The Government has released council performance information on the Department of Internal Affairs website. You can find council profiles and group comparison tables, along with supplementary material, on the Department website here.
This includes the Mackenzie District Council. The data is from historical information which has already been published by the Council. We encourage the community to view it, and the supporting explanations and information.
The Government’s release includes the following:
Why might results vary between councils?
Results may vary between councils, even those within a council group, for a range of reasons. Each council operates in a unique setting shaped by its geography, history, and community expectations. These factors influence decisions about what services and facilities councils provide, and how these are delivered.
High-tourism areas like Queenstown Lakes, Kaikōura, and Mackenzie face extra demand for services and facilities like roads, rubbish collection, and public toilets. Rates are often higher in these areas to cover the costs of hosting more guests. High-tourism areas, reflected in higher guest nights per capita in New Zealand, can be found here.
We agree that comparisons between Councils are difficult, as each Council has different circumstances and there are differences in how costs are applied to rates. For example, within the Mackenzie cost allocations vary between Twizel, Tekapo and Fairlie townships, and between properties having Council water and wastewater, and those properties that do not.
The Mackenzie District is New Zealand’s third smallest council by population (c.5,500 residents), yet it spans the country’s 10th largest land area (7,139 km²), much of which is conservation estate.
Alongside agriculture, tourism is a key economic driver, contributing over 20% of the district’s GDP. Iconic attractions such as Aoraki/Mount Cook, the Dark Sky Reserve, and the iconic Mackenzie Basin draw visitors year-round. Mackenzie stands out nationally with 130.7 guest nights per resident — the highest in New Zealand.
Tourism also presents funding challenges for Mackenzie. Many visitors are "drive-through tourists" who use local infrastructure without significantly contributing to the local economy. This puts a heavy burden on the district’s small ratepayer base, creating a structural funding imbalance.
Since 2021, Mackenzie District Council has prioritised investment in core infrastructure, especially three waters and roading. However, servicing high visitor numbers with a small resident base remains a major equity issue. Without targeted government funding, and regulatory changes to enable revenue from visitors (user pays) to the district, there is the risk of being unable to sustain the infrastructure that supports the community and economy. The issues facing housing availability and affordability in the district have similar challenges.
Financial Overview
Debt Position: Debt has increased due to strategic investments in projects like the Fairlie Drinking Water supply, Twizel water mains, roading, and the District Plan review. However, the council retains significant borrowing capacity — at the date of the released figures having used only 29.2% of its debt limit under Local Government Funding Agency rules. Borrowing allows the cost of significant infrastructure to be spread inter-generationally, rather than only imposed on the ratepayers at the time the infrastructure is built. Long term infrastructure requirements, especially for 3 waters are likely to significantly increase debt.
Balanced Budget Ratio: The Council’s balanced budget ratio sits at 82%, which is below the sector median of 96%. The balanced budget ratio measures whether the council’s operating income is sufficient to cover its operating expenses, including depreciation. A ratio below 100% means the council is not fully funding the long-term cost of its assets. In Mackenzie’s case, this is mainly due to not applying rates to fully fund depreciation on roading and other facilities such as the township community/events centres. A staged plan is in place to improve this over time and move toward full funding, although full funding brings with it the challenge of increased rates.
Capital Delivery: Council achieved 99% of its planned capital spend in the year reported. Of this, 59.2% went to water infrastructure and 15.2% to roading, reflecting the district’s commitment to meet compliance requirements, enable growth, and support its dispersed and high-traffic roading network.