I agree with Twyford
October 25th, 2010 at 10:00 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Labour wants to stop local board members sitting on more than one board in the Super City.
The party has responded to the case of pharmacist Warren Flaunty, who was elected to three Auckland Council local boards – Rodney, Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour.
As well, he was re-elected to the Waitemata District Health Board and the Waitakere Licensing Trust. …
Yesterday, Labour’s Auckland issues spokesman, Phil Twyford, said the loophole that allowed Mr Flaunty to win five seats should be closed.
I agree. I think you should be able to stand for one board only. I would even go so far as to stop people staying for Council and DHB – people do it just to gain extra money from their name recognition.
“Power is already too concentrated in the hands of too few people running the Super City.”
A bit ironic, as Labour’s policy was to have fewer local boards.
“I will put up an amendment when Rodney Hide’s Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill comes back to the House in a few weeks,” Mr Twyford said.
Local Government Minister Rodney Hide, the author of the Super City council structure, said Mr Twyford was looking to change the wrong law.
The way to address the issue and other concerns, such as postal voting, was through the regular review of the local body elections by the justice and electoral law select committee. That could lead to changes to the Local Electoral Act, he said.
Mr Hide said that personally, he did not think it was right for anyone to sit on more than one local board – “MPs can’t represent three electorates.
“But I will be guided by Parliament and the proper place to consider it is the select committee,” he said.
I agree with Twyford’s intent but Rodney is right that you should submit to the review of the elections – I certainly intend to.
My thoughts for improvement at the moment are:
- Ban multiple candidacies or at least multiple roles if elected
- Encourage councils to have more one person wards – you get more informed decision making from people having to select say one preferred person from half a dozen locals, than try and select three to five people from a list of 20 – 30
- Either stop having DHB elections on the grounds there is miniscule informed voting, or change them from STV and/or introduce smaller wards for DHBs so voters don’t face 30+ names to rank.
- The issue of STV and FPP is challenging. FPP is much more user friendly for multiple vacancy elections (tick three people instead of rank 30 people) but STV can work quite nicely in single vacancy elections (rank from 1 to 7 these mayoral candidates). It would be good to have DIA or LGNZ or someone do some research amongst voters about how they find the different systems. I’m not worried about outcomes under either system – my interest is how do we lift turnout, and get more informed voting.
- I will also advocate for term limits for Mayors at least. I think term limits remove some of the advantages of incumbency, especially when a lot of voting is based on name recognition alone.
Related posts:
- I agree with Twyford
- 2010 Local Authority Elections Inquiry Submission
- A wannabee quintuple dipper
- I agree with the Mayors
October 25th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Does Phil Twyford also disapprove of people standing for selection in more than one parliamentary seat?
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Does Twyford also disapprove of people who have only just been elected to a local body board or similar, immediately putting their hat in the ring for a local electorate party nomination?
(Actually, he probably does, given they are contesting the same nomination.)
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Postal voting should be removed forthwith.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 10:44 am
While democracy’s great I’ve always agreed about DHB elections – what’s the point. Surely responsibility for health services is something best left to qualified experts rather than the most popular candidate.
As for term limits for mayors, I’ve always found term limits inherently undemocratic. If the majority still want the same candidate after X number of terms, legislating that they can’t have that candidate is very undemocratic legislation. The only place I’ve ever seen term limits as appropriate is in places where the democratic system is fragile, in which case they can be very useful to stop somebody seizing power for life.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 10:47 am
I agree having people like Mr Flaunty elected to three community boards plus health board and licensing trust is ridiculous, and I am sympathetic to a law change which limits people to staning for one community board only (just as you can only stand in one electorate for Parliament).
BUT, I do not support a complete ban on standing for multiple positions (eg licensing trust and a community board) and do NOT support term limits. The fundamental reason is the principle of letting the people decide. I think you have to have an absolutely compelling case to deprive voters of the right to choose whoever they think best. There is a case here, but not a compelling one.
In support I advance two practical considerations. First, the number of really competent people – especially in smaller communities – is limited. Blocking someone from serving on (say) the Mataura Licensing Trust and the Tuatapere Community Board may simply deprive one of them of an able person who has the time and enery to do a great job for both.
Likewise for term limits. Not all long-serving mayors are stale and useless. Not all councils have a pool of really good replacements available. In Southland Frana Cardno has been mayor since 1992. But her only opponent in 2010 was a nutcase. I say let the voters decide for themselves whether someone has served for long enough.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 10:54 am
multiple candidacies are not so much an issue – and good to allow people without enough support for Mayor, but enough support to be a ward councillor (for example) to still represent those who vote for them.
Multiple roles is a problem, and if elected to multiple spots a candidate should have to choose, and then the next candidate on the list should come through. Slightly unfair for multiple wards who may all want to be represented by the same person, but voter awareness is so low for non-council votes it is worth it.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
I think local bodies voting needs to be looked at. It is not only Auckland that allows people to stand in multiply community boards. Get rid of in al places not just Auckland
We need to recognise there is differences between City Councils (at least the larger ones) and District Councils.
While multi council wards work ok with district councils it is not democratic. The system we call first past the post for this is actually Plurality-at-large voting (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality-at-large_voting).
I think that either city council move to single wards and have proper first past the posts or move to more proportional system (either STV or Single non-transferable voting or something else).
I can’t see the logic that a city the size of Christchurch has only 13 councillors and a mayor which the same number as Wellington a city half the size.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
In my small hometown the first Mayor was there 30 years, and the second I think almost 20 years, they weren’t paid though and no credit card, still they were really respected, bit like the All Blacks.It was a far better system now they have no Mayor.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
“Liarbore wants to stop local board members sitting on more then one board in the super-sewer”. Surely Twyford jests, my God think of all the professional socialist leeches that would be limited to one pay packet, the humanity, it’s just not cricket.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
One easy way to help – scrap DHBs.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Good one DPF. Thats the difference between those on the right and the left.
The righties will support good leftist policies.
But, those on the left would rather hell freeze over than give support to anything from the right. Even if it fits their agenda.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Banning multiple office rather than multiple candidacies, I think. Some people might be keen to contribute at any level. But if they’re lucky enough to get more than one mandate, they should be declared elected to the highest office or, if all the offices are equal, then made to choose.
And smaller wards is definitely a good idea… the more we can drive accountability between elect4ed representatives and a defined group of electors the better democracy will be.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
I was about to write my thoughts when I realised I totally agree with Rex. We have already banned dual candidacy veritcally (if you are elected to council and a community board or council and mayoralty you only get to do the higher one), we just need to ban horizontal representation in the same authority as well.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 7:27 am
“ยป Ban multiple candidacies or at least multiple roles if elected”
Yeah fuck the public if they want to elect someone to multiple boards. They need to be protected from this evil.
Vote: