Ultimate test of councillors' performance

Last updated 08:22 03/07/2012

Hamiltonians should watch city councillors closely this week as they discuss the way they will require the public to cast their votes at next October's triennial elections.

On the table at Thursday's council meeting - live-streamed on the council website - is a report which outlines an extraordinary number of options, including citywide voting.

The feedback sought earlier by council indicates a significant amount of public support for citywide voting - electing city councillors as the mayor is, by the city as a whole.

But don't be surprised if councillors appear conveniently hard of hearing talk that the public wants to do away with our current two-ward system. The usual arguments against reform were recited yesterday by electoral spending miser Dave Macpherson.

Candidates with deep pockets could buy the elections, he argued, creating a "River Road'' council comprised of members whose biggest qualification was their wallet.

It's a valid point, but it disguises what may be the deeper thinking around the table.

This decision could well be the incumbents' best chance to pad the odds in their own favour. They are deciding some key rules influencing their chance of re-election.

Current councillors - but by no means all - have patchy reputations, following a string of debacles and bad decisions in which some have been involved over several terms.

However a fine way to limit the impact of any groundswell against them would be backing a two-ward system as a bulkhead against any popular electoral uprising.

Consider the recent poll history of the Wel Energy trust, elected across the city.

In 2002, a well-devised, populist plan to direct the trust's considerable income back into the public's pockets swept five of its eight seats for the Power Rebates Team. 

Former city councillor Garry Mallett's $9.4 million handout to 73,000 consumers captured widespread public support, translating into a dominant election showing.

In 2005 continuing public endearment with rebates delivered seven of eight seats.

In 2008 the public's mood changed, Mallett's obsession with rebates at the expense of community grants regarded as a bridge too far, and seized on by rival candidates who presented a more inviting public face by advocating continuing community support.

Mallett's incumbents were swept from power by voters in a show of electoral force.

Last year the Power ON - Discounts and Grants ticket made a clean sweep - despite its clunky moniker - as the public continued to endorse its model for trust income.

When the public wanted change, it flexed its muscle at the polling booth, and change happened. For our councillors, citywide voting would be the ultimate test of their performance. But do have they the stomach to test their record before the city?

- Waikato Times

Post a comment
Amy   #1   07:18 am Jul 04 2012

Really good article. Of course the councillors don't have the stomach to test city wide voting. Although they are elected to look after the interests of the ratepayers, they don't. They will always go for the option that ensures that they have a better chance of getting back in. Hopefully the ratepayers wont forget all the debacles and will take charge and vote next year.

Dave Macpherson   #2   10:28 am Jul 04 2012

Interesting article by Daniel, who makes some fair points, EXCEPT that he omits to point out that how, & then his opponents, got elected, was by forming a ticket, similar to a party, leading to only those on the party ticket getting elected. I don't think ANY independents made it - so what you will see the wealthy and/or party hack types getting elected. I have long fought for smaller electoral divisions - before I was first elected, and took Council to the Local Govt Commission in 1977 over this, successfully.

Julie Starr   #3   11:00 am Jul 04 2012

Could you provide a link to this: - live-streamed on the council website -.


otto   #4   08:56 am Jul 05 2012

Heres an idea, half the councilors get elected through city wide voting, the other half are appointed by council. This way you will insure there are some people that can read a balance sheet and actually manage without bringing personality and ego into the process. Oh and the ones elected can only sit 2 terms, this stops "bedding in" eh Dave? Nah, probably too "forward thinking", certainly wouldn't get the nod from this lot. Who are more interested in their "jobs" not the city of Hamilton. Cynical, you bet!

John   #5   03:04 pm Jul 05 2012

When a group stands as a Party or under a 'ticket' there's always a risk of voting for their cause but forgetting to look at each candidate's CV to see if they have any experience in decision-making and financial management at this level. I'm never impressed by those with good intentions but who have never actually done anything.

Post comment


Required. Will not be published.
Registration is not required to post a comment but if you , you will not have to enter your details each time you comment. Registered members also have access to extra features. Create an account now.

Maximum of 1750 characters (about 300 words)

I have read and accepted the terms and conditions
These comments are moderated. Your comment, if approved, may not appear immediately. Please direct any queries about comment moderation to the Opinion Editor at blogs@stuff.co.nz
Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content