Everyone has an opinion on the merits or otherwise of their local authority, particularly when the rates go up or money is spent on a controversial project.
That concern does not often enough translate into bothering to vote in local elections, but that is another issue.
The country’s local government network is made up of 78 councils, the largest group being the 61 territorial local authorities with its mix of city and district councils, 11 regional councils and six unitary authorities (these combine the functions of regional and territorial councils).
There has been some tinkering with local government since the major reform of local government in 1989 and some mergers of councils but no major national reorganisation since then.
In several areas, ideas of amalgamating some councils arise from time to time, but getting support for such changes is never simple.
Recently, we have had much noise and colourful language, as is his wont, from Regional Development Minister Shane Jones about what he sees as the need to get rid of regional councils.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon also says he wants to explore the possibility of scrapping New Zealand’s regional councils as the government reforms the Resource Management Act.
Mr Jones, in a Facebook post promoting his plan to take a remit to the New Zealand First conference later this year on "rationalisation of local government" with a view to next year’s general election campaign, describes himself as a doubting Thomas about regional government.
He goes on to say the reason for this is because Otago Regional Council is "opposed to my mining projects".
He accuses the council of destroying jobs and "conveniently" discovering a moth nobody had heard of to scuttle the expansion of gold mining.
Mr Jones says the country cannot have a system of regional government which refuses to rapidly allocate resource consents to drive growth and to effect better outcomes for employment. In the course of this he has also labelled the ORC the "Kremlin of the South Island" and accused it of being full of "KGB green zealots".
While he portrays the council concerns as solely about a rare moth, the report recommending the application be declined in full also said the project would result in actual and potential effects on surface water quality, aquatic ecology, natural inland and ephemeral wetlands and lizard habitat.
The report said these effects would be "significantly adverse" and could not be avoided, minimised, remedied, offset or compensated for.
Mr Jones sounds more like a miffed pre-schooler after losing a tussle over a toy digger in a sandpit, than a government minister promoting a serious discussion about long-term change.
As ORC chairwoman Gretchen Robertson diplomatically put it, "name-calling" was unhelpful.
The Otago council remained focused on its responsibility to protect the environment while supporting sustainable economic development.
"That balance is not ideological — it reflects the law, and we believe it reflects the values of our region: caring for both our environment and our livelihoods."
She said the country’s regional councils welcomed "meaningful dialogue" on how to best deliver the services they were intended to — flood protection, biosecurity, civil defence, environmental management and public transport.
As we saw with the Three Waters reform proposals before the last election, it is easy for fervour to be whipped up over issues involving local control, debates to become narrowly focused, and often not based in fact.
Those on either side of the argument quickly moved to talking, or shouting, past each other rather than working sensibly through the issues.
Mr Jones’ bombastic outbursts are setting the scene for more of that.
If there is to be reform, it should not be achieved without proper meaningful input from those it will affect.
The government saying "jump", and expecting those in the regions to respond "how high?" will not work.
