Nine of us stood up last night, 27th August 2025, out of the 16 candidates running for six West Ward seats. That fact alone was telling: fewer than two-thirds turned up, but it was enough to give the audience a flavour of the race and the different paths Hamilton might take.

I spoke second, and my 180 seconds went quickly. I decided to use the time to explain STV — the Single Transferable Vote system — which confuses many voters. I kept it simple:

• Imagine 12 mayoral candidates, each starting with about 8% on the first preference.
• By the second preference, four candidates pick up more votes.
• At the third, it narrows further.
• By the fourth, one candidate has the numbers and is elected.

It landed well. Tony, from Residents and Ratepayers, later said he had been waiting months for a plain explanation from staff. My sense is the room appreciated someone taking the time to translate technical detail into everyday language.

Who Stood Out

The night had its winners. Mesh earned respect for speaking clearly to the audience’s concerns. Too many others leaned on accountant-style jargon, facts piled on facts until people tuned out. 3 candidates trying to out-number each other with financial spreadsheets didn’t shift the mood.

Sarah and Emma both spoke strongly. Emma made a point that resonated: half of Hamilton’s population is under 30. Roderick J Young's idea that each councillor should appoint six youth advisors — three male, three female, across English, te reo Māori, and New Zealand Sign Language — felt fresh and practical.

Sarah took issue with claims that 25% of rates are going to debt interest, saying it’s closer to 13%. But she also defended more billion-dollar spending on the Pukete wastewater treatment plant. That’s a hard sell in a city already carrying $1.3 billion in debt, costing households over $1,000 a year in interest payments alone.

Leadership Questions

Tim was asked about the CEO’s five-year contract. He declined to answer from the back of the hall, saying it wasn’t appropriate. Later he also pushed back against a suggestion that the CEO be paid less than the Mayor — I had argued for councillors and leadership to set the example by tightening pay. Tim cut in, saying bluntly:

“It cannot be done.”

That moment drew a reaction; the room could sense the division between councillors who defend the status quo and those of us asking for change.

Cameras and Conversations

There was even drama around the recording of the event. The official videographer packed up mid-session. A woman who arrived late began filming on her phone, later asking Tony if her footage could be entered into the official record because “it was so interesting.” It shows the hunger in the community for transparency and open records.

After the official close, five of us stayed behind, talking with residents for another 20 minutes. It grew colder, and rain was forecast for the next four days, but people lingered — proof that Hamiltonians want more than speeches; they want conversations.

The Reality Beneath the Debate

As I listened to my fellow candidates, I kept thinking about the bigger picture:

• Debt: Hamilton’s $1.3 billion burden is among the highest in New Zealand per capita.
• Growth: Our population has passed 185,000 and is rising faster than any other metro, heading to 200,000 by 2030.
• Youth: Half of us are under 30 — Hamilton is a young city, with a median age of just 32 compared to the national 37.
• Infrastructure: The Pukete upgrade alone is expected to run over $600 million, on top of Peacocke and other growth-linked borrowing.
• Trust: Council’s own surveys show confidence in decision-making has dropped below 25%.

These aren’t abstract numbers. They shape whether families can afford their rates, whether young people see a future here, whether small businesses thrive, and whether Hamilton’s money stays in Hamilton — or keeps leaking offshore.

Closing Thoughts

From my notes, two things stand out. First, Hamilton voters are desperate for clarity. They want the fog of jargon lifted so they can judge for themselves. Second, they want leadership that looks beyond short-term fixes and begins building long-term resilience.

The forum ended with no clear “winner” — but for me, the most important outcome was the energy in the room. Ratepayers are paying attention, asking sharper questions, and demanding answers. That is a healthy sign for democracy in our city.

From the West, the campaign goes on.

Roderick J. Young #1, #2, #3, or #4