The hitchhikers guide to the local elections

Here’s my approach to voting: if there are two equally competent candidates, what’ll swing my vote is if one of the candidates is Maori, Pasifika, Asian, female or under 30. Maori, other ethnic minorities, women and young people are underrepresented in local government.

Local elections run from the 20th of September to the 12th of October. Consensus politics rules in local government, but without diversity consensus becomes a synonym for the politics of the middle-aged-white-male. When Maori, other ethnic minorities, women and young people aren’t represented, their (and our) interests aren’t properly served. That’s why you should count ethnicity, gender and age as a persuasive factor.

Now - if you’re unsure who you’re going to vote for - let me help:

----------

Tracey Godfery for Bay of Plenty Regional Council

That’s my mum, obviously. She’s standing in the Kohi Maori seat. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council is one of the few local authorities with dedicated Maori representation. That means it’s important that we make it work.

The Kohi seat needs renewal. Local government's often burdened with time servers whose name recognition trumps their competence. I’ll make a personal guarantee: my mum is qualified, ready and competent. But maybe I'm biased.

Mum has a background in environmental education, research and management. At the moment she teaches environmental science at Awanuiarangi. The issues that are important to her are cleaning up contaminated land – including Maori land that's contaminated with PCP and dioxin – fresh water management, resource management and tangata whenua, economic development and accountability. For a better run down you can like here Facebook page.

To vote for her you have to be enrolled in the Kohi district and on the Maori roll. 

Warwick Godfery for Kawerau District Council

That’s my dad, obviously. He’s standing for the Kawerau District Council. The same guarantee: my dad is qualified, ready and competent.

There isn't much more I can add. If you’re reading this in Kawerau, you know who he is. But I'll make this point: it’s important to vote for people who live in the district. A councillor can’t properly serve the district (or the ward) when he or she lives in, say, Ohope or Rotorua.

You can like dad’s Facebook page here. He’s about bridging the gaps. There’s an age deficit and a cultural deficit between the Kawerau District Council and the Kawerau community. Dad will help repair that deficit.


Jack Tautokai McDonald for the Paekakariki Local Board

Again, competence is important. Jack has proved his competence. Diversity should be a touchstone to guide your vote too. Jack brings two important qualities to local government: his Maoritanga and his age. Government – whether it’s local or central – should reflect the community. When it doesn’t disengagement and apathy happens. I’ll let Jack take it from here:

A lifelong Paekakariki resident, I’m eager to be a voice for the community and contribute to the Board’s work and advocacy. 

If elected, I will focus on fighting for our local democracy and ensuring community concerns are listened to, providing opportunities for youth, restoration of our local environment and fostering a strong partnership with the mana whenua; Ngati Haumia ki Paekakariki, Ngati Toarangatira and Te Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai. 

My experience in governance and representation includes serving on Kapiti College’s Board of Trustees, the Green Party’s National Executive and as a Youth MP.

Other voting suggestions

This isn't an exhaustive list, but a guide for wavering voters. If you want me to add your name to the list flick me an email, tweet, or a Facebook PM.

Kawerau Dsitrict Council

Miriama Postlethwaite 
Chris Marjoribanks
Faylene Tunui
Peta Ruha
Grace Stone
Stephen Tuhoro

Whakatane District Council

Fioana Wiremu (who's also standing for mayor).

Rotorua District Council 

Steve Chadwick

Gisborne District Council

Manu Caddie
Meredith Akuhata-Brown

Waikato Regional Council 

Tipa Mahuta (standing in the Nga Hau E Wha Maori constituency)
Chris Webster (standing in the Nga Tai Ki Uta Maori constituency)

Henderson-Massey Local Board

Will Flavell

Tauranga City Council

Delwyn Walker

Wellington City Council - Southern Ward

Will Moore

South Island Council's slap down Maori

Disappointing to see the Waimate and Timaru District Councils have refused to consider creating Maori wards. Race relation conciliator Joris De Bres wrote to all regional/city/territorial authorities urging them to consider establishing Maori wards. De Bres also requested information on the number of Maori on each Council. Some Councils considered the idea, for example New Plymouth (they decided against the idea), others are considering the idea, like the Gisborne District Council, while some refuse to even consider it (Timaru, Waimate and a host of others no doubt). As well as refusing to consider the idea of Maori wards the Timaru and Waimate Councils also refused to confirm whether they had any sitting Maori councillors.

Consider this from the Timaru Herald:

The Timaru council's acting chief executive, Peter Nixon, has no idea of the ethnicity of the district's mayor and 10 councillors. He said they were not required to tell him of their ethnicity, and he had replied along those lines to Mr de Bres.

There is little to no information around Maori representation at local government level. Any efforts to gain a better picture should be supported. Pity that this Peter Nixon doesn’t realise the value in knowing who and how many Maori councillors there are.  

He did not intend putting the matter of Maori wards before the council as previous councils had decided against such a move because only about 6 per cent of the district's population considered themselves Maori.

Just because a previous council dismissed the idea does not mean the present council, or a future council for that matter, will reach the same decision. Previous councils don’t bind future councils nor create any sort of persuasive precedent.

I despise, with a passion too, the notion that minorities are somehow disqualified from representation. The idea that there is some sort of magic threshold that grants the right to representation. Clearly this Peter Nixon thinks 6 per cent does not meet the magic threshold. This is the tyranny of the majority. This Peter Nixon thinks, no thanks, we’ll keep our monopoly on power. A sad stance, but hardly unexpected.

If one of the council's 10 existing seats was to be declared a Maori ward, then Maori would be over-represented, Mr Nixon said.

This Peter Nixon is incredibly superficial. Maori wards are about giving effect to the Treaty principle of partnership and ensuring Maori interests as tangata whenua, and by extension as kaitiaki etc, is recognised at a meaningful level. Maori wards, i.e. having Maori councillors, ensues Maori issues are handled appropriately and Maori views understood correctly.   

Maori exclusion from local government is the chief cause of voter apathy. Maori are not going to participate in a system that is seen not to serve them and, indeed, does not serve them. Hopefully we will see more councils consider the idea of Maori wards and, fingers crossed, we will see some actually implement the idea.

For a valuable discussion on Maori and local government see this post from earlier in the year.

A few thoughts

I haven’t had time to blog much over the past few days so I’ll briefly cover a few issues here:

Labour Party Conference

The Labour Party held their annual conference over the weekend with President Moira Coatsworth emphasising the party’s commitment to the Maori seats. This is, in my opinion, promising and sensible. Retaining and regaining the Maori seats makes strategic sense. Labour needs to reduce National’s post-election options and the most practical way to do so is to weaken the Maori Party vote and loosen the party’s grip in Te Hauauru and, arguably, Tamaki Makaurau. Without the Maori Party the Nats will find it more difficult to maintain a “moderate” pretence and, ultimately, command the numbers in the House.  

National

The National Party has selected Claudette Hauiti to contest the Mangere electorate, a safe Labour seat. In my opinion this move represents National’s response to the increasing number of Maori turning to National. As the Maori middle class grows so to does the number of Maori voting National. The Nats are responding to this by increasing the number of Maori candidates they stand (for example Leonie Hapata in Palmerston North - UPDATE - She isn't actually Maori - my mistake), extending concessions to corporate iwi (where much of the Maori middle class is drawn from) and generally building the perception that National is no longer hostile towards Maori aspirations (think the Maori Party/National Party coalition and the symbolism that it embodies). All of this is unfortunate, the Nats, rather than formulating sound Maori policy, are relying on tokenism and symbolism to win Maori votes. Great approach to politics, shit approach to government. 

Turia on Poverty

Tariana Turia says Maori must stop blaming poverty for child abuse. What a classic Tory line. Turia is an extreme social conservative who opposes abortion and is, apparently, a strong advocate for personal responsibility. Although I find Turia’s comments one dimensional, I must admit that she is correct in one sense; poverty does not annul the responsibility a child abuser must bear. However, Turia should consider the drivers of social dysfunction before jumping ahead of herself. Poverty is, more often than not, the chief reason why child abuse occurs in Maori whanau.

Maori Seats in Local Government

A number of Councils are undertaking a Maori representation review, as required under the Local Government Act 2001. At this stage it appears the New Plymouth District Council is the only Council considering Maori seats. The chances of success appear slim though. Three separate community boards have rejected the idea and Grey Power is opposed. I am fairly gutted, yet not surprised, with the response of the community. The Taranaki is hardly a region of progressive thought and racial harmony - and this is why Maori seats are a must. There is no appreciation or understanding of Maori concerns at the Council table - only a collection of individuals who reflect the ignorance of the general community and, consequently, propagate anti-Maori policy.

Finally...

Finally, cheers to Denis Welch for his generous comments on Radio New Zealand re me and this blog.

Goff, Maori wards and Te Ururoa Flavell

Here are a few things that caught my attention over the weekend: 

• E tu Ake, one of the largest ever exhibitions of ancient taonga and contemporary Maori art, is know open at Te Papa. The exhibition will run through to June and will then begin an international tour. You should check it out if you have a spare few hours. 

• It is encouraging to see Phil Goff attack the government over the Petrobras permit. Goff was very careful in terms of how he framed his attack, he did not attack the fact that the permit was granted; rather he directed his attack at the fact that the government has no mechanisms in place to deal with a disaster. Both Goff and Parekura Horomia have indicated “soft” support for Te Whanau a Apanui. I wonder when the Maori Party will?

• The Palmerston North City Council is considering Maori wards. This is excellent news. Maori are woefully underrepresented in local government and the makeup of government largely determines whose interests will be served. Consequently Maori issues are ignored and Maori views are not taken into account. Maori are continually excluded from local government and this exclusion is, in my opinion at least, the chief cause of voter apathy. I hope the PNCC have the guts to stare the down the inevitable redneck opposition. I also hope, should the Council go through with the idea, that it sets a precedent.

The last point I will address is, in my mind at least, the most significant.

• Did anyone else find it bizarre that Te Ururoa Flavell has taken to defending the government over the AMI bailout. This from TeUruroa:                                                                                                       

Maori Party whip Te Ururoa Flavell says the government's $500 million bail-out of AMI insurance is in keeping with the spirit of whanauangatanga seen throughout the response to the Christchurch earthquakes.

“We've seen that demonstration of that whananugatanga in the last couple of months and this sort of move by the government is along the same lines of whanau supporting whanau and one could say that New Zealand is a whanau when it comes to catastrophies,” 

It is not the job of a minor coalition partner to defend government action, especially when that action is not related to policy contained within the coalition agreement, or in this case the Maori Party/National confidence and supply agreement. The AMI bailout does not touch on any of the Maori Party’s core policy nor is it clearly Maori related. So why bother defending the bailout?

I tend to think it has something to do with softening the government’s image. The Maori Party will almost certainly prop up a second term National government; however the leadership knows that supporting a second term National government is unacceptable to Maori. Therefore, the Maori Party needs to coat the Nats in brown i.e. put a Maori spin on government action. Maori will feel more comfortable with the idea of a second term National government if they perceive that government to be working in a manner consistent with Maori values.

The case for Maori representation in local government

From Waatea News:

The Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres says all local governments need dedicated Maori seats.

That's one of the main recommendations in the commissioner's annual report to parliament on the state of race relations.

He says the seats are needed to tackle the institutional discrimination against Maori that is still rife throughout the country.

“I'm not that confident many of them will because they will either use that stuff, as they have before, about ‘no privilege’, but actually the Maori seats are provided for in legislation, they work really well in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council,” Mr de Bres says.

The creation of Maori seats would also help address the concerns of the United Nations which wants the government to include Maori more in decision-making at all levels.

I couldn’t agree more. I have blogged previously on the issue of Maori in local government. Rather than paraphrase what I have already written I will reproduce the relevant parts here:

Politics in LG differs significantly from the style of politics practised on the national stage. LG is characterised by political consensus as opposed to political conflict. This is primarily due the absence of party politics which is often viewed as unnecessarily divisive. Essentially the political independence of representatives in LG allows for a non-partisan approach to issues facing the community. This gives rise to a predisposition for pragmatism in preference to ideology. So far so good, right?

The make up of LG should be a concern for Maori and proponents of diversity. The make up of LG largely determines whose interests will be served. Currently, LG is dominated by land owners and business owners who are overwhelmingly white, middle class and male; arguably as ratepayers they could be seen as having the most tangible interest in LG, however more often than not their interests dominate council priorities at the expense of the rest of the community. With this sort of makeup in LG there is a greater focus on material projects such as sewerage systems and roads whilst a reduced focus on the provision of amenities such as parks and pensioner housing. For example, consensus is more likely to come about on issues such as rates rebates for business owners whereas consensus on issues such as pensioner housing will be a lot harder to reach given the makeup and interests of council. This is where consensus politics fails in my opinion. Without diversity of opinion and perspective, a one eyed approach if you will, consensus will only be reached on issues that are within the understanding and interests of the decision makers. Consensus politics also makes it hard to identify who is responsible for certain policies. Therefore, voters find it difficult to punish or reward candidates. This translates to poor electoral accountability in my opinion.

So how does consensus politics affect Maori? Often LG fails to adequately address Maori issues and take into account Maori views. This failure is often masked by consensus politics and the lack of large scale controversies that would follow such behaviour if it occurred on the national stage. Councillors can easily dismiss Maori issues and views on the basis that a consensus has been reached and no controversy will ensure because, usually, the only media taking note is the local newspaper.

Often the views of LG are informed through the prevailing beliefs of the community. Perhaps this is largely good for the community but I do not think it is good for Maori. Many communities are rather unsympathetic towards Maori concerns and views. Their understanding of Maori issues is largely informed by their, and I do not mean this harshly, narrow worldview. Sadly, Maori issues are not approached with any great insight or perception and councillors usually reflect this superficial understanding. Furthermore, unlike an electorate M.P, LG politicians usually only interact, in a political capacity, with like minded people, for example their church group. Therefore, their political judgements are informed by people with similar beliefs and backgrounds. This is not conducive to representative government.

Maori are continually excluded from local government and this exclusion is the chief cause of voter apathy. The representation of only a certain section of the community is undesirable. This problem could be addressed through the creation of Maori seats in LG. Maori seats give effect to the Crowns treaty obligation to act in partnership with tangata whenua and acknowledges their special status and role as kaitiaki. Maori seats also ensure diversity of viewpoints in LG. However, I am not in favour of Maori seats on all Councils – I favour having Maori seats only on regional councils and the Auckland supercity. The model pioneered by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has been a success and should be emulated.

I should probably add that I now believe that Maori seats should be included on all councils – not just the Auckland Council and regional councils.   

Are you really that stupid?

Whakatane Mayor Tony Bonne is under police investigation for election overspending. Bonne spent $20,928 on his campaign – the legal limit is $20,000. Genuine concerns are also held that Bonne did not declare all his expenditure and some costs were inappropriately written off.   

Although the amount overspent is small, a mere $928, it represents a blatant breach of the rules and brings into question the legitimacy of Bonne’s election win. The second placed candidate, former United Future MP Judy Turner, was within 600 votes of Tony Bonne. Did $928 spell the difference between Judy Turner and Tony Bonne? Did undeclared and inappropriately written off expenditure spell the difference between Judy Turner and Tony Bonne? It is impossible to know for sure, however it is conceivable that it did.

Tony Bonne pleads ignorance. He claims that he did not know the limit was GST inclusive. This is a piss poor excuse. The Electoral Commission makes it quite clear that GST is included. Tony Bonne, as a former Mayor, should have at the very least a fair understanding of electoral rules. I find it rather odd that a former elected representative and experienced election campaigner overlooked, or did not know, that the election spending limit is GST inclusive. Is it not prudent and sensible to at least ‘assume’ that the limit is GST inclusive?  If you remember National also deployed the ‘GST excuse’ in 2005 and the excuse was just as laughable then as it is now.  

Clearly Tony Bonne has breached the rules and, in my opinion, attempted to play the system. There is room for forgiveness if it becomes apparent that it was all an honest mistake. However, if the opposite is true then Tony Bonne must step down. His mayoralty is stained and there is growing feeling that his election win was illegitimate. The people of Whakatane deserved an honest election – sadly they did not receive one.   

FU Whakatane District Council

There is deep dissatisfaction among some residents within the Whakatane District. Disgruntled residents from the Rangitaiki Ward, which includes the towns of Edgecumbe, Matata, Te Teko and Awakeri, have renewed calls to cut ties with the Whakatane District Council (WDC) and move under the governance of the nearby Kawerau District Council. You can read some background here. I’m interested in the issue because I think it demonstrates the perennial problem peripheral wards face.

Peripheral wards are often neglected by major interests in the centre of the district and there is almost always conflict between the interests of rural residents and the interests of urban residents. Under the ward voting system residents only have a set number of representatives who are electorally accountable to them so inevitably those residents residing in the urban centre have substantially more representatives as a result of the ward system compared to those in the less populous rural wards. Therefore, the urban representatives rule Council by majority. The interests of urban electors are at the forefront of the Council agenda at the expense of the less powerful rural electors. The ward system also tends to produce voting blocs so when the urban bloc enforces policy that is detrimental to or ignores rural constituencies they do so without fear of electoral consequence. Essentially they act with impunity as they are only accountable to their ward as opposed to the entire electorate.

I hope the residents of the Rangitaiki ward are successful in their attempts to break away from the WDC. The WDC is a joke. Run by incompetent, narrow minded, uninspired small town hicks with atmospheric notions of self importance. The Rangitaiki ward is the WDC cash cow so they will pay a very heavy price for the neglect they have shown the ward.

All Politics is Local

                                          Protesters demand Maori representation on the Supercity

Discussion around local government (LG) in New Zealand is terribly thin. Mainstream political discourse does not pay particular attention to LG in a meaningful manner. LG appears to be a topic reserved for political scientists and amateur enthusiasts - this is a shame. I think we need to have a conservation about the style of politics in LG and how it affects outcomes, we need to look at the make-up of LG and ask whose interests are been served, we need to debate the place of Maori in LG and we need to look at how we can address the problems presented by LG in its current form.

Local governments are a component of the executive branch of government and are completely subordinate to central government (CG). In New Zealand local government is the only form of government outside of CG. There are three levels of LG; regional, district/city and community. In their simplest form they can be described as an institution performing public functions.

Politics in LG differs significantly from the style of politics practised on the national stage. LG is characterised by political consensus as opposed to political conflict. This is primarily due the absence of party politics which is often viewed as unnecessarily divisive. Essentially the political independence of representatives in LG allows for a non-partisan approach to issues facing the community. This gives rise to a predisposition for pragmatism in preference to ideology. So far so good, right?

The make up of LG should be a concern for Maori and proponents of diversity. The make up of LG largely determines whose interests will be served. Currently, LG is dominated by land owners and business owners who are overwhelmingly white, middle class and male; arguably as ratepayers they could be seen as having the most tangible interest in LG, however more often than not their interests dominate council priorities at the expense of the rest of the community. With this sort of makeup in LG there is a greater focus on material projects such as sewerage systems and roads whilst a reduced focus on the provision of amenities such as parks and pensioner housing. For example, consensus is more likely to come about on issues such as rates rebates for business owners whereas consensus on issues such as pensioner housing will be a lot harder to reach given the makeup and interests of council. This is where consensus politics fails in my opinion. Without diversity of opinion and perspective, a one eyed approach if you will, consensus will only be reached on issues that are within the understanding and interests of the decision makers. Consensus politics also makes it hard to identify who is responsible for certain policies. Therefore, voters find it difficult to punish or reward candidates. This translates to poor electoral accountability in my opinion.

So how does consensus politics affect Maori? Often LG fails to adequately address Maori issues and take into account Maori views. This failure is often masked by consensus politics and the lack of large scale controversies that would follow such behaviour if it occurred on the national stage. Councillors can easily dismiss Maori issues and views on the basis that a consensus has been reached and no controversy will ensure because, usually, the only media taking note is the local newspaper.

Often the views of LG are informed through the prevailing beliefs of the community. Perhaps this is largely good for the community but I do not think it is good for Maori. Many communities are rather unsympathetic towards Maori concerns and views. Their understanding of Maori issues is largely informed by their, and I do not mean this harshly, narrow worldview. Sadly, Maori issues are not approached with any great insight or perception and councillors usually reflect this superficial understanding. Furthermore, unlike an electorate M.P, LG politicians usually only interact, in a political capacity, with like minded people, for example their church group. Therefore, their political judgements are informed by people with similar beliefs and backgrounds. This is not conducive to representative government.

Maori are continually excluded from local government and this exclusion is the chief cause of voter apathy. The representation of only a certain section of the community is undesirable. This problem could be addressed through the creation of Maori seats in LG. Maori seats give effect to the Crowns treaty obligation to act in partnership with tangata whenua and acknowledges their special status and role as kaitiaki. Maori seats also ensure diversity of viewpoints in LG. However, I am not in favour of Maori seats on all Councils – I favour having Maori seats only on regional councils and the Auckland supercity. The model pioneered by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has been a success and should be emulated.   

To conclude I think consensus politics is advantageous – the absence of partisan bickering is more so. What is needed is greater diversity in LG. It would also be good to see an improvement in candidate’s election statements. Election statements are notoriously vague - you cannot make an informed vote based on what is written in them. NZ also needs to see a move towards LG candidates making electoral commitments so those who are elected move into office with mandated policy. The current crop of LG politicians are better described as managers than governors – bereft of policy, basically caretakers.