By Kathryn Ennis-Carter (Governance and Public Management Consultant)
The result of the local government elections in October 2025 appears to be a ‘mixed bag’ and is still being analysed for trends and significance. During the campaign there was evidence of some consistent themes across the country, including push-back against high rates increases, perceptions of wasteful spending and bureaucratic over-reach and resistance to (or support for) ‘woke agendas’ ranging from Drag Queen story-telling in libraries to perceptions of radicalised climate change action. In some districts there appears to have been a definite move for change, with sitting Mayors and Councillors losing their seats. But in other cities/districts where change might have been predicted in line with the above concerns, many ‘status quo’ Mayors and Councillors have remained. Why?
One explanation much mentioned is low voter turnout – less than 50% pretty much everywhere, with the average settling around 40%. Low voter turnout has historically been a feature of local government elections. But commentators have speculated about the reasons why that was repeated again this year, even with an increased decline in voter turnout in many areas, despite evidence of growing ratepayer concerns about how councils are operating.
In the context of general apathy, most people operate on the basis that ‘politics’ is largely nothing to do with them. They (mostly) turn out to vote at general elections, and (mostly) engage in a three-yearly tennis match of bouncing between the two centre-left or centre-right main parties, without much delving into the detail of political policy choices. Local government has traditionally been perceived as an even lesser priority than central government. As a result many people have been relatively disinterested and mostly happy to trust councils to get on with delivering basic community services, without the public having to get too exercised about voting.
In addition to general apathy however, some commentators have noted an increasing ‘opt out in disillusionment’ phenomenon, arising from an increasing lack of trust in government generally. There is indication that there is an escalating percentage of people who think there is little point in voting – based on an increased sense of resignation that politicians will do what they want anyway, regardless of what communities think or want. Similarly, while local councils are increasingly being perceived as corporate juggernauts indulging in bureaucratic over-reach, there is also a perception that the public can do little or nothing about it – so why bother?
All of the above reasons have validity in both anecdotal observation and statistical evidence. However, there is another reason for the low voter turnout – which is that there is much to indicate that a significant number of people do not understand our systems of governance, both at central and local government level. People will not participate actively in what they don’t understand. Therefore the ‘opt out’ and ‘politics isn’t my thing’ responses are predictably increasing.
Ultimately this is a failure of education, as well as a failure of governance.
New Zealand does not have ‘civics’ education in schools – as in America, for example. As a result, most of our young people leave secondary school and even tertiary level education without much of a clue about either the principles of our constitutional system of democracy and governance, or how government actually works in practical terms. This is a tragedy, because leaving people without a confident understanding of how governance should work undermines confidence in how the public can influence government and be involved in holding government to account. It also leaves people frustrated in not understanding the extent to which some issues are systemic and not immediately within the control of any new bunch of politicians to jump to and change things the moment their behinds hit the Parliamentary benches.
This goes beyond the fact that most people think that what takes place in Parliament is what the media shows them – shouting matches across the benches at Question Time and the fun and games of Green Party accusations and hakas and protests orchestrated by Te Pati Maori. There have been notable recent examples where even leaders in the political domain (who should know better) or so-called ‘political commentators’ in the media have demonstrated that they do not understand the basics of our constitutional and government systems and institutional arrangements.
A short article/blog statement written by John Tamihere has recently been doing the rounds on social media. In this meme, Tamihere wails that the current Government is ‘wiping away half a century of hard-won progress Maori have made within this country’s constitutional system’. He complains that the Government is ‘using the machinery of regulation to reassert political dominance over the courts’ and questions whether Court decisions should be able to be changed on the basis of ‘who has the numbers’ in Parliament.
Sorry John – that’s the system. Governance in a democracy is essentially a system of law and order, actioned via the three branches of government. Many people are not aware of what these branches are – the Legislature (Parliament), the Executive (the public service) and the Judiciary (the Courts and the justice system). In our Westminster constitutional system, Parliament makes the law, the Executive implements the law and the Judiciary interprets the law. And in this system, Parliament is supreme. ‘Regulation’ is the business of Parliament, via the process of reviewing proposed new legislation, making amendments to existing legislation and repealing other legislation. Therefore no decision or ruling by the Courts is sacrosanct – Parliament can at any time overturn it, change it or redirect it through the boring process of ‘regulation’, which yes, depends on ‘who has the numbers’.
So if you don’t like it John, go to the United States, where the founding fathers set up the three Branches of Government as equal, with checks and balances in their interaction, and where the President’s role is head of the Executive and the Judiciary (at all levels) can formally challenge decisions and actions of both the Congress and the Executive. This results in considerable blockages which are inherent in the system. This explains why the Government (public service) can be shut down if the Congress doesn’t approve the Budget put forward by the President.
During the 2023 general election campaign in New Zealand, it became clear that many people still do not understand the basic mechanics of our MMP voting system. In some quarters there was a discussion and aggravation about ‘wasted votes’, when people realised that if the Party they had voted for did not make the 5% threshold, those votes were re-allocated among the Parties that did, on a pro-rata basis reflecting the proportional distribution of voting.
The same confusions exist in relation to local government. During the 2025 local government election, it became clear to many who were working with various ratepayer and residents’ groups that many people had trouble understanding the local government voting system. Many voters appeared to struggle in understanding the system of wards and district-wide councillors and how to exercise their vote in that regard. Some people were even unclear who ‘the staff’ are, and the difference in roles and responsibilities between elected members and staff.
And for those Councils which use the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, many people did not understand the concept of ranking of candidates and how ranking of all candidates could result in their votes being ‘re-allocated’ to people who might be their least preferred candidates.
It is also clear that many people do not understand the mechanisms built into the system for citizens to participate in governance between elections through the process of making submissions to Select Committees considering various legislation. At central government level, the general pattern on numbers of submissions on various subjects is usually less than 10,000 (that is, less than 0.2% of the adult voting public). That trend generally only varies when the media has significantly featured the issue – such as the Treaty Principles Bill. Many people simply do not know how to make submissions, write to Cabinet Ministers or otherwise take part in governance processes other than voting every three years.
At local government level, the number of submissions to Council and participation in Council ‘consultation’ is abysmally even lower – unless, again, there is a community issue that has attracted a lot of media coverage.
And most recently, when the Government announced planned changes to regional councils, it became abundantly clear that many people do not understand the functions of regional councils at all, including media commentators who were obviously floundering in presenting what the changes might mean. Again, it became clear that many in the general public do not even realise how they are paying for regional councils through their rates paid to city and district councils.
So what is the reason why our national education system has failed to educate decades of students about the governance system that we are all a part of and which affects all of us?
Some would cynically say that it’s because an un-educated population is a compliant and politically inactive population. Or maybe it’s just laziness and lack of political awareness on the part of the education sector in making civics education part of the basic curriculum. Or perhaps it’s just more interesting for teachers to send kids out on climate change protests than it is to educate them about our governance system and the realities of how to really influence government decisions.
The John Tamihere “turns back the clock fifty years” meme post has been circulated on Facebook since 15 October 2025
(The version below has been copied from Facebook on 04 December 2025) https://www.facebook.com/groups/aotearoanzhistory/posts/1341803680975324/
Turning Us Back 50 Years
We’re standing in one of the most dangerous moments in modern Aotearoa and not enough people are calling it for what it is: theft.
Not just of the foreshore and seabed, but of rights, justice, and constitutional integrity.
The Theft of Foreshore and Seabed Rights and Regulatory Standards Bill now before the House is being sold as “tidy regulation.” But make no mistake this is the real play. The Trojan horse.
While everyone’s been watching the Treaty Principles Bill and its open attack on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, this new Bill has slipped quietly into the chamber doing the same job, only in silence.
It’s designed to strip Māori rights, disempower the courts, and centralise power back into Parliament.
And in doing so, it turns back the clock fifty years , wiping away half a century of hard-won progress Māori have made within this country’s constitutional system.
When Politics Replaces Justice
For decades, Māori have played by the rules of this nation’s constitution.
We’ve taken our grievances to court, not to the streets. We’ve worked through the Waitangi Tribunal, through negotiation, and through law, step by step, generation by generation.
We were told that was the right way.
We trusted the system.
From the 1987 Lands Case that defined the Treaty partnership, to the Supreme Court’s recognition of Māori customary interests in the foreshore and seabed, Māori upheld the rule of law.
But now, a Government that preaches “standards” and “regulatory reform” wants to tear that system apart, to make the courts irrelevant, and to give itself the final say over rights that aren’t theirs to control.
That isn’t democracy. It’s a power grab dressed up as policy.
We’ve Seen This Before And We Have Learned From It
We’ve seen this before, I’ve seen this before. In 2004, I was part of the Labour Government that passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act. It was a tough and painful political moment of my career because it showed how easily the system can turn its back on Māori rights in the name of “certainty.”
I saw up close how political power can override justice, how decisions made in Wellington can tear at the heart of Māori trust, and how fast progress can be undone when fear replaces fairness.
That experience taught me one thing: never again.
Never again should any Government, red, blue, or any colour in between have the power to take away Māori rights by decree.
Never again should we let “public good” be used as the excuse for confiscation.
Never again should Māori be told to trust a process that was never built for us in the first place.
So when I say what’s happening now turns us back 50 years , I know, because I was there when it happened the first time.
The Trojan Horse Of 2025
The Treaty Principles Bill got the headlines. It was the lightning rod, designed to stir division and dominate debate.
But this Regulatory Standards Bill is the Trojan horse quietly moving through Parliament. It buries the same agenda in bureaucratic language, using the machinery of “regulation” to reassert political dominance over the courts.
Here’s what it does:
It gives Parliament the power to override judicial interpretations of Māori rights.
It shifts constitutional balance away from the Supreme Court and back into ministerial discretion.
It replaces justice with process, and rights with rules written by those in power.
This is not reform, it’s regression.
And it’s happening under the radar, through language that sounds reasonable but carries the same poison that fuelled the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004.
Fifty Years Of Incrementalism, Erased In Months
For half a century, Māori have played the long game.
We’ve worked within the system, not outside it.
We’ve used the law to affirm what’s rightfully ours , our whenua, our moana, our reo, our tino rangatiratanga.
Every case, every claim, every settlement, built on good faith and respect for process.
That’s 50 years of careful, patient, constitutional maturity.
Now, all of it is being turned over in a matter of months.
The message from this Government is clear: Māori can participate in the system, but only so long as we don’t succeed in changing it.
The moment Māori progress becomes real , the moment it rebalances power, the rules are rewritten.
That’s not partnership. That’s punishment.
Why It Matters For Everyone
Don’t be fooled into thinking this is just a Māori issue.
This is a New Zealand issue.
Because if a government can wipe away judicial decisions, override rights, and control the courts through regulation , then nobody’s rights are safe.
The same arrogance that takes Māori rights today will come for others tomorrow.
The same disregard for the Supreme Court today will erode democracy for everyone tomorrow.
When power is centralised in politics, freedom becomes conditional.
And that’s not the Aotearoa we’ve spent generations building.
The Real Question
Who decides what is just and fair in this country, Parliament, or the people?
The Courts, or the Cabinet?
If the answer is “whoever has the numbers in Parliament,” then Aotearoa is no longer a democracy built on rights. It becomes a country where justice bends to political will.
We’ve come too far to let that happen.
Ww Will Not Go Back
This isn’t just about coastlines, it’s about our constitution, our mana, and our future.
We will not go back 50 years.
We will not let the hard-won gains of our people be undone by those who mistake control for leadership.
We’ve built this nation together , Māori and non-Māori alike. And true partnership means neither side has the right to silence the other.
The foreshore and seabed belong to all of us, but “all” includes Māori.
Partnership is not theft. Justice is not optional.
If they insist on turning the clock back, we’ll stand again as we did in 2004.
Because this time, we know exactly what’s at stake.
You can regulate everything but mana.
You can legislate everything but whakapapa.
And you cannot write Te Tiriti o Waitangi out of the story of this land.
We will not go back.
– John Tamihere, President Te Pāti Māori
[The content of any Opinion pieces represents the views of the author and the accuracy of any content in a post labelled Opinion is the responsibility of the author. Posting of this Opinion content on the CityWatch NZ website does not necessarily constitute endorsement of those views by CityWatch NZ or its editors. CityWatch NZ functions to provide information and a range of different perspectives on New Zealand’s cities and local councils. If you disagree with or dispute the content, CityWatch NZ can pass that feedback on to the author. Send an email to feedback@citywatchnz.org and clearly identify the content and the issue.]
Further reading on this issue:
OPINION: Regional Council Reforms Should Focus on Reducing Bureaucracy not Reducing Democracy
