ACT Announces Davina Smolders As ACT Local Candidate For Far North
has been named ACT Local's candidate for the Bay of Islands–Whangaroa Ward for the Far North District Council in this year's local election.
With a deep connection to the Far North and a strong belief in community-led decision-making, Davina Smolders is stepping forward to represent locals who feel ignored by their council. She brings a no-nonsense approach, grounded in real-world experience and a clear focus on delivering for ratepayers.
A former CEO of a social service agency, Davina has spent over 20 years in leadership roles spanning governance, procurement, and senior management. She's also worked as a business consultant and now runs her own company while managing local property. She knows how to get things moving, and that's exactly what she wants to achieve in the public service.
Practical, centre-right, and focused on results, Davina is standing with ACT Local to bring fiscal discipline, accountability, and a fresh voice to the Far North.
"I'm standing to bring steadfast leadership and a back-to-basics focus on roads, water, rubbish, and community safety. Council has drifted into wasteful spending and lost sight of its core job. I'm committed to restoring focus on what really matters to everyday ratepayers. It's time for clear priorities and real accountability." – Davina Smolders
Earlier this year, ACT New Zealand announced it would be standing Common Sense Candidates for local government for the first time — after hearing from New Zealanders across the country who are sick of rising rates, ballooning budgets, and councils that ignore the basics while chasing ideological vanity projects.
When you vote ACT Local, you know what you're getting:
Fixing the basics
Cutting the waste
Ending race-based politics
Restoring accountability
ACT Local Government spokesperson Cameron Luxton says:
' ACT Local candidates are community-minded Kiwis who've had enough of wasteful councils treating ratepayers like ATMs. It's time to take control on behalf of ratepayers — to restore accountability and deliver real value for money. ACT Local is about getting the basics right: maintaining roads, keeping streets clean, and respecting the people who pay the bills. Our candidates won't divide people by race or get distracted by climate vanity projects. They're here to serve, not lecture."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
The House: Parliament's Reaction To The Middle East Crisis
Parliament's week began with an assurance that the safety of New Zealanders in the Middle East is the first priority. The tense situation in the Middle East, and indeed, intervention from one of our allies is something that no government could ignore, so when the sitting day began on Tuesday, the first item of business was not Question Time, but a Ministerial Statement from Foreign Minister Winston Peters, followed by debate and questions. Peters emphasised that the government's main focus amidst the tension in the region was to get New Zealanders out of harm's way. "The government is committed to supporting New Zealanders caught up in this crisis," Peters told the House. "Since the beginning of the conflict, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided around the clock, 24/7 consular support to New Zealanders in Israel and Iran-and to their families back home in New Zealand - and will continue to do so." The statement was also peppered with lines advocating for three D words: diplomacy, de-escalation, and dialogue - treading a delicate line of not signalling outright support for either side, citing New Zealand's limited influence in the Middle East. Perhaps as a reaction to accusations of fence-sitting in recent days, Peters finished the statement by offering a list of what New Zealand does and does not want in the region. "We want de-escalation and dialogue. We want a two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living in security and peace side-by-side. We want humanitarian aid to get to those who need it. Ultimately, we want peace. "What we do not want is New Zealanders in harm's way. We do not want ever escalating rounds of military action. We do not want a nuclear Iran. We do not want Hamas holding hostages and terrorising Palestinian and Israeli civilians alike. And we do not want Israel occupying Palestinian land. "Ultimately, we do not want another generation of young people in the Middle East, scarred by conflict, replicating the enmities of today and yesterday. This cycle of conflict, now generations old, must end." Statement benefits Ministerial Statements are used by the government to brief Parliament-and by extension the public-on an unfolding situation or event and explain the government's plan of action in response to it. They resemble a press conference wherein a minister delivers a statement, followed by questions or comments from MPs from other parties, generally spokespersons on the relevant topic. There is a tactical benefit for governments in getting in first and delivering a Ministerial Statement (instead of waiting for the Opposition to request an Urgent Debate), in that you can lead the messaging, and so try to control it. Equally though, there is a benefit to the Opposition from Ministerial Statements - because they are able to both make comments and ask questions. Ministerial Statements are more flexible than either Question Time or Urgent Debates. The Q & A Labour leader Chris Hipkins generally agreed with Peters' advocation for diplomacy over the conflict saying "there is much in the statement by our Minister of Foreign Affairs that I completely agree with". "We also welcome the possibility of a ceasefire. We also endorse the non-expulsion of ambassadors from countries who have taken actions that we disagree with. "If we want international diplomacy, if we want international dialogue, the role of diplomats has never been more important. We also want to acknowledge the New Zealand Defence Force deployment, and they go with our full support." Opinions diverged over whether New Zealand should have called the US strike on Iran a violation of the UN Charter, with Hipkins asking Peters whether the government believed the strike was in line with the Charter's clause on the right to self defence. Peter continued to tread a delicate line in his reply. "Unlike some, we wait till we get the evidence, and we've said it constantly day-after-day that instead of rushing to judgement, as we were asked this morning by the media, 'Has peace broken out?' - 'No,' we said, 'We're going to trust but verify,' and when we sought to verify we found that what they were saying by way of questioning was wrong. "And in this case, we're going to find out the facts as time goes by. There'll be some days yet-maybe sometime yet-before we can establish as to the immediacy of the problem and the level of deterioration with respect to the Iran position on gaining nuclear capability in terms of weapons." While Hipkins wasn't quite able to milk the committal he wanted from Peters, the two weren't especially adversarial in their exchange. That mood wasn't to last though, with Green co-leader Marama Davidson the other opposition MP to question the minister. After a speech advocating upholding the rules-based order, Davidson asked whether the minister would condemn the Israeli and American strikes on Iran. This question seemed to open the floodgates for a shouting match between the two parties, which perhaps is a lot easier with the new seating configuration in the House (New Zealand First are now close to the Greens, having swapped with ACT to allow the new deputy prime minister to sit next to the prime minister). A Ministerial Statement which began in a relatively statesmanlike fashion then morphed into a political tit-for-tat. "I have to say when it comes to the proxies for Iran that have committed so much terrorism and the loss of thousands of lives, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, with respect to Iran-when it comes to that, the Greens have been not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, no condemnation whatsoever," Peters said. "We've condemned all parties, and shouting out like that typically just disposes me to point to that member and say that member's only got one side, and, for the first time ever, she's mentioned Iran's people. Yes, Iran's people have been under 40 years of desperation." After a few minutes of back and forth and argy-bargy, Speaker Gerry Brownlee blew his metaphorical whistle. "Neither party here is displaying the sort of decorum that you'd expect out of Parliament. I refer both sides to Speaker's ruling 150/1, which means that neither side of the House has carte blanche to say whatever they like as a result of a ministerial statement." *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Winston Peters Apologises For Calling Te Pāti Māori MP Tākuta Ferris A 'Dickhead' In The House
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has apologised for calling Te Pāti Māori MP Tākuta Ferris a "dickhead" in the House, but is questioning whether the word is offensive. The Speaker will review the incident, and report back to the House on Thursday. Peters was answering questions from Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, Shane Jones. "Does he think it's hypocritical that last year Aotearoa pledged $16 million to the Global Fund for Coral Reefs, yet this year we've had the largest coral by-catch event in 15 years, dredging up to six tonnes of ancient coral from the sea floor?" Davidson asked. "No such pledge was made by any such country as named by that questioner," Peters responded. Peters has repeatedly bristled at other MPs referring to the country as Aotearoa. The Speaker, however, is no longer hearing points of order over the use of the word. "Are you sure?" asked Ferris. "Yes, I am positive. Unlike you, you dickhead," Peters responded. The comment could be heard on the hot mic, and has been recorded in Hansard, the official record of things said in the House. Ferris later raised a point of order. "I've witnessed many times in this House disparaging comments being made between sides, and I'm quite sure that being called a 'dickhead' would fall in line with that tikanga of the House," he said. The Speaker said he had not heard the allegation until Ferris brought it up, and encouraged Peters to withdraw and apologise. Peters initially refused to apologise, arguing that Ferris had not raised the matter of offence. Ferris said he had taken personal offence, so Peters apologised. "On the basis that when I was trying to get my thoughts together on the answer to Marama Davidson's questions, he was interrupting me. I apologise for calling him what I said he was." ACT leader David Seymour also raised a point of order regarding Ferris' Toitū Te Tiriti t-shirt, and whether the Speaker would reflect on his earlier ruling around political motifs and branding in the House. In 2024, Gerry Brownlee banned ACT MPs from wearing party-branded pins in the debating chamber. Brownlee told Seymour he would reflect on the matter. As the matter was now in the hands of the Speaker, Peters would not answer questions about the incident on his way out of the House. The New Zealand First leader is often critical about the language used by other MPs. But in this case, he questioned whether the word he used was offensive. "Is it bad language?" he asked reporters. Peters instead said it was "wrong" that another MP was interfering with him being able to hear a question.
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
'Once-in-a-generation' National Infrastructure Plan sets vision for next 30 years
The draft National Infrastructure Plan is challenging the government to "lift its game" on project planning, saying it has often been "short-term and reactive". The strategy has been developed by the infrastructure commission, Te Waihanga, laying out the key areas in need of attention over the next three decades. Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop acknowledged the invocation and said the recommendations aligned with the government's priorities. Bishop cited the proposed shift towards user-pays, spatial planning, and better asset management and maintenance. "The government is determined to improve New Zealand's infrastructure system and to work alongside the industry and other political parties to establish a broad consensus about what needs to change," he said. The commission's chief executive Geoff Cooper said New Zealand spent a greater percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) on infrastructure compared to other high-income countries, but was in the bottom 10 percent for the value from that spend. "To ensure New Zealanders are getting the infrastructure services they need, it's critical that we get smarter about how we invest," he said. "A National Infrastructure Plan can help, showing where our infrastructure dollar will have the greatest impact in meeting New Zealand's future needs." The plan contains a "Priorities Programme List" of 17 projects, six of which relate to the Defence Force. As well, it endorses the upgrade of the Reserve Bank's cash centre and vault, and the redevelopment of Hawke's Bay Regional Prison. The commission said more investment would be needed over the next three decades in hospitals and electricity, while changes would be required in land transport investment. The draft plan laid out a litany of problems with the existing approach, including that infrastructure projects were announced before establishing whether they were affordable or achievable. "Half of the large projects seeking funding through central government's annual Budget lack business cases to demonstrate that they're ready to fund. "Maintenance funds, which should provide a steady, ongoing stream of work, may get diverted to new builds. Consequently, efforts to recruit, develop, and retain a skilled workforce are stretched" It said New Zealand needed to get smarter about infrastructure planning, and suggested easing the regulatory environment or taking a "more commercial approach". "It's time to start fixing up our essential infrastructure assets, rather than seeing them breaking under our feet because we didn't set aside money for maintenance. "It's time to invest in infrastructure that will lift our productivity and cut our carbon emissions. "It's time to do new projects right, rather than dreaming big and seeing them constantly delayed, rescoped, and cancelled because they're too big for us to afford." The plan will now go out for consultation with a final version to be published by the end of the year. Speaking at a symposium at Parliament on Wednesday morning, Bishop said the independent plan would succeed only if it was accepted and adopted by successive governments. "This is not the... coalition government's plan, this is New Zealand's plan. We will all be better off if we follow its recommendations," Bishop said. He also use his speech to take a whack at "14 laggard councils" which had not yet lodged bids with the infrastructure pipeline. "I'm going to be writing to them, saying that they need to get on board," Bishop said. "My own view is we do need to get away from the rhetoric of needing a bipartisan pipeline, and instead we need to start talking about building bipartisan consensus on the idea that governments of all flavours should use best-practice to plan, select, fund and finance, deliver, and look after our infrastructure." Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Nick Leggett described the plan as a "once-in-a-generation" opportunity. "The draft Plan is a clear-eyed assessment of the infrastructure challenges facing New Zealand, our historic under-performance and provides a solid pathway for improvement, particularly from our government agencies," he said. "If we don't face up to this now, there will be real pain for our future generations." Leggett said the association particularly supported the design of a "steady project pipeline" to allow providers to invest in their workforce. Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the plan was a welcome contribution. "If we can agree some shared priorities, we can avoid this flip-flopping cycle where everything just takes too long and costs too much." Hipkins expected there were some assumptions in the plan that would be tested over the consultation process, and there would still be some debate over who pays for what. "Even in transport, we have partial user-pays for public transport at the moment. There's probably going to be some differences between Labour and National, in particular about where we think the balance of that should rest."
