The final tally is in, and the Mayor along with all the Councillors for the 3rd Supercity Council are now known, most were confirmed on Saturday, however the race for the second ward position for the North Shore went down to special votes, as Richard Hills was only 70 votes ahead at the time.

The final result for the two Councillor positions for the North Shore was

1.     Chris Darby  19396 Votes

2.     Richard Hills 12651 Votes

Grant Gillion who was 70 odd votes behind at the Preliminary count finished on 12523 votes, Richard Hills increased his margin after special voting was counted to 128 votes.

Richard Hills should be a good addition to the Council from a Transport perspective, he campaigned on in his words “Better public transport, cheaper fares, more walking and cycling initiatives including Skypath and secure Rail to the Shore,”

He scored an A+ on Generation Zero’s Scorecard & has served two terms on Kaipatiki Local Board. Along with Darby it looks like the North Shore have voted 2 very PT focused candidates with both advocating for Cycling, as well as Rail for the Shore.

As far as I am aware he ran a positive campaign, and like Chloe used Social Media to very good effect.

The Final Council make is now as follows with the final votes, Bill Cashmore is N/A as he was elected unopposed.

(Note ignore text below title, these are the final not provisional results)

Confirmed Results
The final turnout was 38.5% after special votes had been counted, and 18000 votes were made on the Saturday.

Share this

38 comments

  1. Richard Hills is an excellent addition to Council. As well as being very good with policy, he’s good with people. I suggest that he’ll appreciate the support that this blog and others give for a better urban environment and in making it easier to bring the changes we need.

    1. Well said George. We really do need big changes in AT to move their insular mindset, and he’s just the person to get those changes started. Safe cycle lanes, train stations, integrated fares, frequent bus services and fare equality are not just for the isthmus.

      Welcome aboard Richard – we on the Shore need you!

  2. Next time anyone thinks of throwing around North Shore stereotypes as car loving anti-urbanites – remember who we voted for 🙂

    1. Different Ward, Clow won the Whau Ward, Wayne won Albany Ward. It a little like electorates in Central Government Elections.

  3. great result for the Shore, unfortunate for Kaipatiki as it gives Shore (no)Action a bloc of four on the board

    shame that Chloe didn’t stand for Council, a Darby/Hills/Swarbrick flying wedge could have quite an impact

  4. Where does the new council find itself now in regards to voting blocs relating to transport issues (i.e. public transport vs roads)?. Has this changed much from the last council?

    1. Correct me if I’m wrong.

      For Public Transport

      Albany: John Watson (NO), Wayne Walker (YES)
      Albert-Eden-Roskill: Cathy Casey (YES), Christine Fletcher (YES)
      Franklin: Bill Cashmore (YES?)
      Howick: Dick Quax (NO), Sharon Stewart (NO)
      Manukau: Efeso Collins (YES), Alf Filipaina (YES)
      Manurewa-Papakura: John Walker (?), Daniel Newman (?)
      Maungakiekie-Tamaki: Denise Crum (NO)
      North Shore: Chris Darby (YES), Richard Hills (YES)
      Orakei: Desley Simpson (NO)
      Rodney: Steven Garner (NO)
      Waitakere: Penny Hulse (YES), Linda Cooper (YES)
      Waitemata and Gulf: Mike Lee (YES FOR TRAIN… bus or ferry who less likely)
      Whau: Ross Clow (NO)

      YES = 11 (+1 Goff)
      NO = 9

      If any Rail Project (Airport, North Shore, Istmus) is put on the table, it would pass convincingly with 12 votes against 9.

  5. Cheers for that. I would say Daniel Newman a NO. Disappointed Callum Penrose didn’t make it and Newman did. Hope callum stands again.

  6. Hmmm not sure, From 2010 document, Sharon STEWART: “…I stand for lower rates, improved public transport and a safe, secure community; I support a cleaner environment..”, but don’t know her voting record etc

  7. [removed, see User Guideline 1]

    Still furious at the result for Manurewa – Papakura as it was a total whitewash by the National and Maori team that clearly do not represent the face of Manurewa or Papakura. The Board and Councillors are overwhelmingly middle aged, middle class and European.

  8. User Guidelines No. 2 is quite interesting. “2. Members are encouraged to use their real names, especially for those wishing to comment frequently.” At what point does it become frequent commenting so real names are expected?

      1. I use a pseudonym so people don’t find out I am an arsehole. I regard mfwic as my Nom de guerre. (Which for those of you without French means name of the railway station.)

    1. There is no requirement for people to use their real names, but we do encourage it.

      As I discussed in my post the other day, we know that people may have valid personal or professional reasons for not wanting to discuss policy issues in public – for instance, if they work for a company or agency that’s working on the policy. We allow pseudonymous comments so we don’t shut those people out of the debate.

      That being said, pseudonymous comments open the door to bad comments – eg people coming by and saying abusive things that they might not say in person. The purpose of the other user guidelines is to maintain a non-abusive debate with a reasonable standard of evidence. While we do delete pseudonymous comments from time to time, the reason is usually a violation of another user guideline, particularly around abusive or racist/sexist/etc comments.

    2. Given that basically every one on this blog knows my real name in hardly using anonymity as a shield. I just don’t want these to be searchable online so I can actually get other jobs in future because political interest is so seen as dangerous to employers in NZ..

  9. Just having a look at the ward and LB results across the city. FPP is a mess. So many elections won with tens of thousands of votes going to a long list of losers. We really need STV for the results to have any legitimacy.

    1. I think that comment is a bit unfair. People put themselves out there and make the effort to stand, and whatever their views, calling them ‘ a long list of losers’ is not really the most compelling reason for supporting STV, (which I do support).
      As a side note. I noticed in nzh public notices that Venron T had more votes, but he was not listed as one of the 7 winners in WLB – instead they listed J Good….

      1. Sorry I didnt mean it in a pejorative sense. I meant there were huge numbers of votes going to people who didnt win to the point that the vote share of the winners was much smaller than the combined others. STV required because of the plethora of choice and diverse vote split.

  10. Osman has a very interesting article up on the AKL elections here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11728339

    It’s pretty clear that old Nat Party figures: Banks, Boag, and Sue Wood are all fairly delusional about what just happened. The following in particular is telling about how well the new council may work. And how it is very hard to elected anywhere except the distant fringes without a demonstrable commitment to improving Public Transport:

    ‘She [Fletcher] says C&R – the centre-right brand that dominated the former Auckland City Council for decades – had changed a lot since the Super City was born in 2010 and become more centrist with a strong commitment to public transport.

    “I’m really happy with the election of Phil Goff. He will be unifying and understand good process,” says Fletcher, who adds C&R is going to stick around.’

    Not so convinced about George Wood’s claim that he would have won on the North Shore; Darby massively increased his vote, and second place was fought out between two nominally left figures, and the seat taken out by the more progressive Hills, with very solid pro cycling, Transit, and intensification chops. The right coming nowhere by a very large margin. All four North Shore Councillors are solidly ‘Rail 4 the Shore’. Issues Wood has been weak to appalling on.

    1. Hey Patrick it was really great to see you at the rail to the shore talk that was attended by you, Darby, Hills and Julie Anne Genter. Also great to see them both get voted on. I remember you posting at ‘The Oil Drum’, and we had some interesting conversations there. It’s amazing to think how things turned out so differently with respect to oil production as compared to the expectation there — and the implications therein for policy. I wonder what you still think of the concept of peak oil? Still coming? It’s interesting to think about the near term implications with respect to the actions of the incoming Auckland council.

      1. We are very much in the Peak Oil phase. Low prices as a result of the current supply/demand imbalance doesn’t change the wider picture at all. In fact low prices are speeding the ongoing decline of oil’s role as the ‘master commodity’ in the energy sector and whole economy by savagely reducing development of more expensive and marginal sources of oil [this is a very good thing]. This is clearly observable. Also this imbalance is likely to correct, structural changes in demand in the OECD notwithstanding. Reading your comment above it seems to suggest you expected quicker change or events to occur? Or some kind of bell to go off? This is a multi decade transition which we are living through whether we watch it or not. We are going post-oil as a wasted consumer commodity, but this will take years and years. The trend is there, buried beneath complexity. I am with Robert Rapier when he said Shale Oil is not a boon; it’s an industry retirement party. The value of the POB site was the data, it was the best aggregation of production data, but now that Ron Patterson has retired it has much more focus on Denis Coyne’s modelling work which I find less interesting. And the comments are largely dominated by oil types who are in complete denial of the direction of the industry, are childish about climate change, and generally too all-american to be very interesting.

        Change is the most interesting issue to me. Persistence of the status quo is always fascinating. Big phases tend to remain in play long after their real basis has gone. And then can suddenly dissolve. Like the British Empire. Every social condition has an economic foundation, and every economy has an energetic one. These big picture issues interest me profoundly…

        1. I remember coming to the conclusion that oil as an energy source represented two things. Firstly you have the utility factor of the oil itself as both a chemical precursor and medium of energy storage and transmission. Then you have to consider it as an energy source — here’s where you get your EROEI coming in as well. The problem with the analysis I think is that you have the geo-political factors. Peak oil projections worked well for the U.S.A. because it was one country with essentially one set of rules in a developed economy. When considering the whole world there are far too many confounding variables and deliberate misinformation to sift through.

          You’re at the University of Auckland aren’t you?

          1. I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you separate oil’s ‘utility factor’ from its use as an energy source. Isn’t that just two ways of saying the same thing? And peak oil is inevitable; every field is finite, we are, to use that oilman Rockman’s phrase, living in the ‘Peak Oil Syndrome’. Which is to say it is now, whether or not 2015 does turn out to be the year of the actual peak of C+C production, the world is certainly at the peak plateau of oil production. Regardless of whether some year coming tops 2015, that’ll just be noise. No one would bother with the financial and environmental disaster of Shale Oil if there were still vast conventional fields to tap instead. Really the more interesting and important issues are around Climate Change and FF. The best way to understand the challenge of this century is as the transition away from the FF energetic base of society to a electric one from many newer sources. This is already strongly underway, and it is an enormous shame that our current government is so blind to the opportunities here for NZ./ We have no car industry, a small O&G sector compared to our electricity one; and as the future is electric everywhere we should aggressively transitioning to the grid and exporting the resultant expertise and low carbon production…. Transport ids of course the key sector, along with agriculture.

            I am not teaching at the School of Architecture this year as I have so much else on, including my next book. Next year is looking very busy too, will have to wait and see.

        2. Well you can consider the energy density, trans-portability and chemical usefulness as one part of oil. Bio-fuels can replace this part if we need them to in certain applications where we cannot use anything else — see things like jet fuel as an example. This is the substance of the physical product itself. This plays a major role in understanding the dynamics of the fuel because there is a utility factor that makes oil exploration useful beyond considering it as just an energy source.

          When you drill for oil you can also consider it in the way of an energy source, so any energy source is a substitute for this. It doesn’t matter if it is wind, nuclear, solar, hydro etc. An energy source is an energy source. This affects the total energy balance of any society. For instance you can compare solar as a substitute for burning oil in the middle east. This means that as climate change targets start being met then as solar plants get deployed the overall demand for oil burnt in the middle east could drop by several million barrels per day because it makes more sense to sell the oil and use solar electricity as it fits their usage patterns extremely well.

          Overall I have to agree with you on the general nearsightedness of the government with respect to their transport decisions. Even if there could be a major revolution towards self-driving cars it doesn’t make sense to drive all the transport investment towards this area because whilst on balance the combination of electric + self driving could change transport significantly for the better, the efficiency gains promised still cancel out the utility of large areas set aside for parking/motorways given the promised efficiency gains lie in these two areas. Then when you compound this with the climate change targets that we signed up for, it looks incredibly asinine.

  11. I can’t believe Daniel Newman got in. If anyone needed to be kicked out, it was John Walker. Calum Penrose got my vote and in my opinion was the best councillor of the 3. However, a Walker v Newman situation left me to hold my nose and vote Walker back in. I suspect Newman got his votes from the Manukau Heights suburbs and Papakura. Unfortunately not enough people out in working class manurewa sent any votes back in. Newman is a throwback to less council spending on anything and everything except for roads.

    1. Danii probably got a few votes from Wattle Downs, but proudly not from me though. I think it’s a bad look for a Councillor to be so engaged in politics that they have belonged to Labour and National. Personal values are obviously not required.

      Callum should have won and would have without the negative campaign run by the opposition.

Leave a Reply