By Steve Mooney
As debate grows about the future shape of local government in New Zealand, one question is being asked with increasing frequency: should we have fewer councils? Advocates of amalgamation point to potential efficiencies, reduced duplication, stronger financial capability, and the ability to attract specialist expertise. Critics raise concerns about local representation, community identity, and the risk of moving decision-making further from the people affected by it.
Both perspectives have merit. But amid the discussion about governance structures and organisational design, there is a critical issue that risks being overlooked. Who will look after the infrastructure?
Local government exists for many reasons, but at its core, councils are custodians of the assets that support our daily lives: roads, footpaths, water networks, stormwater systems, public facilities, parks, and community infrastructure that collectively represent billions of dollars of investment built up over generations.
Whether New Zealand has 78 councils, 50 councils, or something else entirely is ultimately less important than whether those assets are planned, maintained, renewed, and funded effectively.
If council mergers are to proceed, success should not be measured by how many councils disappear from the organisational chart. Success should also be measured by whether infrastructure assets are managed better, risks are reduced, and communities receive more reliable services.
That may sound obvious, but experience from large organisational restructures suggests it is far from guaranteed.
Infrastructure assets do not stop ageing while organisations reorganise themselves. Pipes continue to deteriorate. Roads continue to require renewal, and climate-related risks continue to grow. Communities continue to expect safe drinking water, reliable transport networks, and resilient public services.
Yet organisational mergers often demand enormous attention from leadership teams. Governance structures must be redesigned, staffing arrangements reviewed, financial systems integrated, and policies aligned.
These activities are necessary, but they can also divert focus away from the long-term stewardship of infrastructure assets.
There is also a broader cost of change associated with amalgamation that should not be underestimated. The impacts are not only financial but also human. Staff can spend significant time dealing with uncertainty before, during, and after a merger, and that uncertainty can affect productivity, morale, retention, and organisational focus.
Financially, the cost and complexity of aligning multiple systems, processes, datasets, and reporting frameworks is often underestimated and can exceed original expectations. These transition costs need to be recognised upfront, rather than treated as incidental implementation matters.
Another risk is the loss of institutional knowledge.
In many councils, asset information exists not only within databases and software systems, but also in the experience of engineers, asset managers, planners, and operational staff who have spent years understanding how local networks function. They know which assets repeatedly fail, which areas are most vulnerable to extreme weather, and the assumptions underpinning long-term investment plans.
When organisations merge, uncertainty often follows. Staff may seek opportunities elsewhere, roles may change, and critical knowledge can be lost.
Ironically, the very period in which councils need the best possible information about their infrastructure can be the period in which their organisational memory is most vulnerable.
This is why any future local government reform must place asset management at the centre of planning, not treat it as a technical matter to be addressed after organisational decisions have been made.
If amalgamation is intended to improve outcomes, then infrastructure stewardship must be one of its primary objectives.
There are three principles that could help ensure this occurs.
First, asset management capability must be protected. Before organisational structures are redesigned, councils should identify critical knowledge holders and infrastructure specialists whose expertise will be essential during and after any transition. Workforce retention, capability development, education, training, and succession planning should be viewed as strategic priorities rather than human resource activities.
That means reform should not only protect existing capability; it should deliberately build the next generation of infrastructure and asset management professionals who will be responsible for delivering better outcomes long after structural change has occurred. A merger that reduces administration costs but weakens infrastructure decision-making cannot realistically be considered a success.
Second, councils should seek to standardise asset management practices before attempting to consolidate them. Many organisations currently operate with different asset registers, condition assessment methodologies, risk frameworks, and lifecycle planning approaches. Simply combining these systems does not automatically produce better information. In some cases, it may increase complexity.
The goal should be the creation of a consistent, evidence based platform for infrastructure decisions, allowing future councils to compare risks, prioritise investments, and understand whole-of-life costs across their entire asset portfolio. A further practical challenge is the harmonisation of service levels. After amalgamation, communities will naturally compare what each former council provided and seek to retain the best aspects of each. That can create pressure to lift levels of service across the merged organisation, with direct implications for affordability, funding requirements, and long-term sustainability.
Third, the success of reform should be measured by service outcomes rather than organisational metrics. Public discussion often focuses on the number of councils, the size of executive teams, or projected administrative savings. While these factors are important, they are not the outcomes that matter most to communities.
Residents generally judge local government through the services they receive. They care whether roads are maintained, whether drinking water is safe, whether stormwater systems can cope with severe weather events, and whether public facilities remain fit for purpose.
Those are the indicators that should determine whether reform has succeeded.
The reality is that New Zealand faces significant infrastructure challenges regardless of how local government is structured. Asset renewal requirements are increasing, expectations for resilience are rising, and financial pressures continue to mount. These issues will not be solved simply by drawing different organisational boundaries on a map.
What will make a difference is stronger asset management capability, better long-term planning, improved investment decisions, and a relentless focus on stewardship.
New Zealand can and should have a legitimate debate about the future shape of local government. However, whatever form future councils take, the ultimate test is not organisational efficiency.
It is whether public infrastructure is left in better condition for the next generation.
If amalgamation strengthens asset management, improves infrastructure outcomes, and enhances long-term stewardship, it deserves support. But if it weakens our ability to understand, maintain, and invest in critical infrastructure, the costs may ultimately outweigh the savings.
Council mergers should not be about creating bigger organisations. They should be about building better infrastructure futures for the communities we serve.
#AssetManagement