Auckland too big to ignore
Afew months ago, I took a Friday business trip to Auckland. Our 4-year-old had never been on an aeroplane before and was very keen to come along. So I flew up in the morning and the boy and his mother came up that night and we spent a few days in New Zealand’s largest city.
I go to Auckland every now and then but almost always for a specific purpose (usually the airport). The trip is usually a transactional affair that involves getting there, doing whatever needs doing, and returning home. This is the first time in a long time that I’d spent any time wandering around the place.
We went up the Sky Tower, which was exciting for the boy. It was something I had done with my own parents when I was little and it was nice to pass on the experience.
Being so high up, however, meant being able to see the city sprawl in all directions. As far as the eye could see, there were buildings and houses. No square inch of land seemed to be spared.
It really hit home for me just how different Auckland is from everywhere else. As a centre of population and commerce, there is really nothing on the same plane of existence in New Zealand. It is in a class of its own.
Given this outsized role in our national life, it’s hard to see how Auckland’s politics can avoid becoming nationalised to a degree. That’s not to say that elections there won’t primarily be about local issues, of course. But central government parties may find themselves more drawn into the orbit of what is going on up there.
New Zealanders don’t have a strong tradition of major party involvement at the local politics level. Auckland, of course, has been the most receptive to ‘‘partisan’’ politics with an enduring history of local tickets like the Right-leaning ‘‘Citizens and Residents’’ and the Left-leaning ‘‘City Vision’’. That’s not quite the same thing.
In recent years, however, the Labour Party seems to have been more willing to involve itself in local government and ran and endorsed candidates in a number of races in the 2016 elections.
National has been reluctant to follow suit. There are plenty of councillors around the country who are sympathetic to National and its aims, of course. But there are no ‘‘National Party’’ councillors in New Zealand.
There are good reasons for this. The party’s internal resources could be stretched if headquarters had to supervise local government candidates in addition to its parliamentary ones. Then there is the potential for local interests to diverge from the national agenda, setting up difficulties with internal discipline.
This forbearance has negative ramifications for the Centre-Right, quite naturally, since it denies candidates the benefit of competing under the wellrecognised National brand. If Labour appears quite willing to confer its credibility on like-minded local candidates, then it could become a serious disadvantage.
Outside the super city, of course, the cities and districts are relatively small. In Auckland, however, the council serves a population larger than any other in Australasia. It spends about $3 billion every year and employs an army of about
10,000 fulltime employees. As I said, it’s a whole different plane of existence.
If National decides to end unilateral disarmament but remains unconvinced about being directly involved, it could at least seek to emulate Labour’s approach to the Auckland mayoralty.
Since the Auckland Council was created in 2010, it has had two mayors, Len Brown and Phil Goff. Both of them have plain and relatively open connections to the Labour Party but they also ran as nominal independents.
When Goff stood in 2016, he was a former Labour leader and the member of Parliament for Mt Roskill. It was only after he won the mayoralty that he resigned his seat in Wellington. Whether or not ‘‘Labour’’ was on the ticket, his substantive affiliation was known to all concerned.
So it was interesting to see National MP Simon O’Connor indicate that he is interested in running against Goff next year. Representing Tamaki, he captured 61.53 per cent of the vote and held a majority of more than 15,000. If O’Connor was to run as an independent, while remaining an MP, he would do so from an established power base and with at least some of the goodwill attached to the National brand.
2019 may present a real opportunity for National in Auckland. The mayor is elected by the first-past-the-post method, which means that you don’t need a majority to win office. If Goff is challenged by his former Cabinet colleague John Tamihere, as has been suggested, then a Nationalaligned candidate would have a real chance of winning in a divided field.
Perhaps there are other strategies. As anybody looking out the Sky Tower’s observation deck would conclude, however, doing nothing is not an option. Auckland is simply too big a prize to leave on the table.
Raymond Anderson, Hamilton
It really hit home for me just how different Auckland is from everywhere else. As a centre of population and commerce, there is really nothing on the same plane of existence in New Zealand.
editor@waikatotimes.co.nz, or the Editor, Waikato Times, Private Bag 3086, Hamilton, 3240. Letters may be edited or rejected. Letters should be no longer than 200 words and a name, postal address and phone number must be provided. Pen names are not accepted.