The Local Board and the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park
Some personal thoughts by Greg Presland
The Local Board recently made a decision that has caused some concern amongst local groups and individuals. I thought that I should set out the decision, the reason for the decision, the implications and what I think will happen in the future.
Firstly the decision. On October 26, 2011 the board resolved that “[d]ecision making and oversight of the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park should be allocated to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board as this would better promote the well being of the communities that live within the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park, noting that the Regional Park is a large and significant part of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board land area.”
It was not intended by me that the park be annexed from the Regional Parks Network, just that the board had a significant role in their management.
The resolution was part of a larger resolution that considered the division of responsibilities between Council and the Local Boards. There has been some tension in resolving this issue. My clear impression is that Council is struggling with its workload and to be frank the local boards could be delegated more to do. The process of forming super city has been that rushed that the division of responsibilities is a mess.
The principle that is talked about is that of “co governance”. Local Boards are meant to make decisions with local effect and provide local representation on issues. Auckland Council is meant to provide regional governance and deal with regional issues.
The provision of the Act that applies is section 17 of the Local Government Auckland Council Act 2009.
The provision is complex but the default position is that decision making should be exercised by a local board unless the nature of the activity is such that decision making on an Auckland-wide basis will better promote the well-being of the communities across Auckland because the impact of the decision will extend beyond a single local board area, or effective decision making will require alignment or integration with other decisions that are the responsibility of the governing body, or the benefits of a consistent or co-ordinated approach across Auckland will outweigh the benefits of reflecting the diverse needs and preferences of the communities within each local board area.
In deciding on this particular issue we were responding to the test set out by concluding that we did not think that the circumstances justified a change from the default position. It was not a desire to annex the parkland, rather the recognition that the parkland is an integral feature of the local board area and that local residents should have a significant say in what happens with the parkland.
The problem with section 17 is that it is an “either or”. I have always thought that some sort of shared responsibility would be best but in addressing the section the board does not have this option.
It should also be emphasised that the section talks about “decision making” and this is why that particular phrase was used in the resolution. That phrase is not defined in the Act.
The benefits of the board having decision-making power include:
- Local communities will have a greater ability to know what and be involved in what is happening.
- Decisions will be made locally and reflect local feelings rather than those of Aucklanders who may have no interest in the park.
- Local aspirations can be represented.
However I agree that there are also benefits with the Council continuing to exercise decision-making power. These benefits include:
- A regionally strategic overview of the network can be continued.
- Resources and personnel can be more efficiently used throughout the region. I do not believe that the local board needs to employ its own group of rangers.
So where to from here?
My preference is that there be significant local input but for strategic reasons I agree that central control is preferred. The budget sits with the Auckland Council and there is a real benefit and strength in treating the parks as a regional asset. Rather than an “either or” I prefer that some sort of hybrid is developed.
Local input can occur by having any agenda items dealing with the Waitakere park included on our agenda and by us providing feedback on issues. Regular briefings can occur. Sandra Coney has suggested this and I believe that this is a good suggestion. And this would have the benefit of keeping local communities involved in what is happening.
Comments welcome. I can assure everyone that Denise, Neil and I are passionate supporters of protection of the Ranges and would not do anything to lessen current protection.
Auckland Council’s draft economic development strategy
By Greg Presland
Economic strategies are unusual beasts. They are always optimistic, full of platitudes and express the expectation that Nirvana is just around the corner. They offer generalised conclusions and if followed the promise that we will be rich, rich, rich.
The Auckland Council’s draft economic strategy is a bit like this. The goals are to achieve an average annual increase of regional exports greater than 6 %, an average real GDP greater than 5% and an annual productivity growth rate of greater than 2%. At the same time there is the desire that we have a sustainable eco economy.
I hate to be critical but I do not see that these things are complimentary. Continuous growth and environmental sustainability are essentially mutually exclusive.
We are already in a situation where depletion of resources is occurring at a greater rate than our earth can sustain. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that by 2030 two worlds will be needed to sustain current rates of consumption.
It seems clear that the production of oil has peaked. When a conservative and august organization such as the International Energy Agency says so then we should be worried. Our reliance on petroleum to drive our industries and transport our goods is in for a shock. Recent events such as the spiking of petroleum prices, the world wide recession, a tepid recovery and the respiking of prices conform with the predictions of what would happen.
So what sort of economy should we aim for?
Certainly full employment is a priority. There is nothing better for the community than for everyone to have a decent job.
But the trouble is that reliance on traditional manufacturing and export led growth is dangerous in the extreme. As the cost of transport goes up exporting will become more and more fraught and unprofitable.
Low environment effect jobs need to be preferred. Website development and other IT jobs, education, counselling, creative industries are ideal. To ensure that we can live in a sustainable way we will need to concentrate less on gadgets and chattels and more on spiritual and mental improvement.
Import substitution will become more and more important. For instance out west the former orchards of Oratia could again fulfil a role of being a food basket for Auckland. Why import food when we can grow it locally? There is a benefit, freshly grown fruit is far preferable to the refrigerated to hell stuff we are currently sold.
The economic development strategy is at the same time conventional, asperational but unrealistic. We need a braver more futuristic strategy if we are going to leave a world fit for our kids.
Tau Henare wants Auckland Council to break the law
By Greg Presland
This week the combined Westie boards heard submissions from local residents and groups that wanted to make a submission to all of the boards. Amongst them was National List MP Tau Henare. Essentially he wanted rates reduced for local businesses.
He has an argument. Waitakere Council had the highest business rates of the region. The reasons are historic, Waitakere did not have much industrial land, and when an assessment of business use of the local infrastructure was made it came out quite high. When I was on Council the figure was approximately 20%. Business activity used about a fifth of the infrastructure and it was thought appropriate that businesses should pay that share.
In other parts of the city the figure was lower. But this was because they had so much more industrial land and the expense could be shared around.
Now that we have the super city I am sure that the opportunity for change is immense and Tau is right to ask that we change things. There is however one problem with his advocacy, his Government has passed laws that will mean that it will not happen, at in least this financial year.
Section 33 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 requires that the rates on each unchanged rating unit must be a uniform percentage variation from the total liability of that rating unit for rates for the 2010/2011 financial year. If a unit changes, then there is a formula to work out the amount of rates to be paid.
So for the next 12 months all that happen is that rates are increased (or decreased) by a uniform percentage amount. Making localised variations is not possible.
I asked Tau about this. I said that I agreed with him that this was a problem this year and asked him if he had thought about complaining to the parties who were really to blame for this situation, that is the Minister of Local Government and the Government because they were the persons responsible. By the law they had enacted they have prevented Auckland Council from doing so.
Tau did not really answer the question. He kept talking about the need to reduce rates and how many jobs could be created by doing so. He also said in general terms that the Council had an obligation to set a rate that was fair.
I then suggested that he was asking Council to do something that legally his Government had said that it cannot do.
This time he answered, sort of. He mentioned section 46 of the Local Government Act and said the Council inherited the Rates Remissions policies of the former Councils. Unfortunately section 46 refers to circumstances where members of a local authority could be liable for loss, not rates remission. He may have been referring to section 46 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 that essentially includes existing Waitakere Rates remissions policies into the new budgetary documents. But as far as I can ascertain there is no policy that allows business rates to be reduced in the way he wants Council to do so.
Vanessa Neeson accused me of asking a political question! Funny that. A former National MP’s wife elected to public office with a conservative agenda accuses moi of being political? And a National MP appears to lecture Auckland Council on what it should do in election year when he knows or should know that his Government’s laws mean it cannot and this is not political?
Tau was asked by my friend Catherine Farmer who he thought he was representing. This question caused some indignation amongst others but I thought it was perfectly appropriate.
My final question to Tau was that Auckland’s Local Government Review was complex and there had been many unintended consequences and did he think that the process was rushed. Perhaps unsurprisingly he said “no” although he did agree that it was all political.
Waitakere Film Studios ride again!
I am pleased to see that Waitakere Film Studios is now again under full Council ownership.
I was one of the Waitakere City Councillors who in 2002 decided to buy the original studio. It had been the site of a nascent film industry in West Auckland. The owner went broke and the possibility was that the film industry would be compromised. The studio could have been sold and closed down. The land itself was worth the purchase price so I thought that it made a great deal of sense to buy it. If it did not work out the land could be sold or used for another purpose and the ratepayer would not have missed out.
Since then the studio has been an outstanding success. The West has been the centre for filming of some outstanding films such as the Chronicles of Narnia, In My Father’s Den and the Vintner’s Luck amongst many others. The filmography is really impressive.
There are many local businesses that have grown and thrived because of the studio. The growth in demand since 2002 has meant that brand new built for purpose studios needed to been constructed. This has happened because of and was funded by Tony Tay’s interests’ contribution to the public private partnership.
Following the failure of Tony Tay’s company I believe the decision to buy its shares in the studio to be a correct one. There have been reports that Tay’s company shares have been bought for $1.5 million dollars. If this is correct the price was cheap. Tay’s interests held 56% of the shares in a studio complex worth $7 million or more. The price appears to be less than half that which should have been paid.
Some suggest that Council should divest itself of the studio but I wonder why. It is like other pieces of infrastructure that are publicly owned but which private enterprise rely on. Should we sell our roads or railway stations or universities or schools in the hope that private owners can make some money out of it?
And besides the essential cost is the price of holding onto the land. For that investment we have a local quality industry that creates tens of millions of dollars of economic activity each year.
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse deserves praise for this decision. She was part of the Waitakere Council many years ago that decided on the initial investment. The decision was unanimous back then and if this Council had any sense it should have been unanimous now.
Public ownership will ensure that the Studio continues to be available and that an important local creative industry’s future is assured.
Fining beggars
By Greg Presland
Palmerston North City Council is contemplating enacting a by law that would allow it to fine people begging on its streets. The proposal reminds me of the the famous saying by Anatole France that “[t]he law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread”. Because begging is a sure sign of poverty and to fine the poor for begging will only add further financial stress to already strained circumstances.
The report to be considered at the Council’s Community Well Being Committee on August 1 has some chilling content. It notes that there has been a recent rise in the number of beggars being seen on Palmerston North’s streets. This is not surprising, unemployment has doubled over the past three years from 3.5 % of the work force to just under 7 %. There are currently 155,000 unemployed nation wide. Of course poverty is going to be that much more prominent.
The officer preparing the report properly consulted with the beggars themselves. Some were homeless. Most were on benefits. All but one had mental health problems.
Business owners were also consulted. They believe they are losing significant revenue because of the presence of the beggars. They also thought the sight of beggars was a poor look for the community especially in World Cup year. Obviously as far as they were concerned it would be better for the beggars to be out of sight if not out of mind.
The report notes that prosecutions are expensive and high handed and require considerable resources. When canvassing options it suggests that the “problem” may be capable of social resolution. This suggestion is rational and humane but I fear will not carry the day against obvious prejudice. It will be interesting to see what the Council decides to do.
It will hopefully not follow the lead of the former Auckland City Council. The John Banks Council enacted Bylaw No 20 – Public Places 2008 which included in the definition of “street trading” the “soliciting or collection of any subscription or donation”. In John Banks’ Auckland beggars needed to apply for a licence before they were permitted to beg. Someone found begging without a permit could be required to leave the area. Failure to do so would constitute an offence punishable a fine of up to $20,000.
That particular piece of madness was the brainchild of Paul Goldsmith, National’s current candidate for the Epsom electorate. It is hoped that if Paul is elected to Parliament then he shows more compassion than he did to Auckland’s homeless. He seemed to be particularly upset that the homeless were making Auckland look messy, and he proposed changes to the New Zealand Bill of Rights so that police officers could pick people up and move them on.
That Council budgeted $220,000 for security guards to move the homeless on, that sum could have been used to provide many homeless with shelter. It is not as if there had been an explosion in the numbers of homeless living on the streets. As noted at the time by current Councillor Cathy Casey
For as long as there has been a city here there have been rough sleepers. The problem is not huge. The latest count found 91 people sleeping rough within 3km of the Sky Tower – down from the 120 the year before.
I hope Palmerston North do not do it. And as I am involved in the Auckland review of its by laws I will be raising the issue of whether it is right that the poor and unwell should be open to significant fines for sleeping under bridges and begging in the streets.
Streetwalking
Before the last local body election the Manukau City Council promoted a local bill that would have made prostitution on its streets in nominated areas illegal. The bill reflected the frustration felt by Papatoetoe residents. Hunter’s Corner in particular was known as an area frequented by streetwalkers.
The bill attempts to reverse the reforms contained in the Prostitution Reform Act 2003. That Act essentially recognised that prostitution is here to stay. It has been a phenomenon for most if not all of the history of the human race and all attempts to curb it or prohibit it have failed.
Instead of prohibiting the activity the Act tried to regulate and normalise it, so the lives of prostitutes could improve. Instead of being under the control of pimps they could control their involvement in the profession and have a say in their future. It was a really hard message to sell but for those in the industry any improvement in control and protection was welcome.
A review of the effects of the Act published in 2008 concluded that the number of sex workers on the streets was approximately the same as before the Act came into force in 2003. In some cases numbers had appeared to have slightly reduced, contrary to allegations that they had increased. Sex Workers appeared to be more empowered, and their perceptions of control had improved.
Protection of prostitutes had the opportunity to upset others. It is one thing if the activity is kept hidden in a discrete small suburban brothel, but as soon as the profession became visible then many in the community understandably become upset.
The Manukau Bylaw did not promise to sort all problems, it provided that if streetwalkers worked prohibited areas then they could be arrested and fined. I have sympathy with the desire to do something. But fining the offenders would do no more than add a further expense to their business’s bottom line.
It is not as if the local bill will add to police powers. The complaints by Papatoetoe locals are about behaviour that is clearly offensive and disorderly or involves the use of illicit drugs. Any police officer who witnesses such behaviour can arrest for any number of reasons.
So the desire to do something is understandable but the actual proposal is not going to help.
What is really strange is the insistence that a local bill designed to address one specific area in a South Auckland suburb should then be brought out to apply to all of the Super City. The proposal has ruffled some Local Board feathers, prostitution is meant to be one of three areas that local boards are responsible for, the others being dogs and booze. Yet Local Boards have been offered a briefing only on the changes.
Out west I do not believe that streetwalking is a problem. I cannot recall ever seeing a street walker. It may be that I am not looking in the right place, but I do not think that there is any evidence that the current law is not working.
The unfortunate thing is that the bylaw is seeking to recriminalize activity that the Prostitution Law Reform Act tried to deal with by other means. The bill is well intentioned but reinstitutes a control mechanism previously used that clearly did not work.
Who could not want Auckland to be a city of peace?
By Greg Presland
The Herald reported recently about a rather violent argument within a recent Regional Development and Operational Committee meeting. Well known peace activist Laurie Ross and a couple of young children came to the meeting urging the Council to become a city of peace. Their request was met with bickering and petty point scoring which reflects poorly on those involved.
Recently elected Councillor Dick Quax was prominent. His name is instantly recognisable, he was a well known middle distance runner back in the 1970s. He obviously thinks that this converts into the ability to run the largest city in the country but the skill mix required is much greater than this. In a rare display of complete insensitivity he described the proposal as a “boondoggle – doing useless and unnecessary work”.
But the proposal has exceptionally strong symbolic characteristics. The anti nuclear movement started after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked at the end of the second world war. On June 24, 1982, the Mayor of Hiroshima announced a ‘Programme to Promote Solidarity of Cities Toward the Total Abolition of Nuclear Weapons’ at the 2nd Special Session on Disarmament held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. The Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki issued a joint call to cities everywhere to support the programme.
It is not as if it is a new proposal, Waitakere, North Shore and Auckland cities had already declared themselves to be cities for peace.
The implications are symbolic, some extra civic events, work on the website and an Auckland Heritage Peace Walk. There could be assistance for cultural events, planting of trees and support for local anti violence groups.
To fund it there was an existing budget of $40,000 that could be used, 3c for every inhabitant in Auckland.
Admittedly the benefits are hard to measure. But it means that if there is one less fight in ten years that causes one young person not to suffer injury requiring long term care then in financial terms the programme is successful.
And as a statement of what we want our city to be what is wrong with it?
The CBD Rail Tunnel Business plan and review forgot about Peak Oil
By Greg Presland
The Government has now released its analysis of Auckland Council’s business plan for the Queen Street Rail Loop.
The response is somewhat pessimistic and the headline is that the anticipated economic benefits are not there. The Government’s estimate of the transport benefits of the project are put at $387 million rather than the $1,319 million assessed in Auckland Council’s business case.
But how coherent is the Government analysis? I have read it and it appears to be constructed on foundations of sand.
The analysis is premised on the belief that we are in business as usual mode and that the use of cars will continue to increase. The greatest driver of growth is thought to be job creation in the CBD rather than the possibility that oil price increases will price most people off the road. The report considers that there will be 32,000 extra car person and public transport passenger journeys into downtown in the 2041 morning peak and bases this conclusion on historical trends. It then works out how these extra trips may be apportioned between the various modes.
It did not help Auckland Council’s business case that it also presumed business as usual and a gradual increase in road usage. Essentially both the Council and the Government looked in the rear view mirror and based on past events estimated what will happen in the future. They then measured the economic benefit by assessing “decongestion benefits”. They both thought that in 2041 there would still be thousands of cars driving around and that an improved rail system will allow motorists to get to their destinations slightly quicker. But in looking in the rear view mirror they did not see that peak oil had wiped out the bridge ahead of them and that they should have made dramatic alterations to their plans.
Oddly enough both reports make allowances for the effects of increased parking charges but do not make allowances for the effects of increased fuel costs. This is an extraordinary oversight.
The reports ignore something that appears more and more likely, that we have reached peak oil and that the use of car will become more and more expensive. The phrase “peak oil” does not appear in either report.
The inner city loop has one significant advantage over other transport projects that it relies on electricity and not fuel. In 2041 there may be very little use of private cars and the rail system may be the mainstay of most of our transport requirements.
When someone as informed as Dr. Fatih Birol, Chief Economist and Head of the Economic Analysis Division of the International Energy Agency says peak oil has already occurred we should at the very least design our transport systems believing this is a possibility.
The Maori Advisory Board
Greg Presland
I recently had an article published in the Herald about the Maori Advisory Board but following recent events thought that I should review my comments.
Mayor Len Brown has been criticised by some for his efforts in reaching agreement with the Maori Advisory Board about its funding. This is unfair. I agree that the situation is not ideal but this is the result of poorly drafted legislation by Wellington and not Auckland Council’s behaviour.
Some background is important. Originally there was considerable support for separate Maori representation on the Council. This could have been achieved by setting up two Maori electorates within the city. Electors on the Maori Role could then vote for their preferred candidate. But the Government refused to have specially designated Maori council seats.
Part way through the process it came up with the idea, apparently against Rodney Hide’s advice, that there be a Maori Advisory Committee, the sort that would meet and talk and recommend and then, depending on the political makeup of the Council, have its recommendations either supported or ignored. It was to have the power to appoint observers to some Auckland Council committees.
But well after the passing of the Act something extraordinary became public, the appointees of the Maori Advisory Committee have a vote.
I thought initially that it must be a mistake, but after considering the Select Committee report it is clear that the Government intended the result.
The Select Committee report recommended the following proposed amendment to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009:
70 Board’ s specific functions
(1) The board must appoint a maximum of 2 persons to sit as members on each of the Auckland Council’ s committees that deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources.
Note that the words “as members” were inserted. The rationale for this in the accompanying notes was that “[a]s introduced new section 70(1) is not sufficiently clear as to the role of board members on Auckland Council committees.” Obviously the addition of “as members” was intended to clarify their powers. The decision to give these unelected members a vote appears to have been a deliberate one by the Government.
In my view it is outrageous that in a democracy the Crown can appoint persons to a democratic body and thereby raise the possibility that a majority of elected representatives’ views may not decide an issue. Labour’s spokesperson on the super city Phil Twyford has expressed a similar opinion.
As for funding issues Brian Rudman is right, Len Brown is not to blame. All he is doing is following exactly, precisely what Parliament has told him. In the constitutional pecking order that we have he has no choice.
The litigation concerning the funding of the Board is regrettable. But the legislative provisions are clear. The Council is obliged to obtain a report from an independent expert and act in accordance with that report. The independent expert must consider the board’s purpose, functions and powers and must make a recommendation to the board. The Auckland Council must act in accordance with the information provided to it by the independent expert. So there is not a huge amount of discretion left to the council to not follow the report.
The secrecy concerning the negotiations has attracted adverse comment. But I consider that it was appropriate for the Council to formulate its position in relation to the appeal in private. The desire to debate this publicly is understandable but as the debate involved sensitive negotiations the decision was a responsible one.
This is not to say there should not be a full debate about the issue of Maori representation in the near future. I am sure that the good people of Auckland would prefer that all members of Auckland Council committees are elected rather than appointed.
Public Transport is facing a crisis
By Greg Presland
Recently I did something that I have never done before. I spent over $90 on gas filling up my highly fuel efficient Toytoa Prius. This should last me a couple of weeks but for those who do not own fuel efficient cars things must be hurting.
Public transport use has exploded. Over the past 12 months public transport trips in Auckland increased by five million. Train use is significantly up (18% more trips February this year compared to February last year) as is bus use. Out west the annual increase in train trips is 25%! The North Shore bus way is performing very well and its construction has resulted in a significant reduction in congestion on the Harbour Bridge.
Car parks around train stations are full to capacity. A friend recently reported that for the first time ever the Sunnyvale carpark was full before 9 am. And I have noticed that the car parks around Glen Eden are full from a very early time each week day.
There is this forlorn hope that through a technology discovery we will be able to go back to our car centric ways but there is no sign of such a discovery. Even if such a technology discovery is made it is likely that the rare earth metals required will mean that a new peak resource milestone will be imminent. I believe that we should plan for the worst. I am convinced that we are entering or have entered into a peak oil phase, where the supply of cheap oil is finished and all that we can look forward to is a dwindling supply of more and more expensive fuel.
Urgent action is required. Over the past 10 years a lot of work has gone into upgrading Auckland’s public transport systems but this must continue. We must be ready for a world where more and more trips are going to be made by Train or Bus.
Cuba offers a glimpse of what this future may look like. When the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s Cuba’s supply of cheap oil ended and it faced dramatic upheaval. Its leadership responded by making fundamental changes to its society. Car use plummeted. Faced with the prospect of food shortages a number of community gardens were established based on organic techniques. There were a number of immediate benefits. General health improved dramatically as people walked more and ate better quality fresh food. Cuba survived and arguably improved.
As a society New Zealand must prepare for a similar upheaval and the experience of Cuba gives us a good idea of what should happen.
I believe that the following needs to occur urgently:
- Greater provision of park and ride carparks around train and bus stations
- Secure lock up facilities for bicycles both at train stations and in our towns and village areas.
- Improvement of the cycleway system and an analysis of the road system to make sure that it can be optimised for cycle use.
- Current planned or proposed extensions to the rail system have to occur. Electrification is a must. The inner city rail loop is needed so that the system capacity is doubled and capacity does not peak in a few years time.
- The Northern bus way should be repeated out west. There should be a new bus way constructed alongside the North Western Motorway starting at Massey.
- Locally we need to plan for community gardens now.
Political leadership should be all about looking into the future and planning. The end of cheap oil means that it is more important than ever that future planning is done now.
Auckland Transport and the decision to increase train fares
I posted previously about the recent increase in train fares. The decision was something of a shock. The rationale appears to be that train services have increased and therefore cost more and the increase is therefore justified. But why should train fares be increased while bus fares remain the same? Why should they be treated differently? The logic used would mean that the element of public transport that is most successful and shows the greatest growth will have its fares increased and I believe that if we are serious about increasing public transport usage this is not what should happen.
I raised the issue with Auckland Transport in part to work out the process that Auckland Transport is using. Much of its role should be subject to local democratic oversight and consultation. Rodney Hide had promised the Council Controlled organisations would operate in a transparent way and to work closely with local boards. He said:
The Government expects all these controlled organisations to establish and foster a meaningful relationship with the new local boards for the Auckland region.
The need for transparency is reinforced by section 40(e) of the Loval Government Auckland Council Act 2009 which requires Auckland Transport to “ensure that it acts in a transparent manner in making decisions under this Act and the Land Transport Management Act 2003.”
It appears that the recent decision to increase train fares was made at the February 2011 board meeting. I had been checking the online agendas out and had seen no trace of a suggestion of train fare increases. The February agenda as published has 12 agenda items on it. The paper supplied to me was unhelpfully numbered 14. Its title was “2011 Annual PT fare review”. This title did not appear on the agenda and presumably was a late addition. Why something as important as an annual PT fare review would be a late addition is not explained.
Confidentiality has been claimed over aspects of the report and the copy I have been provided with has some of the turnover figures for ferry services was removed. Gross figures were given for all bus services. If the same had been given for ferries then the report could have been released publicly and the people of Auckland could have commented.
Auckland Transport must do better. If in the future significant items are added to the agenda at the last minute and have content that prevents the paper from being publicly released then there is very little important business that the people will be able to either comment on or be forewarned about.
The Spatial Plan, Public Transport and the Government’s aspirations for Auckland
Bunji at the Standard and the good folk at the Transport Blog have already posted on this issue but it is important and needs as much consideration as possible.
In what appears to be a pre-emptive strike the Government has released various Cabinet papers detailing its response to the Super City’s aspirations. There are a number of papers but three that raised my interest were papers on the fiscal situation, transport and city form.
The release is the political equivalent of a cold shower, designed to remove all sense of anticipation or hope.
The papers are short but clearly targetted.
The fiscal cold shower paper essentially says the Government cannot afford proposed PT investments including the inner city train loop.
“Demonstrable affordability, practicality and achievability will be critical factors in obtaining buy-in to the plan from all stakeholders, including central government, and from the public generally”.
It appears however that the Holiday Highway and the Waikato Expressway may be exempt:
“Fiscal consolidation does not mean that the Government will stop investing. The $1.39 billion capital allowance set aside for Budget 2011 and signalled for future budgets until 2014 is in addition to the $36 billion the Crown is already committed to investing in physical assets such as roads, school, hospitals and other essential assets required for delivery of government services up to the end of the 2015 fiscal year.”
Aucklanders would appreciate a debate about whether the Holiday Highway or the Queen Street tunnel should proceed but it appears that the Government does not want to engage in this debate.
There is more than a hint that Auckland City should divest itself of its assets. The report says:
“Based on the information currently available, ACIL manages total investment assets currently worth $1.195 billion ($881 million net) and is forecasting to return a dividend to the Auckland Council of $25 million in 2011/12. This represents an approximate 2.8 per cent dividend yield.”
The return may be low but given the state of financial markets throughout the world it is fine. And privatisation would be hotly opposed by many locals.
To reinforce the message the report then says:
“The Government will be in a better position to support an Auckland spatial plan that acknowledges and reflects these realities. The more it does this, the more likely that central government can and will help Auckland deliver it through its own decision-making.”
If Auckland acknowledges and reflects reality as understood by the Government then it may get funding.
The transport cold shower paper essentially says that car use is going to continue to increase in the future and that Auckland’s investment in public transport, particularly rail is principled but misplaced. There is no mention of peak oil in the paper. There is no discussion how continuous increases in the cost of petroleum would ravage the transport system as we know it. Clearly the report anticipates business as usual and that current trends will continue. The spikes in oil prices in 2007 and more recently have not attracted the paper writer’s attention.
If oil does continue to increase in price then the business as usual presumption is going to be turned on its head. In three years time we may look at Britomart as the rail system has reached capacity and wish that we had leadership that made sure that its capacity could increase.
We also need good effective broadband and a strategy to persuade businesses to allow their employees to work from home one day a week. These considerations did not make their way into the cabinet paper.
The final cold shower paper is about urban form. Environmentalists have always advocated for a “compact city” model. A compact city means less driving for its citizens and greater use of public transport as well as the greater preservation of forests and arable land surrounding the urban area.
The report states clearly that Auckland’s regional growth strategy is not working in that intensification developments are lower than forecast and greenfield development is higher than forecast. There is no attempt to say whether the lack of intensification is good or bad, just that it has not happened.
There is also expressed the hope that everyone can agree about development.
“Successful spatial plans build widespread consensus among public and private sector stakeholders. A high degree of investor and developer buy-in to the strategic direction is crucial to success, but is challenging to secure. Investors need to see a strategic direction that is feasible and backed by a set of regulatory and funding measures (e.g. district plan rules and development contribution policies) that will work, and provide them with the incentives they need to invest in ways that support the strategic growth model.
And what will happen to the Metropolitan Urban Limit? This has been put into place to stop Auckland from growing continuously. The report says the MUL “appears to have been instrumental in the lack of private sector support for the growth concept.” Obviously the Government want it to go.
The overwhelming message is that if Auckland city want Government support then it had better tow the line. And this line is a car centric urban sprawling developer mandated vision for our biggest city.
Greg Presland
Why does the Government hates trains?
Greetings everyone. It has been a while since anything has been posted but I intend to make sure that there are regular postings.
One of the criticisms of the Super City is the transfer of immense power to CCOs whose boards of directors were primarily going to be appointed by Rodney Hide.
The first big test is the increase in fares for Trains. The fares for busses and ferries were left alone but for some reason train fares increased. Rail Fares will increase by an average of 6.5%. This is the second increase in 6 months. Bus and Ferry fares will remain the same.
The rail system is of considerable importance to the West and is arguably the most environmentally friendly form of transport.
The timing is poor. University students are returning to university and cost of living increases for ordinary people is increasing greater than the increase in the average wage. Also the cost increase will undermine efforts to increase public passenger patronage.
The justification is to bring fares closer to bus fares but this is somewhat surprising. The trains are meant to provide the “backbone” for PT throughout most of the city in preference to busses.
If and when the system is electrified and the Queen Street tunnel has been constructed then the rail system will represent the one truly sustainable transport system that Auckland has.
The decision caught me by surprise. The first I heard of it was the announcement in the Herald.
So I did a bit of digging. In the January agenda there was nothing that appeared to relate to rail fare increases. In the December agenda there were some confidential items but none that appeared to relate to the decision, the closest being “Rail Funding Gap and Ownership – Governance Options”. Rodney Hide did claim that the boards would be open and transparent and there is the requirement that
So I asked Auckland Transport a few questions:
“1. When was the recent decision to increase train fares made?
2. Can I have a copy of the board paper relating to the decision?
3. If confidentiality is claimed then what were the grounds for invoking this?
4. What consideration was given to consulting with either the Auckland Council or local boards prior to the decision being made?
5. What if any changes in NZTA’s fare policy have affected this decision?
6. What if any change has occurred in relation to NZTA funding of Auckland’s public transport fares?
Please treat this as a request under LGOIMA.”
I will post when I get a response.
This is only the beginning …
By Lincoln Dam
The 2010 local body elections have been one of the many highlights of my year, regardless of the outcome. I’ve had the opportunity to meet many amazing (and occasionally interesting) members of the community and have made so many new friends, friendships that I can only hope will last a life time.
It hasn’t been easy. I was never the most likely candidate for this position. I lacked the experience and didn’t start off with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in fancy restaurants or cafes. Instead, it began in a lawyer’s office in the township of Glen Eden, filled with eager, budding politicians, just waiting to make that vital difference to the community they have come to love. We all gave it our best.
As I reflect on this campaign, I cannot forget that it was built by hard working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give to this cause. It grew strength from both the young and the old, many of whom neglected their homes, their families and their friends, for jobs that were only voluntary. It grew from the many who braved the bitter cold winds and rain to knock on the doors of perfect strangers, the many who put up and repair billboards during and after the storm, and the many who delivered the never-ending mountain of leaflets. Today, I thank you.
I would not be here today without the unyielding support of my family, many waited impatiently overseas as preliminary results were released. In particular, I’d like to acknowledge my mum, my dad and my sister, who made sure I got to events on time and who walked the great distances with me to deliver pamphlets. My debt to them is truly beyond measure.
I’d like to acknowledge my Future West running mates, those who worked behind the scenes, and Members of Parliament, who have supported me throughout this campaign. This could not have been possible without you. You should all be proud of what we have achieved and together we have grown stronger for 2013.
I’d also like to acknowledge the successful candidates all over the country, regardless of their political views, particularly the first Mayor-elect of the new Auckland Council, Len Brown.
Finally, I wish to thank all my friends and supporters out there, both in Auckland and abroad. You give me strength to keep going and you give me the support that only few could ever receive in their lifetime. I thank you all. You are all wonderful people.
To know that I have the support of over 4,000 Henderson-Massey voters is truly amazing. That is not something many 19 year olds could say, nor could they have their photos on billboards, in pamphlets, or in the paper. Not many could say that they have met the Governor-General, attended events with Mayor Bob Harvey, or have campaigned alongside the first Super City Mayor-elect, Len Brown, either. This has been a life-changing and memorable experience which could not have been possible without you.
As the election slowly comes to an end, it’s time I take a short break – a break to spend time with my family and friends (and even the odd textbook!) who I have neglected over the past few months.
It will be back to textbook politics for me for the next few weeks. My next focus will be my up-coming exams, before it’s back to the drawing board, planning the next phase in my exciting journey through life.
This was my first time running for public office, but it certainly won’t be my last. It has been a privileged to stand as a candidate for the Henderson-Massey local board with Future West, something that many can only aspire to. I look forward to my next challenge and hope to have your continued support.
Thank you all once again.
Thanks for your support
Thanks to everyone who supported Future Whau and Future West candidates. We had some success, we have three elected representatives on the Waitakere Ranges Local Board and Catherine Farmer was elected to the Whau local board. And Ami Chand and Neil Henderson are members of Portage Licensing Trust.
We are a new organisation, with fresh faces and great enthusiasm. Unfortunately some of our faces are too fresh. When I look at the successful candidates for the Henderson Massey Board for instance I see people who have been around for a long time. They have name recognition but little else to offer. The challenge for our candidates will be to become equally well known so that next time youth, intelligence, commitment AND name recognition will count.
Len Brown is now our Mayor (yay!) and there is a solid majority of progressive candidates on the Auckland Super City. Overall it was a good result.
Thanks again for your support. We intend to keep this blog going so that we can continue to talk about issues that are important for the West.
Vote Future West and Future Whau NOW – For Your Street, Not Queen Street
Time is running out. If you want to vote you will need to get your papers in the mail either today or tomorrow or otherwise you will have to deliver them to your local library before Saturday.
A lot is at stake. Your choice will determine the future direction and leadership of Auckland.
Future West and Future Whau are standing candidates for this election because we believe that local democracy is important and we are concerned that local voices may be drowned out under Rodney Hide’s super city unless those voices are principled and dedicated. We stand for proper local representation, keeping community assets like libraries, pools and water in community control. We want safer streets, local jobs, better public transport and to see the Eco-City values spread across the region.
Too often people do not vote in local elections. This time it is critical. We urge you to forward on this email to your networks to encourage your family and friends to vote today.
VOTE Len Brown for Mayor.
VOTE Future Whau candidates for local board in the Whau ward.
VOTE Future West candidates for local board in the Henderson Massey and Waitakere Ranges local board.
Who took Gary’s picture?
Gary Marshall is one of the Future Whau candidates for the Whau local board. Someone has cut his face out of one of their billboards. You can see from the photo that Gary is a bit of a rugged individual who has some rustic charm but he is perhaps past his prime. So the whole thing is a bit of a mystery.
Information from the public concerning the possible face snatcher would be appreciated although in the cause of domestic bliss please do not tell his wife Gayle.
Public Transport Initiatives in West Auckland Must Continue
By Ciaron Murnane
The Waitakere City Council and Auckland Regional Council can be proud of their efforts in supporting the upgrade of the New Lynn transport interchange which opened this Saturday. Along with the double- tracking of the Western train line, the upgrade provides a giant leap towards a state-of-the art public transport system for Waitakere residents. The improvements have led to faster, more reliable, and more frequent train services for those travelling to and from Auckland City for work and recreation. As a result, Waitakere residents now have more public transport options that they can rely on.
Other benefits of this upgrade will include fewer cars on the road, as more people use the improved train services. This will lessen congestion for bus passengers, cyclists, and those motorists who need to use their cars regularly. These changes will also lead to a healthier environment, as pollution from car emissions decrease, as well as helping see off the threat of climate change. Finally, the interchange upgrade has given the kick-start needed to develop the New Lynn area as a whole, and to make it a better place for West Aucklanders to work, shop, and dine.
These improvements would not have been possible without the avid support of the Waitakere City Council. For public transport developments to occur under the new Auckland Council, the new West Auckland local boards and Auckland Council must be made up of individuals who will strive to support the infrastructure of West Auckland. If elected, the Future West team will do just that. Each candidate is committed to continuing the good work of the current council to improve public transportation in West Auckland. The Future West team is committed to more bus and train services, the electrification of the rail line, and the integration of bus, train, and ferry services. Vote Future West candidates on to your local board, and you will elect a local board that is committed to better public transport in West Auckland.
Buses and lotteries, making city changes the simple way..the Curitiba way
Neil Henderson
I attended the Celebrate Swanson candidate invite the other night and afterward found myself talking to Cr Vanessa Neeson outside. We were expanding on some of the thoughts thrown up by candidates responses to the burning question of the night. How would we personally ensure that Waitakeres unique identity is retained within the new Auckland Super City.
It begs another question of course… just what is the Waitakere identity? We were all pretty much unanimous in that it had an awful lot to do with the ranges and the wild coast and all that natural environment but there was also universal agreement that it was probably more to do with our people; what we might call the Westie character. Some candidates even suggested that we had absolutely nothing to worry about with the Super City because some how ,perhaps miraculously, via force of exerting our sheer Westieness perhaps, it would all work out fine in the end. I guess I’M not too sure about that sort of optimism but it did make me wonder just what it is that constitutes our core Westieness, that thing we might perhaps ideally flog off in half litre bottles and market wholesale to the rest of the Region.
Vanessa provided the answer; Jamie Lerner and a Brazilian city called Curitiba.
Jamie Lerner who got to be mayor of this city ,in a way that surprised every one because he sort of turned up just a few days before the polling day ,ended up devising many of Curitiba’s innovative, inexpensive solutions to big city problems. For instance, in the early days of the public transit system, to increase its funding and encourage ridership, he made a special city lottery, valuing bus fare as lottery tickets.
Now think about that for a second. Every time you get on a bus (or maybe a train) you buy a lottery ticket. Sounds too simplistic?
I was sitting in a meeting this afternoon at Ecomatters Environment Trust and we were talking about how we could expand on the great work that has been done with Project Twin Streams but this time focus on the Whau catchment, especially around the Avondale stream. It was pointed out to us that some how we needed to slow storm water down. Storm water causes flooding and it gets to be a huge problem every once in a while because we have so many impermeable surfaces in our urban areas. The Avondale stream is a bad flood place by the way.The water just runs straight into the streams and the streams cant cope so they flood. 1971 for instance, was a very bad flood year .Its like that .You never know when its going to strike. Solving this sort of stuff is going to be expensive and usually there is talk about buying houses, piping and ponding and a whole range of hard and soft engineering options like bigger pipes or plantings and storm gardens. These take up a lot of space and space out there is pretty limited .No one wants to give up that space cheaply. Then we have all the issues about water. The Super City is all about water. Who is going to control it? Who is going to own it? How much is it going to cost us? Its pretty scary and very confusing. They are even talking about how we are going to need to get all this water from the Waikato river and how much its going to have to cost to do this. Sounds clunky? Sounds so drearily familiar? Too right.
It was at this point that a bit of Westieness kicked in. It helped that Mark Essex ,an engineer who was assisting us in this process, was brought up near Green bay (Foothills of Titirangi as the real estate agents like to say). He said that over seventy percent of our water use does not need to come from the town supply. In other words, it doesnt need to be good enough to drink. If we, each and every one of us, were to catch as much of that rain water that comes down in the winter as we could, we could put it through our toilets and our washing machines and pretty soon we wouldnt need to be talking about the new pipeline from the Waikato river. As for the rain water we couldn’t hang on to… if we drained it away on our properties via these new fangled soakholes they are looking at, soakholes that are rather like the old septic tanks we used to have, well there would be no need to spend all those vast amounts of ratepayers money on sophisticated engineering devises to mitigate all that storm water, way down in the catchment some where.
How much would it cost to set this sort of thing up in a whole bunch of houses? Who knows? But I can guess that maybe it just might end up cheaper …. but Nahhh… seems too simplistic….
I’m thinking that Jamie Lerner might just be the Brazillian equivalent to a Westie. He has some pretty left field ideas and he seems to have been able to make them work, and fast, in the face of the usual bureaucratic grunge.
It seems to me that this left field innovation is actually at the core of our Westieness and this is the thing,over and above every thing else ,that we need to protect and retain. Mind you we might need to get a bit belligerent to do so.
So why not set up a lottery to get people on buses? Why not set up a special, extremely watchable local soap opera that only screens on the evening train? Why not set up a single suburb with efficient rain water catchment – just to see how it all goes? Why not mirror the WCC Green Network but think of cyclists instead of woodpigeons? This is what we have, what we have to give, the Westieness that is in us. And this is what we, as Future West would try to champion for you in this new super city. So do give us a vote wont you?
‘Independents’?
Jeremy Greenbrook-Held
At Henderson-Massey’s only meet-the-candidates meeting (West Heights Residents and Ratepayers Association), Future West and Citizens and Ratepayers were questioned about why we were bringing ‘national politics’ in to local elections. There was a mad rush of sitting so-called ‘independent’ Waitakere City councillors (including several former Team West candidates) to take a swing at us and the Citrats.
It put Future West and the Citizens and Ratepayers in a strange position – we agreed with each other. Apparently, our positions on local issues would be determined by Phil Goff and John Key. Unless it was Labour (or National) policy, we would be hamstrung to vote against it. We were accused of being fly-by-nighters, who were only interested in our next political step (in obvious contrast to one candidate, who was a Henderson Borough councillor in the early 1950s).
What a load of crap.
To think that Goff and Key are going to have the time to determine our order of business for the Henderson-Massey Local Board gives you an indication of how deluded, self-involved, and – quite frankly – out of touch some of the sitting councillors are.
Future West has been very clear about where we stand. Our leaflet and billboards have Labour and Greens logos on them, as well as community independents, and are coloured red and green, in contrast to the Citrats blue billboards. To their credit, several Citrat candidates outlined their involvement in the National Party, although there’s no mention of the link between National and Citizens and Ratepayers on their website. Also, while everyone knows that the Citrats are broadly supportive of John Banks for Mayor, they seem a little ashamed to say so publicly, while we’re quite clear about our support for Len Brown.
Our blog has outlined our position on several important issues, such as public transport, continuation of the Eco-City, and asset sales. We have vision for West Auckland. We want to see West Auckland go forward, rather than stand in the way of changes – which according to Waitakere Mayor Bob Harvey is several sitting councillors’ track record.
So, what do these ‘independent’ councillors stand for? Apparently, they’ll ‘listen to you’, and you can ‘trust them’. Several are riding on the back of their names (apparently, their parents and grandparents were quite good at making wine). Yes, they’re the same old crowd.
I’m not sure how you can trust candidates who are campaigning with no vision, limited energy, and a stale, out-of-date mindset, with an equally out-of-date photo to match. Also, as David Wilson, from AUT’s Institute of Public Policy said on Friday’s news (about 1:33 in), you can’t be certain how independents will behave once they are elected.
West Auckland needs new, fresh, energetic and open representation under the Supercity, otherwise we’re going to get lost. The best candidates to stand up for West Auckland under the new structure is Future West.
Come On, West Auckland! It’s Our Time!
Voting papers are being sent out from today, and Future West and Future Whau have made it real easy to vote for Your Street, not Queen Street.
For Mayor of the Auckland Super City, tick Len Brown.
For the Henderson-Massey and Waitakere Ranges Local Board, tick all the Future West Candidates.
For the Whau Local Board, tick all the Future Whau Candidates.
For the Portage and Waitakere Licensing Trusts, tick all the Future West and City Vision Candidates.
Why? From our About page:
[Future West and Future Whau's] goal is to get strong, progressive local people elected, so the Waitakere way is kept alive in the new, amalgamated structure. The coalition backs community-power and keeping community assets like libraries, pools and water in community control. It wants safer streets, local jobs, better public transport and to see the Eco-City values spread across the region. It also supports Maori representation on Council.
Tell your friends, tell your family, tell your co-workers, tell your neighbours – the only way to vote in West Auckland is Future West and Future Whau.
Love your library
Lyndon Walker
The Auckland Supercity merger will see Aucklanders have access to the 55 libraries and four mobile libraries in the Auckland region; from Wellsford to Waiheke to Waiuku. This will make it the largest collection of libraries in Australasia, giving Aucklanders access to around 3.5 million items.
Beyond the books, public libraries provide many valuable services; providing book clubs, kids classes, retiree sessions and a venue and meeting place for public events. They provide internet access for those who can’t afford it and many other valuable community services.
I feel that an important role of the new local boards will be to protect community assets like our libraries. There will be a strong temptation for the new council to “rationalise” services, which really means to slash and cut. When completing your voting papers, vote Future West for protecting your local library.
The Great Radio New Zealand Mayoral Debate
by Greg Presland
I attended the Mayoral Debate this morning hosted by Radio New Zealand. Present were the three leading candididates, Len Brown, John Banks and Andrew Williams.
Before the debate started the body language was fascinating. Len and Banksie shook hands warmly. The chill between Banks and Williams was evident.
Len spoke about his transport plans. They included rail to the Airport, completing the rail network look by construction of the Queen Street tunnel, a possible road tunnel to the North Shore although he acknowledged that the Anzac Bridge project had some promise. When asked for a timeframe he said 5 to 7 years for the Queen Street tunnel.
Banks was asked a similar question. He talked about the need for world class infrastructure and how he supported passenger transport but did not come up with any dates.
Len Brown became passionate when he talked about the neglect that Otahuhu has suffered from the Auckland City Council. Despite 30 years of inaction and despite the promise of a swimming pool Otahuhu had been ignored. He also commented that the money that could have been spent on the pool had been spent instead on putting sand on Judges Bay.
Banks countered by saying that South Aucklanders used Judges Bay as well! This could be the Melissa Lee moment of the campaign. It spoke volumes of his mindset. “The good people” live in places like Remuera. “Other” people such as those from South Auckland could also use Judges Bay. I cannot imagine anything that would be more enraging to the good people of South Auckland.
Rating was discussed. Banks made a comment about the “wild promises of my opponents” which brought the wonderful response by Williams noting that Banks “was promising to bring the Olympics to Auckland”.
Banks also read a supposed verbatim comment made by Len at a previous meeting that Banks was not at where it was alleged that Len had advocated for income tax to replace rates.
Len replied that Banks should have been there. He also made it clear that he was advocating for a full review of funding for Local Government and that to do it properly all options should be on the table. It is clear from his comments that his primary interest was fairness, particularly for the poor. I am not so sure that Banks sees this issue in the same terms.
Len was on top of his game. He was quick with responses, very effective with his jibes and was very funny. Banks in contrast was wooden and although he delivered his selection of quotes well, he floundered when dealing with a debate of the issues.
All in all to my mind it was a clear win to Len. If course I could be accused of being biased …
Recent Comments