Overseas travel by Auckland City

You will note the link below about Len Brown's junketeering to Japan.

But what about Auckland City? How are John Banks and C&R being prudent with ratepayers cash over travel? Is it being kept to a minimum, or are we spending up like City Vision and Labour did when they were in charge?

I'm pleased to report that overseas travel by politicians is slashed by approximately 90% over this current John Banks/C&R council term compared to the globetrotting days of art gallery investigations under Dick Hubbard and City Vision/Labour. (You may recall some of the big junkets under the Hubbard term like this one)

2004-2007 council term spending on overseas travel: $227,215.37

2007-2010 council term spending on overseas travel: $23,917.07 (to date)

(figures provided to me by a council officer)

I think that's a pretty good result - Auckland City ratepayers deserved some prudent behaviour from their politicians after three years of big City Vision spendups. Overseas travel became a symbol of how out of touch City Vision and Labour became.

Banks back in the lead

John Banks' latest poll has him back in the lead for the race to be Auckland Council's first Mayor.

The poll of 1200, conducted by Curia Research Ltd last week has Banks on 42.5% and Len Brown on 38.1% in an unprompted Mayoral preference question.

Banks has a lead of 4.4%, and there is no other third party candidate in double digits.

Other candidates include Bob Harvey on 7.2% and Stephen Tindall on 4.8%.

In the two horse race, prompting people to ask if they prefer Banks or Brown, the answers are split perfectly at 50% each.

I have no doubt that Banks' rise in this poll can be attributed to his hard work over January and February, as well as his representing of Auckland interests on issues like Queens Wharf.

Conversely, Len Brown has dropped off the face of Earth over the last two months. Well, maybe he just travelled to the other side of the planet - I note Brown has been pinged for overseas junketeering by the latest edition of the Herald on Sunday.

Supercity delivering benefits in savings

Let's remember, the reason why we wanted a supercity was to save time and money. Time because decision-making would be improved and less time would be spent bouncing infrastructure decisions between various authorities.

But money is obviously the other one. From unifying the several water authorities, to using purchasing power to get a better deal for ratepayers, there is ample scope to deliver some long term savings for Aucklanders.

This morning, its was revealed that the purchasing power of the new supercity would have save money when purchasing power (excuse the pun).

Electricity contracts had been negotiated by the eight councils and the Auckland Transition Agency, and as a result have only seen an increase in prices of 2.1% since the contracts were last done in 2007, well under what the market for power has increased by over the last 2 and a bit years.

The article reports that North Shore City has saved around $400,000 for year 2010/2011. That's nothing to be sneezed at. OPEX savings are the best because they are direct dollar for dollar savings. A $400,000 saving would be approximately a 0.1% rates reduction at Auckland City council, or a $6 million capital item purchase ($400,000 would pay the borrowing for such an item).

We need to see more of this in advance of the new Auckland Council.

City Vision's $350,000 gambling fee

Today at the Council’s combined committee meeting to set the draft annual plan, we approved and fine-tuned some changes to various aspects of council business over the next year or so. We are taking a largely minimalist approach because this is what the Auckland Transition Agency has asked of the Auckland councils leading into the big amalgamation.

One of the various items up for discussion was a change to the licensing fee for gambling venues. Most licensing fees are based on cost recovery, and so officers proposed a $350 fee for any pub type venue that wanted to apply for gambling machines located on their premises. (Item 6 of the meeting agenda here)

Labour-City Vision though proposed an amendment to this.

They formally proposed and debated in favour of a $350,000 gambling venue fee.

Yes, you read that right – a $350,000 fee. It was voted down of course.

Now, maybe their motion was just point scoring in a rather sad and pathetic fashion about how they don't like gambling, and maybe they knew in their hearts they weren’t being serious, but what a demeaning thing to do at a council meeting. It’s simply astonishing they would seek to engage in this kind of pathetic debate, abusing council processs for this kind of childish use of council time.

Len Brown' flip flops again on Queens Wharf

What is Len Brown's position on Queens Wharf? Does he actually have one?

I only ask, because in this morning's Herald, he has changed his mind yet again on what should be done. Here's the quote:

"Manukau Mayor Len Brown says the Government should forget its $100 million plan for Queens Wharf and go back to the basic 'party central' upgrade for the Rugby World Cup.

Mr Brown yesterday broke ranks from a consensus being built by the head of the agency designing the Super City, Mark Ford, and his top legal adviser, Rob Fisher, to win support for the controversial project.

Mr Brown said that while he had told the pair he liked the expensive design he did not believe an economic case could be mounted for a cruise ship terminal and public support gained in time to build it for next year's cup"

Yet three days ago in the Herald, Len Brown said that he liked the proposal, the best he'd seen so far, and supported it if the business case showed it was essential to do it before the cup because of extraordinary economic benefits now and later.

He gave every impression of wanting to go full steam ahead after his private meeting with Mark Ford. Around the same time on TVNZ, Len said that public input was critical.

On the 4th of November 2009 in the NZ Herald, Len Brown said Queens Wharf was constrained by wanting to do something for the cup.

``We can do a lot with the twin sheds and make it party central without the need to rush into what could potentially be a brilliant iconic structure.''

On the 15th of January in the NZ Herald, Len Brown said the Government needed to engage with all the region's councils and communities on plans.

But only three days ago in the Herald, Len Brown said that the decision rested with Auckland City, the ARC and Government.

So which is it? Is it a decision for the new council, a decision for Greater Auckland, or is it a decision for Auckland City, the ARC or Government?

So to sum up Len Brown position:, "We shouldn't rush things but we need to get cracking, all of Auckland should be consulted, but only through private meetings with Mark Ford; we need a masterplan for waterfront development but rushing construction for the Rugby World Cup is an economic priority; so I support this as the best design I've yet seen for Queens Wharf, but now I also support the cautious option."

This guy's favourite hobby must be windsurfing - he'll go any way the wind blows.

Heart of the City on Queens Wharf

Heart of the City has made the case for caution and careful planning for Queens Wharf.

Here's the text from their website.

"We believe long term that the Queen's Wharf development should be the business of Auckland's new Super City and not rushed for the Rugby World Cup. The problem with the latest push is that it lumps Queen's Wharf in with the development of Eden Park and a rugby event rather than looking properly as to how it fits in with the development of the central city waterfront. We believe that Aucklanders should have their say on what happens to their waterfront – don't you?"

Here's the link to their website stating the case for taking our time.

Go have your say.

Len Brown flip flops on Queens Wharf

Back in January, Len Brown breathlessly mimicked John Banks' position on Queens Wharf.

Banks' position was that government would be wrong to take a loan out in the name of the future Auckland Council for a cruise ship terminal, when ratepayers of Greater Auckland would be picking up the tab without any say. Any building on our waterfront should be great, and we should progress plans in an orderly fashion after RWC2011.

Here's what Labour Len said back on the 14th of January in a press release:

Today I called for all of Auckland’s communities to be allowed a say about what happens on Queens Wharf.

I believe the last thing we need to do is rush a decision on the future of Queens Wharf before the new super-city is established and we can deliver a coherent master plan for the development of the harbour.

The harbour and waterfront is too important to Auckland’s future to be held ransom to political agendas or a timetable around the Rugby World Cup. Nor do we need Wellington to be seen to be telling the region how it should develop.

But today, Len Brown has flip flopped with his comments that he now supports the government's plans to rush a cruise ship terminal ahead of the Rugby World Cup.

“They seem clear that they would be able to build it between now and the Rugby World Cup,” he says. “For me I think the key issue is, the primary reason for us to drive it through now would be economic gain.”

This is weak stuff from someone who says they want to be Mayor of a supercity - a flip flop in less than three weeks!

Back in January, Len Brown was calling for a working group involving communities from all over Auckland so everyone got a say. Now, he's a party to secret meetings where only one build option was allegedly shown.