New Zealand’s top business leaders say local government is broken – slow, unaccountable and failing to deliver. The Herald’s Mood of the Boardroom survey, published tomorrow, shows an appetite for reform, but frustration with the choices facing voters in next month’s local council elections.
When asked which of the Auckland mayoral candidates New Zealand’s leading CEOs and directors most supported, 62% back Wayne Brown.
Incumbent Brown, elected in 2022, has a reputation as a fixer of infrastructure and governance through his background as an engineer and previous roles with public infrastructure organisations and serving as mayor of the Far North. His 2022 campaign promised practical solutions and fiscal discipline, and he has since delivered one of the lowest metropolitan rates rises in the country.
But his tenure has also been marked by controversy, including heavy criticism of his handling of the Auckland Anniversary floods in 2023.
Supporters see Brown as a rare mayor in his ability to get things done.
“He does what he says he will do. He’s rough around the edges in communication and in media sometimes, but gets on and completes things. He has the respect of many in business as a doer,” says a real estate boss.
Others point to his focus on “core infrastructure, transport and rates discipline” as exactly what Auckland needs. “Continuity is the key to finally getting things done,” another adds.
Freightways chair Mark Cairns observes: “Whilst Auckland Council has been a wobbly journey, I consider it is getting plenty of runs on the board under Wayne Brown’s leadership.”
Yet for some, Brown’s abrupt approach is deemed too divisive.
“Anyone but Wayne Brown. His leadership style is everything we have fought to change in recent times. Action, yes, but the how is unacceptable,” says the head of a construction firm.
While none of the other candidates received any significant support from respondents, a hefty 35% said none appeal, reflecting a lack of enthusiasm in the options available.
In Wellington, Andrew Little emerges with 38% support.
Little, a former Labour MP and senior Cabinet Minister, is campaigning on a promise of “serious leadership and real change.” Drawing on his background as a lawyer and union leader, Little argues he has the experience to steady Wellington after years of instability.
His platform focuses on fiscal discipline, keeping rates under control, protecting community assets, and making housing and public transport more affordable.
“Andrew Little would be great,” says an engineering CEO. “He understands politics, is credible and experienced.”
Most respondents, however, are united in despair at the state of the capital. A recruiter described Wellington as “a basket case” suffering from “catastrophic mismanagement,” with debt ballooning, pipes crumbling, and rates climbing.
“Public trust is destroyed,” says another, accusing the council of neglecting its mandate while households are left to shoulder the consequences.
The head of a consulting firm adds: “While Andrew Little is the favourite, a moderate central candidate will be best placed to take the city forward.”
Of the remaining candidates, only Ray Chung and Karl Tiefenbacher register any support, each with just 1%. An overwhelming 60% of respondents say ‘none of the above’.
Chung is a sitting Wellington councillor making his second mayoral bid, campaigning on cutting costs and improving fiscal discipline, though his run has been overshadowed by controversy.
Tiefenbacher, businessman and founder of ice cream brand Kaffee Eis, wants to get the city back on track by reining-in debt, limiting rates rises, and scrapping projects like cycleways and the Golden Mile.
CEOs emphatically back Government reforms to refocus councils on core services, rating at 4.19/5 on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree.
“Local government reform is overdue. Refocusing councils on core services is the right direction if we want accountability and better value for ratepayers,” says Institute of Directors CEO Kirsten (KP) Patterson.
From a logistics CEO: “Focus on your core and stop the social agenda being delivered by largely left-wing councillors across the country.”
But others urge caution. “I don’t think central government should dictate this,” argues a public sector CEO. “Local government needs to show clear prioritisation of spend and let the communities have more say.”
Another adds: “If councils had the right fiscal incentives, they would do what is right for their economies without having to be told by central government.”
Behind the criticism lies frustration at a system business leaders say actively resists growth.
CEOs and directors gave their own local councils a rating of 2.34/5 for performance in enabling growth and development, particularly in water, housing, and core services.
“All talk and consultation, no action,” says the CEO of a major law firm. Another put it more bluntly: “It’s broken.”
A key issue is that councils carry the cost of new housing and water infrastructure while central government collects the lion’s share of tax revenue.
“Until we reform local government funding so councils share directly in the benefits of growth, housing supply and infrastructure investment will continue to lag behind demand,” says Roger Partridge, chair of The New Zealand Initiative.
The result, according to Anne Gaze, founder of Campus Link Foundation, is decades of “glacial progress” and infrastructure that is “forever scrambling to catch up rather than leading delivery.”
“After decades of rate hikes and rhetoric, Aucklanders are left with housing they can’t afford and water they can’t swim in,” she says.
That theme of accountability and delivery was echoed earlier this month by the Local Government Business Forum, which released a report calling for binding referendums on major council spending projects.
The forum’s proposal recommends binding ratepayer votes on non-essential capital projects exceeding either $500 per ratepayer or 5% of annual operating expenditure. The forum’s spokesperson, Dr Eric Crampton, describes it as a democratic “third way” between unchecked council spending and heavy-handed central government rate caps.
When asked if regional councils should be amalgamated, similar to the Auckland supercity amalgamation, 81% of respondents say yes.
“It’s crazy that we still have 78 councils for a country the size of New Zealand,” says a tech CEO. “Both cost and capability provide a clear reason for consolidation.”
Sam Stubbs, CEO of Simplicity, puts it succinctly: “Turkeys don’t vote for Xmas. But in Wellington, they should.”
Jarden managing director Silvana Schenone adds: “Following the concept of efficiency and professionalism in regional and local government would be helpful.”
But others sound notes of caution. “Auckland Council appears to be more inefficient and more costly to run than prior to amalgamation,” says the chairperson of an investment firm.
Michelle Palmer, executive director of the Retirement Villages Association, points to mixed lessons: “The amalgamation of Auckland as a super city has taken decades to start showing efficiencies and improved service delivery. Te Pūkenga is another case in point where amalgamation does not provide the anticipated benefits.”
Independent director Fraser Whineray takes it further: “Structural changes sound good. But Auckland Super City hasn’t delivered. What’s better is blistering transparency. Swiss-style localism does that because the municipalities are so small.
“The first thing to sort is transparency and performance benchmarking. The Regulatory Standards Board should provide this service to local councils so that ratepayers can have comfort on local government policy.”