Tony Mair - Arsehole of the Week

What is it about environmentalists that make some people go crazy? They’re just normal human beings who want our natural world to be protected. It’s not like they’re terrorists or anything, just your bulk standard Kiwis who care a bit more about protecting nature than most folks.

So when environmentalists get set upon by a bunch of thugs in hi-vis jackets, and they use intimidation and violence to try to deter a peaceful protest, then you would expect the Police to intervene and do their job.

However that hasn’t been the case recently on Waiheke Island, where people who are just trying to protect Little Blue Penguins and their habitats were threatened and then assaulted by arseholes who work for an unethical developer called Tony Mair.

Yesterday, RNZ reported:

Waiheke Island marina: Video appears to show protester kicked in face

A video of an incident at the controversial marina development on Waiheke Island appears to show a protester being kicked in the face.

Protect Pūtiki has been occupying the site for 120 days, which they say endangers a nearby kororā (little blue penguin) colony. The developer rejects those claims.

Recent clashes between protesters and security guards for the development by Kennedy Point Boat Harbour Ltd have triggered police investigations.

In a video posted to Facebook, a protester on a pontoon is manhandled into the water by a man wearing a high-vis jacket.

While the protester is in the water, the man takes a step and kicks the person in the water in the head.

The video that has made the news is conclusive. The male security guard first throws the female protester in the water and while they’re trying to recover, he then kicks her directly in the face.

Unfortunately this isn’t the only case of excessive and potentially deadly force being used by these security guards either. If you watch the entire video, which is available on the Protect Pūtiki Facebook page, other security guards use kayak paddles they’ve stolen to assault protesters. At one stage a protester is strangled while they lay prone on the floating pontoon, another is held under the water in what could be considered attempted murder. One security guard even appears to use a can of pepper spray against a female protester, which is also against the law.

Obviously at least one security guard should be charged with assault here. There is no question about it. But other security guards should also be charged with possessing and using a prohibited weapon. Only the Police (and some corrections officers) are allowed to carry and use pepper spray in New Zealand, so unless they want to also look like a bunch thugs for hire, the Police must act to ensure charges are laid and the spray and other weapons are confiscated from these balaclava wearing goons. They must also ensure that all the items taken from these peaceful protesters are returned undamaged.

There is a hell of a lot wrong with this development. Firstly the gifting of public land to a private developer is highly questionable, but especially so because local iwi weren't properly consulted. The Auckland Council also giving the go ahead for such a large project on top of a Little Blue Penguin colony is suspect, and points to a secret deal being done at the old boys club.

Then there’s the work itself that’s not adhering to the consent. Penguins are clearly being endangered, which is reason enough to shut down the project. Then there are the multiple assaults on peaceful protesters, which categorically shows that the developer and his workers are a bunch of cutthroat bastards who are highly deserving of an Arsehole Award. Let's hope their pay packets are also docked when this environmentally damaging project gets closed down.

Crusher loses control

Judith Collins - National Party leader

Over the past year or so, it's been somewhat surprising to see the numerous leaks that plagued Simon Bridges and Todd Muller while they were leaders of the National Party, leaks that immediately stopped after Judith Collins assumed command. It was almost as if there was a concerted effort to undermine the National Party from within so that Crusher could take control.

However, the disunity of the blue “team” hasn’t entirely ended with another change in leader. For instance, when Paul Goldsmith admitted last week that he’d got their alternative budget horribly wrong, Crusher was still trying to say that the mistakes were inconsequential, clearly showing that National MPs are failing to communicate properly with each other about how they should spin things.

But just in case you needed anymore convincing that the National Party isn’t fit to govern, they’re once again leaking to undermine their own faltering leader right before the election.

Yesterday, Newshub reported:

Leaked email: National MP criticises Judith Collins' 'highly problematic idea' of reviewing Auckland Council

Newshub has been leaked an email showing National MP Denise Lee criticising leader Judith Collins' plan to review Auckland Council as a "highly problematic idea".

Collins announced on Monday a review of Auckland Council to the surprise of her Auckland Council spokesperson Lee.

 

Actually, Collins initially announced an inquiry, not a review, into the Auckland Council.

Lee described it as a "highly problematic idea" in an email to her caucus colleagues. She also panned it as "another working group" and said it would be "a nightmare".

In the email, Lee says bypassing her altogether was "incredibly poor form and displays a shockingly bad example of poor culture".

Collins sighed when asked if the policy had been made on the hoof, and said it had been planned for weeks, despite Lee knowing nothing about it.

Lee is a former Auckland Councillor and the National Party spokesperson for Local Government, so really should have been informed.

Lee is not the only MP upset by it - another National MP contacted Newshub saying it is consistent behaviour from Collins that she is "making up policy on the hoof" and "creating division".

 

Collins’ silly idea to have an inquiry into the Auckland Council was obviously made up on the spur of the moment. In fact that’s Crusher’s game plan, to make as many controversial statements as she can in order to stay in the media spotlight.

Unfortunately for the blue “team” the execution of their lacklustre campaign with Crusher in charge isn’t going very well. She is coming across as arrogant and a bit neurotic, which are both traits that will turn many voters away from her shambles of a political party during this election.

National caught flat-footed on rail

The Minister of Transport commenting on light rail to the North Shore.

The Labour party has amazingly managed some policy cut through this week, even with the Jacinda effect in full play. This has been well canvased by mainstream media publications to various degrees of accuracy.

The policy Labour chose to start their new campaigning on was Auckland’s transport infrastructure, which is great because it’s highly topical at the moment.

Perhaps one of the better articles about the campaign so far was by Audrey Young, who summed up the current state of play.

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

In one short week National looks like the underdog

All up, Labour's plan costs about $2 billion more than National's.

It was given to Phil Twyford to deliver to explain the regional petrol tax that will cost up to $5 a tank to help fund the policy.

And Steven Joyce again assumed the position of National's critic in chief.

Labour's rally was, by necessity, arranged at late notice, but not quite as late as National's at the Papakura railway station for a $267 million commuter network announcement.

With 250 there, it wasn't a bad turnout for a Prime Minister who has the personality of a rock, according to Kelvin Davis.

It was a shameless effort by National to try to grab some attention from the popular leader of the Opposition. But it didn't pay off. The enthusiasm looked less authentic.

There is really no question that Auckland should help pay for it’s own infrastructure upgrades. Unfortunately the Auckland Council is up to its eyeballs in debt, and ratepayers are already feeling the pinch of large rates increases.

With twice as many people in attendance, Labour definitely have the momentum to announce a new tax without anybody really raising an eyebrow. A regional petrol tax is the only way to ensure those who most benefit help pay, and Labour pulled it off without a hitch.

Sure, there is an argument that getting more Aucklanders out of cars and into alternative forms of transport will save the nation billions of dollars each year, but when the infrastructure in regional New Zealand has been allowed to decay so badly and is seeing no real planned investment by the current government, expecting a free ride in Auckland is no longer acceptable.

Labour is once again campaigning for the votes of people who don’t have rocks for brains.

No comparison in substandard housing

The hypocrisy of the right wing concerning substandard accommodation couldn’t be more apparent this week. Happy to try and take the focus off of their Todd Barclay problem, the right wing propagandists are clearly overreacting to Labour’s voluntary overseas student's controversy.

Take the ever-deluded David Farrar for instance. Remaining silent about the Nation story last Saturday concerning the terrible rat infested dumps Kiwi’s are being charged the earth to live in, Farrar still has the gall to get on his high horse and have a go at Labour about substandard accommodation.

Yesterday, David Farrar wrote:

Labour’s foreign campaign workers put up in sub-standard accommodation

So Labour has turned into a landlord putting people up in crowded and unsanitary conditions at the same time they demand all other landlords meet a WOF standard and camoaign against over-crowded accomodation.

Today, Radio NZ reported the marae's response:

Awataha Marae rejects 'substandard' housings claim

The marae housing Labour's international interns is not substandard, Trust bosses say, while local Māori say they have been fighting for access to the marae for years.

About 90 interns were invited to New Zealand to work on voter enrolment, and were based at Awataha marae on the North Shore where they were staying for free.

Awataha Marae is pretty new and although the accomodation is basic, it isn't substandard. When you look at the conditions of some boarding houses with those at the marae, there is obviously no comparison.

Here is a photo of the apparently “crowded and unsanitary conditions” at Awataha Marae:

... And here's a couple of photos of a boarding house that the National led government through their austerity and the Auckland City Council through their mismanagement has allowed to let fester:

Just goes to show how biased and conceited the right wing really are.

Why doesn't Len Brown grow a pair?

Anybody who has had dealings with Councils in New Zealand is likely aware that they’re not to be trusted. Instead of using ratepayers’ money to benefit their communities, most sitting members are simply there to feather their own nests.

The corruption within such institutions is difficult to expose, especially because there's no inclination by central government to clean things up. This lack of integrity and publicity means insider dealings and palm greasing is a prevailing occurrence, which anybody who has scratched the surface is likely all too aware of.

That appears to be the case concerning the Auckland Council and their continued failure to properly administer ratepayer’s investment in the Ports of Auckland.

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Port presses on with extensions

Mayor takes a ‘relaxed approach’ to work, but opponents say the company is arrogant and insubordinate.

Last night Mayor Len Brown was taking a relaxed approach to the work at the port, saying a council request to halt work was still under consideration.

"Until a decision is made, we understand that some work will continue in line with contracts that the port company has in place with construction companies," said Mr Brown.

Mr Hawkins said work was proceeding while the company sought clarification on a couple of issues in a letter from Auckland Council Investments Ltd (ACIL).

The council has written to ACIL, who in turn has passed on the message to the ports to halt works on the wharf extensions until a wide-ranging study of the port is done.

"Our obligations under the Companies Act are a different set of obligations they [ACIL] have got and there is quite a debate in terms of how those obligations fall on us," Mr Hawkins said.

Firstly, it seems a bit far-fetched that the Auckland Council is claiming that they weren’t aware of the plan to expand the port. The contract between the Council, ACIL and POAL specifically states that the Council must be notified about any such developments.

Either POAL failed to properly adhere to the terms and conditions of their employment or the Council is telling lies! On one hand we have grandstanding Councillor’s saying that POAL should be fired, in essence trying to distance themselves from the mess, and on the other we have a feckless Mayor saying he now doesn’t really give a shit!

What I would like to know is why doesn’t Len Brown just grow a pair? Fire the POAL and start again with a new plan that utilizes a transparent and publicly notified process. Otherwise Auckland's harbour will just end up a big mess, which will cost far more in the long run to fix.

A great lineup @ Stop the GCSB bill public meeting

H/T Bomber Bradbury - The Daily Blog

Citizen A with Selwyn Manning & Chris Trotter

National in denial over SkyCity report

Yesterday, National reported:

Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce today welcomed the release of the report by the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) into the expressions of interest process for an international convention centre in Auckland.

“The report dismisses the Greens’ claim that SkyCity was given an unfair advantage in the bidding process. The OAG makes it clear it has seen nothing to suggest the final decision to negotiate with SkyCity was influenced by any inappropriate considerations,” Mr Joyce says.

Boy that's a relief! We can all sleep better at night now that Steven Joyce says the government did nothing wrong! According to him, the Office of the Auditor-General's report (PDF) says that there was no advantage given to SkyCity... Thank god for that.

However today, the NZ Herald reported:

While the report revealed SkyCity was treated "very differently" to other bidders, Prime Minister John Key said it "utterly refuted" allegations his Government had struck a "cosy deal" with SkyCity. He blamed officials for "a few procedural matters" but said there was "nothing of substance that would have changed any of the outcomes".

The process problems identified by Deputy Auditor-General Phillippa Smith emerged in the report from the time the Prime Minister - also Tourism Minister - became personally involved. In August 2009, Mr Key told officials to halt a scoping project on a convention centre proposal to "close off the SkyCity angle". He later explained he had a "broad awareness" SkyCity had development plans.

Mr Key's understanding of the casino's desire for development followed a meeting between himself and SkyCity executives although neither Mr Key or the casino "can recall the discussion" on May 14, 2009. There was also a later meeting between the casino and the Prime Minister's chief of staff Wayne Eagleson on June 17, 2009, at which development was discussed.

So John Key has failed to provide the Auditor General with all the relevant details, once again using plausible deniability to get himself off the hook.

After the PM halted the scoping project, SkyCity met the PM's senior advisers in September 2009 who said they wanted changes to the Gambling Act which had previously stymied the casino's expansion plans by limiting the number of pokies and other games allowed.

Then Mr Key was briefed on options for the convention centre at a dinner with SkyCity board members and executives on November 4, 2009. He urged them to "think outside the box".

As the casino and Beehive moved closer together, Treasury began raising concerns about "process and probity".

Ms Smith said: "We have concerns about the apparent readiness of officials to support those discussions developing into more substantive negotiations without preparing to give advice on the Government's procedural obligations and options."

Warnings about process were conveyed to Mr Key in a briefing note on November 12, 2009.

In 2010, the Government began calling for an expression of interest from groups wanting the contract. At a meeting with officials, Mr Key said the SkyCity deal was "a good proposal".

However Ms Smith said the process "fell short of good practice in a number of respects". That included the fact ministers and officials continued to have contact with SkyCity to discuss its proposal.

Ms Smith said these meetings were "not appropriate" as it provided SkyCity with information other bidders did not receive. She also said the casino had the advantage in knowing the Government didn't plan on putting any money into the project, allowing it to shape its offer.

Clearly National and John Key in particular gave an unfair advantage to SkyCity by informing them of specific information that led to them winning the bidding process. That unfair advantage seems to have developed from a cozy relationship and what amounts to a conflict of interest.

The press release by Joyce and the previous claims by Key that there was nothing amiss while the report clearly confirms the Greens suspicions that SkyCity was given an unfair advantage are glaringly obvious contradictions.

With consideration to the way in which SkyCity was awarded the contract and that there's a lack of strong economic evidence for it, allowing the convention centre to go ahead would simply be wrong! But try telling John Key that.



100% comfortable? Don't make me laugh!

Today, the Listener reported on a few bits of the OAG report that shouldn't be ignored:

1. “We found a range of deficiencies in the advice provided and steps taken leading up to [the] decision.”

2. “Although decisions were made on the merits of the different proposals, we do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even handed.”

3. “By the time it was expected that SkyCity would put a firm proposal to the Government for support, officials should have been working to understand and advise on the procedural obligations and principles that would need to govern the next steps. We found no evidence that officials were doing so at this stage.”

4. “The meetings and discussion between the Government representatives and SkyCity were materially different in quantity and kind from those between the Government and the other parties that responded.”

5. “SkyCity was treated very differently from the other parties that responded and the evaluation process effectively moved into a different phase with one party. In our view, the steps that were taken were not consistent with good practice principles of transparency and fairness.”

6. “Overall, we regard the EOI [expressions of interest] process in stage two as having been poorly planned and executed. Insufficient attention was given to planning and management of the process as a whole, so that risks were not adequately addressed and managed.”

7. “We did not see any evidence of formal discussions or decisions on the evaluation process and criteria, or mapping out of the basic options for what might happen next, or advice to Ministers on how the process would be managed and their involvement in it. We do not regard this as adequate for a project of this potential scale, complexity, and risk.”

8. “We have concluded that the preparation for the EOI process and the EOI document, fell short of good practice in a number of respects.”

9. “In our view, the result was that one potential submitter had a clearer understanding of the actual position on a critical issue – that the Government did not want to fund any capital costs – than any other potential submitters … We accept that it is unlikely that this flaw made a material difference to the outcome. However, we have spent some time discussing it because we regard it as symptomatic of the lack of attention to procedural risks, and therefore to the fairness and credibility of the process.”

10. “We are unable to comment on the value of any contribution the Government might make as part of any eventual agreement with SkyCity, because negotiations have not yet been concluded.”

Here's a part of the Auditor General's summary:

Given this complexity, we were surprised to find that there was no documented analysis or advice on the process that needed to be followed from a procurement perspective, or any systematic consideration of the relevant principles and obligations that should guide the steps taken. In our view, those involved had a strong focus on the need to manage the difficult relationship between the commercial issues and the policy and political decisions that were needed, but too little focus on the disciplines that should govern commercial decision-making in the public sector.

The reason proper process wasn't followed is because Key had already made up his mind to award SkyCity the deal... There was therefore no reason for the Government to be disciplined in their decision making process. However the use of public money and changing our laws to suit private business interests should always be undertaken with the utmost care.

In my opinion, there were inappropriate considerations made by the Prime Minister because he had given SkyCity an advantage no other bidder's were offered, and that advantage leading to the contract being awarded to SkyCity is obviously highly inappropriate.

Couple those undeniable facts with the detrimental changes to New Zealand legislation demanded by SkyCity and one has to conclude that the wheels are falling off Keys plan for a gambling mecca in Auckland... National and their supporters seem to be the only ones who haven't noticed.

John Banks guilty as sin

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

John Banks' mayoral campaign team drew up a list of 10 rich donors to target for $25,000 each, new police documents show.

And Mr Banks asked mutli-millionaire Kim Dotcom for two payments of that exact amount so that he would not have to declare where they came from, the internet tycoon told police.

[...]

No charges were laid against Mr Banks. Police found that although he had filed a false election return, he hadn't done so deliberately, because he had signed it without reading it.

Mr Banks' electoral return for the 2010 election shows five anonymous payments of $25,000.

So old Banksie knew all along what was in the statement and didn't need to actually read it to know he was breaking the law. Therefore he should have been charged appropriately.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, with the Local Electoral Act 2001 (PDF) stating:

134 False return

(1)Every candidate commits an offence who transmits a return of electoral expenses knowing that it is false in any material particular, and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000.
(2)Every candidate commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 who transmits a return of electoral expenses that is false in any material particular unless the candidate proves—
(a)that he or she had no intention to mis-state or conceal the facts; and
(b)that he or she took all reasonable steps to ensure that the information was accurate.

John Bank's needs to prove that he didn't intend to mis-state or conceal the facts... Merely saying he didn't mean to when everybody knows that's a lie isn't good enough. As we have learnt, his word is worthless!

The onus is on him to prove his innocence in this matter. Clearly he failed to take any reasonable steps to ensure the information was correct, in fact he apparently didn't even bother to read it. No matter, he already knew it contained false information because he had arranged the split donations personally.

Not only is this a flagrant abuse of the law by the contemptible John Banks, it's a travesty of justice because he's not being held to account for his crimes. If John Key fails to act, the "higher ethical standards" he talked about effectively mean nothing, and both National and Act will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no ethical standards at all.

Smart transport for New Zealand

You can sign the Avaaz Generation Zero petition here.

Len Brown needs to act

Today, Auckland Now reports:

The bitterest industrial dispute in years may have fallen out of the headlines, but the distrust between workers and Ports of Auckland management continues.

Union members claim they are being belittled, demeaned and targeted, a claim Ports of Auckland management rejects as overly sensitive.

More than three months after union members returned to work after eight months on the picketline when their collective employment agreement expired, and negotiations became mired in claim and counter-claim, facilitation of the collective is being worked on alongside the Employment Relations Authority.

Maritime Union New Zealand president Garry Parsloe said unease between management and workers continued, and workers had been told not to talk to the media.

''Management is trying to bully people to get what it wants,'' he said.

''We're still trying to get a collective, the men want security, and we haven't got there.''

Parsloe said there had been a large number of disciplinary hearings since workers returned, including for talking too loudly, and making pigeon sounds.

So whatever happened to Len Brown's claim that the Senior Ports staff that leaked private information about an employee would be fired? It would seem that as soon as media attention went off the issue, the mayor has also conveniently forgotten what he promised.

It's now been exactly four months since complaints were laid with the Privacy Commissioner concerning the outrageous breach of privacy. Surely this is far too long to wait and allow those who have undertaken such despicable tactics to remain employed at the port?

In my opinion, they should be stood down pending the Privacy Commissioners findings.

Lotto worse than pokies?

Today, TV3 reported:

SkyCity chief executive Nigel Morrison says Lotto does more harm to society than its Auckland casino.

The main difference between Lotto and SkyCity's pokie machines is the return they provide to communities. While SkyCity only gives 2.5% to a charitable trust, NZ Lotteries distributes 20% of the profits from Lotto to communities throughout New Zealand.

For every dollar spent on Lotto, 56 cents goes towards prizes, 10% goes to the Government as tax, and 7% is the operating budget... which all makes Nigel Morrison full of shit!

He also says SkyCity's desired increase in machines won't result in more problem gambling, because Auckland's public transport system makes getting to the casino problematic.

SkyCity currently has almost 1650 pokies on its premises, and in a deal with the Government, will be allowed to increase that to more than 2000 in exchange for a convention centre.

Auckland has a high-density population and SkyCity also has parking available for problem gamblers who haven't yet lost their vehicles yet. Some low-decile communities that have terrible issues as a result of problem gambling don't have public transport at all.

So Morrison's argument that Auckland's inadequate transport system will reduce the amount of people using SkyCity's pokie machines is defunct. However there is one thing he gets half right:

"There is no doubt the incidence of harm is through pokie machines in the community, scattered throughout the community," says Mr Morrison.

Being that young people growing up in poorer areas have 6 times as many pokie machines available than a young person in a well off community, and each machine is shown to cause at least one problem gambler, deprived areas are more adversely affected.

There is a disproportionate amount of gambling machines in poorer areas, but pound for pound, SkyCities pokies are more of a problem. That's because the bet limit at SkyCity is greater than clubs and bars (which return 37% of profits back to communities), thus SkyCity attracts more problem gamblers.

Morrison obviously doesn't let reality get in the way of a good fairytale:

"The incidence of harm cited from Lotto is greater than that from pokie machines in casinos. Getting those facts across is difficult."

Getting the "facts" across would be a lot less difficult if Morrison wasn't blatantly lying. According to a Problem Gambling Foundation report (PDF):

Pokie machines are the most harmful form of gambling as 77% - 85% of problem gamblers use them as their primary mode of gambling.

These findings are from a report (PDF) conducted by the Ministry of Health so can be considered correct. I wonder what report Morrison is reading? Talking such obvious crap isn't going to help his cause much.

In defence of Jafas

I'm not sure why I torture myself sometimes by reading rightwing blogs of very little relevance. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

My self flagellation for today was in reading a rather large post (1040 words) by deluded rightwing stalwart Karl du Fresne, who waffled on with some of the worst parochial rubbish I've ever had the displeasure of reading:

For years I refused to indulge in the anti-Auckland prejudice commonly encountered south of the Bombay Hill. Those tiresome “Wellington is better” (or Christchurch, or Dunedin) arguments struck me as puerile and parochial. Eager to demonstrate my broad-mindedness, I argued that every New Zealand city had its virtues and Auckland was no exception.

I now realise I’ve failed to convince even myself. It’s hard to pinpoint the reason, still less articulate it, but every time I go to Auckland I like it less. My wife and I couldn’t get away soon enough after the latest trip.

The best way I can describe it is to say that Auckland seems a city without a heart – both literally and metaphorically.

du Fresne says he cannot articulate his reasons for not liking Auckland and then schizophrenically does just that. He's obviously trying to be controversial for the sake of controversy, which invariably results in crap articles. Auckland: a city without a heart is no exception to that rule.

Literally speaking, Queen Street is supposed to be the city’s heart; there’s even a business promotion organisation called Heart of the City. But Auckland’s heart, if that’s what it is, is barely beating. Despite the $50 million reportedly spent in recent years trying to tart it up, Queen St looks tired to the point of seeming almost moribund.

Well firstly, who was the idiot that said Queen Street is the heart of Auckland City? Saying Queen is the heart of Auckland instead of (for arguments sake) K Road is like saying Jervois Quay is the heart of Wellington City instead of Cuba Street or Courtney Place etc.

As a middle aged, middle classed and deluded male clearly experiencing a midlife crisis, du Fresne obviously has not experienced all that Auckland has to offer. His sterile opinion is a result of ignorance and prudishness, or perhaps he's just a little homesick for the backblocks.

There’s not so much as a faint spark of the energy and vibrancy that once made it a shoppers’ mecca. It looks and feels like a street in terminal decline. Even that doughty old department store Smith and Caughey – Auckland’s equivalent of Wellington’s Kirkcaldie and Stains or Ballantyne’s in Christchurch – seems to have given up the ghost.

In one sentence du Fresne talks about the heart of Auckland, and then he talks about malls. He completely ignores the fact that an article about the heart of a city should include its music venues, art galleries, restaurants and cafe's.

Not to mention theatres, parades and the night life, which incidental to the article, Auckland has an abundance of. But does he mention any of these... No! That's like trying to make an omelette without breaking eggs... and speaking of eggs:

Downtown Auckland gives the impression of having been gripped by the same disease I’ve seen in American and Australian cities: shoppers have abandoned it, either for fashionable inner-suburban Newmarket or for bland, lookalike suburban malls such as South Auckland’s Sylvia Park (a place that manages to be even duller than its name suggests).

Wow! In researching his article, du Fresne managed to visit Sylvia Park mall. The arrogance of this right-winger is simply unbelievable! He pretentiously waffles on about Malls and expects people to take him seriously in an article meant to be about the heart of Auckland.

It appears that du Fresne was blind to the inherent quality of his surroundings while in the city of sails, which is the tenth most livable city in the World.

In fact what he's doing is projecting his own self-loathing through irrelevant experiences onto completely unrelated topics. This is a common mental illness among bigots!

And here’s another thing: Queen St is the Street of Grunge. Most of the people we saw trudging its footpaths looked as if they hadn’t washed for days and were wearing clothes they’d hauled out that morning from a mouldy pile under the bed. After walking among these scrofulous-looking creatures I wondered whether we should check ourselves for fleas.

Really! Aucklander's (who make up around a third of the population) have fleas? The disingenuous du Fresne's higher than thou attitude is a good example of all that's wrong with right wing elitists... and such a blatant generalisation deserves nothing but contempt.

It's not until you get to the comments though that du Fresne reveals exactly why he doesn't like Auckland:

The signage on the main roads in and around Auckland is atrocious. Most signs give directions to specific streets and roads rather than suburbs.

Literally and metaphorically, learn to read a map book you fucking moron!

Slaters leaking backfires

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

The Council of Trade Unions says the Ports of Auckland has admitted leaking personal details about an employee who spoke out against the port.

[...]

Ms Kelly said the letter does not name who was responsible for the leak, but it did state the leak was a response to Mr Walker speaking out publicly against the port.

"They acknowledge they released it. They explain, in their terms, why they released it, and regardless of the fact they clearly agree that it probably breached the Privacy Act, that's implied in the letter. But they don't go on to say that they change, in fact they go on to say that they reserve the right to do it again."

There really wasn't anywhere else that the detailed private information about Cecil Walker could have come from, and in releasing it, PoAL management have scored a very significant own goal. They've also shown everybody what cretins they really are.

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Senior Ports of Auckland staff will "have to go" if they had anything to do with leaking personal details about an employee, a senior council source says.

Mayor Len Brown is deeply concerned about an admission by the ports company that it leaked the confidential employment records of wharfie Cecil Walker to a right-wing blog site.

In a strongly worded statement issued from China, where he is leading a trade delegation, Mr Brown said: "I would be very concerned about any illegal breach of privacy laws in any company owned by Auckland Council, and it is certainly not something I would tolerate.

"It is important we await the outcome of the Privacy Commissioner's investigation before any action is taken."

Yesterday, a senior council source said if the commissioner found that any senior staff or board members were involved in leaking personal information, they would "have to go".

"You can't break the law of the land," the source said.

Well it's about time the Auckland Council stepped up to the plate and tried to sort the mess that PoAL mismanagement has caused. Whether this is all talk or not is yet to be seen, but at least they're making the right noises.

Yesterday, the company refused to answer questions from the Herald about whether any senior staff or board members authorised the leak.

Nor would the company say if any action had been taken against those responsible.

Of course they refused to answer, their jobs are on the line. What a bunch of arrogant overpaid bastards PoAL's senior management is.

Even though they've dropped Slater right in it, he's still refusing to say exactly whom the email tip-off came from. I'm expecting the Privacy Commissioner to rule against the sewer known as whailoil as well as PoAL's senior management. Good job!

Troll and Internet menace Cameron Slater

Councillors to disclose financial interests?

Today, the Dominion Post reported:

Secrecy surrounding the commercial interests of local authority councillors needs to end, the peak body for councils has told the government.

While MPs have a public register of interests, local councillors controlling billions of dollars of assets and paying hundreds of millions of dollars to contractors, are often shielded from public scrutiny by the policies of councils, despite a requirement in the Local Government Act that councils operate "in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner".

[...]

Auckland Council, meanwhile, said privacy laws mean it should not make the register available, even though Manukau City Council, one of the seven amalgamated councils that formed Auckland Council, did have a public register.

In response to a Local Government Official Information Act request, by "anti-corruption activist" Penny Bright, the council's general counsel Wendy Brandon said: "The register will not be released in full in order to protect the privacy of elected members, information that is subject to an obligation of confidence and the commercial position of some elected members."

Disclosure wouldn't be an issue unless some inappropriateness was going on already, and having an open register of financial interests for local authority councillors would certainly curtail any corrupt funding allocation... perhaps why there's so much opposition from certain councils.

Being that ratepayers pay councillor's wages, they're theoretically accountable to the people who employ them. Most employers require disclosure these days, especially where a conflict of interest might impinge on the employee to make the right decisions for the employer.

The argument that privacy laws should mean councillors financial dealings are kept secret simply doesn't cut the mustard. In fact it makes me highly suspicious that personal benefit from being a councillor isn't endemic throughout New Zealand already.

Will Len Brown save face?

On March 8, Auckland Council Investments Limited (ACIL) Chief Executive, Gary Swift said:

Greater labour utilisation formed only part of POAL’s strategy for achieving a better return and it is wrong to assign blame for the current situation on the target, he said. If the target hadn’t been put in the SOI the PoAL board would still be implementing the same strategies.

Personally I don't think that's correct. The industrial dispute between POAL and MUNZ seems to have essentially arisen because Auckland Council required a better return. They allowed ACIL and POAL to undertake whatever changes they thought were required to meet that target.

The Auckland port was in fact already highly profitable, with ACIL able to distribute a 66% higher than budgeted for dividend to Auckland Council in 2011.

ACIL's statement of Intent (PDF) also outlines that they're meant to identify and resolve potential conflicts and keep Auckland Council fully informed of the implications from implementing their long-term strategy in relation to POAL.

Clearly the port was performing better than expected prior to POAL announcing it was going to contract out to try and meet the demand for a 12% return, which is unheard of in the port industry, especially during an economic downturn.

On January 1, a draft copy of the POAL Labour Strategy (PDF) was leaked online, with mediapeopleNZ reporting:

MUNZ National President Garry Parsloe says the document shows POAL management have been pursuing a deliberate strategy of ramping up the current industrial dispute while saying they want to resolve it.

The draft management plan sets out a comprehensive contracting out plan, disparages the ports owners and board of directors, and predetermines there is no intention of seeking a negotiated solution.

"There was never any intention to genuinely negotiate or mediate, there has just been public relations spin and an extreme anti-worker agenda."

POAL did in fact plan to contract out well before collective bargaining commenced in 2011.

They entered negotiations with MUNZ without any actual intention of negotiating in good faith. If you have any doubt that this is the case, here's the Auckland Council 2010/2011 Annual Report (PDF), which states that the POAL Labour Strategy was developed before June 30 2010.

In my opinion, trying to leverage such a huge return has obviously led to the conflict. Being that it's the Auckland Council through ACIL that is demanding a doubling in profits, we can directly attribute blame for the dispute there... and here's the clincher:

To improve the result for 2011/2012 ACIL will be working with the board of POAL to develop a strategic plan which will aim to improve the profitability of the company.

That means ACIL was directly working with POAL on the Labour strategy that has caused all the problems... and through a legislative requirement ACIL had to inform the Auckland Council of that plan as well.

As Mayor of Auckland, it is reasonable to asume that Len Brown would have known about POAL's intention to disregard the Employment Relations Act (PDF), which states that negotiations must be undertaken in good faith. He has an obligation and the power through ACIL to halt POAL from pursuing their destructive labour strategy, which Judge Travis has somewhat curtailed (PDF) last Tuesday.

Len Brown still has the chance to save face by taking control of the situation and ensuring that the dispute does not continue. At the very least he could request that ACIL revise POAL's Labour strategy... he can even reappoint their board of directors if he wants to.

It's not just POAL that the Auckland Council has a stake in either... they own 50% of Seafuels Ltd., which refuels most cruise ships, commercial and container ships around Auckland, they own half of North Tugz, which provides services to both the oil industry and the general cargo berths at Whangarei and Marsden Point and the Auckland Council also have a 27.5% share of United Containers Ltd., which is a leading shipping container distributor amongst other endeavours in New Zealand and Fiji.

So it's safe to say that the Auckland Council is heavily invested in the sector. You can therefore see why they're not intervening in the POAL vs MUNZ dispute... because they will directly benefit from a reduction in wages that wont just be confined to the watersiders.

The sad fact of the matter is that it's a cold-hearted calculation; savings over time from reduced wages is greater than the short-term loss from an industrial dispute. Somebody should tell Len Brown that it doesn't make it right though.

Defend the right to protest

PoAL vs MUNZ

The Ports of Auckland industrial dispute has been dragging on for ages now, with any hope of resolution appearing lost in the ideological divide between the waring parties.

On one side we see a push to reduce wages to make the port more profitable with the excuse being that the workers need to be more flexible, and on the other we see a Union determined to protect worker's rights under the Employment Relations Act 2000 (PDF).

So what's the way forward when resolving the issues doesn't fit into what appears to be a pre-defined plan to privatise the port? The answer is to see some real leadership from the Auckland City Council and in particular Mayor Len Brown... who has been conspicuous by his absence.

Len Brown needs to brush aside the rhetoric that's doing nothing to help the two parties resolve the issues. He should disregard the divisive propaganda that has already been categorically disproved. It is time to stop talking around failed political ideology and the PoAL be made to act in the best interest of the port and its majority shareholders: the ratepayers of Auckland.

The Auckland City Council needs to act to ensure a resolution that does not involve destroying a Union, reducing workers remuneration or selling a profitable asset. New Zealand already has a fragile supply chain that cannot be squeezed further by international interests... we simply cannot allow our industries to be exploited by a few unprincipled individuals.

We cannot afford to have the PoAL use the dispute as a reason to privatise at the request of a few politicians hell bent on performing economic harakiri.