Kiwiblog

The Herald reported:

Auckland Mayor Len Brown is backing down in the face of a citywide revolt against high-rise apartments and infill housing in a new planning rulebook for the city.

Mr Brown says the council will reduce heights proposed in some coastal suburbs and around town centres where apartment buildings butt into residential streets.

“We have had a lot of feedback and concern expressed going from a one- or two-level home to a four- or five-level apartments right on the boundary,” he said, adding better rules were needed.

He dropped hints that the coastal suburbs of Milford and St Heliers could see a reduction in eight- and four-storey buildings respectively. The Herald understands Mt Eden could be spared four-storey apartments tucked behind the self-styled shopping village.

Any back down will probably be the least they can get away with.

Nick Smith announced:

An Auckland Housing Accord has been agreed today by Housing Minister Dr Nick Smith and Auckland Mayor Len Brown to urgently increase the supply and affordability of housing in Auckland. …

The legislation, to be introduced to Parliament as part of Budget 2013, will enable Special Housing Areas to be created by the Auckland Council with approval of Government. In these areas it will be possible to override restrictions on housing put in place by Auckland’s eight predecessor Councils, like the Metropolitan Urban Limit.

Qualifying developments in these Special Housing Areas will be able to be streamlined, providing they are consistent with Auckland’s Unitary Plan, once it is notified, expected in September this year. New greenfield developments of more than 50 dwellings will be able to be approved in six months as compared to the current average of three years and brownfield developments in three months as compared to the current average of one year. The streamlined process will not be available for high rise developments that will need to be considered under existing rules until the Unitary Plan has been finalised in 2016.

“This is a three year agreement to address these housing supply issues in the interim until Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan becomes fully operative and the Government’s Resource Management Act reforms for planning processes take effect.

“The Government respects in this Accord that it is for Auckland to decide where and how it wishes to grow. The Government is giving new powers for council to get some pace around new housing development and is agreeing on aspirational targets to ensure Auckland’s housing supply and affordability issues are addressed.

“The Accord sets a target of 9,000 additional residential houses being consented for in Year 1, 13,000 in Year 2, and 17,000 in Year 3. This is a huge boost on the average 3,600 homes that have been consented each year over the past four years and the 7,400 a year over the past 20 years.

The only way one can reduce the price of housing in Auckland is to reduce demand or increase supply. Now assuming you can’t start deporting Aucklanders to Gore, that means increasing supply.

39,000 houses in three years compared to 3,600 homes a year is massive.

And best of all it doesn’t involve the Government borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars to try and become a large scale property developer itself.

Congrats to Len Brown and Nick Smith for working together to do something meaningful in this area.

The Herald reports:

Auckland rates will rise on average by 2.9 per cent this year – an election year for local politicians – under Mayor Len Brown’s inflation-sensitive budget to be put to the council tomorrow for approval.

Annual inflation is 0.9% at the moment.

NBR (paywall) reports:

Under-fire Auckland mayor Len Brown has been accused of hypocrisy for living on a spacious lifestyle block outside the urban limit while pushing for a “quality compact city” full of small high-rise apartments.

The mayor lives on a bush-covered 6970 sq m (0.688ha/1.7 acre) property at Tiffany Close on the outskirts of Manukau, just outside the current Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL).

His house is a spacious 406sq m and he has a pool in his backyard, for which resource consent was granted in October 2002.

The property was a bare section when Mr Brown bought it with his wife Shan Inglis in 1995 for $180,000.

It now has a rateable value of $1.2 million, including land value of $495,000 and improvements of $705,000.

Critics say the mayor’s housing choice shows he is not practicing what he preaches when it comes to high-density living. 

If the Mayor was allowing Aucklanders to make their own choices about where to live, then his personal choice would be of no interest.

But the refusal to significantly shift the MUL or urban-rural limit is depriving Aucklanders of those choices. Almost all new houses will have to be within the MUL as part of his intensification plan.

Some people want to live in apartment blocks – as I do.

Some people like to be able to have a section with a back lawn that the kids can play on.

We need a plan for Auckland that will enable both choices.

That means freeing up more land. Otherwise sections will massively increase in value, as Len’s has.

The HoS reports:

Veteran activist John Minto is asking his political party to approve a run for mayor of Auckland. The trade unionist and teacher said Mayor Len Brown had disappointed him.

“What has Len Brown done which is different to what John Banks would have done if he were in? You struggle to find many significant things.”

Sources said the Mana Party was initially keen on the idea to dispel perceptions that the party was solely about its leader, Hone Harawira. “If I did run it would be as an official Mana candidate,” Minto said ahead of this weekend’s Mana Party AGM in Tokoroa. “Mana’s considering it.”

Minto said Brown had failed Auckland’s poor. “The business community and people on high incomes in Auckland are very happy with Len Brown, so I don’t know whether they’ll bother putting up a candidate,” Minto told the Herald on Sunday.

“He is a corporate candidate, effectively.”

It will be interesting to see how many votes Minto gets, if he does run. He can’t and won’t win of course, but he may help split the vote.

In another story it is revealed that the Council under Len has spent $60 million on communications in the last two years including 143 comms and PR staff!

I’m not sure if this includes the six spin doctors directly working for Len.

Len Brown and his city planners seem to think that you build a city to fit in with your transport plan, rather than build a transport system to fit in with where people want to live.

Their master plan is to force as many people as possible into apartments. But not just CBD apartments (which I am quite fond of), but massive apartments everywhere – up to 18 stories in height.

Yes Len and sidekick Penny have not just proposed 18 story suburban apartment blocks, but are demanding that the Government fast-track their plan to do so. Labour seem to be backing them.

The Herald reports:

Communities are rebelling against high-rise and in-fill housing, Aucklanders are struggling to follow the complex document and nine of 20 councillors have written to the Prime Minister urging him to slow down the process. …

Auckland-wide community meetings have sparked angry reactions to plans in a draft copy of the unitary plan for high-rise and in-fill housing in more than half of the urban area. …

Meanwhile, St Heliers residents turned out in force last night to oppose more “concrete monstrosities” destroying the character of the seaside village.

I understand there were almost 500 people at the meeting.

Len and Penny want a height limit of 18 stories not just for the CBD (which is fine) but also for:

1. Albany
2. Botany
3. Henderson
4. Manukau
5. New Lynn
6. Papakura
7. Newmarket
8. Sylvia Park
9. Takapuna
10. Westgate/Massey

In 13 other town centres they want 8 stories, or 33 metres.

There is no doubt that Auckland needs to grow both upwards and outwards. But the majority needs to be outwards, not upwards to reduce house prices and give Aucklanders more choices over where they live.

Auckland already has a higher urban density than Sydney and Melbourne.

Bernard Orsman at NZ Herald reports:

Brown claimed space for 15,000 homes but now concedes just 2000 sites ready.

Auckland has 2000 new sections ready to build houses on, says Mayor Len Brown, who last month claimed there was enough land for 15,000 homes.

As debate grows about housing and land supply in Auckland, Mr Brown is no longer claiming the city has enough new land to build 15,000 houses “right now”.

Instead, he is saying there is capacity for 15,000 homes on ready-to-go greenfield land in areas such as Flat Bush, Takanini and Hobsonville, but only 2000 sections have reached the building stage.

That’s a big reduction, in fact an 87% reduction.

Councillor Dick Quax said Mr Brown had proclaimed to all who would listen that Auckland had 15,000 sections ready for houses to be built on “right now”.

“The mayor is now having a big helping of humble pie as he acknowledges that there are just 2000 sections ready for construction to begin.

“What this means is Auckland runs out of land to build on in May,” Mr Quax said.

The latest admission, he said, showed just how dire the land supply was and an acknowledgement the council had got it seriously wrong.

They have.

Auckland has a higher urban density than every major city in Australia. Moving the urban limit outwards is just common sense. Town planners don’t like it, because they want everyone to comply with their views on where people must live to make their job easier. But frankly I think the rights of home owners trump the rights of town planners.

The Herald reports:

New Housing Minister Nick Smith is vowing to break the “stranglehold” of Auckland Council’s policy of containing urban sprawl – a policy he says is “killing the dreams of Aucklanders” by driving up house prices.

In his first major interview on how he plans to tackle the housing affordability issue handed to him in January’s Cabinet reshuffle, he said his focus would be on opening up land supply because land prices were the biggest factor putting home ownership out of reach of many Aucklanders.

“There’s no question in my mind that we have to break through the stranglehold that the existing legal metropolitan urban limit has on land supply,” he said.

Excellent. This is the first time a Minister has been this explicit.

The MUL is the enemy of affordable housing. No amount of subsidies, intensification, central planning, economies of scale can defy the reality that if the supply of land for housing is artificially constrained, then the price of land (and hence housing) will increase in line with demand. Arguing against this is like arguing against gravity.

“When we are looking at growth in Auckland of 2 per cent a year, we are going to need sections at the rate of 12,000 a year,” he said. “The metropolitan urban limit is a stranglehold on land that is killing the dreams of Aucklanders wanting to own their home and we have to work with the council to find the tools to increase that land supply and bring section prices back.”

If someone wants to be elected Mayor of Auckland, they should run on a policy of increasing the MUL, to reduce housing costs.

But Mr Brown said Aucklanders had already agreed on the city’s “compact footprint” through developing the first Auckland Plan, and Dr Smith should stop debating it.

He said the plan was based on “a model that is developing truly internationally competitive cities with strong economic bases to them and that give rise to outstanding transport operations within a more compact framework”.

“Have a look at Melbourne,” he said. “Have a look at Hong Kong. Have a look at London. All of those cities, by and large, are operating off what is regarded as best practice.”

Comparing Auckland, one of the world’s smallest cities, to London and Hong Kong – two of the world’s three global centres is ridicolous.

But the comparison to Australian cities such as Melbourne is more sensible. Len Brown is saying that Auckland should be more compact, such as Melbourne and Australian cities are. So what are their urban densities? Demographia has this 2012 report:

• Adelaide 1,400 people per square km
• Brisbane 1,000
• Canberra 1,100
• Melbourne 1,600
• Perth 1,300
• Sydney 2,100

And what is Auckland? 2,400 people per square km.

Auckland has twice the urban density of Melbourne – which Len Brown cites as a model. If we increased the Auckland urban limit by 50%, then it would be the same as Melbourne.

Bernard Orsman at NZ Herald reported:

Blogger David Farrar has questioned whether ratepayers are funding Mr Brown’s re-election campaign.

In a post on his Kiwiblog site titled “Len’s gaggle of spin doctors”, Mr Farrar said Mr Brown’s hiring of Dan Lambert took his tally of spin doctors to six – more than the entire parliamentary Labour Party.

Labour has five parliamentary press secretaries and a part-time speech writer for 34 MPs. Prime Minister John Key has four press secretaries and one media assistant.

Mr Brown refused to answer questions about communications staffing under his leadership.

Mr Lambert blocked repeated requests by the Herald to speak to the mayor, saying: “I think it’s reasonable the mayor wouldn’t want to go on record on a matter like this.”

I don’t think it is unreasonable for the Mayor to front on why he needs six communications staff. I do think it is unreasonable for those staff to block access to the Mayor.

In Parliament leaders can’t do that. They have weekly press conferences or run the media gauntlet when the House is sitting. A Mayor should be more open to the media, not less open.

Maybe there really is a need for six staff. But it would be good to hear what it is.

Len Brown has just hired his sixth spin doctor. That’s six spin doctors, all funded by the ratepayer, working in Len’s private office. That isn’t six spin doctors for the entire Auckland Council. That is six spin doctors just for Len.

Started this month is Dan Lambert as Len’s propaganda manager. He comes from the United Kingdom.

Dan joins Glyn Jones who was the chief spin doctor, and who is now called Media Communications Manager.

Len also has a senior press secretary, a communications advisor, former Clark spin doctor David Lewis as a media consultant and a speech writer on top of that.

Len has more spin doctors than the entire Parliamentary Labour Party (they have five). The previous Mayor of Auckland had just one – Cameron Brewer.

Should Auckland ratepayers be funding Len’s reelection campaign?

Talking of the election, isn’t it time also for C&R and their friends in Auckland to get their shit together and select a Mayoral candidate. Otherwise Len and his six spin doctors will have too easy a time of it.

Captions below. As always, funny not nasty.

For a Friday afternoon, Wellington has been a hotbed of rumour.

It seems that Conor Roberts (Len Brown’s Senior Political Advisor) is off to manage Corporate Affairs for Todd Property.

Leaving aside the implications of this for Brown, this is an interesting move by Roberts.  I’ve highlighted before that Conor will have a political career and a part of Labour’s future Cabinet.  I imagine Conor is looking for a bit of real world experience before taking the plunge into a Labour party parliamentary career.  Labour seriously lacks MPs who have real world experience and Conor also lacks that – for now.  The difference between most Labour lackeys and Conor is that he has realised the problem, and set about doing something about getting the experience he needs.

When Roberts becomes an MP (I suspect he is targeting 2014, but if I was advising him would suggest 2017), he will have that rarest of qualities among Labour people, experience in business rather than as a teacher or a unionist.

Put this private sector time alongside his well know political abilities, and I suspect today’s news represents another step in the development of a politician who will be invaluable to the Labour cause.

Conor will need to tread carefully though.  By putting his neck out many Labour activists, especially in this part of the cycle, will be out to trip him up or paint him as some sort of corporate drone.  Some still blame him for Len not backing the Maritime Union over Ports of Auckland. If he seeks a seat, you can be sure the Maritime Union delegates will be voting for his opponent!

This also means Len Brown will need a new campaign manager for 2013. Of course, the fact there is no high profile candidate yet identified to stand against him is a plus!

Andrew Geddis has blogged:

That said, let’s just note what we’re left with at the end of the Police’s investigation. We know John Banks went around wealthy people and companies getting donations in the five figures. The Police clearly are of the opinion he did so in full knowledge they were giving him this significant support. But he then signed a document purporting to accurately declare who had given him the money for his campaign apparently without even reading it, but simply after asking the volunteer who put it together “you’re sure this is accurate?”

It is worth noting that while John Banks broke no laws, I don’t regard it as a good thing that he signed a donation return saying he did not know who his donors were, when he was involved in personally receiving two of the donations. It was legal, yes, but it is not a good look.

To be fair, I would point out that Len Brown also may have known who many of his undeclared donors were, as he filtered his donations through a trust, which meant he could know who donated to the trust, but not have to disclose them. Just as with John Banks, Len Brown broke no law – but it was also a bad look.

As many have said, the Local Electoral Act needs to be amended before the 2013 elections.

Labour have not promoted very much one of the constitutional changes they are seeking to make, namely new rule 146B:

The Policy Platform is binding on all Party members elected to public office and on the Parliamentary Labour Party, the New Zealand Council and the Policy Council.

Previously the policy platform was only binding on members who stood on the Labour ticket. What this means is that Mayors such as Len Brown will be obliged to vote in accordance with the Labour Party policy platform in future. Brown is a member of the Labour Party, but did not stand as a Labour candidate.

I’d say this clause was drafted by the Maritime Union, a Labour Party affiliate member!

This means, if passed, that any Labour Party member who stands for any public office is bound to vote in accordance with the Labour policy platform. I’ve actually voted for some Labour Party members for local body elections – including in 2010. I won’t do so, if this passes as it means they will be servants of the party, not of their constituents.

A reader e-mails me these observations:

Sometimes you see something and it is so absurd that you think you must be missing something. You then look closer and realise the reality is really that true. I must thank Mayor Len Brown and his media team for providing exactly that sort of farce – it is still making me laugh.

I understand that Len has as many media staff as the PM, and also keeps an ex-prime ministerial chief press sec on retainer to provide more advice. With this sort of support you would think they could get the basics right.  It turns out the opposite may be true. 

On Friday afternoon Brown called a press conference to boast how prudent he has been with his budget, how tough he has been on projects, and how much money he has saved the ratepayers of Auckland. I am unsure why he’d wait until Friday afternoon to do this, but he deserves points for trying to get his positive messaging out, setting the agenda, and being available to the media.

That though is when it all becomes undone. For some reason (that I can’t begin to understand) everything that happened at the Brown presser plus all the material associated with it is placed under embargo until 5am Monday morning. I have watched politics for a very long time, but have never seen anything as curious as this.  So Len tells selected media what he wants to say on Monday on Friday, swears them to secrecy, in a bid to set the agenda take any opposition by surprise?  The only thing that was surprising was that Len and his media boffins thought this would work.

To make matters worse though they also released (also under embargo) a letter that they had sent out the day before to Auckland’s elderly. The letter was about a problem with rates rebates for old people homes, the fact that Government was ignoring it, and that Brown was going to fix it. This letter may have been embargoed as part of the press material until today, but was circulated widely on Thursday. Effectively, Len and his team tried to score points against David Carter… but figured they’d give him two days grace to work out how to respond.  Madness. 

Of course the Government and C&R had well and truly got its act together as early as Sunday morning. This meant instead of the good news stories for Len, the the focus of Monday’s reporting was on Brown’s extravagant budget, the unaffordable rail link (Carter and Key), the stupidity of spending on a V8 event (Carter on Q&A), Brown’s Greek-style spending habits, and a story about the massive storm water infrastructure deficit facing Auckland. The latter story found its way to TVNZ in the way of Council papers during Browns two-day meditation and self-imposed silence.  Gee, that embargo really paid off.

The result of this farce…come Monday any good news Brown had planned is lost and he looks massively under-pressure and defensive. In case anyone missed this case-study in inept media management, three hours after the embargo is lifted someone in Browns office gets around to sending around the media material to all media (not just the selected few who turned up to the Friiday press conference).  What’s the point?  By then the material had been copied and distributed to media that cared and certainly all of Len’s opponents. 

Auckland Council meet again on Wednesday.  I understand that the focus for the Right will be to see how many of Brown’s pet projects (that he so confidently announced) can be voted down. Might be worth the trip to Auckland just to watch.

No wonder Auckland is fast losing patience with Brown. He is ripe for the picking next year if Auckland’s right can get itself organised – or if Trotter can organise a replacement.

I’m not sure if the reader is correct about the number of media staff Len has (does anyone have the number?), but their observations on the attempt to have a secret embargoed press conference as spot on.

The NZ Herald rates the Auckland Council half way through their first term. In order:

• Cameron Brewer A
• Mike Lee A
• Cathy Casey B+
• Sandra Coney B+
• George Wood B
• Dick Quax B
• Chris Fletcher C+
• Ann Hartley C+
• Richard Northey C+
• Arthur Anae C
• Len Brown C
• Michael Goudie C
• Penny Hulse C
• Noelene Raffills C
• John Walker C
• Wayne Walker C
• Penny Webster C
• Des Morrison C-
• Calum Penrose C-
• Alf Filipaina D
• Sharon Stewart D

The comments on Cameron Brewer are:

Brewer is leader of the opposition, and more effective than the entire C&R team combined. Some accuse Brewer of being a self-publicist, but there is no more effective councillor at getting their name in the media.

Brewer has unashamedly postioned himself as the leading opponent of Brown and provided an alternative voice. The ambitious Brewer says he has no plans to challenge Brown next year. He is probably too far to the right to lure the middle ground.

I think Cameron would be a very serious contender in 2016, if Brown is re-elected for a second term in 2013 – which is far from certain.

Abby Gillies at NZ Herald reports:

Auckland mayor Len Brown is conditionally supporting a controversial government decision to negotiate a convention centre deal with SkyCity.

The Government has faced mounting criticism over discussions with the casino that would see the company fund a $350 million convention centre in Auckland in return for an extension to its casino licence.

Mr Brown, speaking to Radio New Zealand this morning after returning from a trade mission to China, said there was a huge need for a convention centre in Auckland, but if the deal goes ahead controls should be put in place to minimise harm to gamblers.

“I’m not anti gambling at all. I think there is a place and time for it and people are entitled to make their choices and they do that.”

Very sensible. Len is showing the responsibility of being in office. Those who do not have to live with the consequences can oppose everything and anything.

Fiona Rotherham at Stuff reports:

Chinese investors have shown encouraging interest towards the Auckland Council’s planned $10.8 billion worth of infrastructure projects and other trade and investment opportunities, Auckland Mayor Len Brown says. …

But the council has also been touting for early stage interest in three of its own major projects: the inner city rail link that central government has rejected funding for; a second harbour crossing; and for the new Innovation precinct in the Wynard Quarter on Auckland’s waterfront. …

China, as our second largest trading partner, was one of the few countries with significant capital to invest offshore and was particularly interested in tourism investment, Brown said.

The first project off the block will be the $2.4b inner city rail loop and Brown favours a PPP (public/private/partnership) deal over borrowing, issuing infrastructure bonds, or raising rates and taxes in order to fund it.

An excellent idea. I look froward to the local Labour MPs supporting an innovative PPP such as this.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Courage in politics too often goes unnoticed, especially when it requires silence. Auckland’s mayor has shown remarkable courage over the past week, resisting pressure to call the Auckland Council’s port company to heel in the current dispute. Some of that pressure has been exerted in public, by commentators, union leaders and a protest march in sympathy with the sacked watersiders that the Labour Party’s leader saw fit to attend. But just as much pressure will have been coming on him in private, from Labour members of the Auckland Council and party activists who helped him get elected.

The latest challenge for the Mayor is one of the Labour Councillors, Richard Northey, has moved a motion to have a Council committee declare opposition to the Ports restructuring, which would humiliate Len Brown if it passes.

The contractual stevedoring arrangements the company wants to make would match those its nearest rival, the Port of Tauranga, has enjoyed for many years.

They were introduced at Tauranga without the strife that has disrupted the Auckland port for so long now, and members of the Maritime Union are still employed on Tauranga’s wharves.

The Port of Tauranga is only part-owned by its local authority. There can be little doubt partial privatisation makes a difference. Boards of directors can more easily resist political pressure when they owe a duty to private as well as public shareholders. More important perhaps, trade unions know this. They cannot as readily bring political pressure to bear in a dispute.

This is absolutely true. The union becomes far less reasonable, because it has lackeys on the local authority who will interfere on their behalf.

The other advantage of the PoT model is that it allows the employees to become share-holders, as 90% of stevedores at Tauranga are.

The best argument for a partial sale of Ports of Auckland Ltd would be intervention by the mayor and council in this dispute.

Mr Brown knows this very well. It is he, almost alone in public now, who is doing the most to show that assets in full public ownership need not be a pushover in labour bargaining. This is the first step, and probably a necessary one, on the path to proving that assets in public ownership can be competitive with private enterprise in every way.

If Northey wins the vote, it will be a classic case of politicians interfering to benefit their donors and supporters.

All of them are at least half-owned by local councils. Had they been fully privatised there is no doubt we would have seen mergers and rationalisation that would have produced better returns for private shareholders, more efficient transport networks for the whole country and more bargaining strength for the ports in negotiations with shipping companies.

If this sort of rationalisation is possible with ports in council ownership, the largest port will need to lead the way. If Ports of Auckland Ltd can get close to the rate of return the mayor has set, it will be in a more dominant position than it has ever been.

But that all depends now on Mr Brown’s courage. Can he see it through?

This is a huge test for Len. Can he defeat Northey?

On the issue of too many ports, that is a view shared by the PM:

A concession from the Prime Minister that the country may have too many ports.

The drawn out and often acrimonious Auckland port dispute has spawned calls for the number of ports to be culled.

John Key’s giving some thought to suggestions we’re overloaded in the unloading business, and he says the Productivity Commissioner is looking at the overall structure.

“In the end the truth of it is if we have too many ports then they won’t be financially viable and some will close,” he told Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking.

Mr Key says Ports of Auckland is losing business to Tauranga because Tauranga is more efficient.

And as the editorial notes, the ownership model stops there being a sensible rationalisation, where a 10% cut in transport costs would add $1.5b to the economy.

Matt McCarten attacks Len Brown in his HoS column:

Brown’s actions, or lack of them, over the port fiasco are perplexing.

His officials set an impossible 12 per cent return for his port’s directors.

When they ran into trouble I’m told the board offered the mayor their resignations. If true it was a master stroke. Because once he assured them of his support he was their puppet.

No experienced politician who knows what they stand for would have been manoeuvred like this.

With the biggest citizens’ revolt for 60 years about to erupt in his city, he is pathetically reduced to whimpering that he doesn’t have any real power. He looks weak.

The biggest citizens’ revolt for 60 years? Really? 3,000 people turned up to the support rally for the Maritime Union. That’s 0.3% of Auckland’s population.

I defend Len Brown in my Herald column today:

Len Brown campaigned to be the first Mayor of the Auckland super-city with the slogan, that he would be the Mayor for all of Auckland.

Mayor Brown has come under huge pressure from his party, his donors and his activist supporters to abandon his campaign pledge, and to intervene in the Ports of Auckland dispute. It is to his credit that he has resisted putting the interests of the Labour Party above the interests of Auckland.

I conclude:

Len Brown got elected on a slogan of being the Mayor for all of Auckland. The Labour Party shouldn’t complain that he is taking that slogan seriously and putting the interests of Auckland ahead of the interests of the Labour Party affiliated Maritime Union. He should be congratulated for his stance.

In my full column I articulate why I think this has helped Brown get re-elected.

Phil Twyford blogs:

Len Brown was elected the people’s mayor on a wave of support across west and south Auckland. People opted decisively for his plan for public transport, and a modern inclusive vision for the city that embraced the young, the brown and working people.

Which makes it puzzling that he is choosing to stand by and watch while his port subsidiary tries to contract out 300 jobs. …

It is all the more puzzling given the Mayor’s commitment to reducing social inequality, reflected in the excellent Auckland Plan. It is hard to see how we are going to build a more prosperous and inclusive city by stripping the city’s employees of their work rights and job security. …

It is time for Len Brown and his Council to rethink their demand for a 12% return, and replace it with something reasonable and not excessive. He should tell the port company casualisation is not an acceptable approach to employment relations in a port owned by the people of Auckland.

This is the same Phil Twyford who spent years saying that Wellington should not dictate to Auckland, yet is now trying to bully Len Brown into putting the interests of the Labour Party (for the Maritime Union is part of the Labour Party) ahead of the interests of Auckland.

Len knows he would be toast if he kneecapped a Council subsidiary, just to please the Labour caucus in Wellington.

After having failed to get the residents of Oamaru, Christchurch, Wellington and Napier to pay for Auckland’s CBD rail loop, Len Brown has proposed half a dozen new taxes as possible ways to pay for the loop.

The proposed taxes include:

• Regional income tax – new income tax paid only by Aucklanders.
• Regional payroll tax – new income tax paid by Auckland employers.
• Regional GST – raising GST in Auckland.
• Regional fuel tax – raising petrol and diesel taxes across Auckland.
• Visitor taxes – nightly charge for hotel and motel rooms.

It only took a couple of blog posts pointing out his donations from the Maritime Union, and Len has leapt into life on the issue of the militant industrial action by the union. Better late than never, I say. The Herald reports:

Auckland Mayor Len Brown has issued an ultimatum to the Maritime Union in the bitter industrial dispute on the city’s wharves, saying there must be more flexibility in work practices to make the port more productive and profitable for the council.

Excellent. It is not just a matter of being more profitable for the Council – it is also being productive and competitive for its customers. They do have choice, and have been using it to desert Auckland.

Mr Brown – a member of the Labour Party who received a $2000 donation from the Maritime Union towards his 2010 election campaign – yesterday said the board and management of the 100 per cent council-owned port company had his full confidence but he refused to express confidence in the union, which he was not responsible for.

It is good he has now backed the Council owned company.

In a sign that he is standing up to the union, which is set to strike again tomorrow for 48 hours, Mr Brown said it was time to review some of the decades-long work practices to reflect the increasing and changing trends of the international shipping market.

The practices are probably little changed from the 70s.

Maritime Union president Garry Parsloe said the union had offered to investigate changes to improve productivity …

Ha, offered to investigate. How stupid does he think Ports of Auckland management are, that they don’t realise that is no commitment at all.

You’re the Mayor of Auckland and one of your largest commercial facilities in paralysed with industrial action. Even worse, it is a facility owned by your Council.

Over several weeks you have seen Auckland’s economy get battered after first Maersk and now Fonterra announce they are abandoning Auckland for Tauranga and Napier, due to the militant industrial action taken by the Maritime union.

So it should be a no-brainer to come out publicly and lean on the Maritime Union to stop driving businesses away from Auckland. I mean ever Wellington’s Celia Wade-Brown stood up for the wellington creative industries when a militant union looked set to destroy them.

So why has Len been so silent and non-commital? It didn’t make sense.

Well it didn’t, until I read at Whale Oil that the Maritime Union was one of Len’s donors. They also donated to Mike Lee.

I guess that was one of their better investments.