After months of campaigning, debates, the elections are finally over.

Here are the preliminary results some may change when the final results come in. Apparently today’s votes will be added in tomorrow and special votes on Thursday.


Phil Goff retains his mayoralty with 156k votes (48%) to John Tamihere’s 70k. That gives him a 85k vote majority, 10k more than in 2016 despite fewer people voting – Phil got 188k votes 2016 to Victoria Crone’s 112k.


There are a number of really close races and in it appears that in most of them, the candidates that support better transport and housing outcomes are ahead.

  • Rodney: Greg Sayers was elected unopposed
  • Albany: John Watson and Wayne Walker have both retained their seats
  • North Shore: Chris Darby and Richard Hills have both retained their seats
  • Waitakere: Linda Cooper has been reelected and will be joined by Shane Henderson
  • Whau: Tracey Mulholland has tipped out Ross Clow
  • Waitemata: Pippa Coom is ahead of Mike Lee by 150 votes.
  • Albert-Eden-Roskill: Cathy Casey and Christine Fletcher both win seats
  • Orakei: Desley Simpson was always likely to win
  • Maungakiekie-Tamaki: Josphine Bartley has retained her seat so far ahead by 800 votes.
  • Howick: Sharon Stewart and Paul Young have been relected
  • Manukau: Alf Filipaina and Efeso Collins win the two seats again
  • Manurewa-Papakura: Daniel Newman and Angela Dalton
  • Franklin: Bill Cashmore was elected unopposed

Local Boards

Main changes that I’ve noticed so far is that Albert-Eden Local Board now has a C & R majority, but that City Vision’s majority on the Waitemata Local Board has increase from 5-2 to 6-1.

Share this


  1. I see that in the Albert-Roskill community board, City Vision candidate and commenter on this blog is trailing the last successful C&R candidate by THREE votes.

    How much power does the local board have to actually derail the Chamberlain Park redevelopment?

    1. Correction Daphne, it’s the Albert Eden community board.

      While Puketapapa (Roskill) shares the same councillors, it has its own local board seperate from Albert-Eden.

    2. As far as I’m aware it was a City Vision local board initiative. C&R campaigned to stop it along with local action groups. I’d say the trees are now safe, similar to the campaign a couple of years ago to save the pohutukawa trees along Gt Nth Rd on the opposite side of the motorway.

  2. A comprehensive rejection of the “populist” fake retail politics of Tamihere. The size of Tamihere’s defeat should be the final nail in the coffin of the idea Aucklanders don’t want rapid transit, light rail, bus ways and cycle lanes.

  3. And at least with the mayoral race we have got the devil we know not the devil/s we don’t know . BNut with the Councillors what will they all want/stand for .

  4. The Hamilton City Council seems to have undergone a transformation. The ACT man, the anti vax/fluoride lady, the 75 year old traffic cop and various other embarassments all gone or not elected. At this stage, James Casson is the only deplorable with a small chance after the 3500 specials are counted.

  5. Zippo, the ACT man will probably be elected back on again in 2022 – he’s been in and out of the Hamilton City Council like a bad penny for years … but at least the other embarrassments have gone. I wonder if there will be any new embarrassments?

    1. Wrong question. Most races were between progressive v retrograde, and either can be nominally left or right.

      Most wonderfully, if it holds in Waitemata. Where confused old man Lee, long calcified into a hot mess of of wrong takes and conspiracy, has at last got his snout dragged out of the trough of local government where he jammed it centuries ago, back when he probably had good intentions. Though no one is old enough to remember…

      1. Urbanista, one can see why you feel too ashamed to use your real name. No one with any dignity would write what you have written, especially about someone who cares deeply for his constituants and the environment, and most of all, democracy. Pippa Coom would be disgusted with your comment about her good friend.

        1. Oh ‘Geoff’, if only that were true! A real leader, someone who ‘cares deeply for his constituents and the environment’, would have stepped aside if not at this election but probably the last one, have given their blessing and support to one of their many empowered and enabled protégés, helped her to a resounding victory, thereby ensuring, selflessly, the continuation of these great principles. Principles that of course they love much more than his own ego and power.

          Instead, what do we see, a graceless attempt to cling to power way past ability or attention, resulting in a likely humiliation, when there should be basking in universal praise and respect, handing the batten on… real leaders don’t eat their own, and they know when to move on (which comes from not isolating themselves, only with a small circle; delusion always results).

  6. The results look to be largely a reflection of the publicity the candidates had. It was either vote for Phill or vote for some unknown random.

  7. Real shame that Sayers, Walker and Watson all got elected in the north.
    At least Sayers does most of what he says (as misguided as some of it is) the other two are missing in action more often than not.

    1. Sayers was unopposed! Which is astonishing when you consider the amount of whinging from that area about the Super City. All mouth and no etc etc.

  8. For mayor, sadly, it was who stank the least and Goff won that by a landslide but it’s not an endorsement of his council. Gridlock continues unabated, alternatives remain too hard bar window dressing.

    But what a bizarre campaign from JT. He lost it the moment his strategy team dusted off, or thawed out Roger Douglas from his crypt and decided to start flogging off assets to make most of us all the poorer and wealthy investors even wealthier. Oh, and the obligatory rates freeze promise. Can these pricks just stop thinking of themselves and their next $10 million just for once?

    Then there was the madness of double decking the bridge. Was there more than a moment’s thought gone into that. Could the supporting structure even cope?

    Or the abuse. Why belittle Goff for his coronary issues? Mate, who the F does that or why? Or the threats to sue people. A stock in trade Tamihere go to when the going gets slightly ever so resistant and he wants a personal problem to go away or do better out of a $ituation. Like we need this guy . He may well have had some good ideas but they were lost in the angry freak show he fronted with.

    And was the recalcitrant Christine Fletcher at her holiday home in Monaco or the Riviera during the campaign? MIA big time. Still, she got back in so whose laughing now!

  9. Thinking about Auckland in particular but the country in general much of the apathy can be put down to people not really knowing who to vote for/ A huge swath – I would say over 90% – of voters votes tribally based on the colour of the rosette. Maybe it is time to drop the fictional fronts of “Independent”, “C&R”, “City Vision” etc etc and simply say candidates are endorsed by Labour or National or Green or whatever. The Greens (see: Dunedin mayoralty) already do this. At least then people will vote with some rough idea of which way they person they are voting for actually swings.

  10. Does this mean we won’t be getting a three storey bridge built on temporary piers that gets pushed sideways onto the old ones?

      1. And if they brought her back imagine the que lengths at the ferry building , they would make the summer time ones look very small

        1. This is off topic I know – maybe the demise of the hydrofoil could a good future story for here?

          It is interesting though that she wasn’t canned for economic reasons, more union and regulatory ones. I wonder if a hydrofoil service would be economic today?

  11. The shite that is local body politics just shows why central government direction is so needed.
    Speaking of which, did anyone else see the NZPI’s submission on the NPS-UD? Disappointing.
    The funniest thing in it was the statement around how the Unitary Plan shows that ‘draconian’ central government direction is not needed….

    1. And one of the biggest proposals in the NPS-UD, removing parking minimums, wasn’t even mentioned by NZPI. I guess that means they implicitly support it as part of their overall support for the NPS? But still, doesn’t state a preference between options 1, 2, and 3.

  12. Zen Man

    If you listen to Steppen Selwood at the 8 minute mark onwards you wouldn’t have any more confidence in decisions at a national level than at a local level.

    He argues that there is no overall national consistent plan. He is undoubtedly right as, for example, why would we have such a strong focus on 4 lanes to Whangerei when most likely we are going to be driving less? He then talks of Singapore which has a collective culture whereas we have an individualistic one.

    What I found most interesting is his thought that we need road pricing. As others on this blog have talked of, here is a fix for so many issues: faced with road pricing are people going to choose to build, or buy, far away from their workplace?; discretionary driving may decrease; and this could cause mode shift, among other things.

    NZ needs to take superannuation; climate change and infrastructure out of the political space so that we can have sustainable options for our and our kids future.

    1. While I am sure the large corporations Stephen Selwood represents would prefer that we lived in an autocracy like Singapore there are a lot of us in this country that don’t want that type of system.

    2. In Singapore if anyone tries to move back to their ancestral village, the police arrive and forceably move them back to the city. It would be like the government here forcing everyone in the Waikato to move to Hamilton to make economic development simpler.

      Although unlike around 30 years ago when we had regional development, that does seem to be what passes for it these days.

  13. Miffy
    so building the things that we need e.g. power stations (from a nationally agreed list of priorities) is not a better idea than building some of the things the party in power wants e.g. RoNS?

  14. Same old sh#t, different day. The more I look at the mayor and councillors though, the more I’m convinced they’re powerless. There will still be swathes of unelected officials running our cities, feeding at the trough and letting the mayor face the media/ public when things turn to custard. Same with national politics, you elect a transport minister to build light rail but a faceless board delays it for whatever reason. Not democratic in the slightest…Still, we’re not Brexit bad yet.

    1. with that kind of progress I guess we won’t be even getting a light rail. but probably some new tax will appear. People seem to like it

  15. We’re having a party when Lee concedes
    We’re having a party when Lee concedes

    Pass the parcel when Lee concedes…

    Jelly and ice cream when Lee concedes…


    1. What is your concern about Mike Lee? I attended several council meetings where his contribution was considered and well communicated.

      So, am curious to understand the story behind your comment.

  16. I won’t be sad to see Mike Lee gone based on his record in the last 10 years. However, if it is indeed the end for him (I don’t think it is confirmed yet), then I think it is worth reflecting on what he has achieved over the years.

    The renaissance of rail in Auckland and the growth of the Regional Parks network is a pretty significant achievement and a deserving legacy, one that not many politicians can point to.

    1. What record has spoilt his contribution? I’ve seen a couple of comments here that single Mike Lee out for disparagement – over and above many other councillors, and I can’t determine why.

      1. A few things in no particular order:

        – Parnell station in the wrong location due to faux heritage nonsense.
        – Loopy Wynyard trams (pseudo heritage tourist toy rather than useful PT).
        – Blocking rapid transit in the NW corridor (because not heavy rail).
        – Promoting elitist city-airport express at expense of rapid(ish) transit to areas such as Mangere.
        – extreme heavy rail mode bias to detriment of proper multi-modal public transport network.
        – Voted against the CRL.

        1. I never followed his transport stuff so closely, but for me, the problem was with saying one thing and doing another.

          He claimed to be supportive of the concept of a compact city / intensification … but in reality was opposed to development in inner suburbs, opposed to development of heritage panel beating areas in Morningside, opposed to developing green areas (which I generally agree with), opposed to providing high density next to the train station in Orakei, and opposed to developing council brownfields sites. So I thought his support for intensification was a very thin mask over quite severe opposition to it.

          For me, integrity is important, and he didn’t display it on this matter.

        2. Thanks, Heidi. Appreciate you taking the time to answer. Like you, I was also disappointed to see that the density issue has not been followed through on, but that seems to be across the board, and despite a lot of fanfare at the start of the Unitary Plan process, and support from a majority of Aucklanders, the intent seem to have been dropped really quickly.

          I’ll have a look and see what his reasons were behind some of his voting. He has been vocal about issues that others have not been, and I don’t have an issue with disagreeing with representatives if they have sound reasoning behind their decisions. I have experienced more than one instance of representatives working behind the scenes to disrupt ideas they promote publicly.

        3. Started off with Parnell station – and Mike Lee – and this seems relevant, and is true about the process of decision making.

          Stuff article:

          “There’s one more thing to mention about the Parnell station: it’s not there because Cr Mike Lee decided to put it there. As chair of the old Auckland Regional Council, board member of Auckland Transport (a position he no longer holds) and as a city councillor now he has always been a strong advocate for the station. But the decision was not his to make. Good and bad, the responsibility for the station lies with the AT management and the AT board.”

        4. On Parnell, Mike Lee was well involved in promotion of the current site (or at least takes credit for it).
          Mike Lee’s own words:

          Ontrack had wanted it further down the hill next to the rail bridge, being closer to the University, but I argued with the support of the Parnell community, this would not serve the Parnell Village, nor the Museum, ‘a Museum station’ always an important consideration in my mind (besides a 100 year old heritage building would look out of place in overlooking Stanley Street).

        5. That is why Mike Lee should never have been allowed to make those decisions. What idiot thinks that a museum is an important consideration for a rapid transit station, and that the tiny Parnell village shops should be served over a university precinct with 45,000 students.

          And if your twee fake repositioning of the old station building doesn’t ‘look right’ where the station should go, then don’t put the old building there, just build a real station in the right place.

          Look at that mess, a colossal failure caused by a pig headed amateur interfering with specialists plans, going against advice then gloating about on his personal blog. He should be ashamed, at least he is gone now and can’t keep interfering.

Leave a Reply

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