Simeon Brown: Fast Tracks and Forced Silence
The Minister of Extraction, Obstruction, and Overreach
Infrastructure Enforcer · Energy Deregulator · Stripping Voice from Law and Land
Current Portfolios
- Minister of Health
- Minister for State Owned Enterprises
- Minister for Auckland
This exposé focuses on two significant legislative initiatives by Minister Simeon Brown: the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Water Services) Bill. Both have raised concerns regarding their impact on equity, public welfare, and the centralization of control. In the case of the Water Services Bill, the amendments he chose to pursue were particularly revealing — expanding regulatory control, enabling commercial charges, and sidelining Te Tiriti and community decision-making, while ignoring the real areas that required urgent reform.
1. The Toll Trap: Time of Use Charging Bill
Bill: Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill (Government Bill 113–1)
Formal Opposition Submitted By: Ukes Baha | Read the full opposition
Introduced by Simeon Brown, this bill establishes a legal framework to charge drivers based on when and where they use roads—effectively enabling what has been described as a regressive congestion tax. While marketed as a solution to traffic congestion, the scheme concentrates power in the hands of NZTA and the Minister of Transport, with minimal protections for ordinary citizens.
What Simeon Brown Introduced — and Why It Was Opposed
- Clause 4 (s5C–5E): Creates a new "time-of-use road pricing scheme," allowing central government to impose regional charges without requiring local authority consent
- Clause 5 (s65A–65C): Grants powers to collect real-time vehicle location and trip data, with vague limitations and no independent privacy oversight
- Clause 7 (s168A): Enables enforcement through automated surveillance systems, lacking rules on data access, retention, or third-party use
- Clause 10: Allows congestion charge revenue to be diverted away from public transport investment—contradicting the stated intent of modal shift
- Clause 65O–65R: Imposes strict liability on vehicle owners regardless of who was driving, and enforces penalties without meaningful dispute mechanisms
“This bill is more about controlling behaviour and generating revenue than about reducing congestion. It centralises transport control without local accountability and treats working people like data points to be taxed.”
— Ukes Baha, Opposition to Government Bill 113–1
What the Bill Should Have Included — But Didn’t
- Income-based protections: No exemptions or tiered pricing for low-income commuters or essential workers
- Public transport guarantees: No legal requirement to improve transit access before introducing charges
- Independent cost-benefit assessments: No mandate for audited financial analysis before implementation
- Stronger privacy safeguards: No statutory limits on how long vehicle data can be stored or how it can be used
- Pilot phase testing: No requirement for trial implementation with public reporting and evaluation before full rollout
- Local oversight mechanisms: No requirement for councils or regional boards to co-govern or veto unjust pricing schemes
Taken together, these omissions show a concerning pattern: empowering central authorities with sweeping regulatory tools, while ignoring the everyday realities of New Zealanders who rely on their vehicles. The result is a policy engineered for efficiency on paper but divorced from fairness in practice.
2. The Water Services Bill: What He Amended vs What He Ignored
Bill: Local Government (Water Services) Bill
Formal Opposition Submitted By: Ukes Baha | Read the full opposition
Amendments Introduced by Simeon Brown
The bill’s most controversial elements were introduced or supported by Brown:
- Clause 24, Schedule 2: Empowers the creation of council-controlled organisations (CCOs) to manage water — shifting control from elected bodies to corporatised entities
- Clauses 41–44, Schedule 3: Introduce commercial charging frameworks, enabling water services to be priced and regulated like utilities
- Schedule 5 & Schedule 7: Insert provisions into the Commerce Act enabling "price-quality paths" for water — similar to electricity regulation — which risks future privatisation or unaffordable rates
- Clause 180 & Clause 190: Redefine water strategy and planning with vague consultation duties, weakening Tiriti accountability and community authority
Issues He Failed to Amend — and What My Submission Addressed
Instead of reining in commercialisation or improving representation, the bill ignored or diluted key issues:
- Absence of Tiriti-based governance, including shared ownership and meaningful public consultation
- No income-based safeguards to ensure fair and affordable access to water for all households
- Failure to embed environmental stewardship principles, such as kaitiakitanga, into decision-making
- Lack of protections against excessive development contributions and the shifting of costs onto ratepayers
- Weak or missing mechanisms for local democratic accountability and genuine citizen oversight
“The restructuring of water services under this bill risks sidelining local communities and prioritizing efficiency over equity. Without robust safeguards, there's a danger of commodifying a basic human necessity.”
— Ukes Baha, Opposition to Government Bill 108–1
3. Offshore Renewable Energy Bill: Control Without Care
Bill: Offshore Renewable Energy Bill (Government Bill 102–1)
Introduced By: Simeon Brown
Author: Ukes Baha | Read the full opposition
This bill, intended to enable the development of offshore renewable energy (ORE) infrastructure, introduces sweeping amendments to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 and the Resource Management Act 1991. While the goal may appear future-focused, the bill prioritises commercial control over environmental protection, public oversight, and Treaty obligations.
What He Did — and Why It’s Problematic:
- Sections 38A (EEZ) & 88AA (RMA): Require ORE applicants to hold feasibility or commercial permits before applying for marine or resource consents — shutting out early public or iwi input.
- Sections 38B & 88AB: Automatically cancel consents if a permit lapses — without any provisions for transition, remediation, or public accountability.
- Sections 100E–100H: Leave decommissioning plans to undefined future regulations — with no minimum standards, funding security, or environmental guarantees.
- Schedule 2 & 3 Freezes: Applications are stayed until permits are granted — creating structural bias against community-led or smaller applicants.
- Silence on Te Tiriti o Waitangi: No reference to Treaty principles, iwi co-governance, or recognition of rohe moana in any section of the bill or amendments.
“This bill grants commercial certainty, but fails to deliver environmental, democratic, or cultural accountability. It entrenches ministerial power and regulatory capture — leaving New Zealand’s marine future vulnerable to short-term industrial interests.”
— Analysis based on Government Bill 102–1
What He Could Have Done (But Didn't):
- Mandated Treaty-based co-governance and recognition of Māori customary rights in offshore areas
- Required climate and biodiversity impact thresholds before any permit could be issued
- Established public benefit and environmental justice criteria for all commercial permits
- Included independent oversight for EPA assessments of decommissioning plans
- Provided financial bonding or insurance to protect the public from abandoned offshore infrastructure
New Zealand’s push toward offshore renewable energy should not replicate the failings of extractive industries. Without ecological safeguards, public consultation, and Treaty integration, this bill reflects an energy future controlled by capital—not community.
4. Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill: Control Over Care
Bill: Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill (Government Bill 179–1)
Formal Opposition Submitted By: Ukes Baha | Read the full opposition · WHY page
Marketed as “timely, effective services,” this bill centralises control, weakens Te Tiriti implementation, and reduces independent oversight—while opening the system further to private providers. The result is less community voice, more political direction, and targets that can distort clinical priorities.
What Simeon Brown’s Bill Does — and Why It’s Dangerous
- Principles removed: Repeals health sector principles and the New Zealand Health Charter—erasing high-level guardrails for equity, quality, and accountability.
- Treaty diluted: Narrows iwi-Māori partnership boards to a community “engagement” role feeding advice up through HMAC, creating a double filter before decisions.
- Ministerial reach extended: Minister approves and conditions Health NZ’s delegations policy; appoints all members of a permanent Infrastructure Committee; Director-General can attend board and executive meetings with full papers.
- Private providers embedded: Objectives/functions now explicitly include “(including, to avoid doubt, private healthcare providers)”—hard-wiring outsourcing.
- Oversight reduced: Removes Auditor-General review of the New Zealand Health Plan—less independent scrutiny of strategy and spend.
- Target chasing: Mandatory GPS targets (ED times, electives, immunisation, etc.) risk “teaching to the test” while under-measuring prevention, mental health, and rural access.
“This is not a patient-first upgrade; it’s a governance rewire—shifting power up, pushing community voice down, and turning public health into a target-chasing spreadsheet.”
— Ukes Baha, Opposition to Government Bill 179–1
Submissions close: 1:00pm, 18 August 2025 · Committee: Health
Legislative Pattern: Centralise, Commercialise, Control
- Land Transport (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill (113–1): Centralised charging powers, surveillance-heavy enforcement, weak privacy and equity safeguards.
- Local Government (Water Services) Bill: Corporatised control (CCOs), commercial charging frames, diminished Tiriti and community decision-making.
- Offshore Renewable Energy Bill (102–1): Permit-first gatekeeping, stayed consent pathways, deferred decommissioning standards, minimal public or iwi voice.
- Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill (179–1): Principles/Charter repealed, Treaty mechanisms diluted, Ministerial reach expanded, private providers embedded, independent review removed.
Throughline: Change the labels. Soften the language. Shift the power. Rebrand rights as “efficiency,” public oversight as “duplication,” and community partnership as “consultation” — then move decisions upward and opportunities outward to private interests.
Public cost: Equity and accountability recede; fees, targets, and contracts advance. The social bill is paid by households, whānau, and local services.
Read the detailed breakdowns:
• Time of Use Charging — Submission
• Water Services — Submission
• Offshore Renewable Energy — Submission
• Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) — Submission ·
WHY page
What You Can Do
- Stay informed. Engage with the legislative process. Hold those in power to account — especially when policies are rushed, regressive, or disguised as reform.
- Read the opposition to the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill — targeting working-class commuters under the banner of demand efficiency.
- Read the opposition to the Local Government (Water Services) Bill — forcing councils to sell infrastructure control under threat of reduced funding.
- Read the opposition to the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill — carving out environmental exemptions for profit-led development.
- Spread the word: Share this exposé on Simeon Brown and show how privatisation wears a new face.
- Don’t be distracted by technical names or climate branding. Track the pattern. Share the evidence. Defend public good.
Every case documented strengthens public memory—and demands accountability.
🔙 Back to APIAPE Index