Matt McCarten’s column yesterday was his usual entertaining and provocative view from the left. One aspect deserves further discussion. (Not his assertion the Greens are doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to analysing the Government’s third super city bill. Who me, sensitive?)
What was interesting was his suggestion Rodney Hide is perpetrating a new crime against democracy by allowing landlords (as ratepayers) to vote, effectively giving the property-owning rich multiple votes.
The bill before the House, if passed, will ensure many of the new city politicians are elected by property owners, not citizens. Anyone who owns a commercial or rental property in any of the 12 new wards gets to vote for the ward council. Theoretically, someone can get to vote in every ward.
Plausible though it is that Mr Hide would commit such an outrage, the picture does need some clarification.
Property owners in New Zealand do get to vote, in all local body elections, thanks to the Local Electoral Act. Matt is right to suggest that could skew elections. If a landlord owns property in every district in New Zealand he or she could vote in every local election.
However the Act also specifies that no person can vote more than once in any election, no matter how many properties they own in the area. So an absentee landlord owning mulitiple properties across the new wards would still only get one vote for the mayoralty and one vote for the Council.
Clause 35 in Hide’s bill, which extends the vote to property owners in the election of local boards, is presumably there because the super city’s ‘local boards’ are a new creation, not anticipated in the Local Electoral Act. Its effect is a landlord with properties in each of the 19 local boards could vote in each one of them, just as the Local Electoral Act allows the same for community boards in any local government election.
I guess it will all come out in select committee but it is not clear the drafters needed to do this. The Local Electoral Act applies. To complicate matters further, as Idiot Savant points out, clause 35 omits a limit found in the Local Electoral Act which prevents a landlord nominating different people for different properties in the same election. If left in this will allow some major rorting.
Matt and Idiot Savant are right to question whether it is fair and democratic for property owners to vote in more than one local election. Where is Hide’s one person one vote principle now? Some will argue to deny the vote to someone who lives outside the district but pays rates on a property in the district would be taxation without representation, which as Matt points out is a false argument because the rates inevitably get passed on to the tenant via the rent. It all begs the question of whether it is appropriate for local government, or indeed this new regional government in Auckland, to be funded by a property tax in the form of rates. Give me progressive taxation any day.
Good bleepin grief!!! This is so unfair
I’m also a bit bleeped that McCarten didn’t acknowledge your or Labour’s hard work on this. 
That is outrageous! Surely there must be some sort of safeguard on our democracy which means a law can’t be passed to effectively give more influence to those with more wealth??
No taxation without representation. Rates are a tax. Even if you pay rates in different cities/regions/board areas.
I also hope voting papers aren’t being posted to letterboxes also as it is well known in South Auckland that the empty ones left laying around on the grass are picked up by the Left and used to vote. That is a real rort.
A magnanimous post, given the one-eyed political analysis offered by Mr McCarten. The Select Committe on this bill will be both interesting and important. It is not clear to me that the haste involved in the Supercity process is allowing officials the chance to comment properly on Mr Hide’s proposals, or, indeed, for Mr Hide’s allies to understand the ramifications of his thinking. It adds up to a cobbled mess.
Gooner: Electoral fraud is a serious issue. If you have evidence of it happening, you should report it. But I’m guessing that it’s only particular ‘well-known’ by people making stuff up.
Gooner – Why bother with all this voting malarkey? Why not just float the Council as a listed company, allow people to buy shares, and run it like a business? If people don’t like the service they are getting they can just go and purchase from another Council…
Mr Twyford: Will Labour be preparing a submission guide for the latest bill, like the Greens already have? I find these guides very useful when making a submission, as it is somewhat time consuming to wade through the legalese that is in the bill.
Also, the timing of the bill and the submission deadline (Feb 12) have clearly been selected to take advantage of the summer holidays. This bill contains some other fairly anti-democratic stuff, such as allowing Mr Hide to decide on the CCOs and their initial directors (and not our elected local representatives), limiting the involvement of our future representatives in the CCOs, disallowing reorganisation of the region as permitted by the Local Government Act and preventing electors/councils from opting for a different electoral system other than FPP in 2013 (as enshrined by the Local Electoral Act). It would be great if Labour (with the Greens, maybe?) could make a strong effort to inform Aucklanders about the implications of this bill and the supercity in general (gerrymandering of the wards comes to mind). Ads in the paper or something? Kiwis might not be that interested in politics over the summer, but an anti-democratic rort such as this may be enough to catch peoples attention.
@ wtl – We are doing a submission guide. You are right about all those issues. And I am hopeful we can cooperate with the Greens on this. Anti-democratic rort is exactly what it is.
Feel free to grab bits from the Green’ submission guide Phil.
BTW, I think the limit found in the Local Electoral Act which prevents a landlord nominating different people for different properties in the same election does carry over to the election of local boards of the Auckland Council. Section 11(2) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act, as proposed to be inserted by clause 35 of the Bill, requires that local board members be elected in accordance with the Local Electoral Act. That would include section 24(2) of that Act which imposes that limit.
It’s not the main point of your article, but you touch on whether land/property taxes are a good way to fund councils.
I have long held the view that they are not. There are a couple of anomalies that bother me.
Firstly, four adults in a household consuming more services but paying the same as one person living alone.
Secondly, people (such as those who are retired) paying vast rates when they are asset rich and income poor.
On the other hand, I think we want people to work (it seems to be the magic bullet for education, health and crime) so increasing income tax doesn’t seem like a good solution.
(Although, as an aside, everyone whines on about Australia these days, so I’d suggest a 5c increase on those above $250k – not far off what Oz does – and make a tax free bracket at the bottom.)
Increasing GST tends to hurt those on lower incomes the most so I’d rule that out.
A petrol tax would have to be vast to cover the rates.
Maybe a combination? Any ideas?
Phil, is there any indication how the Transport CCO is to be funded?
If Hide insists on appointing the majority and chair of the Board himself, I would then hope that the Board will be funded from Wellington rather than our rates.
Otherwise he will be taxing Aucklanders without providing us with representation.
Bring in a poll tax, its the only fair and democratic option. Failing the political balls to do that, one property one vote, two properties two votes……and so on.
Where is the representation in the current system?, why should a person who owns more than one property, and as such pays more than one set of rates (taxes) only being able to vote once? Under the current system, you should stop paying rates (taxes) after your first property if you are not getting more voting rights to go with it.
Because the council will affect everyone not just the land owners. The land owners should just be happy that they are lucky enough to own land.
Sweetd:
What you propose is basically a plutarchy – where the wealthy have more votes. (If someone with more land can vote twice, someone with twice as valuable a property should be able to as well – and on that basis for central government election $1 income = 1 vote.)
While I agree with your implied position that rates aren’t a fair way of gathering revenue for councils, your suggestion that more properties = more votes will put power into the hands of those with lot of properties. I know someone with over ten properties. While they may pay more RATES, they probably pay a similar amount of TAX overall as I do (including RATES) as most properties make a loss and they write-off their income against it. Giving them ten votes doesn’t seem fair, does it?
I would argue the rates system itself needs an overhaul. Wouldn’t that be a better solution?
And on a humourous note: “[The city of] Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.”
Andrew Stevenson, yep, point taken and for the most part it was in jest, but still founded in actual gripes, that is the point of fair taxation and representation. The current system is not fair, in that the more taxation you pay, the less your representation. The one man, one vote is not equal when your vote is tied to an unequal valued asset/s.
Spud, landowners should be happy they were lucky to own land? WTF, luck is when you win lotto. Working hard, saving money to buy a property is not luck. How can you not understand the difference?
I knew I had walked right into that one after I hit submit. I know they work hard. I meant to say that owning land is a great thing and that people in that position should be happy that they have land when others don’t have that pleasure. Fair call.
One Person One vote is a fundamental principal of democracy. People should not be able to vote in more elections (and thereby have twice the influence) simply because they are wealthier. From a broader economic standpoint, one could argue it adds yet another incentive to buying property, this is hardly the direction NZ should be heading in (as Government should not subsidise investment in economically unproductive areas).
Mr Twyford: Good to hear that. I will definitely be making a submission and will encourage others to do so as well. Have a good Christmas.
Developers always claim they get dudded by councils. why not give them a vote for every new subdividable block they create?