Former Pacific candidates and new faces are putting their names forward for this year’s Auckland local government election in Aotearoa.

The final confirmed list of candidates is out.

In the Manukau ward, Councillor Lotu Fuli, one of three current Auckland councillors of Pacific descent, has also served on the local board and is seeking re-election.

“Currently, we only have three Pasifika councillors at the governing body table — the mayor and 20 councillors. Out of 21, only myself, Councillor Bartley and Councillor Filipaina, who Is half Samoan, sit around that very important decision-making table,” Fuli said.

She said she feels the weight of responsibility of her role.

“I know that I’m here in this space to speak up and advocate for them, because with all due respect to the mayor and to our other councillors from other areas, they don’t know what it’s like for a Pasifika person growing up in Aotearoa New Zealand — in Manukau, in Otara, in Papatoetoe, in Magele [Māngere], or Otahuhu or Maungakiekie, Glen Innes.

“They don’t know because they haven’t lived that experience.

“They haven’t lived that struggle, and so they can’t really, truly relate to it.”

One Pasifika mayoral candidate
Twelve individuals have put their names forward for the mayoralty, including current mayor Wayne Brown. Ted Johnston is the only mayoral candidate with Pasifika links.

Each Auckland ward has a set number of council seats. For example, in Manukau, there are only two seats, currently held by incumbents Alf Filipaina and Lotu Fuli.

In the Manurewa-Papakura ward, there are two seats, and in Maungakiekie-Tāmaki there is one, held by Josephine Bartley. For local board nominations, the number of seats varies.

Those elected make decisions about things like community funding, sports events, water quality, and even dog walking regulations.

Vi Hausia, one of the youngest Pacific candidates this year, is running for the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board (Papatoetoe subdivision). He said he was born and raised in south Auckland.

“Growing up I’ve always had the sense of, ‘oh, it is what it is. It’s always been like that’. And then you get a bit older and you realise that actually things isn’t ‘is what it is’.

“It’s been as a result of people who make decisions in important forums, like local board.”

Strengthening youth engagement
Safety and strengthening youth engagement are issues for him.

“Ensuring that when kids come out of high school there’s a strong pathway for them to get into work or into training, whether that’s a vocational training like builder apprenticeship or university, because that’s the link to ensure that our people, particularly our Pacific people, are engaged within our society, and are able to to find who they are and to be able to contribute back to society.”

He said Māori and Pasifika youth were overrepresented in the statistics of high school leavers who come out of high school and there’s quite a high number of people who go straight onto welfare.

“So we’ve got a responsibility on the local board as well as central government, to be able to understand what the issues are, and to ensure that young people are having the opportunity to be able to be the best versions of themselves.”

Another current Auckland councillor, Josephine Bartley, said it was vital that Pasifika were at the table.

“It’s important because if you look at the make-up of the city, we have a large percentage of Pasifika, and we need to be active. We need to be involved in the decision-making that affects us, so at a local board level and at a city council, at a governing body level.”

She said she was hopeful voter registrations would go up.

“It’s always difficult for people to prioritise voting because they have a lot on their plate.

“But hopefully people can see the relevance of local government to their daily lives and make sure they’re enrolled to vote and then actually vote.”

‘Stop blaming’ Pasifika
Reflecting on Pacific representation in mayoral races, Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board chairperson Apulu Reece said the 2022 race, where Fa’anana Efeso Collins came second to now-mayor Wayne Brown, could have had a different outcome.

Apulu said it was time to stop blaming communities for low turnout and instead question the structure.

“There’s probably some value or truth in the fact that we needed to get more people out voting for Efeso and Māori and Pacific people often too busy to worry about the voting paper that they’ve left on the fridge.

“But I want to twist that and and ask: why didn’t the white people vote for Efeso? Why is it always put on us Pacific people and say, ‘oh, it’s your fault?’ when, actually, he was one of the best candidates out there.

“In fact, one of the candidates, the palagi [Pākeha] lady, dropped out so that her supporters could vote for Wayne Brown.

“So no one talks about the tactics that the palagis (Pākeha) did to not get Efeso in.

“That’s his legacy is us actually looking at the processes, looking at how voting works and and actually dissecting it, and not always blaming the brown people, but saying, ‘hey, this system was built by Pākeha for Pākeha’.”

There is a total of 12 mayoral candidates, 80 council ward candidates, 386 local board candidates and 80 licensing trust candidates.

Voting papers will be posted in early September.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A group representing local councils in Aotearoa New Zealand is calling for the Local Democracy Reporting programme to be expanded after the media company NZME announced a proposal to close 14 community newspapers.

The LDR programme funds local authority coverage at various publications and is managed and funded by RNZ with support from NZ On Air.

It covers most regions, apart from Waikato, Hawke’s Bay, the Kāpiti Coast, Otago, and parts of Manawatū-Whanganui and Canterbury.

Local Government NZ, a body representing most councils, said the programme should be expanded to all communities.

“Community newspapers have long played a key role in councils sharing what’s happening locally — from roading, parks and emergency management to big decisions about the future of their region,” LGNZ president Sam Broughton said in a statement.

Broughton was concerned NZME’s plan to shut 14 papers would have a devastating impact on a combined 850,000 readers.

“We are concerned that a move like this could have a negative impact on turnout in next year’s local elections.”

Isolating rural communities
Central Hawke’s Bay mayor Alex Walker said the lack of news coverage would isolate rural communities.

“The axeing of the 14 newspapers would mean that communities like Hawke’s Bay are left with a single subscription-only news outlet, that’s focused more on urban areas,” she said.

“These newspapers are also an effective two-way communication tool between council and the people they serve; particularly our older or more remote population who do not always have access to electronic media.”

The group suggested that the LDR programme’s scope be expanded to cover the rest of the country.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

This year was another huge one for Local Democracy Reporting, with our reporters at the forefront of uncovering some of the biggest stories in their regions.

Felix Desmarais in Rotorua exposed hitherto secret plans by the council to revoke the reserve status of seven council reserves, paving the way for new housing to be built on them, including social housing.

It became a major election issue with residents using the ballot to choose candidates opposed to the plan, which was subsequently canned by the new council.

Steve Forbes covered the chaos created by understaffed and overstretched Emergency Departments, with a deep dive in to the death of a patient who visited Middlemore Hospital.

He was first with a damning independent report that found the ED was “an unsafe environment for both patients and staff”.

It was a year of climate change-induced severe weather, and LDR reporters produced numerous stories on how councils were coping, or not, when it came to putting back together what Mother Nature had torn apart.

Flooding this year continued to represent an existential threat to Westport after the devastating inundation seen last year as well. Brendon McMahon’s stories have reflected the reality on the ground, such as the predicament faced by residents on Snodgrass Road who had been left out of a proposed flood protection scheme.

Nelson clean-up
Nelson reporter Max Frethey has kept readers up to date as that city deals with its own clean-up after devastating downpours in August, which left the city with a repair bill of between $40 million and $60 million, the biggest in its 160-year history.

The weather kept Marlborough’s Maia Hart busy this year as well in a region with communities still cut off or with limited access due to damage caused a year ago.

But it was her story on the resilience of elderly Lochmara Bay resident Monyeen Wedge that really captured readers’ attention. Living alone, she went three days without power and was forced to live off canned food.

The pandemic and the response of health authorities and councils continued to be an area of inquiry for LDR in 2022, and none more so than Moana Ellis in Whanganui.

While high vaccination rates amongst pākehā protected thousands from the worst affects of the Omicron wave, it was a battle for DHBs to reach many Māori, who already had a distrust of health authorities. Moana’s reporting ensured these communities were not forgotten.

In one of LDR’s most read stories of 2022, Alisha Evans uncovered the extent of bureaucratic overreach in Tauranga when through traffic was discouraged on Links Ave with the help of a fine. A glitch led to infringements being issued to drivers living as far away as the South Island who had never even visited the city.

Reporters have documented the good and the bad of people’s interactions with vulnerable ecosystems. North Canterbury’s David Hill shone a light on the wonton destruction of endangered nesting birds in the region’s braided river beds by 4WD enthusiasts.

Community efforts
While Mother Nature was the winner following a series of stories from Taranaki’s Craig Ashworth on community efforts to protect dwindling stocks of kaimoana, which finally resulted in a two-year long rāhui.

The national roll out of flexible median barriers, aka “cheesecutters”, caused consternation in Whakatāne where Diane McCarthy talked to police who said they would struggle to pass drivers on their way to emergencies and farmers driving slow-moving tractors worried about extra levels of road rage from slowed-up motorists.

The dire state of the country’s water infrastructure is magnified in places like Wairarapa, with its small ratepayer base and decades old pipes and sewage treatment. There was no better illustration of this than Emily Ireland’s reporting on Masterton’s use of its Better Off funding where it was pointed out a mum was using a council provided portaloo to potty train her toddler because sewage was backing up in the town system whenever there was heavy rain.

The human impact of decisions around water infrastructure was also brought in to sharp relief in Ashburton reporter Jonathan Leask’s excellent reporting. He took up the cause of a couple and their three children who were shut out of moving in to their dream home due to high nitrate levels limiting the building of any more septic tanks.

One of the biggest changes around council tables this year was the election of Māori ward candidates, with half of all councils now having these. Northland’s Susan Botting has been first out of the blocks reporting on the new dynamics at play, starting with Kaipara mayor Craig Jepson’s ban on karakia to open meetings. The ban was hastily reversed, but led to the largest hikoi in Dargaville for some time.

As with all of LDR’s reporters, choosing just one stand out story from the many fine pieces published throughout the year is almost impossible. None more so than Tairāwhiti reporter Matthew Rosenberg.

But no wrap of 2022 would be complete without mention of his story on bulldozer driver Hamish Pryde. The 65-year-old helped save Wairoa from a dangerously high river by negotiating already badly flooded paddocks and opening up a sand bar so the river could drain out to sea.

As Matthew says, “not all heroes wear capes, some drive bulldozers”.

Local Democracy Reporting is Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ On Air. Asia Pacific Report is a partner in the project.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Once again Aotearoa New Zealand’s local elections were plagued by low voter turnout and a lack of engagement. Is the media coverage, or lack thereof, contributing to the problem — and what can it do to help?​

In dozens of campaign trail appearances, new Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown told audiences he planned to get rid of board members on the council-controlled organisations Auckland Transport and Eke Panuku.

But just days after his election victory, employment lawyer Barbara Buckett gave RNZ’s Morning Report what appeared to be surprising news on that repeated promise.

“There are legal processes and procedures that have to be followed [with board members’ employment],” she said.

“While he can influence, he certainly can’t interfere.”

Buckett added that the governing body of Auckland Council would have to consent to any changes to the boards.

Interviewer Guyon Espiner seemed startled.

‘He doesn’t have the power’
“So he doesn’t actually have power to do this?” he laughed. “He’s campaigned on something he can’t do?”

That reaction was understandable.

Despite admirable efforts from Stuff’s Todd Niall, the Herald’s Simon Wilson, The Spinoff and publicly-funded Local Democracy reporters, the promises and policies coming from mayoral candidates hadn’t received quite the same level of scrutiny they would have had if this were a general election.

If tough, fact-checking coverage was in comparatively short supply for the most high-profile mayoral election in the country, it was sometimes non-existent in ward races and less-heralded mayoral contests.

Pippa Coom, who lost her seat in Auckland’s Waitematā ward, told Mediawatch she didn’t see much coverage at all of her tight ward race against Mike Lee.

She said some media outlets didn’t publish their usual rundowns on ward races like hers, and as a result the “void was filled by misinformation and attack ads”.

“As a candidate I have to absolutely take responsibility for my own loss and for not reaching my potential supporters and not getting people out to vote,” she said.

“But the media coverage is such an important part of our democracy and our elections. So if it’s not there, it is going to … have an impact on election turnout and the result.”

Lack of coverage, engagement
The lack of coverage was matched by a lack of engagement from the public.

Turnout in this year’s election was around 40 percent across the country. In Auckland, it only reached 35 percent for the second election running.

Auckland Council carried out research where it quizzed non-voters on why they didn’t cast their ballot back in 2017.

The number one reason given was that they didn’t know anything about the candidates. Number two was that they didn’t know enough about the policies — and number three was that they couldn’t work out who to vote for.

In the weeks before the election, RNZ’s Lucy Xia vox-popped some Auckland students who told her that not only did they not vote, but they didn’t know the identity of the city’s mayor.

“I don’t really have an opinion,” one said. “Maybe for the prime minister next year. But for mayor? I don’t have views.”

The lack of engagement weighed on the mind of fill-in presenter John Campbell during last weekend’s episode of TVNZ’s Q+A.

Poorer suburbs lagged behind
In conversation with reporter Katie Bradford, he pointed to turnout in the poorer suburbs of Auckland, which — as usual — lagged behind richer areas.

“You have to say that a turnout below 20 percent in Ōtara is heartbreaking. It’s not good enough either,” he said.

“This is a dismal fail by someone.”

He went on to list some possible culprits for that — including central government, uninspiring local candidates and the election system itself.

There is some evidence pointing toward all of those.

In a BusinessDesk column, Pattrick Smellie said postal voting favours older homeowners, who are more likely to stick around at an address and to send letters than younger people and renters.

“It’s hardly news that no one under 40 has much experience of actually posting a letter. We’ve known for a while that postal voting skews local body voting to the asset-owning classes,” he wrote.

‘Boring’ consultation processes
Others criticised local government’s consultation processes, which are often boring and inaccessible for people with busy lives, along with the ratepayer roll which gives homeowners a vote for each property they own in different places.

But in response to Campbell, Bradford honed in on the media’s role in voter disengagement.

“I’m passionate about local government and there are lots of people out there who are. But how do we show people why it matters? It’s a frustration as a journalist,” she said.

Bradford told Mediawatch it was unclear whether the comparative paucity of media coverage on local government reflected a lack of public interest in the topic — or vice versa.

“It’s almost a chicken and egg situation. How much coverage the media does is so much based on what we think the public wants, and if people aren’t picking up the paper, or they’re switching off the radio or the TV when local government stories are on, they’re not going to run them,” Bradford told Mediawatch. 

TV and radio had particular difficulty producing interest stories about local government because council meetings aren’t renowned for creating interesting visuals or soundbites, Bradford said.

She thought it would help if stories explicitly connected council decisions to nationally-significant issues like the housing crisis or Wellington’s ongoing problems with its water and sewage.

‘Maybe media partly to blame’
“All of this stuff is so important and I think people think it’s always central government’s fault. They don’t necessarily think there’s council involvement and maybe the media is partly to blame for not explaining that stuff enough,” she said.

“But it’s not just our job. It’s also the job of Local Government NZ and councils to explain that.”

Bradford backed the idea of giving local government a similar amount of attention as central government, which is covered round-the-clock by teams of press gallery reporters.

But the economics of that move likely wouldn’t stack up for newsrooms, which are already experiencing significant financial constraints, she said.

She thought reporters could help by targeting the broken parts of the electoral system and shining a spotlight on the things that keep people from engaging with councils.

“This election shows that turnout didn’t get any better despite quite extensive coverage, despite a big campaign by LGNZ and others.

“Whatever we have right now is not working,” she said. “Something has to change.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Political Roundup: Voters have sent a very strong signal, but will Central Government listen?

The results of the local government elections will be very difficult to process for the political left. Overall, it was a disaster for progressives, and a boon for conservatives. The left has to deal with a sea change of gigantic proportions, in which favoured liberal candidates – such as Efeso Collins running for the Auckland mayoralty – have been trounced. The other Jacinda Ardern-endorsed mayoral candidate – MP Paul Eagle in Wellington, was humiliated with his fourth place.

The extent of the wipe-out for Labour, Greens, and leftwing candidates was like a mirror image of the wipe-out of the National Party just two years ago at the 2020 general election. Throughout the country, progressives have done very poorly, with very few exceptions.

The capital was the only place where Labour and the Greens could celebrate, with Tory Whanau being elected mayor. But in her case, she says she won by positioning herself as the “change candidate” that conservatives could vote for.

Change is in the air

It was the “change candidates” who prospered throughout the country, with a rising mood of anger and disenchantment with the status quo. And so outgoing Dunedin Mayor Aaron Hawkins, who ran as a Green Party candidate, complained he was a victim of an anti-Establishment mood that was sweeping the country. The so-called “woke mayor” lost in a landslide against him.

Candidates on the hustings report that they have witnessed rising anger towards the Labour Government amongst voters they’ve talked to. There is no doubt that the cost of living crisis, the housing crisis, the climate crisis and so on are making people dissatisfied with a government that seems to be focused on all the wrong things.

According to Stuff political editor Luke Malpass there is a new “grumpiness” out there “in which a ‘I’ll turn the joint around’ sort of message resonates well.” He argues that Whanau’s “platform for change” was the same successful campaign message employed by Phil Mauger and Wayne Brown who won the Christchurch and Auckland mayoralties, respectively.

He says the Government needs to take notice: “this result will have Labour a bit worried. The sweep up and down the country suggest – at least to a degree – that there are voters who are ready to change and keen to lean into candidates with claimed competence or who stick to the knitting.”

The New Zealand Herald’s editorial yesterday had a similar reading of the situation: “Change is in the air the length of the country as several key local government elections opted for new brooms. The Government will be looking at the results with pursed lips as some Labour-annointed or linked mayoral candidates were shunned for those leaning right.”

The Herald explained that the left’s Auckland mayoralty candidate, Efeso Collins, suffered due to his “status quo” reputation during a change election. And with the centre-right Brown being elected, “It’s a first for the supercity after having leftist leaders since its inception almost 12 years ago.”

Collins in Auckland and Eagle in Wellington may even have suffered from Ardern’s endorsements of them. They both had much worse results than forecast. Herald political journalist Thomas Coughlan therefore pronounced that Ardern’s stardust has settled and her “once unshakable star power” has finally been repudiated. He says Labour received a bloody nose in the campaign.

A message to Labour over its reform programme

Coughlan explains that the Government now faces some tough decisions: “Labour now has to ponder whether it wants to go to war with a nation of right-wing mayors over Three Waters and RMA reform, or whether to drop or modify the policies (modification being far more likely) in recognition of the fact the electorate in many, perhaps most, parts of the country appears to have rejected them”.

Similarly, according to rightwing commentator David Farrar, “There were many reasons why so many left candidates lost – three waters, anti-car transport priorities, rates affordability etc. If Labour is sensible they will listen to the voters and ditch their Three Waters legislation. But if they refuse to listen, well they may get the same shock next year.”

Local Government NZ has also put out a similar analysis about the Labour Government’s reform programme being unpopular and an explanation for the degree of change in the election results. LGNZ’s president Stuart Crosby explains the reaction to Labour’s programme: “That is quite upsetting to a large number of people. That’s not to be unexpected there is that shift in political thinking… And it does lay a platform for the general election coming through this time next year as well.”

It’s the Government’s flagship policy of Three Waters reform that seems to be the most contentious with the public, and the leading candidate for Labour to axe if it wants to avoid a red-green bloodbath next year. As Nelson’s new mayor, ex-National MP Nick Smith says, the Government would have a “death wish” if it continued with this particular policy.

Will Labour listen?

Leftwing commentator Martyn Bradbury isn’t optimistic that the political left will draw any sensible lessons from the big defeats of the local elections: “The ramifications of the Left being smashed so badly should be a wake up call for the Left but it won’t.” He argues that they will focus instead on the victory of Tory Whanau, which he explains by the fact that “Wellington is the wokest city in NZ”.

Bradbury thinks the left will therefore double down on woke policies instead of going back to leftwing basics. He concludes: “The Left have spent far too much time talking and very little walking. Voters don’t believe we have the capacity to make transformational change any longer and are drifting back to the Right.”

In their upset over the big shift to the right throughout the country, many liberals are resorting to complaints about how the election was run to explain the failure of their preferred candidates. This comes across as sour grapes and an inability to face the reality of the public mood.

Nonetheless, there are some big questions about why voter turnout appears to have dropped, once again, to a record low – of about 40 per cent. In fact, once you consider that about 10 per cent of eligible voters aren’t even on the electoral roll at the moment, the real turnout was actually only about 36 per cent.

This record-low turnout is a problem. As some on the left have pointed out, it means that only about 10 per cent of Auckland have voted for Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown. But it also reminds us that the left’s favourite winner from the weekend, Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau, with about 16,000 votes, also only has a small fraction of support in the capital city.

So, it’s true that the latest election indicates that the current Labour Government has got a popularity problem. But this election also shows that most elected local politicians also have a legitimacy problem, supported by very few voters.

Further reading on Local Elections

Luke Malpass (Stuff): Local election results point to change – but how much?
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Stardust settled, Labour gets bloody nose in local elections (paywalled)
David Farrar: The slaughter of the lambs
Hayden Donnell (Spinoff): Winners, losers, big losers, and gigantic losers from the 2022 local body elections
1News: Analysis: Councils tilt right, Auckland sees poor turnout
Richard Harman: The angry election (paywalled)
Isaac Davison (Herald): ‘Appetite for change’ – New mayors in most major centres in strong election for right-leaning mayors
Nik Dirga (RNZ): Changing of the guard across country
Herald Editorial: Mayoral chains rattle to the right in key areas (paywalled)
Ashleigh McCaull (RNZ): First wāhine Māori elected to lead their cities identify major issues
1News: Three Waters is ‘death wish’ for central govt – Nick Smith
1News: NZ ‘pushing back’ against Govt policies, Carterton’s mayor says
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): New Zealanders have rejected Three Waters and housing intensification with council votes, ACT’s David Seymour says
Cherie Howie (Herald): Candidates’ campaign highlights and lowlights
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Landed gentry boomers turn local politics right, online voting is not the answer & danger for the left in 2023 elections
Scott Palmer (Newshub): Christopher Luxon, Jacinda Ardern, Chlöe Swarbrick react to results
Kelvin McDonald (Māori TV): ‘Huge increase’ in Māori mayors

TURNOUT AND ADMINISTRATION OF LOCAL ELECTIONS
Andy Asquith (Stuff): A new dawn or a false dawn?
Michael Neilson (Herald): Calls for review over ‘extremely concerning’ record low turnout
André Chumko (Stuff): It’s time to improve our local body election systems. How?
Erin Gourley and Nicholas Boyack (Stuff): Low turnout and a toxic environment: what’s wrong with local government elections?
Nicholas Boyack (Stuff): Local Government NZ calls for voting review after ‘very disappointing’ turnout
Tom Dillane (Stuff): Local Govt NZ execs echo Ardern in seeking review of voting process after ‘disappointing” turnout
RNZ: Luxon calls for local body elections reform
Katie Ham (Stuff): National Party leader Christopher Luxon adds to calls for a review of local government voting process

AUCKLAND LOCAL ELECTIONS
Todd Niall (Stuff): How the leading campaigns won and lost the Auckland mayoralty
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Wayne Brown: The storm before the storm
Simon Wilson (Herald): 10 big jobs for Auckland’s new mayor (paywalled)
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Auckland Council’s shift away from Labour
Jonty Dine (RNZ): Mixed reactions to Wayne Brown voted as next Auckland mayor
Newshub: Siouxsie Wiles ‘gutted’ by Auckland Mayoral result
Herald: Losing Auckland mayoral candidate Efeso Collins says he will quit local politics
Todd Niall (Stuff): Auckland Transport directors stay after chair resigned due to mayor Wayne Brown’s call to leave
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): New Auckland mayor Wayne Brown cancels interviews

WELLINGTON LOCAL ELECTIONS
Georgina Campbell (Herald): Wellington mayoralty: How an unknown beat a Labour MP (paywalled)
Steven Cowan: Tory Whanau: A corporate lobbyist is voted Wellington mayor
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Whanau bucks trend in referendum on leadership
Hamish Cardwell (RNZ): Failed Wellington mayoral candidiate Paul Eagle says ‘everyone voted on party lines’
Michael Neilson (Herald): Tory Whanau, Green Party-backed Wellington Mayor, on bucking right-wing trend across New Zealand
1News: Wellington’s new Green mayor Tory Whanau on the climate crisis
Kelvin McDonald (Māori TV): ‘The best day of my life’: Tory Whanau wins Wellington mayoralty
RNZ: Tory Whanau wins Wellington mayoralty: ‘It was just such an amazing moment’
Erin Gourley (Stuff): Even split of fresh faces and experience on Wellington’s new council

DUNEDIN LOCAL ELECTIONS
RNZ: New Dunedin mayor Jules Radich: Landslide results shows need for change in direction
ODT Editorial: Ballot box brutality
Otago Daily Times: ‘It’s devastating’: Aaron Hawkins surprised at decisive loss in Dunedin mayoral race

OTHER LOCAL ELECTIONS
Skara Bohny (Stuff): New Nelson mayor Nick Smith gets down to business
Chris Hyde (Herald): Hawke’s Bay chooses the status quo, but can they fix its problems? (paywalled)
Tess Brunton (RNZ): Nobby Clark steps into Tim Shadbolt’s shoes as mayor of Invercargill
Erin Gourley (Stuff): Too close to call: the mayoral races where a few votes could change the result
Alisha Evans (Local Democracy Reporting): Western BOP’s new mayor to bring a ‘younger perspective’
Matthew Rosenberg (Local Democracy Reporting): Wairoa Mayor Craig Little pleased to win ‘horrible’ campaign

Other items of interest and importance today

GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT
Andrea Vance (Stuff): Why the National/Labour donations trial raises troubling questions about our democratic defences
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Will 2023 deliver NZ’s most extreme government in 30 years? (paywalled)
Henry Cooke (Guardian): From minister to lobbyist in three months: New Zealand needs to do better on transparency
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Faafoi does a Neale Jones and the Professional Managerial Class advance
Thomas Mead (1News): ‘Less than adequate’ – Govt proposes ACC reform
Johnny Blades (RNZ): Treading water: the plight of the First Term MP
Daisy Cousens (Sky News Australia): Ardern’s war on ‘disinformation’ is a thinly-veiled attempt to ban the opinions of anyone who disagrees with her

ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT AND INEQUALITY
Susan St John (Daily Blog): Child poverty in NZ – what is the truth here?
Max Rashbrooke (Stuff): Sacrificing 50,000 workers on the altar of inflation is madness
Rachel Sadler (Newshub): Government removes qualification requirement for migrant chefs as part of new immigration support for hospitality, tourism sectors
Liam Dann (Herald): Time to hit pause on interest rate hikes? (paywalled)
Rob Stock (Stuff): The woman fighting New Zealand’s ‘unfairest tax law’

OTHER
Ben Espiner (The Platform): First we tweak democracy – now we tweak journalism
Audrey Young (Herald): The Supreme Court’s audacious decision on tikanga (paywalled)
Cushla Norman (1News): Ellis co-accused demands answers following court ruling
Ricardo Simich (Herald): Spy’s Auckland Power List: Who really pulls the strings in the City of Sails? (paywalled)
Sasha Borissenko (Herald): Amazing comments in Law Society review, but a less amazing outcome (paywalled)
John Gerritsen (RNZ): Education Ministry puts record keeping software on hold due to cybersecurity concerns

“Noa’ia ‘e” is a greeting people hear when you meet anyone from the island of Rotuma in Fiji or when they visit the Whānau Community Hub in Auckland’s Mount Roskill.

This doubles as the Rotuman-Fijian Community Centre.

It is run by Rachel Mario and her team for a whole host of purposes — a range of different programmes and activities.

On any day they could be delivering grocery parcels, health and wellbeing classes, or training community elders (Wednesdays), language and financial literacy classes for children (Saturdays), and leadership training,

You name it and they’re probably doing it.

Mario says the centre hasn’t only been hosting the Rotuman whānau, but it’s also a “home” for other stakeholders such as Asia Pacific Media Network, government agencies, and faith communities.

As chair of the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group Inc., Mario now wants to throw in her leadership hat for the local board.

Standing for Puketāpapa
So she is standing for the Roskill Community Voice team for Puketāpapa Local Board (Mount Roskill).

She loves doing social work and hopes that she and her team will be elected in the October election — and she vows to keep working hard to be the voice of the wider, diverse community in Mount Roskill.

Apart from running the busy programmes at the centre for her Rotuman community and other whānau, Mario has been advocating about issues of social injustice that her community has been facing for years.

Some of these issues include the housing crisis and alleged discrimination on distribution over resources for the Rotuman Language Week celebrations.

“The biggest challenge, which isn’t fair, is the discrimination against us, the Rotuman community. In the Ministry of Pacific Peoples, they want to run a rival language week up against ours,” she says.

“We started in 2018. In 2019, because they didn’t want to list our language week, they didn’t want to list anything we do regarding our endangered indigenous language.

In response to a question from Tagata Pasifika about the allegations of discrimination faced by Mario’s group, the Minister of the Pacific Peoples Aupito William Sio denied this, saying he was disappointed to hear about it.

Successful programme
However, in spite of the challenges, the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group successfully ran the language programme in May.

Other issues include the cultural identity of children born from intercultural marriages. However, the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group has embraced all children who have Rotuman blood.

TeRito Peyroux, a member of Rotuman Congregation at Kingsland Methodist Church, says that for those who could not speak Rotuman, “we are who we are, it’s much bigger than our language fluency.”

“It is about our sense of belonging and the people that are nurturing and supporting and being with us. For me, that means that having the privilege of celebrating language and culture in this foreign land makes me very humble,” she says.

Tupou Tee Kamoe, who is also one of the executive members of the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group, cites a quote from Green MP Teanau Tuiono that he had made in his maiden speech in Parliament which she has adapted for bicultural Rotumans:

“People often ask me, ‘am I half Rotuman, half Pacific’, and I say ‘na bro, I am not half anything, I am whole, if anything I am double — if I was a beer I would be double brown, if I was a flavour at the dairy, I would be twice as nice at only half the price.”

Laurens Ikinia is a postgraduate communication studies student at Auckland University of Technology and is a frequent contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Despite total borrowings reaching $11.1 billion, the Auckland Council Group’s latest results show it has managed to weather the worst of the storm created by the covid pandemic.

But the super city’s statement to the NZX shows it will face some tough times ahead as it seeks to balance its next budget.

In June the council with New Zealand’s largest Pacific population — almost 250,000, more than 15 percent of the city’s total of 1.7 million — agreed to defer $230 million in capital works over the next three years to address a $150 million per annum shortfall in its operating costs.

South Auckland projects affected included a new Flat Bush multi-use centre, the upgrade of the Papakura park and ride and the Ōpaheke Park sports fields.

Auckland Council finance and performance committee chairperson Desley Simpson said a number of projects were impacted on by the cutbacks, but increases in revenue and operational savings meant it was now in a stronger position.

“The key point we considered when preparing our Recovery Budget last year was to provide significant support to the economic recovery of Auckland,” Simpson said.

“This proved to be crucial, with our ongoing capital investment programmes helping to counterbalance some of the anticipated economic pressures in Auckland, as well as supporting future infrastructure growth needs for the region.”

Council’s results ‘positive’
The council’s debt increased $757 million to $11.1 billion in the 12 months to June 30, while its revenue grew by $361 million to $5.7 billion.

Manurewa-Papakura ward councillor Angela Dalton said the council’s latest results were positive.

“I think considering the last few years we’ve had, they are pretty good,” she said.

“But I think the future budgets are going to be really tough for us and we are looking at some challenging times ahead.”

Dalton said the results need to be looked at in the context of the Auckland Council Group’s total asset base, which grew by $9.7 billion to $70.4 billion in the past year.

“Considering the huge drop in revenue we’ve faced we’ve still been able to build our city and work on capital projects like the Central Interceptor and City Rail Link. They are the big game changers for Auckland.”

Some council projects were delayed, but it still spent $2.3b on capital works, including over $1b on transport-related assets, $815m on water, wastewater and stormwater and $384 million on other assets.

Climate change funding juggle
Simpson said whoever won Auckland’s mayoral race would have to juggle funding for climate change initiatives, infrastructure and transport spending, community facilities and parks and reserves.

She said while some projects that were deferred might be brought back from the brink, some may be consigned to political history.

“We’ve come through the worst period any Auckland Council has had to deal with. But it’s not going to get any easier.”

Auckland mayor Phil Goff’s final budget was announced in June and included $600 million for new bus services, funding for electric ferries and buses and completion of key links in the city’s cycling network.

The budget’s climate change package will be funded by a targeted rate, generating $574m over 10 years, with plans to seek a further $482m in funding from the government and other sources.

• The political campaign for mayor is being keenly contested with a Pacific candidate, Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, narrowly leading opinion polls for the October local body elections.

Local Democracy Reporting is Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ on Air. Asia Pacific Report is an LDR partner.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The results of the local government elections appear to show that New Zealanders are generally supportive of a more diverse range of representatives, having voted in greater numbers for candidates from traditionally under-represented groups.

The elections have therefore modernised our councils in a small but very significant way, helping address some long-standing imbalances in representation. Certainly, when it comes to gender and age, New Zealand’s local authorities have become more diverse over the weekend. In terms of ethnicity, it’s more complicated, and it will take longer to work out whether progress has occurred.

Talking to the NZ Herald’s Simon Collins, I termed the result “a diversity burst” and stated that a focus on diversity seems “to be the zeitgeist — people are wanting to see greater change in our local representatives.”  – see: Local council elections: ‘Diversity burst’ shatters council old boys’ club.

Collins reports: “Of the 63 local councils which have declared results so far, 25 per cent of the mayors are women — up from 19 per cent last time — and five of the 63 mayors are aged under 40.”

There is also a generally more ideologically progressive result across the country: “Certainly there is a more liberal direction, and by that I mean those candidates that stood on more progressive and environmental platforms seem to have done better than in the past”.

Voters have also been very willing to support new faces, with many incumbent politicians turfed out at this election. RNZ’s article, 44 percent turnout: voting numbers top two previous polls, states that this year’s “election results have injected a lot of new blood into local government”, with a much higher turnover of councillors than usual.

Local Government New Zealand spokesperson Mike Reid is quoted saying there’s “possibly more newer councillors than we’ve seen before; on average I guess probably about 30 to 35 percent councillors turnover.”

Wellington’s Labour Party mayor Justin Lester was a high-profile ousting – see Laura Walters’ Massive mayoral upset in the capital.

Some sort of youthquake 

The surge of youth representation is best reflected in the fact that there are now five mayors under the age of 40 (up from only two in 2016). Newshub lists them: “Campbell Barry (Hutt City); Nigel Bowen (Timaru); Sam Broughton (Selwyn); Aaron Hawkins (Dunedin); and Alex Walker (Central Hawke’s Bay)” – see Ella Prendergast and Dan Satherley’s NZ now has five Mayors under 40.

The above article quotes Local Government NZ’s Mike Reid explaining the increase: “Younger people are taking an interest in these elections in greater numbers than we’ve seen before, and often around themes like the environment… and wanting to see more local action on these issues.”

Elsewhere, Reid has also said that successful youth candidates actually tended to get higher votes than others: “One of the notable trends our analysis showed is that younger candidates were among the highest polling candidates in their wards”.

A 28 year old beat three-term Hutt City mayor Ray Wallace – see Georgina Campbell’s Hutt City elects Campbell Barry, NZ’s youngest mayor ever. This article explains other notable younger mayors from the past: “Joseph George Ward became mayor of Bluff in 1882 and Prime Minister in 1906. Former prime minister Norman Kirk was 30 when he became mayor of Kaiapoi in 1953, aged 30. Nick Leggett was 31 when he won the Porirua mayoralty in 2010.”

At the upper end of the “youth” bracket, Dunedin’s new mayor is 35-year-old Aaron Hawkins. For more about his win, see Joelle Dally’s Dunedin’s 35-year-old, hitch-hiking, Green Party mayor.

There have been some other significant elections of young people to councils, too. In Kāpiti, 18-year-old School Strike for Climate NZ co-ordinator Sophie Handford won a place on council – see Rosalie Willis’s 18-year-old wins seat on Kāpiti Coast District Council.

According to this, Handford sees her youth as her strength as a representative: “I’ll be the only person sitting around that table who knows what it’s like to be a teenager and a young person in this day and age… I think I’ll bring a forward-thinking approach to a lot of decisions, and a vision of what kind of Kāpiti we can create for the generations to come… We need to be represented diversely, and I’m excited that we are one step towards that now.”

Rotorua’s Fisher Wang, who has just turned 19 and works at McDonald’s, says his election shows “Anyone can be elected and we should see diversity as a strength” – see Zizi Sparks’ Fisher Wang elected as Rotorua Lakes Council’s youngest councilor.

Wang says: “It’s cool to see the community look past my age and see what I stand for and how I hope to contribute… One thing we’ve already done is bring more diversity into council. I want to bring a more youth and future-focused agenda.”

Some other notable high-profile new youth councillors include Tamatha Paul and Teri O’Neill, who were elected in Wellington, helping produce a “strong youthquake” according to Thomas Coughlan – see: Upsets, close calls and low turnout feature in the changing face of local body elections. He says, “around the country, councils are starting to look a bit more representative.”

Similarly, on Wellington’s region-wide council, there is said to have been a generational sea change, with young “fresh faces” elected – see Damian George’s Greater Wellington Regional Council hits refresh button with almost half of previous councillors gone.

According to new councillor, David Lee, “The public is actually demanding a refresh, and looking for much younger talent”, and he “said it was exciting to see so many new faces who didn’t qualify for a Super Gold Card”. Another new councillor, Ros Connelly, also said: “The regional council had a bit of a reputation of being a retirement village for ex-councillors. Now there are a number of people who see it as a place where they can affect change in its own right.”

“Women-quake”

Around the country, more women have been elected into office than before. Even the West Coast Regional Council, which was previously made up of only male politicians, now has two women on the seven-person board – see Paul Gorman and Matthew Littlewood’s New Canterbury regional council: younger, greener, gender balanced.

The same article reports that the newly-democratic Environment Canterbury (ECan) council now has a 50-50 gender balance: “the new council will have seven women and seven men, a much younger cohort of councillors”.

In the Nelson-Tasman region, a “women-quake” has been said to have jolted the two councils: “Both the Nelson-Tasman region’s councils have shifted from being male-dominated to having an almost perfect gender balance. The Nelson council this term will have seven women at its table – six councillors and the mayor. Tasman has doubled the number of female councillors it has from three to six” – see Skara Bohny’s New councillors excited to get to work on gender-balanced council.

Provincial New Zealand has had all sorts of advances in gender equality. For example, in the Hawke’s Bay, there are now three women mayors. In the Canterbury region, Jean Drage also reports: “The only woman mayor elected amongst this group of Canterbury based mayors is Marie Black in Hurunui district. This was a particularly significant election for a rural Canterbury council (and for local government itself) where the three mayoral candidates were all women” – see: No surprises with Christchurch mayoralty – but still some upsets.

In Hamilton, there have been some significant changes. Jo Lines-MacKenzie reports: “This year’s elections have seen voters shake up the status quo with a number of sitting councillors knocked out. Ousted are Garry Mallett, Siggy Henry, Leo Tooman, and James Casson and Andrew King. The change has brought a newfound diversity with preliminary votes revealing five women, plus mayor Paul Southgate elected” – see: Hamilton welcomes new councillors to the table.

Changes include the election of 28-year-old Sarah Thomson, who says: “There is a clear push for change from the voters and you can see a lot of new faces in there which historically hasn’t really happened. It’s a really exciting change of mood and direction from the people of the city.”

In New Zealand’s second biggest city, Tina Law reports, the council “just got a lot younger and a little more diverse. Three twenty-somethings have been elected onto the council and six women will sit around the table including re-elected mayor Lianne Dalziel. Last term there were five women and no councillors aged under 30” – see: Christchurch’s city council now has three twenty-somethings and slightly more women.

Debates about diversity

The increase in women and youth representatives appears to prove the theory of political scientists that the public is very willing to vote for candidates from under-represented groups, whether it be in terms of gender, ethnicity or age, but the absence of such candidates leads to under-representation.

As political scientist Janine Hayward of the University of Otago, says in terms of the Dunedin result: “Candidates were much more likely to be elected if they weren’t male: eight candidates who weren’t men stood in the DCC election and five women were elected… This sends a very strong message to future candidates that a diversity of people can get elected in Dunedin if a diversity of candidates stand for election” – see Chris Morris’ Voter turnout mostly down in the South.

Much of the changes relate to what political scientists sometimes refer to as improvements in “descriptive representation” – in which elected politicians possess more of the physical descriptions of the wider public that they represent. Contrasting this, is the idea of “substantive representation” in which politicians represent their constituents ideologically, in terms of their policies and ideas.

But does the improvement in descriptive representation need to be accompanied by better substantive representation? This is generally the point made by leftwing blogger Steven Cowan who says the focus on more young and female politicians is only “important for those who subscribe to middle class identity politics but what it doesn’t represent is an overturning of business as usual” – see: Politics as usual.

Cowan doesn’t feel that representation has improved: “A cursory examination of the supposed ‘diversity burst’, reveals a drearily familiar politics located squarely on the Labour-National spectrum. No one got elected representing a new brand of politics. No one got elected on a platform of working class politics. No one got elected as a socialist. What has been interpreted as a ‘diversity burst’ is actually just a bit of a much-need blood transfusion for the status quo. Will the new crop of local body politician behave differently from their predecessors? No. Will the bureaucracies behind them continue to operate in exactly the same way? Yes.”

Finally, of course, the increase in diversity in 2019 has probably not been a big surprise to anyone. And prior to the election I forecast that youth representation would increase – see: Is a local government “youthquake” happening? and that other problems of under-representation were being addressed in the election campaign – see: Diversity problems and solutions in local government.

Could the most interesting aspect of the current local government elections turn out to be generational change? At the moment, there is a surge of media and activist focus on younger candidates standing for office. It suddenly seems to be “cool” again to want to be a local body politician. 

Some are calling the apparent surge of youth candidates “the Swarbrick effect”, after the surprisingly successful 2016 Auckland mayoralty campaign by now-Green MP Chloe Swarbrick when she was only 22. Others are calling it a “youthquake”, and pointing to the global Zeitgeist of young people getting involved in political activism, standing for office, and rallying against climate change.

Yesterday’s Political Roundup column looked at expected voter participation in this year’s elections – see: Will more than a third vote in the local government elections? Part of the problem in the past has been a very low voter turnout for youth. But perhaps that might change if young would-be voters see a number of dynamic young people standing for office and drawing attention to issues that interest them more.

There are an unprecedented number of young candidates standing for office this year – the best available count of candidates under the age of 40 puts the number at 86. Many of these are young women, as covered last week in a four-minute item by Whena Owen for TVNZ’s Q+A – see: Wellington council candidate part of global movement of young women ‘standing up and stepping up’.

Amongst various young candidates interviewed, 21-year-old Victoria Rhodes-Carlin, who’s running for the Wellington Regional Council, explains what has inspired her to stand: “Pania Newton and Greta Thunberg are both inspirations for me. And other women such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the US. There’s a movement of young women across the world standing up and stepping into leadership positions.”

To get a sense of the growing movement of youth candidates, and the fact that many of them are consciously working together as a generation, see Todd Niall and Brittany Keogh’s article about a new closed social media page titled “Young People taking over Local Government 2019” – see: Young candidates’ secret Facebook page as they unite for local elections.

Here’s the main part: “A secret Facebook page is part of a nationwide move by young candidates for their generation to be heard in October’s local body elections. From mayoral to local board campaigns, the mostly 20-somethings are determined to gain a democratic foothold and inspire one of the least-likely groups of voters to tune-in. Unusually in politics, their pitch to voters is less about ‘Why me’ and more about ‘Why my generation’, and the communities they represent.”

Driven by climate change and other generational issues

The above article quotes one candidate, Sophie Handford (18), saying “There is this whole kind of notion of a ‘youth quake’ and I’m definitely feeling that. It’s awesome to be a part of that.” Handford is one of the leaders organising the Strike 4 Climate marches, and she says she’s standing for the Kāpiti Coast District Council because “she struggled to find anyone she identified with or who seemed concerned about what she considered to be big issues facing her generation – climate change, youth homelessness, community resilience.”

Many other youth candidates are also citing climate change as their main motivation for becoming politicians. See for example today’s RNZ article, Younger diverse range of kiwis make bid at local elections. This item profiles three young women who are part of a “new generation of politically active people who want change.”

One 21-year-old profiled, Rabeea Anayatullah, who is standing for Porirua City Council says: “Young people are leading at the moment on things like climate change. All the rallies you see at parliament – there’s always young people backing [them]… I think we are already leading today, but having young people at that decision-making level is so crucial because it is our future.”

It’s becoming apparent that the various climate change actions and other current activist concerns are now also driving youth into more official forms of politics such as local government. Victoria University of Wellington academic, Amanda Thomas is quoted in this regard, saying “Out of [the school strike for climate change] we’ve seen a bunch of young people who’ve put themselves forward to run for councils” – see Nicholas Boyack’s A climate of change: Calls for diversity at the council table in 2019.

According to this article, Thomas “said activism was a growing gateway for young people to realise their political power. She said events like the student strike for climate movement and protesting development at Ihumātao helped young people who were involved better understand of their ability to be politically powerful and affect change.” Furthermore, “Thomas said she expected more youth engagement with the local authorities in the coming years, especially on issues of decolonisation, housing, climate justice and social security issues.”

In terms of climate change, another Victoria University of Wellington academic, Jonathan Boston, suggests the surge of youth candidates is driven by “a growing disconnect between generations over climate change.” The article reports: “Boston said it is more important than ever that young people are elected to councils, which nation-wide have been slow to grasp the threat posed by climate change.  Young people are rightly concerned about their future and Boston urged councils to start listening to them or risk going head to head on the ballot.”

Similarly, Waikato University political scientist Patrick Barrett says a youthquake is exactly what is needed at the moment, and young people might be the answer to making this year’s election more interesting and relevant to people, driving up voter turnout and ensuring that important big issues are dealt with – see: Council polling day in cross hairs for young Hamilton voters.

Here’s his main point: “The School Strike 4 Climate represents a fresh expression of agency by post-millennials who likewise feel betrayed, in this instance by the lack of action on climate change by current political leaders. This year secondary school and university students, inspired by Greta Thunberg, have led a worldwide movement pressuring central governments and local authorities for stronger action. It’s not only climate change that is motivating young activists in New Zealand. The unaffordability of housing is a critical issue facing 20 and 30 somethings, and for many, home ownership is no longer possible.”

Barrett detects something new going on in terms of generational politics: “Against the background of these issues we may be seeing a new degree of generational assertiveness, where younger people are claiming the right to have a say about policies that affect their futures. This surge of interest by millennials and post-millennials demanding to have their issues heard in New Zealand politics offers hope.”

And he heralds the arrival of a new generation of leaders locally and globally: “New Zealand millennials such as Jacinda Ardern and Golriz Ghahraman, post-millennials like Chloe Swarbrick, and recently elected US House of Representatives members including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, represent a new and assertive generation of politicians.”

The need for more youth candidates

Traditionally, elected politics is not the territory of youth. Although local government is becoming more diverse, this is happening only slowly, and young people continue to be severely underrepresented at council level.

For a must-read analysis of the current demographics of the various elected offices, see Charlie Mitchell’s article, The white, male, middle-aged face of local government. In this he shows how in 2001 only 2.2 per cent of elected figures were under the age of 40, and by 2016 it was 6 per cent.

Here are his main findings: “The median New Zealander, as of 2019, is around 38 years old. This means roughly half of New Zealanders are younger than 38, and roughly half are older than 38 (and some, of course, are 38). Taking into account the quarter of the population who can’t stand for council because they’re younger than 18, this would mean, all things being equal, around 215 councillors should be aged between 18 and 38… As of 2019, the number of councillors nationwide who are either 37 years old or younger is approximately 32, nearly seven times fewer than would be expected given their share of the population.”

Mitchell suggests that to make the councils proportionally balanced by age, about 180 seats would have to be won by the under-40s at this election. And he says that there does seem to be a move in the right direction, with more candidates standing: “with the rapidly warming climate, low housing affordability, and gender and racial inequality emerging as key issues for young people, political momentum may be with the young. Already this year, an unprecedented number of young candidates have put their names forward.”

Of course, many councils already make attempts to consult younger citizens who aren’t represented at the council chambers. But is that enough? Do the various “youth councils” and other mechanisms amount to real consultation or are they just tokenistic box-ticking? This is well discussed in Brittany Keogh’s Young people sick of being ‘at the kiddie table’ in local government.

The chair of Local Government New Zealand’s youth elected member committee, Aaron Hawkins (34), is reported making some good points about this, believing “youth councils tended to attract ‘high achieving prefects’ who didn’t represent all young people in a community, so councils should also consult with youth who were less political inclined to make sure their voices were heard.” And he concludes that “I think doing it in a tokenistic way can be worse than doing nothing at all.”

The new generation of candidates profiled

Currently the media appears to be making a significant effort to profile younger candidates for office in this year’s election. Below are some of the more interesting examples.

Four young Wellington region candidates are profiled by Kate Green in her article, Young candidates step up for Wellington council roles. It is pointed out that in the Wellington ward of the Greater Wellington Regional Council, four of the five incumbents are over the age of 70. And in Porirua, where 40 per cent of the population is under the age of 30, there are no elected politicians of that age.

In Auckland, 21-year-old Jannaha Henry is standing for mayor, and is profiled by Todd Niall – see: Auckland mayoral race: 21-year-old to run.

In Wellington, the current president of the Victoria University Students Association is standing for council saying she’s standing because of the “huge gap between the people that are supposed to be representing us and what we think and care about” – see Emme McKay’s Wellington council candidate ready to start a ‘youthquake’ in capital.

In Dunedin, Ryan Jones (22) is standing for a second term for a community board, and says “This election I’ll be pushing for more young people to stand in the city council and community board elections. Hopefully, we’ll see a higher turnout as a result of that” – see Juliet Speedy’s Increased number of young candidates looking to stand in 2019 local body elections.

In the Hutt Valley, the two mayors have been there for a long time, but are both being challenged by “young turks” – see Matthew Tso’s Battle of the generations in Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt mayoral races.

One of the youngest candidates this year is Rohan O’Neill-Stevens (19), who says “I think the tide is turning” on generational and diversity politics – see Skara Bohny’s A Nelson teen is running for council after watching along for two years.

Māori TV has a profile of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki councillor Nerissa Henry (31) and Bay of Plenty councillor Arapeta Tahan (38), who says “It is a big deal for youth to be on our councils so they can change the thinking and the culture of these boards” – see Talisa Kupenga’s Local govt reps want more rangatahi on councils.

But how will the various new generation candidate fare if they make it into office? Nicola Martin is an enthusiast for the current “youthquake”, but she worries that it’s not going to work out: “I wonder how good the fit is going to be when they are faced with the reality of the cumbersome nature of local government politics” – see: Surviving local government reality.

Looking at some of the new candidates for change, such as Louise Hutt (26) running for the Hamilton mayoralty, Martin says: “People like her want change, they have big ideas and they want to see action. So, I’ve also been wondering, if they get elected, how long it will take for the aftershocks to hit. How long before their millennial enthusiasm is reduced to rubble by the lethargic speed of the local government democratic process?”

Finally, for the younger options in your own area, see this online spreadsheet that has been put together by many of the young candidates standing for office – see: Young + Young Adjacent Candidates – Local Body – 2019.

Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards – The election race is on. The nominations process for local government positions has now closed, and the political campaign is officially underway. But does the public care? Will many of us even vote for any of the various mayoral or council candidates? 

Going on recent experience, we shouldn’t expect many more than a third of eligible voters to actually cast a vote in local government elections this year. After all, at the last round of elections in 2016, the official turnout rate was only 42 per cent. Once you take into account the nearly ten per cent of eligible voters who don’t even enrol to vote, the turnout rate is not much more than a third of adult New Zealanders.

Is anything likely to change this year? And how can voter participation rates be increased? These are some of the big debates going on around the local government elections at the moment.

There is certainly no shortage of voices telling us to vote and about the importance of our local council and mayor. For example, journalist Georgina Campbell, who covers local government issues for the Herald, writes about her passion for this type of politics and argues people should care deeply about what’s going on in their local council because “decisions made there have such an immediate effect on daily life” – see: Local government not as sexy as the Beehive, but still important.

She gives the example of the Greater Wellington Regional Council’s recent bus network reorganisation fiasco (“bustastrophe”), and predicts an increase in voter turnout as a result of people now realising the importance in that region of what the politicians do. What’s more, she says, if you vote, you then have “a licence to whinge” for the next three years if your candidate isn’t elected.

Columnist Oscar Kightley is clearly tired of reminding readers to vote, and laments that of “the 400 or so weekly columns I’ve written in the past eight years, a previous one about local body elections would be among the least read”, but that’s not going to stop him – see: Get your vote on: We really need to care about our local elections.

Here’s his pitch for you to vote: “while it’s the central government elections and politicians that get all the attention, our daily lives are for more impacted by the decisions that go down around the council table. It’s not just the all-important rubbish collection, there’s everything from the playgrounds we rely on as safe and useful spaces for kids, the libraries, the public transport system, the water that comes out of our taps, the rates bills and the public transport we rely on to connect us to the important facets of our lives. And yet these are still the elections we seem to care about the least.”

Kightley concludes that “more of us should care about it. Not because it’s the right on thing to do, but because that level of engagement is way more effective than just liking something on social media.”

The local government politicians and their decisions might sometimes be seen as a joke, according to Peter Dunne, but the councils have charge over some pretty serious finances: “Their public equity in 2018 was just under $124 billion, and their capital and operating expenditure more than $15 billion. Indeed, most likely, local government and the services it provides, has a far more direct impact on the lives of New Zealanders than does central government” – see: Local government is no joke.

Similarly, Brent Edwards breaks down the importance of local government activities to our daily lives: “From the time we get up in the morning, go to the toilet, have a shower, boil the jug and then brush your teeth, all the services required for that to go smoothly are supplied by your local authority” – see: Why voting in local body elections does matter (paywalled).

So, given that voter turnout is so low, what’s the problem, and how can we fix it?

According to Brent Edwards, a big part of the problem is that voters aren’t being informed enough: “The news media can also take some responsibility for lower turnout, with few national media organisations giving local elections the same coverage as general elections. Largely shorn of the party campaigning that dominates national politics, local body elections – Auckland city aside – are largely seen as dull and worthy. It is not helped by the fact the stripping out of regional news media has led to much less coverage of council affairs over the past decade or so. As a result, many residents know little of what their councils are up to.”

There are various anecdotes being published at the moment looking at what is preventing the public from participating. In Hamilton, Rikihana Smallman profiles three women running for office and their attempts to mobilise more voters – see: Who runs the Tron? Candidates look to disrupt city office.

One candidate, Anna Smart, is reported as believing that amongst the public there is “no trust in the status quo”, and misinformation prevents some from voting. For example, “Something that was really alarming to me was the perception that renters didn’t feel like they could vote or that they were eligible to vote… They are probably more susceptible to some of the changes that are made at a council and central government level and yet they don’t feel like they have a right to have a say.”

Certain demographics are more susceptible to non-voting than others. In his article about the election in Southland, Damian Rowe surveys youth and why they’re not inclined to vote – see: Young voters in the south show lack of interest in local government elections. Young people interviewed suggest that information about elections and candidates isn’t “presented in an accessible manner”.

However, Invercargill City Councillor Alex Crackett is reported as believing an upsurge of voter turnout could be on the cards this year: “Talking to the Invercargill Youth Council, there was a sense that youth voter turnout would be higher this year than the 2016 local government election… Issues such as climate change and the youth involvement through the School Strikes 4 Climate, showed younger generations were scared for the future”.

In Auckland, there’s a sign that young would-be voters are happy to be forced to vote, with an Auckland Council survey showing that although only 45 per cent of young people (25 to 34-year-olds) voted at the last election, about 60 per cent of them believe that voting should be compulsory – see 1News’ Majority of young Aucklanders want voting to be compulsory, new survey finds.

In addition, 75 per cent of that age group say they are going to vote this year. The Council is also “encouraging diverse communities, including young people, to stand for positions”, with the General Manager of Democracy Services, Marguerite Delbet, reported as believing “this would encourage more youth to vote” as they can “identify and have an affinity with” such as candidates.

The Auckland Council did want to trial online voting for this election, but central government abandoned this project. Mayor Phil Goff was enthusiastic for such a trial, and apparently 74 per cent of surveyed Aucklanders also wanted this. For a discussion of this, and other efforts in Auckland to mobilise voters, see Stephen Forbes’ So what’s happening with the push to increase voter turnout by enabling online voting?

Auckland Council chief executive Stephen Town also discusses the problem that “just 25 per cent of Aucklanders who, through their votes, decided the make-up of those charged with making major decisions on their behalf” – see: Aucklanders ‘unenthused’ by local body elections.

Town says the council is investing $1.1m in various campaigns to encourage voting (about $1 per potential vote). This includes holding mock elections for about 15,000 high school students.

For a wider-ranging debate held by the Auckland Council on the problem, see RNZ’s Paying voters? Idea floated to boost local body elections turnout. According to this, “Local government figures show the main reasons people didn’t vote were not knowing enough about the candidates, not being interested in politics, or they just forgot.”

This article also quotes Massey University’s Karl Kane explaining that, despite complaints about “apathy”, youth are in fact involved in alternative forms of political activity: “They’re more likely to be conscious consumers, or activists, or take direct action towards an oil company, or a company that uses sweatshops. They’re more likely to take direct action than wait three years to tick a box.”

There is increasingly a sense that the mechanism of postal voting is no longer fit for purpose – especially because Postshops are closing down, and a number of post-boxes are being removed around the country – see TVNZ’s Concerns lack of post boxes leaving those in poor communities unable to vote in local elections.

Most of the above discussion focuses on some of the more “mechanical” ways of trying to fix the voter turnout problem in local government. But perhaps there are bigger changes required. Local government democracy scholar, Jean Drage, has put together an important report on the problems and potential solutions to declining voter participation in local elections – see: Strengthening Local Voices.

For a summary of her arguments, see her must-read shorter article, Strengthening local voices. In this, she argues that people’s likelihood of voting depends on many things, such as how involved one feels in the community, how much information they are receiving, and whether they feel the ability to influence decisions.

But here’s her main point: “we need to seriously consider what size of council best promotes local democracy, how to increase awareness of our local representatives and the policy decisions being made, and we need greater simplification in the process of having a say as members of our communities. It is clear, in particular, that a few councillors representing tens of thousands of constituents does not ensure familiarisation or involvement in local decisions.”

Also, Drage suggests “the electoral process needs to be simplified. It is clear that two electoral systems for one election is a deterrent to voter participation. There are only three local authorities across the country where voters use one electoral system”.

See also Drage’s previous article, Local elections: Let’s make councils more proactive. In this she discusses how city councils are failing to provide information to voters about the upcoming elections. But this might improve, she reports, as council CEOs are now legally charged with improving voter turnout and providing better information to voters.

Relating to this, it’s worth reading Jimmy Ellingham’s article today about the Palmerston North local elections – see: City council must change stance about not holding candidates’ meetings.

There are other signs that local government democracy is in need of bigger reform, with some survey results out showing voters losing confidence in those institutions. For example, in Hamilton, where turnout was only 30 per cent at the last election, the City Council chief executive reports: “Community confidence in council is dropping. Only 26 per cent of people have confidence our council will make decisions in their best interests. And the residents’ perception that they have large (or some) influence over the decisions the council makes has dropped from 45 per cent to 30 per cent” – see Tom Rowland’s Democracy ‘under threat’: Fears over Hamilton election turnout.

Finally, perhaps humour will get people engaged in the election campaign, and in Auckland, a well-known satirist has entered the race – see the Herald’s: Local elections: Comedian Tom Sainsbury’s alter-ego Fiona running for Auckland mayor.

Auckland Council is split into two significant blocks, referred to as Goff’s A-team and his opposition, the B-team, which is often strategically positioned by Manurewa-Papakura ward Councillor Daniel Newman.

Over the past twelve months, the B-Team has siphoned support off the Mayor, and can claim some big hit wins, including out-politicising Goff over the city’s stadium-strategy and also winning a reprieve for Speedway, effectively ensuring the sport is able to continue operating at Western Springs albeit for a finite period.

Auckland Council’s CCO, Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA), has come under significant attack by the B-Team, and Newman singles it out for pushing what he calls, a “disastrous Venue Development Strategy”.

The B-Team councillors want to have some of the CCOs axed and the structure of Auckland’s supercity council reformed.

Newman’s reaction to the Mayor’s campaign promise suggests at least half of the city’s councillors believe Goff’s move is tepid and will not correct a power imbalance where CCOs have too much control and elected councillors are rendered ineffective due to the legal and corporate structure of the Auckland supercity.

CCOs were initially set at seven, but now number five. They are: Auckland Transport, Watercare, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (Ateed), Regional Facilities Auckland and Panuku Development Auckland.

The supercity was designed in 2010 by former leader of the ACT party, Rodney Hide. He was then the local government minister in John Key’s National-led Government and was given free-reign to restructure and legislate to pull all of the greater Auckland region’s city and district councils under one supercity umbrella.

Hide, like those of his party, ideologically believed Auckland’s councillors had too much say in the city’s affairs, and structured the new Auckland Council so that the CCOs could effectively operate undeterred as commercial entities or elites. Problems arose when the CCOs were seen to under-perform (as Auckland Transport did during the Rugby World Cup). They were seen by the public as beyond reach and faceless corporate entities.

Under the current structure, there’s a sense that at least half of the city’s elected councillors feel they are unable to adequately represent their constituents – even when they inject a good dose of public interest into their politics.

Clearly, something has to change. On one side, the current Mayor Phil Goff promises to have an ‘independent review’ of the CCO structure. On the other hand, Daniel Newman and the B-Team want some CCOs to be axed, brought under control, and for councillors to again become effective representatives of their respective communities.

For more, read Mayor Phil Goff’s view in the New Zealand Herald report by Bernard Orsman titled: Auckland Mayor Phil Goff promises review of council-controlled organisations if re-elected

For Councillor Daniel Newman’s view, read below:

Not good enough. This is completely insufficient and is doomed to deliver no meaningful change.

I am not surprised that Mayor Phil Goff reportedly favours appointing “… four independent people” to review council-controlled organisations (CCOs). Nor am I surprised that he reportedly has no fixed plans to axe any of these organisations.

I have come to the conclusion that Mayor Goff prefers to appoint ‘independent people’ to undertake review exercises such as this one because it’s a convenient way to avoid taking a controversial decision.

Here’s a better option: how about we axe CCOs that are not fit for purpose.

The most obvious CCO to go would have to be Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA). That CCO’s performance in relation to its disastrous Venue Development Strategy has bled support within the community for years.

The debacle over trying to turf speedway out of its spiritual home at Western Springs is a case in point. I note that years of forecasting the demise of Western Springs as a venue for speedway was reversed after approximately one week of bad publicity and 30,000 (THIRTY THOUSAND) Aucklanders signing a petition declaring they wont stand for that eviction.

The EBITDA results for stadia run by RFA is inferior to the financial performance of Eden Park. The financial performance of RFA in relation to other entities like the Auckland Art Gallery isn’t much better, frankly. Quarterly meetings with RFA have become something of a ritual …. questions from me and colleagues like John Watson and Wayne Walkerabout unfavourable results against financial targets elicit sobering reflections about the need to constantly review assumptions etc etc. You get the picture?

I support Watercare Services Limited but I think Panuku is the product of the wrong strategy to sell-down too many publicly-owned landholdings when in fact you hold assets to build your wealth. But the A-team are generally the practitioners of asset sales, which surprises me as many of them claim to come from the Left-side of politics. As from ATEED, it was Mayor Goff’s decision to promote the controversial Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate, which (wrongly) rates the capital value of property rather than bed-nights (and which is now subject to a judicial review in the High Court).

Unlike the majority of my colleagues I did not vote to put the boot into Auckland Transport in April 2019. I am surprised the Mayor did but suspect it had more to do with political calculation.

Mayor Goff removed elected councillors from the board of Auckland Transport. The Mayor took the decision to remove Christine Fletcher and Mike Lee from the board of directors, thus removing an immediate reference to the community that elects regional councillors.

Mayor Goff championed the regional fuel tax despite that tax being hypothecated. A hypothecated tax does not provide for revenue derived from charging my constituents 10 cents per litre of fuel at the pump with the means easily move that revenue around to address community need and community expectation in the transport space. This is something that colleagues like Fa’anana Efeso Collins, Mike Lee, Greg Sayers, Desley Simpson, Sharon Stewart, Sir John Walker and I pointed out.

Mayor Goff lamented Auckland Transport’s no-show at St Heliers (but I do pay tribute to Desley Simpson who is a formidable advocate for her constituents). Did he front similar meetings at other centres subject to painful and controversial changes such at the Mt Albert and Mt Eden town centre upgrades?

This campaign promise is a bland one.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

Get ready for a more lively local government contest in New Zealand’s biggest city this year. Recent local election campaigns have been relatively dull affairs. In fact, at the last elections in 2016, voter turnout slumped to the lowest level for some time – with only about 38 per cent bothering to turn out. But this year’s Auckland mayoralty contest looks set to be the most colourful in a while.

The contest is shaping up to be between two very different centrist politicians: Phil Goff, the grey technocrat, versus John Tamihere the wild post-political populist.

A red-blue double act of “post-political” unity

Launching his campaign in the weekend, Tamihere surprised many with the campaign he has constructed, which involves big political players from across the political spectrum. In particular, by including Christine Fletcher as his running mate for deputy mayor, Tamihere’s campaign could be seen as a very clever attempt to put forward a “post-political” option for Auckland voters. It’s being sold as a team that is putting its ideological backgrounds and loyalties aside for the good of the wider city. This will have some immediate appeal in our anti-political age.

Auckland Stuff journalist Todd Niall has been covering the recent developments well, and refers to the Tamihere/Fletcher ticket as “a red-blue double act”, but says it isn’t yet clear if the combo is “a stroke of genius, or a strike-out” – see his column today: Which John Tamihere will run for Auckland mayor?

Niall explains the logic behind the red-blue council ticket: “The winners of Auckland’s three previous mayoral contests – Len Brown twice and Phil Goff once –have cleaned up not only in their Labour-heritage heartlands of the west and south, but also done well in blue areas across Pakuranga, Howick and the isthmus. Victory has been about broad appeal”.

But Niall isn’t yet convinced it’s a winning formula, asking the following questions: “Can Tamihere achieve the crossover needed to get election-winning support, and if not can Fletcher’s presence persuade blue voters to “come on in, the water’s fine” ? Can he deliver his strong views on social housing, in a way that doesn’t suggest a conflict of interest with Waipareira? For both Tamihere and Fletcher, can their pairing with a running-mate some might consider a polar opposite, enhance rather than damage their own support bases?”

Nevertheless, Niall also argues that the Tamihere/Fletcher campaign “could be the most intriguing bid yet in four elections in the Super City.” In fact, writing prior to the announcement, he also argued that the campaign was shaping up to be interesting: This year’s race could be the most interesting since the inaugural ‘clash of the titans’ duel of 2010, in which Len Brown beat former National and Act party MP John Banks” – see: The summer of Auckland mayoral wannabees.

In this article, Niall draws attention to the centrist political operating styles of both Goff and Brown as mayors. But he says that a Tamihere-Fletcher combo would be the first campaign to “feature a US Presidential-style running mate”. This “would provide plenty for voters to get their heads around, trying to figure out the direction the pair would take.”

The New Zealand Herald’s editorial on this development in the Auckland mayoral race also says that it “should make for a lively start to local body election year” – see: John Tamihere offers a shake-up to mayoralty but he could be vulnerable to attack .

The Herald explains why the Tamihere/Fletcher combo is strategically clever: “The Labour Party would classify Tamihere on the right too but he will probably have more appeal to many in Labour’s constituency, especially Māori, than to conservative or business-minded voters. It is probably to appeal to the latter constituency that Tamihere is running on a ticket with Christine Fletcher, a former mayor and still a councillor. Fletcher stands to be Deputy Mayor and gives the ticket an element of local body experience that Tamihere lacks.”

The logic of this left-right unity strategy is also put forward by leftwing blogger Martyn Bradbury: “that’s important because the fundamental changes Tamihere is seeking in forcing Central Government to pay for Auckland’s growth and the vast increase in social housing he is proposing will demand across the spectrum support. If elected, Tamihere would be Auckland’s first ever Māori Mayor, something that won’t go unnoticed in the South and West Auckland voting bloc. Tamihere’s attack against the large vested corporate interests of Auckland has been part of his previous attack on Goff and his ‘Auckland for us not them’ narrative will be heard across the city” – see: Tamihere brings together left-right coalition to defeat Goff.

Tamihere’s anti-establishment populism

There’s more than a hint of anti-Establishment politics to Tamihere’s campaign. Everything from his five-point plan, which includes the populist promise to “Clean the house” through to the main slogan of “Shake it up and sort it out” is vintage populist politics, and even reminiscent of some of Donald Trump’s successful 2016 campaign. There’s a very clear theme amongst Tamihere’s campaign, so far, about the need to “take back control”.

Some of this can be seen in TVNZ’s coverage: John Tamihere announces bid for Auckland mayor, crosses party line for running mate. This article reports Tamihere’s “promise to ‘open the books and clean the house’ at Auckland council, ensuring a thorough audit of where taxpayer money is being spent.”

According to TVNZ, Tamihere “said he wants control of the city to go back to the people instead of ‘faceless managers in central Auckland’. Other issues Mr Tamihere has pledged to address include social housing, homelessness, the regional fuel tax and council spending. Key themes of his campaign are integrity, efficiency, democracy and leaving a better legacy for the children of our generation.”

Some of this will resonate widely, especially for those who believe Phil Goff hasn’t been active enough as mayor. See, for example, the Herald’s editorial comments on Tamihere’s pitch, pointing out that Goff hasn’t delivered: “the shake-up he promised for the council last time has hardly happened. The council still seems detached from the needs and concerns of citizens and may need a new broom.”

Tamihere’s running-mate is also channeling a more outspoken style. Bernard Orsman reports: “Christine Fletcher has unleashed an extraordinary attack on Phil Goff, accusing the mayor of weak leadership and failing to make Wellington sit up and listen by holding their feet to the fire” – see: Christine Fletcher calls Phil Goff a weak leader who has failed Auckland.

Amongst many criticisms of Goff, the article points out “Fletcher was one of nine councillors to sign a letter to Goff last year saying he runs a ‘non-inclusive style of leadership’ and trust and transparency at council is getting worse. As deputy designate on a mayoral ticket with Tamihere, Fletcher said Goff works alone behind closed doors with bureaucrats, commissioning expensive reports from consultants that only come to light for councillors under the Official Information Act.”

Phil Goff has responded to some of this criticism, especially about the so-called “Goff gas tax”, pointing out that Fletcher actually voting in favour of it – see RNZ’s Phil Goff fires back: Dumping ‘Goff’s gas tax’ would create $4.3b revenue gap, Auckland mayor says.

Goff adds: “Before anybody criticises a form of revenue, they’ve got to say how they’d fill the revenue gap of $4.3 billion if they were to do away with it, and if you don’t do that there’s a real question of credibility.”

Tamihere’s past 

Tamihere’s possibility of success might hinge on whether Auckland voters care about his past controversies – which are very well covered in Scott Palmer’s John Tamihere’s most controversial moments.

Will people hold past misdemeanours against him? As Grant Duncan of Massey University comments, “Possibly people are prepared to put that in the past. But people I’m sure will start to drag up some of those old stories as the campaign goes forward” – see Newshub’s ‘Old stories’ may derail John Tamihere’s mayoralty bid – expert.

Duncan also says: “One thing you can’t accuse Mr Tamihere of is political correctness. He is entertaining and an outspoken person, and it will be interesting to see how he gets along with Christine Fletcher.”

Todd Niall has also dealt with this, reporting from the Tamihere/Fletcher announcement: “His running-mate Christine Fletcher said at their campaign launch that Tamihere had ‘matured and moved on’ since the episode in which he’d described women as ‘frontbums’. Tamihere’s demeanour went steely when his past was raised, obliquely asking in return whether anyone had not learned from mistakes.”

Tamihere was also interviewed this morning on RNZ’s Morning Report, and responded to a question about his past controversies, saying “Here’s the thing, my name is JT not JC. I’m not totally in control of the whole shooting match all the time, I make mistakes. I’ve indicated I own them, what do you want me to do – jump off the Harbour Bridge?” – see: Tamihere bids for Auckland mayoralty: ‘My name’s JT, not JC’.

It’s possible that raising these controversies might even work in Tamihere’s favour. As with the 2016 attacks on Donald Trump – especially by Hillary Clinton and her supporters – sometimes this can actually play into the hands of those under fire. Martyn Bradbury has put the case for this: “I think a woke attack by Goff could be terribly counter productive. Many Aucklanders stuck in traffic every day are furious at smug pronouncements from woke activists on cycling, and if the attack against Tamihere are seen as coming from that part of the political spectrum, Tamihere could throw caution to wind, assume he has nothing to lose… and come out with some populist attack on cycle lanes and reap the vast angry chunk of Auckland’s gridlocked voter block.”

Finally, for the most in-depth and recent examination of Tamihere’s past and present orientation to various controversies, as well as how he plans to take Auckland forward, see Simon Wilson’s John Tamihere on Roast Busters, front bums and running for Auckland mayoralty.