Auckland in search of democracy

29 comments on “Auckland in search of democracy ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sacha 1

   24 December 2013 at 1:18 pm

   “local politicians [having] failed to deliver the results expected of them.”

   Expected by whom, is the key.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     24 December 2013 at 2:13 pm

     Expected by the rich and business people. Neither National nor Act think anybody else matters.
2. captain hook 2

   24 December 2013 at 1:54 pm

   the thing is they have a democracy but the whining rightwingers dont like it.
   They thought wodney was going to deliver up JOhn Banks as the great white hope but the peoples choice was still is Len Brown.
   When that happened they enlisted bluberguts to organise a lynch mob but that didn’t work either.
   I hope they choke on it.
3. One Anonymous Knucklehead 3

   24 December 2013 at 2:00 pm

   Market failure. Again. Is there a single shred of truth in the whole neo-liberal corpse?
   • Draco T Bastard 3.1

     24 December 2013 at 2:15 pm

     No.
4. Grumpy 4

   24 December 2013 at 2:17 pm

   Maybe the left just needs to list what immoral and illegal behavior they are prepared to tolerate and from who. Otherwise everyone here would be clamouring for a full audit by the AG from the top down.
   As usually happens, when the top is corrupt so is the rest.
   • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.1

     24 December 2013 at 2:21 pm

     The whole setup is rotten, a natural consequence of being created by Rodney Hide: changing the players won’t fix it; corrupt dogma makes for corrupt law.
     • karol 4.1.1

       24 December 2013 at 2:27 pm

       Yes, with a more truly democratic council we wouldn’t have had the whole dodgy (government pressured) SkyCity deal, and we wouldn’t have the government stalling the council on a transport system that truly serves all Aucklanders; we’d have had more focus on doing something urgently about unaffordable housing, especially rental housing; we’d have had more attention to the high amount of youth unemployment in the city. …. etc, etc
       • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1

         24 December 2013 at 2:38 pm

         Yes, with a more truly democratic council we wouldn’t have had the whole dodgy (government pressured) SkyCity deal…

         The central government shouldn’t have been able to make that deal at all. It should have been solely up to Aucklanders via referendum. And agree with everything else you’ve said as well. Since this government got in they’ve been making it worse for a lot of Aucklanders so as to pay out to the corporates.
   • karol 4.2

     24 December 2013 at 2:22 pm

     Yes. What can you expect from a morally and ethically bankrupt government and CCOs?
     • grumpy 4.2.1

       24 December 2013 at 5:06 pm

       there is some truth to that. A government on it’s game would have sent in the heavies by now unless there is something embarrassing waiting for them…….
       • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.1

         24 December 2013 at 5:18 pm

         Yeah, the NATs don’t want to lose the next election by a quarter million votes.
5. RedLogix 5

   24 December 2013 at 2:32 pm

   I suppose this is as good a point to mention that a trusted friend of mine has first hand evidence of a massive property development fraud that has fallen between the cracks as the Super City was being formed.

   Something in the order of $100m (yes that’s right) of ratepayers money has been used to benefit a major private developer.

   There are various people who know exactly what I am talking about.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.1

     24 December 2013 at 2:40 pm

     I’m going to have to point our that if you know of something like that and have evidence then it needs to be reported to the SFO. Not reporting it encourages the corruption to fester.
     • RedLogix 5.1.1

       24 December 2013 at 2:50 pm

       Oh yes DtB. Not a lot more I can say at present. I realise this isn’t satisfactory but it’s not really my story to tell in detail.
       • Murray Olsen 5.1.1.1

         24 December 2013 at 10:10 pm

         Be careful, RL and whoever else knows about this. $100 million is way above the threshold for people to be disposed of, literally or figuratively. I hope the story comes to light and whoever uncovers it is very, very careful. There are many ways to destroy a person, with perhaps the most obvious being the planting of kiddy porn on their computer. Luckily, our police and intelligence agencies are honest and responsible and would never participate in such acts.
6. Steve 6

   24 December 2013 at 2:49 pm

   Karol, who appoints the CCOs?
   • karol 6.1

     24 December 2013 at 3:16 pm

     The CCOs are complicated structures that operate a bit like SOEs.

     They are kind of accountable to the council, but, as quoted in my post above they:

     CCOs ruled by unelected boards, operating at arm’s length from Council.

     The CCO directors are chosen by a select committee of councillors and the mayor. There’s a similar selct committee to review the CCOs performance. Though only about 50% of votes for CCO directors and trustees come fromt he council.

     But the aims of the CCOs are set by the CCO shareholders “both commerical and non-commercial”.

     Basically the structure weakens the extent to which councillors can influence the CCOs. Also, there are too many corporate/commercial interests involved in pressuring their directions. Further, the complex, hand-length structure means there’s a lack of direct accountability or transparency to enable the public to be able to assess their performance.

     Ultimately the CCO directors and boards were selected in a way that was very corporate friendly. While, in theory there seems to be some checks and balances re accountability of the CCOs, in practice, the way CCOs are not directly controlled by elected representatives, but appointees, from within the higher levels of or status/wealth hierarchy, means the ability to hold them to account is weak.

     Thus, Mayor Brown had little real power to influence the way the mayor responded to the behaviour of the Ports of Auckland in their dispute with MUNZ. Councillors had even less influence.
   • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.2

     24 December 2013 at 3:18 pm

     Rodney Hide appointed them. No wonder there’s so much corruption.
     • karol 6.2.1

       24 December 2013 at 3:22 pm

       Yes, Hide and the cabinet appointed the first ones:

       The list of directors and chairs for the Auckland Council’s new council controlled organisations was agreed to by Cabinet last week, Minister for Local Government Rodney Hide said.

       Mr Hide said that those chosen were the elite in their respective fields, and testament to the quality of structure and organisation the new Auckland Council represents.
       […]
       The appointments are for a term of between one and three years. Furthermore, the Auckland Council will be able to appoint between one and three additional directors to each of the boards once the council is established.
       • Sacha 6.2.1.1

         24 December 2013 at 4:07 pm

         The Minister of Transport gets to appoint most of the directors of Auckland Transport, after changing the law to ensure that: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10770197 and http://www.transport.govt.nz/legislation/acts/landtransportmanagementamendmentbill/

         AT also have to obey the government’s policy directions above the Council’s. Otherwise they might insist on investing in public transport instead of duplicate highways. Can’t have that.
         • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.2.1.1.1

           24 December 2013 at 5:46 pm

           It’s as though wingnut trash never considered the certainty of Julie Anne Genter as transport minister 😆
           • Sacha 6.2.1.1.1.1

             24 December 2013 at 7:03 pm

             Verily
7. Will@Welly 7

   24 December 2013 at 3:16 pm

   The re-modelling of Auckland into a SuperCity was for one thing, and one thing only. It was to remove democracy from the people. Make the structure as undemocratic as possible. That’s why Rodney Hide was in charge. Remember, Banksy was the heir apparent, but he fell at the final fence.
   By taking away the democratic voice from Aucklanders, how were they supposed to voice their concerns when National/Act started to divest Auckland of its assets, the real goal behind the amalgamation.
   National are keen to see similar amalgamations around the country, simply so they can flog off all the assets to their mates. The real test will be in Christchurch, which is asset rich, but cash poor. Sell the assets now and in 15 – 20 years time, say hello to Detroit.
8. Philj 8

   24 December 2013 at 4:19 pm

   Xox
   They were promoting the sale off of Christchurch Assets just last week to make up for the shortfall.
   • Sacha 8.1

     24 December 2013 at 4:27 pm

     On that front, Lianne Dalziel vs Gerry Brownlee will be fascinating to watch this year.
   • Draco T Bastard 8.2

     24 December 2013 at 5:25 pm

     I’m pretty sure that National and their backers were rubbing their hands together over the Chch earthquake and the opportunity it would give them to turn NZ even more feudal sell state assets.
9. Matthew 9

   30 December 2013 at 9:45 pm

   I just skim read the article but I presume the unelected Maori Board was heavily attacked given the tone of the article?
   • Sacha 9.1

     30 December 2013 at 9:50 pm

     which article?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS