Parts of the Job Part 1 - Decision-making meetings (Nominate 2016)

Part of the series Nominate 2016, hoping to open up local government a bit so y'all will at least think about running in 2016.  

There are many parts to the role of an elected member in local government in Aotearoa New Zealand, and I hope to get through the ones I consider most important over time.  First up I'm going to focus on what is sometimes referred to as "the shop front" - decision-making meetings.

Skills you need to be effective:
As you read through this list don't be put off.  You will likely already do a lot of this in other contexts (I'll suggest some in brackets) and if not then with commitment and application you can learn much of it.  These aren't ranked numerically, the numbers are more for discussion reference if you want me or others to expand on that point.

1. Listening (bet you do that lots already)
2. Reading (you're doing that now!)
3. Analysing and thinking critically (the best analogy I have come up with is spotting plot holes.  If you are the kind of person who notices them, and is at least a bit irked, then you can probably do this already)
4. Asking good questions, and good follow-up questions (what a good question is will depend a bit on context - but in this case I'm talking about asking questions to enlighten you and others in the room, not to score points, but to progress the discussion.  You will likely already do this a lot in low level conflict resolution, eg with family members: "I heard you say you don't like it when I fart in bed, does that mean you also don't like it when I burp in bed?"  "Hmmm, what about if I did it silently?")
5. Controlling your own reactions (Not to the point of being a mask, but enough that you don't butt in or derail things.  Just like any family gathering really, or parenting, or probably some of the meetings you go to in other contexts)
6. Actually wanting to do this, or at least being able to pretend that you want to (people can tell really easily if you don't want to be there and that's not really good enough for democracy imho, see also Fairey's Theory of Awesomeness.  You don't have to love every minute but you need to be into it enough to do it properly)
7. Verbally articulate your views honestly, clearly, succintly (another one you do a lot in writing already especially if you spend much time on Twitter, a five minute opportunity to state your opinion seems excessive after 140 characters!  And this is something you can learn to get better at too, starting with writing up what you want to say, practicising [which I do in the car and the shower often].  To start with it is enough to be able to say, before the actual vote, "I will be voting this way because X" and you can totally do that.)
8. Debate, somewhat.  (This is the scariest one for most people, but the reality of standing orders [the rules for the meetings] is that the kind of cut and thrust back and forth debate people imagine is actually quite rare.  Usually it is more a case of putting forward your views [as in 7] and then others may put forward opposing ones, and then sometimes you get a chance to reply [which is like updating your 7] but often you don't during the meeting itself.  A lot of debate happens through other forums which is both a plus [allows for less formality, more reconsideration of positions, time to come back to it after thinking and getting more information] and a minus [not always transparent to the public as it ought to be])
9. Vote.  (Either raising your voice to say a single word at the appropriate moment, or indicating by hand or on a ballot - you do that for reality TV, you do that for the general election, you have totally got this one already).

There are other skills I could mention too that make the work at decision-making meetings effective away from that table, but I'll cover those elsewhere in the series.  

Names for decision-making meetings:

• Business meetings
• Public meetings (not to be confused with actual public meetings, ie meetings called by someone / some group to discuss X and not usually empowered to make formal decisions)
• Board meetings (eg Community Board, Local Board, District Health Board, Board of Trustees)
• Council meetings
• Committee meetings (eg Auckland Development Committee, Funding Grants Committee)
• Monthly meetings (although some bodies meet more or less frequently so might call them something else that reflects time frame)
• Committee of the Whole (aka COWs, yes COWs - usually a committee that includes all the elected members of an authority, not a subset)
• Governing Body meeting

Don't let the plethora of names put you off.  In Local Government these meetings generally follow similar formats even if they have different names, and some of them will be the exact same meeting referred to slightly differently by different people, eg all of the above bullet points could be used to describe the Puketapapa Local Board decision-making meetings, except for the last one.  


Time commitment:
This varies greatly from body to body.  It is the key thing you need to be able to commit to doing most if not all of the time, so you need to suss it out carefully.  For the Board I'm on we usually meet one evening per month for up to four hours.  Occasionally we have gone longer, usually we go between three and four hours. 

I advise checking out some of the minutes from the body you are considering running for to get a sense of how often they meet and how long the meetings go for.  Going to these is absolutely crucial; you are a human being, so don't think you have to be at every minute of every one, but going in you should be looking to try, and to either actively want to or be prepared to.  More about my views on how politicians aren't robots when it comes to decision-making meetings here (2011 post).

  

Format and culture of the meetings:

Again this will vary.  My observations to date (almost exclusively in Auckland) have been that they are reasonably formal, ie there will be someone chairing and they will have a set of rules they run the meeting by (sometimes needing to check with staff for what is and isn't in the rules), often people will not use first names or use titles (Member Smith, Councillor Henare, Your Worship), there will be a place for the decision-makers and their staff and another place for everyone else, those kinds of things.  Most other parts of the role run less formally, some much less formally, than this bit.  

The culture is set by the group, and led by the person chairing to a certain extent.  These are things you can work on consciously away from the meetings themselves too, so how you start doesn't have to be how things always are.  And how they are now, if you go watch one (which is a good idea) isn't necessarily how they might be with different people at the table.  You'd be surprised how much even changing one or two people can change things.  

The format of the meetings is laid out in the standing orders (rules) for that body.  Items covered will include (not necessarily in this order but often):

• Welcome - sometimes a prayer or message to start the meeting, sometimes just literally "welcome"
• Introductions - usually part of the welcome, letting those watching know who is at the decision-making table very briefly by name and role
• Apologies - who isn't there and why - this is usually voted on for accepting or not (and usually accepted)
• Minutes of previous meeting - in some bodies this will involve scrutinising the past minutes to find any errors, but in local government that is done away from the table before the meeting, so this is usually v quickly accepted too
• Public input - there are a number of formats for this:
• Petitions - actual presentation of an actual petition, with signatures and stuff
• Deputations - longish presentation allowed, followed by questions and sometimes discussion
• Public forum - short presentation allowed, followed by questions and sometimes discussion
• Elected member reports - there are lots of different approaches to doing this, some bodies don't do them at all, others do written ones, some allow resolutions (decisions to be voted on), many are verbal updates.  In another post I'll write about how I do it, and other stuff I've seen, as I see this as an important part of the democratic part of the role, but be aware YMMV greatly.
• Notices of Motion - these are motions (resolutions) that have come directly from elected members and are usually to get a decision on a political matter.  Notices of Motion I have done included seeking a Board position on the Sky City Convention Centre deal, Living Wage and strongly supporting local board input to resource consenting.  Lots of people don't seem to use these much.
• Agenda reports - these are written by staff (council officers) who are subject matter experts and generally give information and advice and then state recommendations (proposed resolutions/motions) for the decision-makers to debate, change and vote on.  This will form the bulk of the meeting items.  Some items will come up every month (eg we get a montly report from Auckland Transport), others on a regular cycle (six monthly update from Panuku Development Auckland, annual parks renewals work programme), and some in response to earlier resolutions asking for that report so you can then make some formal decisions on a matter.  Check out some agendas to get an idea - sometimes the longest reports actually have the short decisions as they will be providing a lot of background information or updates that don't require political input.  You get good at working out what you do and don't need to read closely.
• Administrative items - these will vary from body to body, but may include accepting workshop records (who was there, topics discussed), noting when the next meeting will be, passing the progress of the list of resolutions or action items from past meetings.
• Confidential items - these will usually be at the end of a meeting (for practicality) and may involve commercial sensitivity but most commonly so far in my experience they have been about giving input on things that can't be discussed publicly yet (because the price would go up, or someone might demolish a building, or there is a legal issue).  This is sometimes referred to as "in committee".

For more information on how these can work the body involved will have past minutes and agendas up online.  For example the Auckland Council ones are here (don't be dismayed if things take a while to load, that's not unusual!).

TL;DR
Decision-making meetings are the shop front of the job, not the only important part but definitely one of the most important parts.  You need to be committed to doing them.  Pretty much all the skills you will need to start with are transferable, ie you probably already have them in other parts of your life, eg parenting, other paid work, voluntary commitments.  Don't be scared of this bit, you can do it!

Fairey's Theory of Awesomeness (Nominate 2016)

Part of the series Nominate 2016, hoping to open up local government a bit so y'all will at least think about running in 2016.  

Fairey's Theory of Awesomeness

Some elected people think they have been elected because they are awesome.  For those who think this, all they will likely do, once elected, is continue to radiate their awesomeness.  Avoid members of Team Awesome; please don't be one and please don't vote for one.

I've noticed there are really two main kinds of people who are politicians, by which I mean elected people like me.  There are those who think they are elected because they are awesome, and those who have a broader understanding of why they are elected and what the role is.  In my opinion you do not want to vote for the former, and if you run you do not want to be the former either.  

How can you pick who is on Team Awesome?

Those on Team Awesome will of course differ in their individual practice but can often be discerned by markers such as:

• Low attendance at meetings, briefings and the like that are part of the elected role, particularly if formal minutes are not being taken or the public are not present and/or it is a consultation process where listening and answering questions is key - why would they need to go, they already know how to be awesome!
• Often very quick responses to public scrutiny such as angry constituent emails, but then no actual follow through on the issue raised - the very fact that they have shared their awesomeness with you by replying is sufficient!
• A lack of detail in their reporting, or possibly even just no reporting at all - they don't need to prove their awesomeness to anyone, yo, it is self-evident.
• Confusion between governance and management/operational and also potentially quite a removed idea of governance - their role is to be awesome, that's it!
• Good blurb and soundbites - because of the awesomeness!
• Inability to have a detailed dialogue about an issue beyond soundbites - detail and knowledge is for people who aren't awesome!
• Few completed projects, few if any with much complexity - the awesomeness does not fit well with persistence and consistency, two qualities essential to getting projects done in a democratic environment, sadface.

If you think the above is acceptable once you are elected then please don't run.  This isn't what being a politican is.  For some posts I wrote much earlier (2013) on what being a politician is and can be see here and here.  I'll be revisiting that theme later in this series.

Why does it matter?

Sadly some do operate on the basis of their own awesomeness, and often times they get re-elected too, and they not only give all politicians a bad name, more importantly they fundamentally undermine what can be achieved through the democratic process.  They short change constituents by having a limited vision of the role, of what local government can achieve, and also by spending the time and resources they have access to on being awesome instead of Getting Stuff Done.  (More on what Getting Stuff Done can look like in another post!)  Often they get in the way of people who are trying to get on with the Getting Stuff Done, sometimes deliberately (especially if they are a small government advocate I have found, aka a small c conservative), sometimes accidentally by diverting attention and resources, and other times by the sheer amount of will to live they suck out of other people around them.

TLDR:  It is better to get awesome stuff done than to be seen to be awesome.  If you care about this and want to be involved in making it better then nominate, if you want to be awesome then find somewhere else to do that please. 

Nominate 2016 - A series of posts encouraging you to run for local government

Hello there folks,
I am intending to write a series of posts about local government politics, with the aim of enlightening and also encouraging people, particularly the kind of people who read this blog, to run for the 2016 local government elections.

Why?  Well it is a great opportunity to work with others to make change in your community and your region.  Yes it can be incredibly frustrating, and not everyone is suited to the work.  I'm hoping that through writing this series you'll get a sense not only of what is possible to achieve in local government if you are elected but also if you don't run but are interested in making local change working alongside those who do.  There should be some helpful bits that will assist with assessing candidates for your own 2016 votes as well.

Why now?  Because even though the voting doesn't happen until September/October 2016 if you are going to run it's a good idea to start thinking about that now.  I don't know a lot about the tickets (groups of candidates usually with common policies) in areas outside Auckland (and even in some parts of Auckland), but I do know that many will be turning their minds to who to ask to run for them next year now and over the next few months.  One ticket in Auckland is selecting their candidates shortly! (the Labour team for the Henderson Massey Local Board).  While you may not need to make a definite decision about running until as late as July 2016, if you want a good shot at getting elected then a bit of time put in now and over the rest of this year is a good idea.  Not a lot of time, mind, just a bit!

Why run?  I'll go into that in more detail in a future post.  At this point what I want to say is that I never imagined I would be a local government politician - this was an accidental career change for me - and I had no idea of the potential of the role and what councils can achieve, alongside the community, if they have elected people who operate with respect, vision and principles rooted in democracy and embracing the possible (rather than the small c conservatism that seems to dominate much local government thinking and makes change really hard).

Put briefly I am a relative rarity in local government (under 50, a woman, with young children, openly feminist and left of centre); I want to see more people like me running, and even more people who aren't a bit like me running.  We desperately need diversity at the table, not least because that will result in better decision-making and new ideas.

This post will serve as an overview of the series and also an index - I'll put links to new posts up here as they go up.

I hope this series turns out to be useful, and I'm very open to suggestions for topics (I have canvassed social media and have a long list of suggestions now but feel free to add more in comments or through my other available means.)

Cheerio
Julie

One way doors - will they keep us safe?

Recently as part of my local government work I've been thinking about and discussing what Auckland's "Local Alcohol Policy" might look like.  This is a new initiative, under legislation that came into effect in late 2013, which means each local council can determine a Local Alcohol Policy for their community which determines hours of operation, location, density, and additional conditions.

One of the areas of debate that came up in a workshop I was at on Friday was the usefulness, or otherwise of one way doors.  The concept is that after a certain time (say 1am) you would have to stay in the venue you are in until the cut off time for alcohol purchase (say 3am).  If you left a venue after the one way door closed, so to speak, you would not be able to get into another one.

Now on the one hand this will minimise the bar hopping that happens when people are getting drunker towards the end of the night, hopefully minimise street scuffles, and mean that when people are at their drunkest they are in a stable environment.

But what if the venue you are in when the one way door shuts isn't safe?  Or becomes unsafe?  What if you are harassed, assaulted, have your drink spiked, abused?  If you leave that is the end of your night.  If you stay you remain at risk.  Especially if the venue isn't interested in looking out for you.

Feedback most welcome in comments, thanks :)

Bit of an update

I haven't been writing much here lately, but I have been up to bits and pieces elsewhere - in particular a fortnightly post at The Daily Blog (you can see them all here - I missed last fortnight cos I was sick - would people mind if I cross-posted them here or is that not cool?). I had an opinion piece published in the Herald about the dodgy SkyCity deal too.  Oh, and a bit on my attempt to become a regular cyclist for Frocks on Bikes.

Most of my spare  time though is currently in election mode (what election, you say?) campaigning for re-election to the Puketapapa Local Board  on the Roskill Community Voice ticket (part of City Vision).    If you are interested in following my adventures in local government the best way to do that is to Like the Facebook page for Roskill Community Voice and/or follow me on twitter @juliefairey.

I do miss blogging here - I often start posts in my head and then never get a chance to get them out into the ether before the moment of relevance has passed or I forget what I was going to write about.  Sorry about that.

Being on the ballot with blokes

One of the issues I've written a lot about, and done some basic analysis on, is women's political representation in Aotearoa New Zealand.  For the last two general elections I've looked at each party's likely caucus, based on list placings and electorate seats, and predicted the gender breakdown.  I've been particularly critical of National, whose 2011 election result explicitly reduced the number of women in Parliament, due to their list and electorate seat selections.

Now that I myself am an elected politician I have focused a bit more on the politicians around me - Auckland Council's Local Boards and Governing Body.  I put together a presentation for the women themed session of the Social & Community Development Forum about the topic.  My conclusions were that women's representation seems to be plateauing at around 35%, and the problem is not with the voters but with the selections.

Now I have to eat my words, at least in part.

Thirteen.  That's the number of women me or one of my running mates asked to run on our ticket for the Puketapapa Local Board.   Each one turned us down; immediately (a few), after a bit of a think (most), after being a strong maybe (a few), after saying yes please (one).  I believe every single one of them would have made a great Local Board member.  Maybe, hopefully, some will in future elections.

None of them mentioned the politics of our ticket as the issue.  All were gratified to have been approached, and in most cases had never considered it themselves, despite being actively involved in their local community.  With each respective "no thanks" came good wishes for the campaign and in many cases offers to help out.  

And so now I am the last woman standing; one woman on the Roskill Community Voice ticket with five others, standing for the six spots available.  I'm sure I won't be the only woman standing in this area as there is at least one other ticket and both of the incumbent Governing Body members (councillors) are women and seeking re-election, one of them with the umbrella ticket RCV is affiliated with, City Vision.  But it does feel a bit lonely, a bit of a boys' club!

Don't get me wrong, I am very pleased with my ticket-mates; their commitment to our area is strong, their past records on social justice good.  They will all be fantastic Local Board members too.

So why did these wonderful capable intelligent women turn down this great opportunity to make positive change in their neighbourhoods and surrounds?  Mostly because of time. The Remuneration Authority recently calculated that Local Board members spend on average 24 hours a week on that job.  My observation is that that would vary wildly amongst those currently elected, but then we are the first to experience a brand new super-city structure.  Many genuinely didn't realise the time commitment when they stood and haven't been able to rearrange their lives to allow for that.   Others seem to think they can do the job justice by limiting their time to a few hours a week.  It will be interesting to see how the latter fare if they stand for re-election.

There aren't a lot of part time jobs out there which allow the flexibility required for local body politicians to cover everything.  The pay for being a local board member isn't enough to ditch other income options entirely, for most.  I get $36,000 a year (before tax) and I have so much respect for those who get by on that alone;  I work two days a week in another job as well.   I gave up an $80K+ pa job to do this (and I don't regret it except when I go shopping).

So the time issue is considerable; wondering if you could keep doing your other job, whether your boss would let you go part time, potentially giving up a role you love or a project you wanted to see through, and then there's working in with other obligations like family, being on a Board of Trustees, perhaps a health condition, or wanting to be able to travel.  

There were a lot of other practical considerations too; what if I have a baby?  Does it get nasty?  How autonomous is the role or does the chair order everyone around?  Would it create a conflict of interest with this other thing I'm involved in?  How much does it cost?  While the overriding factor given was time, all of these and more were in the mix for some.  

What I noticed from this was how almost every woman was carefully thinking myriad factors through.  Less focused on "do I want to do this, would I be good at this" but instead on "can I actually do this?"

In contrast there was no issue finding men to run.  There almost never is, from my political experience of the last fifteen plus years.  The men I've observed have largely been more likely to say yes, to put themselves forward, and worry about how it will all work out if they get elected after polling day, not before.  

Maybe it's because many fellas have women in their lives who do sort the practicalities; behind every great man etc (vomit).  Maybe it's because many ladies are socialised more to think they have to have everything just right to do something, have to be able to answer every question emphatically.  Possibly it's because politics is still a male-dominated environment, and many women know that, even if just sub-consciously, and they don't really want to go to there.

How do we fix this?  I don't know.  But I'm very super extra keen to find out.  Do let me know what your ideas are!

My thoughts are that this shouldn't be, and isn't, about fixing women (Judy McGregor once called me, rightly, on the oft-raised solutionidea of mentoring) but about fixing a system that women don't seem to fit into.  

Finally, if you are a woman and you are thinking about running for local government and you are wavering then my advice is to run.  Worry about how it will work out later, if you need to.  Put yourself up, put your nomination in, contest selection if you need to, then campaign.  If you are not the electioneering type then find some great women to support, and some great men who support women too, and do what you can to help.  Even if it's simply using the power of like, please don't underestimate the difference you can make, even just with the clicky.

PS  If anyone wants to have a chat with me about running or supporting awesome people who are running in their area then feel free to email julie dot fairey at gmail dot com. In some places selections for tickets are already done, so you may have missed your window of opportunity to run with a team, but I'm happy to answer questions and share thoughts regardless.

Making friends, with fruit trees

Earlier today, before the rain started, I gathered together food, jackets, children and buggy and headed off for a short walk over the ridge, to a leafier part of town.  As we bumbled down the hill towards our destination I could see the people, two big trucks, and the bright shafts of spades.  When we got closer we could make out spindly trees, poking up from the grass, and the flurry of activity from adults and children alike.

This was a community fruit tree planting exercise, organised by the Puketapapa Local Board in response to submissions from the residents in surrounding streets to refresh their tired park and playground.  The renewal of the play equipment was completed earlier this year, and today was the day for all to muck in and make sure these fifteen fruit trees got the best possible start on a sunny slope above the houses.

I love this stuff.  Events like this have been the surprise joy of my local government involvement - local people coming together to achieve positive changes in their community that they can't do on their own.  I didn't get to actually plant a tree, as there was plenty of help from neighbours and I was more useful wrangling children, talking to people about how this happened, and taking photos.  But I've come away with a buzz nonetheless.

Part of the spark I get out of it is from the connections you see people making with each other, and the aha moments you can watch them having as they realise what they have in common, and what they could work on together.

The best examples of this today for me were the woman and her partner who had got the flyer in their letterbox and come along, having recently moved here from another part of Auckland where there was lots of community stuff, keen as beans to get into it here, and three children I came across helping put the mulch bark around the planted trees.  I had a chat to the kids and asked them their names, told them mine, pointed out my kids too, and then asked them if they knew each other before today.  "Nope" was the response.  Half an hour later they were making up their own games to play together on the playground.

Three children spreading bark mulch around a newly planted fruit tree.
From left to right: Emma, Sarah and Dave.

Community building can be as simple as giving neighbours a reason to get together and meet each other. Lots of the people I spoke to today were interested in coming over the hill in a fortnight's time to a poorer part of town to help with a community planting day there.  I look forward to seeing them again, and being able to at least exchange smiles of recognition in the street, on the bus, and in the supermarket. I hope they are feeling as zippy as I am this afternoon!

Women's Political Representation

Long time no blog, sorry about that.

Here's something I prepared earlier - about three weeks' ago to be precise:  A presentation on women's political representation that I gave to the Social & Community Development Forum of Auckland Council.

It's about 19 minutes long, with the presentation itself taking up the first 8 minutes or so, then discussion with the panel, including a bit of a disagreement with one of the Governing Body members from 16 minutes onwards, and some rather, er, athletic chairing from Councillor Cathy Casey.

I can't seem to embed it, so click on the link above and it should start automagically - if not, go to this page on the Franklin Live website and scroll down to the second item under Meetings on the left hand side.  As far as I'm aware Franklin Live is the only media outlet doing really comprehensive coverage of the doings of Auckland Council's Governing Body, filming as much of the meetings and forums as they can and putting it up for all to see.

And big ups to erstwhile THM blogger and all-round awesome person Deborah, who you can visit at her own place and The Lady Garden.  She wrote a very timely article on the need for diversity in parliament, which I used for the back of my handout summarising the presentation.

Paying the hope tax

Tonight I am putting a motion to the Puketapapa Local Board opposing any deal for an international convention centre in Auckland that results in an increase in gambling machines (pokies) in Auckland or in any single venue.  Parts of the motion also seek advice on how the Board can adopt a proper sinking lid policy for our own area and how we can advocate that such be adopted across the whole Auckland Council area.

I wanted to put my arguments in order before tonight's meeting, and I thought here's a great opportunity to multitask, and making the mysterious work of local government visible; I'll write a blog post about it! 

Let me start by saying I do not see gambling as a sin, as a moral issue; that by limiting gambling opportunities we are acting as guardian angels protecting people from getting their souls dirty. 

For me this is an issue about reducing harm.  In the Puketapapa Local Board plan we said the following:

We want to live in a community that is free from harm caused by alcohol, gambling, drugs, and violence in the home… We want a sinking-lid policy applied to gambling machines in our area that does not allow relocation of machines. We will support the work of agencies working toward reducing preventable harm in our community.

It's worth noting that we added the section this is in, titled "Reducing Harm", in response to submissions received from the community stating that we needed to give this area more attention in our plan.  We had already mentioned various aspects in a few places, but the strong feedback we received was that we should make it clearer and more prominent, so this is a direct example of community submissions making a difference, not least the submission we received from Hapai Te Hauora Tapui specifically on the issue of problem gambling.  See, submissions can make a difference! 

Here's a quote from a supportive email a constituent sent me recently:

The Government spends thousands on trying to help problem gamblers, yet they continue to feed them more opportunity.
This is a waste of our tax money and a waste of the problem gamblers program.
Pokie machines are of no worth to community. They only contribute to more damage, deception, suffering, advers[ity], destruction and addiction.
They ruin relationships, families, communities and the list could go on.
I say NO TO MORE POKIES.
The harm that problem gambling creates is undeniable.  As a unionist I have seen how it can manifest at work, where someone who would never ever in a thousand years have considered stealing from their workplace or colleagues to buy alcohol will shift money between accounts in a dubious manner, will surreptitiously empty the drinks kitty, will take a loan from the business which they are sure they will pay back once the winnings come in.  For some gambling can become an addiction, and the harm that that does, to them, to their family, to their community, is significant.  The gambling problem of a single person impacts negatively on at least 5 people around them.

Gambling activities all have a component of luck, and a component of exploitation when it comes to those individuals who are problem gamblers.  Pokie machines have no element of skill to them whatsoever - you put the money in, you push a button, you win or you don't.  The Problem Gambling Foundation has labelled pokie machines the "most harmful form of gambling as 77% to 85% of problem gamblers use them as their primary mode of gambling."  In 2008 PGFNZ estimated that 42% of pokie machines revenue was coming from the 3% of users who are problem gamblers.

Honestly I just don't see why we need more pokies.  DIA figures, quoted by PGFNZ, show we already have one machine for every 206 people, nationally.  In more economically deprived areas there's one machine for every 75 people.  And it's worth pointing out, in the context of this blog, that it is the accessibility and increase in pokie machines that has led to a large increase in problem gambling amongst women.

Why do people who can't afford to gamble more?  And why do those who profit from pokies seek to increase their numbers, especially in poor areas?  Because it is a hope tax.  There is so much in life now that we can't do unless we have money and there is often little chance to earn through work the kind of money that can change your life.  A lucky windfall is the only option for many, and I can understand the lure of gambling in that regard; when I was first at home with my eldest son and really wanted to stay home I paid the hope tax, buying a lotto ticket every week, because such a win seemed the only way we could make that happen. 

The number of pokie machines in New Zealand has been trending downward and that is great.  Why would we want to reverse that trend?  And in particular why would we want to do so by increasing the number at Sky City, an enterprise that largely makes its profits from problem gambling, and has recently been shown to not be living up to their host responsibilities in this area?  Casinos are required to give even less of the funds raised through pokies back to the community - only 2.5% of profits, as opposed to 37.2% from machines out there in pubs and clubs.  500 new machines at Sky City would result in 250 to 400 new, extra, problem gamblers.  Sky City have given out $24.2M in community grants since they started in 2001, which sounds like a lot until you consider that their profit in the FIRST HALF of the last financial year was over $78M. 

New Zealand has also become a major testing ground for the developers of pokie machines.  They use psychologists to develop these devices in ways that will suck the most money out of the user.  And they test them in our casinos, before they are rolled out to other parts of the world.

As leaders in our community, indeed more than that, as decision-makers in our community, local government politicians have an obligation to do what we can to limit harm.  Part of our obligation to our community is to not remain silent while others in the great democratic family of Auckland Council are considering decisions that will do great harm indeed. 

A few questions about John Banks, cabbage boats, and political donations

1.  John Key says John Banks has given him a clear assurance that he hasn't done anything wrong.  Why can't Banks give such a clear assurance to the media and thus to the public? 

2.  If Banks can't recall then how does he know he hasn't done anything wrong? (My apologies if the double-negative hurts your brain).

3.  What's wrong with coming up the river on a cabbage boat?

4.  How could Sky City have made an anonymous donation to the Banks' campaign and a declared one to the Brown campaign?  Why would they want one to be hidden and one to be open?    Or is the difference how they were dealt with by the campaigns, not how Sky City acted?

5.  Isn't Winston Peters awfully quiet?  Maybe he has lost his voice?

And finally, a brief statement:

Not all politicians are dodgy about these things.  Most probably aren't in fact.   The way that political coverage in this country is so often focused on Politics As A Game in my view depresses people about the value of participation, and the value of democracy.  Stink.

Stinky stinky Sky City

This Sky City deal just keeps getting stinkier and stinkier.  The revelation yesterday was that the Prime Minister himself appears to have suggested the trade-off to Sky City; build us a new convention centre and we'll get you a law change to add more pokie machines to the hundreds you already have sucking money out of the community.  I'm sure the conversation didn't go quite like that, but that seems to be what it boils down to.  There are new developments happening several times a day as the right questions are finally being asked and unravelling the unhealthy level of influence it appears that Sky City has on key political figures.

My particular concern in all of this is the insidious impact that pokies have.  They exist to take money out of the pockets of those who play them and give a tiny proportion back in winnings, and a tiny proportion to the community by way of grants.  The vast majority of what goes in to a one arm bandit goes to the owner of the machine.  And Sky City runs over 1600 of them in its Auckland casino already.  Pokies are particularly appealing to women, according to research reported by the Problem Gambling Foundation, summarised in their useful fact sheet.

Auckland Council is yet to adopt a sinking-lid policy on gambling machines, despite John Key saying that'll deal with Sky City getting up to 500 more*.  The former Waitakere and Manukau City Councils had sinking-lid policies, and so those still apply in those areas, but crucially Auckland City, where Sky City is located, do not.  I can't speak for other Local Board areas, but in Puketapapa we have included in our Local Board plan that we want to advocate for a sinking-lid policy that does not allow for relocating of machines.  Yet we don't seem to have yet had an opportunity to do this, or to adopt such in our own area, beyond me writing letters to the Herald and doing the occasional media interview on the matter.  Oh and ranting about it on social media.

Sky City argues that pokies are a worse problem in pubs and sports clubs and therefore it is ok to have more at their casino.  We can actually multi-task and address the problem wherever it occurs, rather than having to pick and choose.  It's worth noting that casinos are much lower contributors back to the community via funding, as a percentage of takings, than community venues are.  Personally I'm not so interested in that argument, but I know it is the one used most often by those advocating for more gambling opportunities; what about all the community funding that will be given out.  I'd far rather that we help people to keep their own money for use in their own community, instead of inefficiently funnelling it through a third party (who takes a very large chunk) back to different parts of the city.

Even by the time I push publish on this post the situation may have moved on, so fast is it changing.  I'm really hoping that the final outcome is one that minimises the harm of problem gambling.

If you are interested in more information on the social cost of gambling, then please check out the hash tag #socialcost on Twitter today, as the Problem Gambling Foundation will be tweeting research all day that specifically addresses this.





*  How realistic would this be even if it were the case?  Magically 500 machines come out of other venues at the exact same time as they go into Sky City?  Weird.

The Officer Ether

In Councillese the term "officer" actually means "a staff member of the Council".  We democratically elected people (governing body or local board members in Auckland) rely on officers for advice, and to make our decisions into reality.  Officers are essential to our work and without them it would be pretty hard to function meaningfully.

As with any large group of people there are good eggs and bad eggs.  So far my experience is that the good officers far outweigh the bad.  I've been astonished by the number of highly accomplished and truly effective officers I've encountered to date.  For every one person who has frustrated me by going all Sir Humphrey and not really answering my questions, there have been at least 5 who have been flexible, smart, and committed to empowering local board members.

But good eggs or bad there is one thing that no officer seems to be able to overcome:  The Officer Ether.

Here's an example:

Not quite a year of it

2011 Calendar cover:  a llama in the High Country

"Well on November 26th we will know whether we know or we don't know" I'd said to everyone who kept asking whether or not my partner* would become an MP on the weekend.   As it turned out what we now know is that he's not an MP and he's unlikely to be one before 2014, given Labour's result on the party vote.

It's been an odd year for my family, politically.   To start with I was still in an electoral hangover from being unexpectedly elected to the Puketapapa Local Board in late 2010; an amazing experience which I now feel I am starting to understand better and enjoy thoroughly.  Balancing this significant commitment of time and mental energy with everything else has been a challenge, and sometimes I've had to go back to just operating on Essentials Only mode.  Whenever I feel bogged down I find contact with constituents truly rejuvenating, even when we are disagreeing about something.  People really appreciate getting a response, making an effort to find something out or give them the right contact person; it's an amazing testament actually to how low expectations of politicians are, which is something I hope to play a part in changing.

In late January I became a candidate's wife (again) several months before I'd thought I might, due to the Botany by-election.  That was an eye-opener.  I have seen my partner work very hard, but that campaign was another level again from previous campaigns, even the ones where we had both been candidates.  Not only did we have two kids under 4, one of whom was still breast-feeding, we also had not a lot of spare cash and suddenly one of the adults was away from 6am to 11pm, and then doing a couple of hours of campaign admin when he did get home too.  The phones would ring at most hours (midnight to 5am appears to still be sacrocanct), I was constantly washing (but not ironing) white shirts for him and red clothes for me, and then the dishwasher broke.  The Botany result was a predictable loss for the Labour candidate, but a gratifying one in that the margin wasn't embarassing and both the candidate and the party organisation around him did well. 

Two weeks later I went back to regular paid employment, after taking maternity leave since the previous August.  I moved back into a different role at the same union - less responsibility, less pay, shorter hours and a whole new sector to learn about.  That too has been incredibly challenging.  New acronyms and lingo, new people to meet, new structures to understand, and a sense of disconcerting disconnection from my previous work area which I had cared passionately about.  I care about the new stuff too, and am now slowly building my understanding of the issues and people, nurturing my passion for this part of the education sector too.  Most people have assumed I am part time because of my childcare responsibilities, so I have to explain regularly that actually I have two paid part time jobs and share the childcare with my partner.  It's a bit tedious.

Another fortnight or so on in time and the Labour list was announced.  We were on edge, waiting for the phone to ring, wondering who would call and whether it would be good news or bad.  We'd estimated a top 40 ranking would be sufficient to be within consideration (how wrong we were!) but when the call came and it was 32 we were both a bit stunned.  That seemed certain, something we could plan around.  We didn't really start planning, other than to not make any Big Plans beyond November.  Who knew what could happen after all.

Politicians are not robots

Earlier this week Auckland Council's Governing Body (the mayor plus 20 elected ward councillors) voted at an Extraordinary Business Meeting to approve additional ratepayer funds for the Rugby World Cup.  The vote was incredibly close, and not without controversy.  The mayor had to use his casting vote to pass the funding. 

Why am I writing about this on a feminist blog?  Is my concern that (yet more) public money is being spent on rugby-related expenses that would never even be considered for a women's sports tournament?  Did all the men vote for it and the women against? 

While the former is true, the latter is not.  And neither are what this post is about.

This post is about some very awful sexism that Councillor Cathy Casey (Albert Eden Roskill ward) has faced because she had to leave before the vote was taken. 

Now for a bit more context.  Cathy Casey is a friend of mine; I wouldn't say a close mate or anything, but we did run on the same ticket and she is one of the two councillors for the ward I represent at Local Board level.*  We agree about a lot, politically, and she is a staunch feminist too, as her presence at Auckland's SlutWalk this year attests to.  Cathy and I have had disagreements too, not least when we were both very involved in the Alliance party and wanted that organisation to go in different political directions.  We haven't discussed this privately at all, although I have expressed some of the sentiments in this post on Facebook, including on her public page there. 

Casey has spoken of her opposition to extra local government money for the Rugby World Cup passionately, publicly, and repeatedly, including stating on her (public) Facebook page "I think enough ratepayers' money has been spent on this rugby tournament."

The Herald article reports on the vote split and notes Casey as the only councillor absent.  Actually two other councillors were absent - Michael Goudie (Albany ward) and Penny Webster (Rodney ward) who are both overseas at a planning conference I believe.  I suspect both of them would have voted against.  Of the centre-right contingent on the Governing Body, predominantly represented by Citizens & Ratepayers, one of their number, Noelene Raffills (Whau ward), voted for the funding. 

Yet all the heat is on Casey, for leaving before the vote.  Her integrity has been repeatedly questioned, with the implication that she left early to avoid voting against her centre-left colleagues who were supporting the funding. 

Comments have been made, on the Facebook page of Councillor Cameron Brewer (Orakei ward) (also public), such as:

"Casey needs a kick in the arse for that 'performance' what a pathetic cop out"

"...the dissenter (Cr CASEY) had to leave (convenient), instead of speaking up and having the guts to go against her political allies to vote according to her conviction on this issue. Paid to vote and take a stand!"

"if you are being paid to be a councillor of NZ's biggest city ...you should be at every damn thing !"

"Ah. So the democratic decision-making process for a big decision with public interest for New Zealand's biggest city is not as important as getting on time for a step-daughter's birthday party."

There was a letter similar to the last comment above in the Herald today, although by a different person.  And I'm having a wee Facebook scrap with someone who started out by stating "$1.5M dinner!"

Yes, Casey had to leave to attend her step-daughter's birthday.  The meeting was called very last minute, for 5pm on a Tuesday.  Casey stayed as long as she could, until 6.30pm, but eventually had to go rather than let her family down entirely.  She was supposed to be cooking her step-daughter's favourite meal for dinner, instead she missed the mains entirely and they had to have something else.  She clearly communicated her time constraints to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Auckland Council's CEO beforehand.  Casey has made all this public, via her Facebook page, and not hidden a skerrick.

Going to the meeting at all was a significant compromise on her part, in my opinion.    That the vote was taken after she had to leave is not Casey's fault.  In fact she could not have known how close the vote would be when she left; they continued debating for another hour before voting.

Of the five comments I've mentioned above, at least two come from members of Citizens & Ratepayers (the centre-right ticket).  One comes from a fellow member of mine on the Puketapapa Local Board.  Their extreme scrutiny of Councillor Casey is not only unreasonable, it's also hypocritical given they seem to be failing to make any criticism of their C&R colleague who voted for the funding.  Plus Casey has one of the highest attendance and voting records on Auckland Council. 

Politicians are not robots.  We are people, human beings, and sometimes, just sometimes, we might take a holiday, or get sick, or attend a family event.  Sometimes the commitments we have as elected members clash, so while we may not be at meeting X it's because we're off at meeting Y instead.  I recall Mike Lee saying earlier this year that he had been booked to attend three meetings simultaneously - in Henderson, the CBD and on Waiheke.  Can't be in two (or three) places at the same time.  Family time is important too, yet the dismissive comments imply that a step-daughter's birthday just wasn't important enough. 

I think Cathy made the correct choice, as hard as it might have been for her both then and since.  Women so often seem to be in lose-lose situations when it comes to holding positions of power; stay at work and disappoint your family, go home and disappoint others.  

What does it say about Auckland Council as an organisation that elected members and staff are being asked to make these choices?  It's not family-friendly, and more than that, it's not actually people-friendly, at all.  i look forward to working to change that.




*   Puketapapa is part of the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward.

Why I'm okay with Goff et al speaking at the Family First conference

A reminder:  Each of the bloggers here at The Hand Mirror have their own opinions.  Unless we've explicitly said something like "we've talked about this and decided X" then kindly do not automatically assume we agree.  I have no idea if any of the other writers here agree with the substance of this post and am prepared for possible counter-posts or comments to ensue.  Also please do not assume silence means agreement.  For me silence usually means no resources to respond right then.

When Hone, Pita, Tau and Shane went to speak at Destiny's conference I ended up in a twitter scrap* about it with many people I usually agree with. 

I suspect this post is going to put me in the same position again, because I think it's okay for John Key and Phil Goff (and indeed any other politician) to speak at the Family First conference.

Politicians have a duty to engage.  I'm one of Them now, thanks to my election to local government, and it's sharpened my focus on these issues considerably.  If Family First or Destiny invited me to speak at one of their events would I?  Probably yes.

If we don't speak to the groups we disagree with, even the ones that preach hate that we oppose, we cede that ground to the haters.  We leave them unchallenged in their safe spaces, continuing to validate their own views in an echo chamber.  We abandon any silent allies we might have in those rooms.

Sometimes the bigots will blurt out those hateful views in a forum where they get the feedback they deserve.  Alasdair Thompson's widespread condemnation for his antiquated and inaccurate attitude about women's productivity is a recent example of this.  But if there was someone on the EMA Board, a high-powered CEO, or even more than one, who Thompson circulated with who told him how wrong he was when he was spouting off at The Northern Club or in the Koru Lounge, wouldn't that have been useful too?

I believe politicians should try to accept every invitation they get, particularly the ones where they are being asked clear transparent questions about their policies and views in public.  To oppose politicians speaking at the Family First or Destiny conferences is akin** to believing they shouldn't speak at the Gay Auckland Business Association pre-election debates, or indeed the Suffrage Eve Debate the team here organised in 2008. 

How can we make informed decisions about who to vote for if politicians are not upfront about their intentions?  Even when we don't like or agree with the people asking the questions?  I agree wholeheartedly with this quote from George's thought-provoking post at Public Address:

I don’t begrudge the PM or Leader of the opposition meeting with their constituents. Everybody has the right to participate in politics, no matter how disturbing we find their ideas. Unfortunately, Russel Norman seemed unable to make this distinction. I hate the Exclusive Brethren with an absolute vengeance – my own grandfather was blocked from entering his brother’s funeral, but I do not think this disqualifies their right to act politically. The same goes for Family First and the Australian Christian Lobby. What is a problem is hiding that contact, and leveraging one group while pretending your views and positions are different. [my emphasis added]

Personally I will consider the answers that Key and Goff give in their so-called interviews with Bob McCoskrie helpful in determining where I'll put my ticks on November 26th.  Possibly in a diametrically opposed fashion from what His Bobness might like, but still it'll be useful for me and for others who support marriage equality, pro-choice abortion law reform, and other trendy socially progressive Good Stuff.

I judged the politicians who spoke at Destiny not for going, but for what they said when they were there.  I was disappointed not to hear any media reports of any of the four seriously challenging Destiny's views.  I'll be doing the same as the news comes out from the Family First forum too.  I'll judge Key, Goff and other pollies not on where they say things, but on what they say, how they say it, how they plan to do what they say, and then how they follow through. 

Destiny and Family First may be giving politicians platforms at their grand events to sway them, to encourage them to agree with their views, but that doesn't mean those who accept that platform accept those rules.  They can play to their own needs, speak to their own base.  They can act with integrity, even when it might mean some boos or slow claps.  I have several times said clearly that I am pro-choice at election debates held in churches, including at least one quite fundamentalist one***, and while it hasn't been popular I've yet to have anyone even be rude to me as a result.  If anything there has been a grudging respect for being upfront and clear about my views.  Which I think is the basic responsibility of any politician, really.

Challenging people is hard, especially when you are challenging them about their hate, and in their space.  It doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, but you do need to think carefully about how to do it.  Prompt people to think, to question, to reassess what they thought they knew for sure; that's what progressive politicians who speak at regressive forums should be doing imho.

The performances of Rudd and Howard at the Australian Christian Lobby in 2007 were not that.  They did not challenge, they capitulated.  It remains to be seen (at the time of writing) if Goff and/or Key will nod and agree or politely yet firmly critique the prejudices of their hosts .



* A twap maybe?
**  Cousins rather than siblings - Destiny and Family First do promote hate imho, whereas GABA certainly do not to the best of my knowledge.
***  The question, which was a written one supplied by the organisers ahead of time, although I hadn't received them in advance like everyone else, was very similar to "In NZ 16,000 unborn children are killed every year.  What does your party intend to do to end this?"  It was in 2002, hence the lower figure for the abortion rate than currently. 

Youth Workshop in Waitemata (Akl)

Message via the awesome Auckland Women's Centre:

The Waitemata Local Board is developing its first local board plan that sets out the community’s aspirations, priorities, and preferences for the next three years and beyond. Youth issues and youth engagement are some of our priorities.  They've set up a Youth Workshop to set things moving on their local board plan, and are looking for school-aged young people interested in Central Auckland and surrounding suburbs. Whether the kids live here, travel into the area to go to school, or like to spend time here on weekends, they are all welcome.


Do you want to make central Auckland a better place for young people?


Almost half (48%) of the people living in the city centre and central suburbs of the Waitemata local board area are aged under 30.


The Waitemata Local Board, part of the Auckland Council, is developing a plan for the area and want to know what you think.


Hi, I’m Jesse Chalmers, the Waitemata Local Board member youth contact. I want to invite you to
share your thoughts at a workshop for young people:


When: Wednesday 13 April 4-6pm

Where: Jubilee Library Room, Auckland Girls Grammar School.


The workshop will be a fun and informal session for you to share your views on topics like events, the environment, transport and parks. We value your involvement and want you to be a part of the future look of this area. This is your opportunity to help make Auckland better for young people.


Delicious snacks will be provided!



To let us know you’re coming do one of these easy things:

1. Txt me, Jesse, on 021 344 174

2. Join the event on Facebook

3. Tell your teacher


To find about more about the event, you can contact me (021 344 174, jesse.chalmers@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz )


More information on the Waitemata Local Board and community engagement on our plan.


If you are can’t make it this event and you want to share your ideas and thoughts check out the Waitemata Local Board Facebook page.


Thanks and I hope to see you soon.
Jesse Chalmers,

Waitemata Local Board member

Better late than never

A little while back a certain Mr C Trotter (one of my constituents, I should add) took issue with the sweary muscular blogging of staunch advocates for abortion law reform like Queen of Thorns, Boganette and others. 

Trotter has quite some track-record on misrepresenting the political motivations, characters and aims of feminist bloggers, from this site and elsewhere, so I would ask readers to not necessarily consider his assertions as the rock solid Truth, for example this:

"What QoT and a host of other feminist bloggers objected to so strongly ... is the notion that reforming the abortion laws might take second (or even third) place to other political considerations."

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  we can haz multitasking.

Also:  methinks Mr Trotter needs to learn to read sarcasm a bit better, when it comes to his conclusion that the non-existent Feminist Borg has cooked up all this stuff about abortion just to keep John Key as PM.  Actually, those of us who've been saying pro-choice stuff just want what we said we do - a legal framework around abortion which sees it as a health service primarily, and as such gives the pregnant person the power to choose what happens to their own body.  Personally I'd rather like to see Key et all out of Government too.  I'll be trying for both.

And when Trotter uses me as an example of a feminist pro-choicer who has apparently learnt his lesson about not living my values up front for all to see, well that makes me a fair bit sweary myself:*

I’m thinking of a prominent feminist blogger who was recently elected to public office. In her election propaganda she described herself as a “mother” and declared her commitment to building “strong communities”. Nowhere in any of the material distributed to the electors did she inform them that she was an active left-wing trade unionist and a vehement supporter of abortion on demand.

In the deeply conservative part of New Zealand in which she was standing, keeping these facts from the voting public made perfect political sense. Had she been completely honest with the electors they almost certainly would have rejected her.

I have no idea why being a mother, which I am**, and wanting to build strong communities, which I'm pretty keen on, somehow means I was painting myself as anti-abortion.  I wrote election blurbs about my values, with examples relevant to the position I was running for (and elected to) on the Puketapapa Local Board. I talked about good leftie stuff like strong local democracy, retaining public ownership of community assets, and being inclusive.  I spoke of my concerns about the negative impact of pokies and liquor off-licences in our community, and the need for a public voice on their regulation. None of it contrary to my commitments to collectivity or feminism, which have manifested most recently in my former paid work in the union movement as an organiser in the early childhood education sector.

I realise Local Boards are new and unique beasts in NZ's local body history, but surely no one could possibly imagine that we would have any role to play around primary health care, whether that's abortion services or cancer operations?   Certainly I can say that in the six months since I was elected not a single constituent I've talked to has asked my view on abortion, nor during the election campaign. Is the point of political "propaganda" now to list a host of irrelevancies in the hope that voters will elect you as the one they hate the least?  Should I have put in my blurb that I prefer dogs to cats?  Or perhaps that my favourite colour is blue?  Or, to raise an issue close to Chris' heart, that when I was eight I was very pro-Tour***, but when I got older I changed my mind?

I decided last year to pull back from being a public spokesperson on the abortion issue.  Not because it would result in the good residents of Puketapapa calling for me to be thrown out of office post haste, but because I didn't want there to be any confusion about who I represent when I do media work.  Having been elected by my fellow Roskillians I feel an obligation to not muddy the waters by being an official spokesperson on something unrelated to my public role for them.  I did this when I was on the AUSA Exec too - not joining a political party until I'd finished my terms, to avoid confusion.  It might seem like a silly demarcation to some, but it's how I roll.  Maybe sometime in the future I'll work out how to balance these things better, who knows.

So the question remains;  do you, Christopher Trotter, agree with the ultimate goal of reforming our abortion laws to make them pro-choice?  Strip aside the when and even the how; if it was up to you Chris, your vote alone, how would you cast it, today, on the broad principle of abortion on request/demand/whatever as long as the pregnant person gets to choose?

And then let's go from there.  You can mansplain to us about how we should do this all you like.  You can assume you are way way ahead of us with your strategic thinking (you aren't btw).  You can get the history wrong and get pinged at it by one of my favourite Alisons.  You're probably going to have to accept that this isn't a campaign you can lead, although it is one I'd really love you to support. And maybe, just maybe, you could try to do all that in a way that doesn't undermine those seeking a goal you have said you agree with. 



*Not on here though, because then we get caught in all kinds of Mail Marshall traps which limit access to our wise words.
** From just before I wrote the election blurb until this week coming, mothering has been my main day time job.  I started a part time union job on Monday, and from that point I will be probably be spending marginally more time on the Local Board work than on the mother stuff or the union job.  That's why I put I was a mother, because it was the main thing I was doing with my time.
*** Yes, the 1981 Springbok Tour.  Even though it was long past by then.



Comment direction:  This is not a post about the morality of abortion.  Go here if you want to discuss that.