Kiwiblog

The Herald strikes out at a possible faceless Super City:

From right to left, from John Banks and Michael Barnett to Len Brown and Mike Lee, Auckland’s local politicians have begun protesting at a distinctly undemocratic element in the constitution being written for the Super City.

Legislation setting up the new Auckland Council threatens to delegate most decisions to a number of “council-controlled organisations” (CCOs), a piece of Orwellian newspeak if ever there was one.

They will not be directly controlled by the council. They will be run by boards appointed by the council but short of dismissing them there will be little public representatives can do to have a say in decisions about Auckland’s roads and public transport, waterfront development and much else.

I look forward to seeing the final version of the Super City, when the bill comes out of select committee, and when the Auckland Transition Authority produces some final outputs.

No Press editorial online today.

The Dominion Post looks at the upcoming Wellington Mayoral campaign:

The worst-kept secret in Wellington is out. Mayor Kerry Prendergast has announced that she will seek a fourth term, having said after she won the 2007 election that she had promised husband and hotelier Rex Nicholls to give politics away later this year to spend more time with her family.

Ms Prendergast is just the latest to announce her candidacy. She has vowed to stand again as an independent, even though commercial property owner Sir Robert Jones has had hopes of persuading her to stand at the head of the ticket he and a shadowy group of business folk intend will contest the local body elections in October.

Others to have thrown their hats into the ring include sitting councillors Bryan Pepperell, who has had several unsuccessful tilts at the top job, the Greens’ Celia Wade-Brown, and local businessmen Allan Probert and Jack Yan.

You have to say Kerry’s chances look pretty good.

Unspoken, however, is probably another reason for Ms Prendergast’s fourth bid for the mayoralty. That is a perceived lack of experience – perhaps even gravitas – among those who would snatch the chains from her.

The joker in the pack, of course, is Sir Robert. One of Wellington’s biggest ratepayers, even though he lives in Lower Hutt, he wants to turn the Golden Mile into a pedestrian precinct, along the lines of those of some European cities. Ms Prendergast can see the fishhooks in that, which is presumably why she has chosen not to be the knight’s mayoral anointee.

I hope Kerry is only sceptical, not opposed. I think it is a brillant idea, and would like to see a full costed study of how to do it. My intentions at this stage would be to vote Kerry as Mayor, but vote for the “Golden Mile”ticket for Council – unless the candidates are total wallies.

The ODT focuses on wool:

New Zealand’s economy may have been built from wool off the sheep’s back, but the present perilous state of the industry means its contribution could be consigned to history.

It is a widely held view that the strong wool sector, which supplies fibre for carpets and upholstery, has one last chance to remain a credible export industry, let alone regain its former status Strong or crossbred wool made up 89% of the clip last year and earned $570 million in export receipts. …

I am very sceptical that the sector can unite.

The Herald says RNZ savings are not worth it:

Radio NZ’s budget last year was just $38.2 million, of which $34.2 million was public money. That points to the swingeing nature of the Government’s programme. While it is reasonable that all state-funded bodies should tighten their belts, it seems excessive to be waving a big stick at organisations where the potential savings are trifling.

The same penchant was, however, evident in last year’s Budget. Most controversially, cuts were made to adult night school programmes.

Again, the savings seemed hardly worth the trouble. Community education takes just 0.6 per cent of the tertiary education allocation, and the canned programmes provided value for money, if only because they gave hands-on instruction at schools that would, otherwise, not have been in use.

The Herald may be right that politically it might not be smart to take a lot of political heat, for relatively small fiscal savings. However I think it is more complex than that. If the Govt goes soft on one or two state agencies, then it is harder to keep fiscal discipline with the rest of them. State sector CEOs will find ways to live within means if they think everyone is doing so. But if you start giving into media campaigns for more funding, it incentivises other agencies to do the same. And then you end up having to borrow even more than $240 million a week.

The Press talks protecting police:

In response to the weekend violence the Government is considering introducing extra penalties for offenders who assault police officers, as is the case in Western Australia. Such a move might not deter drugged or drunken offenders from attacking officers, however.

Yet, it is still worth considering, as it would reinforce the special position the police have in our society to uphold the rule of law. It would also acknowledge the real, every-day risks faced by officers as they perform their duties.

If the Government did move to strengthen penalties it would have to be determined whether the new law would apply to off-duty officers who intervened in an incident. But because the public expects off-duty officers to respond to crimes they come across, and they would not be wearing anti-stab vests, they too should have the protection of such a law.

I favour increased penalties for assaults on Police. The Police get assaulted, basically on our behalf. They deal with the criminals and risk their lives often doing so.

The Dom Post flicks at Wellington parking wardens:

Of all the low-down, mean, sneaky tricks … While football fans were cheering the Wellington Phoenix to a nail-biting victory at Westpac Stadium on Sunday evening, parking wardens were ticketing the vehicles of 61 fans who had exceeded the maximum parking time outside the ground – because the match went into extra time, then a penalty shootout.

To its credit, Wellington City Council has waived the tickets, which threatened to turn the Phoenix’s triumph into a public relations disaster. But coming on top of other recent instances of over-zealous ticketing, the incident suggests something is amiss with parking operations. Proposals to install Big Brother-style parking surveillance cameras in Courtenay Place add weight to the theory.

The purpose of parking restrictions should be to ensure that as many people as possible can park in city and suburban streets, do their business and be on their way. It should not be to fatten the coffers of Tenix, the private company which manages Wellington parking, Parkwise, the Armourguard subsidiary to which Tenix contracts ticketing, or the council itself.

Hear hear. The incentives are all about revenue maximization, not giving parkers a fair go.

And the ODT looks at water woes in Canterbury:

Seldom has a local authority received such a slating as that just given to Canterbury’s regional council, Environment Canterbury (ECan), by a Government review panel.

The panel says the gap between what ECan does and what it should do is enormous and unprecedented. …

Yet some argue no change is needed.

The NZ Herald slams the latest stunt by the anti-whaling activists:

Peter Bethune knew precisely what he was doing, and the consequences, when he boarded the whaling vessel Shonan Maru 2 to make what fellow-protesters described as a citizen’s arrest of its captain. …

Mr Bethune was intent simply on grabbing publicity. He, and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, wanted to prompt a diplomatic incident, thereby putting further pressure on the Japanese to end whaling. …

The Dominion Post argues against a city wide liquor ban:

On one of Wellington’s rare balmy nights there is little to compare to a quiet picnic on the south coast, watching the sun go down and the kids paddle in the surf as you enjoy some cold roast chicken, a nice green salad , and a glass of Martinborough’s best sauvignon blanc.

Soon that pleasure may come with the dubious frisson of being a law-breaker, and the prospect of a visit from police to tell you you are breaching a Wellington City Council bylaw. Under the proposed liquor ban, the wine has to be tipped out on the sand, or the picnic packed up and moved to a non-public place. If you refuse, you will be arrested. If you wait till police go away and then carry on enjoying your picnic, you will be arrested should they return.

That is the future that could face Wellingtonians should the city council go ahead and pass its city-wide booze ban.

It’s a daft idea that should be shot down. Have outdoors liquor bans in areas where there is a problem.

The Press talks about the future of their regional council:

Environment Canterbury chairman Alec Neill managed to put on a brave face after the damning report into his institution’s performance and governance yesterday. The reality is that if the Government adopts the recommendations in the report, ECan as we know it today will be gone. …

The report will provide vindication for the region’s mayors, business figures and farmers, who have been queuing up to slate ECan for some years.

They would also agree with the comment of review leader Wyatt Creech that ECan had a “fortress” and “we know best” culture. …

I predict it will be gone.

The ODT talks about electoral issues:

It will be recalled that, in 2005, the Exclusive Brethren attempted to influence the outcome of the poll by mounting a covert and costly campaign against the Greens and Labour.

Labour had also been concerned about the extent to which campaign finance was both anonymous and uncapped, raising the spectre, it claimed, of “big money” interests tilting the odds against a fair contest: the even playing field argument.

In an attempt to close loopholes in the campaign finance rules, and to prevent parties “jumping the gun” and subverting the spending caps, it also created a controversial regulated campaign period of three months prior to polling day.

Ummn, no. That was the old regulated period. Labour extended the period to be all of election year.

Bob Jones writes in the Dom Post:

First, it is not the cars that are the main concern. In fact very few cars traverse the Golden Mile during the day, a response to the Wellington City Council’s wise initiatives intended to deter them.

They have worked. Rather, it is the abrasive buses which are the principal problem. Buses and pedestrians are a terrible mix. The present council’s policy seems geared to making the city friendly towards buses rather than to its citizens and it’s both wrong and unnecessary. …

Mr Finny also argues that parts of the Golden Mile are so wide that the danger exists of a “dead look”.

In fact the wide sections, notably the end of Lambton Quay and Courtenay Place, will provide opportunity to pay for the proposal. In the case of Lambton Quay, exactly as with all the pedestrianised cities, the spacious parts can be used for (partially) outdoor cafes, florists, newsagents and the like.

With Courtenay Place, apartment building sites with ground-level retail can be created in a plaza setting. Other options include a skating rink, fountains and other visual and recreational features.

As for goods delivery, in fact all of the office buildings along the route are serviced from the rear, off streets such as The Terrace etc. …

We will additionally detail our proposal to establish a Saturday Lambton Quay street market, as exists in all European cities and which, without exception, draws thousands of folk, regardless of the weather. Our proposal is not new. Consultants engaged by the council from Europe and America have recommended exactly this to previous councils but they have lacked the initiative to act.

People like a man and a team with vision, even if they don’t agree with it 100%.

I think there is a reasonable chance that a ticket standing on the issue of creating a vehicle free golden mile, as advocated by Sir Bob, could win most if not all the spots on Council.

This could be the most exciting Council elections since 1995.

The Dom Post reports:

Kerry Prendergast is considering another crack at the Wellington mayoralty, after previously ruling out a fourth term.

But she could find herself in the race of her life against a candidate selected by Sir Robert Jones.

The millionaire Wellington businessman has confirmed he is rounding up a high-profile team to run for both the mayoralty and councillor positions at next year’s election.

This will be interesting. Tickets can be useful for getting a mandate for an agenda. But as Wellington Alive found out, they can also often fall apart.

Already three candidates – green-leaning city councillors Ray Ahipene-Mercer and Bryan Pepperell, and local businessman Jack Yan – have entered the race.

Ahipene-Mercer has always seemed a pretty good Councillor to me, even though his politics are on the left. My comments on Pepperell are unprintable.

I don’t know Jack Yan, but think this is his blog.

Sir Robert expects to announce his election team in the new year, but his name will not be among the candidates. “I won’t be running because I am too contentious.”

His team would ban vehicles from the city’s “Golden Mile” – Lambton Quay, Courtenay Place, Willis and Manners streets – to create a pedestrian mall complete with free trams and cycle lanes.

“The whole ambience of the place would just boom … and the team, who are all name people, feel that Wellington has the potential to be magic.”

I quite like the vision.  Not sure how practical it is, but the vision appeals.

Is there no limit to the central planning the Wellington City Council insists on imposing on us?

Bad enough to discover last year that the reason we have no shopping malls in Wellington, is because the Council has banned them. They don’t want competition for Lampton Quay. But their stalinist dictates go further:

Look at this article in the Dominion Post by City Councillor Andy Foster:

In the case of Rongotai, we propose that this should continue to be an area of mixed uses, including light industrial, services such as motels, and some retail, particularly “big- box” stores.

One thing the council is clear on is that we don’t want Rongotai to develop into another town centre. The Kilbirnie town centre is within walking distance, and the council has invested much public money in facilities such as the regional aquatic centre, community centre, library, and council housing to serve the eastern and southern suburbs.

These facilities work because they are in and around a town centre that has a strong retail core (supermarkets and high-street stores) and are easy to get to by public transport, walking and by car.

Long-standing international precedent shows that if we create another competing town centre in Rongotai, we are likely to undermine the viability of the Kilbirnie and Miramar town centres.

Arrrggh. So the Council has decided Kilbirnie and Miramar can get big shops, but Rongotai and Seatoun can not? I’ve got a better solution – let every business decide where they want to be located, and let the public decide if they will shop there.

This is why we are planning to carefully consider any proposals for “town centre uses” such as supermarkets and department stores in Rongotai.

For fuck’s sake. So the Council is sayign yes you can have a big Warehouse in Rongotai, but not a New World? They should butt out and let consumers have a choice.

The Wellingtonian has used a panel to do mid-term ratings of the Wellington City Councillors.

I don’t agree with all the ratings, but it is excellent the paper has done them. We don’t get enough reports on how our local elected representatives are doing.

Hat Tip: Gonzo

I tend to shy away from making firm predictions, but in this case I am going to go out on a limb, and make a series of related predictions:

1. Annette King will stand for Mayor of Wellington in 2010
2. The resulting by-election will see Andrew Little enter Parliament as MP for Rongotai
3. Unless Labour wins the 2011 election, Andrew will become Labour Party Leader shortly after the election, successfully challenging Phil Goff.

Time will tell if I am right or not. I’m quietly confident.

The Wellington City Council has set up a facebook group, where Wellingtonians can discuss what they want for Wellington, to feed into consideration of the ten year Long Term Council Community Plan.

So you can read the full plan if you are a policy wonk like me, or you can just go to the Facebook group and make a couple of comments. This is a good example of easy community outreach, so make use of it.

My high level principles would be:

1. Rates should not increase faster than inflation, plus population growth.
2. Library services should be the last area to reduce services, as access to information is vital in a free society
3. Parks & Recreation also score highly as a priority
4. Leave the Town Belt alone or perish
5. Non public good activities should be user pays as much as possible.
6. WCC should not provide services that are the role of central Government, unless they receive funding for them. This includes housing, welfare, education and health.
7. Do everything you can to make it easy for companies to lay fibre in the city, and to connect it to people’s homes.
8. Some modest funding is okay to areas important to Wellington’s brand – culture, Wellywood etc. We don’t want to be a Canberra.
9. Smarter public transport services – Snapper is good start but too few buses accept it. GPS updates at bus stops would be good. Realise mainly WRC issue.
10. Please do not give any more of our money to the Stock Exchange (NZX) for their external display ticker.

WCC is looking at whether to impose an entry charge for overseas visitors to facilities such as the Cable Car Museum, City Gallery, Capital E! and the Plimmer’s Ark conservation project on Queens Wharf.

I’m certainly in favour of user pays for overseas visitors, so long as the costs of collection were not too high. I also support Charles Finny:

Wellington Chamber of Commerce chief executive Charles Finny said he favoured an amalgamation of local bodies in the Wellington region “rather have that than some sort of discriminatory pricing”.

“We think that having nine councils for a population of 450,000 people is absurd.”

If an amalgamation happened, funding problems would “just go away”.

Indeed Wellington does not need four city councils and five district councils.

Wellington City Council is looking to sell 8% of Wellington Airport, reducing its shareholding from 34% to 26%.

A good move, as it allows the Council to still block special resolutions, but frees up capital for debt repayment.

Saturday’s Dominion Post had three article on Mark Blumsky.

The first confirms that Mark will stand for Mayor of Wellington in 2010, as Kerry Prendergast is not seeking a fourth term.

The second is about Mark’s term as an MP, and how unhappy he has basically been as an Opposition MP, and plans for the future:

Mr Blumsky’s future plans are mapped out on a long list. Among other commitments, he’s on the board at his daughter’s school, has bought the New Zealand rights to an electronic game cards product, and is considering two franchises. He is also a business adviser and he’s setting up a Cuba Precinct Business and Residents Association.

All worthy causes and interests, but his eyes are on a bigger prize, with a mayoral election in October 2010.

In the corner of his third floor office, Mr Blumsky has a fat red folder bulging with scraps of paper. It’s titled “Wellington Flavours,” and in it he has squirrelled away a year’s worth of ideas on what he’d do if he won the mayoralty again.

There are speeches he’d give, articles on successful cities, and pamphlets from councils around the world.

And the third is about that mystery attack in 2005:

Mark Blumsky says he has met the “lovely young man” who punched him in the face, blackening his eye and denting his campaign as a National candidate for Wellington Central in 2005. …

Mr Blumsky said a woman later called him and revealed her boyfriend was the assailant.

They arranged to meet, and the young man, who was 17 at the time, said Mr Blumsky had caught him smoking cannabis in the stairwell and had confiscated it.

The young man punched Mr Blumsky, sending him hurtling down the stairs.

“Story is: I tried to take his joint off him.”

Mr Blumsky said the youth was “a lovely young man” and very apologetic.

The youth had told Mr Blumsky that he was too young to be in the bar, and that was why he had run off.

Some people will by cynical about this, but Mark told me soon after the incident about the girlfriend of the assailant coming forward. She didn’t want her boyfriend to be arrested but was very sorry for what had happened. Mark didn’t want to break her trust by giving her name to the media, and it was thought that revealing what she said, without naming her, would not convince those who thought the injuries were not the result of an assault, and would just keep the story alive for longer.

Stephen Franks blogs on the battle to save Crossways in Mt Victoria. I will be blogging on this myself during the week. It will be a tragedy if Mt Victoria loses what has been a focal point for the community. The City Council is justifying its lack of support by saying residents have lots of cafes nearby unlike suburbs further away from the city centre. A very very weak argument.

Keeping Stock blogs on an alarming suggestion by Auckland lawyer Catriona McLennan on Nine to Noon. She suggests that in rape trials, the burden of proof should be on the accused to prove there was consent. And this is not just a throw-away remark – she actually argues in favour of it against Kathryn Ryan for some time.

Whale Oil has been threatened with defamation by a lawyer acting for Pearl Going, who objects to comments he had made on her. The material has been removed from his blog after the blog hosting company was also threatened, but copies have sprung up on a dedicated blog hosted overseas.

I don’t intend to comment of the substance of the allegedly defamatory material, but would note that pressuring hosting companies to remove material, even after the blog author has asserted it is not defamatory and is willing to defend it in court, is not a particularly sensible tactic as it is so easy for the material to appear elsewhere – as has happened. Also of interest is that the lawyer for Pearl Going is Steven Price, who was very critical of the Listener for threatening the Hot Topic blogger with defamation.

This should not be taken as a suggestion that defamation laws do not or should not apply to the Internet. Of course they do. But more the appropriateness of targetting blog hosts if the blog author is willing to stand by their words and accept legal consequences for them.

The Dim Post has more satire, this one on how Winston is handling the Owen Gelnn scandal:

• Monday 2:00 PM: Hires two identical twins as press secretaries, one of whom always tells the truth while the other always lies.

• Wednesday 11:30 AM: Announces to press conference that he will explain everything but in doing so will be forced to reveal the secret surprise ending to Battlestar Galactica. Political media beg him to remain silent.

• Thursday 6:35 PM: Notifies Speaker Margaret Wilson that he is officially changing his alignment to Neutral Evil.

• Friday 10:30 AM: Recieves report back from Department of Statistics confirming that proportion of New Zealanders with IQ below 90 is still greater than 5%. Laughs heartily. Tells rest of country to go fuck themselves.

Heh.

Liberty Scott pings Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn for his comments on Gordon Brown approving a state funeral for Margaret Thatcher when she dies. The offending quote:

“On the plus side, it will at least give her victims a final chance to throw excrement and rotten fruit at her as she goes past“

As I/S goes on about how some on the right are often poisonous, spiteful and bitter, this quote brings to mind stones and glasshouses.

David Cohen looks at a case for Nicky Hager:

A column containing acidic opinions about a powerful political media personality mysteriously fails to show up on the author’s regular spot on her newspaper’s website. Another major news outlet, after allowing criticisms to be made of the same public figure on one of its shows, hurriedly issues a grovelling clarification. Does this sound like a case Nicky Hager ought to be investigating?

It would indeed if it weren’t the slightly inconvenient fact that the media power broker in question also happens to be the same gent.