Impartial? Prove It. The Political Drift of Local Government and Why Our District Must Wake Up

The Mayor and every NPDC Councillor and community board member stood up after the election, read the following card, and swore an oath to serve faithfully and impartially. (see mine below)

But let’s be honest: this was one of the most politically influenced local elections our district has seen in years. Some candidates campaigned under a party colour. Lobby groups mobilised like it was a general election. Hard-left and hard-right factions openly claimed credit for “getting their people in.”

Now comes the uncomfortable question: How can elected members remain truly impartial when they know exactly which group expects repayment?

If impartiality is the standard, then this term will be the ultimate test of integrity. The Meaning of “Impartial” Has Never Been More Crucial

Impartial does not mean neutral. It means you are not captured.

You don’t owe your vote to:

• a political party,

• a donor group,

• a Facebook echo chamber,

• or the pressure of the loudest activists.

Your loyalty is to the district—full stop. If a Councillor cannot separate themselves from the expectations of the factions that elevated them, then they are not governing. They are being governed.

Impartiality Is Not Optional—It’s the Job

At the end of the day, impartiality is not a nice-to-have. It is a requirement.

Elected members must be willing to:

• set aside political agendas,

• challenge their own assumptions,

• listen openly to new evidence,

• and choose what is best for the whole district—even if it disappoints the groups that supported them.

The community deserves governance that rises above factional politics.The oath demands nothing less.

The Hidden Cost of Politicising Local Government

When national-style politics creeps into local government, two things happen:

1. Evidence gets replaced by ideology

Projects are judged not on merit, affordability, or community benefit—but on whether they align with the talking points of the councilors political base.

2. Votes become transactional

“Stay in favour with the group that got me elected” becomes the invisible calculus behind decision-making.

This is how impartiality dies—not with corruption, but with quiet compromise. Local government was designed to be non-political for a reason: The pothole in your street does not care who you voted for. Our wastewater pipes do not care what colour your campaign signs were. Rates, debt, and infrastructure don’t respond to ideology—they respond to reality.

This term, Councillors will have to choose which world they’re operating in.

Campaign Promises Meet the Brick Wall of Reality

Many first-time candidates promised to:

• freeze rates,

• cancel certain LTP projects,

• “cut waste,”

• or reinvent the organisation from scratch.

  
  

It sounded good on a billboard. But now they are discovering:

• legal obligations bind the council,

• you cannot cut infrastructure spending without breaking something,

• “waste” is a political slogan, not a budget line,

• pausing or cancelling large capital projects usually increases long-term cost,

• and operational cuts mean real reductions in service levels.

Some will adjust their thinking. Others will double down to avoid admitting their campaign was built on misunderstandings of how councils operate. This is where impartiality matters most—will they vote for what’s right or what saves face?

Independent Councillors Suddenly Matter More Than Ever

The quiet irony of this political term is that the most valuable voices may be those who did not align with any faction. These Councillors do not owe their seat to a party machine, ideological bloc, or coordinated social media movement.

They can:

• challenge weak arguments without fear of backlash,

• change their position based on evidence,

• and vote issue-by-issue rather than bloc-by-bloc.

In a council split between left, right, and factional interests, genuine independents become the oxygen the chamber needs.

A Mayor Not Seeking Re-Election Is a Wild Card—But a Useful One

Mayor Max's stated intention to serve only one term removes a massive source of pressure:

the need to keep certain groups happy so he can be re-elected.

That means:

• he can call out poor reasoning,

• he can support smart spending even if it angers activists,

• and he can back necessary but unpopular decisions without political cost.

If paired with disciplined financial scrutiny, he could be the stabilising force in a chamber that may otherwise fracture into tribal voting blocs.

He has nothing to lose. That’s exactly the kind of leadership a politically divided council needs.

This Term Will Reveal Who Is Fit for Governance—and Who Is Not

Impartiality is not a slogan. It is a standard. Every Councillor who campaigned with support from a political faction faces the same question:

Are you here to serve the entire district—or just the people who voted for you?

Because the moment an elected member prioritises loyalty to a political base over evidence, over community-wide benefit, or over financial responsibility, they break the oath they swore on day one.

And the public will notice.

The Bottom Line

Local government must not become a miniature Parliament. When Councillors become political actors instead of impartial decision-makers, the community suffers.

This term, NPDC has a choice:

• We can govern based on evidence, integrity, and long-term thinking.

• Or we can slide into ideology, factional voting, and short-term political games.

One of these paths strengthens our district. The other weakens it.

Impartiality is not naïve. It is essential. And it starts with elected members having the courage to vote with their conscience—not their cohort.