Things went largely as expected last night with the election results, although a few of the results (particularly NZ First getting back in) were a bit of a surprise. Here are the preliminary party vote results – with another 220,000 odd special votes still to be counted: The 13 seats for the Greens Party (and they traditionally go up a seat on special votes) means that Julie-Anne Genter will get into parliament, which is pretty awesome as we’ll have a transport planner there to put the tough questions to Steven Joyce over the next three years.

Somewhat more frustratingly, if you look at the results for Auckland Central, Nikki Kaye is just over 500 votes ahead of Jacinda Ardern – although there are still around 6000 special votes to be counted. If Nikki had lost Auckland Central to Jacinda it would have been quite a strong message sent to the government about the transport policies of the two major parties. Ironically, the current majority is well under the number of electorate votes for Green candidate Denise Roche – so all you Green Party supporters who couldn’t split your vote have undermined your own transport goals. Fools! There are quite a few interesting things about this result, moving forwards:

  • Because “Keep MMP” easily won the referendum (at least the advance votes, but the final votes should be pretty similar) it seems that we will definitely keep that system, which I think is overall a very good thing.
  • If you combine the party results into “centre-left” and “centre-right” parties, the vote split is remarkably similar to the 2008 election. National has just mopped up votes from Act while Labour lost votes to Greens and NZ First.
  • The turnout seems to have been remarkably low, at below 75% once special votes are counted. This worked against Labour as in electorates like Mangere (Labour’s strongest in the country) there were only 21,000 votes whereas in many rural  electorates there were well over 30,000 votes.
  • I wonder what NZ First’s approach to transport matters will be. I’d better have a search through their policies…
  • If the Greens can maintain something like their vote share at the next election (which I think will be a challenge against an inevitably revitalised Labour) then in 2014 I think we’re likely to see National remaining the largest party but not being able to form a government.

But perhaps the weirdest thing of the whole night is the electorate result for Christchurch Central. With the special votes still to be counted the Labour and National candidates are dead even.

Share this


  1. Labour have been bloody useless in the last parliamentary term and the rousing vote of apathy in Phil Goff and his team should give them a wakeup call. The centre-left party which actually did something polled well, although I found the comments from the TV crew on how they were popular now because they “wore suits” and were no longer “hippies” quite disgusting.

    John Banks, for all his deep evil, reaffirmed his support for the CBD Rail Link on the campaign, and since the Government now relies on him for its majority, perhaps Stephen Joyce didn’t get it all his own way.

    As for the electorate vote thing, perhaps many Auckland Centralists really didn’t see “Big Teeth” Ardern as any different from “Bottle Blonde” Kaye in practical effect. Empty, smiling, vacant ciphers for their leaders, both. I did follow your advice and vote Big Teeth just to screw the Nats personally, but I can really understand that “lesser of two evils” politics does NOT excite the broad masses as much as it excites urban liberal politics geeks.

  2. “… we’ll have a transport planner there to put the tough questions to Steven Joyce over the next three years.”

    I’m hearing rumours that Steven Joyce may be in line for a promotion which could see someone else get the transport portfolio…

    1. Has it really increased as a proportion of eligible voters? I imagine the number of 18+ year olds in that electorate has increased a lot since 2008.

      1. It would’ve been interesting if the census was held earlier this year, because I suspect we would’ve seen a large number of Pacific Island South Aucklanders are now living in Australia. Within my own family (first cousins) 75% or nearly 50 individuals now live in Australia, having moved over in the last three years. About 5 of them have turned 18yo over the last three years. If this was replicated across many other Pacific Island South Auckland families it’s hard not see how this could’ve played a part in Labours collapse. Of course I also know plenty of Pacific Island South Aucklanders who are still here who didn’t vote on Saturday.

  3. Doloras – I think Russell Norman’s approach to marketing himself and his party is pragmatic. Many potential middle class and/or middle aged voters who support Green Party policies would be put off by a scruffy dread-locked candidate or one with strident anti-establishment views. Russell Norman with his academic credentials, excellent radio / TV persona and conservative appearance gives the environmental cause a lot more credibility than previous leaders. The Green Party has always had an excellent record on political integrity and was poorly treated by the Clark administration.

    In order to develop Auckland’s transport infrastructure longer term we need to focus on improving the social & health well being of children from disadvantaged homes. We will save money on health and social costs meaning we have more money to spend on the infrastructure we need to become wealthier.

    1. Yeah, but I have strident anti-establishment views. No-one speaks for me in Parliament but Hone Harawira, and judging by the global economic collapse etc. we might just be worth listening to.

  4. I was watching TV3 and when the leaders were giving their speeches the Greens crowd looked young and smart. The Labour crowd looked a bit older, sadder (and quite diverse) and I couldn’t bear to hear the Nats, so I turned over to SBS on the satellite and watched Rockwiz. I learnt there is an Abba cover band doing songs in thrash metal style who call themselves “Abbatoir”.

    I imagine the Nats crowd was old and close to retirement and/or death, but that may just be my personal prejudices coming through.

    Young people bloody well enrol and not let the oldies have it all their own way.

    I scrutineered a rural booth and a lot of NZ First party support was ticking the Nats guy for the electorate, but not the Labour or NZ First guys. There were a number of Nats electorate voters party voting Green. So votes were all over the place.

    Great news for Julie Anne. Still stuck with Joyce though. If he is promoted then we might get Nathan Guy as Transport Minister. I was disappointed to see he didn’t lose Otaki. The Kapiti Expressway protesters are going to have a real fight on their hands now.

  5. Is Julie Ann perhaps one of the first MPs NZ has had that is actually trained in transport planning? It’s a shame minister positions aren’t assigned based on quanlifications rather than how many radio stations you’ve run.

  6. “Ironically, the current majority is well under the number of electorate votes for Green candidate Denise Roche – so all you Green Party supporters who couldn’t split your vote have undermined your own transport goals. Fools!”

    You are letting your FPP mindset get in the way. The electorate race in Auckland C was completely meaningless because tactical voting is only of relevance in electorates such as Ohariu and Epsom. Roche voters switching to Ardern would have no difference to the outcome of all three main candidates’ election to parliament. The 21% party vote Green in Auckland C sends a far more potent message than a marginal win by Ardern over Kaye would.

    1. Hans, I disagree, yes it wouldn’t change the final result but does communicate an important message, especially about the CRL; I’m very disappointed by the naiveté displayed by the left compared to the right in this election.

      1. I voted for “Big Teeth” Ardern, but surely the fault is of the Labour Party to fail to convince Green voters that she would be any better on green issues than “Bottle Blonde” Kaye. I despise the Labour party idea that they have a god-given right to every vote on the centre-left because they’re less obviously offensive than the Nats. “Lesser of two evils” politics only encourages Labour to position themselves “just” to the right of National and deprive the electorate of choice.

    2. Yes you are right Hans, all three are in parliament. However the winner of AC has a mandate to speak for the area directly… Also by electing Nikki Kaye it sends the message AC is content with the job doing

      1. Not just AK Central, also Waitakere…. spanking Bennett would be a not useless considering the policies she’s fronting, but hey there is still the specials to come in…?

    3. Hans, gotta disagree bro. If Greens had said “party only” and not run a candidate; Jacinda would hold Auckland Central, Bennet would be out in Waitaks and Chch central would be Labour too.

      I can’t understand why the leftish parties didn’t get together and rort the system just like the Righties did.

      Incompetence at the highest levels of strategic planning. Or something else?

  7. Re Auckland Central and tactical voting, maybe thats why we should use STV within MMP electorates so you do not have to base your vote on how other people are expected to vote?

  8. Sadly, admin, I think you are mistaken counting the NZF vote on the centre left. This is the party of largely incoherent protest, they may feel outside of the cosy self congratulation of National but they also don’t like the scary change that Labour and especially the Greens offer. This is the centre right protest vote. Or to put it another way this is the angry and disenfranchised suburban and provincial mindset; National’s unhappy. They don’t want change but rather to feel less excluded from the well off in society just as it is. It is an contradictory world view, but hey there’s a lot of that out there, like those who don’t want asset sales but voted for it them anyway. Or like the young fool quoted in the Herald who says he’s glad National won but thinks the minimum wage should go up…. errr?

    On transport NZF will be all roads, I bet they call for the tax off petrol at the next oil price spike. Will set themselves up as the anti-Green party in particular. Very unhelpful I’m guessing. And what a bunch of inadequates they are too, one-termers I’m picking. Will they be the source of all the comedy this term like Rodney’s coat-tailers were last time?

  9. •I wonder what NZ First’s approach to transport matters will be. I’d better have a search through their policies…

    Good luck, I am convinced they don’t actually have any poicies.

    Patrick R. Whilst I agree that you shouldn’t count NZ First on the Left, neither should you count it on the right. Certainly some element of a protest vote, but generally just plain scared/conservative people. This is the most unfortunate outcome of the night.

    With ACT dead, perhaps the Greens can shake off a little more of their irrational nationalistic/old-time-socialist policies and reach for the liberal vote.

    1. Swan I agree about NZF, we’re saying the same thing. But I have no idea what is so frightening about the Greens… are you sure you’ve actually looked at their programme or just listened to Nat/ACT/NZF spin on them?

      1. Not scared of the Greens. I disagree with alot of their policies, but thats OK as it that is no different to any other party. But particular policies that made me write them off this time:

        a) Minimum wage legislation. This is just technically bad policy. If you are trying to acheive greater wealth redistribution do it through the tax/welfare system – its better for everyone. Minimum wages are distortionary and one of the last vestiges of Muldoon era economic policy. Policies of the type Gareth Morgan has been articulating are what I am talking about. As a progressive party the Greens would be best placed to champion such policy (it could never come from the right as it wouldn’t be accepted).

        b) 100,000 green jobs. This to me is either relatively meaningless populism (that minor parties can trumpet as they know they wont have enough power to implement them), or it is very close to state-capitalism.

        Anyway Julie-Anne Genter sounds like the pick of the new MP’s (from any party). Hopefully she does well and articulates progressive ideas and educates a few NZers.

        1. Swan- hardly a pair of policies to earn the alarmist label: ‘irrational nationalistic/old-time-socialist’

          1. I understand your purism on minimum wage but in practice it doesn’t work like that. What it is really is about is the reality of power within wage negotiation at the bottom of the heap. I think it is an important role for the state to put a line in the sand and declare where fair pay begins and slavery ends. It is a really good policy for keeping shop floor relationships straightforward; my eldest daughter has been working in a cafe on Sundays, she is paid the minimum wage, would you prefer at 16 that she go into negotiations with the owners? How would that work out? And say if they could pay her less [yay! soon they can when Nats bring in youth rates, yipee!] Are they going to hire others, no, they need the staff they need, and if they were paying her less it just goes to the bottom line. I am pretty sure they are pleased to have the issue of what to pay her sorted out. Of course at what level the min. should be is another matter.
          No way I could live on 13 an hour, and it is certainly clear more money in the hand at the bottom is way better for life in the economy than any ‘trickle down’ for millionaires.

          2. Well I believe it is urgent that we transfer our economy away from fossil fuel dependence and that the gov. [and SOEs!] have a big role to play in that, and that if it is to happen it will create new jobs… hardly a radical or unimaginable proposition.

        2. Minimum wage is a blunt tool to redistribute wealth, but a necessary evil at a time of monopsonies (big corporates ready to exploit as much as they can). Ultimately however, Swan is right. A Universal Basic Income (as put forward by Gareth Morgan) is the way forward. Again, I agree with Swan, it would be really nice to see the Greens champion this instead of minimum wage.

        3. I like the UBI too, but I would still want a minimum wage as otherwise you are just allowing powerful employers to basically pocket the UBI by slashing wages. Removing the min. wage looks nice and tidy to economic purists but is flat out naive in reality.

  10. Personally I think it is a shame that people voted to retain MMP, I preferred STV myself as one of the things I hate is list MP’s who have done nothing but can get in. I don’t think there was enough debate or information about the whole referendum and so most people who did vote on it probably just voted for what they knew.

    With MMP being retained there are a couple of things that I would like to see tweaked to improve it for the future, the main one is I think all political hopefuls should have to make a choice, stand in an electorate or be on the list and they shouldn’t be able to do both. That would mean that if you stood in an electorate and weren’t voted in by the public then you can’t sneak into parliament through the back door

    1. That will lead to a lot of b grade candidates in marginal and opposition seats. I don’t understand why it is such a bad thing to come in as part of the list if you are defeated in an electorate seat. Sure one electorate didn’t like you but that doesn’t necessarily make you a bad mp. Nor one that voters in other electorates might like. I like Jacinda Arden but as I am in Mt Albert I don’t get the chance to vote for her directly so I’m happy that my party vote helped her into parliament.

      1. I actually think the opposite, under STV electorates would probably be slightly larger but people would actually be able to vote in multiple candidates per electorate and as parties could nominate more than one person to stand it means it is it the best interest of parties to put up the best candidates, at the moment you could put a turd up for National in a rural electorate and it would still get voted in.

        As an example of how it could work, my electorate is Waitakere and say it was joined with neighbouring Te Atatu but together there might be 3 seats available. Based on voting that we have seen yesterday it might have ended up with Paula Bennett, Carmel Sepuloni and Phil Tywford getting elected so Labour would have actually got an extra person in. The important thing is people have to make a decision about which candidates best represent them.

  11. Good point. It’s been my impression for some time that a lot of the hostility towards the Greens is simply irrational. Certainly that has been my experience at my workplace.

    I even saw one commenter over at Public Address recently describe the Green party as “anti-science”, which is bizarre, quite frankly.

  12. Winston Peters and NZF do stand for something. They’re old-school, anti-free-trade, One Nation Tories. They’re the National Party of pre-neoliberalism days. As to where they stand on PT,

    1. Well he did introduce the super gold card giving free PT trips for oldies (something I completely disagree with)

      Looking at their manifesto there isn’t a single mention of PT in there.

      Also found a press release from October that has been removed but can be viewed thanks to the cached version from google that says they would cancel the RoNS with more money put into maintaining the existing network.

  13. @Patrick R and Swan: I’ve always thought of Winston as pro roads, and this was certainly the case when he was an MP in Tauranga – a lot of roading projects there over the last 20 years or so have been helped along at some point by him. Actually, the best way of looking at Winston is pro pork.

    Whatever NZF has put out to date re transport isn’t worth the pixels they occupy as Winston will usually alter his position on any particular issue to cater for where ever he senses the wind is blowing at any particular moment, and unfortunately, he’s often been reasonably good picking the right side in past.

    So if he sees enough latent support out there for PT, and especially if this is something he might be able to gain traction on against National, I’d say he could support it.

  14. I’m upset that the Bottle Blonde Nikki Kaye won support over Jacinda Aldern, like me I want the CBD rail link built, I think a lot of people were concerned about the country being controlled by a weak Labour Party with coalition members. As for me I would have much sooner this happened like that and I’m much more concerned now that the National have one the election with a even bigger majority and the expressway proposal will fall to death ears, basically going against the communities wishes. I want the CBD rail link built what I don’t want is more of the same National crap we put with in 2008.

    The only good thing that has come out of this election the Greens one more seats and National didn’t win enough to secure an overall majority.

  15. Of course, oh, happy, happy, joy, joy: both Nikki Kaye MP, and John Banks MP ‘support’ the City Rail Link…. so they will be strong advocates as part of the new government to fund this important project as soon as possible…. I so look forward to hearing of their progress in this matter.

    1. Not that I want to disrupt your cynicism party, but think of this: ACT are dead as a party. Banksie is pretty much (like Peter Dunne) “Independent National”. The good people of Epsom voted for him because he’s a Tory who won’t have to toe the party line. What better way to show his independence than by standing up to Joyce and/or the new Transport Minister in support of the CBDRL?

      1. Good point. I wonder if his pledges of support made during his Mayoral campaign count as Act policy? Probably not I think as Don Brash took the “it needs to be properly evaluated” line. A good thing to highlight though… Hmmmm….

        1. Banks stated his support during the mayoralty because he realised it was an issue people were voting on, he never really mentioned it again AFAIK since running under Act’s umbrella. I doubt he honestly cares either way, and I have a feeling most of his constituents don’t care either way either. Banks isn’t going to provide much traction in this area, the Maori party seems more interested in getting involved with the asset sales than pushing forward policies to increase mobility of low income workers in South Auckland.

        2. In today’s Herald Rudman has Banks on record as supporting the CBD Rail link as part of the Act campaign. Rudman is calling on Banks to follow through and make it a condition of support

        3. Rich people don’t take the train in Auckland so it is unlikely the Banks party would support the rail link.

        4. Ari – Define ‘rich’ I know many people on decent 6 figure incomes who regularly catch trains to get to work, I also know plenty who catch the bus as well. There are also a hell a lot of people on incomes in the 60k-100k range who catch trains or buses daily.

  16. Labour have paid the price for ignoring Auckland- looks like they haven’t been forgiven.

    Their problem is that all their inner Auckland voters are flooding to the Greens- 22% party vote Auckland Central, even 15% plus places like New Lynn.

    I agree Kaye winning is meaningless in the bigger scheme. Twyford winning was more significant as he could have been turfed out altogether.

  17. I almost feel the Green party would do better for itself (and the left in general) if it pulled out of some of the close seats where national & labour are tight and also out of the seats that it has no chance in hell of winning. All they are really doing is taking votes away from the labour candidate, and national ends up winning it by default. They’d have no less seats than they do now, cause they got in by the party vote anyway. I’m not saying all those green supporters would automatically vote labour, but a large proportion would. I’m gutted at the National victory, are half of NZ blind?!

    1. Apart from the symbolic victories this might have given Labour candidates (especially in Auckland central) this wouldn’t have made a difference to the end result in terms of numbers of seats in the house.

  18. Sean,

    Only a quarter of NZ are blind, national got 950k odd party votes, out of a population of 4.4million and eligible voters of 3.2m ish. So they got around. So they got support from around 29% of the population. Shows how dire politics is in NZ.

  19. Seems like you all forgot NZ First brought in the Gold Card, the best thing transport wise the aging population of NZ ever received. How many other countries give the elderly free transport? I don’t agree with everything NZ First has done, then again I don’t agree with everything the Greens or Labour have done. However, before you rant off againt NZ First think for one moment, engage the brain, those senior citizens on fixed incomes can afford to travel on PT because of NZ First. They have mobility like never before.

    Or are you transport commentators only interested in transport for those under 65? That is rather strange.

    Particularly glad to see ACT knee capped, nearly dismembered. The did nothing good for New Zealand.

    1. I think the super gold card is one of the worst policies out there (transport wise) as it has nothing to do with providing mobility to old people but was an attempt to try and buy votes. Remember it came out that ferry trips to Waiheke were taking up the lions share of the cash and many private operators, especially fullers were able to use it to deliberately game the system and get provided more subsidies.

  20. Matt L: Of course you think that, you are not a fixed income senior citizen. Initially there was rush to test out the new Super Gold card. But after time, how many times can you go to Waiheke for a cuppa?

    I just think you actually have not thought through the value of the Super Gold Card for the Kiwis aged 65+. Easy to fall in the trap you have.

    1. I think there are better ways of achieving the same outcome, would it not have been better to increase pensions so that everyone benefits equally and those that don’t need to use it to travel can then put that money to another use. At the moment there are probably only a small section of people who could use it that actually do meaning those individuals are getting far more support than the rest. Even better would have been pushing to get the PTMA implimented quicker so we had services gross contracted, that way there wouldn’t have been any extra cost to the government/councils as the service was already paid for.

      1. If you want the elderly to remain fit and healthy and mobile, don’t give them a free transport supergold card but a bicycle.
        Allan Davies, NZF candidate for Auckland C – and Waiheke pensioner – in the campaign opposed any subsidies for the Waiheke ferry. I look forward to him handing back his gold card.

        1. Hans, you may as well take them out them back and shoot them. Urban roads are dangerous for cyclists in general, let alone 65yr olds who lack cycling experience. Besides, walking to and from the bus stop is good excercise. Many pensioners live at the poverty level and subsidising their transport is a great idea. I’m sure it was an election bribe, but it still provides great benefits. I do wonder about the costs of such a scheme given the greying of the population. I shudder at the thought of 2040 when there is 3 tax payers per retired pensioners.

  21. Thanks to the Gold card my dear mum does not own, or need, a car to get around. And no, she hasn’t been to Waiheke. Great idea.

  22. “At the moment there are probably only a small section of people who could use it that actually do meaning those individuals are getting far more support than the rest.”

    Matt L. Ok, you cannot like the Gold Card for some reason which truly makes no sense. Most people in NZ live in the cities, therefore most of the 65+ people will have the choice of using PT, increasing their mobility greatly. I believe you are just anti NZ First outright and, being under 65, refuse to believe the benefits it has delivered to a growing portion of Kiwis.

    However, yes, if you are 65+ and chose to live in the middle of no where (minority of 65+), then true, no PT available to them. On the whole, Gold Card is better than anything you have dreamt up for the masses of people aged 65+.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *