Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Auckland City intends spending $120,000 on a history of itself, in a swansong that minority councillors fear will glorify the ruling Citizens and Ratepayers faction.

The council’s finance and strategy committee voted yesterday to seek expressions of interest for the work, to cover the period since the local government reforms of 1989.

But the idea has infuriated the left-wing City Vision faction, which would rather see the money spent on furniture for Aotea Square shaped like “critters” – an American term that generally refers to domestic animals such as cows, horses or mules.

The author of the history book will be paid from money saved by a freeze in the past two years on fees of council and community board members.

I’ve got a novel idea. How about not spending the money on either the history of the last 21 years or on furniture shaped liked critters?

It’s good the money has been saved by a fees freeze, but that doesn’t mean it has to be spent. One can under-spend. A budget is a limit, not a target.

Very pleased to read in the Herald:

Liquor law changes which would have closed Auckland suburban bars before midnight will be scrapped after receiving a hostile reception from the hospitality industry.

Auckland City mayor John Banks and Aaron Bhatnagar, the councillor steering the changes through the council, decided at the weekend to abandon the changes. …

Realising something isn’t going to fly is one of the skills of politics. Of course some still want it:

City Vision leader Richard Northey said that rather than panic, Mr Banks and Mr Bhatnagar should have continued the process, listened to all sides of the argument and addressed issues with widespread support, such as the opening hours and location of off-licence alcohol outlets.

Alcohol Advisory Council chief executive Gerard Vaughan was surprised the policy was being dumped in the middle of public consultation, which was to run until October 7.

“We know that reducing hours is an effective means of reducing harm from alcohol,” he said.

Yes indeed. So let’s go back to the six pm closing shall we? But why stop there? If we force bars to only open between 2 pm and 4 pm that will reduce harm even further!

Mr Banks, who wants to be the first mayor of the Super City next year, said he had no doubt the liquor issue would have damaged a key constituency – the hospitality industry – with which he had a long association.

He said yesterday that the first lesson of politics was to bail out when caught out.

The Mayor, who last month voted for the draft liquor law changes, said he had never seen such a violent reaction to a policy issue “and I have put an end to it”.

Listening to the people!

As I blogged a few days ago, I think it is an issue best left to the new local boards anyway.

The Herald reports:

Publicans in suburban Auckland reckon the city council should leave the running of neighbourhood bars to the locals.

There’s a difference between suburban bars and inner-city boozers, says Jason Breen, managing director of Remuera’s Villager restaurant and bar.

Local bars responded to the patrons’ needs, which meant they needed flexibility.

Mr Breen is saying leave it to the local bar owners, but it got me thinking about another issue – why doesn’t the Auckland City Council not make any changes at all to licensing rules, and wait for the Super City.

Because then the new local boards will be able to set rules for their local communities, rather than have them set centrally. That would seem a win-win.

City Vision Councillors have been pinged in Auckland, according to the Herald:

Independent auditor John Walton says the existing local contractor, Clean Stream Waiheke, has been “canvassing” City Vision councillors – forbidden under the tender rules.

Mr Walton has recommended the company be disqualified.

I’m not sure what is worse – lobbying Councillors to give you the tender, or the Councillors who respond positively to the lobbying. Tenders should be based on the best fit against agreed criteria – not personal whims of Councillors.

Mr Walton said Clean Stream’s executive director, John Stansfield, had sent emails to City Vision’s councillors and one of those councillors, Cathy Casey, had responded and appeared to be advising Waiheke groups favouring the local company.

Mr Walton has recommended Dr Casey be forbidden to take any further part in the tender process. He believes other City Vision councillors should also be excluded to remove any perceived conflict of interest.

Ouch – that is a big slap down. It is saying we can’t trust you to do the right thing as you have shown bias.

Last night, Dr Casey said she had hired a lawyer after she discovered her emails had been searched by a council officer without her permission in an attempt to discredit Clean Stream.

They are not Dr Casey’s e-mails. They are the Councils. She sent them from her official Council e-mail address. That in itself is a staggeringly stupid thing to do.

Mr Bhatnagar said Dr Casey had tried to unethically influence the tender outcome in Clean Stream’s favour and sought to organise media stunts, such as getting islanders to block part of Queen St with wheelie bins.

Another email from City Vision councillor Glenda Fryer agreeing to raise a matter from Mr Stansfield at a City Vision caucus was “outrageous”, Mr Bhatnagar said.

And here is where it gets very murky. The partner of Mr Stansfield is a City Councillor – Denise Roche, who often votes with City Vision. She is a Green Party member, and represents the Hauraki Gulf Islands. Now there is no suggestion here Denise has done anything wrong, but it is a bad look that City Vision Councillors are inappropriately involved, when they have such strong political links.

I’m not an Auckland City ratepayer, but if I was I would be asking questions of Auckland City Council about accountability, after losses of $2.5 million at The Edge.

I don’t think City/Regional Councils should be making commercial decisions on underwriting soccer games or musicals.

That is different to supporting sport or the arts. Relatively happy for there to be sponsorship of subsidies of facilities – that way it is for a fixed known amount.

But why would you have 20 or so elected politicians deciding whether or not you agree with the Edge’s Board that 62,000 to 78,000 people will attend a musical?

That Auckland City Council contributes $400,000 to the Pasifika Festival at Western Springs Park, while Manukau City Council contributes $0.

Incidentally 13% of Auckland City residents are Pacific, while in Manukau it is 28%.

To some degree it shows the problem with funding for such events happening at the territorial authority level, rather than the regional level. It is obviously a regional event, and it seems bizarre that it is funded by the residents of just one TLA.

The Herald reports that Auckland City Council is joining the list of organisations that recognise the severity of the economic recession, and have pledged to keep overall salary levels constant.

But City Vision is upset:

The freeze has upset the left-leaning City Vision ticket and the Public Service Association, which represents 500 council staff.

“This council has no moral right to penalise workers to keep rates down,” said City Vision councillor Cathy Casey.

Says it all really. Cr Casey not only wants higher rates for “workers”, but also for herself:

City Vision believes staff should get a pay rise this year and wants councillors to take a 3 per cent pay increase from the Remuneration Authority.

What part of recession is so hard to understand. Thousands of Aucklanders are going to be losing their jobs and their income, and Cr Casey wants to make it even harder for them to be able to pay their rates.

John Banks has announced that the rates increase for Auckland City has been lowered from 4% to 2% thanks to some expenditure controls and cost cutting.

They are still spending $450 million on needed capital works.

At a time when both home owners and businesses are facing tough times, they will be grateful that the rates increase is looking to be so small – half the inflation rate, so a reduction in real terms.

The Herald has an exclusive, that is great great news if true:

The whole Auckland region will be governed by a new super city council from next year.

It will be headed by a single mayor with executive powers to make independent decisions.

This is excellent, not just the removing of the huge number of individual local authorities, but the fact they have gone with an Executive Mayor. This will actually increase accountability to ratepayers because they will be able to elect and sack a Mayor who can make things happen – not just one vote amongst 20.

It is a bit like parliamentary politics – we have an executive Prime Minister who can govern, and we affectively have a referenedum on whether to keep or sack that PM.

The super city will stretch 140km from Pukekohe in the south to Wellsford in the north.

With 1.4 million people, it will be the largest city under one council in Australasia.

And may provide an incentive for the nine greater Wellington councils to do the same.

It is not known what the commission has in mind for the region’s four city councils, three district councils, one regional council and community boards.

One option is to abolish the existing councils for smaller “community councils” with elected leaders.

There does need to be a tier between the ratepayers and the overall Council and to my mind that should be small community boards – but with enhanced powers of decision making over local issues.

In another bold move, the commission will almost certainly recommend the mayor and new council become more involved in the social needs of the region, such as affordable housing.

I’m not quite so enthused on this aspect. I think Council can play a key role through zoning, land use, consenting etc in helping affordable housing. However I don’t think this should mean Council has to provide such housing.

But overall, if the Herald is correct, the Commissioners are steering in very much the right direction.

Aaron Bhatnagar blogs that a City Vision Councillor voted to ban smoking outside in the Auckland CBD.

Why not just cut out all the in between steps, and just start shooting smokers?

Aaron Bhatnagar has written a book, which political junkies would find fascinating – the inside story of how John Banks came back from his thrashing in 2004 to win by a massive majority in 2007.

Aaron has not yet chosen how he will publish it, but he is blogging some of the chapters. Up so far are Chapter 1 (Well dressed for the collapse), Chapter 4 (The city starts to turn), and Chapter 6 (Polling starts). I had some involvement with the campaign, and it was one of the most fascinating ones I have experienced.

Most campaigns are like most wars – the plan changes the moment the first bullet is fired. The Banks campaign had a strategy and plan that was basically never deviated from. The early polling (which was my role) showed the extent of Hubbard’s unpopularity and that Aucklanders were willing to give John a second go. This meant that a campaign could be developed that pushed a positive message from Banks, and almost ignored Hubbard. There was no need to remind people of how bad Hubbard had been – they already knew it.

One of the reasons I love polling is it does give you a glimpse of what is happening with the public, and the detailed breakdowns by ward showed some amazing turn-arounds with both Banks and C&R being competitive in areas that were traditionally hostile.

Anyway I’ll let Aaron carry on telling the story, but link through from time to time. As I said, most students of politics will find it an interesting read, regardless of whether or not they are a Banks fan or not.

Steve Crow has won in court, but really he was going to be a winner regardless of the court ruling.

The publicity given to Mr Crow’s porn empire by Family First, Auckland City Council and others has been invaluable. He literally could not pay enough for all the free publicity. Rather than try and get the boobs on bikes parade banned, they should demand a share of the profits from his sex expo.

Why does Crow do boobs on bikes? To publicise his sex expo. He loses money on the actual parade – it is free. He doesn;t give a damn about whether or not the parade actually happens – he just wants the publicity about it.

He is secretly parying that Cathy Casey and co do lie down on the road to try and block it. It would be a god send for him. Guarantee a better TV story.

Mr Crow is a very smart man.

Also a very smart man, is public law specialist Dean Knight. Dean blogged last week that there was almost no chance of the Council being able to block the parade under the Bill of Rights. Dean concluded:

I am very confident in saying that, to the extent that the bylaw requires citizens to seek prior approval from a state body for a protest in a public place, it is patently inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and other fundamental common law rights, and is therefore unreasonable and invalid. There was, rightly, a public outcry a few years ago when Wellington City attempted to do this; it backed down. Also, it’s the very thing that many folk are pointing the stick at the Chinese government at the moment with the Olympics in Beijing. The requirement of prior approval is outrageous, particularly in the light of the restriction of protests and so forth.

He goes onto say:

It gets a little more complicated when one deals with other expressive activities. The reality is that we grade the nature of the expression and place differing degrees of importance on different types of speech. Political protest at the top. Speech lacking in intrinsic value at the bottom, arguably things like pornography etc. Commercial-related speech somewhere in the middle. That’s a wee bit controversial but probably accurate. In this case, we might see the full range of expression. Principally, the parade is related to a commercial activity. But it’s also got a pornographic titillation element – something slightly gratuitous. And, given the previous controversy and dealings, it’s also probably capable of being regarded as a protest or similar political assembly.

His colleague Steven Price then details a conversation he had with Dean on the legal issues:

Steven: You know what? I think it might depend on the amount of jiggle.

Dean: I think that’s right.

Steven: If there’s more jiggle, then it looks more sexualised – so arguably more lewd and offensive. Then controlling the parade fits better with the purposes of the Local Government Act, and the offences of offensive behaviour and indecent exposure. You’ve got less wiggle room for an argument based on the significance of the speech. More jiggle – less wiggle.

Dean: No, I disagree. If there’s more jiggling, there’s more of a political component to the protest. It is deliberately provocative. It underscores the parade’s message being more open about sexuality. It emphasises that the protest is defying convention, and the council’s attempts to scotch it. There’s less reason to protect an unjiggly naked protest, because the nakedness is less central to the protesters’ purpose. Jiggling provides better grounds for a defence for boobs on bikes. More jiggle – more wiggle.

Now’s that a legal conversation you don’t get to have very often!

Finally Steven notes:

Such is the stuff of academic discourse. Though it’s fair to say that Dean doesn’t normally evince this degree of interest in women’s breasts.

I burst out laughing when reading that. Those who know Dean probably did likewise. Others should be able to work it out!

As it so happens, I will be in Auckland tomorrow. Despite what some might think, I won’t be there for the Parade – for two reasons. Firstly the plastic fantastics that were on display last year look pretty awful from what I saw in the photos – you can’t beat natural. Secondly I actually think partially covered up is far far more sexy.

Christine Caughey has just been appointed by Labour to their new Transport Board. She got thrown off the Auckland City Council last year, after serving one term. It seems she is not too happy about this, judging by her submission to the Justuce & Electoral Committee.

Advertising by way of blogging, use of Wikipedia or similar, are two examples where abuse may occur. Wikipedia does not appear to have adequate structures in place to monitor and control abuse of the system.

Regulation to control the type of use of the internet for political/campaigning purposes should be put in place …

Caughey also supports extending the EFA to local bodies, so there are restrictions on paid advocacy for all of local body election year.

Not content with regulating blogs, Wikipedia and spending, she also advocates regulating monitoring and assessing the media.

Aaron Bhatnagar has fun dissecting her points one at a time.

How did such a person get elected in the first place, and why in God’s name has Labour appointed someone who wants to regulate Wikipedia to a powerful transport funding board?

Aaron Bhatnagar has an amusing story of how a fellow Councillor resigned in protest from a Council role, and it turns out that role no longer actually exists!

A fairly amusing interview by Michelle Hewitson with the transmogrified (that term always makes me think of Calvin and Hobbes) John Banks. An extract:

To tell you the truth, I have been waiting for him to stuff up before going to see him in his second incarnation as mayor. He would not be offended by this: “You’re always remembered for your mistakes, not your achievements.”

But he seems to have been running along rather smoothly. He says he learned from his “three years in the wilderness” that his leadership style had to change and, amazingly, he seems to have managed it. I did ask around a bit and heard “obliging, transparent, inclusive”. He says, “It is still important to disagree but it is not necessary to be disagreeable”. Which suggests that he does now agree that he was disagreeable. “Of course.”

The interview also touches on how well he is working with ARC Chairman Mike Lee, despite their different political outlooks.

Aaron Bhatnagar is having fun,

Cathy Casey from City Vision accused C&R of making diversity a dirty word at the Auckland City Council.

Aaron reveals that what she is complaining about is the decision not to fund a $12,000 cocktail party to celebrate diversity. And just to really have fun, he points out that C&R have five Crs and Community Board members who are ethnically diverse – two Chinese, one Samoan, Aaron (half Indian) and one Maori, while City Vision he labels monochromatic as they don’t have any non Europeans.

And for good measure he posts photos also.

Personally I think City Vision have a political death watch.  They’ve spent three months whining about C&R cutting funding to various politically correct causes.  C&R will just slaughter them in 2011 (if all other things stay even) by publishing the list of all the things they have saved the ratepayer from funding and how City Vision would have rates skyrocketing for their pet projects.