Why Ratepayers Elect not to Vote

In the run up to Auckland Council elections, and immediately afterward there has been significant media commentary on the low turnout, suggestions that postal voting is over and that internet voting will make a difference and so on.

With few exceptions this commentary has ignored the elephant that looms ever larger in the room of New Zealand Local Government. And that is that Local Government has made itself less and less responsive to the needs of local communities, and is less and less responsive to their concerns.

Almost without exception reforms to Local Government legislation over the past couple of decades have been to increase its role and function as a smooth lubricator and enabler and funder of economic growth - sustainable or not, and to increase the efficiency of delivery of local services deemed necessary to support economic growth. Sure Councils manage to fit in parks, libraries, swimming pools, and community halls - but this and other aspects of the community development side of traditional Local Government activity is static at best and in decline at worst.

The emphasis of and for Local Government has been steadily and systematically shifted to supporting the delivery of economic growth objectives, and we are seeing the consequences of this.

Origins

I saw the political origins for these changes when I lived in London from 1976 to 1991. Two experiences standout in my memory. The first of these was in the early 1980's toward the beginning of my experience as a campaign video maker for a company I set up there with two partners (Team Video Productions). We applied for and got a grant from the Greater London Enterprise Board (GLEB for short) to make a video for trade unions about the effect of new technology in the workplace and how to organise for appropriate conditions. It was a documentary drama. GLEB was the economic development wing of the Greater London Council (GLC).

Now some might say - what the hell was Council doing that for? Well - there's an argument to be had about that. At the time the GLC had developed what amounted to "The London Plan". It was an economic development strategy for a changing city. The strategy was about more than economic growth.

However it was an economic development strategy that was not acceptable to Maggie Thatcher's Government. And she set about abolishing the GLC. The GLC under Red Ken Livingstone didn't take this lying down of course and ran a memorable billboard campaign. One of the signs I remember well, read "SAY NO TO NO SAY" - I blogged about this a few years ago......

When Team Video signed the production contract with the GLC/GLEB one of its conditions read: 'The words: "SAY NO TO NO SAY" shall not appear anywhere in any material produced under this contract.' Interesting that.

The other experience happened when I made a couple of videos for the Church Urban Fund - which was a sort of liberation theology wing of the Church of England as it slowly decided it had role to play in resisting the most socially damaging impacts of Thatcherism. I'm not a church-goer. We got chosen to make their videos because they wanted a campaigning style. Anyway. I digress.

We investigated case studies of churches working in North Eastern communities where unemployment following restructuring was up round 50%. And we referred to "Social Workers" who were helping. Our editorial committee advised that we should drop that wording in video captions. And we were reminded of Thatcher's statement: "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SOCIETY..."

My point here is that there is no point in improving the voting system without improving what people actually vote for. If people believe that don't really have a say with their vote in how their community develops (their local society), then why would you expect them to take the vote seriously?

How Local Government Used to Be

I was first elected to North Shore City Council (NSCC) in 1998. After a while I learned that NSCC was itself a new organisation - having arisen from local government amalgamation and reforms in the late 1980's. Living in Devonport I was very aware of the Independent Devonport campaign that ran long and hard for years. (There are still Independent Devonport banners visible in windows around the village).

At the time I didn't really appreciate what had been lost in that restructuring.

A certain amount of local power and autonomy was retained in that re-structuring. I sat on the Devonport Community Board for six years. We had power. Among other things I recall the establishment of a controversial skate ramp in the middle of the closed Ngataringa landfill; there was the decision to stop medium density housing on the Bayswater reclamation; the Community Board drove through the cycle lanes on Lake Road; and it stood up when it mattered over Navy base developments.

And it had other planning powers that were more below the radar. Board Members had roles as planning commissioners on resource consent applications which included delicate projects like house extensions, decks, garages, tree removals - the sorts of renovations that rock the local boat.

Many of these decisions were controversial. They mattered to local people. They were important to local people, and communities, and so they had an interest in them. The local newspapers were aware of this - the best of the local reporters were anyway - and they followed these developing stories - attended meetings of importance and reported what was said. And local people read the local newspapers because matters that interested them were reported there, and the letters pages were vigorous.

So What Has Changed?

The Devonport and Takapuna Local Board has been one of the more effective Local Boards established by the SuperCity reforms. The Devonport Flagstaff has faithfully followed the meetings that were held locally - though many were held in Takapuna and other parts of the board's jurisdiction. There's been the Library, the land at 27 Lake Road, the Ngati Whatua land claim, and the crumbling wharves.

The North Shore Times struggled to find stories. Though there's always the Takapuna Camping Ground and the NOWSC proposal that refuses to go away.

Probably the biggest sign of change though - and one which has yet to really bite - is what is happening with Auckland's land use planning system. The Unitary Plan and the Spatial Plan.

Together, these plans embody a fundamental shift in planning power from local to central. These are not really even Auckland regional plans - though they purport to be.

The Auckland Spatial Plan is fundamentally driven by the Central Government Infrastructure Plan. Central Government holds the purse strings - as we have seen - for transport projects. These are an essential component of the Central Government plan for Economic Growth.

The Unitary Plan - particularly its implementation - is being driven now by Central Government imposed Special Housing Areas - which are mostly in greenfield areas. Again. These development areas are an essential component of the Central Government plan for Economic Growth.

While the local newspapers and local boards across Auckland have reported and attended public meetings until the cows come home - they have no actual, legitimate power to influence local outcomes.

Not any more.

What Does This Mean?

Because people are not stupid. and because they sense what is going on around them, they are continuing to act entirely rationally, even if the systems and institutions that they previously tolerated and generally relied upon have been undermined and taken away in the interests of economic growth.

Grassroots campaigns like Vision 2040 and other so-called "knee-jerk" or nimby reactions to intensification (for which read opening up the land market and removing red tape to economic growth) are rational and predictable community responses to the threat of property value loss and uncertainty.

It has always been thus.

What Turkey has ever voted for an early Christmas?

Those who advocate changing the voting system, making it by internet, whatever are not seeing what is happening. People are losing confidence in the planning system because it recognises their interests less and less, and those of economic growth more and more. And if Local Government is about anything it is - or should be - about local planning.

What Could be Different?

This is a big question. A couple of things. I spent some time in the US recently, wondering around some cities. And the thing that struck me was how many physical polling stations there were sign-posted. Pretty much every public building had a permanent polling station sigh on a lamp-post outside. They vote regularly about local issues in US cities. It's part of life.

And they vote about the things that matter. What projects are undertaken. What money is borrowed.
Councils can't undertake a project without a public mandate. Called a proposition. Proposition 12 for example. And the City Council can't spend money it doesn't have without a bond issue or loan facility, which has to be supported by a popular vote at a polling station.

The local newspapers there are full of stories, articles, letters, public opinion pieces, about local propositions and borrowing proposals that are to be voted on by the public.

When I tried to market a few Team Video educational videos about Human Rights into Californian Schools I was forced to learn a bit about their curriculum. About 25% of it was civics. They teach civics at school in a big way. Students expect to be able to vote locally about projects and budgets that will affect their communities. And they are not voting once every three years. They vote on each issue.

New Zealand is at risk of losing local democracy in its institutions, but it will never lose the desire for local self-determination among its people.

Civilised society recognises this. So does civilised Government.