(File photo: Radio NZ)
(File photo: Radio NZ)

PoliticsApril 17, 2020

New names, new boundaries: How the electorate changes will affect you

(File photo: Radio NZ)
(File photo: Radio NZ)

The final verdict is in on how electorates will change for the 2020 election. So what’s different? And will the changes affect the place where you live?

What’s all this then?

Because the population of New Zealand isn’t normally forced to stay in exactly one place for extended periods of time, the Representation Commission changes the boundaries and the names of electorates every five years. The latest round has just been released, and will be in place for 2020.

Where are the biggest changes?

By far the biggest single change is the addition of a whole new electorate to the South of Auckland’s CBD. It will be called Takanini, after the previous suggestion of Flat Bush was rejected. The electorate will be bordered by Botany to the north, Papakura to the east, and Manurewa to the west. It will bring the total number of Auckland region electorates up to 25.

Auckland as a whole saw quite significant boundary changes as a result, with some shuffling required after Takanini was carved out. To the north, Rodney will be renamed Whangaparāoa, and will now include areas of Dairy Flat and Coatesville. The Waitākere Ranges will now be part of New Lynn in the west. Helensville will now extend into Northland, and has been renamed Kaipara ki Mahurangi. And there will also be some changes made to Mt Roskill, Maungakiekie, and Manukau East.

What about places that aren’t Auckland?

Another significant change will take place around Dunedin, which previously had two electorates – Dunedin North and South. Because of population changes, Dunedin North will now cover most of the city, and simply be called… Dunedin. A few southern bits of the city (and towns like Mosgiel) have been pulled together with more rural South Otago areas, to form the renamed electorate of Taieri.

Population growth in the Selwyn District has also resulted in significant changes for Canterbury. The Port Hills electorate will be renamed Banks Peninsula, after picking up that area from Selwyn. And Ilam, Wigram, Christchurch East and Rangitata will also be moved around a bit.

A minor change is being made to the Nelson electorate, which is losing the town of Brightwater to West-Coast Tasman – which itself was already the largest single general electorate by geographical area.

Changes are also being made in Whangārei, the Waikato region, and the Bay of Plenty region.

Is anywhere not changing?

Overall, 31 general electorates have been left unchanged. That includes the entire lower North Island too. The total number of South Island electorates has remained fixed at 16.

What about the Māori electorates?

The number will remain at seven, but boundary changes will be made to five of them. The major change is that Tāmaki Makaurau will gain area from Te Tai Tokerau and Hauraki Waikato. Minor changes have also been made in Naenae between Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and Te Tai Tonga.

How many electorate names are changing?

Here’s a full list:

And what will it mean for parliament as a whole?

It will also slightly change the balance of electorate seats to list seats in parliament – there will now be 65, with an additional seven Māori electorates, and the rest of the 120 seat parliament will be made up of list seats.

I’m annoyed about these changes. Who do I complain to?

It’s too late! There was previously a chance to complain, and that feedback was taken into account to produce these finalised versions.

I’m also confused, is there a place to see what electorate my address is in? 

Go to vote.nz and go wild in anticipation of some good old-fashioned democracy.

Keep going!
Shovel digging dirt
What shall we bury in 2020? Photo: Pixabay

PoliticsApril 14, 2020

The problem with the ‘shovel ready’ strategy for post-Covid-19 rebuild

Shovel digging dirt
What shall we bury in 2020? Photo: Pixabay

The public health response to Covid-19 showed New Zealand at its best. What will the economic response reveal? Iain White, a professor of environmental planning, on the risks ahead.

Crises reveal. They bring the nature of societies to light. From the differing attitude to experts between countries, to who really are the essential workers, to the spatial inequalities in health care provision or access to greenspace.

Crises also change our perception of time. Just as days will feel like decades for some, so too, will decades worth of decisions be determined in a matter of days. The recent government call for “shovel ready” infrastructure projects to kickstart the recovery promises a scale of investment that holds real potential to transform our towns and cities.

Everything is happening at once. We have a once in a generation pandemic and a once in a generation investment. But just as our response to the public health crisis revealed much about what is good in New Zealand, what will our response to the economic crisis reveal?

There is no doubt that state investment in infrastructure is needed, but there is a lot of devil in the detail. Targeting shovel ready projects tends to reveal the direction and support governments have been giving local authorities over the last decade. If, as has been the case, there has been a clear mandate to supply the pipes, roads, and so on to support local urban growth, but without enough central government funds, then we can expect a raft of unfunded infrastructure projects to be submitted as opportunity beckons.

Like surfers waiting for the next big wave, some ideas have been bobbing around for a while but have been neither compelling nor affordable enough. Other ideas are being brought forward. There may be new, exciting projects too, such as those associated with more emergent policy directions, like zero carbon or wellbeing, but these will be in the minority. Projects take a while to get shovel ready. They need political support, budgets in Long Term Plans, and perhaps even a lot of initial design work already done. There is a lag.

Beyond the ideas themselves, the people helping shortlist and make sense of the relative merit of proposals are crucial. In this case it is the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group. There will no doubt be a huge amount of experience, but any ranking is inherently subjective. Just as James Shaw and Simon Bridges may rank the same projects differently, so would an engineer or a planner, or a CEO or an academic.

Attaching numbers to projects can help. Typically the jobs created or results of a formal Business Investment Case, but numbers are political. They favour ideas with established calculative processes and competencies. In New Zealand we can easily provide evidence on roads or pipes, while things like wellbeing, the arts, cycling, or the future impacts of climate change are more intangible. This is partly due to previous decisions in science and evidence, and partly how allocate value in decision making processes.

The criteria by which these will be evaluated also raises question marks. The four criteria to aid selection says projects must relate to infrastructure, have construction readiness, be of a significant size that creates jobs, and a broad catch-all consideration of benefits and risks.

There is no mention of the once in a generation investment seeking to remedy the urban planning failures of the past, or adapting to the challenges of the future. No mention of climate change. No mention of the need to transition our economy away from fossil fuels. No mention of redistributing investment to the regions. While many projects will be laudable, collectively they will be fragmented and disconnected from a wider strategic vision for New Zealand.

Recovery also doesn’t have to be about infrastructure. Germany is investing €50bn in arts led regeneration. The arts traditionally struggle to demonstrate ‘job creation’ and so would score poorly in exercises like this, but the societal value of art and culture has never been so apparent than during a lockdown.

By definition, today’s shovel ready project is yesterday’s idea. The key questions are how long ago and whether the criteria and processes favour certain types of projects over others. You would hope that when the report from the Reference Group summarising the benefits of particular projects gets to Ministers that these wider, strategic issues of vision, integration, or transition would come to the fore, but projects that do not fit this criteria may have already been deemed as poor investments.

We are already seeing a lot of different hot takes about what the recovery will mean for towns and cities, the way we move, the role of technology, or the way we live. If there are lessons from previous crises — whether financial or environmental — it’s that crises don’t necessarily lead to any particular “lessons” learned.

Crises are better understood as opening up new political spaces. Spaces that can be occupied by various ideas or groups, and where those who already hold power tend to wield significant influence. As with businesses, we are more likely to bailout existing ideas than invest in new ones.

Currently countries and citizens from around the world are looking at the expert-led public health response to Covid-19 pandemic in New Zealand as a model approach. I’d challenge the government to elevate our economic recovery to that high level too. This is an absolutely pivotal moment for urban planning. Investment of this nature is needed, but it is rare and we need to get it right.

Infrastructure has an effect that stretches beyond the creation of jobs; it shapes behaviour and influences our quality of life for decades. We need to balance objective numbers with subjective values, incorporate views of those beyond the narrow Infrastructure Industry Reference Group, and consider these diverse projects within the context of a more progressive, integrated vision for long-term planning New Zealand.

Our responses to the economic crisis will reveal much. Are we reproducing the past or using this once in a generation investment to transition to a different future?

Politics