It’s the electoral system’s fault we have a new Mayor: Kerry

The good thing about the STV electoral system is that you can vote for people, but you can also vote against people. In other words if you really want someone to win, you`ll rank them first, and if you really want them to lose, you`ll rank them last.

But the news that Kerry Prendergast is blaming the democratically chosen electoral system for her loss even before the result was announced was a little preemptive and rather bitter. STV is more democratic and fairer than FPP, but of course if you are likely to win with as few votes as possible you would pine for FPP.

It was Wellingtonians who wanted STV, it wasn’t thrust on them. And it was Wellingtonians who appeared to understand STV enough to rank Kerry Prendergast near the bottom and many of them did. One thing that stopped her from dropping out earlier is that 3300 more ranked her at the top of the list than any other candidate. She got more top rankings, and a higher percentage, than she did in 2007. But of course there we five more candidates in 2007 so that would have had some bearing.

In the end it was a 176 vote margin to Celia Wade-Brown.

According to the results, Mansell dropped out first with 535 votes with twice as many going to Celia than Kerry. Then Bernard dropped out second with 1161 votes – twice as many gong to Celia than Kerry. Brian dropped out third with 5891 votes with Celia getting nearly three times the number of votes than Kerry. Jack Yan dropped out fourth with 7,341 votes. Celia got nearly twice as many votes as Kerry.

There were 2,140 people who voted for Jack Yan but did not give either Kerry or Celia a preference. Celia won, so it means that more people support her than Kerry, including those who supported other candidates but would not have also been able to rank Kerry or Celia under FPP.

Rodney Hide’s cost-cutting proposals for local government – ignore the public

This Cabinet paper explains how Local Government minister Rodney Hide wants to amend the Local Government Act 2002 to cut costs by focusing on core services,possibly opening other services to private sector,and selling assets, and all without consulting the public.

There will be no public consultation on Hides proposals,specifically because “public views are well known”. Not only that, Hide wants to water down the public consultation obligations in the Act itself, which is what this post also focuses on.

Local government is going to run under a tight “fiscal envelope”, meaning it will be difficult to conduct business outside “core services”, hence possible private sector input. Hide wants to minimise compliance costs – and therefore, apparently, this would control costs and lead to rates decreases. Interestingly one of the reasons why there is high costs associated with local government, according to the Cabinet Paper,is because “media scrutiny of local government is weak compared to central government”.

Really?Like, that's a reason so significant to put in a cabinet paper?

So, no public consultation on consultation processes, private sector involvement, or anything else. Instead Hide wants to conduct “targeted consultation” on his proposals meaning that the Government will consult with the people it agrees with - like Local Government groups and the Business Round Table - to make sure they are not annoyed. It intends to pass legislation and will ignore non-government parliamentary parties.

What decisions? Well, firstly, the Local Government Act 2002 provides a requirement to consult. Unfortunately the Act doesn’t define what that consultation is or should be, nor does it specify groups that must be consulted. It is up to local authorities to determine this. Therefore few formal mechanisms have been introduced to apply this principle as each local authority does what it sees fit.

Or in Hide’s words: “it is questionable whether tools in the Act have allowed for the most effective implementation of these principles”.

Therefore, instead of proposing mechanisms to strengthen this principle, for example mandated partnerships, Hide would rather the public at large not be consulted at all in case they suggest improvements that are in opposition to his ideology and agenda. The Cabinet Paper said that more proactive tools are needed so ratepayers can guide council decisions. But of course strengthening consultation -or mandate - wasn't one of them. Incidentally there is no mandate for Hides proposals, either.

The oligarchy intends to pass legislation to amend the Local Government Act after 31 August. Only then can the public have a say via the select committee process. Any decisions on the above would apply to the Auckland super council 'unless there are sound reasons for it not to'.

In other words, if Rodney Hide does not think they should.

A daft bylaw

I have made a submission to the Kapiti Coast District Council on the bylaw that will allow nudity on Kapiti beaches. I have nothing against nude sunbathers provided they do it quietly and out of public view. But this bylaw lets men and women of all shapes sizes and ages wander willy-nilly on packed sunny beaches.You can go nude, as long as you`re not lewd - but foreskins and sand are not all that compatible.

Lucyna at NZ Conservative recons the bylaw has something to do with the sexuality of the Mayor, Jenny Rowan, who is a lesbian. Both Rowan and her partner Jools Joslin were involved in a failed bid to take on the Crown in the High Court over their inability to marry, in the failed 1996 Quilter case. They subsequently got married in Canada and the case initiated the Civil Union Act.

The rationale for the bylaw was a court case Ceramalus v Police (High Court Auckland AP No.76/91), where a naked man was walking down a beach well known for naked sunbathing, and was seen by a group of teachers and children. One of the teachers told the principal who complained to the police. It went to court, the man, Nobilangelo Ceramalus was convicted and discharged but successfully appealed the conviction.

Ceramalus is currently a Waiheke Island community board member, and he blogs here.

The Judge said that most people would regard his conduct as inappropriate, unnecessary, and in bad taste, but not arouse feelings of anger, disgust, or outrage, and should not therefore have a criminal record because of it. Given that it was a nudist beach, many would see that as fair. So, merely being naked on a beach does not render a person liable to causing offence.

On a nudist beach, anyway.

But does that mean that a District Council should amend its bylaws to allow all and sundry to walk willy-nilly on beaches frequented by kids with their families? I would have thought that just because a person is not liable to cause offence by walking naked along a beach where it was not uncommon to see nude sunbathers, this does not follow that a bylaw needs to be amended so that it is entirely permissable that both men and women can be seen starkers in deliberate view of others at a sunny packed Kapiti Beach.

One of the things territorial authorities make bylaws for is to minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in a public place. This bylaw has the potential to do the opposite.

You can read the beach bylaw here, and make a submission by e-mail here. Submissions close 24 October.