That’s just pure political spin Dean.

The key recommendation of a unitary authority the govt has adopted.

Sure not all of the ideas of the RC have been carried forward for some on say the social policy board were frankly nutty despite what some of those who supplied commissioned research might say.

They were after all a recommendatory body only.

Interestingly, the research the RC got on community boards recommended enhanced boards.

Their analysis on boards and the Local Elections Act 2001 was utterly woeful.

I appeared as the secretary of a local government party, they never once asked about the functioning of the LEA – nor can I find much evidence on this from submissions.

When asked about the cost of running in at large elections they responded that they hadn’t thought about it.

Interestingly, Labour has rejected the electoral recommendation of the RC for At large members. So its clear that Parliament was always going to pick and choose from the recommendations.

Key details regarding electoral arrangements, powers of local boards and numbers of boards are open for submission Aucklanders can have a direct say.

Thankfully we have the opportunity to have a direct say on the elements of the reform that frankly the RC got wrong.

Whatever issues one might have with some of the minor details of the RC findings, their major finding (a unitary authority) is going to happen. For that alone all Aucklanders are greatly in their debt.

Nah – I just think the Auckland community ought to be able to consider and have input on the major constitutional change which is happening in their neighbourbood. They haven’t. The thoroughly researched and deliberated on proposal from teh RC was rejected. And we don’t yet know what the straw proposal to replace it is – the devil, with these things, is in the details. The allocation of power between uber-Council and community boards is fundamental, yet won’t be known until next year. I’m all for pushing ahead, but it seems daft to committ to something when the heart of it is unknown. The RC was open to pushing ahead, but, then, that was on the basis of the implementation of a known and justified proposal.

d

I just downloaded a tender document for a MAF Policy project on Green House Gas Emissions. At the end of the document was the message:

“NOTE: Respondents are required to submit ONE ORIGINAL and ONE ELECTRONIC COPY ON DISC or USB DRIVE of the completed Request for Proposal Form to MAF by the due date, no email submissions will be accepted.”

Does this mean that
a. – MAFs consultant doesn’t have email
b. – MAF have run out of money and can’t buy their own USB drives
c. – somebody is reading MAF’s email

I also find it ironic that a proposal on Greenhouse Gas Emissions can not be submitted by the lowest emitting option but has to have some trees cut down!

To be honest I cannot see what the procedural beef actually is.

All the advice is that to achieve the change by October 2010, things have to be done quick smart. The Royal Commission suggested a four year transition totally too long. Imagine the fun and games at the TLA’s with that.

The high level concept and the AGTA go through under urgency to start the transition underway. The Parliamentary support for the concept is going to be tested.

The Government has responded to the concern about electoral arrangements by sending these to a special purpose select committee to report back by Sept. Again this gives the local Government commission time to do the boundaries etc following passage of the legislation. Note that the element of the electoral arrangements that is causing most concern are the at large elections – recommended by the Royal Commission and strongly supported by Departmental advice. Aucklanders will get a direct say on this.

The final Bill that will recquire some significant drafting, deals with the nitty gritty stuff. It can also be used to round up outstanding legal issues as some will certainly crop up as the process is moving along.

While Dean might think this is novel – it makes sense and is preferable to using the letters patent and delaying elections. What a mess – and what direction for the poor staff who have got to get on to make all of this work in Auckland.

[DPF: I would hope that one of the non-urgent pieces of legislation will allow for a referendum on Maori seats to be held at the same time as the Council elections]

Allow? Or require? It’s been argued that the petition process is enough … if so, then give people the time to actually get the 100,000 or so signatures.

I don’t know what kind of work you do micky, but let’s say a cleaner is contracted to your company to clean your offices, using his own vacuum cleaner. You then see him cleaning an office building next door, using the same vacuum cleaner. Do you think he’s using your vacuum cleaner, or his?

Using the states’ resources supplied for a non political purpose to make films to be used for campaigning for one political party is a non story?

WTF?

1. On the first issue I don’t think it’s significant whether she declared it to NZ On Air. It might be an issue in the beltway, to use a phrase of your former leader, but the real issue of conflict of interest is whether she declared it to TVNZ, which she did, which then required her to hire an independent producer, which she did.

2. Again, an interesting point, but the only evidence you have is a former disgruntled employee who says she felt uncomfortable that Lee was in the room. There is no evidence that she was involved in the election special and not even the disgruntled employee was prepared to make that allegation. Nice try beating it up, though.

3 and 4: I don’t know how much it costs to make a youtube video. I suppose the answer is “not a lot”, because so many are made all the time. Youtube seems to be full of people making videos with pretty good equipment on their own time. I doubt many of them cost more than $10,000. Again, nice try.

I don’t know why Lee didn’t front up on Campbell Live. Maybe because she didn’t want to dignify a story beaten up by the Labour Party in which Campbell Live had ambushed her. I seem to remember John Campbell doing the same with Helen Clark a few years ago. Helen Clark responded by calling John Campbell “a creep” and then refused to deal with him for some time. Lee, to her credit, hasn’t been quite so ungracious.

While we’re on the subject of leaving terrible impressions, it does seem to me all this effort you’re putting into beating up a non-story, Mr Mallard, shows that you are leaving the terrible impression that Labour is very, very scared of the inroads that Lee is making into winning Mount Albert.

The video was not made for broadcast by Asia Downunder or TVNZ it was an advertisement made for the national party circulated by dvd and youtube. It is certainly caught by both the donation and election expense sides of the EFA.

Then you can’t have it both ways Mr Mallard. If the video was made by Melissa Lee’s private company, and it was not for TVNZ, then it was not funded by NZ On Air or the taxpayer.

If Melissa Lee made the film using her private company resources, then it is only captured by the EFA if it exceeds the $10,000 threshhold.

Since you seem to be really on to this, will you be championing the disclosure of funding, resourcing, and expensing of all political videos made for youtube? As I recall, there were a lot of pro-Labour youtube advertisements being made around the election. Were they all appropriately expensed? Is there any chance that some of the people who made those videos in their free time might have been also employed by Labour?

No David the obligation is on the applicant for funding to notify a change in circumstances and becoming a political party candidate is certainly a change in circumstances. Matter of both contract and ethics.

The video was not made for broadcast by Asia Downunder or TVNZ it was an advertisement made for the national party circulated by dvd and youtube. It is certainly caught by both the donation and election expense sides of the EFA.

[DPF: So the video is a red herring to the NZ on Air issue. It was produced by her private company and funded by her. Nothing to do with NZ on Air or TVNZ. Whether or not it is an election ad depends on its content - certainly if it advocates a vote for National, then the party's financial agent should have authorised it and incuded it if aware of it. But if it does not advocate voting for National and is less than $12K then it is a third party ad.

I suspect NZ on Air were very aware of her change of circumstances unless they only employ blind deaf mutes. TVNZ certainly were and instituted changes it seems.

I'm still not sure what Melissa has done wrong, as oppossed to others. Are you saying she should have sent an e-mail to NZ on Air saying "By the way in case you did not notice the numerous TV stories and newspaper reports, I am now a political candidate?"]

There are processes in the local electoral act which allow people (5% of those eligible to vote at the previous local election) to petition their council to require it to hold a referendum on the issue, and it has been argued that the government doesn’t have to take steps on these issues because they are within the power of Aucklanders to decide for themselves already.

Unfortunately there isn’t a current mechanism for people to do this at present – 5% of Auckland City residents could start a petition to the Auckland City Council, or Manukau residents could start a petition to the Manukau City Council (etc.) to require them to hold a referendum, but this would be pointless, as these bodies won’t exist.

If it is considered that the processes of calling for a referendum that are in current local government legislation are sufficient to meet any public desire for such changes to the electoral arrangements, then there is no reason that Aucklanders should be unable to pursue them in the interim. The current laws won’t allow this (who counts as 5% of those eleigible to vote in the last super-city election?) and the interim legislation should allow it. Will it?

p.s. this, Dean, is one reason to do this by legislation…

[DPF: I would hope that one of the non-urgent pieces of legislation will allow for a referendum on Maori seats to be held at the same time as the Council elections]