SEPTEMBER 14 2019 LISTENER 3
EDITORIAL
Names from a hat
Y
ou know local government elections are
approaching when city and district councillors
who have been silent and invisible for the past
three years suddenly find their voices. They
realise that name recognition can be the key
to re-election in a field of politics where voters
often have little else to go on. Hence the sudden
burst of activity in the form of press statements,
letters to the editor and impassioned declarations on populist
issues as election day (techni-
cally October 12, the day on
which postal voting closes)
approaches. Just getting your
name out there can be the
difference between success and
failure.
A cynical view? Perhaps, but
it’s sometimes hard to avoid
cynicism when it comes to
local government. It’s the poor
cousin of national politics, but
to those seeking office, that
can be its attraction. Council-
lors are spared the scrutiny
that members of Parliament
are subjected to, which means
mediocre performers can often
survive through repeated
election cycles. Incumbency confers a huge
advantage because voters get to know coun-
cillors’ names and vote on that basis, often
knowing little or nothing of the candidate’s
work rate or contribution to municipal
well-being. That problem is exacerbated by
the reluctance of long-serving councillors to
step down, even when it’s obvious that their
best years – assuming there were any – are far behind them. Local
politics can be as addictive as methamphetamine.
Another sure sign of pending elections is the triennial lament
about voter apathy. In the 2016 local government polls, the voter
turnout was a feeble 42%. Although local government exercises
wide-ranging powers over the way we live, and most citizens
connect far more directly with their council than with central
government, civic elections excite only the truly committed.
Online voting has been touted as a possible remedy, but it won’t
magically motivate people to vote if they’re not interested to start
with. And it doesn’t solve the problem that too many voters have
no basis on which to make a decision about whom to support.
Here, another issue enters the picture. Reportage of municipal
affairs was once an important function of the local newspaper.
Coverage of council debates could help readers form an opinionas to which councillors were worth voting for. But with the
hollowing out of the print media, that coverage has greatly
diminished. Voters wanting to make an informed choice must
now rely on promotional bumf provided by the candidates
themselves – hardly a reliable guide – or attend the rare candi-
dates’ meetings. This is an information deficit that a recently
announced $1 million pilot scheme, the Local Democracy
Reporting Service, aims to correct. Funded by New Zealand on Air
and supported by Radio New Zealand and newspaper publishers,
the scheme will pay for eight
journalists to fill gaps around
the country in the reporting of
local bodies and other publicly
funded organisations. That a
state agency will now subsidise
journalism once paid for by
newspapers out of advertising
revenue raises concerns about
the protection of editorial
independence, but the prag-
matic view is that it represents
the lesser of two evils.M
eanwhile, another prob-
lem persists. Councils
are rarely representa-
tive of the communities they
serve. A survey after the 2016
elections found that four out of five elected
members were over 51 and only 6% were
under 40. Ninety per cent were Pākehā and
only 38% were women.
The West Coast Regional Council, which
consists entirely of grey-haired men, seems
emblematic of the prevailing monoculture.
It needs to be said that grey-haired men can
bring valuable experience and wise judgment into the council
chamber. A council that is demographically representative of
the community can no more be guaranteed to provide good
governance than an unrepresentative one can be guaranteed to
do things badly. Nonetheless, it is axiomatic that a council that
includes women, ethnic minorities and a range of age groups is
more likely to take into account the needs and interests of those
constituents.
What local government doesn’t need more of are misfits,
oddballs, egotists and grandstanders, of whom there are bound to
be plenty among the hundreds of hopefuls who have put them-
selves forward for election. Fortunately, there will also be many
candidates who are conscientious, sensible and hard-working.
The challenge for voters, as always, will be to distinguish between
the two. lGE
TTY (^) I
M
AG
ES
What local government
doesn’t need more
of are misfits,
oddballs, egotists
and grandstanders.