Local Government used to strip you of your assets.
This webpage is designed to inform you what local city councils are, where their jurisdiction comes from, and how you fall under their jurisdiction even if YOU PERSONALLY don’t fall under their jurisdiction. It is a sneaky, sleight of hand play that places YOUR PROPERTY under their jurisdiction and therefore also you as an individual by default, because of your reliance on your property for your survival needs.
The purpose of showing you this information is because collectively, if enough people know that their system is a coercive and corrupt system that effectively robs each individual of their energy over time – then collectively we all as large numbers… we can fight back and stop the take.
Scenario: If you elect not to pay your local council rates or your central government taxes, the narrative they’ll put on you is that you’re selfish and a strain on the system.
Question: So WHY decide NOT to pay rates or taxes?
Answer: Because if you have good reason to believe that your local or central governments are sabotaging the harmony of living conditions while causing continuous harm to the collective health, prosperity, and general well-being of your family, friends and community – then it is your sovereign duty, to disobey and not comply with any State that creates such a result.
INFORMATION BELOW
The information below in black text is official narrative text argument for the existing COUNCIL RATES system. The red text is counter argument text offering a rebuttal or interpretation of the black text.
You can weigh both sides when coming to your own conclusion of the bigger picture.
If you believe you can opt out of paying council rates, please read the following – this is THEIR argument as to why you CANNOT avoid paying rates, but also please note – THEIR argument is based on a coercive system structure of entrapment. Nothing of free will always deserves fighting against.
What is a council in legal terms?
Local councils in New Zealand are:
“Body corporates” under statute — specifically the Local Government Act 2002.
They are not private corporations in the commercial sense, but public statutory entities created by Parliament to govern regions and provide services.
Their legal authority comes from Parliament — they derive all their powers from legislation, including the power to levy rates (taxes).
Where does their jurisdiction come from?
Councils have jurisdiction not over people directly, but over land and activities within their territorial boundaries, as defined by:
Local Government Act 2002
Rating Act 2002
Resource Management Act 1991 (now being replaced)
Their authority is territorial and statutory, not contractual. In other words:
You don’t need to sign a contract for the law to apply to you. If you own property within a district, you are subject to the laws governing that district, just like being subject to income tax if you earn money.
This is based on the principle of “territorial sovereignty and legislative supremacy” — Parliament creates binding laws that apply to everyone within its jurisdiction.
Where’s the contract to pay rates?
There is no individual contract between a homeowner and the council to pay rates.
Instead:
The obligation comes from the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.
If you own property, the title to that land is subject to the statutory obligation to pay rates.
It’s the land, not the person, that carries the rating liability — but the landowner is responsible for payment.
Think of it like this:
By choosing to own land, you’re entering a legal relationship defined by statute, not by mutual contract. You inherit both benefits (use, security, title) and obligations (rates, compliance).
Can you “opt out” or withhold consent?
Their short answer: No.
In a common law system like NZ’s, you cannot simply “opt out” of statutory obligations by asserting non-consent.
Consent is not required for laws passed by Parliament — they’re binding on all within jurisdiction.
Summary
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Are councils “corporate bodies”? | Yes, statutory public bodies, not private firms. |
| Where do they get authority? | From Acts of Parliament, primarily the Local Government Act 2002. |
| Is there a contract to pay rates? | No contract — the obligation is statutory, tied to land ownership. |
| Can individuals withhold consent or jurisdiction? | No — jurisdiction is territorial and legal, not based on personal contract. |
🧭 Analogy:
Just like you pay income tax without signing a tax contract, or obey speed limits without signing a driving contract, you pay rates because you own property governed by NZ law.
General Council Concerns
Have New Zealanders’ private properties been put up as collateral by local government councils if those councils were to fall into debt default?
Technically ‘No’ – New Zealanders’ private properties are not and cannot legally be used as collateral by local government councils for their debts. The official reason why, is because of the…
1. Legal Structure and Borrowing Rules
Councils borrow independently: Local authorities (like city and district councils) borrow under the Local Government Act 2002. They are corporate bodies and do not tie private assets of residents to their liabilities.
No recourse to private property: Borrowing is backed by council revenues, primarily rates, development contributions, and council-owned assets—not residents’ homes or private land.
2. Role of LGFA (Local Government Funding Agency)
LGFA lends to councils and uses joint and several guarantees from other councils (i.e., other councils can be called on to help pay).
But even then, only councils’ own revenues and assets are at risk. Private property owners are not guarantors, and their property is not pledged as security.
LGFA documentation confirms this: guarantees are between councils and LGFA, not between citizens and lenders.
3. If a Council Defaults
In a hypothetical default, the process would involve:
Central government potentially stepping in.
Receivership-like oversight.
Higher future rates or reduced services, not private property seizure.
The ultimate risk is increased rates/taxes or cuts to services—not seizure of personal assets.
THEIR Conclusion
“No, private property in New Zealand is not used as collateral for council borrowing. While ratepayers are the revenue source that councils rely on, they are not directly liable for council debt in the event of default. The system is structured to keep private ownership separate from public financial obligations”
Our question to their above answer:
Under point 3. of the previous answer – If a Council Defaults -> Higher future rates or reduced services could eventuate – is that not the equivalent of seizing private property if the property owners cannot meet the cost of those increase rates? Will the council not seize that property if the property owner fails or is unable to make rate payments due to that increased cost? Does that increased cost of rates occur because the council need more money to pay their increasing debts?
THEIR ANSWER:
1. Yes, unpaid rates can lead to property seizure — but it’s a multi-year legal process
If a property owner fails to pay rates, councils can eventually recover the debt by placing a charge on the propertyand, in extreme cases, force a sale — but not immediately. Here’s how it works:
Legal pathway:
After rates go unpaid for at least 3 years, councils can apply under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 to the High Court to sell the property.
Before that, there are multiple warning letters, penalty interest, and offers for repayment plans.
This is rare — and politically sensitive. Councils almost always avoid this unless it’s a last resort.
👉 So yes, in theory, property can be lost, but it’s not direct “collateral” in the sense of being pledged against council debt. It’s a consequence of unpaid taxes.
2. Do rates go up to pay off council debt?
Yes, absolutely.
When councils borrow heavily, they must repay interest and principal from future budgets.
Their main revenue stream is rates.
So as debt levels rise, unless offset by growth or asset sales, rates must also rise to service that debt.
This is a structural feature of NZ’s council funding model — and it’s one of the major criticisms: councils have limited income sources and increasing infrastructure burdens.
3. So is this effectively indirect collateral?
You’re absolutely right to suggest this.
Here’s a fair framing:
While private property is not directly pledged as collateral, councils rely on their legal power to tax property (via rates) to guarantee debt repayment. If homeowners can’t pay, councils can — eventually — enforce collection through property seizure.
This makes ratepayers the ultimate backstop, even if they’re not legally listed as guarantors. The financial risk is socialised, while the borrowing decisions are centralised within council governance.
Summary:
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Can councils seize property if rates aren’t paid? | Yes, after 3+ years and court action. |
| Do rates rise to cover debt? | Yes, directly. More debt → more rates. |
| Is this indirect collateralisation of private property? | In practice, yes — it functions that way. |
| Are ratepayers liable in the legal sense? | No, but they carry the financial burden through taxation. |
Hutt City Council
Case study #1: Fire and fury and covid mandates
During the covid era—just as now—it was almost impossible to find balanced mainstream reporting on covid, vaccines and the mandates in New Zealand. Voices articulating a view different from the government narrative were routinely excluded, and people opposing the vaccines were demonised as anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and threats to the social order.
An egregious example of this type of “journalism” was Stuff’s Fire and fury documentary on covid so-called misinformation, released in 2022. It focused on the messages of a number of anti-mandate online influencers who were active at the occupation of Parliament ground in February and March 2022. These included Kelvyn Alp of Counterspin Media, Claire Deeks of Voices for Freedom, Carlene Hereora and Chantelle Baker.
In an article titled Beyond the fringe: how the mainstreaming of extreme politics has democracy on edge, the makers of Fire and fury, Paula Penfold and Louise Cleave, lamented the “often venomous” way the influencers spoke. The influencers posed a “very fundamental risk” to democracy: “… consistent across their messaging is a plan to deconstruct our political structure from the bottom up, to achieve an ‘ungovernable’ country.”
In what was a low point for mainstream journalism in New Zealand, the influencers were not given an opportunity to respond to the strong allegations made against them in Fire and fury. This move broke the cardinal journalistic rule of the right of reply.
Six complaints to the Media Council alleged that the documentary breached the principle of accuracy, fairness and balance. All complaints were rejected by the council.
In its response to one complaint, Stuff said the risk of “both sides-ism” is that it gives respectability to “unsupported, dubious, or dangerous positions”. In another response, Stuff said: “The decision to not interview the documentary subjects was taken after extensive research and consultation from which we concluded it would have been irresponsible to do so; that our responsibility was to provide the public with the balance and context to what was already extensively in the public domain…”
The Media Council accepted Stuff’s one-sided position, saying “there are certain circumstances where to seek the other side’s views is to just give a platform to inflammatory and harmful material. In certain circumstances we are sympathetic to this argument. As we have indicated, we would not expect holocaust deniers to be contacted for their views in an article about the holocaust. For the same reason, we would not expect 9/11 and Christchurch massacre false flag theorists, and those who say there is no Covid pandemic, or that vaccines cannot work, to be contacted about articles wherein their views are criticised. We accept Stuff’s point that to do so would be irresponsible.”
The Media Council’s response is enlightening. By condoning the denial of the right of reply to people with certain perspectives on controversial subjects such as vaccines and 9/11, it has articulated the acceptable limits of public discourse in New Zealand society. No matter how strong your evidence on these issues is, going outside the limits of the official mainstream narrative is taboo, and qualifies you as “beyond the fringe” and a “risk to democracy.” Freedom of speech is available only to those who refrain from “inflammatory and harmful” speech—as judged by the gate-keepers of democracy!
One-eyed documentary
Writer Graham Adams, in his excellent review, calls Fire and fury a “one-eyed documentary” which will “only reinforce the view that journalists are committed to relaying government viewpoints.”
To make her case, Penfold avoided examining the screamingly obvious reasons why so many people have subscribed to what she sees as fringe beliefs about vaccines as well as the deep dishonesty of the government.
Perhaps if Penfold had shown the clip of Jacinda Ardern telling voters in September 2020 — shortly before the election — that there would be no penalty for refusing a vaccine, alongside her infamous interview in which she grinned as she agreed that she intended to create two classes of citizens, the vaxxed and the unvaxxed, the whole protest might have been put into better perspective.
In other words, the documentary lacked fairness and balance.
Case study #2: The Ukraine war
Someone once said that the first casualty of war is the truth. That’s certainly true of the reporting of the Russia-Ukraine war, where the New Zealand media’s bias is on display.
The implied mainstream media narrative in New Zealand and the rest of the West is that the power-hungry evil dictator Putin invaded his innocent neighbour Ukraine in an entirely unprovoked land grab. But how true is that?
Let’s examine part of a news article on the Ukraine war and assess it against the Media Council’s principle of accuracy, fairness and balance. This article in the New Zealand Herald gives a brief backgrounder on the war. According to the article, the key events before the invasion were:
- Once part of the Soviet Union, Ukraine moves closer to Western influence in the 2010s.
- By 2014, Russian forces enter Ukraine and succeed in annexing Crimea.
- By September 2021, Zelenskyy raises the issue of Ukraine’s membership in Nato, seeking greater security in the face of Russian pressure.
- Putin declares that Ukraine’s inclusion in Nato would be a ‘red line’ issue for Russia.
- Dec 2021: A huge Russian military force is observed on the border of Ukraine.
Source: New Zealand Herald
While the information provided is accurate, it’s selective and insufficient. Key events which provide more historical context have been left out. These include:
- In 1990, the Reagan administration gave assurances to Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastwards.
- From the 1990s, Ukraine aimed to eventually join NATO.
- The United States backed a coup against Ukraine’s pro-Russian president in 2014 which installed a US-friendly government. As a result, Russia felt threatened by the potential expansion of NATO.
- Russia claims that the 2014 annexation was a reunification with Crimea which protected the majority ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking populations in Crimea.
In the article, the war narrative is slanted through one-sided reporting, including the omission of key background information. In other words, fairness and balance have been sidelined.
This one-sidedness is likely driven by the Herald’s lack of independence from the influence of New Zealand’s bipartisan government system, which supports Ukraine—largely because our country is politically and militarily aligned with the United States and the United Kingdom, two key members of NATO. (This lack of independence arguably contravenes another Media Council principle: avoiding conflicts of interest). In effect, this political bias means that any complaint about mainstream media bias on reporting of the war to the Media Council would probably not be upheld, no matter how clear the lack of balance is.
As with Fire and fury, the establishment media only seeks viewpoints on the war that are within the limits of a pre-determined framework. If you’re pro-Putin, a far-right anti-vaxxer or a climate-change denier, your perspective is unwelcome: you’re outside the bounds of respectable society and don’t deserve to have a voice in “our” democracy!
Too much balance
A related and comical example of lack of balance in reporting of the Ukraine war is the case of a RNZ staffer who in 2022 was discovered to have been adding pro-Russia perspectives to international wire stories on the war. In an overblown episode of hand-wringing, RNZ set up a three-person independent review panel of its editorial processes, vowing that “no stone would be left unturned.”
The panel found dozens of examples of the staffer’s misdemeanours. One example was in an RNZ article from May 2022 about a Russian missile strike in Ukraine. In the article, a Ukrainian civilian, the Ukrainian defence minister and President Zelenskiy were cited, but no one from Russia was. A sentence that the former staffer added, which was later removed, was “Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February last year, claiming that a US-backed coup in 2014 with the help of neo-Nazis had created a threat to its borders and had ignited a civil war that saw Russian-speaking minorities persecuted.”
In this case, the sentence the journalist added was obviously deemed as providing too much balance! (Amusingly, the journalist said he’d been editing reports in that way for five years before anyone queried his activities!)
Wellington City Council
Case study #1: Fire and fury and covid mandates
During the covid era—just as now—it was almost impossible to find balanced mainstream reporting on covid, vaccines and the mandates in New Zealand. Voices articulating a view different from the government narrative were routinely excluded, and people opposing the vaccines were demonised as anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and threats to the social order.
An egregious example of this type of “journalism” was Stuff’s Fire and fury documentary on covid so-called misinformation, released in 2022. It focused on the messages of a number of anti-mandate online influencers who were active at the occupation of Parliament ground in February and March 2022. These included Kelvyn Alp of Counterspin Media, Claire Deeks of Voices for Freedom, Carlene Hereora and Chantelle Baker.
In an article titled Beyond the fringe: how the mainstreaming of extreme politics has democracy on edge, the makers of Fire and fury, Paula Penfold and Louise Cleave, lamented the “often venomous” way the influencers spoke. The influencers posed a “very fundamental risk” to democracy: “… consistent across their messaging is a plan to deconstruct our political structure from the bottom up, to achieve an ‘ungovernable’ country.”
In what was a low point for mainstream journalism in New Zealand, the influencers were not given an opportunity to respond to the strong allegations made against them in Fire and fury. This move broke the cardinal journalistic rule of the right of reply.
Six complaints to the Media Council alleged that the documentary breached the principle of accuracy, fairness and balance. All complaints were rejected by the council.
In its response to one complaint, Stuff said the risk of “both sides-ism” is that it gives respectability to “unsupported, dubious, or dangerous positions”. In another response, Stuff said: “The decision to not interview the documentary subjects was taken after extensive research and consultation from which we concluded it would have been irresponsible to do so; that our responsibility was to provide the public with the balance and context to what was already extensively in the public domain…”
The Media Council accepted Stuff’s one-sided position, saying “there are certain circumstances where to seek the other side’s views is to just give a platform to inflammatory and harmful material. In certain circumstances we are sympathetic to this argument. As we have indicated, we would not expect holocaust deniers to be contacted for their views in an article about the holocaust. For the same reason, we would not expect 9/11 and Christchurch massacre false flag theorists, and those who say there is no Covid pandemic, or that vaccines cannot work, to be contacted about articles wherein their views are criticised. We accept Stuff’s point that to do so would be irresponsible.”
The Media Council’s response is enlightening. By condoning the denial of the right of reply to people with certain perspectives on controversial subjects such as vaccines and 9/11, it has articulated the acceptable limits of public discourse in New Zealand society. No matter how strong your evidence on these issues is, going outside the limits of the official mainstream narrative is taboo, and qualifies you as “beyond the fringe” and a “risk to democracy.” Freedom of speech is available only to those who refrain from “inflammatory and harmful” speech—as judged by the gate-keepers of democracy!
One-eyed documentary
Writer Graham Adams, in his excellent review, calls Fire and fury a “one-eyed documentary” which will “only reinforce the view that journalists are committed to relaying government viewpoints.”
To make her case, Penfold avoided examining the screamingly obvious reasons why so many people have subscribed to what she sees as fringe beliefs about vaccines as well as the deep dishonesty of the government.
Perhaps if Penfold had shown the clip of Jacinda Ardern telling voters in September 2020 — shortly before the election — that there would be no penalty for refusing a vaccine, alongside her infamous interview in which she grinned as she agreed that she intended to create two classes of citizens, the vaxxed and the unvaxxed, the whole protest might have been put into better perspective.
In other words, the documentary lacked fairness and balance.
Case study #2: The Ukraine war
Someone once said that the first casualty of war is the truth. That’s certainly true of the reporting of the Russia-Ukraine war, where the New Zealand media’s bias is on display.
The implied mainstream media narrative in New Zealand and the rest of the West is that the power-hungry evil dictator Putin invaded his innocent neighbour Ukraine in an entirely unprovoked land grab. But how true is that?
Let’s examine part of a news article on the Ukraine war and assess it against the Media Council’s principle of accuracy, fairness and balance. This article in the New Zealand Herald gives a brief backgrounder on the war. According to the article, the key events before the invasion were:
- Once part of the Soviet Union, Ukraine moves closer to Western influence in the 2010s.
- By 2014, Russian forces enter Ukraine and succeed in annexing Crimea.
- By September 2021, Zelenskyy raises the issue of Ukraine’s membership in Nato, seeking greater security in the face of Russian pressure.
- Putin declares that Ukraine’s inclusion in Nato would be a ‘red line’ issue for Russia.
- Dec 2021: A huge Russian military force is observed on the border of Ukraine.
Source: New Zealand Herald
While the information provided is accurate, it’s selective and insufficient. Key events which provide more historical context have been left out. These include:
- In 1990, the Reagan administration gave assurances to Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastwards.
- From the 1990s, Ukraine aimed to eventually join NATO.
- The United States backed a coup against Ukraine’s pro-Russian president in 2014 which installed a US-friendly government. As a result, Russia felt threatened by the potential expansion of NATO.
- Russia claims that the 2014 annexation was a reunification with Crimea which protected the majority ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking populations in Crimea.
In the article, the war narrative is slanted through one-sided reporting, including the omission of key background information. In other words, fairness and balance have been sidelined.
This one-sidedness is likely driven by the Herald’s lack of independence from the influence of New Zealand’s bipartisan government system, which supports Ukraine—largely because our country is politically and militarily aligned with the United States and the United Kingdom, two key members of NATO. (This lack of independence arguably contravenes another Media Council principle: avoiding conflicts of interest). In effect, this political bias means that any complaint about mainstream media bias on reporting of the war to the Media Council would probably not be upheld, no matter how clear the lack of balance is.
As with Fire and fury, the establishment media only seeks viewpoints on the war that are within the limits of a pre-determined framework. If you’re pro-Putin, a far-right anti-vaxxer or a climate-change denier, your perspective is unwelcome: you’re outside the bounds of respectable society and don’t deserve to have a voice in “our” democracy!
Too much balance
A related and comical example of lack of balance in reporting of the Ukraine war is the case of a RNZ staffer who in 2022 was discovered to have been adding pro-Russia perspectives to international wire stories on the war. In an overblown episode of hand-wringing, RNZ set up a three-person independent review panel of its editorial processes, vowing that “no stone would be left unturned.”
The panel found dozens of examples of the staffer’s misdemeanours. One example was in an RNZ article from May 2022 about a Russian missile strike in Ukraine. In the article, a Ukrainian civilian, the Ukrainian defence minister and President Zelenskiy were cited, but no one from Russia was. A sentence that the former staffer added, which was later removed, was “Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February last year, claiming that a US-backed coup in 2014 with the help of neo-Nazis had created a threat to its borders and had ignited a civil war that saw Russian-speaking minorities persecuted.”
In this case, the sentence the journalist added was obviously deemed as providing too much balance! (Amusingly, the journalist said he’d been editing reports in that way for five years before anyone queried his activities!)