Local Government Reform: Lessons Learned, or not?
Author: Richard Lindsay
Release Date: August 2026
Article Context: This is the second in a series of articles produced by Recreation Sport Leisure Consultancy looking at the potential impacts and implications of Local Government Reform. These articles broadly focus on the impact on recreation, sport, play and other community provision.
Article one is available here: Local Government Reform: How Prepared are Sport, Recreation and Community Services for Change?
In the current Local Government Reform process, have we looked back at history enough to learn lessons and improve on the past, or are we blindly pushing forward? In this article we take a look at some other reform processes in New Zealand and abroad to see if any themes emerge that we can learn from and prepare for in this current process. To do this we have had a look at the following previous reform processes:
New Zealand Local Government Reform – 1989
Auckland Supercity Amalgamation 2010
England’s Local Government Reform (in the thick of it)
Several examples of Scandanavian municipality reforms
We round out the article with a list of actions councils in New Zealand should consider doing now, if they have not already.
Does Local Government Reform Look a Bit Glary or Blurry for you?
Lessons from the 1989 New Zealand reforms
The 1989 reforms remain New Zealand’s most significant local government reset. They reduced a fragmented system of local authorities and special-purpose bodies into a smaller structure of regional and territorial councils. For play, sport and recreation, the lesson is not simply that bigger councils are better, but that scale, function, funding and local voice need to be designed together. Three lessons stand out. Will we learn from the past?
1. Structure does not guarantee better outcomes
The 1989 reforms created clearer responsibilities, stronger administrative capacity and a more consistent basis for planning and infrastructure delivery. This was important because the previous system included many small and single-purpose bodies, which made coordination difficult and often fragmented decision-making.
However, structure is only the platform. Larger councils can improve strategic planning, but they can also carry forward old service gaps, asset liabilities and uneven levels of provision. Reform should therefore be judged by whether it improves community outcomes, access and participation, not simply by whether it reduces the number of councils.
2. Local voice needs deliberate protection
One risk of reform is that decision-making becomes more distant from the communities most affected by local services. This matters for play, parks, sport and recreation because provision is shaped by local clubs, volunteers, schools, iwi, community groups, small towns and neighbourhood-level needs.
Any future reform needs mechanisms that keep local priorities visible inside larger structures. This could include local boards or committees, strong mana whenua relationships, clear community planning processes and funding models that recognise rural access, growth pressure, deprivation, transport barriers and the realities of volunteer-led delivery.
3. Evidence should guide transition decisions
The strongest lesson for the recreation sector is to enter reform with evidence ready. This means understanding asset condition, renewals, participation, growth, deprivation, access barriers, network gaps, use of non-council facilities and the true cost to serve different communities.
Without this evidence, new councils may simply inherit and reproduce old inequities at a larger scale. With it, reform can be used to reset investment priorities, improve access, rationalise duplication where appropriate and make a stronger case for play, sport and recreation as part of essential community infrastructure.
Lessons from Auckland
Sixteen years on from Auckland Council amalgamation, there are many learnings that could offer guidance for council play, sport and recreation functions in any upcoming amalgamation process. With one of this article's authors having worked in Auckland Council through amalgamation, and through a variety of council roles in parks, sport and recreation since, three lessons stand out.
1. Shifting from asset thinking and funding to service provision
There are varied models of play, sport and recreation facility provision across the country. The sector has had to be creative and solution-focused in working with different funding availability, community capacity and council support to achieve facility outcomes. This means provision ranges from council-led to community-led models and everything in between. If these models are achieving good participation outcomes, there is no right or wrong model.
However, when transitioning to an amalgamated council, decisions can disadvantage some facility models over others. Over the last 16 years, Auckland Council funding has inequitably favoured those areas, or local boards, that had the most asset and staff-related funding already in place. This has favoured a council-owned and operated model of service delivery, meaning other models, such as access grants to facilities on school sites, have greatly diminished.
Auckland Council is now implementing a model of transitioning local board funding based on factors such as population and deprivation, rather than simply the presence of council-owned assets. The success of this model is, and will be, highly dependent on good data about participation and cost to serve to support sound advice. This should be embedded from the outset in any future reform process.
4. Planning that enables progress
A benefit of amalgamation can be the opportunity to leverage regional networks. This can, however, also mean a decision-making halt while regional planning is progressed. First the Auckland Plan, then the Unitary Plan, community facilities network plans, parks and open space strategies, sport and recreation action plans, children and young people action plans — the list is long.
At amalgamation, a number of the previous councils in Auckland front-loaded capital projects in their budgets. However, since 2010 there has only been one new council-run community facility built that was not in some form of planning from a prior council. In this time, construction costs, land cost and availability, and other pressing challenges have severely constrained progress on new facilities. Life is what happens while you make plans, and planning needs to be flexible to ensure progress can still be made.
In recent years, a more pragmatic approach to planning has been enabled in Auckland through mechanisms such as sport and recreation facility grants. However, there remains a backlog of known network gaps for aquatic facilities, critical gaps in indoor court provision, and sports field shortfalls.
5. Property settings
With the potential for rates capping and expectations of financial efficiencies taking effect, the available funding for community facility investment is likely to be even more challenging. There are likely to be opportunities, as unpopular as they may be, within a council’s existing land holdings to integrate, sell and fund improved facilities. This requires good policy and management to ensure these possibilities are not excluded, including through reserve management classifications or other property settings.
The English experience of local government reorganisation
England’s local government reorganisation (different lingo, same purpose) provides a useful reference point for New Zealand as councils consider structural reform, consolidation, unitary authority models and stronger expectations around affordability and performance. The key lesson is that reorganisation or reform should not be treated simply as an administrative merger. For sport, recreation, leisure and active wellbeing, it is a strategic moment to ensure they are positioned as core public infrastructure and programmes. An opportunity exists for local government to work more closely with other agencies that support health, well-being and other wider community outcomes.
1. A reform moment creates both risk and opportunity
SLC describe reorganisation in England as a “once in a generation” opportunity for active wellbeing, but only if the sector makes its case before new structures, budgets and priorities are locked in. The same applies in New Zealand. Sport and recreation could either be elevated as part of the solution to wider public policy challenges or become vulnerable if framed narrowly as non-essential leisure provision.
2. From leisure services to active wellbeing
While still very early days in England, a central theme is the shift from “leisure” to “active wellbeing”. This reframes pools, recreation centres, parks, play, sport facilities, walking and cycling networks, community programmes and club infrastructure as part of a wider preventative system. The question becomes not whether councils can continue to subsidise leisure assets, but how active wellbeing services help reduce inequalities, support mental health, strengthen communities and improve local places.
3. Strategic choices for new or reconfigured authorities
The English experience highlights the importance of early strategic decisions by emerging authorities. New structures inherit different contracts, assets, operating models, community expectations and financial pressures. Without a clear strategy, services risk being stitched together into a larger but still fragmented network.
For New Zealand, any move toward larger or unitary authorities should trigger a deliberate review of the sport and recreation network: which assets are fit for purpose, where provision is duplicated, which communities are underserved, what should be planned regionally, and which partnerships with schools, iwi, clubs, regional sports organisations and health agencies are essential to future delivery.
4. Governance and integration need to start early
SLC places strong emphasis on early governance, including the idea of a shadow Active Wellbeing Board. The purpose is to keep sport, leisure and active wellbeing visible during transition and ensure these services are shaped alongside wider reform decisions. A similar mechanism could help New Zealand regions bring councils, health partners, mana whenua, operators, schools, community organisations and sport sector representatives together before decisions are locked in. Regional Sports Trusts (RSTs) are well placed to provide support in these areas.
Another important point highlighted by SLC is that successful reorganisation is not simply about strategy and governance structures. A great deal of the challenge will also sit in practical integration (for example systems, contracts, workforce arrangements, operational processes etc) which are often overlooked and under resourced.
5. Equity and local representation
Larger structures do not automatically produce fairer outcomes. Reorganisation can support regional planning and more consistent standards, but it can also dilute local voice. For New Zealand, reform must still respond to rural communities, smaller towns, high-growth areas, Māori aspirations, rangatahi wellbeing, disability access, transport barriers, in many cases an ageing population and affordability. A larger council boundary should not mean a generic service model.
The English experience suggests that local government reform is not automatically good or bad for sport and recreation. Its impact depends on whether the sector is organised, evidence-led and outcome-focused when new structures are designed. For New Zealand, the opportunity is to move beyond defending existing leisure assets and instead position play, sport, recreation and active wellbeing as essential public infrastructure that supports healthier, more connected and more resilient communities.
Scandinavia
The experience of Local Government reform that has occurred in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway may also provide some lessons for New Zealand.
Research on the Scandinavian experience suggests that local government reform can strengthen capacity, coordination and resilience, particularly where councils are expected to deliver complex welfare, infrastructure and planning functions. However, reform does not guarantee efficiency gains and can create democratic, identity and implementation costs. There are three key lessons emerging from reform in Scandinavia:
1. Structural change is not enough
The key lesson is that structural change needs to be supported by clear functions, sustainable funding, local legitimacy, and careful attention to the balance between scale and democratic proximity.
The Scandinavian experience suggests that reform works best when structure follows function. Local government structures should match the scale of the services being delivered. Community-facing welfare and local services are generally held close to municipalities, while regional bodies are used for functions that require wider scale, such as transport, regional planning, roads, or regional development.
2. Reform does not automatically deliver lower costs
A second Scandinavian lesson is that amalgamation can improve administrative capacity, professional capability and regional coordination, but does not automatically deliver lower costs or better performance. Nordic reform experience shows that benefits are often long term and diffuse, while transition costs, local disruption and political resistance are immediate and visible.
3. Keep decision makers close to communities
A third lesson is that democratic proximity and local identity are central to reform durability. Scandinavian models place strong emphasis on local self-government, local taxation and elected local accountability. Where reform increases scale, it can also increase the distance between residents and decision-makers and weaken local attachment. This points to the need for reform models that strengthen regional capability while also protecting visible local representation, community voice and place-based identity.
Overall, the Scandinavian evidence supports a cautious, design-led approach: clarify which services need greater scale, ensure funding and implementation arrangements are credible, and build local legitimacy into the process.
The strongest lesson for New Zealand is that effective reform requires a deliberate balance between scale, capability, democratic accountability and local responsiveness. This is where some regional scale and capability can potentially deliver better outcomes, provided there is still a dimension of localised delivery.
What New Zealand councils should do now
Develop a clear value proposition for sport, recreation, play, parks and community facilities. Consider re-positioning toward “Active Wellbeing” services to align with broader outcomes.
Review inherited assets, service levels, contracts, renewals liabilities, participation trends and access gaps.
Identify critical pre-reform decisions, including renewals, contract extensions, procurement and partnership commitments.
Prepare a “ready to roll” play, sport and recreation investment framework for any new or reconfigured authority.
Create a transition governance mechanism to keep play, sport and recreation visible through reform – consider external, independent support.
Use reform to rationalise duplication where appropriate while protecting essential local access.
Align planning with health, transport, education, climate resilience, growth, open space, economic development and iwi/Māori outcomes.
Build a clearer performance story showing the wider public value of active wellbeing investment.
And finally, reform should be used to improve community outcomes, not simply to redraw boundaries or combine balance sheets.
If you want more information, then email info@rslc.nz to be added to our mailing list or follow our LinkedIn page for future updates.
Acknowledgement: Thank you to the team at SLC UK for supporting RSL and sharing their thoughts on reform in England. To view a series of articles developed by SLC UK on local government reform in England then visit: News - SLC