24/03/2024
Leave a comment
Parliament

My Submission to the Covid Inquiry

QU ONE: LOOKING BACK
My father died on 15 March 2020 of a heart attack. He lived in the UK and my mum phoned at midnight to tell me he was lying dead on the kitchen floor. What should she do? Could I come over? I said yes, of course.

It soon became apparent, however, that if I flew to England there was no way of knowing when I would be able to return. A pandemic had just been announced by the WHO and travel restrictions were starting to be put into place on the 16th. Could I leave my wife and children alone for who knew how long, and take the risk of flying into an epicentre? I decided to stay in Aotearoa and look after my family. Luckily my brother also lives in the UK and was able to help my mother navigate the autopsy, cremation and managing the financial affairs in the bureaucratic chaos that the UK was becoming.

That was very hard for us all. It was 3 years later that I was able to see my mother and visit my father’s grave.

Many people suffered as a result of the pandemic, many far worse than me. But no one is to blame. Well perhaps we all are. There are too many people on the planet and maybe nature is trying to bring us back into balance. In any case, in humanitarian terms our government’s response was largely the right one, and many thousands of people are still alive because as a nation we chose to follow the science and the evidence we had at the time. It angers me that some people would try to belittle that, or deny that covid was real or as serious as it was. I recall following the John Hopkins University website and watching the numbers of fatalities tracking up. I read up as much as a lay person can reasonably expect to about the efficacy of the vaccines and the value of lockdowns. As someone who is instinctively sceptical about vaccines, it became obvious to me that the vaccine saved lives. Yes being vaccinated carried risk. Like all medication, some people suffered side effects. But the evidence was clear that the risks from not being vaccinated were far greater. I think NZ was very lucky to have leaders who made good decisions on our behalf. Other countries with poor leadership suffered great loss of life compared to us.

Not every decision was perfect. I think the way lockdown was imposed placed real hardship on small businesses and advantaged large corporations. I think the way subsidy money was handled was open to abuse and again the money disproportionately went to the wealthiest corporations. The economic impact could have been more equitably handled. We could have used it as an opportunity to bolster local self reliance rather than more dependence on long supply chains. We could have used it to promote health and well-being alongside vaccinations messaging instead of allowing it to be seen as an either/or. We could have done more to promote equitable access to essential medicines on a global scale. Lost opportunities.

Also some of the communications were poorly messaged. While the regular updates were great at keeping people informed, phrases like ‘single source of truth’ and ‘social distancing’ (as opposed to the more accurate ‘physical distancing’) were not helpful. The government could have done more in countering misinformation.

Having said that, it was hard to predict the sheer craziness that would erupt, fuelled by international money funding local grifters. That they managed to pull in so many well-meaning people who had justifiable questions about the impacts of the policies is an indictment on Government communications. That some became cult followers living in an information bubble and disbelieving anything that contradicted their viewpoint is a tragedy.

I am a decision-maker in a large organisation. We introduced a vaccine mandate for all staff who interface with the public. We lost people over it and were heavily criticised by a small number in the community. Front line staff faced verbal and physical abuse because of those decisions, although we did our best to maintain services for all, vaccinated and unvaccinated alike. It was a difficult decision but I have no regrets about the stance that we took. Our priority was to safeguard the health and well-being of our staff and our community. Most people in our community understood why we took the position we did and supported us. People absolutely have a right to choose whether or not to receive a vaccine, or any other medical treatment. They do not have a right to put others at risk. Choices have consequences – not as a punishment, but in terms of minimising the potential impacts on others.
The lesson for me in that is that it is easy to read too much into the strongly held opinions of a small number of people. Their concerns shouldn’t be ignored, we should learn from them, but we shouldn’t over-react or think they represent the views of most people. This inquiry will no doubt hear lots of submissions from militant anti-vaxxers. Some of those will misrepresent what happened, deny the scientific evidence, and fabricate events, either deliberately or simply because they truly believe things that are false. For example I had a friend who I trust tell me that their partner had adverse effects from the vaccination. The partner denied it when asked, and from their story it seemed like it was an exaggeration of events. I do not think they meant to lie, but that their perceptions were so biased as to mislead them.
So it is up to you, the commissioners, to look honestly, soberly and robustly at the evidence and provide some impartial answers to people’s many questions. No doubt whatever you say, you will be criticised and attacked. I encourage you to pay no attention to that and just present your views as honestly and impartially as you can. Thank you.

QU TWO: LOOKING FORWARD
As I mentioned in the first question, I think the things we need to learn are:
1. To think holistically and in an integrated way. For example, how can we use an emergency such as a pandemic, and its recovery, to achieve multiple social-economic aims such as boosting local economic self-reliance and circular economies, encouraging individual health and well-being alongside pharmaceutical interventions, looking after our most economically vulnerable instead to defaulting to throwing money at the wealthy.
2. I would like to see us do more as a national to support the freeing up of pharmaceutical IP rights to allow more equitable access to essential medicines such as vaccines across the globe. Too often NZ seems to take a position on the world stage of bolstering corporate rights over the rights of people to access medicine, and the common wealth of the body of scientific knowledge.

3. We need to be better prepared to counter misinformation by global actors driven by ideology rather than by scientific evidence.

Tagged , , , , ,
16/06/2023
Leave a comment
Local body politics

WHY I VOTED FOR A 9.5% RATES RISE


People often say they want politicians to be honest. Sometimes that means saying things that they don’t want to hear. That is especially true when it comes to rates.
People don’t need to be told that costs are going up. They see it every time they shop for groceries or get a tradie to fix something. The same is true for council. For the things that council spends most of its money on, like construction and maintenance, inflation is even higher than for households. It probably costs council about twenty percent more to do things this year than last.
It’s not just inflation. Storm damage is increasing. Climate change means we need to spend more each year to fix things up, and spend more money on making our infrastructure resilient for the future. In addition, years of underfunding has meant that there is a large unpaid bill looming. For example waste water pipes in Edgecumbe have remained cracked since the ’87 earthquake and that is causing problems with storm water infiltration into the system. That needs money to fix.
Councillors in the past have at times been more focused on minimising rates rises than doing the work needed. You can understand why. Voters tend to elect people who promise to keep the rates down, and don’t always ask how they plan to do that. Often it’s by making short sighted decisions. An example is Whakatāne town’s water supply. It could have been secured for a moderate additional amount of money when the bore went in at Paul’s Road many years ago but wasn’t, to avoid a rates rise. That decision has led to much bigger costs to try to find a new supply, and we are not even there yet.
In addition to all that, central government is constantly adding new responsibilities to councils but without providing the funding to pay for it. The job of local government is getting bigger all the time.
Plus health and safety now requires two people to do some of the things that used to be done by one, especially people working in remote places, so as to ensure there is back-up if anything goes wrong.
What do we do? We can cut services, but to make any real impact we’re not talking about a planter box here or a painted line there. We’re talking about significantly cutting services – closing libraries, shutting down swimming pools, or the airport, letting our local roads deteriorate (as Waka Kotahi has been doing with State Highways). Council staff have been trimming costs where they can, or deferring projects to smooth out spending, and that has helped keep rates rises below 10%, but no elected council member has supported taking a chainsaw to council services.
Actually, the main way that rates rises have stayed below 10% for next year is borrowing. It’s not an approach I’m happy with. Borrowing to pay for intergenerational infrastructure is a good strategy, but borrowing just to cover the bills is a recipe for long term trouble.
The question that councillors had to decide this year is whether to borrow more money and stay with a 6.3% increase, or borrow a bit less for a 9.5% increase. Ease the financial pain for people now, but with even more pain next year when we have to make up the shortfall, or bite the bullet now to avoid cementing in bigger rates increases in the future.

It was a hard decision. We all know that people are struggling to pay bills as it is. No one wants to add more financial hardship than necessary, but whatever happens those costs are not going away.
In fact by pushing them into the future, they just get bigger. That does no one any good.

Published in the Whakatane Beacon 16/6/23

Tagged
10/03/2023
Leave a comment
Climate change, Local body politics, Social ecology

Building a resilient future

Sometimes people don’t need more facts. What they need is a plan.

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realise that we face multiple challenges in the world today – environmental, economic, political and social. Climate change is far from the only problem, but it is probably the most significant, because it makes everything else much worse. Many of us have been talking about this for decades, and slowly gaining traction, but it wasn’t another rigorous, scientifically conservative, well referenced report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that seems to have tipped the balance. It has taken a cyclone of unprecedented scale to bring home the real cost of our, and the world’s, inaction.

The science tells us that we still have a brief window to stop runaway climate change. That means we can still prevent the sort of feedback loops that would probably bring an end to homo sapiens 10,000 year experiment with civilisation. If they kick in, we just won’t have the abundance of resources, including the food surplus, to make cities work.

So it give me great comfort to know that the window still exists. That’s a helpful fact. Now what we need is a plan.

That has been my main focus since first being elected to Whakatāne District Council in 2016. In that first term the council agreed a set of principles to govern how we respond to climate change. We asked the people of Whakatāne for feedbaack, and we got strong support. In my second term on council we agreed a set of strategies, targets and action plans. Again these got strong support. The result has been both reduced council carbon emissions and substantial work on adapting to climate change. Last year we agreed on a reset of those strategies – a shifting of gears. You can expect to have your say as part of that work.

I need to add here that I didn’t do that work by myself. The success of the programe is really down to the highly talented staff that work and have worked at WDC. What I provided was the political leadership that allowed staff to do their jobs well.

The next phase of the climate change work needs to engage our communities better. If we have learned anything from the array of disasters that Whakatāne District and other areas have experienced, it’s the need for resilience in the face of an uncertain future. At the heart of resilience is community.

National and regional agencies, and the council, are important in terms of emergency response and long term recovery, but it is our willingness to look after each other that is the most critical. It is when we check on the neighbours because we know they may need a little help, or get stuck in where we see the need, that we see the best of us. Great examples are the Community Emergency Response Teams in action, or springing up, in places like Edgecumbe, Matatā, Waiohau, Thornton, Galatea / Murupara, Awatapu and Manawahe. Marae, who fling open their doors to become critical parts of the emergency response infrastructure, are another. It is a reminder of how blessed we are in the Eastern Bay to live in communities where people look out for each other.

Adapting to climate change isn’t just about disaster response. Council’s job is to make sure our infrastructure is both robust (strong) and resilient (able to spring back when parts of the system fail), but that’s just one part of the story. Given the impacts that Cyclone Gabrielle is already having on things like food supplies, how do we build a more resilient economy in the Eastern Bay? It’s not just about food sovereignty – we need to build strong local economies, that cycle resources (including money) around and around the community as many times as possible so as to extract maximum value.

WDC Council members were privileged recently to hear from Jacob Kajavala of Industrial Symbiosis Kawerau about the work to build synergies across businesses in Kawerau (and increasingly beyond). They work with workforce development training, recruitment and employment, and growing industry and opportunity. These kinds of collaborations across local businesses have great potential to build a vibrant local business ecosystem which provides some buffer from international economic shocks because they are grounded in strong and enduring relationships.This could be a building block towards a true circular economy, where upcycling applies to resource flows (eg the waste from one enterprise becomes the feedstock for another) people flows and financial flows.

It’s just one example of how the Eastern Bay of Plenty has the ingredients we need to build a strong, resilient, interconnected, prosperous and ecologically grounded sub-region. We just need a positive vision and leadership.

First published in the WhakatāneBeacon 8/3/23

Tagged , , , ,
15/02/2023
Leave a comment
Local body politics

Representation to the Justice Committee of Parliament Inquiry into the Local Elections 2022

Greetings to the committee.

I request that you accept this as a late contribution. I had intended to send it before the deadline of 14 February but my internet has been down due to Cyclone Gabrielle.

I wish to make an oral presentation.

INTRODUCTION

My name is Nandor Tanczos. I am a third term councillor on the Whakatāne District Council and an accredited RMA commissioner. I was a Member of Parliament from 1999 to 2008 and sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I was also active during the committee stage of the passage of the Local Government Act 2002, although I did not sit on the Local Government committee. I mention these simply to establish my familiarity with local goverment legislation and practice, including electoral matters

I previously wrote to the committee in anticipation of this inquiry. Some of what I write below will have already been covered by that letter, but I wish to ensure that my comments are formally considered during this process. I thank you for the opportunity to have my say.

THE 2022 LOCAL ELECTION – THE PROBLEMS

As you will be aware, this years election had a number of significant problems with the administration of the vote. While our council endeavoured to make voting as accessible as possible by providing drive-in voting and taking mobile units out to some of our more remote communities, these efforts were greatly undermined by broader problems at (it seems) a nation level. Specifically two issues loom largest.

The first was the large numbers of people who didn’t receive their voting papers in time, or at all. While this has been a problem in the past, my understanding is that it has been relatively minor until now. Last year the scale of it seems unusual – and entirely unacceptable.

I have been contacted by local electors who received voting papers in the past at the same address, or who updated their details on the electoral roll well before the cut-off date in August, but who did not receive their voting papers for this election. I heard from families where the parents received papers but their (voting age) children did not, or vice versa. I heard from people who updated their address in time but whose papers still went to their old address, or sometimes to both. I also heard from a number of people who received their papers in the last few days prior to election day, who either posted their papers (and almost certainly didn’t have them counted because they arrived too late) or thought it was too late to vote. This included, but was not restricted to, overseas voters.

Of course all these people could make a special vote (if they did not receive their papers) or take their papers to a ballot box (if they arrived late, and there was one available in their community). The reality is that many people found it hard to understand what they needed to do in such circumstances. As a candidate I found myself advising people often on how to vote when this should have been clear to them. In addition, some people did not even realise that they hadn’t received papers until voting was closed.

All of this is a disincentive to vote, in an election that already suffers low turn-out. Given the lack of understanding about local electoral processes generally among the general public, I have no doubt that this suppressed the vote, in particular among those demographics already least likely to participate. Simply put, the harder and more complicated we make it, the less likely people are to vote, especially people not used to voting.

The second issue relates to the broader question of voting method and system. This includes whether postal voting is a method fit for purpose in the 21st century, and whether First Past the Post voting, both for Mayor and for ward councillors, delivers genuine democracy.

Many young voters have probably never posted a letter in their lives, and even people who grew up using postal services, such as myself, struggle to identify where a post box is these days. Snail mail is no longer the universal service it was. I am aware that councils have the ability to change the voting method under section 36 of the Local Electoral Act but in my observation, representation reviews by councils rarely touch on this question and many councillors would be unaware this power exists, or what the resource implications for the organisation would be. Some discussion of this by the Justice Committee, taking a broad national approach, would be helpful. I am aware that this latter question was briefly canvassed in your previous report but I am of the opinion that it could do with a more thorough consideration than you gave it at that time.

On the voting system, local elections are rife with examples of how candidates splitting the vote can lead to the election of people with strong negative ratings among the majority of voters. Especially smaller councils are often not well equipped to have a proper evidence based discussion on the pros and cons of moving to a Single Transferable Voting system and it would be helpful if the committee could provide some research basis and political commentary to assist.

OTHER MATTERS

The regular inquiry into local elections is an important function of this committee and used to its potential, I think it provides an opportunity to help address the some of the systemic disincentives to voting. My request above that you give a more detailed consideration of voting method and system is made in that vein. Perhaps even more importantly, I think it would be helpful to see your conclusions more widely disseminated. At the least, your report could be emailed to all elected councillors so that they are aware of your findings. My observation is that many elected councillors are not even aware that a review of local elections by your committee takes place on a regular basis, nor are they made aware of your conclusions. Given the importance of that work, wider appreciation of it (especially during representation reviews by councils) can only enhance local democracy.

Along similar lines, I think it would be helpful if elected councillors, or even all candidates in local elections, were emailed notification of your inquiry when it is initiated. Again most councillors would not be aware that the inquiry is taking place and that submissions are open, and many would have valuable insights into the process. In fact I was disappointed to not receive direct notification myself of this inquiry from the committee, given that I had already written to the clerk and chair to request that it be initiated promptly following the election.

Lastly, I support a voting age of 16 for local and central government elections. I think it will improve voting quality, because it will lead to near universal enrolment through schools and associated civics education.

CONCLUSION

In summary I am writing to ask you to give attention to three things:

  • The causes of, and solutions to, large numbers of people not receiving their voting papers in time to vote.
  • The question of postal voting in general, whether it is appropriate as a voting method and what alternatives might be preferable.
  • What the evidence tells us about the benefits and disadvantages of STV voting vis a vis FPP
  • The advantages of lowering the voting age to 16.
  • How your report can be more widely promoted, in particular among elected councillors and candidates, both in terms to eliciting submissions and also to disseminate your findings more widely.

I thank you for your time. Please contact me at this email if anything I have written needs clarification.

Tagged , , , ,
03/02/2023
Leave a comment
Local body politics

WE’RE IN THIS TOGETHER

One of the best available accounts of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi is given by William Colenso, who was there at the time and a fluent speaker of Māori.

Colenso describes Governor Hobson standing to explain the purpose of the proposed treaty. The missionary Henry Williams translated. Hobson started by saying that the Queen of England wished to do right by the Native people of New Zealand.

“But as the law of England gives no civil powers to Her Majesty out of her dominions, her efforts to do you good will be futile unless you consent…

“ The people of Great Britain are, thank God! free; and, as long as they do not transgress the laws they can go where they please… You have sold them lands here and encouraged them to come here. Her Majesty, always ready to protect her subjects, is also always ready to restrain them.
Her Majesty the Queen asks you to sign this treaty, and to give her that power which shall enable her to restrain them.”

In case you missed it, he is saying ‘to restrain THEM’, the English who had come here, who were running amuck in Kororāreka (Russell) and the like.

He then read out the treaty in Māori, which affirmed the right of hapu to their tino rangatiratanga – their own authority. It granted the rights of British Citizens to the Māori people, and protected the rights of different faiths (including Māori spiritual practises). And it provided for the Crown to exercise ‘kawanatanga’ – the ability to pass laws to restrain their own people.

The often repeated claim that Māori ceded their sovereignty when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi is simply incorrect. The Māori language translation that was read out, and that Hobson and almost all the rangatira signed, makes no mention of cedeing sovereignty. It is that version that takes precedence under the international legal principle of contra preferentum.

It seems obvious really. Why would they give up their right to rule themselves? They outnumbered the British many times over. They did not need to come under the authority of Queen Victoria to reap the benefits of technology transfer. Māori were already doing very well, adopting European ways of doing things where it suited them and keeping their own where it didn’t. Māori food growers fed Auckland, Māori textiles and timber filled the holds of trading ships and Maōri owned fleets were sailing to Australia and the USA to do commerce.

Some people have said that colonisation benefitted Māori. It is hard to see how. Māori were already enjoying the fruits of this rich cultural exchange. How could colonisation – war, murder, rape, the theft of land and resources, the attempted destruction of culture and traditional political organisation – add anything positive to that?

Today more people are becoming aware of that history. There is no reason for anyone today to feel guilty about it, nor would guilt serve any useful purpose. Neither can we return to 1840, even if we wished to. What we can do is reflect on what kind of nation we are today, and what we wish to be. How might our political-economic system serve us ALL better, empowering ordinary people over corporate power? How might it reflect more of the generosity of spirit that characterised that momentous event at Waitangi (and around the country – it wasn’t until 16 July that the Treaty was signed at Pōhaturoa by rangatira of Ngāti Pūkeko and Ngāti Awa).


There is a lot of talk about ‘co-governance’ at the moment, for example in 3 waters. The reality is that while Iwi Māori do get input into some very high level statements and expectations, the water services entities will be governed by independent boards. Iwi will have a say on the make up of the panel that decides who will sit on those boards, but that is as close as they get to the board table. Having a Māori world view represented in setting the DNA of those entities , though, will benefit us all. It doesn’t deserve the racist backlash that we’ve seen.

Perhaps in some ways more interesting is what happens at a local level. Local Government reform is a chance to examine the role of local councils in relation to Tangata Whenua, and to more clearly define the boundaries between them. Constitutional reform, to recognise the mana of Tangata Whenua and at the same time to provide an inherent right for Local Government and local decision-making, would be a step forward in my opinion. I would like to see local government legislation better provide for the resource management practises that Māori developed over centuries and that were attuned to the needs of specific catchments, ecosystems, climatic zones. I would like to see the intergenerational aspirations and values of a Tangata Whenua worldview embedded into council long-term planning frameworks. And I would like to see the relationship between local authorities and Tangata Whenua organisations (both post settlement entities and hapū) clarified and improved.

We shouldn’t be frightened of these discussions. This is an exciting opportunity to think about what it means to live in Aotearoa today. We all want the best for our descendants, and those descendants are increasingly Māori AND Pākeha, and chosing to honour their whole whakapapa. Let us mold our democracy to be something unique in the world, something that brings together the best of the Westminster adversarial system of representative majoritarianism with the best of Indigenous practise and decision-making. A system grounded in the reality of living in Aotearoa New Zealand.


First published in the Whakatāne Beacon 3/2/23

Tagged ,
11/10/2022
1 Comment
Local body politics

Nandor Tanczos calls for parliamentary inquiry into LG voting paper shambles

Widespread reports of people not receiving their voting packs in time for the local government election have led Whakatāne District Councillor Nandor Tanczos to call for an inquiry into the shambles.

“I heard multiple accounts of registered voters not receiving their voting papers in time for the election” said Nandor.

“Some households received papers for a couple of people while others in the family missed out. Some people got their papers the day before close of voting, way to late to post their votes in. People who updated their details on-line still had papers go to the wrong address.

“Council staff in Whakatāne did their best to take up the slack, with a drive in voting booth on the day and staff at the service centres trained to assist with special voting, but NZ Post let the country down.

“Postal voting is a challenge for many people as it is, with a lack of post boxes and an unreliable service, especially in rural areas. For people to not even get their voting papers is completely unacceptable”.

“Parliament needs to take this extremely seriously. Your right to vote shouldn’t be dependent on random chance, whether the papers turned up or not. There needs to be a full examination as to why this was allowed to happen, and what will be done to make sure it is different next time” said Nandor.

“Maybe postal voting has done its dash and we need to do local government elections differently”.

Tagged ,
28/07/2022
Leave a comment
Parliament

GREENS LEADERS MUST LEARN FROM LEADERSHIP VOTE

After the last election I was dubious about the Greens going into Government. Labour didn’t need them and so I doubted they would have the leverage to make any significant gains on things like climate change. I couldn’t see an upside. The downside was that, as with small parties in government before them, their vote could vanish as quickly as the Advance NZ donation box. Yet neither of these has proven to be true.

I work on the ground on climate change mitigation and adaptation, as a councillor in a small and dynamic district council. For many years central government has been missing in action. Like a number of councils we saw the need for local government to step in and show leadership. I’m proud of the work we are doing, but it has always been clear that Aotearoa needed central government at the table. We were missing a coherent national strategy both for reducing our emissions and for addressing the very real challenges of adapting to a changing world. In particular the question of managed retreat, and the difficult equity issues that raises, needed a national framework around it.

Frameworks, timelines, cumulative steps, these don’t make sexy headlines or provide many photo ops. But they are really important when we start to grapple with the realities of this huge and complex issue. Like an ocean liner, there is great inertia in the system and it doesn’t turn easily. Having James Shaw as Minister for Climate Change has meant that, for the first time, we have someone in the bridge trying to turn the rudder. And that has made a huge difference on the ground, most especially in terms of building understanding and certainty across our communities. Climate action is now locked in.

There is no doubt that if the Greens had been dealt a decent hand at the last election they could have done a lot more. Climate activists are right to demand more urgency in our climate change response, and to hold the Minister for Climate Change to account for that. But we also need to acknowledge that James Shaw has done more to advance this country’s climate change transition than any other politician, living or dead.


This is not to undermine those who keep warning us that we are moving too slow. We are. But the solution is for the Greens to have more influence in government. Greens electoral support is strong and it seems likely that any third term Labour Government will need the Greens to form a majority. Labour has some capable Ministers (Nanaia Māhuta and Kiri Allen are impressive) but Green Ministers have added real strength over the last two terms. Building a reputation as competent and credible operators is vital to broader electoral support, and the mandate that gives for deeper action.

The Green Party’s job, in my opinion, is to lead real change. It is the job of the broader green movement to be the radical voice. One is about navigating ‘the art of the possible’. The other is about maintaining an uncompromising clarity. I think sometimes we confuse the two. Over the years many people have spent energy trying to get the Green Party to be the radical voice outside the tent. Perhaps that energy would be better spent building a stronger extra-parliamentary movement.

Having said that, the recent vote to reopen nominations for co-leader shows a very real tension that I think James Shaw, and Marama Davidson, need to pay attention to. It doesn’t take much to see that many party activists are becoming disaffected. They don’t feel valued or listened to. They don’t feel that they have influence. They don’t feel supported, despite what they give to the party. These are classic causes of burn-out. And it is happening at all levels of the party, from the top down. The party needs to be much better at looking after its people.

The co-leaders need to take seriously their obligation to be good leaders of the organisation, as well as good ministers. They need to attend to the concerns of their members, as much as they do to their external stakeholders. They need to address the cultural as well as the structural problems in the party, which has allowed party processes to be captured by personal agendas and which makes internal debate a toxic affair. They need to value talent and plan for succession across the organisation. If they do not take the internal problems of the party seriously they may find themselves hamstrung just as they are finally reaching the level of influence they need to make deep change.


The vote to reopen nominations is a wake up call. I have no doubt that James will survive it. I hope he also learns from it.

published in The Daily Blog 28/7/22

Tagged ,
← Older posts