Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Len Brown’

New Poll adds to Len Brown’s problems

9 April 2015 1 comment

.

 

goff - auckland council - brown

.

A recent poll has added to Auckland mayor, Len Brown’s problems. Horizon Research recently  revealed that the incumbent, Len Brown, has a serious challenger in the form of current Labour MP, Phil Goff;

Former Labour leader and cabinet minister Phil Goff is a clear front runner in results of a poll on who would receive most current and potential support if they were to run for the Auckland Mayoralty in 2016.

A Horizon Research poll of Auckland Council area residents conducted between 19 and 26 March 2015 finds Mr Goff, the MP for Mt Roskill, has 20% support of all respondents if he were to become a Mayoral candidate.

Former Mayor John Banks has 8% support.

Current Mayor Len Brown has 5%.

Runners-up in the poll were CEO for Auckland Chamber of Commerce, Michael Barnett, at 5%; National MP for Pakuranga, Maurice Williamson at 6%;  current right-wing councillor Cameron Brewer at 5%; and Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse, at 4%.

The poll follows an unscientific NZ Herald on-line survey  reported on 18 March, where 5,000 respondents cast their preferences. Again, Phil Goff was the  preferred candidate;

Phil Goff – 26%

John Banks – 22%

Michael Barnett – 15%

Maurice Williamson – 14%

Penny Hulse – 13%

Len  Brown – 5%

John Palino – 5%

One year ago, on 20 March 2014, the Herald published a more scientific survey which also gave bad news for any future Len Brown mayoral-candidacy.

The results were again less than encouraging for Brown;

Only 22.7 per cent of the people questioned in this month’s poll said they would vote for Mr Brown in the 2016 elections; 57.7 per cent said they would not. The other 20 per cent said they did not know or did not vote in local body elections.

Interestingly, the beneficiary of any anti-Brown voter-sentiment would appear to be another “left-leaning” candidate (Goff), and not his previous electoral rival, John Banks.

Despite his initial conviction, for filing a false electoral return for his failed 2010 mayoral  campaign, being quashed by the Court of Appeal in 2014, public perception of Banks’ lack of judgement may weigh against him for any political come-back. The ex-National MP; ex-ACT MP; and ex-Mayor is seen as too “accident”-prone to be considered a viable alternative to Len Brown.

Banks’ re-trial – set for 6 July this year – is by no means a guarantee that he will be found Not Guilty this time around.

Other right contenders are Maurice Williamson and John Palino – the latter implicated in  dirty dealings with a well-known right-wing blogger who ‘outed’ Brown’s affair with Auckland woman, Bevan Chuang;

.

luigi_wewege_bevan_chuang_and_john_palino_ODT

L-R: Luigi Wewege, Bevan Chuang, and John Palino

 

.

Luige Wewege was closely connected with Palino’s mayoral campaign team. He was, in turn, ‘outed’ by Kiwiblogger, David Farrar, as a liar when Wewege denied in public that he himself had had a close relationship with Ms Chuang.

Wewege and Palino have burnt their political bridges in this country.

Auckland city councillor, Cameron Brewer, has also expressed a willingness to stand on a right-wing ticket. But aside from looking like a minor character who inhabits the comic-book store in the US sitcom, ‘Big Bang Theory‘, it is hard to see what he has going for him. As with Banks, Brown, and Williamson, contenders for a mayoralty require a strong, out-going personality. ‘Nuff said.

Which leaves Maurice Williamson as the most likely  right-wing adversary for a Goff tilt at the Auckland mayoralty.

Despite receiving only 14% support in the unscientific 18 March poll, support for Williamson cannot be under-estimated. His famous “Big Gay Rainbow” speech in Parliament on 17 April 2013  alone must have cemented Williamson as an inspirational beacon of hope for the LGBT community in Auckland.

With a decent campaign team and predictably plentiful donations of cash  from the business sector, Williamson could yet prove a strong adversary for Phil Goff.

One thing is for certain, as the Horizon Poll pointed out, Len Brown’s political career appears to be over;

“Indications are that 65% of ratepayers would not consider voting for Mr Brown if he were to be a candidate.”

It would be interesting to know who commissioned the poll-questioning regarding Auckland’s mayoralty.

The real question for the Left is, would a Phil Goff mayoralty be any better?

If Goff issued any statement on the dispute, I have yet to find it.

It is that silence which I find troubling. And it is not often that I am troubled by a politician’s silence.

 

.


 

References

Horizon Poll:  Brown down, Goff front runner in Mayoralty poll

NZ Herald: Auckland Mayor Len Brown loses backing of top campaign team

NZ Herald: Thumbs down for Len Brown – poll

Fairfax media:  John Banks retrial set for July 6

Fairfax media: The mayor, the love rat and nudity

Kiwiblog: Not in a relationship!

TV3 News: Wewege denies relationship with Chuang

NZ Herald: Cameron Brewer hints at bid as Phil Goff eyes mayoralty

TVNZ News: Williamson’s ‘big, gay rainbow’ speech makes world headlines

Fairfax media: Phil Goff – rebel with applause

NZ Herald: Wharfies supported after ‘disturbing’ lock-out notice

NZ Herald: Port admits leaking worker’s details – union

Other related blogposts

Workers lose their jobs – Day of Shame!

A media release I would love to see from Len Brown

Lies, Boards, and Aucklandports

Lies, Boards, and Aucklandports (#Rua)

10 March – Today was a True Labour Day!

Ratbags, Rightwingers, and other assorted Rogues!

I have seen one future, and it is bleak

National MP admits collusion with bosses to set up strike-breaking law!!

Other blogs

Evening Report: Why Len Brown Should Stand Down and Why Phil Goff Should Stand for the Auckland Mayoralty

Kiwiblog: Mayor Goff?

The Daily Blog: 5 reasons why Goff will run for Auckland Mayor

The Standard: Len Brown’s future

The Standard: Len Brown is toast

Your NZ: Brown eased out, Goff lining up

 

 


 

len brown - john banks - i'm glad i'm not that guy

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 4 April 2015.

.

.

= fs =

Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 10 February 2014

10 February 2014 Leave a comment

.

– Politics on Nine To Noon –

.

– Monday 10 February 2014 –

.

– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –

.

Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,

.

radio-nz-logo-politics-on-nine-to-noon

.

Click to Listen: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams (22′ 58″ )

  • John Key’s meeting with Tony Abbott
  • CER,  Aussie supermarkets boycotting NZ-made goods
  • migration to Australia
  • low wages, minimum wage
  • National Party, Keith Holyoake
  • paid parental leave, Working for Families, Colin Espiner
  • Waitangi Day, Foreshore & Seabed, deep sea oil drilling, Nga Puhi
  • MMP, “coat tailing”, Epsom, Conservative Party, ACT
  • Len Brown, Auckland rail link

.

= fs =

An Open Letter to Len Brown’s Council Critics.

28 December 2013 3 comments

This is an Open Letter to those on Auckland’s City Council – specifically those right wing Councillors who are now ‘gunning’ for Len Brown’s resignation. I refer to Councillors Dick Quax, Cameron Brewer, Christine Fletcher – though others should take note as well.

Are you purer than virgin snow?

Holier than the Pope?

More innocent than a newborn lamb?

I hope so.

Because just  in case it may have escaped your attention, politics in this country just got a whole lot dirtier and smellier.

It may have started with the so-called “expose” by the Sultan of Sleaze, Cameron Slater, and aided and abetted by others connected to the Polino mayoral campaign-camp (John Slater, Luigi Wewege, et al) – but certain right-wing Councillors have ramped up the temperature to white-heat by demanding Brown’s resignation.

All because Mayor Len Brown wasn’t found guilty of mis-using Council funds – he was found “guilty” of not declaring free hotel rooms and free hotel room upgrades.

Big whoopty-doos.

Brown is guilty of gross stupidity – especially for accepting freebies from SkyCity – but these are not offences demanding a resignation and a million dollar mayoral by-election.

If Aucklanders want to waste a million bucks on a needless by-election, then they have been spending too much time on their motorways breathing in mind-altering engine fumes.

But back to my point.

Quax, Brewer, et al, need to be 100% that they themselves have led blameless careers whilst in local body politics.

Have they declared everything?

Evidently not.

Cr  Brewer – one of Brown’s staunchest critics – seems to have been caught out as well,

.

mayor's critic didn't declare trip - 2012.2013

Source

.

If Brown goes – Brewer must resign as well. No ifs or buts. Just p*ss of.

And to the remaining opponants to Len Brown – you are all on notice. Your actions from now on will be under a microscope and every blogger in this country will keenly scrutinising your actions.

If you so much as spit on the footpath, we’ll know.

You better make sure every donation is scrupulously recorded; every allowance legally claimed; every freebie faithfully registered; every action fully justifiable.

Because a million eyes will be watching. And we’ll know.

And not just left wing bloggers either. There are even Right Wing bloggers like David Farrar who take a dim view of liars,

.

Kiwiblog - not in a relationship

Source

.

(Kudos to David Farrar for taking a principled stand on this issue.)

So let’s hope that Brown’s detractors sitting around the Auckland Council table are squeaky clean and, like Caesar’s wife, are above suspicion.

The bar has been raised.

Expectations are now higher.

And precedent has been established.

So, behave yourselves.

We’ll be watching.

.

*

.

Postscript

A note to Len Brown.

Dear gods, let this be an end to it.

The next time you F**K up, it won’t be Quax, Brewer, Slater, et al, calling for your arse to be chucked out – it will be left wing bloggers. And we will be even more relentless and merciless.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 21 December 2013.

.

*

.

References

Radio NZ:  Mayor’s critic didn’t declare trip

Kiwiblog: Not in a relationship!

Counterpoint View

The Daily Blog: Len Old Friend: This Is Why You Must Stand Down

The Dim Post: Thinking my way through the whole Len Brown thing

Additional

The Standard: Ernst and Young should investigate Cameron Brewer

The Daily Blog: Cough-cough, so doesn’t this kinda make Cameron Brewer a smug hypocrite?

.

.

= fs =

According to David Farrar, John Key must resign!

26 December 2013 3 comments

.

"He's a witch! Burn him! Burn him!" "How do you know he's a witch, peasants?" "Cos the EY Report said so!" "No it didn't peasants. It only said he got free hotel room upgrades." "Close enough!!  Burn him!"

“He’s a witch! Burn him! Burn him!”
“How do you know he’s a witch, peasants?”
“Cos the EY Report said so!”
“No, it didn’t, peasants. It only said he got free hotel room upgrades.”
“Close enough!! Burn him!”

.

With the release of the Ernst Young  Independent report commissioned by the Auckland Council Chief Executive, National Party pollster and one-time employee, David Farrar, has (unsurprisingly) called for Auckland mayor Len Brown’s immediate resignation.

As Farrar wrote in the NBR* on 13 December,

Having now read the EY report commissioned by the Auckland Council Chief Executive, I believe Len Brown must resign as Mayor of Auckland. I only formed this view after reading the report, and did not believe what had previously been disclosed was substantial enough to warrant resignation.

But the report makes Clear that Len Brown publicly lied to the media and the public, and also that there were ratepayer resources used for his affair.”

Taking the last point (using ratepayer resources) as a rationale – Farrar is referring to the 1,375 phone calls and txt messages (Point #1)  between Len Brown and Bevan Chuang.

The report acknowledges that “Personal use of mobile phones is permitted by the Elected Members Technology Policy and Guidelines” (but must be reimbursed by the elected member).

Brown made a reimbursement payment of $263 last year (2012).

The report referred to Ms Chuang “attending several functions as the mayor’s translator” (point #2). No ratepayer funds were paid to her.

There is mention made of the mayor receiving an iPad as a gift. That was later auctioned for charity (point #7)

There is mention of a dinner with a personal friend (point #8) – in 2011 – paid by Council.

2011?! The Review went trawling that far back into the past?

Indeed, the report made several findings, some of which I repost in full;

9. We have not identified any instances where council funds were used to pay for gifts given by the mayor to Ms Chuang.
10.The content of council emails we reviewed between the mayor and Ms Chuang were of a council related business nature.
11. Our review of Mayoral Office expenditure did not identify any expenses incurred by council (either directly by the mayor or his immediate support team) that related to the mayor’srelationship with Ms Chuang.
12. We did not identify any improper preferential treatment by the mayor in relation to Ms Chuang’s appointment to the EPAP, New Lynn Night market, Howick Local Board contractsand Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (“ATEED”) services.      
13. We did not identify any instances where Ms Chuang accompanied the mayor on any domestic or international travel.
14. We have not identified any private use of hotels by the mayor that were paid for using council resource.

That’s an awful lot of  “we did not identify blah-blahs“…

The  report referred to free hotel room upgrades – none of which actually cost the rate-payer a single cent (despite what Campbell Live inferred on 17 December).

The word that springs to mind for most of this report is – a witch hunt.

And it appears that even right-wing commentator, Matthew Hooton came to the same conclusion on Radio NZ on 16 December (listen:  Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams )

Hooton understands the nasty implications of this witch hunt and dodgy report; the same standard of nit-picking and guilt-by-innuendo can be levelled at every single political figure, of whatever political hue.

We should understand one simple fact; not one human being is perfect. Everyone – everyone – will stuff up, eventually. It is a given.

Don’t expect flawless actions from our elected representatives. We will  be disappointed.

However, I referred to most of this report  being a witch hunt.

There is an exception. Brown’s acceptance of free hotel upgrades from SkyCity was most unwise. In fact, I call it downright dumb.

Is it a “hanging offence” though? No, not quite.

But to accept freebies from a corporation that is currently attempting to gain financial and legislative benefits from central government, in a dodgy deal involving promises of  a “free” convention centre, suggests to me that Brown’s political acumen is badly lacking.

It suggests to me that he will keep screwing up because he has little concept of consequences.

Returning to right-wing blogger; National Party activist*; and one-time employee for various National ministers*, David Farrar – where does he get off demanding,

But the report makes Clear that Len Brown publicly lied to the media and the public […]  I believe Len Brown must resign as Mayor of Auckland…

If the standard for resignation is now set at “publicly [lying] to the media and the public“, then we should start at the top: John Key.

Let’s look at his most latest blatant lie.

On 13 December, Fairfax media reported this statement from Dear Leader Key,

“… I can assure [Labour leader David] Cunliffe the books are in tip-top condition – that is the polar opposite position to what they were in when we became the Government. But in the last five years we’ve worked hard to turn them around… “

Source

That was a lie.

When National took office in 2008, Labour had paid down this country’s debt, as this simple Treasury graph shows quite clearly,

.

Source

.

Net debt was reduced from 20% of GDP to 5.6% by 2008.

Even Key admitted this in July 2012,

The level of public debt in New Zealand was $8 billion when National came into office in 2008.  It’s now $53 billion, and it’s forecast to rise to $72 billion in 2016….”

Source

And on 9 December on TVNZ’s ‘Breakfast’ programme, when he was interviewed on the problem of growing child poverty in New Zealand, he said this (at 2.45);

If you go back to 2005, when the previous government were in office, they had a number, you know, a little bit less than ours, but not a lot less, there was a 180,000 children in poverty, I think this shows 240,000 on that measure.

Back then, New Zealand recorded the biggest surplus in New Zealand’s history...”

Source

Not only did the previous Labour government pay down our debt (which had been created by National in the 1990s), but then Finance Minister Michael Cullen posted some fairly impressive surpluses,

.

Source

.

For more information on the state of the economy under Labour’s watch, refer to this previous blogpost.

So Key and his National mates inherited a pretty well-run economy by November 2008 – just as the Global Financial Crisis was beginning to be felt in this country.

Comments such as  “under the last Labour Government the economy got way out of balance” are patently dishonest and a downright lie (source).

We have heard many such throwaway lines from Key, English, and other National ministers as they (a) try to discredit the former Labour Government’s creditable performance (b) blame their own fiscal mismanagement and shortcomings on their predecessor.

So when will Farrar be calling on Key to resign for lying to the media and public?

Short answer: never.

National doesn’t do Taking Responsibility very well. But oh boy, don’t they expect it from the rest of us?!

.

*

.

(* Interestingly, the NBR makes no reference whatsoever to Farrar’s close National Party links.)

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 19 December 2013.

.

*

.

Sources

John Key: Statement to Parliament 2011

Treasury: Debt

Trading Economics: Cash surplus/deficit (% of GDP) in New Zealand

TVNZ: Breakfast Show (9 Dec 2013)

National Business Review:  OPINION – Brown must resign (13 Dec 2013)

Fairfax:  Two-thirds of voters oppose asset sales (13 Dec 2013)

Previous related blogpost

Labour: the Economic Record 2000 – 2008

National’s disdain for taking responsibility

Taking responsibility, National-style

Hat-tip

Martyn Bradbury: Why I don’t care about Len Brown’s audit (13 Dec 2013)

.

.

= fs =

Letter to the Editor: Will Cameron Brewer Resign?

21 December 2013 3 comments

.

old-paper-with-quill-pen-vector_34-14879

.

FROM:    "f.macskasy" 
SUBJECT: Letters to the editor
DATE:    Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:14:20 +1300
TO:      NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz >

.

The Editor
NZ Herald

.

Revelations that Cr Cameron Brewer has also failed to
declare his free air travel and free accomodation  on a
junket to Australia (gifted by MediaWorks) raises more
questions,

1. Will he resign as he has been calling for Mayor Len Brown
to step down? Or is this an example of  separate rules?

2. What other gifts has he accepted that he has not
disclosed? Will their be an Inquiry into this matter and
will he pay for it?

3. Why has Cr Dick Quax not completed his 2012 Declaration
of Interests, as all Councillors are required to do so? What
free gifts has he received that he has not disclosed?

That's the thing with witch hunts - they take on a life of
their own, and there's no way of telling where they'll end
up.

-Frank Macskasy
(address & phone number supplied)

 

.

*

.

References

Radio NZ: Auckland Mayor Len Brown censured in council meeting

Radio NZ: Mayor’s critic didn’t declare trip

Ernst & Young: Independent Review Commissioned by the Auckland Chief Executive

Previous Related Blogposts

The Daily Blog:  An Open Letter to Len Brown’s Council Critics

The Daily Blog: According to David Farrar, John Key must resign!

Counterpoint View

The Daily Blog: Len Old Friend: This Is Why You Must Stand Down

The Dim Post: Thinking my way through the whole Len Brown thing

Additional

Kiwiblog: Not in a relationship!

 

 

 

.

.

= fs =

Photo of anti-Brown protestors…

19 December 2013 2 comments

.

A pic of the protest “crowd” that harassed Len Brown yesterday (18 December),

 

.

anti Brown protestors

.

Wow. I can count all of… eight people?!

Not quite the 50,000 who protested against National’s plans to mine DoC’s Schedule 4 lands, or the 5,o0o who protested against state asset sales…

Hint to Brown’s political  detractors, if you’re going to mount a witch hunt, it should look something like this,

.

village mob

 

.

That’s how you do it. (Though you might need resource consent for the torches.)

New Zealand – we do moral panic very well.

.

*

.

Acknowledgement for photo: The Daily Blog

.

.

= fs =

Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 16 December 2013

16 December 2013 2 comments

.

– Politics on Nine To Noon –

.

– Monday 16 December 2013 –

.

– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –

.

Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,

.

radio-nz-logo-politics-on-nine-to-noon

.

Click to Listen: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams ( 22′ 37″  )

This week:

  • Len Brown

Listen to Matthew Hooton’s surprising analysis of Len Brown’s hotel room upgrades.

  • Paula Rebstock and the MFAT Inquiry
  • Asset sales referendum
  • Christine Rankin vs Paula Bennett

en Brow.

.

= fs =

Random Thoughts on Random Things #2…

21 October 2013 3 comments

.

 

John Palino

.

John Palino. Cameron Slater. John Slater.

That’s quite a nasty, toxic little clique that Ms Chuang has gotten herself mixed up with.

What’s that old saying about supping with the devil? (Or his three mortal minions, for that matter.)

And does Slater’s nasty little tabloid trash mean that it is now open season on all right wing politicians and their own sordid little affairs?

If I was a National MP or Minister, I would be ruing the day Slater published his dirty little story on Len Brown and Bevan Chuang. Because now they are now all legitimate targets for left-wing bloggers. Is the House of National (and Slater, for that matter) purer than snow?

We shall see.

As for Ms Chuang – none of those three men (Palino, Slater Senior, Slater junior) mean her well.

As The Doctor says to his companions – when faced with nefarious forces of darkness – run!!

.

.

= fs =

Pita Sharples, Spooks, Maggie Barry, and Bully-boy Brownlee

.

Pita Sharples – gone

.

Pita Sharples quits Maori Party leadership

Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – Pita Sharples quits Maori Party leadership

.

Pita Sharples has effectively taken responsibility for the Maori Party’s poor showing (third place) at the  recent Ikaroa-Rāwhiti by-election.  That result was an indictment on the Maori Party’s decision to support an increasingly shakey government that is losing support in more accurate polling.

The internal leadership struggles between himself and Te Ururoa Flavell has also taken it’s toll on the 71 year old,

“It’s clear that the leadership issue…has taken a toll on the Maori Party and our people deserve a united Maori Party.”

Acknowledgement: Domninion Post – Sharples quits Maori Party leadership

It’s also something that is focusing closer scrutiny upon an increasingly unstable government. The toll thus far;

  • Hekia Parata – lost part of her port-folio. In essence, a partial sacking.
  • Aaron Gilmore – forced to resign from Parliament.
  • John Banks – facing charges in Court. If found guilty, he will hve to resign.
  • Peter Dunne – Party de-registered; lost his ministerial portfolios; and becoming increasingly oppositional to National’s policies.
  • Pita Sharples – standing down as Maori-Party co-leader

An early election this year (or early next year) is becoming more likely with each passing crisis.

Not a good time for National.

.

The spooks have a new Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security…

.

On 1 July, John Key announced that Paul Neazor would be replaced in his role as  Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (for the SIS and GCSB) by former-Judge  Andrew McGechan.

Key says that McGechan’s role will be on an  “interim” basis, instead of the usual three years, as the  GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill is currently being considered  by a Parliament Select Committee.

However, with Peter Dunne wavering on this issue; with mounting public opposition; and god-only-knows which way Winston Peters will jump; the passing of the GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill is by no means guaranteed.

In which case, National has two options remaining,

1.

The office of the Inspector-General must be expanded; properly staffed;  and appropriately funded. At present, the  Inspector-General’s role is a part-time position, with no permanent staffing. Our Inspector General is faced with oversight of two intelligence agencies with a combined staff of around 520. In effect he is out-numbered, out-resourced, and consequently, out-manouvered.

By contrast, our Aussie cuzzy’s  version of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has approximately 20 people working full time for the Inspectorate (see IGIS Annual Report 2011-12  Part three: Management and accountability )

This, I believe is the real problem surrounding our security-intelligence agencies – not the legislation needing “tightening up”.  The legislation is tight enough as it is.

It just needs to be obeyed.

2.

The Labour Party’s call for a full public commission of inquiry on this matter cannot be ignored any longer.  If Key wants cross-party support and public buy-in to secuirity/intelligence issues, then it must be open to all political parties and the public to contribute to the debate.

As matters stand now, if National forces through  unpopular, undemocratic,  and ultimately counter-productive laws – an incoming government will be bound to amend or repeal it entirely. This is grossly wasteful use of the Parliamentary process and taxpayer’s money.

This blogger hopes that the  GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill is set aside.  Aside from National ministers and a few misguided rightwing bloggers, there is very little support for this proposed legislation.

Additional

Parliament: External oversight of intelligence agencies: a comparison

.

Egg; Face; Maggie Barry

.

Ex-radio host-come-National politician – known for her acerbic and often nasty tongue in Parliament’s debating chamber – has copious amounts of egg on her face.

Ever the loyal, obedient National Party foot-soldier for towing the OPL (Official Party Line), she loudly parroted her party’s opposition to the Auckland rail link. She expressed her “well wishes” to  Len Brown after he won the 2010 Mayoralty race with this graceless message,

The morning after National’s resounding victory she sent a strong message to Auckland mayor Len Brown, saying there would be a CBD rail link before a second harbour crossing “over our dead bodies”.

Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – Maggie Barry’s line in sand

Charming.

But political Karma being what it is,  National’s change of heart on this issue had made her look foolish. Her senior fellow politicians have now endorsed Len Brown and Auckland Council’s plans for the Auckland rail link,

.

Auckland Mayor celebrates Government's agreement to support rail loop

Acknowledgement: Interest.co.nz – Auckland Mayor celebrates Government’s agreement to support rail loop

.

Ms Barry, not quite bringing herself able to tow the new OPL, endorsed only certain  aspects of Auckland Council’s transport plans,

North Shore National MP Maggie Barry said there was a “flurry of excitement” about the suggestion the North Shore could get another link to the city.

“It is essential and long overdue, and it would make a phenomenal difference to the North Shore.”

Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Key to give Auckland a crossing

I suspect there’s enough egg on Ms Barry’s face to cook up a decent size omelette.

.

Bully-boy Brownlee

.

Not content with creating the Auckland super city without first putting it to Auckland ratepayers through a referendum

Not content with pushing more laws through Parliament under “Urgency” than probably any other government in New Zealand’s history…

Not content with dis-establishing Environment Canterbury in March 2010; replacing it with un-elected Commissioners; whose decisions cannot be appealed to the Environment Court…

Not content with usurping the authority of the Christchurch City Council with the creation of CERA…

Not content with being given sweeping political power in the Christchurch re-build, via the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act which  effectively gives unbridled power to National Ministers  for five years…

Not content with expanding the surveillance powers of the GCSB, where no one will be safe from being spied upon by the State…

Not content with moving to take control of Christchurch

Gerry Brownlee is now putting none-too-subtle pressure on Auckland City to sell its assets to help pay for the Auckland rail loop,

.

City's shares eyed for rail

Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – City’s shares eyed for rail

.

Acting more reminiscent of a feudal Baron ruling over his fiefdom, Brownlee is treating Mayor Len Brown as a vassal, forcing Auckland City to obey National’s diktats.

I wonder what Aucklanders think of this kind of high-handed Ministerial control being exerted over their city – all the way from Wellington?

It must be demeaning for Aucklanders to realise that their elected local representatives are being treated like puppets, and that real power is being exerted from the Beehive?

So much for the quaint notion of democracy.

So much for Aucklanders being in charge of their own destiny.

So much for the  “partnership” that our mendacious Prime Minister promised, three years ago,

The Government will work in partnership with the new Auckland council to improve the city’s transport systems, Prime Minister John Key says.

He said today the Government shared Mayor Len Brown’s vision of getting Auckland moving and it was a government priority as well.

“The Government will work in partnership with the new Auckland City Council on what comes next, and contribute its fair share to the continuing goal of improving transport,” Mr Key said at his post-cabinet press conference.

Acknowledgement : NZ Herald – Govt will work with council on Auckland’s transport

Having a Minister of the Crown attempting to bully Auckland to sell it’s assets in not a “partnership”.  And just because National has engaged in an act of wilful economic sabotage by it’s agenda of partial asset-sales – is no reason to expect others to follow that lunatic policy.

Gerry Brownlee should take note. He is playing with political fire, and a million votes in Auckland may come raining down on his (and other National MPs’) head.

If I know Kiwis as well as I think I do, they will not take kindly to being bossed around. (The Americans found this out, to their cost, when the Lange-led Labour government passed our nuclear-free legislation.)

How much does Brownlee really want to piss that many voters off?

Tread carefully, bully-boy.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 3 July 2013.

.

.

= fs =

Citizen A: With Martyn Bradbury, Julie Fairey and Keith Locke

– Citizen A –

– 27 June 2013 –

– Julie Fairey & Keith Locke –

This week on Citizen A host Martyn Bradbury, Julie Fairey & Keith Locke debate the following issues:

Issue 1: Poll Dive for David Shearer. Does this latest Herald Digi-Poll scare Labour’s caucus into reconsidering Shearer as leader?

Issue 2: Would a NZ First backed GCSB bill be the worst outcome for New Zealand?

Issue 3: And what did Auckland mayor Len Brown give away to get the support of this National-led Government?

Citizen A screens on Face TV, 7.30pm Thursday nights on Sky 89


.

*

.

Acknowledgement (republished with kind permission)

The Daily Blog

.

.

= fs =

Citizen A – Susan Devoy; Nick Smith; Len Brown; and DoC job losses – 28 March 2013

30 March 2013 1 comment

.

– Citizen A –

.

– 28 March 2013 –

.

– Marama Davidson & Efeso Collins –

.

.

Issue 1: Is Dame Susan Devoy’s appointment as Race Relations Commissioner a step forwards or backwards for Race Relations in NZ?

Issue 2: Do Nick Smith or Len Brown have any affordable housing options for the poor?

and Issue 3: Why must we be burning DoC to save DoC?

Citizen A screens on Face TV, 7.30pm Thursday nights on Sky 89


.

*

.

Acknowledgement (republished with kind permission)

Martyn Bradbury

.

.

= fs =

Citizen A – 21 June 2012 – Online now!

.

Citizen A

.

– 21 June 2012 –

.

–  Efeso Collins & Phoebe Fletcher –

.

.

Issue 1 : The Pacific Island communities marched up queen street last week in protest – what are their concerns and does NZ give the Pacific Island community enough political and cultural voice?

Issue 2: The Ports of Auckland dispute has been settled, but are there still moves to sell and move the Port? Should Local Councils be privatizing their assets?

Issue 3: Len Brown has organized a new task force to look into the drinking culture – what should he be doing?

.

Acknowledgement (republished with kind permission)

Tumeke

.

.

= fs =

ACC. Skycity. NZ Superannuation. What is the connection?

5 April 2012 3 comments

|

ACC. NZ Super. Skycity.

|

|

= 1 =

|

News tonight that Skycity donated $15,000 to Len Brown’s mayoral electoral fund in 2010, has rightly shocked many people.  John Banks, MP for Epsom, has reportedly received a similar amount  as a donation for his campaign.

See: Banks accused of undeclared donation

Whilst there is no suggestion, implication, or slightest hint at impropriety on either men’s part, it raises questions as to how far Sky City’s ‘tendrils’ reach.

A $15,000 donation to the Mayor of Auckland and to an Auckland MP raises eyebrows and is cause for concern.

This is important as Skycity is negotiating with National to build a new $350 million convention centre – in return for up to 350 to 500 addition gaming tables and pokie machines in Auckland’s casino. We’re talking serious coin here.

See: SkyCity would need at least 350 extra gambling machines for NZ$350 mln convention centre investment to be worth it, Goldman Sachs analyst says

This would require an amendment to existing legislation. It appears that National is seriously considering selling legislative change in return for a convention centre. Comments by Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce and Prime Minister John “Dear Leader” Key confirm suspicions that a deal in in the making,

When we were out announcing that we were doing a deal with Len Brown in Auckland…Len Brown knew as well that it will create 1,000 jobs in its construction, 900 jobs ongoing.” – John Key, 4 April 2012

Of course, no one is really sure what the terms of any “deal”  will involve. The negotiations are all being done in secret. The public is excluded from any possible debate – because we don’t know what is being negotiated by Key & Co.

See: As clear as mud

|

= 2 =

|

Sky City’s involvement in the 2010 mayoral race is not the sole extent of their involvement in New Zealand society and economy.

According to the Companies Office, two government bodies have extensive share-holdings in Sky City,

|

Source

|

Which raises questions regarding why ACC and NZ Super Fund are investing in a company that, essentially, makes it’s profits from vice and causes considerable social problems and human misery with gambling addiction,

  • ACC works with people who have suffered physical and mental injuries, sexual assaults, and other highly stressful events in their lives. ACC legislation contains an ethical investment clause; Section 272/2/i, that “the Corporation’s investment statement, being a statement of policies, standards, and procedures that must include a statement relating to ethical investment for avoiding prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the world community“.
  • NZ Super Fund is also bound by legislation (New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, Section 61/D) to undertake “ethical investment, including policies, standards, or procedures for avoiding prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the world community“.

As well,  ACC is bound by legislation not to engage in activities that might cause injury to people in the community,

Part 7 Accident Compensation Corporation
263 Prevention of personal injury
  • (1) A primary function of the Corporation is to promote measures to reduce the incidence and severity of personal injury, including measures that—

    • (a) create supportive environments that reduce the incidence and severity of personal injury; and
    • (b) strengthen community action to prevent personal injury; and
    • (c) encourage the development of personal skills that prevent personal injury. “

Arguably, gambling addiction  is a considerable social problem in this country. For ACC to be investing in a casino would appear to conflict with both sections 272/2/i and 263/1 of the Act.

There is nothing remotely ethical about investment in gambling. Just as it would be unethical to invest in arms manufacturing, tobacco and alcohol production, or prostitution. Whilst nominally legal, such commercial activities regularly result in death, injury, sickness, abuse, violence, and exploitation.

It seems that New Zealand’s ethical and moral compass is severely skewed when the State – representing ordinary New Zealanders – invests in vice.

The law is being broken, and government is doing nothing about it.

|

* * *

|

Acknowledgement for “tip off” on ACC and NZ Super Fund investments in Sky City

‘Spacemonkey’

Previous Blogposts

John Key has another un-named source???

NZ’s 21st Century Growth Industries – Drugs, Gambling, & Prostitution

Drugs & Gambling – NZ’s 21st Century Growth Industries?

References

Accident Compensation Act 2001

New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001

|

|

= fs =

Right Way the Wrong Way

31 March 2012 1 comment

|

|

= 1 =

|

There is a war for the soul of Auckland.

The declaration for that war may have been made  in October 2010, when Len Brown was elected the first mayor of the new amalgamated supercity. Or in September 2009 when legislation forming the super-city was enacted. Or in November 2008, when ACT MP Rodney Hide – the author of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act – was elected to Parliament.

I call the date today; 30 March 2012, with a media statement released by Christine Fletcher of the so-called “Citizens & Ratepayer (C&R) group,

|

Auckland To Become Unaffordable, Not More Liveable

Thursday, 29 March 2012, 2:18 pm
Press Release: Christine Fletcher

Auckland To Become Unaffordable, Not More Liveable

News that a majority of councillors voted not to include affordability in the context of costs imposed by council for the Auckland Plan will make Auckland unaffordable, said C&R Leader Christine Fletcher, and Cr Cameron Brewer, representing key independent councillors.

“The Mayor has set out a vision for Auckland as most liveable city – but his vision will actually hurt the ability of people, especially those on fixed incomes like the retired to stay in their homes. Already massive rates rises are coming, and future generations of Aucklanders will suffer too. When you add the prospect of higher regulatory fees, toll roads to pay for the Mayor’s rail plans, and user-pays rubbish, it’s going to get very expensive to live in Auckland,” said Cr Brewer.

“We all agree that the Auckland Plan is a far-reaching, profound document for our city. But without the principle of affordability to help guide it, it sends a message that rates and fees will be massively hiked to pay for all the big ideas within. That’s wrong – there are many people who simply can’t afford big rises in rates and fees,” said Cr Fletcher.

“C&R along with key independents proposed an amendment by way of addition that the Auckland Plan does have regard to affordability as a principle. It was defeated 12-9. City Vision, Labour and the left have embarked on a 30 year program of spending, but only providing a 10 year long term plan for budgeting”, said Cr Fletcher.

“It is especially disappointing that Cr Penny Webster, the Chairman of Finance from Rodney District, has abandoned her duties to be fiscally responsible, and voted for this big spending plan without appropriate fiscal prudence. I guess it’s easy for Len Brown to spend billions of dollars when he’s got a Penny in his pocket”, said Cr Fletcher.

.
Councillors who voted to support an affordability principle in the Auckland Plan include:

.

Chris Fletcher (Leader C&R)

George wood (Deputy leader C&R)

Des Morrison (C&R)

Dick Quax (C&R)

Noelene Raffills (C&R)

plus the following independent councillors:

 Cameron Brewer

Calum Penrose

Sharon Stewart

Sir John Walker

ENDS

|

Firstly, a bit about the C&R group.

C&R states on it’s website that they “are not affiliated with any central government political party“.  However a cursory examination of that claim yields some interesting revelations.

Citizens and Ratepayers leadership consists of the following individuals;

Councillor Chris Fletcher, Caucus Leader

Ms Fletcher was an ex-National Party MP, serving three consecutive terms in Parliament, from 1990 to 1999. Ms Fletcher held  Ministerial roles of Local Government, Women’s, Cultural and Youth Affairs

Mark Brickell, President

Mr Brickell served as electorate campaign manager for National MP and Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett, in last year’s general election.

Alastair Bell, Vice President

Mr Bell has been a Board Member of the National Party since 2009, to present. He was a senior advisor to Prime Minister  Jenny Shipley, from  1999 to 2000.

Edgar Henson, Vice President

Mr Henson managed ACT’s election campaign in 2008. He will be attending ACT’s Annual Conference & AGM on 21 April.

Leigh Morrow, Treasurer / Secretary

National Party supporter in last year’s general election, according to this entry on Ms Morrow’s Facebook page,

|

|

Jim Stevens, Corporate Services / Administrator

(No party affiliation found.)

As the above information  shows, C&R is anything but a neutral entity. It is an unofficial arm – a political ‘creature’ – of the National Party. The NZ Herald article, “Ex-National MPs deluging Citizens & Ratepayers card “, also recognised C&R as such.

As for the so-called “independent” Councillors who also appended their name to the 29 March Media Release, above,

Cameron Brewer

Mr Brewer was a one-time National Party candidate for the Tamaki Electorate.

Calum Penrose

Mr Penrose is a centre-right Councillor who endorsed National MP Judith Collins in last year’s election campaign.

Sir John Walker

Sir John Walker is a centre-right Councillor who also endorsed National MP Judith Collins in last year’s election campaign.

|

Why does all this matter?

Because the Media Release issued by C&R on 29 March is the first shot fired in a campaign by right wing city Councillors – many with Party affiliations to National or ACT –  to unseat Len Brown at the next local body elections.

For C&R and their fellow-travellers, the election campaign has begun in earnest, and expect either Christine Fletcher or Cameron Brewer to be nominated as the Right’s mayoral candidate. Expect the coming campaign to be nasty, as Cr Fletcher’s comments indicated,

It is especially disappointing that Cr Penny Webster, the Chairman of Finance from Rodney District, has abandoned her duties to be fiscally responsible, and voted for this big spending plan without appropriate fiscal prudence. I guess it’s easy for Len Brown to spend billions of dollars when he’s got a Penny in his pocket.”

Cr Webster was not impressed, as she made her feelings known in a Radio NZ/Morning Report  interview on 30 March,

|

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/remote-player?id=2514238

|

Cr Cathy Casey – not one to suffer fools or right wingers who bend the truth to suit their hidden agendas, replied on her Facebook page,

This C&R media release yesterday was online yesterday by 2pm while the Governing Body was still in session. It caused mayhem when it was discovered! It must have been written ahead of time therefore the amendment and speeches by Councillor Fletcher and Councillor Cameron Brewer were clear political posturing. Radio NZ has just said it will be reporting on it on Morning Report after 8am this morning.

It was pointed out yesterday to Councillors Fletcher and Brewer that there is already an affordability principle in the Auckland Plan (p.19) “Make the best use of every dollar spent.” It states that we will “act prudently and commit to projects and initiatives that achieve the best value result without compromising quality, affordability, or stifling creativity and innovation. Focus on achieving long-term benefits and intergenerational equity.”

This is party politics of the worst kind! ” – 30 March

It appears that right wingers in Auckland Council are getting up to mischief?

An interesting exchange then took place on Facebook between Cr Casey and at least two C&R members

Cr Cathey Casey:  “ Hi George Wood, You are a member C&R so I presume you signed off this media release?

George Wood:  ” No Cathy, the role of making media releases is delegated to the leader of C&R, Cr Fletcher, and in this case the leader of the independent councillors that work with C&R, Cr Cameron Brewer has also had input to this document. “

Interesting that a nominally “independent” councillor and a de facto National Party councillor are working together on what appears to be very clear stategy.

The FB conversation continued,

Cr Cathy Casey:  ” Hi George, So now that you’ve read it what do you think of the content and the fact that it was sent out of the meeting at 2pm, two hours before we had even completed our deliberations on the Auckland Plan?

At which point another C&R member jumped in, with a rather weak attempt at derision and deflection,

Michael Williams: ” Big deal. Affordability is a huge issue. That’s the point here. Why protest against someone saying that?

Cr Cathy Casey:  ” Hi Michael, You are a member of C&R, are you are saying the process engaged in by Councillors Fletcher and Brewer on your behalf yesterday is kosher? And that it is okay for C&R to publicly malign Councillor Penny Webster?

Williams then responded with the usual “no biggie” approach,

Michael Williams:  ” There’s always a bit of rough and tumble in politics. If we all checked each others press releases nothing would get anything published.   Individual members have to take personal responsibility for what they say in public and how they say it.  As for C&R, we all agree that Affordability is a key issue.

Cr Casey persevered,

Cathy Casey: ” Hi Michael, Maybe I wasn’t clear. Let me try again. As a member of C&R, are you are saying the process engaged in by Councillors Fletcher and Brewer on your behalf yesterday is kosher? YES or NO And that it is okay for C&R to publicly malign Councillor Penny Webster? YES or NO. ”

Michael Williams: ”  I see your angle, you are inviting me to take sides against a member of my own team.”

Well, actually, no – I thought Cr Casey was asking a perfectly responsible, straight-forward question. At this point it should be made clear that Michael Williams is a C&R member as well as the Chairperson of the Auckland Council’s  Howick Local Board. In which case, Cr Casey had just cause to be asking Williams these questions – especially considering he had voluntarily joined the conversation on Cr Casey’s FB page.

Cr Casey continued,

Cr Cathy Casey: ” Hi Michael, Depends on whether it is a YES or a NO. I am inviting you to bring some integrity into the way your own team does its political busness. I note in the release Councillor George Wood is listed as “Deputy Leader, C&R” but he says he had no input. ”

Michael Williams:  ” Life is not Black and White Cathy. “

?!?! And the point of that statement was —?

Obviously by now, Williams is having difficulty answering a straight question with a commensurately straight answer.

By this time others have entered the conversation, and they are not happy with C&R’s obfuscation.

Cr Casey continues to push her line of questioning,

Cr Cathey Casey: ” Still waiting for an answer from George Wood too. Dick Quax is also a member of C&R. Dick do you support the process of sending out a media release during the council meeting yesterday? Do you support the content of the media release especially in relation to remarks about Penny Webster?

Williams then responded with a deflection-non-sequitur combo,

Michael Williams: ”  You people should read your own posts, they are every bit as offensive as the throw away comment you are referring to. “

Which is laughable, as Williams earlier had stated, ” There’s always a bit of rough and tumble in politics.”  Evidently “rough and tumble” is ok if it’s from the Right – but a naughty no-no if it comes from anyone else. Damn, I keep forgetting their funny rules and ways…

Williams did not respond, but C&R Deputy Leader George Wood did,

George Wood:  ” ‎… the situation really is that C&R and other like minded councillors are spending hours of time working through the myriad of issues around affordability and the make up of the 10 year budgets. It is no easy task but we are getting explanations to specific questions. We also went out to the community through radio adverts and have been getting good feedback. We are running things along the lines of how we did things when I was mayor of North Shore City although I’m more in an opposition role. Things seem to be progressing well. “

That statement is interesting in it’s own right, and raises several more questions,

  1. If ” C&R and other like minded councillors are spending hours of time working through the myriad of issues around affordability and the make up of the 10 year budgets  ”  – then why are they issuing vitriolic Media Releases – and abusing other councillors in the process? What is the gain in such actions?
  2. It is no easy task but we are getting explanations to specific questions. ” – What questions?  The ones asked above seemed fairly straight forward. Does it require a collective mind-set from the entire C&R Team to respond to simple questions on a social media?!
  3. We also went out to the community through radio adverts and have been getting good feedback. ” – ??? Is that normal Council procedure, for factions in the Council to pursue ad hoc means to seek public feedback on issues? Surely there are more professional, traditional means of seeking responses from the public. In fact, I’m certain of it – they are usually called “Making a Submission to the Draft Annual Plan”!
  4. I was mayor of North Shore City although I’m more in an opposition role. ” Why are you in an “opposition” role, Mr Wood? Do you consider the Auckland Council to be Parliament?  And just what are you ‘opposing’?

The FB conversation ended with Mr Wood’s posted statement.

But it does in no way end the matter of C&R’s unprovoked, ad hominem slur against Cr Penny Webster, suggesting that she is “in the pocket of the mayor”.

One can only assume that the Right Wing in Auckland are starting to panic. They have lost another ‘battle’ in the ports industrial dispute, and the National Government is under siege from multiple directions from scandals, cronyism, and unpopular ideologically-based  policies.

It is not a happy time to be a right winger.

|

= 2 =

|

As I started this piece with; there is a war for the soul of Auckland.

For the Right Wing, there is unfinished business to settle; Rodney Hide’s Master Plan to privatise Auckland Council’s assets, and to strip away any services that the Right consider “non essential” or “non-core business”.

All this was supposed to have been taken care of soon after the founding of the supercity, Auckland Council. John Banks was to have been elected mayor; along with a bevy of barely-restrained free-marketeers; and with Central Government’s nodding agreement, the Firesale of the Century would have ensued. Anything not nailed down would have been flogged off to “mum and dad” investors (ie; corporate interests).

Except, it didn’t quite go the way things were planned.

Aucklanders elected a centre-left mayor, and C&R and their fellow travellers were a neutered minority.

Default to Plan B.

(There is always a Plan B.)

Port workers were due for a renegotiation of their Collective Employment Agreement (CEA). The Agreement had expired on 30 September 2011, and formal negotiations had been ongoing since 5 August 2011.

However, POAL Board and management were in no mood to settle, and plans were afoot to casualise the workforce. A secret POAL memo leaked to the Maritime Union confirmed suspicions that POAL management were up to no good.

The Port dispute worsened as management became more and more intransigent.  As the industrial dispute became a crisis, and workers were locked out, public pressure was brought to bear on Mayor Len Brown.

As the mayor elected on a centre-left platform, port workers; centre-left councillors; and many other Aucklanders looked to him to intervene and bring the crisis to a head. It was only after the 5,000+ strong street march on 10 March that Brown offered to mediate.

By then, the damage was done – Brown’s reputation and credibility with the Left had been shredded. He was seen as ineffectual at best – and kowtowing to the Right at worst.

The Left began openly discussing an alternative mayoral candidate to Brown for the next upcoming local body elections. Every left-wing blogger (including this blogger) expressed frustration at Brown’s inaction and wanted change. If Brown couldn’t stand up to the New Right – then by golly, we’ll find some who could!!

On 30 March, on his TV blog-show, “Citizen A”, Bomber Bradbury asked his panellists,

Will the Left stand a different candidate against Brown for the mayorlty, and if they would, who would it be?

Unfortunately for us, the Right were paying attention – very close attention – to what the left were openly debating on various blogs. To paraphrase H.G. Wells,

“And yet, across the gulf of the political divide, minds immeasurably greedier to ours regarded these assets  with envious eyes; and slowly, and surely, they drew their plans against us.”

You bet they did.

The Right are counting on the Left putting up an alternative candidate to Len Brown. And if Brown stands again – we end up splitting the centre-left vote.

End game result:  a C&R mayor sneaks through.

Or, if the Left does not engage an alternative candidate and simply turns our collective back on Brown – his vote will collapse (as it did for Labour generally, last year).

End game result: the C&R mayor’s support stays firm, and beats Brown at the ballot box.

The Left needs to be more clever abour this.

Instead of showing Len Brown the door, and all but guaranteeing a C&R victory for the mayorlty, we  may have no choice but to hang on to him. All passions aside – do we really want to see Cameron Brewer as mayor?!?!

|

Holy Crap! Sweet mother of god - not BREWER!!!

|

The best way to deal with this situation? We need to re-think our strategy.

Instead of dumping Brown – the Left must work damn hard to build on our electoral support in the community, and get more centre-left candidates elected! With more centre-left councillors, the Left will be in a stronger position to “support” and “encourage” Len Brown when it comes to those awkward “minty moments”.

‘Cos sure to goodness, getting rid of Brown and inadvertantly letting a centre-right mayor win office would be an own-goal of incredibly dumb proportions.

So, fellow Aucklanders. Take note of Cr Fletcher’s Media Release. Class war is upon us. Our mission – should we choose to accept it – is to be more cleverer than them.

Game on.

|

* * *

|

Related Blogpost

Unfortunate Outrage?

Additional

Scoop.co.nz:  Auckland To Become Unaffordable, Not More Liveable

NZ Herald: C&R leader offers to quit after debate turns heated

|

|

= fs =

Lies, Boards, and Aucklandports (#Wha)

13 March 2012 2 comments

|

|

POAL management met with maritime workers and their union reps in Len Brown’s office yesterday, with the mayor mediating. The meeting  lasted supposedly for three hours – after which the protagonists emerged.

POAL announced no change in their position; the  sackings of 292 port workers would not be rescinded and casualisation and contracting out would proceed as planned.

POAL Board  chairman,  Pearson stated emphatically,

The collective negotiations are over. We’re now into implementing the decision. The contractors have already been engaged and they are recruiting.

“Where I feel the mayor could help in the mediation is to try and get the staff that are out on strike to apply for jobs with the contractors because we understand that there’s a sinister element in the union that’s preventing the individual employees to make that decision.” – Radio NZ

Pearson’s melodramatic reference to “a sinister element in the union ” would be laughable, if 292 families were not impacted by POAL’s intransigence,

|

|

POAL management’s intransigence could be egoism at work from Broad Chairman Richard Pearson and CEO Tony Gibson – except there is much more to it than that.

POAL have consistantly stated that the casualisation and contracting out of their workforce was predicated on the port performing badly and needing to improve it’s comopetiveness. As  port CEO Tony Gibson said,

We’ve weighed up all the options and we believe this is the best decision for the future of the Port. Auckland enjoys significant natural advantages, including its proximity to New Zealand’s largest market, where 60% of exports, and 70% of import business takes place. Until now we have been constrained by practices which have reduced the Port’s competitiveness, and in recent months industrial action, which has lost us significant business.”

POAL Board chairman Richard Pearson said on TVNZ’s Q+A,

Well, from my perspective, Paul, I came into this situation, and I’ve been 37 years in the container port business and ports all around the world. I have never seen such a waste of resource going on here. I have never seen a situation where you pay someone for 43 hours and they work 26. I’ve never seen a situation where ships wait to come in to start waiting for the start of a shift. You know, that’s like aeroplanes flying around waiting for-

Paul, Australasia’s not the benchmark for good container-port operations around the world, with all due respect, okay? As I’ve said to you, I have never seen such a potential asset like we’ve got at Auckland that could actually run better... [abridged] ” – Ibid

Paul, we’ve got them going. They’re working. 25 years Tauranga’s been working on this model, and it’s been working well. And during that time, we’ve lost 12% of our market to Tauranga. We can’t wait. We have to make this change now, and we have to make it quickly. ” – Ibid

POAL’s webpage, “Questions & Answers: Changes at Ports of Auckland“,  puts great emphasis on increased productivity and competitiveness.

Gibson and Pearson seem to be alarmed – almost in panic – at POAL’s  ‘lack of productivity’.

Which is curious.

Because recent official government reports paint a completely different picture,

|

ministry of transport container pruductivity at nz ports october 2011

|

The report states, in part,

New Zealand ports had differing results in 2009 and 2010, reflecting the differing situations for each
port. Tauranga performed well for crane, ship and vessel rates, while Auckland and Otago had vessel
rates comparable with Tauranga. The trends over the last two calendar years show that crane rates at
New Zealand ports on average have been static, but ship and vessel rates on average have grown
about four percent per annum. The container productivity of New Zealand ports appears at least
comparable with, and in some cases better than, Australian and other international ports.”

Auckland and Otago’s vessel rates are relatively higher than their crane rates. Container
terminal productivity tends to be higher when a ship loads and unloads more containers.
These ports have had regular calls from larger container ships (that is, ships with capacity for
4,100 containers). Consequently, these ports tend to use relatively more crane time4 than
other ports to load and unload containers from ships.”

Comparisons with Australian ports

Table 3 below compares New Zealand and Australian ports in 2010. Table 4 below compares
trends over 2009 and 2010 for national-average crane, ship and vessel rates. Some
conclusions are as follows.
• The national-average crane rate for New Zealand ports is slightly behind the nationalaverage
for Australian ports.
• The national-average ship and vessel rates for New Zealand ports are ahead of the
national-average for Australian ports.
• Crane rates in both countries are largely unchanged over the period.
• Ship and vessel rates in both countries are increasing (average growth rates in both
countries are about four percent per annum). The growth appears to be due to ports
using relatively more crane time than in previous years. This may be related to the
average size of container ships increasing in recent years.
• Comparing across all these ports, there is no apparent evidence that productivity
increases with larger total volumes of containers at ports (‘economies of scale’).”

|

|

Conclusions

There is a mixture of container productivity results for New Zealand’s six main container ports,
reflecting the differing situations for each port. Overall, the top three container operations
appear to be Auckland, Tauranga and Otago. The trend over the last two years is for national average
crane productivity to be static, but national-average ship and vessel productivity to
grow about four percent per annum. This growth seems to be due to ports using relatively
more crane time than in previous years, which may be related to an increasing average size
of container ships.”

Just to emphasise the point; “Overall, the top three container operations

Which – yet again – shows up POAL management to be  somewhat ‘loose‘ with the truth.

One cannot but help come to the conclusion that Ports of Auckland is a reasonably efficient operation.

Profit-wise, it is also performing well, judging by NBR reports,

|

Imports drive Ports of Auckland profit higher

|

Increased traffic at Ports of Auckland

|

Ports of Auckland profits hold steady

|

Instead, it appears that the agenda to destroy the union and impose casualisation is a deliberate plan to drive down wages.  It seems to be a response to Auckland City Council’s demand to increase their rate of return from 6% to 12%. As Len Brown said on TVNZ’s Q+A on 11 March,

|

PAUL Well, how firm are you on this?  Have you laid down the law on the 12%?

LEN  We have given it to them in our statement of corporate intent.  Right at the start of the year, I went down to the port, met all the workers and the employees and the company directors down there and said, ‘Right, this is what we’re expecting from the port.’  And we had an hour’s Q & A-
 
PAUL This is what we’re expecting.  Is this-?  I mean, were you laying the law about the return you want in five years – 12%?
 
LEN  We were laying down the law in terms of what we expected from the port in terms of its return and in terms of its performance generally.

PAUL Where did you get the 12%?

LEN  So, the 12% was an estimate, a view that certainly I’ve been working on for right through the last sort of 18 months, two years.  It was view that was discussed our own table with the officers, with our own council-
 
PAUL So it’s a guess?  It’s a good guess?

LEN  No, it’s an estimate.
 
PAUL (laughs)
 
LEN  This is what we think we should be aiming to achieve.  And so we went back to the company and said, ‘Okay, this where we think you should be.  What is your advice back to us?’  Their advice was, ‘Give us five years and we believe that we can receive that.’

PAUL Well, excuse me, look at this.  Okay, 12%, that’s your estimate – guesstimate.  Tauranga returns 6.8%, Lyttelton 8.6%, Sydney 6.7%, Melbourne 3.1%, Auckland 6% — 6.3% after tax.

LEN  So not just about return either-
 
PAUL Where’s the 12% being made anywhere?

LEN  It’s about competitiveness against other ports.  So we are losing share against Tauranga.  We are competing flat out against Brisbane, in particular, and Sydney.  It was our desire that we wanted the port to be much much stronger in terms of its– “

|

So there we have it. The drive for greater profit.

Paid for out of the wages of ordinary workers.

Does this seem remotely fair to anyone? (ACT supporters need not respond to this question.)

|

On the social networking ‘battlefront’,  supporters of  POAL have set up their own Facebook page,

|

ports of auckland facebook page

|

Meanwhile,  POAL (Ports of Auckland Ltd)  continues to waste ratepayers’ money on full-page and half-page ads in our daily newspapers.

This propaganda piece appeared in the Business Section of the NZ Herald today,

|

|

By “sheer coincidence” the ad was placed opposite an advertisement appealing to  port workers to abandon the picket line and contact either of the  two recruiting companies.

This is not just a gross mis-use of company funds – it is an abuse of economic power. This is a clear example of why trade unions are still very much  a necessity.

With trade unions to monitor workers’ rights and conditions, companies are able to  wield considerable power in any dispute.

(Acknowledgement to Cathy Casey.)

Interestingly, POAL states on their website that “We do not have any vacancies at the Ports of Auckland at this stage“,

|

|

292 port workers would be happy to hear that.

|

*** Update ***

Union seeks injunction to halt wharfie dismissals

|

|

= fs =

Ratbags, Rightwingers, and other assorted Rogues!

12 March 2012 2 comments

|

POAL playing monopoly with lives

|

This morning, Auckland Mayor Len Brown; Maritime Union National President, Gary Parsloe; and Ports of Auckland chairman, Richard Pearson were interviewed (separately) on TV1’s Q+A.  The following are transcripts of those interviews,

|

Q+A: Transcript of Paul Holmes interviews Gary Parsloe and Richard Pearson

|

PAUL This week the long-running labour dispute on the Auckland wharves came to a head with the Ports of Auckland making almost 300 workers, mostly stevedores, redundant. The Ports of Auckland claims it has to increase productivity to be competitive and deliver the required returns; only contractors can help them do that and provide exporters and importers with reliable service in an increasingly difficult world. The workers say Auckland’s already a profitable port, for heaven’s sake, and the contract on offer would have meant no guaranteed work each week and no ability to plan family time. And they even made an ad featuring workers’ families to ram the message home. So with me in the studio this morning are the Maritime Union head Gary Parsloe and the Ports of Auckland chairman, Richard Pearson. Now, both men will speak separately. So to you first, Mr Parsloe, what is this- at fundamental bottom, what is this dispute about?

GARY PARSLOE – Maritime Union

The dispute is about we just want a collective employment agreement that covers our members, one with some form of security so that people know when they go to work, when they don’t go to work, know what family time they’ve got.

PAUL Or is it about the amount of wages paid for downtime that the Ports of Auckland are worried about? They say it’s unsustainable; they don’t want to pay people when they’re not working.

GARY Well, they offered us 10% wages, and we declined it for 2.5%, and I don’t think it’s about money. We’ve never claimed money.

PAUL No, but, you see, they say there’s too much downtime and you’re still being paid. They want to pay you for when you work. What is wrong with that, Garry?

GARY Well, we’re quite willing to go through those things. In the mediation, we addressed those things. We gave up 18 points at the last mediation, that were going to address the flexibility, the downtime, we would continue. 18 points were put at the mediation, that’s right.

PAUL Look, I know, I mean, I was studying what the Ports of Auckland have come at you with over the last six months. They do not seem to have been madly ungenerous. I wonder if the strikes were an intelligent strategy. Even Mike Lee says going on strike was a grave error; that the Ports would turn on you, which is what they’ve done, of course.

GARY Well, of course, workers don’t have a lot of things in their power. The only time we can take strike action is in pursuit of a collective, and we waited to do that because we want a collective that covers our members. It gives them some form of job security.

PAUL But you were going to get a collective.

GARY Oh, I don’t know about that.

PAUL Come on, September 7 and 6 last year they came to you. The very first offer they were going to roll over the collective agreement was the 2.5% pay increase every year for three years. Now, why did you reject that?

GARY Because there was the fish hooks in the collective they wanted us to sign – the new one they gave us that took away all of our conditions, our security and was all the flexible hours-

PAUL Took away you having the right to roster, is that right?

GARY No, they took away a lot of things. Took away many many things. And, I mean, at that time you want to talk that they wanted a collective, well, I don’t believe they ever did. We got their strategy paper-

PAUL Why would they offer you a collective if they didn’t want a collective?

GARY We got a strategy paper last August, and in that strategy paper, they had $9 million of people’s money of Auckland. It’s on our website to get rid of the unions and get rid of them.

PAUL So go back to that September 6 and 7 offer – that they were going to roll over the collective agreement, 2.5% increase for three years every year. What were you going to lose exactly?

GARY Would have lost- There was nothing in there that defined times when people would go to work and not go to work and you couldn’t take the kid to the beach, couldn’t take your wife shopping, you had to sit by the phone all day wondering when you were next going to go to work.

PAUL Meaning they were going to do the roster, not the union?

GARY They were going to do the roster. They still do the rostering today. For goodness sake, they ring us up when to come to work.

PAUL Then you’ve been offered 10% wage- Then they came at you with a 10% wage offer, 20% productivity bonus offer, guaranteed 160 hours a month with the rosters sent out two months ahead. What in God’s name is wrong with that?

GARY Well, we tried to get some definitive about the rosters. We said, ‘What would they be? Would you do 160 in one week and get nothing for the next week, next week and next week?’ We wanted some form across the board where people knew what they were doing.

PAUL 160 hours a month. They’re not going to get you to do 160 in a week.

GARY Of course, but they’re packed up into whatever at one time.

PAUL But fours into 160 goes 40.

GARY Yeah, but you don’t get 40. Other ports work like that. You don’t get 40. They work you when they want you, and they leave you want they don’t want you.

PAUL In the end, also the union objects to the company contracting out. This has been a big sore point for the union, right?

GARY Yes.

PAUL I don’t understand this, because in the collective agreement you’ve had for the past few years, the Ports of Auckland can contract out, and they do so. Why are you so adamant they should be denied that?

GARY They can contract out, but the clause in the document doesn’t say they can contract out. The clause in the document talks about what happens when they contract out. It’s all about contingent liability, how they pay out people their redundancy payments and their payments. It’s formula for how it happens if it happens.

PAUL Do you believe this whole thing is about trying to reduce the amount of wages paid to the workers on the Ports of Auckland?

GARY Maybe, maybe not. I’m not sure what they’re after. It’s very hard to know what they’re after.

PAUL Well, for six months you might have found out, mightn’t you?

GARY Well, we’ve been in mediation for all that time trying to find out. And while we’ve been in mediation, they’ve been advertising our jobs in Australia. While we’ve been in mediation, they’re now making our people redundant-

PAUL You’ve been on 12 strikes.

GARY I wouldn’t call that good-faith bargaining.

PAUL Well, Gary, nor perhaps would people call 12 strikes good-faith bargaining either.

GARY The 12 strikes were because we’ve got to protect our members, and that’s what we’re trying to do.

PAUL Okay, but they weren’t going to lay anyone off; they’re just changing the conditions, weren’t they?

GARY Yes, they were changing the conditions for employment.

PAUL You want the mayor- I think you said yesterday you want the mayor of Auckland to get off his jacksie and do a bit more.

GARY Yeah, I would like that.

PAUL Do you think he’s being remiss?

GARY I think, well, the people of Auckland own the port, and the mayor is the mayor looking after the interests of the people of Auckland, and we believe he should do a little bit more than he’s doing. We believe there’s still a deal there, and maybe if people step and be a bit more helpful, there is a deal.

PAUL Thank you, Mr Parsloe. Now, I shall put that to the mayor when he comes along. Now, very quickly, are you expecting is this the- is this all over?

GARY No, this is only the start of it. We had- you said 3000, but there’s about 5000 of the community marching down Queen Street.

PAUL Do you expect international action, international support?

GARY The international have this under the microscope. They most certainly have. And those 5000 people don’t like the way that the people, that the workers of Auckland are being bashed around, and there’s a message in that. Because there’s only 300 of us, and yet 5000 people took to the streets yesterday.

PAUL Mm. Gary Parsloe, president of the Maritime Union of New Zealand, thank you very much for your time. Richard Pearson, you are the chairman of Ports of Auckland. Have you been bashing up the workers?

RICHARD PEARSON – Ports of Auckland Ltd

Absolutely not, Paul.

PAUL Why have you failed to reach an agreement after six months of this?

RICHARD Paul, it’s longer than six months. We started this process at the beginning of last year – all the consultation, all the negotiations that were going on. The collective came to its end in September. We started negotiating the collective in August. We’ve been through a hundred hours plus of negotiation, mediation, and we’ve got absolutely nowhere. The problem is-

PAUL But isn’t-?

RICHARD We just were not delivered the changes that we required, Paul.

PAUL Isn’t it a truism, in a way, of industrial relations that if you’re nowhere in a negotiation after six months, it’s a plague on both your houses?

RICHARD Well, from my perspective, Paul, I came into this situation, and I’ve been 37 years in the container port business and ports all around the world. I have never seen such a waste of resource going on here. I have never seen a situation where you pay someone for 43 hours and they work 26. I’ve never seen a situation where ships wait to come in to start waiting for the start of a shift. You know, that’s like aeroplanes flying around waiting for-

PAUL That average-26-hours business – have you had that audited?

RICHARD Absolutely.

PAUL By who?

RICHARD Ernest & Young.

PAUL Right, Ernst & Young. Do you want that union off the port? Was that the game all along?

RICHARD Not at all. We like unions. We’ve got unions already working on the port. In the outsourced model that we have with the stevedore contractors, they will have unions working for them.

PAUL So can you sit here this morning and say to us that you’ve negotiated in good faith?

RICHARD Absolutely, and I’ll give you good evidence of that-

PAUL Well, Mr Parsloe said you had fish hooks everywhere.

RICHARD No, if we had- if we were not negotiating in good faith, Paul, we would’ve actually introduced the whole outsourcing stevedoring subcontracting model before the end of the collective. During that time, the union would not have been able to strike. In good faith, we waited until the end of the discussions to give them a good chance to, and unfortunately it went over the time of the expiry of the collective. That gave them the right to strike, so I stand absolutely firm when I say to you we have abided by all rules, regulations and fairness.

PAUL Mr Pearson, how do you know that if you contract your stevedoring that’s going to improve productivity? You see, Auckland does no worse than any of the other ports in Australasia. Nowhere is madly more productive than Auckland.

RICHARD Pau l-

PAUL The Australian ports are all contracted out.

RICHARDPaul –

PAUL Melbourne does 3.1% return on equity.

RICHARD Paul, Australasia’s not the benchmark for good container-port operations around the world, with all due respect, okay? As I’ve said to you, I have never seen such a potential asset like we’ve got at Auckland that could actually run better. You know, today we’re running- Now, that port, without the MUNZ union, we’re were the IEAs, which unfortunately people are calling scabs, which I find derogatory – that port is now running at 25% faster than it was before. We have made no other change other than having people that come to work who want to work with the right attitude. That’s what I think people in Auckland want to see.

PAUL And the perception of people in Auckland might be that contracted-out stevedoring could mean worse pay and conditions for the wharfies.

RICHARD Again-

PAUL Otherwise, why would you do it, Mr Pearson?

RICHARD Paul, we’ve got them going. They’re working. 25 years Tauranga’s been working on this model, and it’s been working well. And during that time, we’ve lost 12% of our market to Tauranga. We can’t wait. We have to make this change now, and we have to make it quickly.

PAUL Now, the council wants that 12% return off the ports in five years, yes?

RICHARD That’s correct.

PAUL Is that what’s driving this?

RICHARD Not at all. That is an aspirational target, and you’ve mentioned the fact that it will be over 12 years, and it will be-

PAUL No, five years.

RICHARD Five, yes, correct, and it will be. It’s not a dividend return; it’s an equity return.

PAUL That’s right. Can you do it? Can you do 12%?

RICHARD Yes, we can.

PAUL Right. The unions call you anti-family. Have you had second thoughts about this?

RICHARD Paul, that is absolute nonsense. People talk about waiting by the phone, etc. Ships are on schedules. 90% of all the ships that come into the port are on their schedule, on their slot, within one hour of ETA. We know months ahead. We can actually plan shifts weeks and weeks ahead. It is absolute nonsense to say that, and all I could also say is talk to the people at Tauranga. They’re quite happy. Everything works well.

PAUL Right, a couple of quickies. Is it all over bar the shouting?

RICHARD It is all over. We’ve made the decision. We’re now into implementation. We’ve appointed the contractor, and my wish would be this: get our workers, please, workers that are on strike, come and apply for job. Don’t wait. Don’t let the people that are stopping you, and there’s a sinister little group of people down there – that’s a subject for another Q A at another time – that have been stopping these people applying for jobs. I think it’s wrong, and I think it’s unfair.

PAUL All right, just very quickly – are you worried about the ship in Sydney that the wharfies over there aren’t handling?

RICHARD No, that’ll all be covered by law.

PAUL Mr Richard Pearson, chairman of Ports of Auckland, I thank you. Gary Parsloe, I thank you again.

RICHARD Thank you very much.

Source: TVNZ Q+A

|

Analysis?

Firstly, not having seen/heard the actual interview this morning, I can only go by the transcripts.  The interview between Paul Holmes and Gary Parsloe seems to have been held in a completely different manner to that between Holmes and Richard Pearson.

1. In his opening introduction, Holmes starts of with,  “So with me in the studio this morning are the Maritime Union head Gary Parsloe and the Ports of Auckland chairman, Richard Pearson“. Note that Holmes refers to Richard Pearson as the “Ports of Auckland Chairman” – Pearson’s correct title.

2. He does not offer the same courtesy to  Gary Parsloe, and refers to him as “the Maritime Union head” – instead of Parsloe’s correct title; National President. The stage is set for an imbalanced encounter.

3. Interviewing Gary Parsloe involved in-depth questions and numerous follow-up questions, which probed Parsloe’s responses.

4. Interviewing Richard Pearson involved questions such as;

Why have you failed to reach an agreement after six months of this?”

Pearson responds. No follow-up probing.

Isn’t it a truism, in a way, of industrial relations that if you’re nowhere in a negotiation after six months, it’s a plague on both your houses?

Pearson responds. Again, no follow up probing.

That average-26-hours business – have you had that audited?”

Pearson responds with one word; “Absolutely”.

Holmes askes a follow-up question; “By who?”

Pearson answeers, simply, “Ernest & Young

Holmes’ response; “Right, Ernst & Young.

Pardon? Holmes accepts the response with anaffirmation, as if Pearson answered a quizz problem correctly? (The only thing missing was a “Well done, old chap!”!!

Then, next question, “Right, Ernst & Young. Do you want that union off the port? Was that the game all along? ”

Pearson responds with an astonishing, “Not at all. We like unions. We’ve got unions already working on the port. In the outsourced model that we have with the stevedore contractors, they will have unions working for them. ”

Pearson “likes unions”?!  At this stage, Holmes should have followed up with a question seeking clarification as to how Pearson can “like” unions when his Board has failed to come to a negotiated settlement;  sacked 300 workers; and paid tens of thousands of dollars in full-page newspaper advertising.

But Pearson major slip was, “…we have with the stevedore contractors, they will have unions working for them. ” Unions do not “work for” companies or contractors – unions work for their members.

The following exchange also seemed to be little more than “patsy” questions,

PAUL So can you sit here this morning and say to us that you’ve negotiated in good faith?

RICHARD Absolutely, and I’ll give you good evidence of that-

PAUL Well, Mr Parsloe said you had fish hooks everywhere.

Pearson replied with a glib answer stating that “we have abided by all rules, regulations and fairness”.

Again, no follow up question.

At this point, Holmes should have questioned Pearson about the leaked memo from POAL which outlined, months in advance,  POAL’s agenda to oust Union presence on Auckland’s wharves.  Holmes made no reference to that damning document, and instead went off on a tangeant about productivity levels on other ports.

Towards the end of the “interview”,  Pearson again slips up, when he states,

Paul, that is absolute nonsense. People talk about waiting by the phone, etc. Ships are on schedules. 90% of all the ships that come into the port are on their schedule, on their slot, within one hour of ETA. We know months ahead. We can actually plan shifts weeks and weeks ahead. It is absolute nonsense to say that, and all I could also say is talk to the people at Tauranga. They’re quite happy. Everything works well. “

That statement is a flat-out contradiction of Pearson’s earlier assertion, at the beginning of the interview, where he makes the claim that,

Well, from my perspective, Paul, I came into this situation, and I’ve been 37 years in the container port business and ports all around the world. I have never seen such a waste of resource going on here. I have never seen a situation where you pay someone for 43 hours and they work 26. I’ve never seen a situation where ships wait to come in to start waiting for the start of a shift. You know, that’s like aeroplanes flying around waiting for– “

On the one hand, Pearson claims that “I have never seen a situation where you pay someone for 43 hours and they work 26. I’ve never seen a situation where ships wait to come in to start waiting for the start of a shift” – and then goes on to contradict that claim by stating that “Ships are on schedules. 90% of all the ships that come into the port are on their schedule, on their slot, within one hour of ETA. We know months ahead. We can actually plan shifts weeks and weeks ahead“.

5. I think we know where Holmes’ allegiance lies.

Then we had the interview with Auckland Mayor, Len Brown, which seemed to ask more probing questions than with Pearson, and delved deeply into the Mayor’s motivations. Which is ironic really, as Pearson would have had more to do with, and deeper  insights into, the dispute than Brown would have.

Holmes was asking the wrong person the hard questions…

|

Q+A: Transcript of Paul Holmes interview with Len Brown

|

Auckland Mayor Len Brown

PAUL How much responsibility for these redundancies at the Ports of Auckland lies with the mayor and

the council?  Ports of Auckland is owned by the council via its investment company, Auckland Council Investments Ltd, and the council’s told the port to double its dividend from 6% to 12% over the next five years.  The Maritime Union says the mayor should step in as mediator.  You heard Gary Parsloe say that.  Labour, Mana and the Greens have also called on the mayor to take a stand.  Len Brown, the mayor of Auckland, is with us this morning.  Good morning.

LEN BROWN – Auckland Mayor

Morning, Paul.

PAUL Is it your fault 300 men have been made redundant?

LEN  No, but I certainly can’t be accused of not making a stand.  Over the last eight months, I’ve been working within the framework that I can.  I won’t run the port out of my office, but I have been dealing with both parties during the course of this discussion.

PAUL Well, can I say the perception is you’ve been doing nothing?

LEN  Well, you know, as I say, there are some things that I can do and I will not run the port out of my office.  I will say to you, though, for the last eight months, I have been giving direction, giving my view in terms of where they should be, and I wanted to see the resolution out of a collective.  They have not got there.  I’m not happy with that outcome.  What I am here to say is that-
 
PAUL I heard you say to me- Did you say-?  Could the union have settled earlier, do you believe?
 
LEN  Of course.

PAUL Yeah.

LEN Absolutely.  They could’ve settled on the first offer.

PAUL Yes. 

LEN  And that’s past in history.  What is now possible is my view is I am happy to continue to be in the position of providing mediation if both parties agree.
 
PAUL Well, it hasn’t worked so far, has it?
 
LEN  No, but-

PAUL Why hasn’t it?

LEN  But that offer-
 
PAUL Why hasn’t it?

LEN  Because-
 
PAUL Why hasn’t mediation worked?
 
LEN  Every time they sat down, their view to me- both parties’ view is we’re really close.  In fact, Gary was saying to me, ‘On Thursday we think that we are going to deal with this and finish it.’  So every step of the way, the indication had been was that they were going to resolve.

PAUL Whose side are you on?

LEN  I’m on Auckland’s side.
 
PAUL Yes, but-

LEN  And by that, I mean that we are the 1.5 million Aucklanders, we own the shares, and as a consequence of that, I’m looking after their interests.  I want that port to be successful.  I certainly want a greater return on our investment-
 
PAUL Let’s talk about that shortly, but I wondered about your position because you have said and I quote you, ‘We deserve a port that’s competitive, a decent return for ratepayers and a settlement that is sustainable.’  That sounds like the port’s position, Mr Mayor.
 
LEN  No, it sounds like our position – our position, the council’s position and the position of any Aucklanders.  Look, my commitment during the campaign was not selling the ports; we will hold the port shares.  Secondly, we wanted the ports to be more commercial and present a much better return for ratepayers.

PAUL And that return, of course, the figure that you’ve come up with is you want an increase from 6.3% I think it is at the moment.

LEN  Yeah.
 
PAUL After tax.

LEN  12% over five years in terms of return on investment.
 
PAUL Where did you get the 12% from?  Pluck it out of the air?
 
LEN  No-

PAUL There’s not a port in Australasia, Mr Brown, making 12%.

LEN  So our view was, though, that the port was not performing as well as it was.  Now, you’ve heard Mr Pearson say it’s an aspirational target.  What we’re saying to the port is this is our view.  We believe as a consequence of the assessments that we’ve done within the  council-
 
PAUL Well, how firm are you on this?  Have you laid down the law on the 12%?

LEN  We have given it to them in our statement of corporate intent.  Right at the start of the year, I went down to the port, met all the workers and the employees and the company directors down there and said, ‘Right, this is what we’re expecting from the port.’  And we had an hour’s Q & A-
 
PAUL This is what we’re expecting.  Is this-?  I mean, were you laying the law about the return you want in five years – 12%?
 
LEN  We were laying down the law in terms of what we expected from the port in terms of its return and in terms of its performance generally.

PAUL Where did you get the 12%?

LEN  So, the 12% was an estimate, a view that certainly I’ve been working on for right through the last sort of 18 months, two years.  It was view that was discussed our own table with the officers, with our own council-
 
PAUL So it’s a guess?  It’s a good guess?

LEN  No, it’s an estimate.
 
PAUL (laughs)
 
LEN  This is what we think we should be aiming to achieve.  And so we went back to the company and said, ‘Okay, this where we think you should be.  What is your advice back to us?’  Their advice was, ‘Give us five years and we believe that we can receive that.’

PAUL Well, excuse me, look at this.  Okay, 12%, that’s your estimate – guesstimate.  Tauranga returns 6.8%, Lyttelton 8.6%, Sydney 6.7%, Melbourne 3.1%, Auckland 6% — 6.3% after tax.

LEN  So not just about return either-
 
PAUL Where’s the 12% being made anywhere?

LEN  It’s about competitiveness against other ports.  So we are losing share against Tauranga.  We are competing flat out against Brisbane, in particular, and Sydney.  It was our desire that we wanted the port to be much much stronger in terms of its-
 
PAUL Do you endorse what Mr Pearson was saying about he cannot believe the waste of resource at the Ports of Auckland?
 
LEN  Look, there’s a whole lots of things that we cannot believe about the performance of the Ports of Auckland, so it just was not about-

PAUL Can I just say to you again-?

LEN  a stronger return on investment.
 
PAUL Can I just say to you again there is a perception that you’ve abnegated leadership, that you’ve been a do-nothing mayor?  For God’s sake, you are the mayor of Auckland, Ports of Auckland is owned by the people of Auckland, you are the boss.  Harry Truman – you might remember the story – had a little thing on his desk that said ‘the buck stops here’.  Why don’t it stop with you?

LEN  The buck does stop here, but I’m also the mayor of the city.  I’m not the prime minister.  I don’t have sovereign power, so I’m operating within a statutory framework, and I’m doing the very best that I can within that statutory framework.
 
PAUL And very quick, Mr Mayor, is it all over bar the shouting?
 
LEN  No.  What I’ve said to you today is that my offer today is that I’m happy to sit with both parties in agreement in a mediator process if they are prepared to continue to meet and deal with the-

PAUL He says it’s all over bar the shouting – Mr Pearson.

LEN  Mr Pearson is the chair of the board; this is my offer right here in front of you.
 
PAUL Mr Len Brown, mayor of Auckland, thank you very much for your time.

LEN  A pleasure speaking to you today.

Source: TVNZ Q+A

|

The Maritime Union has welcomed Len Brown’s offer of mediation, as stated on ‘Scoop‘,

|

The Maritime Union has warmly welcomed an offer of mediation from the Mayor of Auckland Len Brown, and the Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops, made publicly over the last two days.

Today on current affairs programme Q+A the Mayor said he wanted to step in to the dispute between the parties to find a solution.

“The Mayor’s offer in particular is extremely important as the Council is the owner of the Ports, and we believe it is now being wrecked by the Ports board,” said Garry Parsloe, Maritime Union of New Zealand National President.

“We will meet any time any day with any decent offer to get this issue resolved”.

On Friday Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops in Auckland offered their leadership in a spirit of reconciliation to help resolve the dispute.

The bishops said they were concerned for the welfare of workers and their families, and for the future of the waterfront industry, and that they were willing also to work with city leaders to find a solution.

Garry Parsloe said the bishops’ offer was a generous one.

“We’ll warmly welcome the help of the Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops,” he said.

“They have demonstrated they understand that at its core, this dispute is about people and their lives.”

“Our deep concern during these negotiations has been the impact the proposed changes from Ports management would have on our members’ job security and their ability to prioritise time with their families and other commitments outside work.”

“It is in the interests of everyone in Auckland to resolve this dispute in a way that protects secure jobs and ensures a sustainable and successful Ports of Auckland.”

“We hope Ports management will take kindly to the offer also, and respect the role of the Council as the owners of the Ports and the importance of the offer from the Mayor,” Garry Parsloe said.

Source: Scoop.co.nz

|

Unfortunately, the Board of POAL – which now seems to be a rogue entity and a power unto itself, has flat out rejected Brown’s offer of mediation,

|

But Ports of Auckland chairperson Richard Pearson says it is too late for that.

He says the decision to outsource the stevedoring contractors has already been made and implemented.

“They are already appointed and we cannot go back on that, that is irrevocable”, he says.

Mr Pearson says he would like the mayor instead to persuade the workers to apply for the new roles.

Source: Radio NZ

|

WTF?!?! What did we just hear???

Did Richard Pearson just tell his boss, Len Brown, “No, I’m not doing it”?!

This in a bizarre state of affairs; the Chairman of the Board of POAL has just told the Mayor of Auckland – which owns POAL – to naff off !!!

As I have maintained in previous blogposts, POAL is out of control.

I think we now have the proof we need.

Auckland City Council must take firm action at an upcoming meeting on Thursday,  which I am informed by someone closely connected to events – will have a decisive outcome to events.

Crunchtime: 15 March.

|

Additional

Ports of Auckland Labour Strategy (leaked memo)

|

|

= fs =

10 March – Today was a True Labour Day!

11 March 2012 8 comments

|

|

Yesterday, thousands of ordinary folk –  many from overseas – marched through the streets of Auckland in protest at unfair treatment, and in support of maritime workers. The numbers ranged from 2,000 to  3,000  to 5,000 to simply  ‘thousands‘ – but regardless how many took to the streets, it was a grand effort,

|

Workers, families and supporters of Auckland’s port workers who are currently striking over working conditions, make their way along the waterfront in protest at being made redundant by the company.

|

The March was a testament to the sense of fairplay and support for the underdog, that many New Zealanders hold dear and cherish as a value.

And it will continue to grow.  When citizens discover the raw power that they wield, they use it to stunning effect. Just ask any dictator in the Middle East , or former leaders from Soviet-era Eastern Europe.

This industrial bonfire has been sparked by a Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL) Board and CEO, Tony Gibson, who have engaged in dishonest tactics; unprofessional behaviour; a sham negotiation process; and are now wasting tens of thousands of ratepayers’ dollars on full page ads in the Herald  (which are nothing more than one-sided propaganda).

But it’s hardly surprising really, that Gibson is trying to destroy the Maritime Union and de-unionise the port. A de-unionised workforce is cheaper and more readily exploited for port companies and shipping lines – shipping lines like Maersk, which have been playing off Auckland and Tauranga Ports against each other.

Maersk – the shipping company  Tony Gibson used to work for,

|

Source

|

No divided loyalities or conflict of interest there, I hope, Mr Gibson?

|

* * *

|

Meanwhile, true loyalties were expressed when local Auckland councillors, Community Board members, Members of Parliament, and  unionists came from around the world to support port workers and their families.

Photos courtesy of various good people who were fortunate to attend the March (I am so incredibly envious!!!) and presented in no particular sequential order,

|

Greg Presland, Denise Yates, chair of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board, Patricia M Reade, Julie Fairey, Michael Wood and Leau Peter Skelton. (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)

|

Labour Party; Moira Coatsworth, Darien Fenton, Phil Twyford, David Cunliffe, Sua William Sio, Moana Mackey, Charles Chauvel, and Megan Woods. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

10 March – Aucklanders support port workers. (No acknowledgement details available)

|

Denise Roche, David Shearer, Sally Wilson, Moira Coatsworth, Darien Fenton, Phil Twyford, David Cunliffe, Sua William Sio, Jacinda Ardern, Moana Mackey, Andrew Little, Charles Chauvel, Megan Woods and Louisa Wall Labour Manurewa. (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)

|

David Shearer, Labour Leader, speaking on the mound. In front of him, a crowd of thousands gathers to support MUNZ workers. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

CTU President, Helen Kelly (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)

|

The tide has turned and it is sad – Michael Wood and Enzo Giordani. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

Mana Party’s flag (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)

|

Garry Parsloe, President of MUNZ. We’re in this for the long haul- oh yes we are. With Carol Beaumont, Helen Kelly, David Shearer, Moira Coatsworth, and Darien Fenton. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

Thousands march!(Acknowledgement for photo: save our ports.com)

|

Labour’s Sunny Kaushal, Charles Chauvel, David Cunliffe and Carmel Sepuloni. (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)

|

Really happy to be supporting MUNZ workers. Really upset at the Mayor I campaigned for. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

The Workers’ Haka! (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)

|

Helen Kelly, President of the Council of Trade Unions, makes her point. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

An Auckland Citizen making her feelings known! (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)

|

Nga Ringa Tota – Len Richards and Jill Ovens. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

With Anahila Lose Suisuiki and Josephine Bartley. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

Somewhat to the point, I believe. A call from the people that their leader should lead! (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)

|

With Kate Sutton and Richard Hills at 10 March rally for workers. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

Meat Workers do the Haka. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

Fighting for our children – this is what it’s all about! (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)

|

With Kymberley Inu at the march. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

Is it me.. or does David Cunliffe look like that bloke from “Gladiator”? Quick, someone give him a sword, shield, and Union Agreement and send him into POAL’s Boardroom! There – sorted!! (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)

|

Supporting Auckland port workers – 10 March (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

Solidarity with Port Workers! David Cunliffe second from right. (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)

|

“mum and dad” New Zealanders who demand better treatment for our fellow workers – before everyone buggers off to Australia! (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

Speakers at the March to support Auckland Port workers – Denise Roach in green. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

ACT’s representation on the March! (No acknowledgement details available)

|

With Tele’a Andrews at the march. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

Community Board representatives, Leau Peter Skelton and Tafafuna’i Tasi Lauese; Labour MP Louisa Wall (at back); and Labour MP, Sua William Sio. (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)

|

With Anahila Lose Suisuiki, Josephine Bartley, Moana Mackey, Megan Woods and Richard Hills. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

With Green Party MP, Denise Roche and Ray Familathe, International Transport Workers Federation representative. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

Labour MPs Ross Robertson, Louisa Wall Labour Manurewa and Sua William Sio. (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)

|

With Megan Woods and Moana Mackey. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

Folks are p—-d off, and they ain’t going to take it no more! (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)

|

New Zealanders who’ve had a gutsful at the way we treat our fellow workers. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)

|

Those at the center of this dispute; workers and their families. (Acknowledgement for photo: Save Our Port.Com)

|

– Roll Call of Honour –

.

Members of Parliament

Jacinda Ardern, MP, Labour

Charles Chauvel, MP, Labour

David Cunliffe, MP, Labour

Darien Fenton,  MP, Labour

Hone Harawira, MP, Mana Party leader

Parekura Horomia, MP, Labour

Andrew Little, MP, Labour

Moana Mackey, MP, Labour

Nanaia Mahuta, MP, Labour

Sue Moroney, MP, Labour

Ross Robertson, MP, Labour

Denise Roche, MP, Green Party

David Shearer, MP, Labour leader

Sua William Sio, MP, Labour

Rino Tirakatene, MP, Labour

Phil Twyford, MP, Labour

Louisa Wall, MP, Labour

Megan Woods, MP, Labour

Auckland City Councillors

Cathy Casey

Sandra Coney

Mike Lee

Community Board Members

Josephine Bartley, Tamaki Subdivision of the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board

Leila Boyle, Tamaki Subdivision of the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board

Shale Chambers, Waitemata Local Board

Christopher Dempsey, Waitemata Local Board

Julie Fairey,  Puketapapa Local Board

Graeme Easte, Albert-Eden Local Board

Catherine Farmer, Whau Local Board

Grant Gillon, Kaipatiki Local Board

Peter Haynes,  Albert-Eden Local Board

Richard Hills, Kaipatiki Local Board

Vivienne Keohane, Kaipatiki Local Board

Tafafuna’i Tasi Lauese, Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board

Simon Mitchell, Albert-Eden Local Board

Greg Presland, Waitakere Ranges Local Board

Patricia M Reade, Waitemata Local Board

Leau Peter Skelton, Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board

Lydia Sosene,  Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board

Michael Wood,  Puketapapa Local Board

Denise Yates, chair of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board

International Trade Unionists

Ray Familathe, International Transport Workers Federation representative

Mauro Viera, Sydney stevedore

& many others!

Young Activist Heroes!

NZ First Youth

And last, and most important,

The People of Auckland who Marched!

|

* * *

|

Additional

Fairfax: Thousands march in support of port workers

TV3:  John Campbell interviews Auckland Mayor Len Brown

TV3: Unions band together against ‘vicious employers’

TV3:  Mana, Greens, Labour join ports rally

TVNZ: Thousands rally for sacked Ports workers

TVNZ: Port dispute ‘causing ripples’ overseas

TVNZ: Port’s growth target questioned

TVNZ: Q+A: Transcript of Paul Holmes interview with Len Brown

Metro: Every Storm in the Port

Matt McCarten/NZ Herald: Mayor’s leadership feeling the strain

Brian Rudman/NZ Herald: Mayor’s paralysis in port dispute leaves role of leader vacant

Auckland Now:  Shipping firm quits port amid protest

NZ Herald:  Auckland, Tauranga ports ‘cutting each other’s throats’ – Mike Lee

NZ Herald: Noisy march gives heart to wharfies

NZ Herald:  C-words that don’t help anyone except bosses

 

|

Other Blog Reports

Dimpost: Destroying the village to make it more efficient

Dimpost:  ‘We’re going on a journey . . .’

The Jackalman: Richard Pearson – Asshole of the Week

Tumeke:  In defense (and immediate criticism) of Mayor Scab Brown

Tumeke:  What was said on the protest march

Bowalley Road: Frightening The Government

Waitakere News: Len Brown and POAL – Its your time Len

Waitakere News: Is Auckland’s Port’s labour costs cheaper than Tauranga’s?

|

|

A media release I would love to see from Len Brown…

9 March 2012 1 comment

.

.

A press release I would love to see issued by Len Brown,

.

I today issued shareholder instructions to the Board of Ports of Auckland Ltd to retract the redundancy notices issued to 300 striking Port workers. I have further instructed the Board representatives to return to mediation, and to begin negotiation anew, in good faith.

I will also be issuing a new directive to the Board that Auckland City Council’s expectations for a rate of return is not to exceed 6%.

I offer my sincere apoligies to the workers and their families for the length of time it has taken. Obviously my hands-off approach has not achieved the desired outcome, and instead I will be making my office available for ongoing negotiation and mediation between all parties.

Let me make this clear; I expect no one to lose their jobs in this dispute.

I do, however, expect a good outcome that benefits workers; their families; as well as the Port. But people will always come first under my administration.

That  is not negotiable.”

If Len Brown uses that, it will be free-of-charge on my part. I’d be happy to help.

.

.

Categories: Social Issues Tags:

Propaganda as an industrial dispute weapon?

27 February 2012 14 comments

.

.

Whilst the Labour Party is taking great pains to keep an impartial, neutral position on the port dispute in Auckland – the PoAL (Ports of Auckland Ltd) shows no such inclination toward restrained behaviour.

According to a recent report by Fairfax Media, PoAL has taken another step to ratcheting up the dispute with a new (and somewhat bizarre) propaganda tactic,

.

Full Story

.

A casual check of two right wing blogs – one with strong National Party connections – yielded the following result,

.

Source

.

Source

.

Sending out a Press Release on the progress of negotiations is one thing.

But for a company such as PoAL to send information specifically to right wing blogs, that publish material from employers on a no-questions-asked basis,  is something relatively new to our industrial scene.

This is obviously a propaganda campaign – though one wonders what might be the purpose of such a campaign. Considering that probably 99% of Auckland ratepayers have never heard of “Kiwiblog”, and even fewer  “Cactus Kate” – feeding those two bloggers might appear to be somewhat of a pointless exercise.

Unless, of course, they are expecting David Farrar to parrot that information on his column in the NZ Herald? (And what would “Cactus Kate” do with her “Ports of Auckland Fact Sheet”?)

This should give cause for concern for PoAL’s shareholders – in this case the Auckland City Council (through it’s holding company, Auckland Council Investments Limited).

Whatever actions taken by the PoAL Board and especially it’s CEO, Tony Gibson, will ultimately reflect on the Auckland City Council, and it’s mayor, Len Brown.

At this point, I am wondering what Auckland councillors and mayor are thinking, knowing that their company is engaging in some weird propaganda exercise with two right-wing bloggers? Actually, do they even know?!

Is this professional behaviour from a Chief Executive who commands a $750,000 annual salary (+ perks) – eight times the figure allegedly paid to maritime workers?

PoAL’s behaviour suggests that there is not a shred of “goodwill” on their part to resolve the port dispute with it’s workers. Any such suggestion would be laughable. Instead, the propaganda campaign marks nothing less than open warfare designed to undermine their Union, and by default, the entire employer-employee negotiations.

Not exactly the best way to engender good relations, loyalty, or productivity from staff?!

Whilst David Shearer and Len Brown have adopted a “hands-off” stance, to allow both parties to come to a resolution, it appears that PoAL have no hesitation in “getting down and dirty” in this fight. Which means that whilst the port workers are effectively on their own – the Right are mounting a more and more agressive campaign, and bringing in every ally they can muster.

Some might say this is “class war”. And to be honest, it appears more and more that way every passing day.

This is not resolution – this is escalation.

Who will PoAL call upon next?

.

Sent to Mayor Len Brown

.

from:    Frank Macskasy
to:    Len Brown <len.brown@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>
date:    Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:05 PM
subject:    Port Dispute – Escalation?

Sir,

As you may or may not be aware, Ports of Auckland Ltd have taken to sending information to right wing blogs – namely “Kiwiblog” and “Cactus Kate” – regarding an alleged Ernst & Young “audit” of PoAL employees salaries.

This audit was released only to right wing bloggers (as far as I am aware), and not to the media.

Questions arising from PoAL’s actions,

1. Were you and Council members aware that PoAL was engaging in the release of such an inflammatory report to selected recipients?

2. Is it policy from Auckland Council that ratepayer-owned businesses engage in such provocative and unprofessional behaviour, in the midst of an industrial dispute?

3. Do you, and Council, believe that such provocative behaviour is indicative of “goodwill bargaining” by employers?

4. Does Auckland Council endorse these tactics from PoAL?

5. What was the purpose of PoAL releasing this “audit” to right-wing bloggers?

6. After this release of information, do you and Council still have confidence in PoAL chief Excecutive, Tony Gibson, who appears to be engaging in escalation rather than negotiation?

In case you have not see the material I am referring to, the relevant information is here: https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/propaganda-as-an-industrial-dispute-weapon/

It is my assessment that Mr Gibson’s position of PoAL chief executive has become untenable, as he has alienated his workforce and resorted to tactics that are inflammatory. His actions in sending material to rightwing bloggers cannot be considered anything except highly provocative. One must question Mr Gibson’s  judgement in engaging in such unprofessional behaviour.

As mayor and leader of Auckland, responsibility for resolving this confrontation devolves to you, Mr Brown. Mr Gibson seems unable (or unwilling, for reasons known only to himself) to resolve this dispute.

It is time, sir, for you to take immediate and decisive action.

It is time for Mr Gibson to step down as CEO of Ports of Auckland Ltd.

It is time for a new CEO to be appointed – one who can engage with maritime workers and act constructively to resolve this dispute.

Regards,
– Frank Macskasy
Blogger
Frankly Speaking

.

from:    Mayor Len Brown Len.Brown@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
to:    Frank Macskasy
date:    Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:05 PM
subject:    Thank you for contacting Mayor Len Brown

On behalf of Mayor Len Brown, thank you for your email.

The Mayor receives a large volume of correspondence and we will respond to you as soon as possible.

Kind regards,
Office of the Mayor
Auckland Council – Te Kaunihera O Tamāki Makaurau

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Follow Len Brown on Facebook & Twitter

.

After a month, the following reply is received from Mayor Brown’s office,

.

from:    Mayor Len Brown Len.Brown@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
to:    Frank Macskasy
date:    Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:56 AM
subject:    RE: Port Dispute – Escalation?
    

Dear Frank,

Thank you for contacting Mayor Len Brown regarding the current dispute at the Ports of Auckland. I am responding on his behalf and please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in responding to you.

Mayor Brown’s position is to continue to encourage both sides of the dispute to return to the negotiating table and bargain in good faith on the collective agreement.

Both sides are aware of the need for a sustainable settlement because the Port is essential to the Auckland economy and delivers ratepayers a return on their investment. The two sides need to find a solution and this cannot be imposed on them from outside.

Mayor Brown supports retaining the port in public ownership and not privatising it, which means it is important that the port work as efficiently and effectively as possible for the people of Auckland.

Ports of Auckland Ltd is an independent company that is run and managed by its own board. It is not appropriate for Mayor Brown to step in on every industrial dispute as it is the two sides that need to come to agreement.

However, Mayor Brown remains concerned about the ongoing impact of the dispute on the Auckland economy, the return to Auckland Council and the working relationships on the wharves. He will continue to encourage both sides to enter mediation and resolve the dispute in a sustainable manner.

Kind Regards,
Donna Lovejoy | Mayoral Correspondence
Office of the Mayor, Auckland Council
Level 1, Town Hall, Queen Street, Auckland
Visit our website:  http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

.

It is disappointing that Len Brown’s response addressed none of the points I raised and answered none of the questions.

If Len Brown believes that he is safe by sitting on the fence,  he should consider Humpty Dumpty’s fate. Deserting your constituents who voted for you is not a particularly smart thing to do.

.

***

.

Additional

Chris Trotter: The Auckland Ports Dispute – An Open Letter To David Shearer

Chris Trotter: Equal and Opposite

Matt McCarten: It’s time to step up, Mr Mayor

Maritime Union: Ports of Auckland management “fact sheet” short on facts

.

.

At gunpoint, maybe?

6 January 2012 4 comments

.

.

I recall the rise and rise of the Solidarity Free Trade Union movement in Poland in 1980, when Polish workers rose up against their communist government Overlords and said “enough!”. Workers wanted their own, independent,  trade unions – not the puppet organisations run by, and for, the Polish communist party.

It gained strength and became not just the first truly independent worker’s union in a communist state – but practically a grass-roots de facto Opposition to Poland’s one-party government.

In 1981,   the New Zealand Polish Association in Wellington; various local trade unions; and an organisation that I belonged to, organised one of the largest street marches – estimated to number up to ten thousand – in support of Solidarity.

Solidarity was hailed around the world.

Leaders in the West hailed Solidarity as peoples’ desire to be free and belong to whatever associations they wanted. The subtext, of course, was pointing out the irony that workers were protesting against their own supposedly workers-party, in a supposedly workers’ “socialist paradise”.

No wonder Western leaders of the likes of Reagan,  Thatcher, et al, supported the Solidarity movement – it was a “poke in the eye” for the Soviet Union and it’s Eastern European satellite  client-states. (Though I doubt that Western leaders had suddenly become over-night champions of workers’ rights.)

It seems therefore somewhat duplicitous that some folk now condemn free trade unions and want their activities curtailed, using  “whatever action they need to take to resolve this matter“,

.

Source

.

Really? Ex-National MP and mayoral aspirant, Christine Fletcher has called for the strike to be “resolved”, using “whatever action they need to take to resolve this matter“?!

Them is powerful words; “whatever action they need to take“.

I am reminded that the communist regime in Poland also attempted to employ “whatever action they needed” to crush the Solidarity Trade Union.

The communists – led by General Jaruzelski – declared martial law on December 13, 1981, which lasted until July 1983. Under cover of martial law, thousands of Polish activists (we would call them freedom fighters) were imprisoned. Up to 100 innocent people may have been killed in the crack-down, that was ruthless even by communist standards.

So when Ms Fletcher calls for the Auckland Port strike to be “resolved” using “whatever action they need to take to resolve this matter” – that statement makes me uneasy. She obviously has no real understanding what it takes to smash a  trade union.

Does Ms Fletcher want the Maritime Union disbanded? It’s bank account(s) frozen? It’s assets seized? It’s organisers arrested and thrown into prison?

I’m under no illusion that there are quasi-sociopathic extremists in this country – as around the world in every other society – who  would welcome living in a repressive, autocratic regime that would imprison trade unionists. (And possibly journalists, left-wing commentators and bloggers, judges, and anyone else who doesn’t tow the Party line. It’s called fascism.)

But I’m disappointed and saddened that Christine Fletcher is so mis-guided as to be espousing what amounts to a state crackdown on perfectly legal organisations, and their members exercising their democratic rights.

The same democratic rights, I might add, that eventually brought down the Polish government and started the domino-collapse of communism and the Soviet Empire.

I am even further saddened when I recall – and remind readers – that Ms Fletcher was  a principled politician who resigned as Minister in  September 1997, because she objected to the sale of  publicly-owned assets of the ARST (Auckland Regional Services Trust)  by the then, Bolger-led National government.

Whether or not Ms Fletcher supports the action of the Martime Union and the Ports of Auckland Board should be set aside. Democracy is, by necessity, a messy process.

Would we want it any other way?

Especially cosidering the alternatives? Perhaps we should ask the people of Syria.

When Ms Fletcher demands “whatever action they need to take to resolve this matter“, what, precisely, is she hinting but not actually putting into words?

At gunpoint, maybe?

Interestingly, the Maritime Union is asking for actually less than the Ports of Auckland Board is offering; 2.5% as opposed to the company’s 10%,

.

Full Story

.

The “sticking point” is the companies plan to casualise the workforce.

As commentator and blogger, Kjt said on The Standard,

Among other things, POAL want the advantages of a casual on call work force without having to pay for it. Not many people would want to be on 8 hours call 365 days of the year with only a certain number of hours guaranteed and no pay for being available. In Tauranga and Nelson casuals are free to take other work without penalty.”

No wonder the workers are fighting back  by strike action. Their jobs are on the line.

Now, is that an unreasonable thing to fight for?

.

***

.

Messages of support for striking workers can be left on these Facebook pages

Facebook: Ports of Auckland

Facebook: Maritime Union

Additional

Wikipedia: Christine Fletcher

Wikipedia: Solidarnosc

Wikipedia: Martial Law in Poland

Facebook: NZ Maritime Union

Port bosses sensitive to show of union power

Matt McCarten: ‘Greedy wharfies’ tale hides ambitions for port

.

.

Minister in Charge of R.W.C. (Royal Wellington-based Cock-up)

13 September 2011 3 comments

The government has launched, what is in effect, a “Very Kiwi Coup” in taking over certain aspects  of the RWC in Auckland; the “fanzone” at Queens Wharf, and

.

Source

Listen to Murray McCully on Checkpoint

.

However, it is worthwhile to note that central Government already held responsibility for several major aspects of this event. The Prime Minister, John Key, cannot easily dismiss his government’s culpability in last Friday’s fiasco with a smile and brief comment,

“I am more than happy to apologise to those individuals involved, but at the end of the day, the responsibility rests with the delivery agent that is in Auckland.”  Source

In fact, only two years ago,  Key was warned of severe shortcomings to RWC planning,

.

Full Story

.

In July 2009, the government received a report from the then-Auckland Regional Transport Authority (now replaced by the Auckland Transport Agency – but more on that in a moment) on Rugby World Cup transport planning. The report stated, in part,

“The impression is that the level of public transport required for RWC2011 is a little above normal. The levels of patron movement and operational standard [needed for the RWC] are in reality significantly above what is currently delivered.” Source

Why is this important?

Because Murray McCully holds several portfolios,

  • Minister of Foreign Affairs
  • Minister for Sport and Recreation
  • Minister for the Rugby World Cup
  • Member, Privileges Committee

As such, Minister McCully holds a role in government over-seeing the smooth running of the Rugby World Cup event in this country. (Otherwise, why hold such a position in the first place?)

So for John Key to attempt to shift responsibility for oversight of the RWC planning for Auckland to the “delivery agent that is in Auckland” – then we are witnessing a certain degree of buck-passing.

The body overseeing transport organisation is the Auckland Transport Agency,

.

.

This Agency was set up by central government in November 2009 and Transport Minister Steven Joyce said that “the Auckland Transport Agency will be responsible for all local authority transport functions, including roads and public transport“.

Of the ATA’s Board of seven directors, five  are appointed by the government and two by the  ‘new’, amalgamated super-city Auckland Council.

.

.

The ATA is therefore a ‘creature’ of central government, and is stacked with a majority of Directors of  government appointees.

And finally,  Veolia Transport Auckland operates the Auckland passenger rail network on behalf of Auckland Transport, as per the current ideology that “private enterprise can deliver a better, more efficient service” than Council or State organisations.

Veolia was directly managing the rail system and had supposedly prepared for heightened demand for RWC patrons and other members of the public,

“During September and October 2011 we will be increasing our services to provide higher frequency and higher capacity rail services during the Rugby World Cup.”

.

.

It therefore seems bizarre that Central Government has attempted to blame Auckland Council for the inadequate transport arrangements of last Friday. Even the low number of Police – 200 by one report – who courageously  managed a crowd of 200,000+ , could not be made the responsibility of the Auckland Council.

Last time I looked, police were under the command of the Police Commissioner (Peter Marshall), who reports to the Minister of (Police (Judith Collins) – not the mayor of Auckland.

It is obvious that a sporting event of this magnitude; spanning the entire country (not just held in Auckland); and requiring the full resources of the state; required hands-on over-sight by central government.

It is further symptomatic of the shambles from last Friday, that Murray McCully has only now called for more planning around the Qureen’s Wharf  “fanzone”,

“Over the weekend I held discussions with the Queens Wharf management team, including Auckland Festival Trust and the NZ2011 Office. Yesterday, I formally instructed them to form a plan for the accommodation of the public based on the large numbers we saw last Friday, and in the expectation that even without a major event operating, numbers might flow over from Queens Wharf.”  Source

It is extraordinary that he has only today realised that large numbers of people attending would require special planning. Unbelievable.

Murray McCully is the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. Unless he relinquished that role sometime in the last few days, responsibility rests with him. As do the government controlled agencies such as the Police and ATA. As such, he and his well-paid officials should be over-seeing the planning and co-ordination of state and local agencies for this event.

Otherwise, next time it may not end so well. We were lucky – very lucky indeed that no one was seriously  injured or killed. It was only by good lucky; the good nature (generally) of the crowd; and the cool heads of the police that prevented a tragedy.

As one person wrote, in an email to the Prime Minister,

.

“Dear Mr Key …

You are extremely lucky that there was no death or serious injury from crushing or trampling in Quay Street during the opening celebrations.

“When we got off the ferry, Quay Street was packed so we were squeezed amongst all the people … It was not a safe feeling so we turned back. People were trying to move in both directions, both to and from the ferry and there were many people who were trying to stay still in front of the big screen to watch the … entertainment.

“A girl of about 12 being pushed beside me became hysterical yelling and screaming over and over `stop pushing me’.

“I saw my friend on top of the fence yelling at me to get to it and climb over it down to the lower floating pontoons. I eventually managed to get to the fence and was helped over and down (it was about a two-metre drop with a gap where I could have fallen into the water) onto the pontoons … It was along those pontoons that we eventually got to the ferry building where we could catch a ferry to get out of there.

“Party Central for 12,000 people for a city of Auckland’s size was ridiculous.

Jan Gillespie
Auckland resident “

.

This is one cock-up that John Key cannot smile and wave his way out of.

.

***

.

Continued here: New Warnings: R.W.C.

.

.