This Bill revises the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020 to make the IFF framework more usable for a broader set of urban projects. It removes procedural barriers in the levy approval pathway, expands who can act as the responsible levy authority, and adds recovery tools so finance raised by special purpose vehicles (SPVs) is easier to enforce when developments fail.
The changes matter because they shift risk and decisionpoints away from councils and toward developers, SPVs and new water organisations while changing how unpaid levies rank against rates after a sale. For lawyers, developers, local authorities and water entities this alters day‑to‑day drafting, consenting, revenue collection and enforcement choices for urban infrastructure finance.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Bill streamlines the levy proposal and recommendation processes, narrows some mandatory ministerial and recommender considerations, and allows levies to fund a wider set of infrastructure owners and providers (including water organisations and State enterprises). It creates a separate administration pathway when a water organisation is the levy administrator and introduces an accelerated recovery route for undeveloped land when a development fails.
Who It Affects
Developer‑led infrastructure projects, SPVs that raise finance under the IFF Act, territorial authorities that currently endorse levies, newly established water organisations under the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025, and landowners inside levy areas (including holders of protected Māori land).
Why It Matters
Professionals should care because the Bill changes who approves and collects levies, alters evidentiary and consultation requirements for levy proposals, and modifies the interplay between IFF levies, rating law and water‑services charging — all of which affect project feasibility, contract allocation and enforcement strategies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Bill recasts the IFF Act from a narrow tool that bypassed council debt constraints into a more flexible funding mechanism usable by a wider range of infrastructure sponsors. It adds new definitions and clarifies when land counts as developed, which affects who can be charged a levy and when.
A critical structural change is recognising water organisations and State enterprises as possible responsible levy authorities (RLAs), and creating a parallel administration path when a water organisation performs levy administration.
On approvals, the Bill pares back what recommenders and the Minister must consider, and it modifies endorsement requirements so an RLA generally must endorse a developer proposal unless the endorsement would materially impair the RLA’s ability to collect rates or charges. For very large levy areas the Bill relaxes the consent requirement for including protected Māori land, but it also requires proposers to estimate the amount of protected Māori land in the proposal using rating database information where consent is not needed.The Bill introduces flexibility in how levies are charged: it permits one‑off development charges as an alternative or complement to ongoing annual levies, allows differential categories of leviable land (including categories tied to availability of water services), and sets a minimum levy period.
It also adjusts operational timings and information flows: the deadline to set annual levies is moved later in the financial year and RLAs — both territorial authorities and water organisations — have specified obligations to provide the SPV with the data needed to set and collect levies.Finally, the Bill tightens recovery: SPVs gain firmer authority to pursue unpaid levies through civil proceedings and there is a new, expedited pathway to recover IFF funding against undeveloped land if a development meets failure criteria set out in the levy order. The amendments realign how levy proceeds are applied after a rating sale so levies are treated alongside rates, and they set a prescribed High Court application fee for accelerated sale applications.
Together these changes make the IFF Act a more operational financing tool, while creating new practical and legal points that counsel and administrators will need to address during project design and documentation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Minister and recommenders may be excluded from considering levypayers’ long‑term interests or levy affordability for proposals where the land is owned by the proposer or where owners/purchasers have provided written support.
An SPV may commence civil recovery action for unpaid levies once a levy remains unpaid for 4 months after the due date.
If a levy order specifies failure factors, the SPV can demand repayment relating to undeveloped land and, after 20 working days without payment, apply to a Registrar of the High Court to sell that undeveloped land under an accelerated recovery process.
The Bill makes water organisations eligible to be responsible levy authorities and ties liability to those persons who are liable to pay water services charges where the RLA is a water organisation.
Amendments to the Rating Act make unpaid levies rank alongside unpaid rates when sale or lease proceeds are applied, and where proceeds are insufficient they must be applied proportionally between unpaid rates and unpaid levies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Broadened scope and new definitions
These clauses expand the Act’s purpose beyond relieving local authority debt constraints and add or revise definitions (including responsible levy authority, developed land, and protected Māori land). Practically, that makes the Act explicit about which infrastructure types and sponsors can use IFF financing, and it changes eligibility gates for levy proposals. Redefining protected Māori land to capture some General land with a genealogical link creates new title‑ and consent‑related questions that project teams must check early.
Simplified levy proposal, endorsement and recommendation steps
The Bill replaces and reorders key approval sections so proposers supply a tighter set of materials and recommenders/Members of the Executive have narrower mandatory considerations. Councils’ discretion to withhold endorsements is limited where statutory conditions are satisfied, and the legislation permits the omission of affordability assessments in certain owner‑supported proposals. For proposers, this reduces upfront evidential burdens; for RLAs it limits leverage during the endorsement stage.
New liability, charging options and annual process changes
These amendments separate treatment of territorial authorities from water organisations for liability and assessment rules, allow levy orders to set one‑off charges or mixed charging regimes, and prescribe categories of leviable land that can be tied to the presence or availability of water services. The Bill also resets administrative deadlines (moving the annual levy setting to 30 June) and fixes a minimum levy period, altering cash‑flow timing and levy modelling assumptions that SPVs and RLAs must adopt.
Administration pathways for territorial authorities and water organisations
Part 3 is retained for territorial authorities with updated interfacing rules to reflect other amendments; new Part 3A mirrors many administrative rules for when a water organisation is the RLA but imports concepts and collection methods from the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025. The new structure prescribes data‑sharing duties, limits when a water organisation must pursue unpaid levies, and gives water RLAs separate penalty and recovery mechanics aligned to water‑charging law.
Accelerated recovery process for failed developments
This new subpart creates an expedited recovery route for SPVs where a levy order defines failure criteria. It allows the SPV to demand repayment for funding attributable to undeveloped land and to seek sale through the High Court quickly. The subpart excludes protected Māori land and requires levy orders that use this path to specify both failure factors and how sale proceeds will be applied, so drafting of levy orders becomes materially consequential.
Rating Act interaction and High Court fee
The Bill amends the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 so that unpaid levies are included in the order of application of sale proceeds alongside rates and introduces sections to handle shortfalls proportionally. It also prescribes a $1,078 High Court application fee for SPVs pursuing accelerated sale remedies, which standardises recovery costs but also changes the upfront litigation economics for smaller SPVs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Developer‑led project proponents — lower upfront evidential burdens and tighter endorsement timelines reduce transaction and consenting friction, improving project viability and speed to market.
- Special purpose vehicles (SPVs) — clearer recovery tools (ordinary civil recovery after 4 months and an accelerated High Court sale route) strengthen repayment prospects and lender security.
- Water organisations, NZTA and KiwiRail — being explicitly able to act as responsible levy authorities opens a new financing channel for water and transport infrastructure tied to urban development.
- Private owners and purchasers in greenfield developments who opt in — the streamlined process and clearer opt‑in mechanisms increase certainty about costs at purchase and can simplify acquisition decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Territorial authorities — reduced discretion on endorsements and the shift of some administrative functions to SPVs or water organisations can increase compliance obligations while limiting bargaining positions for councils.
- Future owners/purchasers who did not participate in initial support — narrower ministerial affordability checks in owner‑supported proposals risk leaving later purchasers exposed to levies they did not influence.
- Owners of protected Māori land — while the Bill provides some carve‑outs, inclusion or exclusion of protected land in levy areas, and limits on enforcement, create complex consent and recovery regimes that could delay projects or limit recoverability.
- Local court registries and the High Court — the accelerated recovery pathway creates concentrated demand for expedited sale applications and documentation, shifting workload and imposing fixed fees on applicants.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between accelerating infrastructure finance for development (reducing approval friction and strengthening recovery) and preserving protections for levypayers and culturally protected land: mechanisms that speed funding and enforcement also reduce layers of independent scrutiny and local control, shifting financial and social risk onto parties who may have less ability to contest levies later.
The Bill tries to thread two objectives at once: speed and certainty for developer financing, and protection for levypayers and culturally sensitive land. That creates multiple practical frictions.
First, the affordability‑exclusion for owner‑supported proposals speeds approvals but depends on the integrity of owner support and the accuracy of rating database information — both of which vary by project and jurisdiction. Second, carving out protected Māori land from the accelerated recovery process protects statutory rights but complicates levy design and enforcement; identifying which parcels meet the revised protected‑land definition will create upfront legal work and data‑quality risk.
Third, bringing water organisations and the Local Government (Water Services) Act into the IFF regime aligns funding with service footprints but also forces teams to manage two different statutory collection and penalty regimes in parallel.
Operationally, information sharing and timing changes shift burdens onto RLAs and SPVs: territorial authorities must supply historic rating data on request for water RLAs, deadlines move later in the year, and levy orders now must include precise failure factors and proceeds‑allocation rules if accelerated recovery is to be available. Those drafting levy orders and commercial agreements will need to be precise — gaps or ambiguity in failure‑factor language could produce litigation over whether a sale‑route ever triggered.
Finally, while the High Court fee standardises cost, it also raises a small but fixed barrier for smaller SPVs and may concentrate applications in short windows after a development is declared failed.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.