This year it’s the first time in 47 years I haven’t been involved in a local body election campaign. For years I was just a helper and door knocker for candidates, then as a candidate, then involved behind the scenes with people’s campaigns. Now I’m not.
There are some candidates I support this year. I will make that clear closer to the voting papers coming out. As a candidate your mind is only on the campaign and you forget that virtually no voters are thinking about who they may, or may not, vote for yet. I want to raise the debate above the weeds which is where weak candidates want the debate to take place.
I challenge you, the reader and voter, to quietly reflect on some issues. Some candidates conduct stupid campaigns on how many parks there should be for the disabled, or are against bus lanes, or cycleways. All these are part of a bigger picture, but they are down in the weeds. We need strategic thinking elected reps who can make the big decisions.
The biggest issue locally is that we have, in my opinion, is a government with the worst attitude toward local government in my lifetime. There has been virtually not a squeak out of our mayor on the beatings inflicted on local government time after time. He either likes a beating, or he basically agrees with what this government is inflicting on us all. I hope it’s the former.
I’ll go through some issues which come to mind which I would expect to be covered in this campaign.
1. Constant intervention in local affairs by a government which promised localism.
I haven’t heard a murmur locally from CCC about what is being imposed on them by central government. It puzzles me why. In this article the mayor of Auckland quite rightly responded bashing the government up on a topic also being faced by Christchurch and every other council. The article is here ‘Insulted’ Wayne Brown and council tell Govt to stick its local government reform – Newsroom. In this article it was reported:
Auckland Council responded, “The policy and planning committee oppose this bill as it does not adequately acknowledge that Auckland Council has special legislation that applies to Auckland Council and any new legislation that affects Auckland Council to this degree should be negotiated with us in partnership.” The partnership wording plays back to the Government its own reputed desire to have Auckland Council support its initiatives in housing, infrastructure and planning reforms – and in an upcoming City Regional Deal.
Under this article I gave my response in the comments section
The real issue is that few central government politicians and even fewer central government bureaucrats understand local government. The issues facing Auckland are the same for every local authority in NZ. Central government doesn’t pay rates on their properties and charges a tax on a tax (GST on rates). Central government constantly change policies which local government must fund. A good example was the inexperienced and doctrinal Transport Minister Simeon Brown raising speed limits. This caused the Christchurch City Council rates to increase by 1%, and that’s just one dangerous decision. I met with the current Minister of Local Government in an underwhelming session before the last election. He has lived up to my observation at the time. He has little understanding of local government and happily uses it as a punching bag. Remember the rest of NZ, Auckland, we all have a common problem. This current government.
I still haven’t heard anything from our mayor, or councillors, on this topic. Have our city leaders become National Party sycophants?
2. Where are the voices calling for employment initiatives:
Currently we have 6600 young people under 25 not in work, or training. In the latest statistics as of June there are over 20,000 people unemployed in Canterbury. These numbers are worrying and who in our political network is raising this and encouraging debate about active solutions and challenging government on the lack of solutions.
3. The role of CCHL
This valuable resource only exists because generations of local body politicians, of all political persuasions, have cared for, and grown the portfolio. These assets exist to reinforce economic growth in our city and to retain local accountability. Most NZ councils have sold their assets over the years and have nothing to show for the sale proceeds. One dream of mine would be for CCHL to establish a “Ports Authority”. This would be our seaport, our airport and our data port. This model was used by our Sister City, Seattle to promote a partnership between the commonly owned city assets and those in the city who wished to trade with the world, and externally with other businesses trading with businesses in Seattle. We could do the same.
I have been concerned recently with Councillors interfering with CCHL companies. They should be setting expectations of performance and leave the monitoring to CCHL and the delivery of results to the directors of the trading enterprises.
Every candidate should be asked do they support the current structure of CCHL and if they would sell shares. I have read one candidate, who has already been a councillor, saying he believed that retaining 51% of the shares would be sufficient. John Key, who worked with this candidate in merchant banking, told the people of NZ that retaining 51% of the shares in our electricity companies would lower power prices. Think about that when you look at your power bill.
If a candidate says they would agree to asset sales, don’t vote for them. Don’t get fooled about the debt. There’s $6b of assets and $2.4b of debt. That’s not a financially stressed portfolio.
4. ChristchurchNZ:
This agency has had a Section 17A review undertaken on it. Here is a link to the report Final s.17A Report 7 July 2025.pdf.
This agency is very expensive and future councillors need to seriously consider this review and action it. It’s time to expect proper economic development which leads to real jobs being created for the good of our economy.
I sat on the Board on CDC, which was the predecessor of ChristchurchNZ, for 15 years. In that time we founded the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs which mopped up the thousands of young people out of work; we supported the Pratt & Whitney engine centre moving to NZ which led to 350 highly paid engineering jobs, and is about to expand to 600 jobs; we brought our fibre optic network Enable to Christchurch with assistance from our Seattle sister city economic development agency; we supported businesses in trouble through Company Rebuilders; we worked alongside our universities to bring new products to the market; we promoted partnerships with all sectors to ensure this was a collaborative city economically. The agency was seen as a valuable tool in the economic growth of our city leading to thousands of jobs.
ChristchurchNZ needs to be pulled apart and the functioning parts placed where they can add value. The first thing I would do would move their H/Q into somewhere where it is amongst the business sector of Christchurch and not amongst bankers and lawyers where they are now. This agency should cost a lot less money than it does now.
5. Voice for the voiceless:
The glue of society resides inside community agencies which address the needs of those struggling in society. Central government agencies in Wellington are gutting the funding needed for these agencies to survive. This is a difficult area and Christchurch needs advocates who take on the government on this front. Our elected reps need to be seen alongside the many people from these agencies who often feel helpless and empower and support them.
We have a housing crisis regarding homelessness. Unless I’m reading the wrong things few elected reps comment on this concerning indication of a lack of love in our economy.
6. Voice for the South Island:
This city is the second largest city in NZ. It is the South Island’s largest city. Government resources are increasingly focused on the North Island. Christchurch must become, again, the voice and spokesperson for the South Island tribe. Otherwise, we will be forgotten.
7. Preparation for Local Government reform:
It’s inevitable that reform is on hand. Instead of waiting for central government to impose on us locally we must be proactive and work together to develop a framework which reflects local needs. Candidates need to be asked what their opinions are on this topic. We must consider do we want a greater Christchurch council which embraces Ecan, Selwyn and Waimakariri districts and CCC, or what is the alternative.
8. Appointment of a new CE:
This council has made decisions in the past which have not proved to be successful (I’m in a charitable mood) and Mary Richardson has restored some sense of order from the chaos she inherited. One of the first tasks for the new Council will be to undertake an appointment process which continues Mary’s great work. Too often I watch poor decisions by Councils around NZ and wonder about how good the advice the elected reps received.
Christchurch needs to appoint a good old fashioned Town Clerk.
In conclusion:
When I left the Mayoralty the support for CCC in polling was at 79% acceptance by the ratepayers. The challenge for the new council is to strive to get to that level, and pass it preferably, again.
Over the next few weeks, I will flesh out more thoughts on this list and matters I have forgotten, and comment on some of the candidates.
Leave a Reply