Kiwiblog

Bernard Orsman at the Herald reports:

The Auckland Council is divided on a proposal by Mayor Len Brown to set a maximum rates increase of 4.9 per cent next year.

Mr Brown narrowly won backing for his plan yesterday after a rebellion by eight councillors who voted for a maximum increase of 3.9 per cent proposed by the right-wing Citizens & Ratepayers group.

In his first major test as mayor, Mr Brown pleaded with councillors not “to be divided on this issue”, but could only muster 10 votes, including his own vote, to pass the plan.

Can’t get much of a closer divide than 10-8. Who were the three Crs who did not vote on such an important issues?

The 4.9 per cent target is a stretch of Mr Brown’s election promise to keep rates low and near the rate of inflation. It is nearly 50 per cent above the forecast rate of inflation of 3.4 per cent.

Stretch is the polite term for it.

Mr Brown, whose job as mayor is to deliver the budget, argued at yesterday’s strategy and finance committee that the maximum rate of 4.9 per cent was a responsible target and would work for a final figure of mid- to high-3 per cent. The final figure would “go down from here, not up”, he said.

That would be better, but will they manage even that?

The high-level committee meeting went off the rails when three former Auckland City councillors, Cathy Casey, Richard Northey and Leila Boyle, who is now chairwoman of the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board, tried to relitigate a number of old issues, including the relocation of Monte Cecilia School and an elephant herd at Auckland Zoo, to the fury of other councillors.

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse said the meeting needed to be really clear about what it was doing, while Ann Hartley was fuming at the parochial behaviour of her left-wing colleagues.

Obviously they felt the rates increase should be even more than 4.9%!

Matthew Dearnaley in the NZ Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key says he supports a proposed inquiry into a donation by a Manukau trust to Auckland Mayor Len Brown’s election campaign.

Mr Key yesterday said he supported the view of Local Government Minister Rodney Hide “that it may be appropriate for the Auditor-General to look at the nature of whether the entity that actually gave [Mr Brown] a donation is capable of doing so or whether it’s within their rules to do so”.

He was referring to a donation of billboard space worth $3375 from the Counties Manukau Pacific Trust, which runs the TelstraClear Pacific Events Centre.

One issue for the Auditor-General might be whether the value of the space is correctly recorded. I know of no billboard space in Auckland that goes for $1,000/mth. $2,000/mth is pretty much the minimum for an average billboard, and my understanding is the size and prominence of the trust billboard is such that the commercial value would be at least $3,000 + GST a month.

So if the billboard was up for three months, then the value of the donation and associated expense should be $10,125.

If the billboard was up for more than three months, then the associated expense for the Brown campaign would remain at $10,125 (as only last three months count), but the donation value would be even great – would be $20,250 if it was for six months.

So these two facts need to be established – the commercial value of the billboard space, and the length of time the billboard was up.

“We are a community charitable trust,” he said. Trust chairman Sir Noel Robinson said no costs were incurred or revenue lost by providing Mr Brown’s campaign with billboard space, which his board had made a decision to provide free to any mayoral candidate who approached it.

This is spin of the highest order. The trust CEO is on the Len Brown campaign team, along with two trustees and possibly a senior trust employee. And you expect us to believe that they would have stuck up John Banks billboards if asked.

The Auditor-General should ask for a copy of the board minutes where this decision was allegedly made.

Even if they made such a decision, it was obviously to give the illusion of political neutrality. Unless they actually wrote to all the other mayoral candidates advising them of the availability of the billboard space, how could they possibly expect another candidate to know that they could ask to use their space.

Mr Brown said yesterday that he was unconcerned about Mr Hide’s intention to ask Ms Provost to look into the trust’s donation.

Excellent. Let the facts be discovered.

Auckland Councillor Jami-Lee Ross has stated:

The Mayor of Auckland has been called on by one of his councillors to return a $3,375 campaign donation back to Auckland ratepayers.

The call comes after recent media reports of a donation to Mayor Len Brown from the Counties Manukau Pacific Trust. The charitable trust has been largely funded in the past by Manukau City ratepayers and continues to receive a $385,000 operating grant each year.

Auckland Councillor Jami-Lee Ross has written to Mr Brown saying he has a “moral obligation” to return $3,375 back to ratepayers. “This donation is highly questionable and, in my view, should never have been made. …

Mr Ross says the Trust’s connection to the city’s ratepayers is too close for it to have engaged in actively supporting election campaigns.

“There are very strong arguments that the donation is in effect public money, if not by definition, then by perception. The Trust’s own financial statements note that the Trust is considered a Council Controlled Entity.

“I have no doubt that the ratepayers of Manukau City would not have expected an organisation that has benefited so generously from Manukau City Council to be contributing to the election campaigns of political candidates. …

“Len Brown has a moral obligation to return the $3,375 back to the people that fund the Counties Manukau Pacific Trust. Doing so would be seen as testament to his honesty and integrity,” says Mr Ross.

The multiple links between the trust and the campaign, with an exchange of personnel, a probably illegal donation, and subsequent board appointments need investigating.

Also there is need of a culture change at the new Auckland Council for refusing to make available the donation and expenses return, unless you physically visit them. They won’t even allow journalists to take a photocopy.

This reinforces my view that the Electoral Commission should be placed in charge of all local body elections also. They have a good commitment to transparency.

Just the day after the NZ Herald praised Len Brown as “winning the battle for greater openness”, it is revealed that Len has used a secret trust to launder $500,000 of donations anonymously to his campaign.

Jonathan Marshall at the Dom Post reports:

the former Manukau mayor declared donations totalling $581,900.95, of which $499,000 was to the previously unknown New Auckland Council Trust. That meant he did not have to tell the Auckland Council electoral officer the names of most individuals and companies that contributed to his campaign because the trust was listed on his return as the main contributor.

Labour has spent the last five years railing against the use of secret trusts in politics, and here Labour Party member Len Brown is revealed to have used one. This is another example of the stinking hypocrisy of Labour.

They spent a year attacking Sam Lotu-lliga for being a Councillor and an MP, and then they endorse Jim Anderton to be a Mayor and an MP.

They spent five years attacking secret trusts, and they use one for the campaign for the most powerful directly elected job in New Zealand.

The Herald reports:

Mr Brown’s campaign manager, David Lewis, last night defended using the New Auckland Council Trust to protect donors’ identities.

He said the campaign raised money from hundreds of people from across the political spectrum who supported the mayor’s vision.

Most wanted anonymity “as per the current laws, simply because they are private persons with no interest in being in the media”.

The Electoral Act requires candidates to identify any donor contributing $1000 or more to a campaign, if they know the name of that person or organisation. But Mr Lewis said the mayor had “no idea who donated to his campaign”.

Oh what bullshit. Of course he knows.

The local electoral laws do not outlaw the use of secret trusts, as the national electoral law does. Even worse they on;y require the use of this secret trust to be revealed after the election. Think how many votes would have been lost if it had been revealed before the election that Len Brown had received $500,000 of donations filtered through a secret trust.

Now as I said, Labour and the Greens have spent five years railing against secret trusts in politics. I await those political parties condemning Len Brown for his $500,000 secret trust – so secret they have not even filed its trust deed with the Registrar of Trusts (they are not legally obliged to). Will media demand Len reveal who set the trust up, who the trustees are. How about even a partial amount of accountability and reveal the largest individual donation made to Len through the trust?

The Mayor of Auckland has powers beyond any other Mayor in New Zealand. Do Labour and the Greens not think we should know if someone donated $250,000 to Len?

Phil Goff in Sep 2008 said:

The National Party, at the last election, got $2 million from secret trusts, anonymously—secret donations. The country wants to know who those donors were, what their commercial motivation was in promising you that money, and in giving you that money, and they want to know what the National Party and Mr Key promised in return.

So what we should now hear from Phil Goff is:

Len Brown, at the last election, got $500,000 from secret trusts, anonymously—secret donations. The country wants to know who those donors were, what their commercial motivation was in promising Len that money, and in giving Len that money, and they want to know what the Len Brown promised in return.

Incidentally John Banks disclosed all his donations in excess of $1,000. Some of these were anonymous, and as with national politics there should be a cap on how big an anonymous donation can be – such as $1,000.

How many of Len’s donors have been appointed to his personal staff, to ratepayer funded jobs? How many were appointed to CCOs? We have no way of knowing, due to his secret trust.

I bear little hope that a man who spent six months fighting to keep the names of those invited to a ratepayer funded dinner secret, will reveal his major donors. But, the Government should look to change the law so the finance provisions of the Electoral Act apply to local body elections, to ensure Aucklanders in future know who are the secret funders of their Mayor.

Note that in my submission on the Electoral Finance Bill in 2007, I proposed that the law should require disclosure of donations through trusts.

UPDATE: The hypocrisy gets worse. Here is what Len Brown said a year ago:

“We have seen the dangers of big money entering national politics, with concerns over sources and transparency of party funding, and the emergence of third party campaigns. Local government has avoided these issues, but they could emerge were candidates under pressure to raise large sums in order to be competitive,” he said.

So Len Brown talked about concerns over transparency of funding, and then set up a secret trust which he funnelled $500,000 through.

Whale Oil highlights how four of the secret appointments by Len Brown to CCOs were of politicians who failed to get elected in their own right.

One example is Mike Williams who was rejected by voters in standing for the Henderson-Massey Local Board, Wait­em­ata DHB and the Wait­akere Licens­ing Trust.

But Len has put him onto the Auckland Transport CCO.

Even worse, the appointments (done with no Council consultation – just a ratification vote) include two members of Len’s campaign team reports the Herald:

The mayor’s office has confirmed that two of the new appointees, Pacific Trust chief executive Richard Jeffery and Pacific business leader Pauline Winter, were members of Mr Brown’s election campaign team.

So of the 12 appointments Len made, four were of politicians rejected by the voters, two were of members of his campaign team, and one his controversial former CEO.

No we are not talking about Andrew Williams. Len Brown doesn’t want the public to know who is recommended for CCO Board appointments according to the NZ Herald:

Auckland Mayor Len Brown has ordered an investigation into a councillor suspected of leaking the names of council-controlled organisation (CCO) board appointments.

A source close to Mr Brown said the mayor had “lost faith in a member of the committee and is asking the chief executive to conduct a full investigation into the leak of information”.

This followed online reports at the weekend that two people with close links to Mr Brown – former Manukau City Council chief executive Leigh Auton and former Manukau deputy mayor Gary Troup – would be appointed to CCO boards on Thursday.

That is the same Leigh Auton who refused the Ombudsman’s request for information before the election.

The mayoral source refused to name the member of the CCO strategy and appointments subcommittee suspected of leaking the information.

Asked if it was Jami-Lee Ross, the Citizens & Ratepayers co-leader who issued a press release at the weekend criticising CCO appointments based on “long-standing friendships and political campaign connections”, the source said “no comment”.

Yesterday, Mr Ross categorically denied leaking information to the Sunday Star-Times reporter who named Mr Auton and Mr Troup.

Mr Ross said he had been clear that he could not comment on who was being proposed for the CCO appointments but felt the item should not be conducted behind closed doors.

Jami-Lee’s sin was to propose that the appointments be done in public session.

Audrey Young reports:

Auckland Mayor Len Brown has given an undertaking to the influential Iwi Leadership Group to talk to the new Auckland Council about dedicated Maori seats on the council. But no quick decisions are expected to be taken.

Mr Brown attended the group’s hui at Takapuwahia Marae in Porirua on Saturday as a guest.

Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples asked Mr Brown to attend the hui with him.

The request to discuss Maori representation on the council was put by Tainui leader Tukoroirangi Morgan and Ngati Whatua leader Naida Glavish.

Mr Morgan said last night that Mr Brown gave an undertaking to discuss the issue with his new council which has only just been sworn in.

He had said it was a serious issue and it would be discussed comprehensively.

I have two objections to Maori seats on the Auckland Council – one principled and one pragmatic.

The principled argument is that race based seats are a bad thing, and over time will lead NZ to a Fiji type situation.

The pragmatic argument is that there is no problem to solve.

In the Auckland region, Maori make up just under 10% of the population (and only 8.3% of the adult population). On the Auckland Council, 3 out of 20 Councillors or 15% have Maori descent.

Mr Morgan and Dr Sharples said there was no support for getting the issue tested through a referendum.

It would be a brave Council that introduced race based seats on its own initiative, without letting the people have a say.

Bernard Orsman writes in the Herald:

The Super City is only 10 days old, but councillor George Wood has spat the dummy about the relatively minor job given to him by Mayor Len Brown.

The former North Shore Mayor and senior policeman said he was “somewhat deflated” to be told by Mr Brown he would chair the community safety forum when he wanted a public transport role.

He wondered if he was being sidelined for going public on the “crummy levels of public transport” in Otara – launching pad for the political career of Mr Brown. the the former Manukau Mayor.

Well I doubt that helped.

When Mr Brown assigned committee jobs, the five C&R councillors missed out on top roles. Mr Wood, whose ticket has questioned the affordability of Mr Brown’s rail projects, was overlooked for the top transport job.

The job went to former Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee, whose number one priority is to “support the mayor in expanding rail as soon as possible”.

Yesterday, Mr Wood acknowledged his position on public transport probably contributed to him missing a senior transport role, although all was not lost. The mayor has since said all councillors could be members of the transport committee.

While I think Len’s transport plans are going to cost Aucklanders a huge amount of money, they are what Auckland voted for. It is not unreasonable that the Mayor will want a chair who is fully supportive of his policy, rather than one who campaigned against it.

Add to the fact that Mike Lee’s background as ARC Chair makes him very experienced in the transport area, and I don’t think one can fairly criticise Len’s decisions. Again, this is not to say I agree with his transport priorities but as Mayor he should be able to select a chair who will back him fully.

Do you recall Len Brown saying h would announce 100 initiatives or policies in his first 100 days in office – 1 a day.

Today is Day 2. I presume Day 1 was spend lots of money getting sworn in. so what was the big policy for Day 2.

He announced it on Breakfast this morning. They’re going to clean the windows of the Town Hall.

Day 1 it turns out was doing designations for the planned rail tracks. No problems with that as early designations help, but I await with interest his policy on how much he will increase rates to pay for his rail plans.

Len may think he has a mandate for the rail – and he does if the ratepayers of Auckland who voted for him are willing to pay for it. But he does not have a mandate to demand the taxpayers of Wellington, Napier, Nelson and Christchurch pay for it. In fact the best quote I can give comes from Labour’s Stuart Nash:

All this posturing, threats and huge budget promises re Auckland from their new councillors etc makes me shake my head in disbelief.

Akld is but one of many cities in this wonderful country and if Aucklanders think they have pre-eminent rights on all of our taxes then they need to pull their heads out from their nether-regions and get real.  New Zealand does well when all New Zealanders are thriving.

Well said Mr Nash.

The magnitude of what Mark Ford and his team have achieved is hard for many people to comprehend. The number of things which could go wrong in merging eight Councils into one is huge. The IT systems alone would be a nightmare to integrate (and this is ongoing).

The only only apparent problem is that phone numbers for Councillors were not on the Council website, and people in Rodney did not know the Council number was toll free. Shit, I’d be delighted if that is the extent of the transition issues.

So many Royal Commission reports sit on book shelves and nothing happens. Kudos to the Government for having the guts to actually get a one Auckland Council implemented within 18 months.

My sympathies go out to those who attended to so called “inauguration” last night. I hear it lasted three and a half hours, with the first hour in Maori. Good God, even the President of the United States does it in less than an hour.

Len Brown is off to a good start. He reached agreement quickly with the Government on Queen’s Wharf, and has now announced the various chairmanships for Auckland. Almost every Councillor gets a “job” which is sensible, rather than allocate over to those on your side of the spectrum. The appointments are:

Committees of the Whole

• Strategy & Finance Committee – Penny Webster
• Accountability & Performance Committee – Richard Northey
  • CCO Strategy and Appointments Sub-Committee – His Worship the Mayor
  • CEO Review Sub-Committee – His Worship the Mayor
  • Tenders & Procurement Panel – Jami-Lee Ross
• Regional Development & Operations Committee – Ann Hartley
  • Social & Community Forum – Cathy Casey
  • Culture, Arts & Events Forum – Alf Filipaina
  • Economic Forum – Arthur Anae
  • Community Safety Forum – George Wood
  • Environment & Sustainability Forum – Wayne Walker
  • Parks & Heritage Forum – Sandra Coney
  • District Plan & Urban Design Forum – Cameron Brewer
• Auckland Future Vision Committee – His Worship the Mayor / Deputy Mayor
• Transport Committee – Mike Lee

Standing Committees

• Hearings Committee – Noelene Rafills
• Regulatory & Bylaws Committee – Des Morrison
• Audit & Risk Committee – Sharon Stewart
• Civil Defence & Emergency Management Group – Michael Goudie

Advisory and Statutory Panels

• Maori Statutory Board – Alf Filipaina
• Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel – Arthur Anae
• Ethnic Advisory Panel – Mike Lee
• Business Advisory Panel – Cameron Brewer
• Rural Advisory Panel – Des Morrison
• Youth Advisory Panel – Michael Goudie
• Social Policy Forum – Calum Penrose

With all these new committees and panels, it will be interesting in say a year’s time to look at what, if anything, they have achieved.

There has been a bit of media attention of how C&R fared in Auckland – with them only getting 5/20 seats. And it is true they did fall short of their goals.

But there hasn’t been a lot of focus on how two other tickets fared – Labour and City Vision (which is Labour/Green basically).

Now C&R managed the following:

• 5 Councillors
• 32 Board members
• 3 Licensing Trust members
• 6 DHB members

So 46 reps elected.

City Vision only got a total of 12 candidates elected, and Labour got 14, six of whom are merely licensing trust reps.

So while not the result that C&R would have wanted, neither was it as bad as some media have made out.

The Herald reports:

The council is a balance of experience, youth and gender. It has eight women councillors, five sitting or former council leaders, and two Pacific Island and two Maori councillors – but no representatives from any other ethnic groups.

A pretty diverse Council, and one would think showed there is no need for race based seats.

On TVNZ’s Q & A yesterday, Mr Brown said a referendum on creating Maori seats on the council “may well” be possible in the next three years.

“I want us to have a full debate across the community, and I want to find out the best way of including the whole community in that,” he said.

“But I want to see Maori representation, particularly mana whenua [local tribal] representation on that council.”

Len Brown’s policy was to support Maori seats, so this is no surprise.

But I would be very cautious about mana whenua representation, because that implies that rather than have an election amongst electors on the Maori roll, instead the three local iwi would directly appoint a Councillor. So a dozen people in a room get the same voting rights as the entire Rodney District.

The current laws allows for Maori seats in the traditional sense, but a law change would be needed to have mana whenua direct representation as proposed by the Royal Commission and supported by Len. So this is highly unlikely unless people vote for a Labour/Green Government in 2011.

Len Brown gets to pick the Deputy Mayor, and off memory the Committee Chairs. Who will he pick?

Mike Lee is a contender. However he was a potential rival to Len, and as a former ARC Chair may find it hard to be Deputy.

If Brown wants to solidfy the region, Penny Webster the former Rodney Mayor is a possibility. Also Penny Hulse former Waitakere Deputy Mayor.

The committee chairs will also be of interest – will they all go to the left, or will they be shared around? I suspect Brown’s leadership style is to be collegial and make sure some go to those on the right – Cameron Brewer might pick something up? Also George Wood the former North Shore Mayor.

A related issue is who will become team leader for C&R? Could it be Jami-Lee Ross? As he is from the former Manukau City, that would help show they are not just Auckland City based.

Not online yet but I am told Len Brown has won the Mayoralty with a pretty large margin, and also that the left hold 11 of the 20 Council seats. I believe C&R have five seats and not sure how the others lie yet.

It’s an over 50% turnout so those who won can claim a good mandate to govern Auckland for the next three years – they have the challenge to make the Super City work, and be an improvement on what was there in the past.

I also understand despite being an incumbent Mayor, Andrew Williams failed to even be elected as a Ward Councillor.

With 95% counted it is huge – 220,000 to 160,000 – a real mandate.

UPDATE: Fuller results now in.

• Andrew Williams got under 1% in his Mayoralty bid. Colin Craig got 40,000 votes – watch him in 2013
• In Rodney, Mayor Penny Webster got elected to Council
• In Albany Michael Goudie and Wayne Walker won. Andrew Williams got a humiliating 4,429 votes only – in 10th place!!!! He did beat Cameron Slater, but Cameron will be very happy as his campaign was about stopping Williams. When before has an incumbent Mayor polled 10th just for a Council spot?
• On the North Shore George Wood stormed him, balanced by Ann Hartley in 2nd place. Two former Mayors.Grant Gillion and Christine Rankin very narrowly behind.
• Waitakere Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse takes first place locally with Sandra Coney 2nd. An unfortunate result some may say!
• Mike Lee crushed opposition in Waitemata and Gulf, beating Tenby Powell and Alex Swney combined
• Noeline Raffills won Whau fauirly comfortably for C&R
• Albert-Eden-Roskill has a split result with Chris Fletcher 1ston 19,500 votes and Cathy Casey 2nd on 14,000. Paul Goldsmith only 250 votes behind.
• Cameron Brewer has a massive victory in Orakei, with 17,000 votes to 10,000 for Doug Armstrong. Congrats Cameron.
• Sadly in Maungakiekie-Tamaki Richard Northey beat the talented Alfred Ngaro by 1,800 votes
• In Howick Sharon Stewart gets 1st with 22,500 votes followed by Jami-Lee Ross on 18,382. Team-mate Dick Quax just behind on 18,045.
• Former Mayor Sir Barry Curtis dips out in the Manurewa-Papakura ward, by 1,000 votes behind Calum Penrose. John Walker another 3,000 votes ahead of him.
• As expected Des Morrison wins in Franklin Ward

And for some of the boards:

• Gary Holmes got elected to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, which will upset Andrew Williams even further.
• The Upper Harbour Local Board gets Christine Rankin and Brian Neeson.
• Nick Kearney is one of the few right faces on the Kaipatiki Local Board
• He’s 85 I think but Assid Corban is back on Henderson-Massey Local Board. Future West got none.
• Greg Presland makes the Waitakere Ranges Local Board
• GBI Board Chairman Paul Downey is re-elected to the GBI Board in the regions’ highest turnout race
• Denise Roche tops the poll for Waiheke Board
• City Vision get a majority in the Waitemata Board
• Michael Wood tops the poll for the Puketepapa Board, and his wife Julia Fairey is in third place. They almost form a board quorum
• C&R win 6/7 seats on Oraeki Board
• Neelam Choudary misses out on the Howick Board
• Labour clean sweep the Mangere-Otahuhu Board
• Labour, including Daljit Singh, don;’t win any seats on the Papatoetoe section of Otara-Papatoetoe Board
• Colleen Brown tops the Manurewa Board poll followed by George Hawkins

The Herald reports:

The Super City result in Papatoetoe is likely to be legally challenged by political rivals of a candidate charged with forging documents to sway the election.

Up to 1500 votes are in question.

If the race between Len Brown and John Banks is close, a judicial inquiry could even cast doubt over the first mayor of the new Auckland Council.

Name suppression has been lifted from Daljit Singh, a Labour Party candidate in the Papatoetoe subdivision of the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board in the Manukau Ward.

He and another man, who still has name suppression, have been jointly charged with forgery.

The pair are alleged to have forged change of address forms to falsely enrol voters in Papatoetoe.

The charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. …

More than 300 voters have been removed from the electoral roll but the Weekend Herald understands up to 1500 enrolments are under police investigation.

If  Singh is elected, we face a fascinating possibility – a judicial inquiry into the election can be petitioned within 21 days. This would normally be heard quite promptly – well before the criminal case makes it to court.

So you face the prospect of the judicial inquiry covering much the same ground as the criminal trial. Could the two arrive at different conclusions?

The Herald reports:

Mr Brown, the Mayor of Manukau, who has supported the campaign of the charged candidate, yesterday said he was disappointed with the accused and anyone else who abused the democratic process.

Was he disappointed enough to ask the candidate to stop using this photo of Len Brown, with him, on his election pamphlet?

But Judge Simpson was forced to grant interim suppression when the man’s lawyer, Howard Lawry, said he would appeal against her ruling.

The identity of the Super City candidate will be kept secret until the appeal can be heard in the High Court. The Herald will join the police in opposing the suppression application.

On behalf of the police, Crown prosecutor Robin McCoubrey opposed suppression for the candidate. He said there was strong public interest in the name of a person accused of fraudulent activities affecting the electoral roll.

Mr Lawry said naming his client, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, would jeopardise his chances in the election.

Mr Lawry said that if his client’s name was suppressed, the position of other candidates was protected.

This was because if he were elected, then found guilty as charged, the election result could be revoked.

Not really. There is no provision to revoke an election result if a candidate after the election is found guilty.

One can do an electoral petition to have an election declare invalid, but these must be lodged within 21 days of the result. There is no way any trial will be concluded in that time.

Sadly, by appealing, the name remains suppressed until Thursday afternoon probably, and by then it is too late to mail your vote in.

UPDATE: A reader points out that if the accused is elected, and found guilty of a crime carrying a maximum sentence of two or more years jail, then they forfeit their seat.

I named in the previous post the two men charged with electoral fraud offences, in relation to the Auckland Council elections.

Since that post was done, they have appeared in court. They applied for name suppression and the Judge declined it.

They then appealed that decision to the High Court. As is usual, they got interim name suppression for 48 hours so the appeal can be heard. While I understand this is normal, I think in this case it is a bad call as another 48 hours of voting will carry on, without people knowing the identities of those charged – something which could affect how they vote. By the time they are named, it will be too late to post your vote in probably.

Those online will know, as they probably read it before it was deleted. But those watching the TV News tonight won’t get to find out who it is, and those reading the Herald tomorrow morning won’t get told the identity either.

However I don’t want to share a cell with Whale Oil, so I am respecting the law and have hidden the previous post and comments. I will make them public again once name suppression is lifted.

Very ironic that this happens on the day the Government announces it will be harder to get name suppression.

The Herald reports:

Labour MP Phil Twyford says he should not have used his parliamentary email to endorse candidates in the local body elections and he is sorry.

Mr Twyford, Labour’s Auckland Issues spokesman, met Parliamentary Service officials today following an accusation from ACT leader Rodney Hide about improper use of parliamentary resources.

Mr Twyford sent emails – including one to endorse Auckland super city mayoralty candidate Len Brown.

“Parliamentary Services have told me that there is a case to answer and that it has been referred to the Speaker’s Office. This was a genuine mistake. I am now aware of the rules and I won’t be making this mistake again.

Telling people who to vote for, from a parliamentary account, is no mistake. Everyone knows the rules – you an not ask for money, members, or votes.

Even worse when it is the Spokesperson for Auckland Issues. While of course Labour back Len Brown (a Labour Party member), it is not a good look to have the Auckland spokesperson actively campaigning for and against candidates – as he will have to work with some of them after the election.

The SST reports:

Left wing union leader Matt McCarten has performed a triple flip flop over endorsing a candidate for Auckland Council’s Albany ward.

McCarten formed the website supercitypicks.co.nz to help voters select a left-leaning Auckland Council in the upcoming local body elections. …

But yesterday McCarten withdrew his support for Williams entirely.

“Originally I thought progressives should support Andrew Williams. But my leftist and even centrist mates gave me a biff on two fronts,” McCarten wrote.

“That he’s made his city a laughing stock and  he’s totally self absorbed and even his own allies have deserted him. The other reason is that he knows he had no chance to win as mayor and is deliberately drawing votes away from the only other candidate Len Brown who can beat John Banks.

“Privately he claims to support Brown, yet is helping Banks by not telling voters his real position. On that basis he’s a fraud and shouldn’t be supported by progressives.”

McCarten said Slater was “the only other candidate I know in that ward with any chance of winning”. He said the blogger was right of politics but “has a social conscience, does volunteer work and has a good brain”.

Yep that’s right, Matt McCarten did endorse Whale Oil for Council. And he called Andrew Williams a fraud.

One can only imagine the howls of outrage and anguish on the left. Matt’s own UNITE staff probably threatened to picket him. And so he flipped again:

However less than 24 hours later McCarten had withdrawn his support for Slater and replaced it with a new endorsement. “My progressive advisors tell me I should be supporting John Kirikiri as the best of the rest”.

Position No 3.

But, when Stuff called McCarten today to ask why he was making constant changes to his Albany ward endorsements he said he would be removing his tick for Kirikiri and reinstating Williams as the preferred contender.

“I hadn’t done my homework but I have now read all of the candidates’ policies and have decided Williams is the man for the job.”

He said Williams had been “an embarrassment with his behaviour” but had the best policies “and policies are how we should judge the candidates”.

I disagree with Matt. Policies are important. But so is judgement, temperment, and rationality.

Following his removal from McCarten’s endorsement list Williams let rip on Facebook about the well-known union leader.

“He should know better than to make such irresponsible statements about me a sitting mayor. I don’t even know the man, have never had a conversation with him, so it’s extraordinary that he would comment like that. But very telling that he initially endorsed that disturbed psycho nutter Cameron Slater then withdrew it.”

When Williams does rants like that, the term “disturbed psycho nutter” seems like a form of projection.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Council candidates are split almost equally over whether the new council should play a bigger role in providing social housing for low-income people.

Mayoral candidate Len Brown and 17 other candidates have told a survey by the Waitakere Housing Call to Action group that the council should maintain or expand the pensioner units it will inherit from existing councils, and work with the Government and community groups to provide more social housing. …

Mr Brown told a social issues forum in Otahuhu yesterday that he wanted to double the existing number of units.

He advocated putting “1000 new units of affordable housing, both personally owned and rented”, into Housing NZ urban renewal projects at Tamaki, Clendon and Papakura.

No no no. Local Government isn’t there to find schools, hospitals and provide housing. That is the role of central Government, Len Brown wants to spend over $1 billion of ratepayers money on housing – money that could either lower rates, or be far better spent on public transport, roads, parks etc.

Not everyone thank God wants to spend $1 billion on housing. No I dodn’t mean John Banks, but the two communist (Annalucia is standing for the Communist League, and Penny – well if it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck ….) candidates:

The candidate survey found some unexpected bedfellows. Far-left mayoral candidates Penny Bright and Annalucia Vermunt both urged expansion of social housing – but by the state, not the new council.

And Penny and Alllucia are right. This is the role of central Government – through Housing NZ. What next from Len – have the Council start its own welfare department?

This is very serious. The Herald reports (offline):

Police are investigating a death threat against a political organiser in relation to a possible Super City voting scam in South Auckland.

Citizens & Ratepayers campaign organiser Jim Stephens received a letter mentioning a “hit list” and “shooters” if the right-leaning ticket did not desist from maligning “our winning candidate Daljit [Singh]“.

It was purportedly signed by “Daljit Singh supporters”.

Last night, Daljit Singh, one of two Labour Party candidates in the Papatoetoe subdivision of the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board, was “100 per cent sure” none of his supporters had sent the letter.

I hope the Police test the letter for fingerprints and handwriting samples etc. Totally unacceptable to make not very veiled threats like this.

The Herald reports:

The Super City will open for business on November 1 with 1223 fewer staff than the existing councils and their business units, leading to a $66.5 million cut in the annual wage bill.

The agency designing the Super City has trimmed staff numbers from 9430 staff a year ago to 8207. …

The agency said staff numbers would drop by another 300 when people employed to bed down the Super City completed their work by July 2012.

This would lead to a $91 million overall reduction in the wages bill to $513 million by mid-2012.

This is good news for Auckland ratepayers. Obviously not great for those losing their jobs, but reducing costs on ratepayers will lead to greater economic growth and more jobs in the private sector.

The chances of cost savings from fewer staff leading to lower rates appear remote.

None of the main Super City mayoral candidates or political tickets are promising lower rates from the savings and efficiencies expected from the reforms.

As well, setting up the Super City has cost $200 million, which will be borne by ratepayers.

Which is around the first three years of lower staff costs only. After that rates should be lower than what they would have been under eight different Councils.

The HoS reports:

The Auditor-General has been called in to investigate lucrative golden handshakes being awarded to the chief executives of seven Auckland councils which are expected to cost ratepayers millions of dollars.

The Herald on Sunday has been told council bosses from Rodney to Franklin will receive redundancy packages with a combined cost of about $2.5 million.

Unbelievable. The probability of a super city has been known for three or more years, so prudent Councils would have ensured their CEO contracts do not leave ratepayers with massive golden handshakes to fund.

Auckland City mayor John Banks has released the severance package of his chief executive David Rankin, and said there were no golden handshakes given to him by Auckland City Council. He called on other councils to do the same.

“Rankin will be paid an additional $30,000 because he has stayed on past his contractual arrangement. We didn’t want him to leave halfway through the the year.

Auckland City is the only Council to be transparent on this issue. why won’t Len Brown reveal the size of the golden handshake he agreed to with the Manukau City CEO? Is it because it is so huge? How does this fit in with his TV ads claiming he stands for transparency?

Wonders never cease. North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams has complained to the Police because he does not like what Cameron Slater says at public meetings. He has also asked the Returning Officer to remove Slater from the ballot, because it seems Cameron is mean to the poor Mayor.

Williams said Slater’s whole campaign was a form of the “stalking” he had endured for over a year.

“He stands up at a meeting and says ‘I will not urinate on a tree, I will not use a credit card in a Takapuna bar, I will not send drunken texts’.”

What makes the Mayor think they are references to him?

“What he has put in his candidate profile is harassment. His whole campaign is focussed on attacking me.”

Yes it is. Labour’s entire 2008 campaign was focussed on attacking John Key. But I don’t think John Key tried to get Helen Clark arrested or struck off the ballot.

Wiliams urged the electoral officer to strike off Slater as a candidate.

Nice to have a Mayor with such a fine regard for elections.

Police confirmed they had received a complaint against Slater but had undertaken not to make comment to the media.

Here are some good question to ask the Police.

1. How many times in the last month has Mayor Williams e-mailed the Police District Commander urging him to arrest Slater?
2. How many of these e-mails were sent after midnight?
3. How many micro-seconds did the Police spend deciding what to do?