Kiwiblog

The Nelson Mail reports:

    The Local Government Commission has approved the draft reorganisation scheme for Nelson and Tasman, paving the way for the two local authorities to merge by the end of the year.

    The new council, to be called Nelson Tasman District Council, would have a mayor and 16 members. All staff of both councils, apart from the chief executives, would transfer to the new council, to be headquartered in Richmond.

It’s good to see local authorities in Nelson and Tasman being pro-active about how to improve local government in their area. I wish our politicians in Wellington would do the same.

The Dom Post reports from earlier this week:

    Wellington’s smaller cities could “wither away and die” if councils in the region are not restructured.

    The warning comes from a group who have launched a website encouraging debate on local government amalgamation in the Wellington region.

    The Shape the Future website was launched in response to a lack of action by politicians.

    The aim of the campaign was to encourage ratepayers to voice their views on the future of local government in the region.

    The website’s founding sponsors are Bob Francis, the former mayor of Masterton and current chairman of the Wairarapa District Health Board, Porirua city councillor Ken Douglas, Wellington accountant John Shewan, community sector representative and Owhiro Bay resident Vivien Maidaborn and Paraparaumu company director Norrey Simmons.

    Mr Douglas, who has been a councillor in Porirua since 1998, said the current debate on whether councils in the region should be consumed by a super-city had missed the point.

    Instead, discussion should be about purpose not structure.

    “I’m supporting this approach about the need for rationalisation because if we don’t then places like Porirua will essentially just wither away and die.”

I’m with Ken Douglas on this issue. In fact I’ve gone to the Shape The Future website and signed up as a supporter. I note other supporters include the Mayor of Porirua Nick Leggett, former Labour Minister Steve Maharey, NZer of the Year Sir Paul Callaghan so it is a diverse group of supporters politically. I encourage readers who support change, signing up as supporters and engaging on what that change should be.

Ken Douglas is right to say we should focus on purpose or functions, not structure. The structure should follow.

My thinking is:

• We should define what functions are best provided regionally – water, tourism, transport etc are obvious inclusions but there are more. Let’s debate them.
• Then we should state that all other functions should be decided or provided at a local level (not necessairly the same boundaries as current) – community facilities
• After we have worked out functions, then you look at structure issues such as whether the regional body and the local bodies should be seperate entities as at present, or part of one overall Council (as in Auckland). I think people would be keen to get details about how much money is spent on our nine current Councils communicating and liasing with each other, plus enforcing rules and even prosecuting each other.
• Then we would also look at where boundaries should be at the local level. If for example we decided that we should have one entity with a regional council and several community councils, then you might have three community councils covering the area of the current Wellington City. One for the CBD and neighbouring suburbs. One for the South-Eastern suburbs and one for the North-Western suburbs.

Many of the Mayors and current Councillors (not all) see any change as a threat to their tenure. That is why we should not leave the debate to them. That’s why I’m supporting the debate.

Stuff reports:

A group of regional councillors is promoting the establishment of a Wellington super-city, sparking accusations of underhandedness among mayors.

The group says a “super-council” could be up and running in two years and consist of just 11 members.

The plans for a new Wellington council are revealed in a discussion paper being circulated by Greater Wellington regional council chairwoman Fran Wilde and other regional councillors.

So what is proposed:

The regional council, Wellington City Council and seven district and city councils would be abolished and replaced by the super-council and local community councils. Wellington City Council currently has neither the political nor legal mandate to consider regional interests or issues beyond its boundaries, the document says.

There are currently 87 councillors, eight mayors and 13 regional councillors across the region. Under the new proposal, the 11-member council would be made up of a representative each from Wairarapa, Porirua and Kapiti. Hutt Valley would have three and Wellington four, and a leader would be elected separately.

I’m all in favour. We don’t need 100 councillors for our region.

The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has reported back its inquiry into the 2010 local body elections.

I was one of a relatively small number of submitters, and was pleased to see they have endorsed some of the proposals I made. It’s a good reminder that we have a small enough country that individuals can have an effect on laws, without having to be an MP yourself.

The recommendations of the committee are:

1. have five, not four, weeks between close of nominations and delivery of voting papers
2. have a trial of Internet voting in the 2013 local authority elections
3. have more flexibility around the timing of release of profiles
4. ensure the order of candidates names in voting papers is completely randomised
5. examine the issue of candidates serving on multiple boards
6. explore having the Electoral Commisson responsible for the oversight of local body elections

Nos 2, 4 and 6 were proposed by me (and possibly some others). The Government is not bound to do what the Committee recommends, but I hope they do. Postal voting is a dying mechanism – fewer and fewer people go to the post office regularly. An option of voting over the Internet would list turnout rates for local body elections, and also make it easier to make an informed vote.

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR TO THE
INQUIRY INTO THE 2010 LOCAL AUTHORITY ELECTIONS
BY THE JUSTICE & ELECTORAL SELECT COMMITTEE 

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.

   Management of Elections
   

2. With the establishment of an Electoral Commission that manages all aspects of our national elections (including enrolments in the future), I believe it is timely to consider whether the Electoral Commission should be given authority over our local authority elections.
3. Purely on a cost basis, I imagine there would be considerable savings as 70 odd TLAs all have their own systems, or pay an external provider for them.
4. More importantly, the Electoral Commission would add extra integrity to the elections. By this, I do not mean there are serious problems at the moment, but current returning officers are often staff of local authorities whom naturally form working relationships with current Mayors and Councillors etc.
5. I do not ask the Select Committee to agree immediately to place the Electoral Commission in charge of local authority elections, but to request the Government to seek advice about the pros and cons of doing so.

   Making an informed decision
   

6. It is of concern that turnout for local body elections is very low. Even worse, of those who do vote – few cast what most would consider to be highly informed votes.
7. In making such a statement, I offer myself up as an example. I follow news and politics more than probably 99% of the population. But even I struggle with knowing who to vote for on my local District Health Board, or how to rank all the candidates in my local ward
8. Many people get elected to office based either on their ability to write a nice 200 word blurb, or based on the spelling of their surname.

   Recommended Solutions
   

9. That ballot papers be required to be in random order.
10. Recognising that trying to select or rank dozens of candidates for multiple vacancies is difficult and off-putting, that the Local Government Commission be encouraged to move towards smaller wards – even one person wards. I think more people would vote, and have confidence in their choices, if they had to just pick one Councillor from their local neighbourhood (as well as a Mayor).
11. The principle of smaller wards should also apply to Regional Councils and DHBs. Having their wards as TLAs, means that you ask voters to do the near impossible – intelligently rank 30 – 40 candidates, or even select 7+ persons.
12. Having both STV and FPP in use at local body level is somewhat confusing. STV is excellent for single vacancy elections such as Mayoralties, but I find it very offputting for multiple vacancy elections due to the high number of candidates. If there was a move towards more single vacancy elections, then STV would be more widely supported I believe.
13. That e-voting be trialled in the 2013 local body elections in a few areas. I believe e-voting could lift voter turnout, and also help with more informed voting as the online ballot could have links to (longer) blurbs on each candidate, or even candidate websites.

The 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.

Wayne Thompson in the Herald reports:

The country’s most elected local government politician, Warren Flaunty, has struck a problem – how to be in two places at once.

Mr Flaunty was elected to three Auckland Council local boards, as well as being re-elected to the Waitemata District Health Board and the Waitakere Licensing Trust.

My view is that this should not be possible. I believe one should be able to stand for one local body only.

While I do recall the Herald did highlight the multiple candidacies before the election, many voters would be unaware that Mr Flaunty was standing for three different community boards. If they had known this, I suspect he may have been elected to none of them. Maybe there should be a requirement for this information to be disclosed in the booklet with the voting papers.

Last week board members received notice of the time and place for their swearing-in ceremonies.

Two of Mr Flaunty’s boards – Rodney and Upper Harbour – will hold them at 6pm on Wednesday, November 3.

Rodney’s will be in the rural Coatesville Settlers Hall and Upper Harbour’s in the stadium at Albany.

Mr Flaunty said the clash was “not a big issue”.

The boards should schedule their regular meetings to be on the same days and time. That way the quintriple dipper will have to choose.

Porirua also elects their Mayor with STV, so I figured I would also look at how their election went. There were five main candidates (and four others) – Cr Nick forLeggett, Deputy Mayor Litea Ah Hoa, former Race Relations Conciliator Gregory Fortuin, Cr Liz Kelly, former Cabinet Minister Russell Marshall and Mike Duncan.

On 1st preferences the results were:

1. Leggett 37%
2. Ah Hoy 18%
3. Fortuin 13%
4. Kelly 10%
5. Marshall 8%

After eliminating the four minor candidates, it was:

1. Leggett 42%
2. Ah Hoy 20%
3. Fortuin 16%
4. Kelly 12%
5. Marshall 10%

So Leggett picked up the plurality of the vote from the minors.  Then Marshall dropped out:

1. Leggett 45%
2. Ah Hoy 22%
3. Fortuin 18%
4. Kelly 14%

Kelly went next:

1. Leggett 52%
2. Ah Hoy 26%
3. Fortuin 22%

So Leggett won quite easily – and with an iteration to spare.  What helped him is that he picked up a plurality of the preferences from each defeated candidate as they dropped out (except for the first two minor ones).

Leggett started off with fewer first preferences that Kerry Prendergast. But as he was not the incumbent Mayor, he was able to pick up many of the second preferences from candidates as they dropped out. This is harder for an incumbent to do, as people often rate you first or last.

Sally Rae at the ODT reports:

From Mackenzie District Council receptionist to the district’s new mayor – Claire Barlow is finding her new position “very exciting and quite surreal”.

Mrs Barlow (47), who is Mackenzie’s first female mayor, beat two sitting councillors, Graeme Page and Dave Pullen, for the top job after John O’Neill decided not to seek re-election. …

In her job, she had been meeting the public for the past seven years and had an indication of their frustrations.

As a council staff member, she saw things she wanted to achieve but could not do it from the receptionist’s position.

She could not stand for council and also continue as receptionist so “I thought I’ll go for the top”.

She decided she had nothing to lose and was “stoked” with the result.

Congratulations to Mrs Barlow. Some people look down at receptionists (NB I spent several years part-time as a receptionist), and it’s a nice sign that people judge someone on their merits – not on a stereotype about the sort of jib they hold.

The Press reports:

New Ashburton Mayor Angus McKay and Hurunui District councillor Ross Little may be laughing, but the other sacked Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors who sought new mandates have missed out.

In less than six months McKay has gone from dismissal at the hands of the Government to the top job in mid-Canterbury and ironically replaces one of the architects of the move against the ECan council, former mayor Bede O’Malley.

Further north, Little will now represent his local community in the Amberley ward on the district council.

There was no political resurrection, however, for other ECan councillors who lost their jobs when Environment Minister Nick Smith and Local Government Minister Rodney Hide stepped in earlier this year.

Sir Kerry Burke, Jane Demeter, Pat Harrow, Jo Kane, David Sutherland and Rik Tindall all stood for council, community board or district health board positions, with Tindall also having a shot at the Christchurch mayoralty.

It is interesting that Christchurch voters have rejected the people that helped made Ecan so incompetent (ranked 86/86).

Angus McKay was not one of those, and pleased to see him become Mayor Ashburton. Angus is a former National candidate standing against Jim Anderton in Wigram.

Trevor Mallard blogged that Cabinet won’t be a happy place due to:

1. Labour Party Mayor of the Supercity with a clear centre left majority. Key’s nightmare.
2. National Mayor of Hamilton given the boot. Martin Gallagher top polling for council.
3. Harry Duynhoven Mayor of New Plymouth
4. Laws team routed in Whanganui with a left leaning Mayor.
5. Act Mayor of Hutt City given the boot.
6. Prendergast National Mayor of Wellington ahead by 40 with 1,000 specials to count. Her Wellington supermayorlty dreams in tatters.
7. Tony Ryall’s bette noir Richard Thompson tops the poll for Dunedin City.
8. One of Wellington’s best analysts David Choat got elected to the DHB.

Now Trevor is right that overall those on the left had far more to cheer about, and overall it was good for them. However I think he pushes things too far to suggest that this is some massive rejection of National. I thought I would do a more nuanced analysis of the results than Trevor’s shotgun blast.

Labour Party Mayor of the Supercity with a clear centre left majority. Key’s nightmare

The result in Auckland is a very good win for the left. It will eneregise their activist base, and also provide profile for some of their office holders. And the get out the vote machine in South Auckland should concern National, if they can repeat it for 2011.

However this does not mean Auckland has turned on National. Many National supporters did not vote for Banks or C&R for various reasons. This was primarily about local perthe sonalities and tickets.

And there may be a silver lining for National. A Banks and C&R controlled Super City may have kept the opposition to a super city high. If they made unpopular decisions, then people might blame the Govt in 2011 for them.

But having Brown and the left in charge, may mean that any backlash from unpopular decisions is likely to hit the incumbent Mayor and Councillors rather than the Government. Remember they have to put in place a single rating system that will produce significant winners and losers – and the losers can howl loudly.

National Mayor of Hamilton given the boot. Martin Gallagher top polling for council

Bob Simcock is a former National MP, but the person who beat him was supported by a few Nats also. Bob’s lack of campaigning is cited by most as why he lost. And the election of Gallagher to Council in top spot is no surprise – former MPs have massive name recognition, and you have to be exceptionally unpopular to be a former MP and not get elected to Council. I note Di Yates did manage it though.

Harry Duynhoven Mayor of New Plymouth

Harry has always been greatly popular in New Plymouth – far more so than the party he represented. His election is little surprise, and it is primarily about him. It does assist Labour to have one of their own as Mayor though, so the inclusion is not without some merit.

Laws team routed in Whanganui with a left leaning Mayor

Anyone who thinks Whanganui politics is about right/left rather than love or hate Laws obviously does not live there. A huge number on the right wanted the Laws team gone also.

Act Mayor of Hutt City given the boot

David Odgen was involved with ACT. But the guy who beat him was not someone from Labour, but Ray Wallace who if memory is correct was involved with National.

Prendergast National Mayor of Wellington ahead by 40 with 1,000 specials to count. Her Wellington supermayorlty dreams in tatters.

A big win for the left – especially the Greens. Agreed.

Tony Ryall’s bette noir Richard Thompson tops the poll for Dunedin City

Shock horror – a Labour Party activist does well in Dunedin. Next Trevor will be surprised that they drink Speights there also.

One of Wellington’s best analysts David Choat got elected to the DHB

And congrats to David. But with respect I don’t think the PM will be losing sleep over his election to the DHB.

Also former Labour Ministers also lost out in Taupo, Christchurch and Porirua so not all one way. And several of the victories in places like Dunedin were wins for “fiscal conservatives”.

As I said overall they were certainly happier tidings for the left, and they do provide some opportunities for Labour to capitalise on them. But it isn’t as dramatic as Trevor portrayed.

I will update as they come in:

• Tim Shadbolt has been re-elected in Invercargill with three times as many votes as Suzanne Prentice
• Roly Ellis is the new Mayor of Tararua (the district not the cheese) with twice the votes of the closest rival
• Winston Grey elected Kaikoura District Mayor easily
• Kerry Burke failed to even make Council in Christchurch
• Maureen Push elected Mayor of Westland District
• David Ayers elected Mayor of Waimakariri
• Aldo Miccio elected Mayor of Nelson
• Angus McKay (well done Angus) elected Mayor of Ashburton, beating the incumbent by 1,300 votes
• Julie Hardaker has beaten Bob Simcock by 800 votes to become Mayor of Hamilton – Simcock had a 30% lead at the end of August.Lisa Lewis got 951 votes – were they all men?
• Barbara Arnott returned as Mayor of Napier
• Peter Butler Mayor of Central Hawke’s Bay District
• In Taupo incumbent Rick Copper leads Mark Burton by 139 votes with 300 to count. Should be okay – thank God. And congrats to Anna Kirk for getting elected to Council.
• Les Probert wins in Wairoa
• In Stratford Roger Hignett beats John Campbell 651 to 649. Recount I suspect!
• Harry Duynhoven has been elected Mayor of New Plymouth by 1,700 votes
• Ray Wallace has beaten David Ogden by 5,000 votes in Lower Hutt
• Kevin Winters re-elected in Rotorua by 4,400 votes

After the local body elections, I’m keen to review the various public polls that were published, and compare them to the actual results. I’m especially interested in the ones that used Internet panels.

If you know of a poll that has been published for your local elections, can you leave a comment with the details (or e-mail it to me).  A link to the story, if online, is desirable. If offline – details of the results, the sample size and the type of poll would be wonderful.

Wellington will be one interesting example – the Wellingtonian has done a phone poll which shows Kerry Prendergast with a large lead (15% to 20% off memory) while the Dom Post has only a 8% lead based on a readers survey.

So again, any details of local polls – even in community newpspaers, would be welcome.

Wonders never cease. North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams has complained to the Police because he does not like what Cameron Slater says at public meetings. He has also asked the Returning Officer to remove Slater from the ballot, because it seems Cameron is mean to the poor Mayor.

Williams said Slater’s whole campaign was a form of the “stalking” he had endured for over a year.

“He stands up at a meeting and says ‘I will not urinate on a tree, I will not use a credit card in a Takapuna bar, I will not send drunken texts’.”

What makes the Mayor think they are references to him?

“What he has put in his candidate profile is harassment. His whole campaign is focussed on attacking me.”

Yes it is. Labour’s entire 2008 campaign was focussed on attacking John Key. But I don’t think John Key tried to get Helen Clark arrested or struck off the ballot.

Wiliams urged the electoral officer to strike off Slater as a candidate.

Nice to have a Mayor with such a fine regard for elections.

Police confirmed they had received a complaint against Slater but had undertaken not to make comment to the media.

Here are some good question to ask the Police.

1. How many times in the last month has Mayor Williams e-mailed the Police District Commander urging him to arrest Slater?
2. How many of these e-mails were sent after midnight?
3. How many micro-seconds did the Police spend deciding what to do?

The Herald reports:

Former MP Brian Neeson and pharmacy owner Warren Flaunty are each standing for election to five local authorities, heading a bigger than usual field of candidates who have put their hands up for three or more Super City roles.

Both men say they can cope with the workload if they are successful in several of those bodies.

But it is the possibility of both of them serving on two local boards of the Auckland Council that has raised rivals’ eyebrows.

Mr Neeson, an MP from 1990 to 2002, is nominated for the council’s Albany Ward as well as the Rodney Local Board and the Upper Harbour Local Board.

If he was elected to the council, he said, he would drop the boards.

But there is also the possibility of him being elected to the Waitemata District Health Board and the Waitakere Licensing Trust.

So Brian wants to be a quintuple dipper. Actually it is worse than that. Simon Power, in a moment of insanity, also appointed him to the Human Rights Review Tribunal, he is trying to be a sextuple dipper.

I would change the law for local body elections, so that candidates can stand for one office only. You can stand for either the City Council or the DHB – not both. You can stand for Council or a board – not both. Also – you can stand for Mayor or Council – not both.

90% of local body elections is name recognition, and your skill at writing a 200 word blurb. People stand for multiple roles to increase their name recognition. Works well for them – doesn’t work well at getting people dedicated to the one role.

Okay, well here are my thoughts on my local Council.

Mayor

• Al Mansell
• Bernard O’Shaughnessy
• Bryan Robert Pepperell
• Kerry Prendergast
• Celia Wade-Brown
• Jack Yan

It is effectively a two person race between Kerry Prendergast and Celia Wade-Brown.

I’m voting for Kerry on the very simple grounds that I think she has done a good job, that Wellington is heading in the right direction, and that she is effective at making things happen.

Have not agreed with Kerry on every issue – especially the daft proposal to have a city wide liquor ban. But I do think she has been a good Mayor.

She can be tough, but you need this at times. For example she was one of the local government negotiators that got the Government to agree to up its contributions to sorting out leaky homes from 10% to 25%.

Celia Wade-Brown is a good Councillor in my opinion, and has run an energetic campaign. She is a Green Party member and while she has some good policies, she is opposed to the very sensible four lanes expressway from the airport to Levin.

I will be ranking Kerry No 1.

Celia will be No 2, Jack Yan No 3, Bernard No 4, Al Mansell No 5 and Bryan Pepperell No 6.

Lambton Ward (3 councillors)

• John Bishop
• Stephanie Cook
• Adam Cunningham
• Michael Fowler
• Marcus Ganley
• Mark Greening
• Ian McKinnon
• Iona Katherine Mary Pannett
• Kris Price

Two of the three choices are very easy to make – Ian McKinnon and John Bishop. Ian does an excellent job as Deputy Mayor and is highly respected.

John would be a superb addition to the Council. He is very good at working with diverse groups of people to achieve good outcomes, has sensible instincts and is not one of those people who will grandstand or cause trouble just to get name recognition. He will lend a good strategic focus to Council.

The third choice is harder.. You have incumbent Councillors Stephanie Cook and Iona Pannett. You also have former Mayor Michael Fowler.

Sir Michael was a great Mayor, but I think his contributions lay in the past.

I have voted for Stephanie Cook in the past, despite her Alliance/Green background. She has been good with the community groups. However I think people can serve too long on a Council and after 15 years she seems to be losing her energy.

The Wellingtonian had a panel assess Councillors in July, and Stephanie got rated pretty poorly.

My third pick is going to be Green City Councillor Iona Pannett. It goes without saying we disagree on quite a few policy areas. However she was the leader of the forces against the daft city wide liquor ban, which I very much supported her on.

Being a Councillor is not just about voting on policy and spending, but also about representing and helping the community and Iona does an excellent job there. The Wellingtonian panel actually rated her the most accessible and effective Councillor – which is a real tribute for a first termer.

She also works hard for election. She knocked on my door in 2007  and did so again in 2010. I like candidates who put in the hard yards actually meeting the voters.

So Iona will be ranked No 3.

Northern Ward (3 Councillors)

• Ngaire Best
• Camilia Chin
• Justin Lester
• Gareth R Morgan
• Helene Ritchie
• Gary W Roberts
• Hayley Wain

I always recommend voting Helene Ritchie bottom. Over a period of around 30 years she has shown herself to be almost incapable fo working with others. She even got sacked as Deputy Mayor in the 1980s by her own team, she was so bad.

Ngaire Best is an incumbent Councillor and who I would rank 1 if in the ward.

When Hayley Wain was elected to Council in 2004 I was delighted. I think it was great that an 18 year old wanted to stand, and could get elected. And I think she did a pretty good job in her first term.

I’m not sure what has happened, but she doesn’t seem to have done well this term. The Wellingtonian panel absolutely caned her and said she was the least effective Councillor.

I feel a bit sad saying this, as I like Hayley, but I think it is time for her to have a break from the Council, finish her studies, and get a job in the “real world”. Then down the track I think she would be in a very strong position to continue contributing.

So who to support from the challengers? I like Justin Lester. He is a small business owner, has run a good campaign and seems a good choice.

Gary Roberts looks a reasonable punt also. Don’t know about him but he is a former military policeman, and head of the local RSA which I approve of.

As with all these positions, comments from locals sharing their views is welcome.

Onslow-Western Ward (3 Councillors)

• Sharon Blaikie
• Jo Coughlan
• Mike Fleming
• Andy Foster
• John Morrison
• Jack Ruben
• Ingrid Sage

Fairly simple here. I would re-elect Jo Coughlan, John Morrison and Andy Foster – rank them 1, 2 and 3 and rank Jack Ruben 7. The three Councillors are all good people, even if Andy did have a brain fart over the indoor stadium.

Eastern Ward (3 Councillors)

• Ray Ahipene-Mercer
• Taima Fagaloa
• Mike Fiechter
• Leonie Gill
• Rob Goulden
• Simon ‘Swampy’ Marsh
• Mike Mellor
• Amanda Nicolle
• Allan Probert
• Rosemary Russell
• Tony Travers

I would rank Simon “Swampy” Marsh as No 1. He is a great guy, who was an iconic radio figure for many years. He is one of the more creative guys you can meet, and has strong community and business links. I think Swampy would be an excellent addition to the Council.

I would also put in a good word for Amanda Nicolle. Amanda is a fellow panelist on Face Off on ZB with me, and has a passion for Wellington. She is a good peron to get things done.

The three current Councillors are all quite well known. I’d keep at least one of them on – so people should also support their preferred incumbent.

Southern Ward (2 Councillors)

• Paul Eagle
• Ida Faiumu-Isa’ako
• Keith Johnson
• Greg McPhee
• Will Moore
• Thomas Morgan
• Rex Nairn
• Bernard O’Shaughnessy
• Seann Paurini
• Bryan Robert Pepperell

I’ll just put in a plug for Seann Paurini. Seann is an old friend, and cares deeply about helping those most in need. I don’t agree with all his policies, but do know he would be a diligent advocate.

As always I recommend ranking Peperell bottom. Of course they won’t, and he’ll get back in as name recognition is what most people vote on.

Hard to judge the others on the basis of bios. Rex Nairn looks like he might be okay. Again comments welcome from locals.

I am not an Aucklander, but spend a lot of time up there, and follow the Council politics pretty closely. For those who may find it helpful, here are some of the people I would vote for, if I was a voter:

Mayor

It is probably no surprise I am a John Banks supporter. Most readers will already have made their minds up about who to vote for, but for those who have not – I will make this point.

It is healthy for all democratic bodies to have periods where they are governed by the left and by the right. They right tend to be more determined to keep rates down, and the left tend to be higher spending (and higher rating or taxing). That way, over time, you get a pretty good balance .

For the inaugural term of the new Auckland Council, I think it is quite vital that the initial Council and Mayor be “fiscal conservatives” who will be tough enough to keep costs and rates under control. If that first Council starts spending like crazy (as Dick Hubbard and City Vision) did, then high levels of debt and rates will be locked in. Once spending has been committed to, it is damn near impossible to cancel. On the other hand it is considerably easier to loosen the fiscal reins at some later stage, than try to tighten them retrospectively.

So apart from all the other reasons, that is an additional reason for this inaugural 2010 election to vote for Banks and a fiscally conservative Council.  If you do not – well all I can say it is won’t me be in Wellington complaining about my rates bill

Albany

20 candidates seek two spots.

Candidates who I would describe as broadly being centre-right, and would be good for keeping rates down are:

Cameron Slater (Whale Oil)
Linda Cooper (C&R)
Graeme Hunt (North Now)
Josephine Kim (C&R)
Margaret Miles (Shore Voice)

Albert-Eden-Roskill

11 candidates seeking two spots. I recommend

Chris Fletcher (C&R)
Paul Goldsmith (C&R)

Franklin

Three seeking one spot. I recommend

Des Morrison (C&R)

Howick

Six seeking two spots. I recommend

Dick Quax (C&R)
Jami-Lee Ross (C&R)

Manukau

12 seeking two spots. Candidates worth supporting:

Sylvia Taylor (Residents & Ratepayers)
Bob Wichman (C&R)

Manurewa-Papakura

Seven seeking two spots. Best bets are probably:

Barry Curtis (Residents & Ratepayers)
John Walker (Independent)

Maungakiekie-Tamaki

Five seeking one spot. Highly highly recommend:

Alfred Ngaro (C&R)

North Shore

Twelve seeking two spots. Good candidates are:

Christine Rankin (North Now)
George Wood (C&R)

Orakei

Three candidates seeking two spots. Both Cameron Brewer and Doug Armstrong would make excellent contributions to the new Council – sadly only one of them will make it.

Rodney

Four seeking one spot. I would recommend:

Penny Webster (Independent)

Waitakere

Nine seeking two spots. I recommend:

Mark Brickell (C&R)
Marie Hasler (C&R)

Waitemata & Gulf

Mike Lee is likely to win as the vote looks to split between Alex Swney and Tenby Powell. If a poll shows one of them in ahead of the other, then I’d back the one with the best chance of winning against Lee.

Having said that, Lee is not too bad as lefties go. He is at least competent.

Whau

Four seeking one spot. I recommend:

Noeline Raffills (C&R)

Local Boards

Generally you should vote for these tickets:

C&R
North Now

And generally you should not vote for these tickets:

City Vision
Shore Voice (this is debatable – some candidates it appears are centre right, while others are former Labour MPs)
Grey Power
Future West
Any ticket that mentions “people” in its name
Residents & Ratepayers Team in Howick
Labour

I welcome comments/feedback from locals as to the leaning of other tickets.

Brian Rudman writes:

The Local Government Commission agrees there is a problem. In its July 2008 review of the Local Electoral Act, the commission acknowledged that its analysis of the 2007 elections “did show that the order of candidates on the voting document had an impact on election outcomes.

“Candidates whose names were early in the alphabet (and therefore early in the candidates’ profiles booklet) and early on alphabetically ordered voting documents were up to 4 per cent more likely to be elected than those whose names were later in the alphabet.”

It also found “there was a significant bias in favour of candidates in the left column of voting documents when there was more than one column of candidates”.

But the commissioners called for more research, concluding “a definitive solution to this issue is unlikely”. When I checked this week, no more research had been done.

With modern systems of printing, randomising ballot papers is not a difficult task. If it helps eliminate bias in the election process then surely it should be adopted.

Random ordered ballots would be a problem in the general election, as votes are counted manually. But for local body elections which use barcode scanners, they would be fairly simple to do, and it will help reduce bias based on surname.

Either that or scrap the lengthy lists that cause the problem and create more single-member, locally based, wards.

I tend to favour single-member wards also. I think most people can choose one name from say half a dozen or so. But they struggle with choosing 3 out of 15, let alone 7 out of 30. It becomes almost a random selection at that stage.

The Dom Post reports:

A website designed to help boost the country’s low voter turnout figures for local body elections has gone live.

The website, elections2010.co.nz, is a one-stop shop that aims to equip voters with all the information they need to vote in October’s local body elections.

Just 44 per cent of eligible local body election voters cast ballots in 2007.

By keying their residential address into the website, voters are instantly told which council and ward they are eligible to vote in and which candidates are standing for council and mayor.

The site contains detailed profiles on each candidate, including information on their political leanings, conflicts of interest and five main issues.

There are also links to candidates’ Facebook and Twitter pages and pre-recorded video addresses, and voters can post questions to candidates online.

The site, developed by Local Government Online with backing from Local Government New Zealand, also details which other entities voters are eligible to vote for, including district health boards and various local trusts. It will contain information on thousands of candidates, trusts, councils and boards.

What a good initiative.

I stuck in the street I live on, and it listed the four elections I can vote in, and where they have been supplied, a link to a candidate’s page.

What would be good is to take this further, and actually allow people to cast their votes via the Internet. One could have a ballot paper with hyperlinks to candidate’s pages. That way people would gain far more info than the usual 200 word biography you get in the post.

Well done to LGNZ and LGO for creating this.

No Right Turn alerted me to this private members bill drawn from the ballot. He supports the intent, but not the details of the bill. I have problems with both.

The bill basically forces every city council, district council and regional council to have one or more Maori wards – reserved for voters of Maori descent.

I think such a move would be appalling, and push us towards a Fiji style country, and set back race relations massively.

I also think it shows how dangerous it can be when the debate keeps shifting down this path.

At a national level, we have had the Maori seats since 1867. They were well intentioned, allowing Maori who owned property communally to vote – a right limited then to property owners.

In an ideal world the seats would have been abolished in 1879 when the property requirement was abolished. It is somewhat shameful that up until 1976, Maori were not even allowed to vote on the general roll.

I regard it as a shame that the Royal Commission’s recommendation to abolish the Maori seats (and in exchange have a lower threshold for Maori parties) was not implemented. Have race based seats is just not something that long-term I think is likely to create a more harmonious New Zealand.

However I do generally accept the proposition that regardless of the lack of a principled rationale for race based seats, that trying to unilaterally abolish them would be an act that would in itself be disharmonious and create a huge backlash. There is a huge difference between not creating something, and taking something away. Hence I don’t think it is wise to try and abolish the Maori parliamentary seats, unless one could get widespread agreement from Maori to it.

But having said that, I think it is important that the Maori parliamentary seats be seen as a historic exception, and not the rule. However we are in some danger of ending up there.

In 1998 Tuariki Delamere sponsored a bill to allow the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to create a Maori ward or wards.The argument was that it was only for that one Council which had special needs, and the parliamentary seats was a precedent. And people thought well, why not allow it.

It was not supported by National, but in 2001 Labour passed it as the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001.

The exception then became an option for all, and Labour passed the Local Electoral Amendment Act 2002 which allowed any Council to establish Maori wards either on their own initiative or by referendum, which can be  upon petition by 5% of electors.

So a historical anomaly became a one off example in one Council, and then became an option for all Councils.

And it didn’t stop there. The Royal Commission on Auckland recommended that the new Auckland Council have three Maori seats, regardless of whether or not the people of Auckland wanted them. Labour demanded that the Government create Maori seats for Auckland, rather than even leave it to Auckland to decide. So again, the debate shifted from should they even be allowed, to should it be created without consultation.

And then finally we have the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill by Te Uroroa Flavell, which would impose Maori wards on every council in New Zealand, dividing every single authority up into Maori and non Maori.

Now it is all well intentioned, and supporters will claim the means justify the ends. But again I don’t think we want to end up like Fiji with race dividing voters electorally.

So I fully expect Flavell’s bill to be voted down. No doubt the Greens will vote for it. I suspect Labour would love to vote for it, but they may vote against it on the basis of its flaws (beyond the principled opposition to it). NRT describes these:

Currently councils can establish Māori wards, and if they do, their number is determined by the number of people on the Māori roll in that district. Flavell’s bill would change this to being determined by the number of people of Māori descent. However, voting in those wards would still be limited to the 60% of Māori on the Māori roll. Which means that those wards will be systematically undersized, and those Māori systematically over-represented.

This would be a huge gerrymander. Basically voters in the Maori wards would have twice as much power as those in other wards. NRT also fisks the justification from Flavell:

Flavell’s justification for this change is that

This change is made because 40% of the Māori population is under 18 years and is therefore excluded under the current formula.

But this is simply incorrect. The current formula uses the definitions from the Electoral Act 1993, which specifically includes people under 18. So those people would already be represented (though unable to vote)

Incidentally I believe electorate populations should be based on the adult population, not the total population – but that is a debate for another day.

NRT concludes:

I don’t think this is an attempt at a stitch-up; rather its likely a mistake born of not reading the law closely enough. But the result is a deeply flawed bill. Fortunately, those flaws can be resolved at select committee.

The mistake can be easily resolved. But I don’t think the bill should proceed. Generally I support most bills going to a select committee, but this bill seeks to move in a direction which I so strongly disagree with, that I don’t think it should even get past first reading.

Incidentally under this proposed law, four local authorities would be forced to have the majority of their seats elected from Maori wards. Think about the level of resentment that would cause amongst non-Maori? I don’t mean the resentment would come from having a majority of Maori on a local authority. I, for one, would not care a damn if the majority of Wellington City Council was Maori. I would object though if the majority had been elected from wards which I am banned from being eligible to enrol in, because of my lack of the right genes.

It is a pity that the debate on this bill will now be whether or not Maori seats on Council should be compulsory or voluntary. In fact the debate should be about whether Labour should have ever created them at all in 2001.

The Herald approves of the electoral finance bill:

The Government’s long-awaited bill reforming electoral finance law solves many of the problems created by its contentious, discredited and repealed 2007 predecessor and the dated 1993 Electoral Act. …

It is better than both the EFA and the status quo. Personally I wanted to see considerably more reform, but accept the Government made a decision not to push through changes, which did not have wide parliamentary support. Effectively Labour were given a veto over the changes.

Several new measures have been raised since details of the reforms were announced in February.

The most welcome is news that a separate bill will finally be introduced to tighten the use by parties and MPs of parliamentary funds to campaign to voters. …

A bill later this year will align the parliamentary and electoral law definitions in the “regulated period” or three months before an election. Parties will no longer be able to spend parliamentary money for communications other than those that “explicitly” seek people’s support or party vote or donations or membership of their party.

News I exclusively broke here, using papers I obtained under the OIA.

The Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill sets a three-month regulated period, down from the entire calendar year of an election in the 2007 law, and limits it still further if an election is called fewer than three months from polling day.

The regulated period is shorter if the election date is announced less than three months before the last possible election date, not just the actual election date. Expect to see this change at select committee.

The Dominion Post has advice for Nick Clegg:

Welcome to our world. Britain is about to face the realities of coalition government. The voters have delivered an MMP result under a first-past-the-post system, effectively leaving the Liberal Democrats to decide who gets to form the next government. It is small wonder that the New Zealand Cabinet Manual is being avidly read in Whitehall offices. …

However, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will have to be careful not to overplay his hand. His party’s tally of 57 seats is fewer than he and others expected, and he needs to be conscious that how he behaves now will play a huge role in how Britons view proportional representation.

Mr Clegg is unlikely to have a better chance to push the cause of electoral reform with the other parties than he does now while still in the role of kingmaker – at the time of writing no deals had been struck – but if he is seen as putting his party’s interests ahead of those of the country, or of seeking to be the tail that wags the dog, there will be a backlash.

As some NZ parties have found.

And the ODT looks at local government:

The pros and cons of what exactly are local government’s “core activities” continue to be debated by the public in a somewhat desultory fashion, while it is obvious central government has long embarked on providing the statutory means by which local councils can shed what might once have been regarded as essential services in favour of the private sector. …

Mr Hide’s Local Government Amendment Act 2002 Amendment Bill, which has received its first reading in Parliament and will now be further considered in select committee, enables local councils to offer tenders to private companies to provide water services for up to 35 years, essentially a technical change since councils can already take that action, but only for a 15-year period.

He has argued that the change is necessary because 15 years is not sufficient to enable an adequate return on the economic life of water assets.

In other words, his Bill is designed to make the possibility of privately contracting water services more attractive.

But even if the Bill survives without radical change, it does not necessarily mean water services will be privatised.

Indeed, councils will retain control of services should they opt to have components contracted to private providers; the restrictions on the sale of council water services in the Local Government Act 2002 remain.

d

Brendon Burns blogs:

Today’s announcement violates that fundamental principle upheld by the Right that there should be no taxation (rates) without representation. It axes a democratically-elected body without any public input for the first time at least in recent history. It forces through this bill under urgency from later this afo with no chance for Cantabrians or anyone else to comment.

And No Right Turn exhales about me:

So you’d think that when the present government announced plans to sack an elected council and strip 560,000 people of their vote in regional council elections for four years, as a “defender of democracy”, he’d be similarly outraged about it, right?

But Burns is wrong. This is not unprecedented in recent history. From the Q&A:

Rodney District Council in May 2000
Local Government Minister Sandra Lee appointed a Commissioner, Grant Kirby, to replace the elected Council following a Ministerial review. The Government introduced and passed the Local Government (Rodney District Council) Amendment Bill which suspended elections of Councillors and
clarified the role of commissions, through all stages under urgency on 2 May 2000, with the support of the National Party and all parties in Parliament. This intervention was at the Council’s request.

So it happened under the last Government, and to a territorial local authority which has far bigger impact on people’s lives than a regional council. Also done under urgency, and also done at the request of local Councils – but in this case the ten or so territorial authorities.

What is the big difference?

National in Opposition supported Labour, because they put doing the right thing ahead of petty politics. If a Council has not managed a water allocation plan after 18 years, then it is a pretty sure sign than things are wrong and need fixing. Just waving a stick and saying “try to do better” has not worked.

The Local Government Commission (chaired by former Labour Councillor Sue Piper) has announced the final boundaries for the Auckland Council.

Major changes:

• An increase from 12 to 13 wards, with Orakei-Maungakiekie Ward splitting into separate Orakei and Maungakiekie wards.
• An increase in the number of local boards from 19 to 21, with the Hibiscus-Albany-East Coast Bays Local Board now
  a Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and Upper Harbour Local Board and the Waitakere Local Board now a Henderson-Massey Local
  Board and a Waitakere Ranges Local Board
• No change to northern boundary, but some minor changes to the southern boundary

So the overall situation is:

Wards

1. Rodney – 1 Councillor
2. Albany – 2 Councillors
3. North Shore – 2 Councillors
4. Waitakere – 2 Councillors
5. Whau – 1 Councillor
6. Albert-Eden-Roskill 2 Councillors
7. Waitemata and Gulf – 1 Councillor
8. Orakei – 1 Councillor
9. Maungakiekie-Tamaki – 1 Councillor
10. Te Irirangi – 2 Councillors
11. Manukau – 2 Councillors
12. Manurewa-Papkura – 2 Councillors
13. Franklin – 1 Councillor

The ward boundaries have been adjusted to be closer in terms of population per Councillor. 11 out of the 13 wards have a deviation of less than 11%. Rodney does “best” getting a Councillor for only 54,100 residents and “worst” is Oraeki who get a Councillor for 81,100 residents.

Local Boards

1. Rodney – 9 members from 4 sub-divisions
2. Hibiscus and Bays – 8 members from 2 sub-divisions
3. Upper Harbour – 6 members
4. Kaipatiki – 8 members
5. Devonport-Takapuna – 6 members
6. Henderson-Massey 8 members
7. Waitakere Ranges – 6 members
8. Whau – 7 members
9. Albert-Eden – 8 members from 2 sub-divisions
10. Puketapapa – 6 members
11. Waitemata – 7 members
12. Waiheke – 5 members
13. Great Barrier – 5 members
14. Orakei – 7 members
15. Maungakiekie-Tamaki 7 members from 2 sub-divisions
16. Mangere-Otahuhu – 7 members
17. Otara-Papatoetoe – 7 members from 2 sub-divisions
18. Te Irirangi – 9 members from 3 -sub-divisions
19. Manurewa – 8 members
20. Papakura – 6 members
21. Franklin – 9 members from 3 -sub-divisions

So in total we have:

• 1 Mayor
• 20 Councillors
• 149 Local Board Members
• 13 Wards
• 21 Local Boards
• 32 electoral divisions for boards

The Dom Post reports:

Kerry Prendergast has confirmed she will stand for a fourth term as Wellington mayor.

She told The Dominion Post last night that she would stand again as an independent, after earlier ruling out contesting the October election so she could spend more time with her family.

She will announce her candidacy this morning, appearing to kill the possibility that she would front an election bid on the Sir Bob Jones-promoted Vibrant Wellington ticket.

“I have decided to seek a fourth term as mayor to ensure there is ongoing confidence in Wellington’s direction, leadership and management of the council. I have always stood as an independent and I will do so again this year.”

Significant challenges included retaining the NZI Sevens tournament, increasing inner-city safety, and ensuring Wellington maintained a strong voice on national issues and resource allocation, Ms Prendergast, 56, said. “My campaign will be about how Wellington is doing really well at the moment and is a fantastic city. Why change?”

iPredict has Kerry;s probability of re-election at 86%, which seems about right to me.

Sir Bob said Ms Prendergast’s decision came as no surprise but he believed there was still a possibility she might stand on the Vibrant Wellington ticket.

The central plank of the business-led group is to create a bus-free pedestrian boulevard in the central city.

“If Kerry is going to back this, and it has been hinted at, then we wouldn’t put a mayoral candidate up. Simple as that. It would create a monument to her tenure as mayor.”

I’m a big fan of the vision to have a vehicle free boulevard from Courtenay Place to Lampton Quay. It will be interesting to see who stands on the Bob Jones ticket.

Personally I don’t think the ticket needs to worry about the Mayoral spot – the Mayor has only one vote, and has a huge number of other things to do. All the ticket needs is a majority on Council to instruct officers to draw up a plan for consultation setting out how the boulevard can be created, and what the cost is.

The Waikato Times reports:

The race for seats on the Hamilton City Council this year could get pretty raunchy – stripper Lisa Lewis is considering standing in October’s local body elections.

Ms Lewis confirmed to the Waikato Times yesterday she was considering standing and wanted to gauge reaction before deciding. “I am 28. I believe we need to look at the percentage of young people that live in the ‘Tron. Why don’t they vote? Because there is no interest in them to do so. If I decided to stand I would ensure there would be a motivation and reason for them to vote.”

Lisa could do for Hamilton, what Tim Shadbolt did for Invercargill, and really put them on the map!

Bernard Hickey blogs:

Here’s the problem: local government is growing at least five times faster than the rest of the economy. Those costs are being passed on directly to ratepayers in the form of rates, fees and fines that are growing at least four times faster than prices elsewhere in the economy.

The latest Local Authority Statistics released this week showed council spending nationwide rose 10 per cent to $6.21 billion in the year to June from the previous year.

Total revenues collected rose 6.8 per cent to $6.15 billion, which meant the collective council budget balance slumped into a deficit of $56 million. That will eventually be reflected in higher debt.

To put this growth in spending and rates into context, our economy contracted 1 per cent in the year to March in real terms and was flat in actual terms unadjusted for inflation. So how are all these revenues raised? General rates nationally rose 7.8 per cent to $3.33 billion in the year to June, while water rates rose 10.3 per cent to $263 million. Fees and fines rose 10 per cent to $376.6 million. Meanwhile the Consumer Price Index rose only 1.9 per cent in the year to June.

Generally rates should only increase in line with population growth and inflation in my opinion. When rates are growing faster than overall economic growth, the situation is not sustainable in the long term.