Murray Gibb, the CEO of Water New Zealand, writes in the Dom Post:

So where are the opportunities for improved efficiency and effectiveness in the Wellington region? Water New Zealand’s interest is in water services.

Water and transport services consume half of total local government expenditure.

At present all nine local bodies are involved in supplying water services to the area from Masterton and Kapiti south to, and including, Wellington.

Masterton, Carterton, South Wairarapa and Kapiti all run their own water services. Greater Wellington regional council supplies bulk water to Upper and Lower Hutt, Wellington and Porirua. Wellington and Lower Hutt retain ownership of their water infrastructure, but own a separate company, Capacity, that manages it.

Capacity also contracts to manage water services for Upper Hutt, which retains ownership of its water infrastructure. Porirua runs its own retail supply and wastewater plant. Capacity buys waste water services from Porirua for its Wellington serviced customers from Johnsonville north.

Each has its own plan and own projects within its own boundaries, often with little or no joint planning.

There is no co-ordinated or strategic approach across the water catchments in the wider Wellington region.

For instance, two utilities are planning to augment supplies independently of each other, and the regional council is looking to make its supplies more resilient in the event of an earthquake.

A great example of what is wrong with the status quo.

Sadly  many local body politicians are more interested in keeping their jobs than having a sensible discussion on what is the best structure of local government in the region, to serve our residents.

Tags: Local Body Politics, Murray Gibb

The NZ Herald reports:

Labour MP Trevor Mallard has lodged an official complaint about Act leader John Banks failing to disclose a $15,000 donation was from SkyCity during his 2010 Auckland mayoralty campaign.

Mr Mallard lodged the complaint with the Auckland Council electoral officer this week. He also asked the electoral officer to scrutinise “anonymous” donations of radio advertising Mr Banks had included in his return.

SkyCity gave $15,000 each to Len Brown, now mayor, and Mr Banks, his rival, during that campaign.

Although Mr Brown’s donation return listed SkyCity as a donor, Mr Banks’ listed an anonymous donation of $15,000. It did not mention SkyCity.

The penalty for knowingly filing a false return is up to two years in prison or a fine of up to $10,000.

There is a lesser penalty of a $5000 fine if the candidate did not know it was false. MPs convicted of crimes with a penalty of two years or more can not remain in Parliament.

However, Mr Banks said he was not concerned about the complaint, dismissing it as Mr Mallard “up to his old timeless tricks”.

He said he had not known at the time that the donation was from SkyCity and his donations return was accurate as at the date he signed it.

“I signed the document at the said time to the best of my knowledge.” …

Asked how it was that Mayor Brown had known about the SkyCity donation yet he had not, the Act leader said his campaign accountants had dealt with the finances for his campaign and he had based his return on the information they gave him.

Asked if it was possible they had known the donation was from SkyCity, he said it was.

Auckland Council’s electoral officer, Bruce Thomas, said he would consider the complaint and decide whether to refer it to police.

It has been referred to the Police, but that in itself is not of significance. Local electoral officers are basically required to refer every complaint to the Police. The WCC referred to the Police a complaint from a Councillor that I had linked to his official profile without his permission! Yes, seriously.

Anyway let us look at what the Local Electoral Act 2001 says. You need to be aware that it is very different to the Electoral Act, which is much much tighter in terms of donation disclosure.

anonymous, in relation to an electoral donation (as defined in section 104), means a donation that is made in such a way that the candidate concerned does not know who made the donation

So the Act says it is only the candidate who needs to now know the identity. Again this is different from the Electoral Act.

electoral donation, in relation to a candidate at an election, means a donation (whether of money or the equivalent of money or of goods or services or of a combination of those things) of a sum or value of more than $1,000 (such amount being inclusive of any goods and services tax and of a series of donations made by or on behalf of any one person that aggregate more than $1,000) made to the candidate, or to any person on the candidate’s behalf, for use by or on behalf of the candidate in the campaign for his or her election

So a donation of $15,000 definitely qualified.

S109(1) states:

Within 55 days after the day on which the successful candidates at any election are declared to be elected, every candidate at the election must transmit to the electoral officer a return setting out—

• (a)the candidate’s electoral expenses; and

• (b)the name and address of each person who made an electoral donation to the candidate and the amount of each electoral donation; and

• (c)if an electoral donation of money or of the equivalent of money is made to the candidate anonymously and the amount of that donation exceeds $1,000,—

  • (i)the amount of that donation; and

  • (ii)the fact that it has been received anonymously.

So if the candidate knows who made the donation, then they must supply a name and address, while if they do not, just the amount and the fact it was anonymous.

So the test for the Police is simply did John Banks know Sky City donated $15,000 to his campaign. Unless there is proof that he did know (a meeting, e-mails etc), then I can’t see the complaint has any chance of succeeding.

Personally I think the Local Electoral Act should be updated to have similar transparency requirements to the Electoral Act. This would mean:

• Anonymous donations to a candidate could not exceed $1,500
• a donation is anonymous where a candidate “could not, in the circumstances, reasonably be expected to know the identity of the donor”

But that is not the current law for local government donations. So I see a very small possibility of the Police taking action.

Tags: anonymous donations, John Banks, Local Body Politics, Local Electoral Act

The NZ Herald reports:

A bill of about $91,000 from Hamilton Mayor Julie Hardaker’s office last year has shocked some city councillors who are questioning why ratepayers should be paying for a Koru Club membership and $1257 for a new mayoral office chair.

Okay first of all if any Councillor is really suggesting a Mayor shouldn’t have Koru Club membership, they’re just being petty and stupid. The Hamilton City Council has around $3 billion of assets and turns over over $200 million a year and they think the Mayor shouldn’t have a $361/year Koru Club card? Never mind that the reason frequent travellers have them is so they can be productive and keep working while waiting for flights.

The chair criticism is more valid. You can get very nice executive chairs for $500 to $800. $1,257 is at the higher end of the range.

But other items have attracted criticism, including $994.78 on an Air New Zealand Koru Club membership, $1958 on mayoral stationery and $2000 on print ads promoting her Mayor in the Square events.

They are quibbling about stationery and a measly $2,000 of advertising?

Councillor Ewan Wilson said it was inappropriate for ratepayers to be coughing up for a membership to an airport lounge when the mayor earned enough to pay it herself.

Oh don’t be a dick. The Mayor is travelling on work business, not personal business, hence the Council pays. As Wilson should know, it allows you to keep working while travelling.

And the mayoral chair was ordered because she could “not sit properly” in the old one because it was designed for a man. She had been unaware of the cost of the new one. “I just tried some chairs and that one looked good.”

Probably a good idea in future to ask the cost. If one chair is say an A+ fit and costs $1,500 but another is an A- fit and is $400, then you go for the latter one if the difference in quality is minimal but the price difference is significant.

Hamilton Citizens and Ratepayers Association president John Easto said the costs were “quite staggering”. “It’s a bloody expensive position. I don’t think it’s justifiable, some of those costs. A Koru Club membership is fairly normal for senior managers at corporates but the other things I have real problems with – pretty flowers and things.”

Here is the problem I have reading the story. I don’t know if $91,000 is a high level of expenditure for a Mayoral office or not. With the exception of the chair, most items cited seem routine. But what would be very useful information is what has been the expenditure for the Mayoral office over say the last few years? Has it been static, increasing, or decreasing?

Tags: Hamilton, Julie Hardaker, Local Body Politics

A reader has pointed out to me this example of why local government needs to be reined in. The Horowhenua District Council said:

The seats are in, wallpaper up, kitchen equipped and Levin’s new Focal Point cinema is on track for the opening on 4 November 2010.

The former Cinema 3 building has been completely refurbished in a joint venture between Horowhenua District Council and Focal Point Cinema of Feilding to bring movies back to Levin. Cinema 3 closed in March 2010.

So the HDC thinks it role is to subsidise a movie theatre. I understand the cost may have been as much as $500,000. Then look at this notice:

The Precautionary Boil Water Notice is still in place for Shannon and Tokomaru.

This means that the Horowhenua District Council advises boiling cooking and drinking water before use.

This is because Shannon has no treatment plant and the source water is contaminated. the HDC should be spending money on making sure its residents have safe drinkable water, rather than investing in movie theatres.

This is why the proposed new focus on infrastructure and public services is needed.

Tags: Local Body Politics

The Dom Post editorial:

Local authorities have only themselves to blame for the Government forcing them to live within their means.

During almost a decade in which rates rose at more than twice the level of inflation and the debt owed by New Zealand’s 78 local bodies grew fourfold, councils have shown a disturbing lack of appreciation of the circumstances faced by their communities.

Ratepayers are not a bottomless pit.

It will give control of council staff numbers and salaries to councillors, rather than chief executives, and require annual reports to include the number of staff in $10,000 salary bands, as state agencies do now.

That move follows the huge increase in council wage bills after changes to the Local Government Act in 2002, which widened the scope of local authorities.

When the changes were implemented, the total salary bill for all councils was $884 million. By 2010, it had grown to more than $1.6 billion, an increase of more than 80 per cent. In the eight years before the changes, the salary bill increased by a total of just 8.7 per cent.

That’s even faster growth than in the civil service. Labour certainly created jobs – but jobs funded by taxes and rates, rather than paying taxes and rates (in a net sense).

Tags: Dominion Post, editorials, Local Body Politics

My blog at Stuff is on reining in local government.

In 2002 local councils were given the power of general competence. It meant they could do anything at all, so long as a majority of councillors voted for it. Any amount of spending could be justified so long as it contributed to the social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing of their communities.

For the life of me, I can’t think of anything that wouldn’t be justified under those criteria. A local council could probably build its own air force and claim it was essential to their social wellbeing.

I deal with the counter view:

Some have argued that these proposed reforms are undemocratic. They say that a local council should be able to spend ratepayers’ money on anything they want, and it is up to the local voters to keep them or sack them. They say the Government should leave it to local voters.

The problem I have with this argument is that many large items of expenditure that councils approve are not known before elections, and councils proceed regardless. Some of them turn into disasters such as the Hamilton V8s. Yes, you can sack the councillors responsible at the next election, but that doesn’t stop you being left with the bill regardless.

And the bill keeps getting bigger.

Tags: By the numbers, Local Body Politics, Stuff

Better Local Gvt Pr08

The Government has announced some fairly significant local government reforms. They are not yet online so have embedded them above. The summary of them is:

1. Refocus the purpose of local government - to change from the ‘social, economic,environmental and cultural well-being of communities’ to ‘providing good quality local infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions at the least possible cost to households and business.’
2. Introduce fiscal responsibility requirements – will allow Government to set fiscal limits for Councils such as debt, income and expenditure levels. Flexibility in case of disasters though.
3. Strengthen council governance provisions – will allow Councils to set a cap on staff numbers and set a remuneration policy. Also salaries to be disclosed in bands like for central Govt.
   Also powers of Auckland Mayor to be extended to all Mayors – to appoint Deputy Mayor, Committee Chairs and propose the budget.
4. Streamline council reorganisation procedures
5. Establish a local government efficiency taskforce
6. Develop a framework for central/local government regulatory roles
7. Investigate the efficiency of local government infrastructure provision
8. Review the use of development contributions

I think giving Mayors some modest powers is a good thing. At present they have no power beyond a Councillor except through the force of their leadership.  Having the Mayor propose the budget and Council above to approve a staffing cap and remuneration policy dilutes the powers of chief executives.

The new purpose statement looks much better focused to me, and also approve of fiscal responsibility requirements. However the key thing will be what they actually are, rather than just having them.

Tags: Local Body Politics

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

The Government is set to introduce sweeping reforms to curb local council powers and get soaring debt levels down.

Troubled by escalating rates and in line with National’s public sector reforms, Local Government Minister Nick Smith wants to make elected representatives take more responsibility for wage bills and the generous packages offered to chief executives.

And he will pare back the scope of local government functions so they will only have control of essential local services such as waste, water, roads, libraries and consents.

The reforms will also require authorities to be more “prudent” in event management. It follows David Beckham’s 2009 football game which lost Auckland Regional Council $1.79 million and the saga of the V8 Supercar races which cost Hamilton ratepayers more than $40m.

Dr Smith is concerned that local government debt has burgeoned from $1.5 billion to well over $8b in the past decade. At the same time, rates have climbed 6.85 per cent.

That’s 6.85% a year, which is not only higher than inflation, but higher than both economic and wage growth. Quite simply it is unsustainable.

He believes the blowout stems from 2002 legislation which introduced the “power of general competence”, widening the scope of council responsibilities. Dr Smith said he was “fundamentally re-evaluating that structure”.

“[Councils] can do anything they like. In the Auckland plan, they have set targets for NCEA pass rates by 2020 … nothing to do with the council.

The power of general competence was an expensive mistake. However once granted, it can be very difficult to undo.

Local Government New Zealand president Lawrence Yule said his organisation would work constructively with the minister but councils were “uncomfortable” with some of the proposals.

The sector did not believe debt was a problem, he said.

“The debt servicing costs sits at about 5.8 per cent of the income level of councils. The world best-practice model says it should be under 10 per cent. Most of that debt is in infrastructure. It’s not frilly things, it’s in water systems, wastewater systems and some big roading projects that are going to last 50 years.”

Debt is the appropriate method to fund capital works. But not all of the $8b debt is infrastructure.

I’m also unsure about that 5.8% of income figure. If debt is $8b, then the servicing cost is say 6% so $480m a year. If $480m is 5.8% of revenue, that suggests revenue of $8.3b for local government.  As the Auckland Council has revenues of $1.9b, I doubt total local govt revenue is that high.

Incidentally the Auckland Council has finance costs of $221m on income of $1.87b, which is well over the 10% best-practice figure quoted.

UPDATE: Good to see Hamilton Mayor Julie Hardaker supporting the need for reform, saying:

The Government must give more clarity about what local government should do and, more importantly, should not do. Councils need to be able to explain their decisions for focusing more on the delivery of traditional services and push back on the numerous requests for funding marginal activities.

Hardaker is a first term Mayor whose Council is struggling with the legacy of some white elephant projects approved by previous Councils.

Tags: Local Body Politics, Local Government NZ, Nick Smith

The Dom Post editorial:

“Turkeys,” Richard Prebble once observed, “don’t vote for an early Christmas.” The former Labour Cabinet minister and ACT leader was commenting on the improbability of politicians voting to reduce the size of Parliament, but his words hold just as true for local body politicians contemplating a potential shakeup of local government.

Why would the plethora of mayors and councillors in the Wellington region act to do themselves out of jobs? The answer is they won’t.

Just as many Mayors in Auckland were against the Auckland reforms.

If the region is to follow Auckland’s example and amalgamate its nine councils into a single body, it will be in spite of local government politicians not because of them. With a handful of notable exceptions, Greater Wellington regional council chairwoman Fran Wilde prominent among them, the region’s local body politicians have determinedly stonewalled all attempts to initiate change.

The issue goes beyond Wellington also. I am gravitating to the view that two levels of local government is too much for a country our size.  I think unitary authorities are the way of the future, so you don’t have millions wasted in lawsuits, liaison and consultations between regional councils and territorial authorities.

Whether the region would be better served by a single council covering the whole region, or whether it would be better served by two or three unitary councils, is an open question. So is the balance of responsibilities between regionally elected councillors and local community representatives. However, the need for reform is not.

The debate should be about the nature of reform. The status quo is simply ridiculous.

Tags: Dominion Post, editorials, Local Body Politics, Wellington

The Nelson Mail reports:

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

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

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

The Dom Post reports from earlier this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Instead, discussion should be about purpose not structure.

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

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

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

My thinking is:

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

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

Tags: Local Body Politics, Wellington

Stuff reports:

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

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

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

So what is proposed:

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

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

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

Tags: Local Body Politics, Wellington

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

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

The recommendations of the committee are:

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

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

Tags: Local Body Politics

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

About the Submitter

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

   Management of Elections
   

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

   Making an informed decision
   

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

   Recommended Solutions
   

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

Tags: Local Body Politics, submissions

The Herald reports:

Labour wants to stop local board members sitting on more than one board in the Super City.

The party has responded to the case of pharmacist Warren Flaunty, who was elected to three Auckland Council local boards – Rodney, Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour.

As well, he was re-elected to the Waitemata District Health Board and the Waitakere Licensing Trust. …

Yesterday, Labour’s Auckland issues spokesman, Phil Twyford, said the loophole that allowed Mr Flaunty to win five seats should be closed.

I agree. I think you should be able to stand for one board only. I would even go so far as to stop people staying for Council and DHB – people do it just to gain extra money from their name recognition.

“Power is already too concentrated in the hands of too few people running the Super City.”

A bit ironic, as Labour’s policy was to have fewer local boards.

“I will put up an amendment when Rodney Hide’s Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill comes back to the House in a few weeks,” Mr Twyford said.

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide, the author of the Super City council structure, said Mr Twyford was looking to change the wrong law.

The way to address the issue and other concerns, such as postal voting, was through the regular review of the local body elections by the justice and electoral law select committee. That could lead to changes to the Local Electoral Act, he said.

Mr Hide said that personally, he did not think it was right for anyone to sit on more than one local board – “MPs can’t represent three electorates.

“But I will be guided by Parliament and the proper place to consider it is the select committee,” he said.

I agree with Twyford’s intent but Rodney is right that you should submit to the review of the elections – I certainly intend to.

My thoughts for improvement at the moment are:

• Ban multiple candidacies or at least multiple roles if elected
• Encourage councils to have more one person wards – you get more informed decision making from people having to select say one preferred person from half a dozen locals, than try and select three to five people from a list of 20 – 30
• Either stop having DHB elections on the grounds there is miniscule informed voting, or change them from STV and/or introduce smaller wards for DHBs so voters don’t face 30+ names to rank.
• The issue of STV and FPP is challenging. FPP is much more user friendly for multiple vacancy elections (tick three people instead of rank 30 people) but STV can work quite nicely in single vacancy elections (rank from 1 to 7 these mayoral candidates). It would be good to have DIA or LGNZ or someone do some research amongst voters about how they find the different systems. I’m not worried about outcomes under either system – my interest is how do we lift turnout, and get more informed voting.
• I will also advocate for term limits for Mayors at least. I think term limits remove some of the advantages of incumbency, especially when a lot of voting is based on name recognition alone.

Tags: Local Body Politics, Phil Twyford

Wayne Thompson in the Herald reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: Local Body Politics, Warren Flaunty

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

On 1st preferences the results were:

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

After eliminating the four minor candidates, it was:

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

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

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

Kelly went next:

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

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

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

Tags: Local Body Politics, Nick Leggett, Porirua, STV

Sally Rae at the ODT reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: Claire Barlow, Local Body Politics

The Press reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: Angus McKay, Canterbury Regional Council, Local Body Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harry Duynhoven Mayor of New Plymouth

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

Laws team routed in Whanganui with a left leaning Mayor

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

Act Mayor of Hutt City given the boot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: Local Body Politics, Red Alert, Trevor Mallard

I will update as they come in:

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

Tags: Local Body Politics

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

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

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

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

Tags: Local Body Politics, Polls

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

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

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

What makes the Mayor think they are references to him?

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some good question to ask the Police.

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

Tags: Andrew Williams, Auckland Council, Cameron Slater, Local Body Politics

The Herald reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: Brian Neeson, Local Body Politics

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

Mayor

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will be ranking Kerry No 1.

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

Lambton Ward (3 councillors)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Iona will be ranked No 3.

Northern Ward (3 Councillors)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Onslow-Western Ward (3 Councillors)

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

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

Eastern Ward (3 Councillors)

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

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

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

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

Southern Ward (2 Councillors)

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

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

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

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

Tags: Local Body Politics, Wellington City Council

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

Mayor

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

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

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

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

Albany

20 candidates seek two spots.

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

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

Albert-Eden-Roskill

11 candidates seeking two spots. I recommend

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

Franklin

Three seeking one spot. I recommend

Des Morrison (C&R)

Howick

Six seeking two spots. I recommend

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

Manukau

12 seeking two spots. Candidates worth supporting:

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

Manurewa-Papakura

Seven seeking two spots. Best bets are probably:

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

Maungakiekie-Tamaki

Five seeking one spot. Highly highly recommend:

Alfred Ngaro (C&R)

North Shore

Twelve seeking two spots. Good candidates are:

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

Orakei

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

Rodney

Four seeking one spot. I would recommend:

Penny Webster (Independent)

Waitakere

Nine seeking two spots. I recommend:

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

Waitemata & Gulf

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

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

Whau

Four seeking one spot. I recommend:

Noeline Raffills (C&R)

Local Boards

Generally you should vote for these tickets:

C&R
North Now

And generally you should not vote for these tickets:

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

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

Tags: Auckland Council, Local Body Politics