMB_Ezbtomk19y8dgoP1_i2Iu5ps7rVh_aem_QumUIBx016Zs2l6vWPt84A

Peri Zee Mayor of Upper Hutt Councillor Daniel Welch - Upper Hutt City Councillor Gurpreet Dhillon Cr Emma Holderness Councillor Angela McLeod - Community Champion Cr Tracey Ultra

Greater Wellington Regional Council Over the past few weeks I have attended community meetings, spoken with councillors, corresponded with the Mayor, watched public Q&A sessions and spent consi…

09/06/2026

I've just completed Upper Hutt City Council's survey on the future of local government and possible council amalgamation.

While I appreciate Council seeking community feedback, I came away feeling that the survey didn't provide residents with a genuine opportunity to fully express their views.

The survey repeatedly asks residents about potential structural change, yet there is currently no proposal, no governance model, no business case and no clear evidence showing how Upper Hutt residents would benefit.

One question even asks respondents to "select all that apply" while only allowing three selections.

For me, the bigger question is this:

What problem are we actually trying to solve?

Before discussing amalgamation, residents deserve to know what is supposedly broken with the current system and why structural reform is necessary in the first place.

I've completed the survey in good faith, but I also felt it was important to write directly to the Mayor and Councillors with my concerns about both the survey process and the wider discussion around amalgamation.

I've copied that email below.

Whether you support amalgamation, oppose it, or are still undecided, I encourage you to get informed, complete the survey, and make your voice heard.

This conversation will help shape the future of local government in Upper Hutt and it's too important to sit on the sidelines.

Email to Mayor Zee and Councillors:

Kia ora Mayor Zee and Councillors,
I have completed the Simplifying Local Government Reform survey and appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback.

However, I felt it was important to write directly to you as well because I do not believe the survey, in its current form, provides residents with a genuine opportunity to fully express their views on the future of local government in our region.

While the survey asks residents to indicate their level of support for potential structural change, it does so in the absence of any actual proposal, governance model, business case, cost-benefit analysis, or detailed assessment of impacts on representation, services, rates, assets, liabilities, or democratic accountability.

In effect, residents are being asked to provide feedback on a concept rather than a proposal.

I also found aspects of the survey design concerning. Many of the questions appear framed around how reform should occur, rather than whether reform is necessary in the first place.

There is limited opportunity for residents to express the view that the current structure should remain unless a compelling evidence-based case for change can be demonstrated.

I was also concerned that Question 7 instructs respondents to "select all that apply" when identifying concerns about possible changes, yet only allows respondents to select three options. These instructions are contradictory. If Council wishes residents to prioritise their top three concerns, the question should clearly state that.

As written, respondents are told they may select all concerns that apply to them but are then prevented from doing so. This may unintentionally limit the range of feedback captured and contributes to the perception that the survey is measuring predetermined categories of concern rather than seeking a full understanding of community views.

For those reasons, I felt it was important to provide additional feedback directly to the Mayor and Councillors. My position is straightforward; I do not support the amalgamation of Upper Hutt City Council into a larger regional authority unless and until a clear, evidence-based case can be made that Upper Hutt residents will be demonstrably better off.

At present, that case has not been made. The burden of proof should sit with those proposing change, not with residents defending the status quo.

Upper Hutt already participates in a range of regional arrangements where collaboration delivers benefits. We work alongside neighbouring councils on public transport, emergency management, water services and other shared functions. Cooperation between councils is not the issue.

The question is whether the benefits of cooperation require the loss of local democratic representation and local decision-making.
I have yet to see evidence that they do.

Advocates for amalgamation often cite efficiency, reduced duplication and economies of scale. While these claims sound attractive, larger organisations do not automatically deliver better outcomes. In many cases they create additional layers of bureaucracy, more complex governance structures and decision-making that becomes increasingly distant from the communities affected.

Upper Hutt is not simply part of a wider metropolitan area. It is a distinct city with its own history, identity, priorities and challenges.
Our community deserves elected representatives whose primary focus is Upper Hutt.

Our residents deserve direct access to decision-makers.
Our city deserves the ability to advocate for its own interests rather than competing for attention within a much larger regional structure.

One of the realities of amalgamation is that representation becomes increasingly driven by population size. Under any larger regional model, there is a significant risk that Upper Hutt's voice would carry less influence than it does today.

That is not a criticism of neighbouring councils. It is simply the practical reality of larger governance arrangements.
I am also concerned by the emphasis placed on the Government's Head Start and Backstop pathways throughout the consultation material.

While I understand the practical need for Council to engage with central government processes, the existence of a Government reform programme should not be used as a reason, in itself, to support structural change.

Major decisions about local democracy should be driven by evidence, community outcomes, and the interests of residents, not by fear of what may occur if councils do not move quickly enough.
The question should not be whether Upper Hutt needs to change because the Government has established a pathway for reform. The question should be whether any proposed change will genuinely improve outcomes for Upper Hutt residents.
Those are not the same thing.

If a proposal cannot stand on its own merits, it should not proceed simply because central government has created a timetable or process for councils to follow.

Local democracy works best when communities are persuaded by evidence, not pressured by circumstance.
Recent events have also contributed to community concern about the steady transfer of decision-making away from local communities.

In less than twelve months, residents have been asked to consider transferring control of water services to a regional entity through Tiaki Wai and are now being asked to consider the future structure of local government itself.

For many residents, these discussions are connected.
The concern is not opposition to change for the sake of it. The concern is whether decisions affecting local communities are gradually moving further away from the people who are most impacted by them.

I support Upper Hutt City Council participating in regional discussions. It is important that Upper Hutt has a seat at the table and is actively involved in conversations that may affect our future. However, participation should not be interpreted as support for amalgamation.

Council's role should be to advocate strongly for the interests of Upper Hutt residents, protect local democratic representation, and ensure that any future proposal is assessed against clear evidence rather than assumptions.

If structural reform is eventually proposed, I believe any proposal should meet a very high threshold before receiving Council support.

At a minimum it should:
- Demonstrate measurable benefits for Upper Hutt residents.
- Preserve meaningful local representation and decision-making.
- Provide clear evidence regarding costs, savings, risks and service impacts.
- Protect Upper Hutt's identity and community interests.
- Be subject to extensive public consultation, and
- Receive a clear mandate from the community before implementation.

Until those conditions can be satisfied, I remain opposed to amalgamation and support retaining an independent Upper Hutt City Council.

Ngā mihi,

Rachel Kingi
Upper Hutt Resident

22/04/2026

Kia ora everyone,

I’ve just submitted my feedback on the proposed Tiaki Wai water policies. I have real concerns around their drafts, particularly around fairness, rising costs, and how decisions will be made moving forward.

For Upper Hutt, the big question for me is simple:
how do we make sure our community isn’t paying more than our fair share?

I strongly encourage you to go online, today, and have your say - here is the link to the website https://haveyoursay.tiakiwai.co.nz/

Personally, I found the survey links unhelpful and have sent my submission in as an email to:
[email protected]

I’ve shared my submission below for anyone interested.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Water Services Strategy, Customer Charter, and Significance and Engagement Policy.

I support the need to improve water infrastructure across the Wellington region. However, I have significant concerns about how these proposals will impact Upper Hutt residents, particularly in terms of cost, fairness, transparency, and local accountability.

1. Pricing fairness and regional alignment
The overall direction toward more consistent charging across the region raises concerns about fairness.
While consistency is presented as a positive outcome, there is a real risk that Upper Hutt residents could end up subsidising infrastructure issues and higher costs in other parts of the region, particularly Wellington City.
There is currently no clear explanation of how differences in infrastructure condition, historic investment, and existing debt will be taken into account.
Before any move toward regional pricing alignment, there should be clear and publicly available modelling showing the impact on each council area — including whether Upper Hutt households will face increased costs as a result.

2. Financial risk and debt allocation
The proposed approach indicates that financial management, borrowing, and risk will be centralised at a regional level.
While this may support investment, it raises concerns about how financial risk is shared across communities. There is no clear explanation of how debt associated with infrastructure failures in one area will be allocated across the region.
Upper Hutt residents should not be exposed to disproportionate financial risk for issues that originate outside of our community.
Greater transparency is needed around how liabilities and borrowing will be attributed and managed across the different council areas.

3. Increasing costs and long-term affordability
The draft strategy acknowledges that water infrastructure is in poor condition and that costs will increase year on year.
Recent information already indicates significant short-term increases, with further increases projected over time. This reinforces the importance of ensuring that cost increases are fair and clearly understood.
While investment is necessary, there is limited reassurance for households about how these increasing costs will be managed or contained.
There is a real risk that a regional model could accelerate cost increases rather than reduce them, particularly if costs are averaged across the region.

4. Governance costs and executive remuneration
At the same time that households are being asked to absorb significant and ongoing increases in water charges, there is growing public concern about governance and executive costs within the new structure.
It has been reported that executive and board remuneration for Tiaki Wai is significantly higher than existing arrangements under Wellington Water, and more closely aligned with larger entities such as Auckland’s Watercare. This raises legitimate questions about whether governance costs are proportionate to the scale and complexity of the Wellington region.
While attracting capable leadership is important, it is equally important that remuneration levels are transparent, justified, and appropriate to the size of the organisation and the community it serves.
Ratepayers need confidence that rising charges are being driven primarily by essential infrastructure investment — not by increased overhead or governance costs.
Clear, regular public reporting on governance and executive costs, alongside infrastructure investment outcomes, would help ensure accountability and maintain public trust.

5. Hardship support and community impact
The hardship policy is a positive step, but there are gaps that need to be addressed.
In particular, the exclusion of fixed charges from hardship support is concerning, as these are unavoidable costs and likely to increase over time.
As water charges rise, this policy may not provide sufficient protection for vulnerable households. A stronger and more inclusive hardship framework will be important to ensure equitable access to essential water services.

6. Accountability and local voice
Moving to a regional model risks reducing local visibility and accountability.
It is not clear how communities like Upper Hutt will maintain a meaningful voice in decision-making, particularly where decisions may impact costs, service levels, or investment priorities.
Stronger mechanisms are needed to ensure that local communities are not only consulted, but genuinely represented in decisions that affect them.

7. Customer Charter
The Customer Charter is an important document in setting expectations for how Tiaki Wai will interact with the public.
However, it is currently framed at a high level and focuses largely on general commitments, rather than clear, measurable service standards or enforceable outcomes.
Given the scale of change and the level of cost increases being signaled, the Charter should provide stronger, more practical assurances for customers.
In particular, there should be greater clarity around:
how service performance will be measured and reported
what customers can expect in response to service failures or disruptions
how complaints or disputes will be resolved
There is also a need for clear, accessible information about how charges are set and how decisions are made.
Strong communication is important, but it must be supported by accountability. As costs increase, so too should the level of transparency and responsibility to customers.

8. Significance and Engagement Policy
The Significance and Engagement Policy will play a critical role in determining when and how communities are involved in major decisions.
While the policy outlines general principles, it gives Tiaki Wai broad discretion to determine what is considered “significant.” This creates a risk that decisions with substantial financial or long-term impacts may not trigger meaningful public engagement.
Decisions relating to pricing, cost increases, infrastructure investment, and financial risk-sharing should be clearly defined as significant and require early and meaningful engagement.
There is also a concern that engagement may occur too late in the process, once options are already developed. For engagement to be meaningful, it must occur early enough for community input to genuinely influence outcomes.
Without this, there is a risk that consultation becomes a formality rather than a genuine opportunity for public input.

9. Te Tiriti o Waitangi and local context
Any regional model must reflect Te Tiriti o Waitangi in both structure and outcomes.
This includes recognising that relationships with mana whenua are place-based, and that decision-making should remain connected to local communities rather than being overly centralised.
A regional approach should not dilute local voices or responsibilities, but instead strengthen them.

10. Summary
In summary, my key concerns are:
The risk of Upper Hutt residents subsidising costs from other parts of the region
Lack of transparency around financial risk, debt, and cost allocation
Ongoing and increasing cost pressures on households
Concern that governance and executive costs may not be proportionate to the scale of the organisation
Gaps in hardship support
Reduced local accountability and voice
Lack of clear thresholds for meaningful public engagement
I would strongly encourage Tiaki Wai to provide clearer information, particularly around cost impacts for each council area, how financial risk is shared, and how governance costs are being managed.
Ensuring fairness, transparency, and strong local representation will be critical to maintaining public confidence in this model.
Ngā mihi
Rachel Tukaki Kingi

Stay informed by joining Have Your Say Tiaki Wai

20/04/2026

I have been looking into the cross government audit of Te Tiriti obligations in legislation that has been running since early 2024.

The stated aim is to reduce barriers to economic development.

Public documents confirm they prioritised acts including Crown Minerals, Local Government, Resource Management, Fast Track, Public Works, Emergency Management, Wildlife, Fisheries, and Foreshore and Seabed.

The effect so far is that clauses around Te Tiriti have been weakened, especially around consultation and engagement.

- The Fast Track Approvals Act was amended in December 2025 to replace mandatory consultation with notification only.

- The Local Government Amendment Act 2024 made it easier to hold binding polls to remove Māori wards.

- A bill introduced in September 2024 restored a stricter test for customary marine title, requiring proof of continuous exclusive use since 1840.

The government has publicly confirmed it will apply this test retrospectively.

- The Wildlife Act was changed under urgency in May 2025 with no impact statement.

The legislation has been described by critics as diluting the Act's purpose of protecting native species.

- A bill to increase Māori participation in emergency management was scrapped after the 2023 election.

- In November 2025, the government removed the requirement for school boards to give effect to Te Tiriti.

The Ministry of Justice warned the change had no apparent benefits and would damage the Māori Crown relationship. The government did it anyway.

- The government has announced a review of the Waitangi Tribunal to refocus its inquiries.

The review was part of the National-NZ First coalition agreement, which promised to amend the legislation "to refocus the scope, purpose and nature of the tribunal's inquiries"

- The Ministry for the Environment is being disestablished as a standalone department, folding it into a new mega-ministry that also covers housing, transport, and urban development.

Most of its powers have been delegated to Chris Bishop, who also holds the RMA Reform, Transport, Housing, and Infrastructure portfolios. Bishop is now effectively his own watchdog - the same person pushing to weaken environmental rules is also in charge of overseeing them.

Taken together, these changes mean Māori are being stripped of the legal right to be heard, to partner, and to challenge decisions across almost every area that matters.

Consultation is being replaced with notification.

Co-governance is being erased.

The bodies meant to hold the Crown accountable are being reviewed or gutted.

This is a systematic dismantling, clause by clause, act by act, while most of us were watching the Treaty Principles Bill circus.

Sigh.

13/04/2026

Responsible Owner Fees - Did you know? To all dog owners out there - did you know that the Responsible Owner Fee ie discounted cost at dog registration time - follows the Owner and not the Dog? At the last council meeting held on 1 April the council discussed Item 7 - Adoption of Dog Registration and Impounding Fees 2026 - 2027. Councillor Angela McLeod asked for clarification on what constitutes a responsible owner. And the answer was clear - the Responsible Owner status follows the Owner and not the dog! So, if you've been a Responsible Owner and your dog passes away, if you get a new dog, you should automatically be granted Responsible Owner for the new dog (providing of course that you pay your registration fee on time).

I am interested to hear from anyone who has come across this - as I know when my Mum registered a new dog, she was told the dog had not 'proved Responsible Owner status yet, however, once the dog had been in her care for a year then she would be able to apply for Responsible Owner status for that dog then.

Other issues I have around dog registrations:

What does my fee actually cover?

I own two dogs - aged 9, de-sexed, micro-chipped and vaccinations up to date. They are both contained on our fully fenced property and we have never had council/dog ranger contact for them. We purchase our own 'poo bags' to pick up after them when walking them in public areas (which isn't often as they have plenty of exercise on our property.)

The fee that I will have to pay on 1 July this year is $104 dollars per dog so my question that I need to ask our Council is:

What does my $208 dollars cover for my dogs? I am not incurring Pound, Dog Ranger, Poo Bags, Dog exercise parks costs so it seems to me that I'm actually paying $208 for a small plastic tag to put on my dogs collar - and it's not even engraved with their names!

Let's have a quick look at some of the other councils around the country:

Hutt City (our nearest neighbour) $90 for Responsible Owners
Christchurch $62
Marlborough $65
Hamilton City Council $94 (similar system to UHCC)

Come on Upper Hutt City Council surely you can do better!

Peri Zee Mayor of Upper Hutt Councillor Daniel Welch - Upper Hutt City Councillor Gurpreet Dhillon Councillor Angela McLeod - Community Champion

07/04/2026

I’ve been following the recent coverage on water charges across the Wellington region and one thing doesn’t sit right with me!

Why does it look like Upper Hutt could be paying more than Wellington?

Back in November and December last year, I asked council some pretty straightforward questions about the move to Tiaki Wai:

What are our water assets actually worth?
How are past investments being recognised?
How will debt be handled?
And importantly — how will costs be shared across the region?

At the time, a lot of that information wasn’t available yet. Despite that, the decision still went ahead.

Fast forward to now and we’re starting to see real numbers and real impacts being talked about publicly. And it looks like the cost picture isn’t equal across the region, if you take note of the statement made by Will Peet, Chair of Tiaki Wai
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/590521/wellingtonians-face-average-2400-water-bill-next-year-massive-increases-to-follow

That raises the question again:

If Upper Hutt is paying more, why?

We deserve to understand:

how charges are being calculated
how costs are being shared
and whether Upper Hutt is getting a fair deal

These concerns were raised before decisions were made. They haven’t gone away — they’ve just become more real.

Keen to hear others’ thoughts, especially anyone who’s been following this closely.

And massive increases are set to follow, with bills expected to rise to nearly $7000 in coming years.

19/02/2026

Kia ora everyone — it’s been a little while since I last posted here at the start of the year, and I wanted to share a quick update on something important for our city.

Back in December, I made a submission to Council about the proposed transfer of Upper Hutt’s water assets to the new regional entity, Tiaki Wai, raising concerns about valuation, debt transfer, governance influence, and transparency for ratepayers. Those issues haven’t gone away and recent events make them even more relevant.

Many in our community have been following discussions about water reform and the recent Moa Point wastewater failure in Wellington, which has highlighted just how serious the consequences can be when critical infrastructure fails.

Events like this aren’t just technical issues, they raise real questions about cost, accountability, and who ultimately carries the risk.

At the same time, Upper Hutt City Council has confirmed that from 1 July 2026, our water services will move to the new regional entity Tiaki Wai, meaning drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater will be delivered regionally rather than locally. Council has also confirmed this will mean separate billing for water services, with charges coming directly from Tiaki Wai.

Regional leaders have already signalled that water charges are expected to rise over time due to decades of underinvestment across the network, alongside major infrastructure upgrades and future water metering.

And this is where it matters for Upper Hutt.

Our city currently has some of the better-maintained pipes in the region as well as relatively lower water-related debt!

Yet under a regional system, infrastructure risk, investment needs, and costs are increasingly shared across the wider network.

So when we see events like Moa Point, it raises reasonable questions:
Who carries the cost when failures happen?
How much influence does each council really retain?
And how much say does our community have in those decisions?

With charges already expected to increase, events like Moa Point make it reasonable to ask how Upper Hutt’s interests are being protected — and what is our council doing to ensure we aren’t carrying an unfair share of future costs.

This isn’t about opposing reform it’s about understanding what it means in practice and making sure our community stays informed and engaged.

Water decisions being made now will shape our rates, infrastructure, and local voice for decades.
That’s something all of us should be paying attention to.

We’ve seen before that when residents speak up, councils do hear it. If you have views on water reform, its impacts, or anything affecting our community, now is the time to share them with elected members — whether that’s through submissions, emails, community meetings, or respectful discussion. Community voices matter most when they’re heard early.

Another major conversation our city is likely to face in the near future is amalgamation. I’ll be sharing more information and thoughts on that soon, so people can stay informed and take part in the discussion.

Send a message to learn more

02/01/2026

As we welcome the New Year, I want to take a moment to reflect on the year that’s been and acknowledge our Upper Hutt community.

2025 was a year of learning and growth for me — including standing for council and engaging with many of you on the issues that matter most locally. While I didn’t secure a seat, the conversations, connections, and insights gained were invaluable and have only strengthened my commitment to our city.

Throughout the year, I’ve also been proud to continue my work with Sapphire Consultants Ltd and Pop Training supporting people and organisations to build skills, confidence, and opportunity — work that aligns closely with the values of a strong, inclusive Upper Hutt.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to kōrero, challenge, support, and contribute. I look forward to staying engaged, informed, and involved as we head into 2026.

Wishing our community a positive and prosperous New Year.

Send a message to learn more

15/12/2025

Update on Upper Hutt Council Meeting held on 10 December 2025.

Firstly, congratulations to our new Mayor and council for their first full council meeting! I want to acknowledge and thank them for showing a genuine commitment to community engagement by allowing all 17 submitters to speak beyond the usual 30-minute limit. It was a strong start and ensured that everyone registered had their voice heard.
I also want to share that I submitted regarding the proposed transfer of Upper Hutt’s water assets to Tiaki Wai Metro Water Limited.

My key points included concerns about:
• Asset valuation timing – decisions are being made without knowing the full monetary value of our assets.
• Recognition of past investment – unclear how Upper Hutt’s prior infrastructure upgrades translate into governance weighting and ownership share.
• Debt transfer – concerns that our lower water debt could subsidize larger councils if pooled without proportional governance weighting.
• Transparency for ratepayers – the public deserves mandatory release of valuation data, debt schedules, and ownership calculations.

Other submitters shared important points as well:
• Dan Culver highlighted governance risks for smaller councils, transparency concerns, board balance, and the prioritization of Upper Hutt’s network upgrades.
• Teresa Homan emphasized the protection of current and future assets for Upper Hutt ratepayers and council influence over their management and funding.
• Pat Van Berkel raised concerns about the lack of public involvement in the Statement of Expectations and Customer Charter, absence of water conservation requirements, and recommended including key implementation plans.
• Kate Fabian emphasized transparency and public consultation, water conservation, environmental stewardship, risk of asset sales, concerns about decisions being made in “public excluded” sessions, and urged deferral until further engagement.

Despite these valid concerns, the council proceeded to adopt the founding documents without deferring for unanswered questions to be clarified — essentially voting blind on critical issues affecting our water assets and community. I was deeply disappointed that the opportunity to address these questions was not taken.

I want to commend Cr Hellen Swales, Cr Daniel Welch, and Cr Angela McLeod, who opposed the adoption, standing up for caution and transparency on behalf of our community.

It also felt like the council advisors and officials were putting pressure on councillors by implying that central government could step in if adoption was not approved. While framed as procedural realities, this added a sense of urgency and risk that I believe overshadowed the outstanding questions that still needed answers.

Our community deserves transparency, careful consideration, and assurance that our water assets are managed fairly. I hope future decisions will reflect this.

I requested my full submission be tabled with the official Council Meeting minutes so it is a matter of public record that anyone is able to view once the minutes are available to the public.