Just Left

Not Yours To Sell

Worth a watch this - very well done to Phil Twyford for pulling this together. For more on the issue, go to the issues.co.nz page here, or sign up to the Facebook group (if link doesn't work, search for "Not Yours to Sell" on FB).

Envy of Angels

A Friday reminder of good writing - if you've not heard the song, buy it on iTunes or something. 

"Envy of Angels" by the Mutton Birds, 1996 I believe. Don McGlashan performed it live during a talk about the importance of place in writing, and why he loves Auckland, at an event on 20 June. The song is about the city.

Look over there, you used to say,
the shape of the land beneath the street.
Ridges and valleys and underground streams,
you have to know whats under your feet.
So you can make things strong enough,
to take the weight.
The weight of all the people
that haven't been born.

That's what you said to me,
and it's the envy of angels.

Listen to that, you used to say.
Can you hear someone drawing plans?
Can you hear someone cutting wood?
Can you hear someone walking the land?
And all the time I wanted to be,
somewhere that wasn't so new,
where you don't have to dig youself out - 
a place to stand.

Far away,
from the envy of angels.

Driving to your place after dark,
the light of the town behing those hills.
I'm wanting so much to see you again.
I can almost touch the new tar seal,
in front of my wheels,
they're painting the signs,
measuring the land,
marking the lines,
laying foundations,
making it strong,
for all of those people,
Who haven't been born.

Just like you said.
And it's the envy of angels.

Just like you said.
And it's the envy of angels.

A Serious Question

Why are New Zealand taxpayers and Auckland ratepayers having to stump up with $40million (so far) for a 'party central' venue on Queens Wharf when there is a purpose built (yes, it was built for the America's Cup defence) venue just over 300m away at the Viaduct Harbour?

I admit that there is a need for a cruise ship terminal on the Auckland Waterfront, but I fail to see the point of building a new 'party' venue when there is an existing venue with over 30 restaurants and bars within spitting distance.

Have I missed something? Is there something fundamentally wrong with the Viaduct? The only advantage I see for Queens Wharf is that it's ever so slightly closer to the Britomart Transport Centre, and feeds directly off Queen St, but I would have thought that an existing, popular venue would have worked just as well - if not slightly better.

Everything there is to know about the filibuster that Wikipedia can tell you but you probably can’t be stuffed looking up.

You have got to hand it to the Tories. Don’t get me wrong, I maintain that last week was easily their weakest since taking power. But you have to admire the way they swept away Auckland’s democratically elected local authorities. They replaced them with an interim body that can best be described as a politburo, then somehow managed to slap a ‘waste of taxpayer money’ tag on the Labour led resistance.

Of course the tendency to deride democracy as a waste of money is one of their favourite tricks. People having their say in the resource management process is one example of waste that cannot be tolerated. As is the status quo in Auckland governance. Consulting people and letting them have meaningful input takes time and money. It would be cheaper to just abolish democracy completely and appoint John Key supreme overlord of the nation of Keyev – pesky parliaments are such costly, time consuming things.

Regardless of the inconvenience however, the filibuster is a very old and very important part of our democracy.

 

In ancient Rome, Cato was known as one of the masters. His marathon speeches often delayed the taking of votes more than long enough for his objectives to be cleverly met. Others with less finesse simply filibustered to give their allies time to bribe or bully enough senators to swing the majority in behind their position.

But the most intriguing use of the filibuster was an epic 10 day effort by the Opposition in the Ontario Legislature during the 1993 establishment of the – guess what – Toronto super city. Over 12,000 amendments were moved. Thousands of which each allowed a separate street in the city to have a consultation meeting. There was one for every street on the map. This resulted in one street, Cafon Court, winning the right to special consultation and the ability to call for its own public hearings due to an exhausted government accidently voting the wrong way! I understand amendments along similar lines were tried by Labour this weekend but sadly the speaker ruled them out.

I don’t expect this extreme stalling to become a common tactic in the New Zealand parliament. But it is something the public should expect to be employed on their behalf when a highly controversial law is rammed through without a select committee process.

 

The filibuster is effectively the only real weapon a badly outnumbered opposition has at its disposal. The government has the numbers to pass any law it pleases. All Labour can do right now is stall. This is an especially important part of democracy in a unicameral system such as ours. We don't have the checks and balances of an upper house or executive branch. So if you think that the House sitting for a few extra days is a waste of money. Just be grateful your taxes don't have to stretch to a senate.

I also welcome the circumstantial evidence that our party is looking overseas for ideas to fight this government tooth and nail with. Game on.

Biting the hand that feeds.

Opposition can be really unfair. You toil away on issues in such as the Government’s plan for Auckland governance. You rail against electing councillors at large, the omission of the social issues board, the token powers for community councils and the lack of representation for Maori with no thanks.

Then along comes a Minister who is obviously motivated solely by self preservation and is terrified of losing a single vote in her most marginal of West Auckland electorates. She whimpers that she is not that fussed with some of her own party’s proposals and somehow manages to get all the kudos for crusading on behalf of the oppressed thus:

The Community Coalition for Auckland-Voices of Tamaki Makaurau has congratulated Waitakere MP and Minister of Social Development Paula Bennett for her public support of their concerns about potential loss of local control and projects. The Minister has taken the unusual step of publicly criticising the current proposals on regional governance.

Yes, cheers for saying what everyone else in Auckland to the left of Attila the Hun has been saying all along.

Coalition representatives recently met with Ms Bennett to discuss the Government’s proposals for the SuperCity.

“It was a very constructive meeting and Ms Bennett asked for the group’s ideas on how local views can be given a voice in a new structure for Auckland’s governance”, stated Iris Donoghue, a Coalition spokesperson.

“It was great to have our local MP asking for the views of her community.”

Um… and cheers for meeting with constituents and, well doing the bare minimum you would expect to see in a local MP’s job description.

But just when you could be forgiven for thinking all is lost, yesterday we saw a very different take from the same organisation:

Bennett Lets Down Waitakere Voices

Waitakere MP Paula Bennett’s recent concerns over the content of the Government’s hasty proposals for the structure of Auckland’s governance have come to nothing and her constituents feel she has let them down.

Concerns raised by the communities of Auckland, brought to cabinet by Paula Bennett and supported by Prime Minister John Key have had no influence on Mr Hide’s proposals.

Community Coalition for Auckland: Voices of Tamaki Makaurau spokesperson Iris Donoghue said “Ms Bennett assured the people of West Auckland that she was listening to their concerns, but without the opportunity (as promised) to put their concerns to Ms Bennett nothing has even been mooted as a possible change and the community feels let down by our MP.

Wow. That’s a turn around and a half and rightly so. Paula Bennett is a representative of the government’s proposal on Auckland governance. She sat and continues to sit around the cabinet table as these things are decided. She is responsible and partly to blame for the undemocratic proposal being rushed through with scant consultation. She must be put under as much pressure as possible, not appeased.

But then today, as Blackadder would say, a spectacular return to form:

Members of the Community Coalition for Auckland; Voices of Tamaki Makaurau, have acted decisively to dispel fears that a personal attack against Waitakere MP Paula Bennett was launched yesterday. A press release, sent out in error from a voluntary media representative on behalf of the Coalition, has been retracted.

“We reiterate our earlier support of the stance Ms Bennett took in Parliament criticising the Government’s Regional Governance model as lacking any social wellbeing component,” said Coalition co-spokesperson Iris Donoghue. “We welcome the Social Issues Forum that Ms Bennett proposed and which has now been approved by Cabinet. This was not clearly reflected in the press release sent in error.”

“Ms Bennett’s recent actions demonstrate her commitment to ensuring that community wellbeing is firmly on the table for any decisions on Auckland’s Supercity.”

One wonders what has happened here. I don’t for a minute believe that blaming a silly voluntary media representative paints the whole picture. Voluntary or not, one would take it as a given that before quoting Iris Donoghue - the Chair of the organisation, at the very least the broad gist of the press release would have been run past her.

 

This smells to me like Paula Bennett, or her staff, or both have read the second release and kicked up a fuss. I have no proof of course, but one wonders what threats might have been made to force an organisation to retract a perfectly legitimate criticism of a Minister.

 

This is not the first, nor the most concrete sign I have seen that this government has an open hostility to criticism that is one thing now while they are still in honeymoon mode, but will be quite another when people’s rose tinted glasses begin to get scuffed up a bit…

DL Auckland: Len Brown on the Super City

Drinking Liberally Auckland – the future of Auckland governance.

When: 7pm, Wednesday 29 April 

Where: London Bar - corner Queen and Victoria Streets, Auckland CBD

Who: you and like-minded left-wingers. All welcome.

This month's speaker is Mayor Len Brown talking about the opportunities and issues arising out of the Government’s proposal for restructuring governance in Auckland.

Len Brown is the current mayor of Manukau and is out-and-about talking and listening to Aucklanders’ opinions on the proposed changes and their views on the future of our region.

This will be an interesting chance to hear some thoughts on the revolution happening in Auckland from one of our region’s leaders.

More information on Len’s background can be found here.

The Royal Commission’s report and suggested changes can be found here:

www.royalcommission.govt.nz

And the ACT/National Government’s rort report can be found here:

www.auckland.govt.nz

Join us for drink and discussion. There will be time for questions from the floor and the bar.

Meeting tonight on Super City

Tonight - Freemans Bay Community Centre - the Western Bays Community Board is holding a meeting from 6.30pm to discuss the Govt's super-city proposal.

Come along. It is nice to see that some parts of the Council do want to hear what residents think, rather than other parts who are buying into National's approach of not listening.

Referendum it is(n't?): National isn't listening.

Labour Leader Phil Goff is reported calling for a referendum on the proposals for reform of Auckland local government. His media release on the subject is here.

The National-ACT government now faces a simple choice: will it let Aucklanders have their say, or not?

If the answer is no, then National isn't listening. 

I had some sympathy with the Royal Commission drafting simple legislation that didn't include the consultation processes that are already in the law, because it had consulted on what it was proposing.

National tore up the Commission's report. It is proposing a new model that has had no consultation at all. Aucklanders deserve real input into that, and if the model stands as proposed by the Government, then we need the chance to vote it down.

National-ACT are already sending signals that they don't want a referendum. What are they scared of? The people making a decision?

Pretty strange thing for listening politicians to do, isn't it. Oh, wait - they aren't listening after all...

Auckland Super-City: A Christchurch Perspective

I'm a one-eyed Cantabrian, so that is the lens through which I watch the Auckland Super-City arguments play out.  It is not my place to say what is right or wrong for Auckland.  I simply don't know enough about Auckland to know what will work and what won't. 

I do know that regardless of what eventuates I would like to see a progressive Mayor and progressive Council in power across as much of Auckland as possible. 

I also know that whether it is Auckland, or Invercargill, or Christchurch that people are shortchanged if they lose the Representative function of Local Government in favour of a Governance only business-style of Council.  Such Council's lack legitimacy and confidence of the public.  The more distant the Council (or Councillors) the lower the voter turnout and the less relevant local government is for people.

It seems to be the trend in New Zealand that we like to restructure things.  Sometimes we opt for large centralised power, then a more intimate devolved model, then back again.  It wouldn't surprise me that if in 15 years time we're breaking Auckland up again into multiple Councils.

The key thing at this particular juncture is that the Government listen to the voice of Auckland people.  That may or may not be in a referendum.  The Government must be willing to take a deep breath, listen, and come up with the best model for Auckland that has the confidence of the public.  Their current model does not do that.

A referendum for Auckland?

AUCKLAND'S

I see that The Standard has been calling for a referendum on Auckland's local government restructuring proposals.

A referendum is a very blunt instrument. The question is not whether Auckland should change or should not change: that's a given. We need a much stronger regional government, and the Royal Commission's model delivers that. Change is needed.

The problem is that the Government threw out what the Royal Commission had proposed. Instead it cherry picked the bits it liked (a strong mayor, an undemocratic council with at-large councillors), and got rid of an effective second tier. It has proposed gutless, toothless, under-resourced "local boards" that have no powers, no budget, no staff, no ability to vary rates, and no real voice.

National's model for Auckland is a centralised, business-driven Council that no community voices can penetrate into. The views of a tiny minority, unrepresentative of the city at large, are to be given the power to make all the key decisions about Auckland's future.

That's why the issue is not whether there is a referendum. The issue is that the National government needs to listen to the clear feedback Aucklanders are giving. They want their local communities to have their voice, as well as an effective regional government.

If the choice a referendum posed was between National's deeply flawed proposal and the status quo, then I am afraid the status quo would be better. 

But that status quo, and that failure to change, would be hugely damaging and would sell Auckland short. It would deliver major political reverses to National in the city. It would require the incoming Labour government to go back to the Commission's report and propose a proper model that delivered that local voice that people are calling for.

Getting the proposal right is what counts. To do that, National has to back down. It has to climb off its arrogant, closed-ears perch, it has to run a proper public consultation on its proposed model, and then it has to adjust the proposal in line with the feedback to make it into a good plan for Auckland.

If it can't do that, then National fails the fundamental test of competent and responsible government. In doing so, it would be taking the first step towards losing in 2011.