An old white male Councillor writes. I was elected on 52% turnout in Ruapehu and yes we voted to retain our Māori wards. The real problem for local government is simply the lack of support from central government. Rural authorities struggle to finance even basic services with low rate bases, in Ruapehu a vanity project is buying new books for our libraries...
In general the majority of councillors have always been older, white and better off than many voters. This is aided by relying on a traditional property tax- the rates - for about fifty per cent of council income. This makes it easier to stage a rates revolt.
To set the record straight: the suggestion to involve the Électoral Commission in local body elections wasn't Luxon's. Others have been calling for this well before the election. I think his maxim re voting is a falsity. In a democracy, or what threads of it still remain, everyone has the right to complain. And if the choice of candidates ranges from bad to worse to worst there is little to compel one to vote. I recall an election a few decades ago when so many people spoiled their ballots, me included, that it was recognised as a protest vote. Not coordinated, just a huge dissatisfaction with the candidate choice available. As for Luxon: rather than compelling he repels many of us.
Luxon could barely get people excited in the business world. And it's been said before, but some people need reminding that nations aren't airlines or investment banks.
There is something of a beat up with the low voting issue. In fact, the turnout was better than last election with turnout at 46.5% (I predicted 45% in my Conversation article). Only Auckland had disastrous turnout (29%), though some others were not great. There are clearly multiple variables at play and simplistic solutions are delusional.
As for the PM and his leadership? More Tux than Lux, the guy has to be dog tucker.
It appears that smaller predominantly rural councils had larger voter turnouts than large city councils, particularly Auckland, which suggests to me that most Aucklanders regard the "business" of administering the city to be a technocratic function rather than a democratic one.
In many different ways the political establishment encourages that opinion (even while at the same time deploring the lack of democratic participation) and urban residents are open to that view because many are not property owners or ratepayers, have a transient relationship to the city, do not feel they have any agency or control over civic affairs, and in many cases cannot understand what is being done in the city space, or why. These people relate to the city in the same ways that they relate to their landlord. They feel they have to accept whatever deal is handed down to them, they can complain but they don't have the power to change things, and ultimately if they don't like the arrangement their only alternative is to move elsewhere. Can anyone seriously argue that the non-voters are wrong to feel that governing the city is no business of theirs?
As for the Maori ward referenda: In my own district the Maori ward was lost by a substantial margin, despite a vigorous campaign in which the "tangata tiriti" people were passionately involved. From one perspective the loss comes down to demographics. We have a few traditional centres of Maori population - Harataunga ("Kennedy Bay"), Manaia (where I am) and Kauaeranga/Matai Whetu ("Thames") and smaller groups scattered mainly over the western and northern parts of Te Tara o te Ika. In the south east we have affluent mainly European/Pakeha voters, many of them absentee owners of holiday homes in places like Whitianga, Pauanui and Whangamata. Considering the demographic reality, there was actually quite a healthy level of support for a Maori ward.
But putting aside the demographics, the tangata tiriti folk failed to adequately address the key arguments of the opponents of Maori wards, which were that the wards gave a special privilege to Maori and went against the principle of a united nation - or as the colonialist right-wing like to say (disingenuously in their case), "We are one people". Ultimately, tangata motu cannot expect to prevail over the colonialists except as the upholders of the principles of equality and national unity, of mana orite me te kotahitanga.
The referendum therefore allows us to take a step forward even as we may seem to have been set back a step. The Maori wards and Maori seats in parliament are a chimaera, an awkward synthesis of colonialist forms and the vital energies of tangata whenua. They are so far from ideal that their loss should cause us little grief. Tangata motu can now proceed to developing and strengthening rangatiratanga within our own communities, free from the corrupting influences of the colonialist system. As rangatiratanga comes to be seen as the true expression of the mana motuhake o Aotearoa by the hundreds of thousands of who chose not to be involved in the colonialist political institutions and processes, then the nation as a whole will move in the direction of rangatiratanga.
Thanks Grant, for a well-put discussion. There can be little doubt that our present political leadership is, in a word, disappointing. I find it stunning that someone like Luxon doesn't appear to understand what leadership is about. Years ago I heard Kevin Roberts, the then Global CEO of Saatchi and Saatchi, describe his view to Chris Laidlaw when asked what the difference is between management and leadership. Management, he said, is about doing things right. Leadership is about doing the right things. I have a strong impression that Luxon has never heard this—or would even understand it! This is a man who sold Air NZ's berth at Heathrow Airport towards the end of his term as CEO—something that Air NZ would dearly love to get back. And, I understand, he sold it for a jingle when he should have got an aria!
For such a dynamic genius I would have thought he would understand the great dilemma that faces New Zealand—our small population. Our greatest asset and our worst disadvantage. I described this in my recent Substack essay, "New Zealand in a World of Giants: A Comparative Analysis of Population Scale" (https://garykerkin.substack.com/p/new-zealand-in-a-world-of-giants). Just as an example, and something John Chapman hinted at in his comment, is the comparative cost of road maintenance. In the UK, which has 10 times our population living in much the same physical area, each inhabitant has to look after 5.8 km of road. Each citizen in New Zealand has to look after 18.3 km. The implication is, of course, that to maintain a similar standard of living to that of other comparable developed countries, our personal economic responsibilities are significantly higher. Even Australia is better off than we are in that regard. I found it completely laughable that Willis could think that she would attract another supermarket chain to NZ—even blind Freddy could see it wasn't a sustainable proposition.
Wellington is a notable exception to the low turnout (which has long favoured people who hate paying council rates). Then again, it has an above-average proportion of politically aware voters, in both local and national politics.
Grant, you don’t mention the effect of social media and digital life generally on voter turnout. I suggest that digital media are increasingly detaching us from our physical lives and starving us of time. Why would we spare time to vote for candidates in our local body election when there are friends’ feeds to keep up with, our own feed to update, fantasy worlds to visit, online games to play and kitten reels to watch?
Good point, Kai. Young people are more engaged with what's going on in the US, via social media, than with their local parks and footpaths that they walk across daily.
An old white male Councillor writes. I was elected on 52% turnout in Ruapehu and yes we voted to retain our Māori wards. The real problem for local government is simply the lack of support from central government. Rural authorities struggle to finance even basic services with low rate bases, in Ruapehu a vanity project is buying new books for our libraries...
In general the majority of councillors have always been older, white and better off than many voters. This is aided by relying on a traditional property tax- the rates - for about fifty per cent of council income. This makes it easier to stage a rates revolt.
To set the record straight: the suggestion to involve the Électoral Commission in local body elections wasn't Luxon's. Others have been calling for this well before the election. I think his maxim re voting is a falsity. In a democracy, or what threads of it still remain, everyone has the right to complain. And if the choice of candidates ranges from bad to worse to worst there is little to compel one to vote. I recall an election a few decades ago when so many people spoiled their ballots, me included, that it was recognised as a protest vote. Not coordinated, just a huge dissatisfaction with the candidate choice available. As for Luxon: rather than compelling he repels many of us.
Good point, Helen. It wasn't Luxon's suggestion originally.
Luxon could barely get people excited in the business world. And it's been said before, but some people need reminding that nations aren't airlines or investment banks.
There is something of a beat up with the low voting issue. In fact, the turnout was better than last election with turnout at 46.5% (I predicted 45% in my Conversation article). Only Auckland had disastrous turnout (29%), though some others were not great. There are clearly multiple variables at play and simplistic solutions are delusional.
As for the PM and his leadership? More Tux than Lux, the guy has to be dog tucker.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jeffrey-mcneill-88a93b37_apropos-my-last-post-calling-for-at-least-activity-7384055255619207169-O0rJ?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAfKnioBK_yvgzhSzCa63ARKtOUaaL_-lpo
Thanks for that update on figures, Jeff. For those who missed your article, here's the link
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/575182/not-voting-in-local-elections-is-rational-voters-need-better-reasons-to-engage
Was turnout helped by the referendums do you think?
It appears that smaller predominantly rural councils had larger voter turnouts than large city councils, particularly Auckland, which suggests to me that most Aucklanders regard the "business" of administering the city to be a technocratic function rather than a democratic one.
In many different ways the political establishment encourages that opinion (even while at the same time deploring the lack of democratic participation) and urban residents are open to that view because many are not property owners or ratepayers, have a transient relationship to the city, do not feel they have any agency or control over civic affairs, and in many cases cannot understand what is being done in the city space, or why. These people relate to the city in the same ways that they relate to their landlord. They feel they have to accept whatever deal is handed down to them, they can complain but they don't have the power to change things, and ultimately if they don't like the arrangement their only alternative is to move elsewhere. Can anyone seriously argue that the non-voters are wrong to feel that governing the city is no business of theirs?
As for the Maori ward referenda: In my own district the Maori ward was lost by a substantial margin, despite a vigorous campaign in which the "tangata tiriti" people were passionately involved. From one perspective the loss comes down to demographics. We have a few traditional centres of Maori population - Harataunga ("Kennedy Bay"), Manaia (where I am) and Kauaeranga/Matai Whetu ("Thames") and smaller groups scattered mainly over the western and northern parts of Te Tara o te Ika. In the south east we have affluent mainly European/Pakeha voters, many of them absentee owners of holiday homes in places like Whitianga, Pauanui and Whangamata. Considering the demographic reality, there was actually quite a healthy level of support for a Maori ward.
But putting aside the demographics, the tangata tiriti folk failed to adequately address the key arguments of the opponents of Maori wards, which were that the wards gave a special privilege to Maori and went against the principle of a united nation - or as the colonialist right-wing like to say (disingenuously in their case), "We are one people". Ultimately, tangata motu cannot expect to prevail over the colonialists except as the upholders of the principles of equality and national unity, of mana orite me te kotahitanga.
The referendum therefore allows us to take a step forward even as we may seem to have been set back a step. The Maori wards and Maori seats in parliament are a chimaera, an awkward synthesis of colonialist forms and the vital energies of tangata whenua. They are so far from ideal that their loss should cause us little grief. Tangata motu can now proceed to developing and strengthening rangatiratanga within our own communities, free from the corrupting influences of the colonialist system. As rangatiratanga comes to be seen as the true expression of the mana motuhake o Aotearoa by the hundreds of thousands of who chose not to be involved in the colonialist political institutions and processes, then the nation as a whole will move in the direction of rangatiratanga.
Housing, or the lack of it, could be another burning issue.
Thanks Grant, for a well-put discussion. There can be little doubt that our present political leadership is, in a word, disappointing. I find it stunning that someone like Luxon doesn't appear to understand what leadership is about. Years ago I heard Kevin Roberts, the then Global CEO of Saatchi and Saatchi, describe his view to Chris Laidlaw when asked what the difference is between management and leadership. Management, he said, is about doing things right. Leadership is about doing the right things. I have a strong impression that Luxon has never heard this—or would even understand it! This is a man who sold Air NZ's berth at Heathrow Airport towards the end of his term as CEO—something that Air NZ would dearly love to get back. And, I understand, he sold it for a jingle when he should have got an aria!
For such a dynamic genius I would have thought he would understand the great dilemma that faces New Zealand—our small population. Our greatest asset and our worst disadvantage. I described this in my recent Substack essay, "New Zealand in a World of Giants: A Comparative Analysis of Population Scale" (https://garykerkin.substack.com/p/new-zealand-in-a-world-of-giants). Just as an example, and something John Chapman hinted at in his comment, is the comparative cost of road maintenance. In the UK, which has 10 times our population living in much the same physical area, each inhabitant has to look after 5.8 km of road. Each citizen in New Zealand has to look after 18.3 km. The implication is, of course, that to maintain a similar standard of living to that of other comparable developed countries, our personal economic responsibilities are significantly higher. Even Australia is better off than we are in that regard. I found it completely laughable that Willis could think that she would attract another supermarket chain to NZ—even blind Freddy could see it wasn't a sustainable proposition.
In a word? Yes, disappointing!
Thanks, Gary. I liked the point about roads. I guess there'd be a similar figure regarding rail. GD
There might be, Grant, but the rail has been so buggered around over the last 60 years (ours-yours-ours again...) that there might not be a parallel.
Mayor Robbie's rapid rail, and all that. I'm hanging out for the CRL to open! Cheers.
Wellington is a notable exception to the low turnout (which has long favoured people who hate paying council rates). Then again, it has an above-average proportion of politically aware voters, in both local and national politics.
Grant, you don’t mention the effect of social media and digital life generally on voter turnout. I suggest that digital media are increasingly detaching us from our physical lives and starving us of time. Why would we spare time to vote for candidates in our local body election when there are friends’ feeds to keep up with, our own feed to update, fantasy worlds to visit, online games to play and kitten reels to watch?
Good point, Kai. Young people are more engaged with what's going on in the US, via social media, than with their local parks and footpaths that they walk across daily.