How to elect a Mayor?

There is increasing focus on the election to the office of Mayor given new powers of appointment and policy leadership. New Zealand uses different electoral systems for local government elections. Celia won under different rules than Len and Lianne.

The 2001 Local Electoral Act says, “Every election or poll conducted for a local authority must be conducted using 1 or more methods of voting adopted by resolution of the local authority.” This results in a muddle.

In 2013 most Councils used first past the post to elect Councillors and the Mayor. But seven used STV: Dunedin, Kapiti, Marlborough, Porirua, Wellington City and Regional, and Palmerston North City Council. There is no overall rationale as to why one place should have a different system than another.

The type of voting system you are in appears to be random, but does it matter? Voters are confused by different systems on the same ballot papers. Confusion is the norm as all health boards are elected by STV and most Councillors are elected by FPP. This may result in voters not completing or posting their ballot papers.

So is it better to elect the most popular or the least unpopular candidate? Those who favour STV argue that it promotes more consensual politics, but it may not when it comes to the top position. Often in a Mayoral race there is a front runner, often the incumbent, and there is an initial contest for who is the main contender.

Under FPP, the contenders tend to turn their focus on each other initially. They do not unite in attacking the incumbent throughout the campaign. This results in more scrutiny on all candidates and a more balanced campaign.

Under STV, the second favourite can win and there is an incentive for all rivals to collude against the front-runner. This can lead to a lopsided campaign to cut down the tall poppy. This may damage the likely winner and add to the likelihood of conflict post election. And if the most popular does not win, they may be locked into opposition.

A traditional Mayoral campaign under first preference may result in a more convincing outcome under a less damaging campaign.


The democratic deficit

A departing Auckland Council senior manager wrote an e-mail to staff suggesting, “All writing, whether in reports, letters or memos needs to be in plain English. You need to target a reading age of around 13.” This is wrong.

It’s good if the aim of the reports is to make the council more accessible to all. As Councillor Cathy Casey puts it, “Nothing wrong with brevity and plain English. Long winded local government-speak littered with acronyms is the bane of my life!”

Yet who actually reads these reports? Not many 13 year olds. Few people attend to the details other than those directly involved in the business at hand.  Council reports go to the governance body of a complex, multi-million dollar organisation. Would you expect a large company or Cabinet government to dumb-down its strategic decisions to a pre NCEA level? Should we leave the complex bits out and Keep It Simple Stupid?

If the reports are inadequate, councillors can either accept the recommendations of unelected officers or delay the decision by requesting more information. Neither is a good outcome.

New Zealand councillors have little governance training. A recent study showed only a third got any at all. Some look like they are there for questionable reasons: a salary, a lack of alternatives, as a kind of semi-retirement or as a stepping-stone to Parliament. The role may be a bit too comfortable. Between elections there is minimal contact with electors and a low public profile is acceptable.

Our councillors represent around 5,000 citizens each compared with 201 citizens per councillor in Austria through to just over 3,000 in the UK. This makes them less able to be accessible to and representative of their electors. It suggests a need for community or local boards to ensure that community feedback is part of the decision-making process.

What we need is highly competent individuals capable of analysing complex material to make good decisions that reflect the needs of the communities they represent. Not overly simplistic reports rubber-stamped by remote councillors.

Make our local bodies powerful

The unique value of local government is that it is the only elected, representative local body. Every other group represents one interest over another. Local body politics is often lampooned and can throw up some irregular folk. Councillors are not representative of young people, nor of ethnic communities. There is cronyism. A feeling pervades that some Councillors are not up to the job. Lavish mistakes happen like the Hamilton Supercar fiasco. But imperfect though it is, our council is the best we’ve got.

Local government is more responsive, accountable and accessible to the communities it serves than the Beehive and government agencies. Weak local government means weak democracy. New Zealand has one of the most centralised forms of government in the developed world. Most civil servants are employed by the central state services, rather than their local council. Councils can be reduced to the oversight of central regulations and arcane rituals. Low rates, less red tape, more development is the war cry of the haters. As if leaky homes were the result of anything other than de-regulation. The result of Cabinet arrogance overturning local wisdom.

New Zealand local government has struggled to accommodate population growth and urban intensification. Long-term debt has risen. Infrastructure lagged. Developers were not forced to make Development Contributions for the added costs of their developments until forced to by councils fighting them in the courts. Rates must pay to maintain rural roads, for public transport and for healthy communities. The 2007 Shand enquiry into rates did not uncover evidence of widespread fiscal incompetence. Our rates are not high by international standards. The costs would be lower if we lived in more compact dwellings.

If anything Mayors have too little power compared to the expectations placed upon them. The Mayor has one vote, the same as any other Councillor. They Chair formal Council meetings and have the influence of their office. Elected politicians have little control over over-paid Chief Executives who appoint and control all the staff and resources. A stronger Mayor with their own office and staff helps the council speak with one voice to central government. Len Brown disappoints many Aucklanders who nonetheless appeal to the authority of his position. Few argue that we don’t need a Mayor to tackle the direction of travel from Ministers.

It is arbitrary to draw legislative lines between the environmental, the economic, the social and the cultural. Local bodies have a broad role enshrined in the Local Government Act 2002. To remove their special power of general competence is to stop Councils from responding holistically to issues of local concern. Crime is a social issue. So too is recreation and how we use our public space. Rodney Hide drew the line at libraries. Len Brown at free swimming in South Auckland. Let the Mayor, Councillors and local voters decide the direction of their communities. Listen government ministers! Do not impose more restrictions upon our ability to organise ourselves locally outside of your control.

The silence of the lamb

This was a big week for David Shearer.  After a slow start, we expected him to define his leadership of Labour.  So what did we discover and just how good was his speech?

Shearer starts off with an off-beat reference to the circus.  Next comes several repetitions of ‘the honest truth’ as if there was such a thing as the dishonest truth.  He wants us to see him as an honest man, not a showman.

After some further hedging around the subject we get the goods. The vision is, wait for it: “New Zealand should be a place where people know that they can get ahead, a place where the rest of the world wants to live and a place that we can all be proud of.”  A bland platitude telling us that Labour is headed towards the centre ground. Not much of a vision.

Shearer moves on to Finland.  We hear about a former Finnish Prime Minister who had a bit of a vision.  No matter the eerie echo of Roger Douglas who also pointed to Esko Aho as a model.  Shearer says he is no tinkerer and he will take bold action on innovation and education.

Will new Labour imitate Finland’s better policies for families and their low child poverty rate?  Analysis shows child benefit packages in Finland to be among the most generous in the OECD countries with New Zealand ranked near the bottom (Bradshaw and Finch 2002). And paid parental leave is for 31 weeks. 

Or will new Labour take up the Finnish approach of equal access to education? “Schools in Finland are focal centres for their communities. They provide a daily hot meal for every student, plus health and dental services, psychological counseling and a broad array of other services for students and their families” (Pearson Foundation 2012).

Shearer tell us  that Labour will spend the next two years planning so we must wait and see. But he will be ready to go on day one, which does seem a little unfortunate.  At last we get some substance.  Capital Gains Tax is in and other tax cuts go. Then we are back to the magical idea that we must innovate in this higher tax economy.

Time for a quick anecdote about Shearer’s visit to Sri Lanka, which is a worry as if New Zealand was a country in similar dire straights.  He is channelling Tony Blair’s new Labour who stated their priority as,  “Education, education, education.”  We are promised more spending on early childhood education, early intervention and more training places.  Ticks the boxes. It is a scandal that this current National government is allowing 83,000 young people to have no work and no training.

The rhetoric is hardline about getting rid of bad teachers and putting bad schools on notice.  No mention of the problem of thousands of our children coming to school too hungry to learn or returning home to cold, damp houses.  Still we hear a general commitment to fairness together with the Blairite mantra of rights and responsibilities.  After all, who is going to argue for unfairness, ignorance and irresponsibility? Yet we have a new edge here.  Not exactly pandering to the teachers unions.  Maybe too many voted Green?

There has been a passing mention of our clean green brand and this returns for the finale: “This new New Zealand will be the kind of place the rest of world would like to live. It will be clean, it will be green, it will be clever …and it will be a place that’s good for lambs.”

Russel Norman says a smart green economy.  John Key says a brighter future. New New Zealand is clumsy. But the lambs?  To end with that joke invites the kind of quip with which I titled this blog.  Shearer is not the ideal name for a man talking about lambs.  I’d say his speech writers let him down.

There has been no reference to Labour’s past.  As William Blake asked, “Little lamb who made thee, dost thou know who made thee?”  For Labour it was the unions.

Meet David Shearer, the new Tony Blair, only without the ability to deliver a compelling oration.  It suits the media to set up a Shearer versus Key dynamic to have a story to run over the coming months.  The wolves will be licking their lips.


Man is a political animal: what does this mean?

ο άνθρωπος είναι πολιτικό ζώο or ‘man is a political animal’ is one of the most famous sayings by Aristotle (here in modern Greek). We assume we know what it means, yet I suspect not. Aristotle is really saying that people live in the polis or town, that we are communal.

The  quote is used to suggest that we are all into politics. But in our representative democracy many people are more interested in cooking or going to the gym. In ancient Athens if you were fortunate enough to be born a male citizen as an adult you attended debates in the public square and spoke directly. Today’s parliament is more remote if more representative.

Aristotle is saying humans are animals. It is the exercise of our reason that  lifts us above our animal appetites or desires. We are not inherently superior, but can better ourselves by developing virtue or character.

We are part of nature. When we recognise our place among the fauna and flora of the world, then we have respect for all living creatures. We have no god given right to place ourselves at the top of a pyramid. We develop our own rules and habits of living. Ironically it is the most bestial of men that tend to insist they are at the apex, the summit.

And one great test of our virtue is how we treat the animals and the plants. Do we cause unnecessary suffering? Do we live with compassion for all sentient beings? Have we a sense of wonder? Do we balance own needs with sustaining the natural world? Or are we arrogant, wasteful destroyers? The answers are uncomfortable for us human animals.

Let us then lift ourselves to be the best we can and make no self-righteous assumptions of inherent superiority to nature. Let’s prove ourselves worthy of the planet we depend upon.