My stat of the week is 38 percent. This is the provisional voter turnout at the 2025 local elections.  
 
Huge rates rises. Crumbling infrastructure. Worsening services. Dysfunction around council tables. Fractious relations between central and local government. New Zealanders have endured it all over the past term. 
 
Yet once the final results, including special votes, are announced today, turnout will probably remain lower than 2022’s 42 percent. Around one in eight council positions were uncontested.  
 
It would be easy to say people are happy or they do not care. Rather, I think it reflects a broken system. The public knows something is wrong, but many cannot see how their vote can make a difference. 
 
The concerns about turnout have sparked a debate about the future of local government. But it does not follow that councils should be merged or that more activities should be centralised.  
 
On the contrary, local democracy must be strengthened. 
 
Small councils are often better connected to their communities, with mostly higher turnouts in rural districts than in big cities. Auckland’s provisional 29 percent turnout compares to a median of 53 percent for small rural councils. Bigger is not always better. 
 
There should be an examination of which tier of government (national, regional, and local) is best placed to deliver specific services. But it is incorrect to assume that central agencies or having fewer, bigger councils would be automatically more responsive, efficient, or effective than having many smaller ones.  
 
The debate needs to go deeper and address incentives and power imbalances.  
 
Councils need funding tools that enable them to reap the benefits of growth and development rather than just being lumbered with their costs. Voters should be able to authorise major discretionary spending through referendums. 
 
Meanwhile, council chief executives and staff have significant information and process advantages over elected representatives.  
 
Mayors should have real authority to advance their policies. Auckland’s mayoral office, with its own budget and independent staff accountable to the mayor, should be made available to other councils.   
 
Councillors should have more support and better tools to inform decision-making and scrutinise performance. Mayors and councillors should not be muzzled by stifling codes of conduct.  
 
Changes like these should attract more and better people to put themselves forward. That should, in turn, boost turnout. 
 
The question is not whether local government needs change. It is what view will prevail on how best to fix its problems.