What's a 20-minute city?
This is probably the biggest single misinformation issue we see. The main claim is that we’re working on a global plan to implement some form of global control over residents which involves locking them in zones where they can’t go more than 20 (or 15) minutes away. These claims have been debunked many times by responsible media organisations, international fact-checking sites and individual councils and other organisations.
Short answer is no, of course we’re not. The 20-minute city, for us, isn’t even a plan, it’s just a term to describe a design concept which improves people’s freedom to choose, not hinder them.
The ‘20-minute city’ simply means when we plan for the future, we think about making sure facilities and services are close to where people live. It’s not new or particularly ground-breaking, it just makes sense as a city grows, and we plan our neighbourhoods, so they work for all who live in them.
A good city is one where everyone can choose to access what they want and need without having to travel long distances or rely on private vehicles. If a city meets the aspirations of the 20-minute city concept you can go where you want, when you want, but you’re not forced to travel across town for the services and facilities you need because of poor planning.
Hamilton isn't delivering some form of global agenda
This is a favourite of conspiracy posts because it’s so wide-ranging and vague. Almost anything we do can be linked to a goal or plan somewhere in the world, especially if it’s a goal we all want like affordable housing, improving child health, or reducing poverty.
Our long-term plan sets our planning for the next 10 years and is reviewed every three years. The whole community gets the chance to give us feedback on it, and the decisions are made by your elected Mayor and councillors.
We see a lot of strange claims referring to Council, 'Agenda 2030’ and the World Economic Forum (WEF). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in 2015. United Nations member countries, not councils, were signatories to the UN Agenda 2030.
A lot of the claims say Council’s part of a global conspiracy that is trying to take away property ownership. We also see claims that we’re working towards a world where people ‘own nothing but are happy’. Naturally these claims can worry people, but it’s easy to show they are untrue.
The ‘own nothing and be happy’ phrase is not a goal of the World Economic Forum. A Danish writer many years ago wrote the phrase as part of their personal vision of what they thought the world would look in the years to come – largely based on the growth of for-hire products and services.
The phrase was used on social media as one example of different views of the future at a later date. Various groups falsely claim it’s a WEF goal, and somehow link it with the UN Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. This is ironic because Agenda 2030 does not advocate loss of property – in fact it’s just the opposite – the first goal includes that all men and women have access to ownership and control of land and property.
Lots of reputable sites have fact-checked the global conspiracy myths. You can find one here.
Find out more about our priorities for the city and what they mean here
Borrowing and security for Council debt
This one gets complex quickly but let’s clear one thing up for a start: private homes are not mortgaged against council debt.
Councils secure their borrowings over their rates revenue, not over individual ratepayer's homes. This certainty of revenue is supported by legislation including the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 which provides councils with the ability to charge rates and sets out the council’s obligations when doing so.
The NZ Local Government Funding Agency is owned by shareholdings from government and member councils in New Zealand and is registered in Wellington. It was established to enable councils to fund borrowing at a more competitive rate than they could on their own.
The Local Government Funding Agency rules, and oversight by government, are designed to minimise the risk any New Zealand council would default on its LGFA commitments. However, even should this happen, there is no provision for private land or property to be held as collateral or security against any loan.
Where it gets complex is around claims a Council defaulting could mean a ratepayer’s home is sold. This combination of events is incredibly unlikely but it’s an example of a conspiracy theory being developed from small pieces of factual information.
The mechanisms in place between councils, lenders and government mean no council default would result in an automatic charge to ratepayers.
It’s true that councils have the power to make a claim on a mortgage if a ratepayer doesn’t pay rates. Council can also take debt recovery action to recover unpaid rates, which in some cases could involve court action which results in the ratepayer’s assets being sold by court order. Before any of this can happen, there’s a lengthy formal process, and Council makes every endeavour to work with ratepayers to look at options before we would go down this track.
One bizarre claim we have seen is that councils are deliberately borrowing with the intent of defaulting to force the sale of private property in Hamilton under a global plan to remove home ownership. The easiest way to show this is ridiculous is, regardless of any other facts, Council simply doesn’t borrow enough to achieve this. Council’s borrowings in 2024 were less than $1b. The value of properties in Hamilton in 2022 was 71.4 billion.
Council’s legal status and ‘sovereign citizens’
Council’s purpose, role, status, powers and functions are set out in the Local Government Act 2002.
That Act defines a council as a corporate body which continues to exist despite changes in membership. As a legal entity it can hold property and enter contracts in its own name. It is separate to any of the individuals that comprise the elected governors or management. The purpose of local government is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities.
Councils and the wider legal system have seen a rise in people making claims that New Zealand law doesn’t apply to them, and therefore they don’t have to pay traffic fines, dog registrations, taxes, or rates.
These claims are often supported by ‘pseudo-law’ documents which can run to hundreds of pages of official-sounding references citing historic law or overseas documents.
Individuals and social media sites offer online advice to others and present templated documents to use to become so-called ‘sovereign citizens’ or to challenge councils.
Dealing with these pseudo-legal documents costs councils and adds to the costs we have to pass on to our ratepayers.
But more importantly, it causes real damage to people who are led by others into falsely thinking they are exempt from the law.
The courts have consistently held that it is an abuse of process for a litigant to attempt to employ sovereign citizen concepts in seeking to avoid or defeat any State, regulatory, contract, family or other obligations recognised by law.
Claiming you are a ‘sovereign citizen’ or using pseudo-law to challenge a council charge or process is not going to remove any obligations to comply with the laws of New Zealand. Simply refusing to pay a lawful charge is likely to cost you money and time and can have severe consequences.
If you can’t resolve an issue with us and believe there are genuine legal grounds to challenge any decision of council, please seek professional advice. This could be from the Citizens Advice Bureau or a member of the NZ Law Society.
Water services, meters, and water conservation
Water meters
Government policy under Local Water Done Well has introduced new requirements and opportunities for Councils, including making it easier to create new council-owned organisations (CCOs) to take responsibility for wastewater and drinking water services.
Government has indicated it sees future water services in metro council areas being charged to consumers based on usage (volumetric charging via water meters). We also expect metering to be a future requirement of both the Commerce Commission (as the economic regulator) and of resource consents. Council is unable to charge by usage without metering of residential properties.
In the last Long-Term Plan, Council allocated funding in 2026/27 for a study to look at whether universal metering offers benefits for Hamilton in the future. Council already has around 4000 water meters on commercial properties.
Water meters encourage people to conserve water. Kapiti Coast District Council reports a 25 percent reduction in water use throughout the district since installation of meters, much like other areas of the country that have introduced them.
Why water conservation is important
We’re limited on how much water we can take from the river, and we are required to promote efficient use of water. At current usage levels Hamilton will exceed the amount of water it is allowed to use from the Waikato River before our next consent review in 2044.
More efficient usage also means very expensive assets like our treatment plants can do the job for longer, which saves money down the track.
There are three main misconceptions about our city’s water supply. The first is that there’s a limitless supply in the river, the second is that we should have built more storage or treatment capacity, so we don’t have restrictions in summer. The third is that we see water charging as a new revenue source.
To tackle the last one first: we are unable, by law, to charge for water. We can only charge for the actual cost of treating and delivering the water, and the costs of maintaining and upgrading the network. Introducing meters would not mean we could charge more for the water, we could only use metering as a way to calculate how we divide the actual cost between users.
The other two issues, around water storage and availability, are largely driven by our consent conditions. We have a legal agreement with the Waikato Regional Council about how much water we can take from the river. That’s because there’s thousands of users along the Waikato River, and individual consents make sure there’s enough for everyone, and we don’t damage the river systems.
Our current consent expires in 2044. At current usage, we’ll need more than our consent allows before then, so we have to get smarter about using water wisely and reducing waste.
In summer, our water use doubles. For a few weeks, we run our treatment plant at close to its capacity. We use restrictions on outdoor use (sprinklers, hoses etc) to help manage this demand. It’s not a storage issue, it’s about how much we are allowed to take from the river, and how much we can treat in any given day.
It doesn’t make sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a treatment plant that can produce 200 million litres a day when our average use all year is around 55 million litres per day. It’s far more cost-effective to manage demand at peak times, especially if most of that demand is being sprayed on lawns and driveways.
As our city grows, we’ll invest in upgrading the treatment plant and getting new consents. But the smarter we are with water, the best value we can get out of the assets we already have.
Council should do nothing about Climate change
This idea pops up frequently in our Facebook comments. Some claim climate change is a lie, that humans aren't causing it, that our emissions are too insignificant to matter, it’s not ‘core service’ or local government’s responsibility and a crowd favorite – that speedbumps are increasing our emissions.
The reality: climate change has been repeatedly proven and agreed on by the vast majority of the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states the science is unequivocal. Yes, the greenhouse effect is natural, but humans are accelerating it at a rate never seen before. Here's the facts: climate change happens when human activities release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, trapping heat from the sun and warming our planet. This warming disrupts our weather, leading to extreme heatwaves, storms, and floods.
Accordingly, Council has identified ‘failure to respond to climate change’ as one of seven strategic risks that has the potential to impact our financial strategy or long-term plans. Management of this risk is overseen by the Strategic Risk and Assurance Committee, which is led by independent appointees external to Council.
We often hear that New Zealand is too small to make a difference. On average, each New Zealander produces 15.3 tonnes of carbon per year, ranking us 18th highest in per capita emissions globally. Only six countries emit more than 2% of the world's total emissions. While each of the remaining countries emits less than 2%, collectively, they contribute 36% of global carbon emissions – more than China alone.
The Local Government Act charges councils with promoting the wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future. Mitigating and adapting to climate change is an essential part of this responsibility.
Speed bumps... we know you’re curious. Every decision involves trade-offs. In the case of raised safety platforms, we have prioritised the safety of people crossing the road over a tiny contribution to emissions from vehicles when navigating a speed bump. Raised crossings provide a level platform between footpaths, making it easier for everyone, especially those with mobility issues, to cross the street. Offering more transportation options beyond cars is a small step in our broader vision to reduce emissions in Hamilton and giving our community genuine choices about how they travel around the city.
The majority of what Council does in response to climate change is part of business as usual – whether that’s encouraging staff to travel less for work or looking for more efficient options for energy. Only 0.2% of our full-time staff are dedicated to this work.
Water fluoridation
Hamilton’s drinking water supply is safe and is continuously tested to ensure it stays that way. We have multiple barriers, filters and treatment processes to prevent contamination and water quality is continuously tested.
Our dedicated waters staff are passionate about their jobs and absolutely committed to providing drinking water, and a waters network, which meets all applicable regulatory standards.
Hamilton’s reticulated drinking water is required to be fluoridated in accordance with the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2021.
This enables the Director-General of Health to direct local authorities to fluoridate drinking water supplies to establish nationally consistent decision-making.
The Ministry of Health states community water fluoridation is safe.
In 2024 the Ministry reviewed the evidence regarding community water fluoridation published since the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor report in 2021.
The review found there “has been no high-quality evidence published since those reviewed in 2014 and 2021 reports to suggest a causal link between fluoride exposure at the levels used in Aotearoa New Zealand for community water fluoridation and significant harm to health.”
Council uses Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFA) to fluoridate Hamilton’s drinking water within specific levels. It costs around $110,000 a year to fluoridate, (or around 60 cents per resident annually) with the HFA comprising around half that cost.
Low-fluoride supply points
Hamillton has two low-fluoride supply points available, A Reverse Osmosis (RO) system at the Claudelands Grandstand public tap uses municipal supply water and reduces fluoride back to trace levels. Council also operates a bore ground water supply at Taitua Arboretum. No fluoride is added to this supply.
More information
More detailed information on the national water fluoridation policy is available on the Ministry of Health Water Fluoridation site.
Council never listens - myth or reality?
We often hear comments like “Council never listens” or “Council never acts on what we want”. These statements are common on social media and in community conversations, and they often come with real frustration. But the reality is more complex than it might appear from the outside.
How decisions are made
Every decision starts with an issue or opportunity identified by the community, Council staff, or Elected Members.
Council staff research the issue, look at the options, and prepare reports for the Elected Members outlining the costs, benefits, and legal requirements. For significant decisions, we seek input from the community in a range of ways, including:
- formal consultation required by law
- community engagement on major projects or changes, even when consultation isn’t legally required
- feedback to Council staff on operational matters.
When Council has engaged with the community on an issue, the feedback is summarised and presented to the Elected Members. Under the Local Government Act 2002, Elected Members must consider all views. No consultation or engagement is undertaken with a pre-determined outcome having been decided.
Elected Members then debate and vote on the issue in a Council or committee meeting. These meetings are livestreamed and recorded, and agendas and reports are published online. If you want to participate in a meeting, view our Calendar to find the details.
Once the Elected Members have made a decision, staff are responsible for actioning it.
Decision-making in action
Read about our completed consultations to see what we heard from the community, and how this shaped the decisions.
Example: During consultation on the Long-Term Plan 2024-34, Council received almost 3,000 submissions from individuals, organisations, and businesses. As a direct result of this feedback, significant changes were made before the final plan was adopted. Read more about the Long-Term Plan decision-making process.
Why it can feel like Council doesn’t listen
It’s understandable to feel unheard when Council decisions don’t match your feedback. Consultation isn’t a vote or binding referendum. It’s a way for Elected Members to understand community views and concerns before making decisions.
Feedback comes from many voices, and the most vocal opinions don’t always represent the majority or what’s best for the whole community. Council decisions are shaped by a broad range of voices – not just those who are most vocal.
By law, Council and Elected Members are charged with planning and acting in ways that meet both the current and future needs of their communities. That means making decisions that consider future generations as well as the voices of current residents.
Elected Members must weigh up many factors like legal, financial, safety, and strategic considerations alongside community feedback. Sometimes decisions need further time, or there may be budget constraints. That doesn’t mean your voice isn’t heard. It’s one of several important factors considered in every decision. However, expert advice and data can carry more weight than community feedback, especially when safety or legal requirements are involved.
Example: Council sought feedback on whether to keep a lower speed limit of 60km/h on a section of Cobham Drive. During consultation, most submitters preferred to increase the speed limit back to 80km/h. Council considered this feedback alongside technical, safety, and legal factors, including the requirements of the relevant Land Transport Rule. After weighing up all the issues, Council by majority voted to keep the lower speed limit.
How to have your say
The best way to influence Council decisions is to participate.
-
View our current consultations to give us your feedback.
-
Sign up to hear about new consultations and get updates on the issues you care about.
Feedback
Last updated 29 January 2026