How to fix the reputation of local government

This piece was originally published in Newsroom. Paula Southgate is an Honorary Senior Fellow at the Helen Clark Foundation.

The recent local elections made one thing clear: local government still has a reputational crisis. Frustration is high, trust is falling, and councils struggle to be seen for the good they do. This is not new – Local Government New Zealand surveys in 2014 and 2017 showed trust collapses when people don’t understand what councils really do. Engagement and transparency matter.

Recently, councils have faced relentless criticism on all fronts. The relationship between central government and councils remains strained. There were loud cries of “wasteful spending” and “red tape slowing the economy”, along with calls to “get back to the basics”. Community criticism has been brutal, with many candidates on the attack repeating populist taglines of waste, mismanagement, and too many “nice to have” things we can’t afford.

How could any decent reputation withstand these forces? Councils and Local Government NZ have pushed back and yet remain poorly understood and under-appreciated. Councils are belittled as “whiners”, lacking courage, and like children who have their candy taken from them. Elected members were labelled “self-serving” or “lacking the right skills”. New projects are described as “pet projects”, even if communities had requested them.

In my experience, attacks on local government leaders have dramatically increased since Covid and the recession, including cries of “woke snowflakes” and “corrupt and incompetent”, along with more concerning threats. Yes, I had my share. Often the triggers were weedy berms or unloved “speed humps” and even a left-behind rubbish bin, not the multi-millions spent on a new wastewater pump, or even a new library/community hub in a huge new housing area.

Economists such as Brad Olsen (Infometrics) highlight councils’ significant funding deficits and rising costs, but the message isn’t landing, drowned out by the very real cost-of-living pressures and debates about rate hikes.

Reputation affects voter turnout

The sector sits under a cloud of mistrust, and yet most potential voters stayed silent and disengaged in recent elections. Local elections decide who governs our communities and manages our future but voter participation remains dismal. Woefully low voting is nothing new, but it is concerning. The recent turnout was 39.4 percent, and Auckland only reached 29.3 percent. I was surprised because I assumed the loud dissatisfaction might fuel greater action.

However, it appears clear those who voted sought change. Many existing mayors were voted out, and new councillors promising to shake things up arrived in significant numbers.

Is poor communication hurting our reputation?

Recent Pew Research Centre data from the US shows a significant decline in public satisfaction and particularly low trust in politicians and civil servants. Part of the problem is accessing information. Fewer than 45 percent of respondents found it easy to find local information to help them vote. Canada tells a similar story, with public satisfaction falling from about 70 percent in 2020 to just 50 percent by mid-2025.

Closer to home in Australia, satisfaction with local government dropped from 61 percent in 2021 to 53 percent by 2024. In all cases, citizens want good quality roads, water and waste services, but also appreciate parks and libraries.

Feedback from my own enquiries was consistent: people don’t know enough about what councils or councillors do, and what they do know is often patchy. The voids get filled with noise, which can easily be shaped by perception or inaccurate information.

Many blame this low reputation on the relentless backlash, a resistance to paying for services, voter apathy, poor communication, and a lack of transparency or accessible information.

A 2008 Ipsos survey for Local Government Association in the UK noted: “Local authorities are strongly identified with some of the services they provide but not with others. This creates a reputation deficit – councils might not get credit for some things they do, but they might be blamed for problems elsewhere that they are not responsible for.” Seventeen years later, this remains true.

As a former mayor of Hamilton who pushed hard for clear, open and timely communication, this remains deeply frustrating. We did good work, and I was proactive and accessible, yet face-to-face conversations and personal emails constantly revealed how little the wider community really understood. In the vast media ocean saturated with competing messages, how can councils hope to convey the complex, intertwined issues they grapple with every day? This is a challenge local government must confront head-on.

Furthermore, work must be done to present much stronger, clearer evidence of costs and benefits of the work councils do. Not easy but vital when every dollar counts and is hard to find.

Can better community engagement and participation help?

Community engagement remains a major factor in reputation, as it was in 2017 when the Local Government report noted the need for improved engagement that “meets intended audiences” and reaches affected people and broad communities of interest. Research in the UK confirms the link between well-informed/engaged communities and satisfaction with decisions and funding.

Councillors are community representatives, but true engagement requires genuine, ongoing connection. Regular criticism that elected members only attend events “to get selfies” rather than doing the “real work” misses the reality: understanding community needs requires accessibility and visibility. I go further: if councillors are not regularly active in the community, they are not doing their job. Representational governance means showing up to those you represent and talking about the hard issues.

Better Together: A framework for Councils and Community Boards, a Local Government report, makes a good point about “drawing on the full potential of communities”, power-sharing and shared decision-making. Communities should be used more, but they need to be genuinely enabled and empowered, with clear responsibilities and real authority over local budgets and projects.

Imagine if community boards, councils, and central government worked closer together, creating regular, meaningful connections with citizens. Communities would have a stronger voice and feel more valued, and councils would make better decisions.

I know it works, Hamilton’s award-winning community hub and library, Te Kete Aronui, was designed with the community at every step, is highly used and much loved. Not one complaint!

Does funding remain the key issue?

Mark Thomas, a former Auckland community board member, recently described New Zealand’s “maddening local government” as stemming from “the complex, disempowered, regularly thankless environment that characterises local government in New Zealand”.

One Treasury report notes that though taxation has risen as a percentage of GDP over the last few decades, this is not the case for local government rates. The central government has not understood the impact of this significant long-term underfunding of local government. It is not poor decision-making or lack of effort, it’s the structural funding environment making effective local governance challenging, undercutting councillors’ efforts, and leaving citizens frustrated.

Is there wasteful spending? There’s no smoke without fire. Yes, some projects have budget overruns, and inefficiencies exist, but there are also many examples of smart investment and genuine collaboration yet resourcing and coordination remain hurdles. Meanwhile, recent reports by the Infrastructure Commission and the Helen Clark Foundation point to decades of underinvestment in and poor maintenance of core assets – a reminder that neglect, not just excess, has fuelled today’s challenges.

The never-ending churn of change

Not long ago, councils were legally required to deliver the four wellbeings: economic, social, environmental, and cultural. Councils, including mine, embraced this wholeheartedly, consulting widely and investing in outcomes such as nature reserves, gardens, performance and sports venues, and cycleways.

Today, some of those investments are slammed as “nice-to-haves” rather than core work and have blotted councils’ copybooks. The Government’s Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill now narrows the mandate to “core services”, removing the long-standing four wellbeings that once guided local priorities and spending.

Two weeks ago, the Government also proposed abolishing regional councils – the ultimate condemnation. On the surface, fewer councils may look like a useful simplification. However, this would shift a wide range of complex responsibilities onto city and district councils — freshwater quality, flood management, stormwater and drainage, coastal erosion, biosecurity, and more.

Most recently, the Government announced the proposed rates cap at 2-4 percent. This is not just a belt tightening — it is a huge squeeze. In my experience many councils were well underway with savings and staff cuts.

Across my 24 years in local government, change has been constant and costly. But I have never seen the pace or scale of change as I have over the last six years.

Councils absolutely must deliver core infrastructure and essential services to a high standard. Waste collection should be easy and reliable; roading efficient and well-maintained, water and wastewater safe and affordable, and planning approvals faster and simpler. Will this improve the local government’s reputation? Yes, but with core infrastructure and “must-do” services comprising about 70 percent of council budgets, achieving efficiencies and savings will not be enough to quell ratepayer concern. Ratepayers and developers are stretched, and councils have limited ways to fund essentials.

Building a stronger and positive future

It remains clear to me that criticism is damaging, but so is the root cause: the complex, cumbersome, underfunded system. Until we fix the local government system, including funding it, frustration and blame will continue to pile up.

Will local communities love councils longer term if all they do is waste, roads, and water?

One Hamilton business I asked lamented: “That seems like standing still at best. Don’t we want our city to progress and be a nicer place to live?”

What about libraries, parks, theatres, and playgrounds? Are these only “nice-to-haves” or do they shape how people feel about their place and how they value councils in the long term? Time will tell.

Local Government Reform is here in all its glory, underpinned by the significant change to councils’ work by Local Waters Done Well, Resource Management Act reform and the proposed abolishment of regional councils. Councils must lean in; shape change and better engage the communities they serve. The Government must work alongside local government to deliver a well-funded, functional, and bright future.

It is time to end the blame game and get to work – reform the system, empower and support councils, and reconnect with communities.