Community disillusionment over councils going off the rails was on full display last weekend as voters reshaped local government in the 2025 elections.
Across the country, high-spending councillors were booted out and replaced by those promising more responsible financial management, greater community engagement, and increased accountability.
With the cumulative average local body rate hike over the last three years a whopping 34.5 percent, compared to an overall inflation increase of just 13.7 percent, cost of living pressures clearly played a significant role in voting decisions.
In fact, of the 18 councils that imposed double-digit rates rises this year, at least 13 elected new mayors, with over half of the councillors in most big-spending councils losing their seats as voters sent the message that reckless money-wasting has to stop.
This loss of public support for spendthrift local authorities is one of the key trends to emerge from the 2025 election. Voters have swung many councils to the right by supporting candidates calling for rates reductions, line-by-line expenditure reviews, and a refocus back onto the basics.
It wasn’t just a wake-up call for councils that voters delivered – there’s also a strong message for the Coalition.
When New Zealanders voted for change at the 2023 General Election, they wanted Labour’s profligate spending to end: that meant axing their woke programmes and removing the army of activists they’d hired to drive their divisive agendas.
The frustration voters felt during the dying days of the Ardern administration is one of the main reasons National is languishing in the polls: their promised changes have not been delivered.
Instead of cutting poor quality spending, National decided to adopt the strategy Bill English had used during the global financial crisis and grow the economy out of the deficits. What that has meant is that instead of line-by-line reviews and the termination of Labour’s radical programmes and agenda-driven staff, nothing much has changed.
This has contributed to public disillusionment and the perception that National is too weak to make the tough decisions needed to get the country back on track.
In contrast, in many parts of the country, local body voters had no trouble delivering austerity through the ballot box.
The big question is whether the Coalition recognises what’s going on!
Local body election turnout has continued to fall. In 2025, only a third of those who were eligible bothered to vote. With a provisional rating of 32 percent, down from 42 percent three years ago, this continues a trend that’s been evident ever since the nationwide restructuring of local government in 1989, when 850 local bodies were amalgamated into 86.
Historically, the election turnout is higher in smaller councils, where voters know all of the candidates and feel much more involved with their council. This is reflected in the 1989 statistics, which showed the average turnout of 56 percent was made up of a 65 percent turnout for District Councils, 56 percent for Regional Councils, and 52 percent for City Councils.
Over 12 subsequent elections, the numbers have continued to decline so that by 2022, the turnout for District Councils was 45 percent, Regional Councils 43 percent, and City Councils just 39 percent.
In Auckland, the turnout was dismal: provisional data showed only 28.7 percent or 343,000 of the 1.2 million registered electors, bothered to vote – down from 35.4 percent in 2022.
So, who’s to blame for low voter turnout? Is it our politicians for deciding bigger is better in local government, even though residents and ratepayers prefer smaller councils that are more aligned to their needs? Is it the postal voting system, which was introduced to help make voting easier, but is now so unreliable that some are saying it should no longer be used? Is it because of the demise of community newspapers and the absence of balanced reporting about local government? Are council ‘Codes of Conduct’ gagging councillors and stopping them from raising public alarm over irresponsible decision-making? Is it candidates and councillors themselves, for not making council matters and elections more interesting? Is it the fact that councils no longer prioritise community engagement – even to the point of deciding to change the voting system without bothering to consult their community? Is it council bureaucracy that’s become so impenetrable it turns people off?
These are the issues that will be debated in the weeks to come, with Auckland’s Mayor Wayne Brown taking the lead by saying he favours a return to all-day, in-person voting at booths.
While there will be many suggested solutions, the most obvious is to run Local Body Elections in conjunction with General Elections, where the turnout is usually over 80 percent.
While the majority of candidates standing for local election were independents, a number were politically aligned.
The Green Party, which proactively supported Maori wards, ran dozens of candidates for councils and local boards around the country. In return for campaign support, each contender was required to sign a ‘Green Party Contract’ which included swearing to uphold the radicalised Treaty of Waitangi, promote Green Party policies, and, if elected, pay a percentage of their council income to the Party as a tithe.
While former Green MP Nandor Tanzos is on the cusp of winning the Whakatane Mayoralty, former Green Party Mayor, Wellington’s Tory Whanau, has fallen from grace – after a disastrous three years of scandal and rate increases – to such an extent that she even failed to win a seat in a Maori ward.
The Labour Party, which vowed to support Maori Wards, also ran dozens of candidates including those associated with City Vision in Auckland and The People’s Choice in Christchurch. Former Labour leader Andrew Little decisively won the Wellington Mayoralty, with Labour and the Greens now holding 10 out of the 16 seats on that council, giving the left a clear majority.
For the first time, the ACT Party ran affiliated candidates committed to keeping rates low, focussing councils onto core services, and opposing ideological agendas like co-governance. Nine of their 46 candidates have been successfully elected at this stage.
While the Maori Party did not run an official ticket, it did endorse candidates, it supported the retention of the Maori wards, and it worked hard to mobilise voters through its national networks.
Many of the mayors associated with the left-leaning Local Government New Zealand, lost ground in the election. LGNZ had seriously undermined its credibility during the Three Waters debate by pro-actively advocating for Labour, instead of for councils.
LGNZ President, Sam Broughton, the Selwyn Mayor, was decisively ousted, along with half of his council. The chair of LGNZ’s Rural Sector, Central Hawke’s Bay’s Alex Walker, lost her mayoralty, as did LGNZ’s Metro Sector chair, Dunedin Mayor Jules Radich.
Of the 11 Mayors on the LGNZ National Council, three retired and four lost their seats.
These results will no doubt force a major rethink for LGNZ. At the present time, Auckland, Christchurch, Kaipara, Grey, Westland, Western Bay of Plenty, and the West Coast Regional Council have all pulled out expressing concerns about the high cost of membership, and the organisation’s radical stance in supporting Maori wards and co-governance.
When it came to Maori wards, of the 42 councils that were required to hold a referendum – as a result of the Coalition repealing Labour’s law change that allowed the wards to be established without a public vote – only 25 councils voted to remove them, while 17 voted to retain them.
This is a disastrous outcome.
What it tells us, loud and clear, is that Labour’s radical and unmandated blueprint for tribal control by 2040 – He Puapua – is on track to becoming a reality.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator former local body councillor and political strategist Frank Newman has analysed the referendum result and raises serious concerns:
“There is no question Maori separatists have made gains in the last ten years.
“In 2015 a referendum challenged the creation of Maori wards in the Far North District Council. That was defeated with 67% of voters opposing the creation of a Maori ward.
“Last Saturday that had been reversed with 54% voting to keep the Maori wards and 46% voting to remove them.
“That trend is repeated in other regions. In 2018, five districts held polls – all rejecting Maori wards. Four of those five councils had since created Maori wards after Mahuta removed the petition right, so they were again required to hold a referendum.
“Two voted to keep their wards. They were Palmerston North, where support for the Maori ward rose from 31% in 2018 to 55% on Saturday, and Whakatane, where support rose from 44% to 60%.
“The councils where voters continued to oppose the wards both lost ground: Western Bay of Plenty from 78% to 60%, and Manawatu from 77% to 57%. In other words, one in five voters had changed their view on Maori wards within seven years.”
This election result should serve as a warning to Kiwis that radical separatism has become a very serious threat within New Zealand.
The Wellington results in particular, which shows that the areas where most government employees are based overwhelmingly support Maori wards, indicates the huge success of Labour’s He Puapua indoctrination project. Spearheaded by Iwi Leaders working in collaboration with the Office of Maori Crown Relations, all government staff were required to adopt a Maori World View, to learn the Maori language, and to swear their allegiance to Te Tiriti o Waitangi – the He Puapua version of the Treaty, which promotes partnerships and co-governance.
Through a web of departmental directives, funding incentives, and cultural compliance frameworks, government employees were expected to internalise a worldview that elevates iwi authority and reframes citizenship through the lens of the fabricated ‘partnership’. This created an institutional echo chamber where dissent was marginalised and critical scrutiny of co-governance was treated as heresy.
And it wasn’t just state sector employees who were captured. With the education also targeted alongside professional registration bodies, and – thanks to Labour’s Incorporated Societies law change which has seen tens of thousands of private sector organisations pressured into introducing He Puapua into their constitutions through Treaty clauses – New Zealanders across the board have been radicalised.
Add to that Councils themselves promoting the retention of Maori wards through mobile voting campaigns, alongside the advocacy of Maori news outlets, tribal groups, and political parties – not to mention a literal army of Churches and charities including Common Grace Aotearoa, Te Tiriti Is Us, Decide Together-Thrive Together, Groundwork, Salvation Army, Action Station, and Toitu Te Tiriti all pro-actively pushing the “Keep Maori Wards” message through websites, meetings, direct mail, adverts, flyers, and aggressive social media campaigns – and it is no wonder the pro-Maori ward vote succeeded in so many areas.
The 2025 Maori ward referenda were meant to restore democratic control over local representation. Instead, they have exposed how effectively He Puapua has penetrated our civic institutions and society at large. The fact that 17 councils voted to retain Māori wards — despite widespread public opposition when first proposed — suggests that the machinery of influence is far deeper than imagined.
If New Zealanders wish to preserve equal citizenship and democracy, we must confront the reality that sovereignty is being redefined, not through open debate but by bureaucratic entrenchment.
This is no longer a debate about culture or inclusion. It is about power — who holds it, how it is exercised, and whether the public retains the right to say no.
The time for complacency is over.
And that should be a wake-up call for the Coalition: they should see the referendum result as their failure to rid the country of the influence of He Puapua.
It is one of the main reasons they were elected. Yet one year out from the next election, the referendum results show they are failing to deliver on that crucial promise.
This does not bode well for the future of the Coalition – nor of New Zealand.
Please note: To register for our free weekly newsletter please click HERE.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
*Should local body elections be held at the same time as General Elections to increase voter turnout?
*Poll comments are posted below.
*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.
THIS WEEK’S POLL COMMENTS
| Absolutely, just follow the clown show called the Maori Party and their antics in parliament. | Sam |
| No – I think people would get too confused. | Kate |
| The council system is a Mess and in no way democratic. it appears to be deliberately confusing and bureaucratic. it needs to be simplified. Remove mail in ballots across the board for both council and central Government. | Sam |
| Plus to stop corruption. | Helen |
| But will it result in increased voter turnout for local body representatives when those representing, have little control/say over local body Corporate Activity? | Robert |
| Exercise our democratic muscle in one day. | Lucy |
| Not in favour as it might encourage more deadbeats to vote Labour, Greens or maori. | Tony |
| Makes sense and hopefully would encourage more to vote in local govt elections as they will all be on one form. | Darag |
| And do NOT use the complex STV system. | Doug |
| I think it’s worth a try. Nothing else to date is working. | Denis |
| It might increase voter turnout but I doubt it. Ratepayers, that is,voters are just seen as the ATM’S for council’s grandiose plans. No,I don’t think anything will increase turnout until voters get more say in how their money is or is not spent. | Peter |
| We must try something, and this is as good a start as any to reverse the trend. | Glyn |
| I am voting yes but must admit i am unsure. as I doubt that voters will have too much to comprehend and I see they will simply not vote. Therefore, the general election vote percentage will go down and that is not desirable. However, to increase the local elections turnout is a challenge. i feel the Maori wards vote would have been influenced by Iwi etc. getting their members out to vote for Maori wards and the general voter simply couldn’t be bothered to vote. | Keith |
| Just common sense!!! | BRADLEY |
| we need to understand the importance of a democratic right to vote, to not vote really says You dont care | clint |
| When the MAJORITY of eligible voters don’t exercise their voting rights and the successful are determined by 51% of the MINORITY that do exercise their voting rights, then we have a Constitutional Crisis. The minority are determining societies governance. The only winners in this situation are the Communists. They don’t want you to vote. | neil |
| Having the elections at the same time will just confuse many people. However, changes are definitely needed – eg. 1. Reduce the number of councils (do we really need regional, district and city councils?) 2. Ensure political party affiliations are shown on local election voting papers. 3. Have a Maori ward referendum at every local election. 4. Ban unelected members from voting on council committees. 5. And, of course, introduce a Rates cap as soon as possible. | Gary |
| Brownlee needs to be removed and replaced with a much stronger articulate speaker. Immediately!!! | Dianne |
| To be held at official polling booths and not at Marae to prevent corruption of the process. | Helen |
| Most would get confused | Roger |
| Very complicated and may overwhelm some voters especially the elderly. So a definate no. Also the maori party and their tribal grifters will find loop holes to further their cause. ( The completion of their treasonous takeover of New Zealand. Its no wonder 60,000 Kiwis are leaving for more democratic countries. | Paul |
| No, too confusing. Its bad enough queing at the central govt elections. I for one would not bother. Off to OZ anyway. Had enough of the maori takeover and maorification of everything and national allowing it to happen. Good Luck NZrs you need it… | John |
| Voters are struggling with info on candidates for one type of election – two at a time would be too much. Left side of the Bell curve ? | Ann |
| Kiwis are so dumb and apathetic now, there is no way they could cope with a double-banger. There wouldn’t be enough psychological resource and help to get us through it. There would be protests calling it “unsafe” and a health hazard. Not to mention discriminatory. | Creed |
| Electorate IQ would be confused. I favour an election day where everyone votes in person in a booth. | Marilyn |
| The non radicalised people of New Zealand need to stand up and say no to separatism. | Alastair |
| Should be a Four year term and councillors should only be able to do two terms!! Being on the council is not a job for Life!!! | Les |
| Keeps it tidy for everyone. | Bruce |
| Waste of money as is now | Maxwell |
| It’s worth a try, but some people could get confused | carol |
| This would reduce time to find out about local b body candidates | ray |
| Yes, but also because there should be considerable cost savings to do everything in one go. Also throw in Referendums on Maori seats as well. | Noel |
| Absolutely. Voting in person only, and with proof of identity. People must realise that the only way to change the status quo is to use their democratic right to vote. | Mark |
| Each election has it’s own specific agenda and they should not be confused. One is for national government and the other is for regional management of services. Both are of huge importance and should have focused elections. Low voter turnout is due to apathy or idleness so motivation by the candidates is essential if they want to be elected. Unfortunately, governments and councils have been turned into idealogical tools and have lost focus on their core business. | Martin |
| I would like to see Politics and local body requirements or services completely separate with all the different geographic and people groupings, To stick to their knitting is a good practical call. | Maurice |
| I don’t see it making any difference. That continuity governments are STILL having dissenting voices ostricised IS making an impact as is the indoctrination in the workplace. Sheople will always be sheople. | larry |
| Wake up people , if the part maoris take control there will be NO ELECTIONS AT ALL!!!. YOU WILL DO AS YOU ARE TOLD AND TO HELL WITH DEMOCRACY. Dont get lulled into a false sense of security , we are in danger of collapsing as a democratic nation aided and abetted by the lying guttless bottom feeding mainstream media criminals . Stand up and fight, open your wallets and pay up now and help those who are fighting on our behalf such as Muriel, Stop co governance , Hobsons choice etc, if you dont you WILL lose everything you have. | GlynJ |
| Create confusion during elections and at the booth. | john |
| It would be better to make voting compulsory I both elections | Terry |
| Can’t see that working. Too much lethargy and disinterest | Carole |
| Obviously, most NZ voters are thick as 2 short planks. They are confused about what is going on, cannot get off their stupid backsides to vote and a lot of those who do vote don’t bother to comprehend what they are voting for. I’m with Wayne Brown. Voting is on a specific day. No special votes, not postal voting and definitely no electronic voting. If you can’t manage to get yourself to a polling booth, then you miss out. To include Local body voting with the General Election, would simply increase voter confusion. However, make voting something you need to qualify to do and fine people who fail. That’d bulk up the revenue collecting and ease the rates burden. | dianna |
| Interested voters will vote in Local Elections whenever they are held and not get diluted by apathetic voters who are uninterested. | Elaine |
| Get it all together, reduce the confusion and improve the outcomes | Peter K |
| Much too confusing for voters, especially given the number of local body candidates and boards. The fact is councils have got top heavy with too many local boards and too many members. Rule for all organisations is cut numbers which automatically cuts cost. | David |
| Tuff question. Mixing the 2 together may complicate voters decisions. | Chris |
| Local body elections should be separate and online. | Trish |
| Yes and make it compulsory. Possible the country is still doomed. The last person to leave will not have to turn the lights out as they will not be working. The new power running the country will noy know how to maintain the power system | rod |
| Those who don’t vote can live with whoever. They are satisfied. Think about it. Less is more. Less rifraf more voter responsibility better selection. | Peter |
| Why not? | gale |
| cancel maori wards | Anthony |
| MIght not make much difference. There is major investment needed for truth telling relating to maori wards, maori seats and the blight of incompatible immigrants who need to be “repatriated” to counties more aligned with their beliefs. | Neil |
| Yes, I think that’s a great idea | Brenda |
| A one paragraph description of candidate’s CVs equates to voter’s lack of knowledge of what they are voting for, hence disinterest. | Rex |
| Yes people need to vote, it will give better results | Theo |
| keep them separate but make the people who are going for the local body elections put more detail of what they will DO for their electors and not just print the BS thats in the folder sent out with the voting papers. Make voting compulsory for both national and local elections and fined if you do not. WHY did the vote to get rid of the maori wards not be abolished from this years local election as the damage these wards can do before 2028 could be horrendous and costly to the tax payer and if labour and the greens get in next year all this will be reversed, so the sooner we kick out luxon and have someone with the guts to stop all this maori takeover, otherwise this country is well and truly on the road to civil war. | Richard |
| NO… we need a reformed MERITOCRACY SYSTEM, a much higher standard of POLITICIANS, that care about our country, N.Z! our number of POLITICIANS in Parliament, is far to many…. also reduce LOCAL GOVT. AND FAR TOO MUCH LOCAL GOVT, WITH FAR TOO MUCH POWER, WHICH IS NOT NEEDED!! LESS GOVT. | David |
| A good idea in theory but too confusing in practice. | Lenice |
| Safky though many will get confused about which vote paper is fir Government and which for Council | Graeme |
| Seems many still do not understand MMP and having a STV election at the same time would likely compound the confusion. Interleave the elections so they are 2 years apart and revert to FPP for local government. Give mayors control as per Auckland and recommended by the NZ Initiative | Graeme |
| This crazed headlong rush to embrace brown apartheid must be stopped. | Bob |
| Same time could be confusing to voters | martin |
| Kiwis need to wake up. Their country is being stolen from under them. | Alastair |
| Makes sense | Gail |
| Having them at the same time could be distracting. | Dave |
| the average voter will be confused | malcolm |
| Not sure but give it a try,EMAIL WINSTON EVERY-ONE to finally get rid of Maori inflence & Nationals maori policies PROMISED TO VOTERS.Wake up luxon STOP giving our country AWAY. | Cindy |
| It wouldn’t be good as the local body elections would have to be changed to suit. | Murray |
| I see the argument for – in essence that you are going to vote so let’s get the process over and done with in one go. The problem is this does not solve the existing difficulties, e.g. Council officers refusing to give counsellors financial information, a slate of local body candidates about whom it is difficult to reliable information, lpoliticization of local issues rather than listening to the needs of local people. | tony |
| Oh I don’t know if this would be a great idea? The public tend to flip flop from left to right and right to left with very little difference offered by either side. I think you would just get more of the same. The voters would flow to the left or right for both the General election and for a local body election as to what ever flavour of public feelings were at that particular time. I think that it may be OK to keep it as it is due to the fact that there could be confusion in having two important separate elections going at the same time? There must be a way to engender greater interest in LB elections and I suggest that the Government could look at coming up with regulations that compel The MSM to give due unbiased publicity to councils and to individual council members prior to LB elections. The MSM need to do something of public value for the unconsented current generous free funding handouts of tax payers hard earned money doled out to them. | Garry. |
| I think the way the polling was run for the local council elections should go back to how it was at the polling booths. I also feel that people who identify as maori have been led down the rabbit hole, believing they needed a voice so voted to retain the maori ward when in fact some of the councillors elected by ratepayers/community were maori and elected by their community/ratepayers so “maori” had a voice. If they were not seen as good for the community/ratepayers they would not have voted them on to the council. And doing it with the central elections could help getting people out to vote, maybe. I would like to see an analysis on how people will think doing it that way works. I also think the LGNZ should have no place. | Jackie |
| It would be Just too much for the general public to understand, all the names and instructions, it would turn out to be a bloody nightmare for everyone. Look at the Dunedin local bodies election, the Dunedin public voted for a Chinese guy who does not even live in Dunedin and nothing he said was backed up? | Don |
| Good idea and make it compulsory to vote, hefty fine if you don’t. Unfortunately, our brains are leaving the country in droves, leaving us with not very bright people | Claire |
| I believe so. As the way it stands at the moment only the radicalised groups supporting these controversial issues get their way. Its only a matter of time before we are fully indoctrinated. | Lawrie |
| No, I would and most I have talked to would concentrate on central govt voting and forget about local govt voting. Especially the older generation. All govt departments are going rouge doing whatever they like, example theBSA attacking the platform and free speech. This govt needs to close it down ane remove far left and activists from all govt depatments. Sadly nothing happening as promised prior to election. National you are loosing votes to NZ 1st and act 3% recently. Read the room or you are gone next election.Hollow promises. | Kevin |
| would get people confused, too many choices already. | michael |
| Too confusing. Too many names. I think most people would put it into the too hard bucket and not vote | Gary |
| there’s been too much complacency regarding people’s attitude toward race based activism | Brian |
| ..not only that, but compulsory voting as in Australia. | Gray |
| Definitely, many people seem apathetic about council voting especially if they do not own property in those areas. | Audrey |
| Local and Central government should have clear demarcation | Bryce |
| low voter political IQ is the problem | Bruce |
| I suspect many would end up confused and not bothering to vote at all. The lack of alternatives put many off voting in my region. If larger councils were to be split up, to give the public more involvement at the local level, the level of voting participation would rise. | Gavin |
| What a good idea! Why not? | AndyE |
| A very logical idea. | Willam |
| More participation the better. Restrict voting to one or two consecutive days. | Ray |
| A good idea to have it with the local elections. It just might encourage the general public to get off there backsides. | Rob |
| Auckland city council lied to me – they said they sent my voting papers to me – but they didn’t or the post didn’t deliver them. | Derek |
| Logical move to encourage voters to actually vote. | Chris |
| Most certainly | Gordon |
| it is likely that party politics rather than the best local person for the job will influence the election of councilors Keep the focus on local.. | John |
| I think that would get people out the door for sure | Jill |
| great idea | hugh |
| Of course they should save money and maybe get a few of the apathetic voters to actually get of the fat bums and do the right thing it should be compulsory | Peter |
| The people of New Zealand have to be responsible. | Grahame |
| It would make far more sense & encourage a better turn out of voters. | David |
| Yes, and voting in both elections should be compulsory. | Colin |
| To have to decide who to vote for in local body election as well as GOVERNMENT candidates, and all the Health Boards, Licencing trust boards and all the others in one hit would further reduce participation in the General Elections becausee its just too daunting, especially when with demise of local newspapers there is a paucity of information about the candidates. | Craig |
| Once organising and man power for two elections. Seems more efficient to me. Only for voters with discernment (!) though. | Wietske |
| It would be too confusing for many people. in Australia we HAD TO VOTE or face a fine. That tends to be pretty effective. | Margaret |
| It is worthwhile having a mid-term election. | Gerry |
| It will too much for average person too many candidates to sift through a lot of people won’t bother to do the research which is pretty much what we got now apathy. | Vaughan |
| Makes sense | Evans |
| the country is doomed | leo |
| too confusing | Colin |
| Yes absolutley | Dominic |
| Yes — anything that reduces costs but engages all parties. Perhaps even online voting would help as would some form of compulsory voting. | Alan |
| I actually think it is too late for this country to stop He Pua pua and theTribal take over. New Zealanders are way to stupid and I believe European New Zealanders will flood out on mass when the take over is complete. What will we say to our Grand Children when they ask how did it happen. I will tell them the truth that Kiwis are not intelligent people. | Paul |
| Too confusing for many | Judith |
| Will lead to confusion and mixed messages. We need a clear statement from individuals for the new New Zealand government proposed policy entirely separate. | John |
| Time for electronic voting too !! | Andrew |
| Might get more votes | Gavin |
| It’s too much to do. We had 52 councillors on the list in Dunedin and in random order. It was a mission trying to sort out the ones you wanted to vote for going backwards and forwards trying to find the candidates you wanted to vote for and keeping track of the number so you didn’t spoil the voting paper. Also the STV voting system should be abolished. 18 iterations to get the mayor when the biggest vote got second and after 18 iterations the second place getter got the job! Not impressed . Also should not be allowed to be party aligned in a council. | Lynne |
| YES, YES, YES. Straight out COMMON SENSE says YES. | Brian |
| Yes, common sense | Jim |
| I think this should be the norm. This way, voters get to choose both our Central Government AND Local Government at the same time. Thus allowing voters to decide which candidates align with their viewpoint. | Heather |
| People are fickle and pretty ignorant politically so it would be confusing for most people. | Ray |
| Anything that helps, although it appears that judgement is lacking in much of the population. At least it would dilute the influence of activists. | Hugh |
| No, because the issues would become muddled. | Peter |
| It just makes sense, when you look at the low voter turnout at Local government elections | Rod |
| Very concerned | jennifer |
| I see room for a lot of confusion. Too many candidates with most not known personally and of their actual ability to work for the benefit of all constituents. | Helen |
| That’s the smart way to do it | Greg |
| I’m a “swinging voter” on this one, for the reason that parliamentary and local body campaigning and voting together could, perhaps, confuse voters. | Laurence |
| We are all New Zealanders | Ross |
| No need to enhance local candidates positions . | Lee |
| Agree | Alan |
| Might encourage more people to vote. | Geoff |
| But would such a move be above the academic ability of many New Zealanders to cope with 2 sets of voting papers? | Percival |
| Good idea, might work | Lee |
| Local body elections should not be political. It seems some areas strongly advertise the political beliefs of standing councillors and I think this is wrong. Councillors are there for all residents in the area and to make sure the area has top facilities for the safety and health of its residents. Nothing to do with politics. | Lyn |
| If people are interested enough they will vote and if they aren’t it’s better that they don’t vote | Chris |
| now | Wiremu |
| I think they are better held at different times, however, I think voting should be made compulsory. The silly excuses people make when asked why they didn’t vote makes no sense. There were plenty of opportunities to cast your vote. You have to wonder if these people hibernate in the weeks leading up to elections and never pass a post box or library during this time. We always seem to accept excuses for those too lazy to vote. We should treasure our right to vote as many in this world don’t have this privilege. | Bev |
| YES, I think that would be a good idea. | COLIN |
| Not sure, this could increase the decision making problem for many and cloud the results | Gareth |
| This should be a Mandatory DEFINITELY! | hylton |
| No brainer and called common sense! | Caroline |
| Certainly worth a try. | Roger |
| I think so – but all the while there is so much subtle threatening and devious talk, it’s hard to know what or who to believe towards who wants a divided country! | Stuart |
| It would be too confusing for many to hold two elections in the same period for different governerning bodies, When you then add in the extra confusion caused by different voting systems you would end up with a totally confused electorate with the likes of TPM able to take advantage of this ignorance by ignoring the law and instructing people how to vote in voting booths. | Chris |
| Yes if it would make any difference, But maybe we should bring in the same as Aussie where it is compulsory to vote and see if it makes any difference | Eileen |
| This may help to balance and restore some faith in democracy as there is too much influence from the radical left and Maori activists. | Ken |
| Perhaps this could negate the apathy and therefore the effectiveness of radical actions who DO vote | Pete |
| Sounds like a good idea but it might be too much all at once for a large percentage of the population and make their brains explode. | Murray |
| sure would not hurt | noel |
| I do not see the situation chnaging until Local Government is brought back down to earth and away from pretending to be a high rolling corporate entity in place to tell elected ouncilors what to think. | Peter |
| Brilliant idea | tony |
| I don’t see how the voter turnout would increase with such a change. | graeme |
| Could become confusing | Diane |
| If you think it would help. Where I live it would make no difference they are all mad here, they think the treaty was a partnership and want us to go back to the Stone Age | Trevor |
| liklyhood of voter confusion and Errors. | Carl |
| And also importantly – have one voting mechanism on the voting form. The labyrinth of numbers (STV) and ticks (FPP) was too much for many to understand. | Paul |
| Too confusing | Eileen |
| Kiwi’s need to wake up to the free ride Maori is enjoying. Maori is not to be trusted now or in the future! | Norman |
| IWe have a strong feeling that for most Folk , Voting at the same Time as the General Election would be utter confiusion, as many Voters have Cranial Rectal inversion Syndrome and have no clue who’s what and where until they’ve been totally Controlled by all the wrong Crowd !! | Geoff |
| Voter turnout would be higher, but it would all need to be FPP not the insane method we have just had. | Dick |
| Too much all at once. What local government elections really need is some decent journalism and reporting on what candidates really sta d for and their stance on the major issues. People aren’t voting because it is too hard/almost impossible to find much of this stuff. All we get is a couple of paragraphs of blurb all saying similar things about how wonderful they will be with money and communication etc… | Ian |
| They are separate activities. Keep them apart. People have the right to vote or not to vote. Trickery should never be a ploy to encourage them to do one or the other. | Murray |
| Local Government is part of governing, therefore the political ssues have overlap. | Phil |
| some people did not receive there papers for voting. I wonder how many. If they have to go to a booth and vote may be that is better thats if the can and will as it seems some are to lazy to do anything then moan about it. | sue |
| Sounds like a great idea. | Richard |
| Likely to cause confusion & result in lower electoral turnout | Murray |
| Worth a try | David |
| Holding parallel election, in my opinion, would blur important issues for both local and central government. | Dave |
| muddled enough as it is…. get rid of local bodies better | Gill |
| A major problem still remains however, that we have many, many ignorant and stupid people in NZ who don’t understand what they are voting for and the significance of their vote. | Greg |
| makes sence | Richard |
| As long it doesn’t make the Gen. Election lose voters. | sandra |
| General & local at the same time. | Ann |
| Would also reduce the over all cost. | Grant |
| Good idea! | Scott |
| I think it would muddy the waters. maybe closer – maybe 3 months apart but not at the same time. People need to be very focused on what and who they are voting for! | John |
| Problem with local elections is we have very little knowledge of what candidates actually stand for. The pathetic little bios in the voting booklets tell us nothing, especially about contentious issues. | Geoffrey |
| Lets double the confusion | Warren |
| But reality is most of the younger generation is so thick, and educated to be thick, that they could not work out who to vote for as there would be more choices than they have fingers and toes, we as a country are stuffed. | Norm |
| Cost effective and make both voting mandatory. | DAVID |
| There must be another way. It would be too confusing | DOUGLAS |
| What the heck is wrong with non Maori NZers? Too lazy to fill out a voting form and pop it in a box. Do they want to see what Luxon is trying to do to our country. He is in fact, inviting eventually civil war here but will no doubt left the country and all the damage he has continued to push, as did Dame B****. It’s starting to happen Europe and war and unrest will follow here and in Australia. | Carly |
| A great idea and it’ll save money too. | Andrew |
| seems logical | Colin |
| There will be voter overload and less participation in my view. Counter to the required objective. One day voting may be a better answer as we used to have | Errol |
| The appearance in Local Body elections of so many candidates of low appeal and quality could make a combined election day rather confusing. On the other hand it would be a great way to capture single-issue matters such as the Maori Ward one. It seems almost certain that almost all of these would have been wiped out by a higher voter turnout. BTW, it must be obvious to all that National in particular have no intent or plan to rid the country of the influence of He Puapua or even to hide that fact from the public. | Tony |
| That sounds fine and dandy, the problem is if the people who are standing are bloody hopeless why would anyone vote, local or central, should these people not be tested before going into the voting ring? | Sven |
| Don’t make it a side issue to the general election | Mike |
| Makes sense and should save on costs. | Rod |
| Voter turnout can only be improved by making it clear what candidates really stand for: how did or would they vote for important issues and why? This needs to be made public during their term so people get to know what they really stand for. Right now this is not known so they can claim anything. | Annemieke |
| Local Body Elections are – and should be – non political. Don’t confuse the two elections, keep them well apart. | Don |
| Yes and scrap the maori roll. | John |
| Unfortunately, I think people treat the General Election more important than Local Elections. It needs continually educating New Zealanders that many National issues are often interpreted incorrectly at local level and voters can influence what happens in their local area once they grasp what is wrong and vice versa. Holding both elections at the same time doesn’t allow time to understand what is going wrong (or right) between both Governing factions. | Martin |
| Also stop postal voting and go back to voting in person and ditch mmp. National has no intention to make our system and laws fair again, just exclude race, religion , gender from our laws and create a writen constitution stating that everybody legally entitled to live in NZ has the same rights and obligations. Eredicate the politically motivated radical public servants and go back to basics. It won’t happen as thete are too many feeble and ill or not educated sheeple now. | Leonard |
| Yes – provided general election results are accorded priority. The Electoral Commissions shouldn’t be given any further excuse for taking an age to count the votes. | Peter |
| And the retention of maori wards and seats in parliament should be voted on. With the higher turnout it will gives more definitive result as to the wish ( or not ) of retaining them | Alec |
| How about politicians acting like civilized, honorable, civilised, honest, trustworthy, people | mike |
| No, Far too much paperwork.you need time to go through line up. 10 council and 1 mayor for my area then central govt on top. Too much for me personally. Smaller councils with more community involvement seems in the past to bring voter numbers up.No local community news paper does not help either. Now no idea what the council is up to. | Allan |
| Yes it has to be at the same time. As far as Luxon and his whisperers behind the curtains is concerned: He is not supposed to read the room. He is a puppet on a string. Nothing else. National needs a serious clean up from inside out in order to deserve the name National Party. And that has to happen PRONTO!!!! | Michael |
| Good idea by making one voting day would for sure make easier for everyone specially where travels are not covered by public transport. | Michael Andrew |
| ” Keep It Simple ” Democracy in New Zealand is Slide Sliding Away. Just turn out the lights and walk away….. | Chris |
| As per norm a lot of New Zealander’s are either to lazy or to busy to vote on local elections or have totally lost faith with all aspects of local Govt. They will wake up one day when they are all under Maori tribal rule and that will be to late. We will have become another Rhodesia. | Wayne |
| MAKE VOTING MANDATORY with HEAVY MONETARY FINES for THOSE THAT DON”T VOTE! | ROD |
| Make it as simple as possible for the maximum number of eligible voters to access. | Sean |
| Sensible | Graham |
| If anything it would unnecessarily complicate many of the issues that are largely beyond the average voter. | Jim |
| Simple rationalisation would not only likely increase the number of people voting, but it would significantly reduce the costs of the elections. | John |
| Why not! | David |
| I think combining the two elections is a good idea, but I suspect MPs wouldn’t like sharing the election limelight with councillors. | Murray |
| It could get quite confusing with so many people to vote for. I wonder if any other countries do it. | Pauline |
| Combining the elections would increase the standing of local government, which would be a good thing. | Hugh |
| I think de-amalgamation is the better way forward. Give us smaller councils that we can get involved with and voter turnout will increase. | Simon |