Thanks Bryce. Along with your astute commentary, there's more than a suspicion that its the Council officers and CEO who run the show - and do the damage. It may be unfair but the proliferation of orange cones and raised crossings, especially when the safety aspect is lacking, suggests unreality around expenditure.
Casting a local body vote is hampered by the sparsity of information candidates provide about themselves and, more importantly what policy changes they intend pursuing. Many if not most of the candidates refer to issues such as “ better leadership” “ cutting waste” “being a team player” etc. but rarely mention policy issues. This contrasts with national elections where the policy differences are more evident.
Democracy is failing in general as well as local body elections. In the 2023 general election only 77.5% of people enrolled to vote did, with those between 25 and 39 around 70%; nearly one-third of them did not vote.
The Electoral Act 1993 requires everyone who is eligible to vote to enrol within one month of becoming eligible, with a $100 fine for not doing so. As far as I know no one has been prosecuted, and I've no idea how many people aren't even registered.
The present Government, far from chasing up the unenrolled, is resolved to disfranchise vast numbers of them by excluding all who would register during the fortnight voting period.
Newsroom reports that 'During the 2023 election 450,000 people enrolled to vote or changed their details during that 12-day period, with the number of people enrolling and voting late increasing at each election. On election day itself, 110,000 people enrolled to vote or changed their details.'
Participatory democracy in New Zealand is failing, and is being helped to fail by the present Government.
New Zealand needs to make voting compulsory, as it is in Australia for federal, state, and in several states local body, elections. There, the enrolment rate is 98% and the voting rate 90%.
After taking the trouble to cast votes based on a careful walk through of candidates' manifesto promises, then ending up with swingeing rates rises, no wonder people have become disolusioned with the process.
Again this year most candidates failed to state clearly and unambiguously where they stand on key issues, e.g. I will oppose rates rise above inflation, I will oppose any kind of co-governance, I will vigorously pursue complete administrative transparency etc
Faced with a list of glib sales pitches that all say the right things whilst saying and committing to nothing, there's little to convince people that their vote will be worth more than sticking a pin in the ballot paper.
Anyone who says that they will not allow rates to rise above inflation should NEVER be supported. The rate of inflation measures the price of increases in butter, milk, vegetables. It measures the increase in rates and many other costs etc. What drives costs in local government (remembering that the cost of infrastructure is the principal driver of costs). This includes legal and design costs, steel, oil, bitumen, pipes etc. These costs are always miles above the CPI. Also, central government imposes new costs continuously, generally without any financial assistance. Did you know that central government does not pay rates on their properties anywhere, and they charge a tax on a tax (GST on rates). So, Ron it's not a simple debate.
"Not allow" is very different from will not support. You are correct about CPI exclusions and that there is no simple solution, however from my own observations of even just our own local council, there are very real problems with both what is being procured and obtaining good value for money (I can cite a number of recent, glaring examples of both problems), which drives high rates. The best performing councils spend solely on core services. These are often provincial or rural councils with a relentless focus on fiscal conservatism.
What about libraries, community halls, reserves, sports fields, cycleways and footpaths, public transport. Absolutely 'core services' for any local authority serving the needs of its local community.
Foot paths and cycleways in my view fall under roads, as does vegetation control. Public transport is essential for some councils, but not all. Some public spaces may well be considered essential, if not core, e.g. perhaps playgrounds in residential areas. There are certainly fuzzy edges around core, no question. The test in my view is whether a community would face immediate health and safety risks, economic dysfunction, or failure to meet legal obligations. More doubtful services and I would include libraries these days, and indeed swimming pools, should go to a referendum or similar method where the costs and impact on rates is made explicit, then let the rate payers decide.
Sorry Ron your reply misses the point of local government. If that was just all local government covered our communities would be sad places. Your analysis is very engineering and accounting based rather than supporting the spirit which keeps people happy as they live in an area. In addition to Andrew Riddell's excellent comments below my experience in local government over 15 years vast council resources are expended in just keeping communities functioning. Supporting local initiatives which keep harmony in neighborhoods soaks up staff time and adds to community engagement and harmony. I recommend, wherever you live, take a walk down your road and visit your local library and during the weekend watch the sports fields where citizens are engaging in sports and retaining their fitness and think "isn't it wonderful that my council is making this a great place to live"
That's perfectly fine Gary, the custodian model (fiscal sustainability, low rates, core service delvery) versus stewardship model (creating a vibrant, connected, healthy and engaging community) is a debate that needs to be had. Neither of these is wrong but they are pretty much mutually exclusive in funding requirements. I come back to a referendum based approach that can be used to bound "core" services (that the council just gets on with administrating), using a similar approach to agree on what will be rates funded outside of those. Reasonably straightforward these days in our electronically connected world. In any case a different approach to local government is sorely needed as the current one isn't working terribly well.
Hi Bryce, fantastic piece. Agree with your insight that the insiders will bemoan the fundamental issue of people tuning out of local govt, but only promote narrow, technical and non-threatening solutions out of self-preservation.
One minor quibble, Nobby Clark was only mayor for one (somewhat infamous) term but had been deputy mayor/councillor in the previous term. I’d also posit he fell within the anti-everything camp, but it was untenable for him to run again.
I contend that 3 important factors behind this low turnout are:
- a lack of regular reporting of the activities of local councillors and councils with the closure of so many suburban and regional (free) papers - so how can one be confident enough of the merits of each candidate to be able to vote?
- a privatised election system that discourages voting and has far too many errors - the inconvenience of postal voting (where is the nearest post box these days), the limited get out to vote publicity campaigns by the private companies contracted to conduct the voting, the errors in information for voters (e.g. omitting Māori ward candidates from candidate information booklets in four districts, voters having to chase up getting sent their voting papers). Compare this with the multiple sites where one is able to vote in a national election and the (relatively) widespread assessment of candidates' assertions.
- the antics of this corrupt and unethical coalition government resulting in a general disenchantment with governance and electoral processes generally.
It all sadly seems a bit lack;ustre - a booklet arrived in the mail, one reads the profiles but one does not know these people. The good old fashioned meet the candidates or door knocking is mostly gone, and most citizens now seem disenagaged. I personally have always voted, elections played an important part in our lives, We knew of the candidates and we all went to the polling booth on polling day. There was a sense of occasion. The 'personal' thing has long gone and one scarcely knows one's neighbour let alone one's community. It bodes ill for democracy and those that get out with a purpose could wipe the floor with the rest of us. I am very worried.
Yes but you have omitted any analysis of the role of the local media. Once upon a time the local paper in Kāpiti used to send a reporter to the council meetings and we would learn what happened through that. Now here we didn't have a local paper for ages and now we have the Kapiti News back. But will we get reports of council business? I doubt it, far too few staff these days. The Post in Wellington scarcely covered anything during the election period, they were too busy with Wellington issues. I suspect that the centralisation of media these days in big cities accounts for quite a bit of the non vote. Yes council meetings are online but who wants to sit back for hours watching it all? Better to have media reports.
Great analysis Bryce. At the risk yet again of sounding ‘over opinionated’ I need to suggest two points which I see will improve community participation in local governance - The first is that it be made mandatory that all Council’s televise (maybe YouTube) their meetings. The second, and I am unsure of the reasons why this does not happen now, is to have on-line voting. I see no difference in this than postal voting. The citizen is alienated from the business of Council. Other than when the bill arrives and the evidence is there, they simply vote this lot out. They need to be drawn in to the business being conducted. Council’s do not like publicity. This is exactly what is needed. Good journalism has been eroded in the main by our local newspapers. Notice how interested the people become on a local Facebook page when the roads, rates, water etc. are raised!
Great analysis Bryce - thank you. I wonder what the threshold would be to declare an election - either local or national - invalid and not legitimate for any policy making due to lack of voter turnout? I have long wished for a 'none of the above' style option on voting papers. Just in discussions with locals, friends and family - there is also a strong sense that councils and government are run by unelected and often very partisan 'officials'. Where people feel that is the case - what's the point of voting? These local elections are also an indication of people's resentment and anger towards the Professional Managerial Class methinks.
Thanks Bryce. Along with your astute commentary, there's more than a suspicion that its the Council officers and CEO who run the show - and do the damage. It may be unfair but the proliferation of orange cones and raised crossings, especially when the safety aspect is lacking, suggests unreality around expenditure.
Casting a local body vote is hampered by the sparsity of information candidates provide about themselves and, more importantly what policy changes they intend pursuing. Many if not most of the candidates refer to issues such as “ better leadership” “ cutting waste” “being a team player” etc. but rarely mention policy issues. This contrasts with national elections where the policy differences are more evident.
Casting votes on little more than glib candidate manifestos we'd be as well rolling a pair of dice.
Democracy is failing in general as well as local body elections. In the 2023 general election only 77.5% of people enrolled to vote did, with those between 25 and 39 around 70%; nearly one-third of them did not vote.
https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/historical-events/2023-general-election/voter-turnout-statistics/
The Electoral Act 1993 requires everyone who is eligible to vote to enrol within one month of becoming eligible, with a $100 fine for not doing so. As far as I know no one has been prosecuted, and I've no idea how many people aren't even registered.
The present Government, far from chasing up the unenrolled, is resolved to disfranchise vast numbers of them by excluding all who would register during the fortnight voting period.
Newsroom reports that 'During the 2023 election 450,000 people enrolled to vote or changed their details during that 12-day period, with the number of people enrolling and voting late increasing at each election. On election day itself, 110,000 people enrolled to vote or changed their details.'
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/07/24/hundreds-of-thousands-of-voters-affected-by-planned-electoral-changes/
Participatory democracy in New Zealand is failing, and is being helped to fail by the present Government.
New Zealand needs to make voting compulsory, as it is in Australia for federal, state, and in several states local body, elections. There, the enrolment rate is 98% and the voting rate 90%.
https://www.aec.gov.au/election/fe25/participation-rates.htm
Those enrolment and voting percentages are high because 'compulsory' means compulsory.
https://www.andrewbyrneslawgroup.com.au/blog/can-you-go-to-jail-for-not-voting-in-australia#article
After taking the trouble to cast votes based on a careful walk through of candidates' manifesto promises, then ending up with swingeing rates rises, no wonder people have become disolusioned with the process.
Again this year most candidates failed to state clearly and unambiguously where they stand on key issues, e.g. I will oppose rates rise above inflation, I will oppose any kind of co-governance, I will vigorously pursue complete administrative transparency etc
Faced with a list of glib sales pitches that all say the right things whilst saying and committing to nothing, there's little to convince people that their vote will be worth more than sticking a pin in the ballot paper.
Anyone who says that they will not allow rates to rise above inflation should NEVER be supported. The rate of inflation measures the price of increases in butter, milk, vegetables. It measures the increase in rates and many other costs etc. What drives costs in local government (remembering that the cost of infrastructure is the principal driver of costs). This includes legal and design costs, steel, oil, bitumen, pipes etc. These costs are always miles above the CPI. Also, central government imposes new costs continuously, generally without any financial assistance. Did you know that central government does not pay rates on their properties anywhere, and they charge a tax on a tax (GST on rates). So, Ron it's not a simple debate.
"Not allow" is very different from will not support. You are correct about CPI exclusions and that there is no simple solution, however from my own observations of even just our own local council, there are very real problems with both what is being procured and obtaining good value for money (I can cite a number of recent, glaring examples of both problems), which drives high rates. The best performing councils spend solely on core services. These are often provincial or rural councils with a relentless focus on fiscal conservatism.
What is your definition of "core services"?
Whilst there is no universally accepted definition, these are non-discretionary functions that only a council can provide that nearly always include:
Three Waters: Drinking water, wastewater (sewage) treatment and disposal, and stormwater management.
Road Network: Construction and maintenance of local roads, footpaths, bridges, and streetlights.
Waste Management: Rubbish collection and disposal (landfills/transfer stations) and often recycling.
Public Health and Safety
Regulatory and Compliance Services including zoning, construction inspection/consent, animal control.
What about libraries, community halls, reserves, sports fields, cycleways and footpaths, public transport. Absolutely 'core services' for any local authority serving the needs of its local community.
Foot paths and cycleways in my view fall under roads, as does vegetation control. Public transport is essential for some councils, but not all. Some public spaces may well be considered essential, if not core, e.g. perhaps playgrounds in residential areas. There are certainly fuzzy edges around core, no question. The test in my view is whether a community would face immediate health and safety risks, economic dysfunction, or failure to meet legal obligations. More doubtful services and I would include libraries these days, and indeed swimming pools, should go to a referendum or similar method where the costs and impact on rates is made explicit, then let the rate payers decide.
Sorry Ron your reply misses the point of local government. If that was just all local government covered our communities would be sad places. Your analysis is very engineering and accounting based rather than supporting the spirit which keeps people happy as they live in an area. In addition to Andrew Riddell's excellent comments below my experience in local government over 15 years vast council resources are expended in just keeping communities functioning. Supporting local initiatives which keep harmony in neighborhoods soaks up staff time and adds to community engagement and harmony. I recommend, wherever you live, take a walk down your road and visit your local library and during the weekend watch the sports fields where citizens are engaging in sports and retaining their fitness and think "isn't it wonderful that my council is making this a great place to live"
That's perfectly fine Gary, the custodian model (fiscal sustainability, low rates, core service delvery) versus stewardship model (creating a vibrant, connected, healthy and engaging community) is a debate that needs to be had. Neither of these is wrong but they are pretty much mutually exclusive in funding requirements. I come back to a referendum based approach that can be used to bound "core" services (that the council just gets on with administrating), using a similar approach to agree on what will be rates funded outside of those. Reasonably straightforward these days in our electronically connected world. In any case a different approach to local government is sorely needed as the current one isn't working terribly well.
Hi Bryce, fantastic piece. Agree with your insight that the insiders will bemoan the fundamental issue of people tuning out of local govt, but only promote narrow, technical and non-threatening solutions out of self-preservation.
One minor quibble, Nobby Clark was only mayor for one (somewhat infamous) term but had been deputy mayor/councillor in the previous term. I’d also posit he fell within the anti-everything camp, but it was untenable for him to run again.
Greatly appreciate your work as always.
You are somewhat misguided here Bryce.
I contend that 3 important factors behind this low turnout are:
- a lack of regular reporting of the activities of local councillors and councils with the closure of so many suburban and regional (free) papers - so how can one be confident enough of the merits of each candidate to be able to vote?
- a privatised election system that discourages voting and has far too many errors - the inconvenience of postal voting (where is the nearest post box these days), the limited get out to vote publicity campaigns by the private companies contracted to conduct the voting, the errors in information for voters (e.g. omitting Māori ward candidates from candidate information booklets in four districts, voters having to chase up getting sent their voting papers). Compare this with the multiple sites where one is able to vote in a national election and the (relatively) widespread assessment of candidates' assertions.
- the antics of this corrupt and unethical coalition government resulting in a general disenchantment with governance and electoral processes generally.
It all sadly seems a bit lack;ustre - a booklet arrived in the mail, one reads the profiles but one does not know these people. The good old fashioned meet the candidates or door knocking is mostly gone, and most citizens now seem disenagaged. I personally have always voted, elections played an important part in our lives, We knew of the candidates and we all went to the polling booth on polling day. There was a sense of occasion. The 'personal' thing has long gone and one scarcely knows one's neighbour let alone one's community. It bodes ill for democracy and those that get out with a purpose could wipe the floor with the rest of us. I am very worried.
Yes but you have omitted any analysis of the role of the local media. Once upon a time the local paper in Kāpiti used to send a reporter to the council meetings and we would learn what happened through that. Now here we didn't have a local paper for ages and now we have the Kapiti News back. But will we get reports of council business? I doubt it, far too few staff these days. The Post in Wellington scarcely covered anything during the election period, they were too busy with Wellington issues. I suspect that the centralisation of media these days in big cities accounts for quite a bit of the non vote. Yes council meetings are online but who wants to sit back for hours watching it all? Better to have media reports.
Great analysis Bryce. At the risk yet again of sounding ‘over opinionated’ I need to suggest two points which I see will improve community participation in local governance - The first is that it be made mandatory that all Council’s televise (maybe YouTube) their meetings. The second, and I am unsure of the reasons why this does not happen now, is to have on-line voting. I see no difference in this than postal voting. The citizen is alienated from the business of Council. Other than when the bill arrives and the evidence is there, they simply vote this lot out. They need to be drawn in to the business being conducted. Council’s do not like publicity. This is exactly what is needed. Good journalism has been eroded in the main by our local newspapers. Notice how interested the people become on a local Facebook page when the roads, rates, water etc. are raised!
Great analysis Bryce - thank you. I wonder what the threshold would be to declare an election - either local or national - invalid and not legitimate for any policy making due to lack of voter turnout? I have long wished for a 'none of the above' style option on voting papers. Just in discussions with locals, friends and family - there is also a strong sense that councils and government are run by unelected and often very partisan 'officials'. Where people feel that is the case - what's the point of voting? These local elections are also an indication of people's resentment and anger towards the Professional Managerial Class methinks.
Ouch!