Yet again, not enough people are standing in local elections
A day out from nominations closing, it's looking like a decent chunk of this year's local body elections will not really be elections at all – candidates will be elected unopposed, or seats will be left empty.
'Electoral officers are saying that overall candidate nomination numbers are generally on par with the same time last election,' said LGNZ chief executive Susan Freeman-Greene on Tuesday. On par, in this case, means pretty bad – 20% of the 583 elections held in 2022 were uncontested.
Nominations close at midday tomorrow, and while candidates have had since July 4 to get their paperwork completed, they tend to be a tardy bunch. 'We know from past elections that many candidates choose to wait until the final week to submit their nominations,' said Freeman-Greene. 'We strongly encourage candidates not to leave things to the last day, to allow time for information to be checked and any issues resolved.'
LGNZ (Local Government New Zealand), the membership body for Aotearoa's councils, wants to see more people running because this should naturally lead to more people voting. 'Evidence tells us that the more candidates who contest a seat in an area, the higher the community's interest will be in that election from a voting perspective.'
A number of councils have put out calls for more candidates to come forward, including Christchurch City – as of Wednesday morning, the Fendalton ward was yet to receive a single candidate, but by last night one had emerged. Rotorua District Council has taken a novel approach to attracting more candidates, listing the 19 elected member positions on Seek, reported the Rotorua Daily Post. 'No suit or political jargon required,' reads the listing. 'Just a genuine passion for our people and places.'
Auckland Council has made a similar move, 'advertising' the positions on LinkedIn. Its nomination tally, updated on Wednesday morning, showed that – late flood of nominations notwithstanding – councillors for the Howick, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Rodney wards would be elected unopposed, as would members of various local boards.
This year, 54 of the 77 councils holding elections have contracted electionz.com to carry out election management services, and nominations for those councils are going live online as they land. As of last night, Rotorua was one of several councils where mayoral candidates looked set to have a cakewalk campaign ahead of them. Not a single nomination had been received for the position of mayor – though incumbent Tania Tapsell has indicated she will be standing again. In 2022 Tapsell had six competitors, so perhaps other candidates are also letting it go down to the wire.
In Manawatū, meanwhile, as of last night current deputy mayor Michael Ford had no competitors in his quest for the chains (mayor Helen Worboys is not seeking reelection), while Hurunui mayor Marie Black will again be elected unopposed, as she was in 2022, unless some last-minute challengers get their nominations in quick-smart.
Election Services, which has been contracted to run 22 local elections, provided The Spinoff with the tally of nominations as of 4pm yesterday. At that stage, no one had thrown their hat in the ring to take on current Ōpōtiki mayor David Moore, who had three challengers in 2022, nor Stratford mayor Neil Volzke, who was one of seven mayors elected unopposed last time. Current South Taranaki mayor Phil Nixon, who according to the Taranaki Daily News was the sole candidate earlier in the day on Wednesday, had a challenger by 4pm: Clem Coxhead. Over in Gisborne, meanwhile, current mayor Rehette Stoltz had no opponents as of 4pm (but Colin Alder could still make a late entrance). Up in the Far North, there was not a single nomination for mayor at 4pm – though last night Moko Tepania finally told social media followers he was keen for another term, so let's hope he's filling in those forms.
What happens if there isn't a last-minute rush and we end up with more council positions than people keen to fill them? Those who have put their names forward will be automatically elected, and unfilled spots will be deemed ' extraordinary vacancies ', with a byelection held to fill them in the months following the local election. For councillor positions, if a first byelection doesn't lure anyone out of the woodwork, a second byelection will be held. For local or community board positions, if one byelection yields no joy, the board can appoint a member in any way they choose.
One such byelection was held in 2022 for two extraordinary vacancies on the Taneātua Community Board, part of Whakatāne District Council. There were actually six people keen to fill the six vacancies at the time of the election, but two of them submitted their nominations on the final day, only for them to be rejected for being incomplete or incorrect. A cautionary tale, if ever there was one, to get your nominations in early – but as of 4pm on Wednesday, the Taneātua Community Board had just one candidate for its six positions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Battling apathy over local government
Local body elections are struggling to spark interest in spite of candidate numbers rising. Photo: Marika Khabazi / RNZ It is the most grassroots level of our democracy - the place where potholes get fixed, parks are built, and local voices matter. But this year's local body elections are proving to be a sobering snapshot of just how uninspired and underwhelmed Kiwis feel about their councils. While candidate numbers are up , six one-term mayors are leaving office; some seats are going unchallenged, meaning power is being achieved without even a campaign; and in some cases positions have had no applicants. "It does show a bit of a crisis in local democracy, when these are important roles, we need them, we need people in those roles, we need people to represent the public and make decisions, and we can't get them," says Newsroom Pro managing director Jonathan Milne, who has been covering local body elections extensively. Local Government New Zealand says 3526 candidates will vie for roles across 78 councils. That's actually the highest number seen in New Zealand's past six elections. LGNZ released the figures on Wednesday. "We see the numbers as a strong sign that people are more engaged in this year's local elections in the past," says LGNZ chief executive Susan Freeman-Greene. But that depends on how you look at the numbers. There are 1465 individual elections in total - the exact number of those uncontested has not been confirmed yet but about half a dozen will require by-elections because there are fewer candidates than the number of places. "It's not ideal," says Milne. "You would kind of like a democracy to be hard fought and hard won. You'd like options to be available to voters, and that's not the case." He says the health of local democracy is vital for the country. "I think this election is one of the most important we've seen in a generation for local government. I think it's existential. I think the future of local government, as we know it, is at stake. "Because right now, it's not sustainable, and we need to elect people who can help us navigate through a very difficult three years, six years, nine years to find a new model of governing at a local level, which we all agree is important." This year, 16 mayors across the country have decided not to stand for re-election - six of them first-termers. Two mayors, in Hurunui and Manawatū, will be elected unopposed, but that's down from seven mayors in 2022. Campbell Barry, the outgoing two-term mayor of Lower Hutt and the vice president of Local Government New Zealand, tells The Detail it is a less-than-ideal situation. "I think we need to do a deep dive into this," he says. "I can't recall any situation where we've had that many first-term mayors not stand for a second term. "I think [the reasons for that] would be quite different in each location. I think you look at the experience of [Wellington's] Tory Whanau, who has been quite open about the reason she's not standing again for mayor. "I think it would be worth having a deep dive with them individually to just understand and unpack those reasons and see if we can learn anything from it." Both Barry and Milne agree that postal voting is past its prime and question if it is time to bring back polling booths to boost voter participation. "There are some practical reasons why I think voter turnout is low," Barry tells The Detail . "The postal system that we have. Good luck finding an 18-year-old who receives letters, who's going to then be motivated to work out how to vote in this upcoming election. "And even if you want to vote by post, you then have to find a post box or else the orange bin that the council might put out to be able to put it in. So, I think there are some practical things we can do." The last day for posting votes by mail is 7 October, while election day is 11 October. But LGNZ is hoping the bigger candidate numbers will lift the 40 percent turnout from last time. Both Barry and Milne agree that a boost in pay for candidates would potentially lure more to put their hands up for the next election in three years' time. So, what is the money? A councillor's salary can range from $14,274 in the Chatham Islands to more than $100,000 in Christchurch and Auckland. For a mayor, the salary can range from about $59,000 to more than $300,000 in Auckland. If you're on the Methven Community Board though, the pay is $2995 a year, while in Mataura, it is $2288. And community board members in Auckland hover around the $50,000 mark, even though that is a full time job and you are available round the clock. "No question that [a pay rise] would help," says Barry. Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook
The Spinoff
a day ago
- The Spinoff
The politics of trust: What the wellbeing era got right (and wrong)
We throw around the phrase 'trust in institutions' like it means the same thing to everyone, but it doesn't. Who trusts, when and why is deeply political, and far from universal, writes Natalia Albert. God, we throw around trust in institutions like confetti. Trust in government, trust in the system, trust between groups, it's everywhere. It shows up in political speeches, policy frameworks, media headlines and academic papers. Last week, while reading a 2022 Treasury paper on social cohesion for my PhD research, I was struck by the language. It was wellbeing all the way down: the indicators, the frameworks, the aspirations. Just a few days later, I found myself at the Local Government New Zealand conference, where the tone couldn't have been more different. The buzz there was about the government removing the four wellbeings from the Local Government Act. In just a few years, wellbeing had gone from centrepiece to scrapheap. So, do people trust government more when it talks about wellbeing, kindness and social cohesion? Or do they feel more confident when the language is stripped back to cost control and going back to basics? Does trust rise and fall with policy frameworks or with political alignment? Do we even notice the difference, or do we only care when we feel left out? It seems we talk about trust in government as if it's a single, collective feeling, like we all either do or don't trust institutions as one big, unified public. But that just doesn't hold. It misses the messiness and nuance of a society as hyper-diverse and politically pluralistic as ours. Trust doesn't live at the national level, it lives in lived experience, and it shifts depending on identity, history, power and whose values are being reflected back through the system. When we talk about 'restoring trust', we often imagine it as a linear project. But what if the problem isn't that trust is broken, it's that we're measuring the wrong thing altogether? Trust is not easy to define or measure Defining and measuring trust in institutions is messy and very political. The OECD's 2023 Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions in New Zealand report found that responsiveness, openness and reliability are the biggest drivers of trust, but that trust looks very different depending on which institution you're talking about. People trust the police the most, the media the least, and local councillors sit somewhere near the bottom, which tracks with the conversations I heard at the conference. The biggest influence on trust isn't ideology, it's experience. Your personal experiences with government, or what's happened to your family or community, are what really shape whether or not you trust the system. Media matters less than you'd think, and abstract values like transparency or fairness only come into play if people actually experience them directly. Political scientists like Eric Uslaner argue that we need to stop lumping all kinds of trust together. He distinguishes between generalised trust (trust in strangers), particularised trust (trust in people like you), and political trust (trust in institutions). Political trust, he says, is the one that fluctuates most, and is most responsive to things like economic performance, political scandals and partisan divides. And then there's the causality problem. Do better-performing public services lead to more trust? Or do people who already trust government just rate services more highly? Academics like Steven Van de Walle and Geert Bouckaert say it's probably both, and that context, perception and political alignment all distort the feedback loop. In other words: if you already think government is useless, you'll probably see even decent services as underwhelming. The rise of 'Wellbeing' as a political project Back in 2017, Jacindamania hit us like a wall of bricks, or rose petals, depending on where you sit politically. That election didn't just usher in a new government; it brought with it a whole new language. 'Kindness' became a political virtue (personally, I never want to hear it again), and 'wellbeing' became the flagship policy concept of the Ardern government. There was the Wellbeing Budget, the Living Standards Framework from Treasury, the Social Cohesion Framework from MSD, and legislative changes like the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Act 2020. That act introduced a formal requirement for Treasury to regularly assess the state of wellbeing in New Zealand: how it's changing, how sustainable it is and what risks we face. It sits alongside the Long-Term Fiscal Statement and the Investment Statement as part of Treasury's big-picture reporting. Here's how Treasury themselves put it in the introduction to the Te Tai Waiora Wellbeing Report: 'The wellbeing report has the broadest scope of Treasury's strategic assessments. It must describe the state of wellbeing in New Zealand, how it's changed over time, and how sustainable it is. This is supported by a series of detailed background papers that explore indicators and provide introductory analysis on cohesion, sustainability and other key areas.' At the time, you could reasonably say these reforms were about rebuilding public trust in institutions. There was a sense, especially post-GFC and post-neoliberal consensus, that people had lost faith in government's ability to deliver something more than just economic growth. Wellbeing was meant to change that. But trust in institutions… according to who? The tricky thing is this: trust isn't universal, and it's not stable. It moves. It depends on who you are, where you sit politically, and which government is in charge. Right now, the 2025 coalition government is quietly dismantling much of the wellbeing agenda, among other flagship polices from the previous government. The Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Act is on the chopping block. The language of kindness and social cohesion is being swapped out for terms like 'efficiency' and 'core services'. And while some will see this as a loss, a regression, others will feel their trust in institutions increase. That's the key point: trust in institutions isn't something we all experience in the same way. It's a political variable. It shifts every election cycle. One group's 'accountable governance' is another's 'state overreach'. One person's 'meaningful wellbeing agenda' is another's 'woke box-ticking'. And yet, when we talk about trust in policy or the media, we often treat it like it's some kind of fixed, objective measure. But it's not. It's a seesaw. Take what's happening right now between local and central government. There's increasing tension, especially around who's responsible for managing cities, infrastructure and long-term planning. If you ask someone who trusts their council more than parliament, they'll say Wellington is meddling. Ask someone else, and they'll say local government is broken and needs reining in. Same institutions. Different trust profile. And this isn't just theoretical. Look at Stats NZ after the 2018 census – public confidence took a real hit. That kind of damage is hard to undo, especially when it intersects with other trust-fracturing events (like Covid, housing unaffordability or misinformation cycles). So when we say 'trust in institutions', we need to ask: which institutions, which groups and under what conditions? More Reading Media, perception, and the filter bubble effect Let's also talk about media, because that's a huge part of how trust is shaped. If you watch TVNZ believing it's neutral (when many would argue it has a soft centre-left lean), or you follow The Platform or Reality Check Radio thinking they're unbiased (when they very clearly lean libertarian or right-wing), your trust in the wider system will reflect that lens. Media isn't just reporting on trust in institutions, it's creating it. Or undermining it. If you're left-leaning, you probably felt more trust during the Ardern years and found meaning in the wellbeing agenda. If you're more conservative, it might've felt alienating or overly idealistic. Flip it around today, and the right may feel their values are being restored, while the left sees something important being gutted. So again, trust shifts depending on who's in power and how aligned you feel with the institutional tone. I'm not saying we should give up on trying to build trust. But we do need a more realistic and dynamic understanding of what trust actually is – politically, psychologically and socially. It's not static. It's not neutral. It's not equally held by all. We also need to ask: what groups trust institutions? When does that trust shift, and why? What role does media – and media literacy – play in those shifts? Can institutions be designed to be trusted across partisan lines? I don't have all the answers. But I do know we need to stop treating trust like a KPI and start treating it like the complex, shifting thing that it is. Because otherwise, we're just chasing shadows – and wondering why we always feel like we're either winning or losing, up or down, in or out.
RNZ News
6 days ago
- RNZ News
The Panel with Chris Wikaira and Leonie Freeman Part 1
Tonight, on The Panel, Wallace Chapman is joined by panellists Chris Wikaira and Leonie Freeman. To begin, it's D-Day for the US tariffs, and New Zealand has been hit with a 15% rate. This is a rise from the originally proposed 10%. Kate Acland, chair of Beef and Lamb NZ, joins the panel to unpack how much of an impat this will have on exports. Then, they revisit speed humps in Manurewa: are there too many, or is their presence justified? To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
