Robert Shaw . .

aotea now to have a management plan!!

Hi Robert,

Aotea Lagoon is now classified as a recreation reserve. DOC advised that the 1994 draft Aotea Lagoon Reserve Management Plan could not be approved as a statutory plan until it had been reviewed, given the time elapsed since its original drafting.

This review is being undertaken as part of the development of a reserves management plan covering all Porirua City reserves. Particular provisions relating to the management of Aotea Lagoon Reserve will be included in this new plan.

The community will be consulted on a draft Porirua City Reserves Management Plan in 2011. All classified reserves in Porirua, including Aotea Lagoon will then be subject to an approved Porirua City Reserves Management Plan. I have attached two gazette notices that relate to the classification of Aotea Lagoon as a Recreation Reserve.

David Rolfe
ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE

ROBERT COMMENTS

This must mean that the Aotea Lagoon decision-making is on hold pending a management plan.
Good news. It makes the application for a wake park null and void, because it was in accordance with a non-statutory plan.
r
November 6, 2010

tut tut

I see Tommy's Real Estate is on its website claiming the mayor as its agent.

Nick Leggett Mobile: 027 248 2175 A/hours: 233 5015 nick@tommysmana.co.nz
November 6, 2010

Councillors and candidates

I learn that some councillors and council candidates were concerned about a letter they received from the chief executive saying that they should not talk about the Aotea Lagoon in their campaigns. There are very serious implications in this, and they need to be addressed in a proper way. The idea that everyone must keep silent on public issues is absurd, and all too convenient for some. Is Mayor Leggett going to sort this I wonder.
r
November 6, 2010

smartlinks3

Below are some questions and the Council's answers. Other councils discounted the worth of the investment in their accounts, but not so our council evidently. Council has allowed itself to become the customer of its struggling company and hence they must struggle to say that we are keeping the cost of broadband services down. Never mind: the ratepayers have heaps of money. With regards to 6 below, all I can say is that the official who replied cannot read.
Robert
November 6, 2010

You will have read the report on KMN on SM3. Might you say for our council please:

1. What is the total amount we have paid for the investment? $265,000

2.What is our investment now valued at? We would not know that until someone paid us for our shares. The book value is $265,000

3. Was the valuation specifically confirmed by the Audit Office, and did they say anything about it? The book value was reported in the audited Annual Report - no comment by the auditors was made.

4. Is the Council still a customer of SL3, and if so what did we pay them for services in the last financial year (or whatever recent period is convenient)? Yes, Council is a customer of SL3. We're paying $1,121.00 per month for at least the past 12 months

5. Did our Council take up more shares in SL3 for money, or make any further investment in the last 12 months? If so how much? We did not purchase any shares in the last 12 months.

6. You will remember I have been asking to see the financial data on the company (to the level provided for a publicly listed company) but to no avail. Does the Council hold this information, has it sought it, and what is the Council's proposal regarding the apprehension of financial information on the ratepayers' investment?

You are incorrect in stating that Smartlinx 3 is a publicly listed company. It is a privately held company and as such is not required to publicly provide financial information. Such information as Smartlinx 3 is required to provide as a Limited Liability entity is freely available by enquiry on the Companies Office website.

dr jackman on your vote, etc

In 1983 I first proposed that the country should adopt a “clean and green” image for the multiple value benefits - to the economy, ecology, ethics and aesthetics which would accrue to the nation, particularly were it true. That was in late night discussions with the then Minister for the Environment, Dr Ian Shearer, incidentally the most well-informed of all ministers I have had dealings with in the last thirty years. He knew what the total or holistic environment is all about. Moreover, even then we were talking the prospect of climate change and need for a precautionary scientific approach to ensuring New Zealand’s future.

The “clean and green” expression took ten years of market theory madness before it emerged out in public domain, curiously under a National government again with Upton as Minister -who turned it into a very shallow mantra and the mistruth it is today. In an attempt to get real meaning back into being clean and green and with a deep aversion to most politicians at any level these days and forever apolitical I turn my eye towards some current local body issues.

Firstly, it is great to see Gary Simpson back replacing Roger Blakely as PCC’s Chief Executive (KMN 14 September) At least Gary is imbued with the philosophy and history of why we have passive parks and the need for more given population increases, more entering the older aged bracket, and fhe need to concern ourselves with both ecological health and social welfare. All of which can be achieved if tackled holistically but we have few candidates, if at all, who might measure up

On the basis of history alone, any candidate for local body election who has signalled changing Aotea Lagoon into an aerial skate park should not be voted for.

Secondly, any candidate whether local, regional or in the upcoming national by-election, who does not recognise the value to Porirua of the proposal for the National Coordinative Centre for the National Arboretuml to be ocated here in Porirua needs their head read. That proposal has been around for 25 years now and the concept is well developed. Do not pretend you do not know about it Jenny Brash, your Transmission Gully” fixation and constant manipulation of facts to suit yourself has become very  wearying. TGM goes right through the best site and is on a historical liquefaction area said to have experienced the greatest uplift of over 3 metres in the 1855 earthquake.

Those candidates photographed drinking to Stephen Joyce’s surreal decision on TGM last December, or have displayed their membership of the TGM Advocacy Group, should not be voted for.  If they had only drunk the bottom of their glass I might make an exception because your job remains half done, particularly on multiple value benefit (MVB) grounds!

Thirdly, those candidates who do not know that an expressway by-passing Pukerua Bay exist despite the cover-ups. Promises to explore the option by NZTA have come to nought. Do not be lulled into a false security by the new constructions within the township orby Stephen Joyce. The cost is now probably well over $2.5 million because of lack of recognition of earthquake risk, increasingly intense rainfall events and increasingly heavier truck movement. The current works are just Pukerua’s due maintenance.

Any political candidate who thinks they can trade off Pukerua  and its future, as they have done in the past, by saying that they did not know about this new by-pass option or make an excuse about not knowing the expressway’s actual route, how cheap it could be, and the multiple value benefits for Pukerua and Porirua, including saving Muri Station and even the Mega Centre, should not be voted for. If that is all too complicated for any candidate to see the linkages displays incompetence in your candidature. Stephen Joyce was sent four sketch propositions with associated listed benefits a year which would give Pukerua Bay its future back -but I have not had a reply. Where is democracy in all that.

Finally, could candidates let us all know how much Porirua ratepayers have to cough out in the future for maintaining Centennial Highway as a scenic local road when  TGM goes through? Presently we are overloaded with political disingenuousness.

Having scrutinised past voting patterns, utterings and junk mail blurbs across this limited spectrum of issues I have not yet found anyone to vote for.

Dr Tony Jackman.

September 2010

The mayor's job

Porirua's new mayor confronts some real challenges. The first is to instill in the councillors some old fashioned responsibility. The councillors are elected as trustees on behalf of all of us. They must value the assets and ambiance of the city. This means they must preserve what we have and not hand it all over to private interests.

The second challenge is to make the councillors accept responsibility for the spending of $70 million each year - this is $70 million of other people's money. It is communal money, and it is not to be used to to advantage the few and the diffuse cost of the many. That the many are depleated in a diffuse way is what makes it all possible. People do not notice or worry about small losses.

The major practical task of the mayor is education: he must teach the councillors, teach the public, and bring the officers to a new understanding of what is the nature of Porirua City. Our mayor needs to bring much intellectual leadership to the fore. Without this we will continue to be the highest rated place in New Zealand. We will continue to waste maga-bucks on Aotea Lagoon's and the development of the town centre in the interests of property owners who are smart enough not to invest their own money in their buildings.

I wish all the new councillors and the new mayor all the best of luck. But really, there is no luck about it. Cities around the world face the same problems that we face and they have found plenty of solutions. All we need to do is give up the mad preoccupation with growth and income making schemes.
Robert

5 September 2010

our international award bid

The bid by Porirua City to win an international award is a good thing. Success will benefit our city and its people. New Plymouth won the award earlier and I have seen for myself how it has benefited their community. Nevertheless, we need to be aware that there are heavy ideological overtones in the award. Check out their website for the word "democracy" for example. Even community participation and empowerment is somewhat directed at "how they react to us". I leave you to judge this comment.

See below for Cr Douglas on the importance of our bit to win an international award. Reflect on the criteria for "The International Awards for Liveable Communities" in relation to the Aotea exercise. I quote one of the criteria, and pose the question: how are we doing?
Robert

4. Community Participation and Empowerment:

This section should demonstrate the method
and style of ongoing involvement of individuals,
groups and Organisations in the planning,
development and management of the local
community, and how the local community is
empowered and reacts to the opportunity of
being involved in its development. Components
of this section will include integration,
development, satisfaction, resources and
involvement.

A successful community will often embrace
projects and programmes that raise the social
and intellectual level of community members.
The manner in which professional community
administrators relate to community groups and
individuals should be described. Community
involvement may be reflected in initiatives such
as conservation projects, interpretation and
guiding programmes, information and education
programmes, promotion by and involvement
of local businesses and organizations, and the
facilitation of local events, festivals, fund raising
and fnancial or in kind support.

ken douglas on robert & aotea

Robert , You really are to much . It appals me @ your lack of respect for
your obligations as an elected member . You exercised your right to NOT
participate in the hearings process, you have exercised your right to NOT
seek re election , you have ignored all recognition of best practice of
Governance responsibility ( which you have regularly pontificated about ever
since I have been on the Council )you have regularly and deliberately
misrepresented the facts of many issues over this period of my direct
knowledge( calling into question the integrity of Officers/ Councillors and
the PCC itself .
Your actions now expose your real purpose and that is to simply diminish the
reputation and confidence of the wider community in the building of a
recognition that Porirua is a Happening and Amazing place. That is now on
the verge of a unique international recognition.
I don't thank you for your disloyalty or yourself opinionated promotion of
what is clearly one great massive ego.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Rolfe [mailto:DRolfe@pcc.govt.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 2 September 2010 11:39 a.m.
To: Cr Robert Shaw
Cc: Cr Denys Latham; Cr Euon Murrell (work); Cr Henry Smith; Cr Ken Douglas;
Cr Litea Ah Hoi (Deputy Mayor); Cr Liz Kelly - work; Cr Nick Leggett; Cr Sue
Dow; Cr Taima Fagaloa; Cr Tim Manu; Cr Tim Sheppard; Jenny Brash
Subject: RE: Aotea

Hi Robert,
I have provided you with the information that you requested on the basis
that the information had already been provided to all the other councillors
either at the Committee or Council meetings or in the Councillor Bulletin
with the exception of the letter to the Minister which outlined Council's
decision regarding the Cable Ski proposal for Aotea Lagoon.

You have come back and asked me to confirm that the letter to the Minister
is a public document.

My advice on this is that there would be no basis for the letter to be
withheld if an official information request was received for the letter to
be made available. On this basis I consider that, to all intents and
purpose, the letter can be considered as a public document.

You will note that I have copied the email correspondence to all the
Councillors as you have indicated that you wish to "use the letter to the
Minister". I have done this on the basis that all those Councillors standing
for re-election should be aware of the source and background of any
information you may wish to use about the Aotea proposal in the future.
Regards
Dave
David Rolfe
ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE
DDI: 2371401 | MOB: 0275303362
____________________________________________________________________________

thanks David
I want to use the letter to the Minister, please confirm that it is a public
document.
thanks
r
-----Original Message-----
From: David Rolfe
Sent: Wednesday, 1 September 2010 2:58 p.m.
To: Cr Robert Shaw
Subject: FW: Aotea

Hi Robert,
We provided a Bulletin item for Councillors explaining that the processing
of one submission was not completed properly. Because of this the submission
was not included in the analysis of submissions. However because it
included legal arguments (it was prepared by the son (a lawyer) of the
submitter Norma Withers )a copy had been retained and used for reference in
the preparation of the final report on the cableway proposal. We are
confident that all issues raised in the Withers submission were canvassed in
the report. To ensure a fair consideration of the submission, we also
included it in the papers provided to the Minister of Conservation. The
Withers submission was the only one that contained legal arguments. We have
made written and verbal apologies to Mrs Withers, and explained to her the
actions we have taken to rectify the regrettable error.

I have attached copies of both Mrs Wither's submission and the letter to the
Minister that was sent on 19 August. I've also attached the letters to Mrs
Withers.

Regards
Dave

David Rolfe
ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE

-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT SHAW [mailto:robert@porirua.net]
Sent: Saturday, 28 August 2010 10:45 a.m.
To: David Rolfe
Subject: Aotea

Hi Dave
Please send me a copy of the "legal submissions" on Aotea, including
that not processed.

When is it intended to make the submission to the Minister.
I would like to see a copy of the submission please.
Thanks
Robert

Aotea: Greater wellington on consents

13 August 2010
File No: ENV/13/06/03

Christine Jacobsen
Porirua City Council
PO Box 50-218
16 Cobham Court
Porirua 5240

Dear Christine

Re: Aotea Lagoon

Thank you for your enquiry regarding the status of Aotea Lagoon. I can confirm that Aotea Lagoon is considered as being within the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) under the Regional Coastal Plan and as such would require a resource consent from Greater Wellington prior to certain works or activities occurring within the lagoon.

In relation to proposals to undertake activities such as cable water-skiing, or similar, within the CMA it is recommended that a pre-application meeting be held between the applicant and Greater Wellington staff. A pre-application meeting can help to clarify the scope of the application, determine what type of resource consents will be needed and provides the applicant with a clear understanding of the likely process and information requirements.

From the information supplied to date (from emails received from Porirua City Council), it would be expected that resource consents under the Regional Coastal Plan would be required for activities which would:
disturb the CMA in regards to the removal of the island area in Aotea Lagoon (a discretionary and restricted coastal activity);
occupy areas of the Aotea Lagoon with structures required for the operation of a cable water-ski park (discretionary activity);
discharge contaminants to water from the operation of a cable water-ski park into the CMA (discretionary activity); and
dam Aotea Lagoon for the operation of a cable water-ski park (discretionary activity).

Jonathan Streat
Manager, Environment Policy

ROBERT COMMENTS

The key question is whether or not Greater Wellington should charge for the commercial recreational use of costal marine area. The only regional council to do this at the moment is Southland, and perhaps we need to follow their example. I have written to Fran Wild and the Councillors at GW to raise this matter.
r
September 2, 2010

comments from brian collins

aotea: council request to minister

ROBERT COMMENTS

The letter below is minimalist. It does do delve into the issues that need to be considered if the Minister is to make a proper decison. If I was the Minister I would decline to consider the matter, because:

a) There is insufficinet information from Greater Wellington which has clear responsibilites in this matter.

b) The Council is making a request that relates to land over which it has no legal authorty.

c) Wakeboading is considered though consultation but not any alternative uses for the Lagoon, such as walking.

d) The Ombudsman's comments on PCC procedures should be obtained before the Minister proceeds and the current Ombudsman's review could take some time.

Robert
September 2, 2010

COUNCIL'S REQUEST TO THE MINISTER OF CONSERVATION

19 August 2010

David Bishop

Department of ConservatioN

PO Box 5086
WELLINGTON

Dear David

Proposed lease for AOTEA LAGOON CABLEWAY

Aquacom NZ has applied to Council for a lease to occupy part of Aotea Lagoon under Section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977 for a commercial cableway, pro-shop and café.

Aotea Lagoon land status.
Aotea Lagoon is currently an unclassified recreation reserve. Council resolved in 2009 to have this land classified as a Recreation Reserve and this will be completed once the marginal strip issues have been resolved.  Information on the land status of Aotea Lagoon is explained in the Council report dated 23 July 2010.   The water body itself is part of the Coastal Marine Area as it is semi-tidal.

Notification
Council notified the proposal on the 6 March and submissions closed on the 15 April. Over 1000 submissions were received during this period.  The Council report (and its appendices) dated 23 July includes an analysis of the submissions received and officers comments.

Due to the significant public interest about the Aotea Lagoon Cableway proposal, an unexpected, and unprecedented, number of submissions were received.  The manual system to process incoming submissions was not designed to cope with the volume of submissions.  As a result, some problems were encountered, resulting in double handling and multiple checks.

Following the Council meeting officers were advised that, even with these comprehensive checks, one submission was not properly processed or included in the official submissions database. Despite this administrative error, the submission had been sighted and copied by policy staff.  Particular note was taken of its legal submissions in drafting the report to Council.  All the concerns raised in the submission, other than the legal arguments, were also articulated by many other submitters.  Officers are confident that the issues raised, although not included in the formal submission analysis, are comprehensively covered in the final report.

Council staff have apologised to the submitter, and undertaken to include the submission in the papers for the Minister to ensure that the submitter has not been disadvantaged by the administrative error.

Lease  

The terms and conditions of the proposed lease are outlined in paragraph 258 of the Council report dated 23 July 2010.  

Council reports

I have attached a copy of the reports dated the 23 November and the 23 July. The report dated the 23rd November assessing the submissions and the proposal against the Reserve Act 1977.

The report dated the 23rd November provides an assessment of this proposal against the Aotea Lagoon Reserve Management Plan. Although this is not a statutory reserve management plan, it still provides a guide for the management of Aotea Lagoon.

Attachments

I have attached the following information for a ministerial approval application for the proposed reserve classifications:

Invoice
Could you please send the invoice sent for processing ministerial consent to?
Mr Paul Marlow
36 View Road
Titahi Bay
Porirua 5022

Yours sincerely

Katie Brown

Resource Planner, Leisure Assets

Asset Management & Operations

statement to plimmerton

FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PLIMMERTON RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER

Thank you all

I was first elected to represent Plimmerton in 1992. At that time I lived in Pukerua Bay and our ward was much smaller than it is now. The success of Plimmerton depends on many people working for the community. In my view, being a representative at council is just one form of community service and no more important than any other.  Consequently, I would like to thank those who have assisted me with my task and also everyone else who works for the community.

It is not necessary to list the many public issues which have engaged us over the years. However, there is less public side to being a councillor which also holds great importance. This is the work that can be done to assist individuals who have serious problems that relate to council. People find it difficult to talk to council, particularly when the issue becomes emotional, which is what usually happens. Deceptively small issues - about neighbours, trees, drains, rubbish, roads, traffic, view shafts, schools, beaches, pollution, boundaries, floods - can become major tensions between householders and Council. Such apparently small things impact on the enjoyment of life in the suburbs. I have always found the resolution of such issues for people one of the most challenging and rewarding aspects of council work.

The major challenge that confronts our council today is its expenditure levels and rates. Until a Government has the gumption to establish a funding mechanism for local government that does not depend on rates this problem is going to endure. Nevertheless, I can see no justification for Plimmerton ratepayers being among the highest rated families in the country. The way to address the issue is by altering the way that the council budgets. I have spoken about this ad nauseam but to no avail. 

I would like to think that a sense of social equity has characterised my work on council. Our city has diverse and distinctive suburbs, yet ethnic tensions are minimal in comparison to other New Zealand cities and interactions between peoples of different races is growing and positive. Council has a considerable role in achieving social coherence. First, it was the Labour Party which controlled council and their ethnic diversity carried over into council decisions. Then as mayor, Jenny Brash, has been able to maintain a connection to all parts of the city - this I deem to be her greatest achievement as mayor and its importance to us cannot be underestimated. Just in the last few years, Pacific peoples have begun increasingly to present substantial submissions to council. Councillors need to learn how to interpret what is being asked. For example, I well remember a group that came to council table and did nothing but pray in several different languages. It is easy to dismiss this as not relevant to the decisions of the day or as general support for Council's plans - however, this I see as an inadequate response. The role of the Ngati Toa in our city is positive and I look forward to it increasing. Finally regarding social equity, I am delighted that Pataka now contributes to understanding and intellectual growth in our community. The proposed performing arts centre will be an important extension of this programme.

Let me express a considered view on the amalgamation of councils. Those who know my writing on local government will know that I have studied councils in the UK and the USA. There are no rules on this topic. When I enquired into an amalgamation plan in Illinois, I was amazed to discover that they fought over the joining of councils together each one of which had only 5,000 constituents. The size of local government units depends on geography and community aspirations. It is my view that Porirua has most to gain by continuing largely as it is but with a reduction in the total number of councillors. Qualified people should be co-opted onto council committees (this would improve both the level of debate and councillor dynamics). Shared services is a non-issue - the libraries, for example,  have already achieved this. The region would benefit if only the regional council was responsible for water. The Australasian experience is that neither amalgamation nor public-private-partnerships will reduce costs to ratepayers.

In 2004, in a bid to improve my communications with residents and lift the level of debate at the council table, I began the blog www.porirua.net. This was the first blog on local government in the country and it records the views I argued on your behalf. I would like to thank those who contributed to the debates and spent their time in the interests of our City. Finally, I would like to thank those who have served on the Plimmerton Residents' Association. The association, and individuals there, have many times been my compass in choppy seas. I am proud of what we have all achieved.

Robert Shaw
Porirua City Councillor

mayoral candidate

Brian Collins is standing for the mayor's job. He says he brings a fresh perspective "on what looked like being a tired walk in the park for mayoral hopeful Nick Leggett". Brian has lived in Porirua for 39 years and has business experience at ANZ, AXA and the Public Trust. He is self employed in a family trust business. His thoughts can be found at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Brian-Collins-as-Mayor/142192719153213

r
30-Aug-2010

candidates

the battle in the east

Ken Douglass, Henry Smith and Liz Kelly have an opponent!
r

Hi

I’m standing for council for the Western Ward of Porirua City (Titahi Bay, Takapuwahia, Elsdon, Keneperu & Ranui Heights) – and I’d like your support:

· On election day, if you live in my ward, please vote: Victoria JAKOBS

· I don’t have a big campaign budget, so I’d appreciate it if you’d help spread the word:

o Forward this email to your friends & family in Porirua and/or Western Ward

o Join my Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Victoria-Jakobs-for-PCC/152439278106286?created#!/pages/Victoria-Jakobs-for-PCC/152439278106286?v=info&edit_info=all §

I’ll be making regular postings updating you on my position – or if you have questions for me, you can ask them there

So why am I standing for council? Because I love Porirua – and want to be an active part of making it a great place to live and do business. And I believe I have the passion, energy, skills and experience to fulfil the role. I’ve shown my commitment, integrity and skills in my volunteer work;

* leading two cellphone tower campaigns – both of which resulted in a community consultation process, and a better result for most people;

* co-ordinating Recession Buster workshops in response to current economic conditions

* fundraising for Titahi Bay School & Kindergarten, and in my time at Titahi Bay Playgroup I’m a strategic thinker, an ethical person, a strong leader, and a decisive actor. I know that (if elected) I’ll give 110% to fulfil my role in helping to make Porirua a great place – now and in the future.

Thanks! Victoria JAKOBS (PS: Below is a sneak preview of my candidate profile statement)

Victoria JAKOBS for Western Ward, Porirua City:

Candidate Statement I’m passionate about Porirua’s economic and community wellbeing. I’m skilled at bringing diverse groups together to produce positive outcomes; such as in our Western Ward leading two cellphone tower campaigns; and citywide in the ‘Recession Buster’ workshops. I recognise the importance of balancing today’s needs with future strategies. I consider sustainable development and working towards environmental, economic, social and cultural goals a priority. My business career stretches from advertising and marketing for major corporates in NZ, Australia & the UK, to entrepreneurial online business start ups. I hold tertiary and industry qualifications from Otago, Massey & IDM(UK), including BA Hons (Distinction) in Anthropology. I’ve been an active fundraiser for Titahi Bay Kindergarten and St Pius X School. I’m proud of my Dutch immigrant heritage and multi-cultural family. I’ll bring a dynamic new voice and proven leadership to Porirua – strategic, future focused and community spirited with the Western Ward at heart.

why there will never be wakeboarding at the aotea lagoon

Pollution in Aotea lagoon: councillor warns that wakeboarders are in danger

Footnote:
The picture Scoop placed with my press release is not of the Aotea Lagoon site where the wakeboarding is proposed. It is "Aotea South", which they rightly say is being filled with mud.
r

Robert's complaint to the ombudsman

The Chief Ombudsman

AOTEA LAGOON:  DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES OF THE PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL

I hereby request that the Ombudsman reports on the adequacy of the
decision-making procedures of the Porirua City Council in relation to the
establishment of wake-boarding at the Aotea Lagoon, Papakowhai.

This matter has some urgency as the Council is about to make a submission
to the Minister of Conservation that will include reference to the
consultation and procedures used.

I am an elected member of the Porirua City Council and was involved in
some of the decision-making, although not the final decision. I am also a
resident of Papakowhai and a recreational user of the Lagoon. As an
elected member I was forced not to speak and vote when the operative
decision was taken (by the Services Committee of the Council which had a
delegation).

In summary, the Council misconceived its situation when a developer wished
to establish a commercial wake-board facility on the Aotea Lagoon. The
Council needed to establish policy on both the commercial use of the
Lagoon and the activity of wake-boarding. Instead, the Council proceeded
as if it was in a hearing situation under the Resource Management Act and
placed tight constraints on procedures.

I would like the Ombudsman to determine if the exercise required of the
council was:

EITHER
To develop policy in consultation with the public and made decisions
through the recommendations of a committee of the council to the full
council.

OR
To implement policy by way of application notification, formal hearing,
and determination in accordance with rules.

This confusion between policy development situations and policy
implementation situations (consultations and hearings, although the
terminology is used without precision) has become common in local
government. It seems to be an outcome of training councillors in judicial
decision-making procedures for RMA purposes. The Aotea Lagoon exercise is
not the first to involve this confusion. Some officers genuinely believe
they are correctly following the guidelines of the Auditor General on
these matters, but this is exactly what I am challenging. The Auditor
General in several reports deals with the matter, but these do not
precisely say what the difference is in the two situations.

There is no valid set of rules that relates to the management of the
Lagoon. Council thought the Aotea Lagoon Management Plan was a sufficient
basis for decisions (even though officers warned about its status and
relevance) but my enquires of the Department of Conservation showed that
the Aotea Lagoon was never formally established in accordance with the
procedures required by the Reserves Act, hence it was not notified in the
Gazette and nor was it given a classification under the Act (ie it is not
a Local Purpose, Scenic, Road, etc Reserve). In law, you cannot build upon
a nullity.

The Council needs to consult in a proper way to establish the reserve in
accordance with the Reserves Act. Policy is needed on a wide range of
interrelated matters. The recent hearing with the public was about wake-
boarding, and did not adequately canvass the wide range of issues related
to the use and management of the Lagoon. Many of the submissions in
support of the Council's proposal just said they supported wake-boarding
and did not relate this to the Aotea Lagoon. It is not reasonable to
establish radical new policy on the Lagoon without a comprehensive plan
established with consultation.

Further, it was discovered that the Council has no formal control over the
land, although it has been its customary practice. Large parts of the land
are owned by the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Department of
Conservation. Some of the land owned by the Council was acquired with a
tag on the title which said it was for reserve purposes and this was
consistent with the small consideration given for the land. Other parts
were acquired by the Council in other ways. When I brought all of this out
recently, the Council began work in a bid to rapidly acquire ownership of
the land. If the basis of the land is an issue, it is not reasonable for
the Council to consult on its leasing. You may kindly lend me your garage,
but that does not mean I can lease it out for profit. The owners of the
land were never consulted on the wake-board exercise until it was well
under way.

Council officers recommended that a consultation be held on the use of the
Lagoon, but the motion councillors carried was that they supported wake-
boarding in principle and instructed the chief executive to negotiate a
lease with the developer (subject to Council's later approval). It was
envisaged that there would be a "hearing".  Having regard to the full
situation, this was a serious mistake. If the the exercise was one of
policy implementation (my OR above) then the decision in favour is
unacceptable. If on the other hand the exercise was simply to consult the
public on policy for the Lagoon it was unacceptable to confine this to the
wake-boarding proposal. If commercial use is to be allowed on the scale
now envisaged there are other sports and activities which might like the
opportunity to bid. These may well be more compatible with the present
wide range of uses.

One consequence of the hearings approach was that members of the public
were denied their normal rights in relation to council policy decision-
making. The council decided that the decisions on wake-boarding would be
delegated to the Services Committee. The chairperson of the Hearings
Committee (which had earlier met for three days to hear from many of the
1000 people who made submissions), Cr Douglass, then chaired the (Services
Committee) meeting (because the chair and deputy were ruled out of
consideration,and no-one thought of the Mayor). All this without the
notification required by the Act for meetings (if in fact this is
considered a continuation of the Hearings Committee). When the Services
Committee received an officers' report on the Lagoon, it was said that the
exercise was a hearing and hence the chairperson ruled that public was not
allowed to speak to the officers' paper before councillors made decisions.
There were people in the public gallery who called out wanting to be heard.
There were also people who declared they wanted to be heard well in
advance of the meeting but were turned away. This approach is not
consistent with the Standing Orders of the Council, if this was (as I
contend) an ordinary committee meeting. Even if it was a hearing,
submitters must be given an opportunity to respond to the officers' advice.
Incidentally, the council was wrong to delegate decisions on the future of
the Lagoon to a Committee  when the requirment was that the Minister of
Conservation be sent the result and the policy decisions were of the
extant magnitude.

Finally, I would like the Ombudsman, in the context of the above, to
consider the situation of the councillors who were not able to vote at the
Committee. This was based on a misinterpretation of the Auditor General's
statements. Each councillor's situation is different. One, Cr Euon Murrell, merely made a
"throw-away" comment in a private meeting with 6 residents: this was
considered evidence of pre-determination so serious as to debar that
councillor from exercising his right as an elected member to vote. It was
said that in my case this was because I had actively opposed the proposal.
What I had done was actively oppose the Council when it tore down the
signs of householders concerned with the matter, whilst supporting a
meeting organised in the Paremata School Hall. (Incidentally, the Auditor
General has stated that the normal consultation methods of Councils are
inadequate and that new and diverse initiatives should be encouraged.)If
this was a hearing, I would have expected the officers to stand apart from
the applicant, as it was they visited two similar facilities in Australia
(the proposed set-up is a kitset). The issue of pre-determination was
improperly interpreted - it is usually the case that the decision-maker
must be able at the time of decision to weigh evidence with an open and
fair mind. This was not the criteria advised at the Porirua City Council.
I appreciate that the Ombudsman may not wish to consider the decisions of
the councillors or the committee itself (elected persons) and accordingly
I ask specifically about the accuracy and sufficiency of the advice on
this matter.

I would like an opportunity to discuss this matter with your investigating
officer when you have formed a preliminary opinion.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Yours sincerely
Robert Shaw
43 Eskdale Road
PAPAKOWHAI

regional council - lagoon "within the regional coastal zone"

Dear Mr Shaw

Re: Aotea Lagoon and wake boarding

Thank you for your enquiry regarding Aotea Lagoon. This letter is in response to your request for information regarding a proposal for a wakeboarding activity at Aotea Lagoon, Porirua.

Greater Wellington does have an interest in Aotea Lagoon as it is within the coastal marine area and therefore falls under Greater Wellington’s jurisdiction. Therefore resource consents would be required for activities under the Wellington Regional Coastal Plan. For an activity such as that proposed, resource consents may be required to disturb the coastal marine area, to discharge contaminants, to erect structures in the coastal marine area and to dam Aotea Lagoon. However a final decision on consent requirements would be made once an application is received.

In terms of your concerns regarding water quality in Aotea Lagoon, Greater Wellington runs a joint recreational water quality monitoring programme with Porirua City Council which includes a network of 13 coastal sites, including several in Porirua Harbour and Pauatahanui Inlet.  Samples are tested for indicator bacteria (enterococci) on a regular basis.  The latest annual recreational water quality report can be found on our website at http://www.gw.govt.nz/Annual-monitoring-reports/.

We have not monitored Aotea Lagoon and do not intend to do so.  It is understood that the lagoon receives direct discharges of stormwater - so as well as any wildlife, stormwater contamination may also impact on water quality in the lagoon.

Greater Wellington does not have a role in relation to monitoring the safety of an activity such as wakeboarding. The operation would have to comply with occupation safety and health (OSH) regulations.

I hope this has answered your enquiry, but if you have any more questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Yours sincerely

Caroline Ammundsen
Policy Advisor - Environment

resident on aotea lagoon wakeboarding

Paul Clibborn wrote:

Dear Mr Shaw,

 Thank you very much for your time at the council hearing regarding the Aotea Ski Park on Monday evening when I spoke against the proposal.  I think I recall from your letters in Kapi Mana that you are firmly on “my” side, and as such, I thank you for being one of the few individuals who have helped widen the debate on this issue.  Without your actions, and a handful of others I’m aware of in council and the wider community, I believe that this would have been quietly swept through “due process”, only to face a fight later.  I can only hope that 66% of locals against will kill it, however I wanted to follow up on both my submission and my speech with a personal plea to all councillors to vote against the ski park proceeding at the lagoon.  I have this evening written to all councillors with the following:

 I’m not great at public speaking, so I’m not certain I put my point across as well or as emotionally as I could have, but I have done my research on all sides of the proposal, and I feel very passionately that this will ruin the lagoon through its direct and indirect impacts on other users, and it will create certain conflict between recreational and commercial users.

 Such a venture could be great for the region, but not at this site, where it would be at the expense of the lagoon and other users.  Alternative sites could be in the area currently set aside for such activities at Camborne, or at the Onepoto end of the harbour, or outside Whiteria Polytech.  In particular, the applicant has said that none of there alternative areas are deep enough, but there is already a waterski club and ski lanes suitable for boats at Camborne/Grays Rd, proving that depth there is not an issue.  Each of these alternatives would have far less impact on existing users of those areas.  They would obviously require the applicant to undertake some site development, but this is generally the case with any commercial venture.  I firmly believe that the applicant is simply seeking a venue where most of the hard work is already done, and this is unfair on both existing user groups and ratepayers.

Ducks in the smaller pond.

 I believe that the key issues against the proposal proceeding in this location are:

 The activity is inconsistent with the Management Plan which was put in place in part to protect it from such activities.

One of the reasons the Lagoon is so great is because all current activities take place alongside each other, harmoniously.  No activity dominates or gets in the way of any other.  The proposal will displace other users, such as model boat enthusiasts (the area “set aside” is woefully inadequate), children’s fishing (along with the annual kids fishing competition), walkers/exercisers (who will be splashed by wind-driven wake) and displacement of wildlife.  Where will the kids fishing competition take place in future?  What alternative suitable venue will be provided by PCC for model-boat enthusiasts, and who will fund it?  What will happen to the venture when people are splashed by wind-driven wake?  The wind can not be stopped, and it will be a disaster to see the lagoon “fenced in” to contain splashes.

The lagoon venue is too small, with minimal safety margins between oncoming riders, and between riders and users of the immediately adjacent walkway who will likely be splashed by wind-driven wake.  I have not been able to confirm his for certain, but my understanding is that it will be the smallest of its type in the world.  At the public meeting, the applicant compared it to Cable360 in Singapore, but the Singapore operation is over 33% bigger (484m compared to 650m).  The applicant’s video also showed that in Singapore, the walkway is significantly further away from the water’s edge.

The water quality has been argued about and still being proven, but even if it is deemed safe to swim in, ratepayers should not be excluded from swimming in the lagoon that they have paid for, but the cableway plan takes up the entire water space.  Ratepayers will still try and swim there (they own the facility!) and this will cause safety issues and user conflict.  Also at night, people will try and climb the towers and jump off, which will be a serious safety issue with the shallow water.

The survey showed that 57% of visitors are happy with the park just the way it is.

The submissions summary showed that 66% of local ratepayers and residents are against this proposal.  You are their elected representatives in this matter.  You must support their values.

 PCC website and other PCC publications list the Lagoon as the number one walkway in the area.  The first line of the Executive Summary of the August 2009 visitor monitoring reports stated that “Aotea Lagoon is one of Porirua’s premier parks.  PCC must not gamble with the park’s future, particularly in the face of 66% of local residents.

 Thankyou for your time, and I implore again that you should vote against this proposal from proceeding at Aotea Lagoon.

Kind Regards
Paul Clibborn
Papakowhai.

the bit of aotea lagoon the council owns

I am asked about the part of Aotea Lagoon that the Council does own:

6.0291 hectares, Certificate of Title dated 10/1/94. Cost to Council $372.50 incl GST.

Name section says "Porirua City Council for Recreation Reserve", which may or may not have some legal importance.

r
August 14, 2010

The lagoon below aotea college

STATEMENT BY WELLINGTON MARINE FISHERS

Fran Wilde
Chair of the Greater Wellington Regional Council and GWRC Councillors

 Please find attached a number of photos describing our concerns.

 We find it hard to believe your environment division have certified the industrial sites at Grenada North as compiling with your standards either that or your standards are not up to it.

 We attached photos of another chemical discharge coming out of the Jamaica Drive storm water pipe at 5.30 pm 13.8.10.  Obviously petroleum based cleaning product as it is floating on the surface and foaming up.  Petroleum based products kill aquatic life and impact on marine species reproduction systems.

 That adds to your staff spraying highly toxic weed killer into the stream the other month and the plants have not recovered and now the stream banks are coming down.  This product kills the zoo plankton specie mysid shrimp which lives in water cress and they are the very beginning of the marine food chain, so why do it?

 Then a white product that was completely dissolved in the water was seen coming out of the Jamaica Drive storm water pipe into the Takapu Stream and we were told it was someone washing a paint brush .. yea right for over 30 minutes.

 Then we had a red product coming out of another pipe and now we find its leachate from an old industrial rubbish tip that the WCC had forgotten about or has lost the records of while Capacity sent cameras up the pipe.

 I do not know what is going on but that work at the Okowai Lagoon is an environmental disaster under the management of the GWRC Environment Division.  This work must be stopped immediately all involved don’t know what they are doing.   Common sense must be used to restore this lagoon.  I offered to help but the offer was declined.

 It was the run off of mud from the Aotea subdivision and the inability of the WRC designed sediment traps to contain the mud that filled the lagoon with mud.  Now those involved in the lagoon restoration are using their excess rotten rock that should have gone to a land fill around the outside.  Rotten rock is what causes mud when exposed to water and air.   The mud around the outside is now over 300 mm deep.

 We do not have native fresh water fish that live in mud and the whole purpose and function of a fresh water lagoon must be completely unknown to those involved.  In spring tides we have seen marine fish enter this lagoon for food and to spawn but they will not be able to now with water dropping out of a pipe.  How do your people expect native fresh water fish to get into the lagoon?

 NIWA tell us that all aquatic life dies under 20mm of mud and will not recover so there is absolutely no aquatic knowledge used there.  The plants they have scattered around the side describe you have consultants that have no idea of the function of our native intertidal plants either.  In fact the WRC plant guides does not name one of our native intertidal plants so if the WRC can not name them your staff  will not know their function either, so the whole lagoon project is guess work?   

 This lack of knowledge of our native wetland plants is on display in the regions streams with not one wetland plant protecting the Kenepuru Streams banks from erosion and now I have discovered your plant group advisors have no knowledge of our native wetland plants function as well. 

 It is obvious the WRC Environment Division is under resourced as in the WCC Storm water resource consent application they believe storm water will mix with sea water inside 30 metres in a marine reserve and 50 metres outside a marine reserve as if that makes a difference.  Muddy fresh water will float on seawater for many hours and road run petroleum products for days, school children type experiments can be done at home to prove this.

 You should start again at the Okowai Lagoon.  First drain the lagoon and remove the mud next remove all the rotten rock that has been tipped around the side then if your people still do not know how to restore a lagoon with the correct product for a fresh water lagoon take a look at how the Ragland Harbour and inter tidal zone was restored.  Get those involved to go to our National Library and have a look at what native plants were growing in our region and where they were growing before your people poisoned them out of our water ways and are still doing at Makara and the Shandon Esturay.

 This project below Aotea College along side State Highway One is in full view of the public and showing the GWRC has no knowledge of our native fresh water aquatic life or the intertidal zone.  This project is exposing the GWRC to a lot of bad comments and seriously questions the WRC ability to manage run off from the Mill Creek wind turbine construction project as the errors made in the sediment management at the West Wind turbines project  have not been learnt.   Is there no one in the WRC that can see what they have done to a perfectly good estuary functioning is madness? 

 We do not want to see another environmental disaster in the intertidal zone as what happened at your new Moera Estuary where the inlet pipe was placed too high and the water drains back into the Hutt River at low tide.  The banks poisoned around your selected trees which are now on little hills with the banks now collapsing into the estuary blocking it half way with large mud sand bars.  Fish do not come to a whistle they enter the intertidal zone either to feed or spawn and the environment must be right but the Moera Estuary is not right and fish will not come into there, we offered to help but the offer was refused.

 Is your environment division testing the public knowledge of how a lagoon should look like after they have filled it in with rocks and mud?   Is it the intention of GWRC to take this project to the public as an example and fill in Porirua harbour with rotten rock as well?  Do you think you will get way with that, so why do it to a lagoon?

 We would like to know if you can do something to correct these issues as obviously the WRC is concerned with the direction being taken in both protecting and restoring our natural environment as you have instigated a number of public meetings asking   What’s your view?  About our environment. 

 Attending the Porirua Meeting there are obviously a number of people who are also concerned at the direction the GWRC has been taking in recent years.

 Jim Mikoz

President

Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Association

ROBERT COMMENTS

I thought the responsiblity for this rested with the Porirua City Council since the run-off came from a development on land within the PCC District Plan.
r
August 14, 2010

pukerua bay maori tracks

well done councillor manu

Tim Manu did good work to call in the Police to rumble the Whitireia Polytechnic Students' Assocation. Report from the Dominion Post:

Police inquiry into missing student funds

By ANDREA VANCE - The Dominion Post 14/08/2010

A police investigation has begun after more than $750,000 was drained from Whitireia Polytechnic students' association funds over a year.

An audit report shows huge cash payments were made to former association executive members, including almost $12,000 to former president Loretta Ryder. Ms Ryder – the sister of former Black Power spokesman Eugene Ryder – also claimed expenses of $3000 in one month. Almost $700 was spent on an iPod and dock.

The funds also paid for $18,200 of accommodation for Ms Ryder, her family and vice-president Tai Te Karu. It is understood they are cousins and live together.

A large amount of money is also unaccounted for.

About $17,000 was spent through excessive use of mobile broadband modems to surf the internet, the report said. Mobile phone bills of five members of the executive averaged $700 a month.

Ms Ryder, of Kenepuru, was stood down two weeks ago. Mr Te Karu left in April.

An extraordinary executive meeting was called at the polytechnic yesterday so the auditor could detail his findings.

Angry students – who learned their funds had dwindled to just $6000 – demanded the executive step down during the tense meeting. After heated discussions, one committee member broke down in tears as she told students to "have faith" in the new executive, which, except for one member, was elected after the misappropriation took place.

Fulltime students must have $135 deducted automatically from their student loans to pay subs for the Whitireia Independent Students Association. There are about 6000 students at the polytech, half of whom are fulltime.

Acting president Tim Manu, also a Porirua city councillor, said the members would stay on to "clean up the mess". Mr Manu called in police earlier this year.

Imran Kamal, of Accountants First, told the meeting: "This is one of the most difficult audits I have been involved with ... I don't think the association is solvent.

"The other issues are a number of assets have gone missing. It's a big mess."

He warned that tax and GST returns had not been filed. A $25,000 phone bill is also outstanding. He said Mr Te Karu had confessed to misappropriating money.

He pointed to cash payments made to Ms Ryder, which total $11,972. Almost $8000 of this was for "key performance indicators". She was also paid a $45,000 salary and a $10,000 bonus for the year. But he noted an employment contract was not provided, although Ms Ryder said she had one.

Students told the meeting they had been assured none of the executive was paid a salary.

The report said money had been paid out in "student hardship grants". Mr Kamal notes: "These payments are an abuse of management responsibilities ... I have not been able to voucher these payments to check validity and recipients."

In June last year, $20,000 was taken out of the association's savings account in cash and a further $10,000 by cheque. The auditor could find no explanation for the withdrawal.

Mr Manu said he was "in shock" after reading the report. "I never anticipated it was this bad." The association was now working to put better checks in place.

Whitireia Community Polytechnic deputy chief executive Lawrence Arps attended the meeting and said he would take the report to chief executive Don Campbell. The polytechnic required an annual audit before giving funds to the association. Mr Campbell could not be contacted yesterday.

Leutele Grey, an information technology student, said she was devastated by the report. Ibrahim Raouf-Morton, 42, a class rep for IT students, welcomed the police investigation.

Detective Terry Laws said a complaint had been received from the students' association executive committee. Police were beginning an investigation.

A spokeswoman for Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce said it was inappropriate for him to comment at length while a police inquiry was under way.

"There are already laws in place to protect students' contributions to students' associations ... the police investigation will no doubt be seeking to determine whether or not these laws have been broken."

Ms Ryder and Mr Te Karu could not be contacted yesterday.

WHERE THE MONEY WENT

Loretta Ryder's salary: $45,000 plus $10,000 bonus

A cash payment made to Ms Ryder in January 2010 of $11,972

Spending on T-sticks between June and December 2009: $17,868.24 (one member spent $5521)

Expenses: $12,385.94. Includes: $2764 paid to Ms Ryder in June 2009. The auditor notes there are no receipts or invoices. $2700 to Tai Te Karu for June 2009 ($860 was for lunch/dinner and $1840 with no breakdown)

$18,2000 to Kenepuru International for accommodation for Ms Ryder and her family and Mr Te Karu. The auditor notes the tax invoice is "not a valid tax invoice"

$667.95 for an iPod and dock

$4000 cash payment to Dick Smith in June 2009

$3431 cash payment to City Central in July 2009

Tim on the wakeboard decision

Dear Papakowhai residents

Council’s City Services Committee agreed this afternoon to grant a lease at Aotea Lagoon for the proposed wakeboard facility and to recommend to the Minister of Conservation accordingly.

That will be disappointing to many of us but please note this is only the end of the beginning of the application process.

Today’s Vote:

The Committee voted in favour of this by 6 votes to 3, with 4 councillors – including me – having been disqualified owing to a pre-declaration of opinion.

Of course the four of us excluded were very disappointed at this but there was clear legal advice that we must not participate in the debate or vote.

Note too that even if we four had voted, the result would almost certainly still have been in favour (7:6) of allowing the proposal to proceed to the next stage.

Next stages:

The proposed lease is subject to (i) negotiation of its terms with the applicant; (ii) the prior consent of Minister Kate Wilkinson; and (iii) all of the land that is the subject of the lease being vested in Council as recreation reserve by 31 December 2010.

Of course, as I indicated in my last email newsletter to you of six months ago, the proposal would then also be subject to a resource consent, building permits etc. The resource consent stage is probably the most important and there will undoubtedly be a major public hearing process. You will all have the opportunity to submit on the proposal in terms of the requirements of the Resource Management Act.

In reality the applicant still has a long way to go before he gets permission to construct a cableway at Aotea Lagoon.

For those interested in the full report to the Committee today, please go to: http://www.pcc.govt.nz/DocumentManagement/default.aspx then select City Services Committee, 5 August 2010, and the first 11 documents listed as available for download, together with the later listed document “Proposed Aotea Lagoon Cableway Lease”, are relevant.

Regards
Tim Sheppard
PCC Northern Ward Councillor
Vote #1 for Council & Porirua Community Trust

ROBERT COMMENTS

This is not exactly what I understood happened: we were wrongly forced not to vote. That is grounds for an appeal on process in due course. Had we all debated, I am pretty certain the vote would have gone against the proposal. Many serious issues evidently did not come forward in the process.
Thanks to Tim for his email to residents.
r

pauatahanui meeting

The Pauatahanui Residents Association wishes to invite you to its AGM. The details of this are as follows-

 Pauatahanui Residents Association

2010 Annual General Meeting

Tuesday 17 August 2010 @ 7.15 pm

bias - the evidence!

The future of Aotea Lagoon

I urge you to make a submission to Council on the future of the Aotea Lagoon. Council encouraged an experienced commercial operator to apply for rights over the park, and council must now decide if it supports a radical change to the use of the park in accordance with the proposal received.

At present, Aotea Lagoon is one of the most used facilities in Porirua City. The plan is to allow a private operator to use the land for a cable way and be run by an electric motor. There will be sports facilities and a café in a separate building. This will change the nature of the lagoon from one of passive recreation to an active sports and social venue.

Important topics to consider are parking and road congestion, the income the council will derive from the lease, who benefits and who loses out. Council has been advised that there is no other suitable place for a cableway in our City. Further details of the proposal are on the Council's web site www.pcc.govt.nz. Submissions can be sent by email (enquires@pcc.govt.nz)and the closing date is 15 April 2010.

Robert Shaw
Porirua City Councillor

COUNCILLOR SHAW COMMENTS

This rather neutral letter to the local paper was said to indicate my bias and was used as an excuse to force me from voting. Believe it or not.
r

leaky homes worry

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ratepayer's may have to pay

The Porirua City Council needs greater certainty about the cost of leaky homes and the impact of claims on ratepayers, says Porirua City Councillor Robert Shaw.

Councillor Shaw has asked council officers to provide further information on potential claims against the council now the Key Government has announced its leaky homes package.

He said Porirua has begun its largest investment of the ratepayers' funds in the history of this city  - the $35 million upgrade of the town centre - and there is growing uncertainty about the ability of ratepayers to withstand rates increases.

With 12 current claims Porirua the 11th most at risk council in the country.

Cr Shaw said that the council should place the options in front of the public and ask whether ratepayers are willing to accept John Key's proposed allocation of costs.

"The Department of Building and Housing still has to provide information that councils need to adequately assess the situation. Whist it is hoped that Porirua City escapes more lightly than other councils, there remains significant risk.

The Council has $200,000 in a contingency fund for such work. However, Councillor Shaw says that fund is for all claims against the Council and includes legal costs. "It is not a dedicated fund for new leaky home claims".

Central government required a decision by the council before the June. According to Cr Shaw this deadline was unrealistic, given that the council has a responsibility to consult its ratepayers and review its budget.

For further information:
Porirua City Councillor Robert Shaw  ph 233 0252

our chamber of commerce - my reply

Rates rise
Your front page story "Chamber slams rates rise" demands our attention. Ratepayers are about to finance the largest single development project in the history of our city. This is the $35 million upgrade of the town centre which will most benefit the building owners and businesses in that locale. The ratepayers who fund this are largely residential property owners who will gain little from the project. At the council table, I was fascinated to hear that the Chamber of Commerce object to the rates rise and support the project which will benefit their members. My view is that Council should fund a parking building and leave property development to the private sector. The ratepayers of Porirua are the most burdened in the land, and it is high time they had a break.
Robert Shaw
Porirua City Councillor

ceo promoted!!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

I am delighted for Dr Blakeley that he has been appointed to such a critical position in Auckland. He is a highly skilled officer with a great deal to offer local government. His mix of central and local government experience at the highest levels is unusual and its value has been recognised.

The Porirua Council now has the option of appointing an interim chief executive officer until after the October elections or moving immediately to replace Dr Blakeley.  It will soon be said that to maintain the momentum of current projects we should appoint someone immediately. However, I think we might be better off pausing until the results of the October elections become clear.

For more information
Porirua City Councillor Robert Shaw
ph 233 0252

Footnote: we appointed Mr David Rolf to the temporary postion.

COUNCILLOR SHAW REPLIES

T Phillips (Letters 27 April Kapi Mana News) is correct that the decision-making meetings of the council are important. I regard them as crucial and not to be missed. The meetings I object to are those where officers "educate" the councillors in preparation for meetings. These meetings exclude the public.

With reference to my concerns about the current draft annual plan: The meeting of 24 March lasted 16 minutes and was a rubber stamp. The meeting where there was debate, and I voted against the budget, was 10 March. I did this because the proposals were so radical that they should have required the full public consultation procedure. I also thought the priorities of council were wrong. Spending over $30 million dollars in the town centre to "meet market demand" is not in the ratepayers interests. Further, the review of expenditure councillors wanted to reduce the looming rates increase, actually put the rates up.

Regarding my interests: I have been a member of the city or regional council since 1992, the longest serving councillor (Councillor Sue Dow began in 1995). In my time on council my interests have changed. You begin worrying about every drain, litter and parks, and you end up worrying about the structure of the budget and why decision-making processes can fail. It is not that drains and litter are unimportant, but plenty of people work on such things. The issues that most concern me are the District Plan, finances, and rates. This year I qualified as a Resource Management Act commissioner and that is a renewed interest. Since 1994 I have kept a blog to record an independent view of council issues, and anyone may consult www.porirua.net

Robert Shaw
Porirua City Councillor

ken with an all too typical outburst

A resident asked me about our subsidy to the Taylor Stace Cottage. It is good practice for councillors to always ask before they give out definitive information to residents. Hence, I took the prudent course of asking for information. As you can see from the reply, the information was actually never given in a meeting.

Regards
Robert

Kia ora David

I do get very grumpy about Roberts persistent
behaviour , which to my mind is an abuse of his elected obligations. 
 He does NOT have the right to repeatedly absent himself from meetings and
workshops were issues are presented , explained , Cr. opinion regularly
invited to round out subsequent policy advice and or Officer
recommendations; and then to request answers to Questions that the answers
have already been made known to Cr's
I would seriously suggest, that Officers simply respond by advising when the
issue( what meeting /work shop, date held and report who was in attendance
,and suggest that he look up his own records /files etc..
 I object strongly to BAD behaviour being constantly rewarded by being
compliant to his abuse of his responsibility
I do however accept that until the Council itself confronts this matter ,
there is probably little that you can do but to become a bit player in his
unprincipled behaviours. 
Regards
Ken Douglas  

-----Original Message-----
From: robert@porirua.net [mailto:robert@porirua.net] 
Sent: Monday, 26 July 2010 2:01 p.m.
To: David Rolfe
Cc: Councillors; Roger Blakeley
Subject: Re: FW: Cottage
thanks
r

On 26 Jul 2010 at 01:49 am, David Rolfe wrote:

    

Robert's recent paper on local government

This paper draws on my experience at the Porirua City Council and is to be published in an overseas publication that deals with public policy. In my view much more effort needs to be put into understanding how councils actually function, and the effects they have. The paper is for a special issue on a White Paper published by the Foreign Ministers of the Council of Europe.
r

The Nature of Democratic Decision-making and the Democratic Panacea

ABSTRACT

"Democracy thrives because it helps individuals identify with the society of which they are members and because it provides for legitimate decision-making and exercise of power." With this statement the Council of Europe raises for us some fundamental questions: what is the practice of democracy, its merits, and its limitations. A phenomenological insight into democracy as it displays itself indicates that its essence is decision-making by vote. The strength of this mechanism is that it operates without a requirement for rationality on the part of the participants, and its imperative is always to achieve a decision – any decision. Thus, the mechanism enables decisions in situations of incommensurable choice. The history of the engagement of Māori with local government in Aotearoa New Zealand makes apparent the limitations of democracy and challenges democracy itself. Māori have no tradition of democracy and they aspire to the exercise of their traditional decision-making practices. As a minority in a democratic country, Māori find themselves always at the mercy of the vote. Democracy is a tool of colonisation. The situation of Māori provides lessons for those who would applaud the Council of Europe and their belief in coexistence by way of democratic decision-making.

The practice of democracy
‘Democracy’ is a contested concept and the label of diverse practices. What is paramount, this paper argues, is the situation of people when they encounter the practice of democracy. Its focus is the phenomenon of democracy and not its theory. In Western countries there is always a hierarchy of identifiable democratic practices, roughly classified as supranational, national, regional, and local government. The theory is that each construct has a known constitution and citizens enter into democratic processes according to the constitutional arrangements. In contrast, the phenomenon of democracy is that which an individual experiences when enmeshed in the alleged processes of democracy at any of the levels of the hierarchy.
Phenomenology – the method of enquiry which Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) inaugurates – is appropriate for investigations into democratic practices. It enables us to describe practices in a new manner, one that does not attempt to justify or explicate concepts or purposes. The method of phenomenology provides guidance on how to enquire into the phenomena human beings experience in diverse arenas that have different purposes, documentation, constituents, and tempers. The methodology does not assume a particular purpose or specific constituents for extant practices. We must not say what democracy is about and then seek to show the extent to which others, or our own observations, conform to our assertion. Instead, we must enquire into the experience of those who are in the places that we tentatively associate with democracy.

Husserl does not develop his method to enquire into political constructs, but to examine such foundational constituents of all human experience as space and time. These he explicates by his method of phenomenological reduction, a technique that requires that we examine what we personally encounter (Kersten, 1989, p.19). Always, Husserl asserts, we must experience the reality of a total situation and see what that reveals. What it reveals ultimately is essences, not facts. The method of examination

of the real situation is to group together aspects of the encountered situation and eliminate them from consideration. Thus, the constitutional documents, and the sentences they contain, are not actually present in democratic deliberations. They enter democratic deliberations as references or guidance for people who speak. Let us then focus on something that is often present – people who speak. Yet we find in democratic forums that speaking – contributing to deliberations – is also not essential: people talk in the sense that they mouth sentences, but the quality of their arguments is variable, and those who listen do so with varying degrees of dedication and comprehension. No particular speaker is indispensable, or even important, in the process. After people have spoken the media might regard them, or what they said, as important, but that is subsequent to the reality – it is not the event of democracy, it is merely re-ported. We may bracket speakers out of our consideration, what people say is not essential to democracy.
Elsewhere, particularly in “The phenomenology of democracy”, I attempt to arrive at the essence of democracy through my experience and that work is instrumental to the present paper (Shaw, 2007; Shaw, 2009). That which is distinctive about this practice of democracy – be it practiced at any of the arenas mentioned and in any western country – is decision-making by way of the vote. If there is not voting involved somewhere there is not democracy. This leading conclusion of a Husserlian investigation may sound rather mundane and obvious, yet we have only begun to explore its ramifications.
Where does most of the decision-making by vote occur? The focus of political scientists and commentators alike is on national elections which decide who shall represent us. The election of Barack Obama and David Cameron’s coalition government, for example, provide fodder for years of analysis – yet these decisions were comparatively straight-forward and the choices limited: always, those who vote select between people or political parties. More voting occurs in parliaments. In the motions that confront parliamentary assemblies the decisions in themselves are complex and there is substantial analysis of options. Nevertheless, parliaments still do not produce the quotient of decisions achieved by local government. Local government entities – broadly understood to include territorial and regional authorities and the governance boards of hospitals, public trusts, universities, schools, and a myriad of other public facilities – make more decisions than their super-ordinate authorities do. If the analysis includes the decisions made by other bodies with democratic governance – such as public companies, churches, private trusts, and sports organisations – it is apparent that the quality of decisions made by our ubiquitous committees should concern us all. Every day and every night people in committees vote to make decisions. Why is this mechanism so popular when sensible people often hold grave concerns about the decisions taken? It is unlikely to be that these people all subscribe to the political theory that we associate with the founding of democracy in France, Britain, and the United States. We may surmise that more profound provocations achieve the intransigence of democratic decision-making – and the present paper seeks to describe them.

The Imperatives of Decision-Making by Vote
Phenomenological enquiry into democracy pursues the inner character of voting into the foundational nature of the human being. That is not the present agenda. It is sufficient for our purposes to record some of the implications of decision-making by way of the vote. First, notice that the imperative is to make a decision – any decision. There is no pretence that the decision taken is an exemplary, ethical, or optimal decision. The province of democracy itself is progression, not ethics. When the vote is taken it establishes a temporal transcendence, one from a state in which discussions hold a purpose (to convince others who will vote), to one in which considerations are immaterial. This is “decides” in Thomas Fuller’s sense when the child speaks on behalf of the City to Queen Elizabeth and says “The sea too near decides us from the rest” (Fuller, 1642, p.122, original italics). Democracy provides a practical reality which confines or limits us. Voting renders reasons irrelevant. The Italian medievalist Umberto Eco notices how decision-makers in the moment of action eliminate “nuances and ambiguities” ("Reflections on War", in Eco, 2001, p.3). He contrasts decision-makers (executives) with intellectuals whose perpetual task is to delve into unresolved complexity.
Second, the vote is a mechanical procedure. Once constructed the machine of democracy runs and produces its products – decisions. Thus, democracy achieves decisions without the necessary involvement of rationality. When people raise a hand to vote they do not disclose their reasons. Indeed, the present writers enquiries directed at his colleagues in local government suggest that many councillors vote as their colleagues vote or for reasons not related to the decision of the moment. It is disturbingly common to find that after a vote the decision-makers are unable to be precise about what it is that they have just decided. Of course individuals did not decide anything substantial, the collective, the machine, “decided”. In this aspect, the imperative of democracy levels human frailty. The system “decides” in the sense of settlement or resolution, and not in the sense of conclusion or determination. It is akin to settling an intellectual dispute with swords. Attempts to involve rationality in decision-making sometimes occur as initiatives from those who control the constitution. For example, there may be lists of things to which decision-makers must have regard. New Zealand’s local government legislation frequently uses this approach in a futile bid to impose reasoning. One commentator notes that “complex, codified processes for decision-making means some care needs to be taken when analysing whether this theme [legislated requirements directed at the thought processes of those who vote] translates into a legal obligation” (Knight, 2007, p.358).
Third, the public legitimacy of practical decisions taken democratically derives from the process of democracy itself, specifically that every vote on a matter is in fact the second vote on the matter. The first vote decides who will vote and this legitimises the practical decision. This is the core of the legitimacy associated with democracy generally (it is not its alleged inclusiveness or egalitarianism). Because the second vote hides the actual reasons for the decision (if there were any, even those who are inebriated cast valid votes), democratic decisions require a supporting cast of communications and marketing officials. Interpreters and sales persons who make what they will or can of the decisions taken. It is common enough in the present writer’s experience to find that the publicity that emanates from a decision holds a scant relationship to occurrences in the forum of decision.
The Council of Europe’s white paper argues that “Democracy thrives because it helps individuals identify with the society of which they are members and because it provides for legitimate decision-making and exercise of power”. Phenomenology enables us to identify an inner mechanistic core within democracy, an essence which ensures its practice and perpetuation. Democracy achieves its legitimacy through violent structures inherent in the practice of voting. With this introduction to the nature of decision-making by way of vote, we can consider the situation of those who question the exercise of power through democracy.

The Experience in Aotearoa New Zealand
Māori, the indigenous people in Aotearoa New Zealand, did not practice democracy in any form until their colonisation by the British (Cleave, 1983, p.79). Nevertheless, for centuries before any Europeans set foot in the country structures of local government evolved (Arlidge, 1980). Although Arlidge and Cleave record diverse practices, in general decisions established on behalf of the community were the outcome of formalised discussions that a kaumātua (elder or leader) would summarise. Many iwi (tribes) allowed children to speak for they believed that the public presentation of ideas was a part of children’s education, although, as, there were diverse practices. Thus, an apprenticeship scheme established participation in the community – in local government. Such procedures are an example of deliberative decision-making without democracy which is characterised as the first half of the dual commitment embraced by the slogan “ for the people and by the people” (Lafont, 2006, p.4). Māori practice this mechanism of decision today. The Whakatōhea (from a tribal group in the Ōpōtiki area which is outside of Auckland) scholar Dr Ranginui Walker describes his role as “head” of the Auckland District Māori Council (a body that represents over 36 marae committees): I had to “cut through all the words” and decide what are the “resolutions of the day” – this after discussions where people would talk for hours (Walker, 2010). Essentially the same mechanism of decision was used in the 1858 “election” of the first national Māori king (Sorrenson, 1963, p.33). To this day, the King movement maintains traditional, rather than European, institutions, which is to say decision-making is within neither a Star Chamber nor a Cabinet, but the achieved within the traditional Rūnanga (public, community assembly) of the King’s own tribe (ibid, p.46-47). Deliberations and decisions are remarkably open and available.
Those who brought democratic practice to Māori did not value democracy itself. Democracy was an instrumental mechanism of colonisation: advocacy and funding supported the introduction of democracy in a bid to police local districts (Gorst, 1864, pp.248-249). The assimilation of traditional governance practices provided only the “illusion of traditional control” and an often cited example is the appropriation of the Rūnanga (Warren, 2006, p.ii and p.9). The goal was law and order, and evidently those who imposed local democracy on Māori themselves held little understanding of, or commitment to, democracy.
The situation of Māori is typical of that generated by colonial law, which is “marked by a unicentric power system, with greater or lesser problems of conjoining the colonial government with the local government, and more or less overt theories (such as the British ‘indirect rule’) of accomplishing the conjunction. All are marked, however, by two (or more) legal cultures” (Bohannan, 1965, p.38).
Traditional Māori decision-making is no more dependent on rationality than the method of the vote described above. Māori value rhetoric, which does not depend on rationality. A Pākehā (European) records his observations of traditional Māori oratory which he says displayed “vehemence” and the “fierceness of a demoniac”, “produced [only] about one idea altogether” and was “directed at arousing an intense emotional response” (Keesing, 1928, p.27). 
The pertinence of the issues alluded to above became apparent recently when a conservative National Party Government restructured local government in New Zealand’s largest city, Auckland. In the “biggest change to Auckland governance since the removal of the provinces in the mid-1870s” (Reid, 2009, p.42), Government denies Māori designated representation at the Council table. A Cabinet Minister, Dr Pita Sharples, himself a Māori and a member of the Māori Party, a minority party in the coalition Government, began his response by cataloguing Māori beliefs and values which he claims are as relevant today as they were when the indigenous people gifted land to Auckland settlers. The concepts of pōwhiri (to welcome) and kaitiakitanga (caregiver, guardian) ensured that the tribe had a role to protect and assist their manuhiri (settlers). The value of kotahitanga (unity and inclusiveness) ensured that Ngāti Whātua (the tribe) would offer land and assistance to the settlers; while the concept of manaakitanga (care, and assistance) ensured that the tribe would befriend and embrace the new population in the emergent town. Sharples continues:
It seems that these Māori principles that guaranteed that Auckland could survive and grow, would be far more important, even in today's times, than artificial political concoctions such as ‘one vote for one person’, or ‘democratic elections’ which were the principles that were cited to decline the two seats on the super-city council. The Māori kaupapa were principles that promoted ‘equity' and ‘inclusiveness’, surely the ideals of a ‘civilised’ society. We must begin to recognise that democracy has many expressions, many ways of mobilising voices and representation, rather than statically holding onto dominant axioms. (Sharples, 2010)
In his challenge to democracy, Sharples directs himself at the practice that phenomenologically is the essence of democracy itself – the vote. It is the practice of the vote which denies Māori the heart of their way of existence, kaupapa Māori, “the affirmation and legitimation of being Māori” (Pihama, Cram, & Walker, 2002, p.30). More generally, Maori leadership affirms its “indivisible articles of faith” which include the statement “we believe in a democracy whereby the government is not only of us and for us but is run by us” (Mead, 1997, pp.145-146)
The conclusion is that democracy – understood phenomenologically as decision-making by way of the vote – has never attracted Māori (except as an accommodation to colonial power). Māori repudiate the practice of voting as a method of decision-making and point to their own elaborate traditions. It is important to see the situation of Māori as a conscious, insightful repudiation of democracy. Compare their reasoning with the frequent claim that democracy is for the educated. For example, when asked if Western democracy would be the right form of governance for a nation such as Afghanistan with its tribal based, multi-ethnic population, the Governor of Bamiyan replied:
No, I don’t think so. There are some principles that need to be considered before a system as such is incorporate from above. Democracy will mean nothing in a place like Afghanistan where 80% of the population is illiterate, uneducated and uninformed. With so much illiteracy, democracy will mean nothing and this is the same problem in other places of the world where democracy has failed. (Sarabi, 2009, p.6)
Māori are literate, educated, and informed, and they still shun democracy.

Implications for the Council of Europe
The Council of Europe Ministers of Foreign Affairs white paper asserts:
Democracy thrives because it helps individuals identify with the society of which they are members and because it provides for legitimate decision-making and exercise of power. … Critical and constructive dialogue, itself a profoundly democratic standard, has to recognize other democratic principles such as pluralism, inclusiveness and equality. It is important that dialogue acknowledges the spirit of democratic culture and its essential elements: mutual respect among participants and the readiness of everyone to seek and accept a common ground. (Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, 2008, p.20)
Phenomenological insight overcomes three assertions entailed within this statement: democracy does not thrive because it helps individuals identify with society; critical and constructive dialogue is not a driver of democracy; and there is no “common ground” for democracy itself. Let us consider each of these in turn.
Democracy thrives because of hidden powers within the mechanism itself. Specifically, the impetus within democracy aligns to the current western metaphysical paradigm of material progress for increasing numbers of people. More intensely, this is about the human involvement with change, but as already mentioned, the present paper does not pursue that thesis. Democracy in itself does not deliver progress that we can measure by an objective criterion (say, health, literacy, or housing statistics), instead it delivers decisions which reliably accumulate with the passage of time. Participants in this production gain satisfaction through the process itself and through the accumulation of decisions. Fortunately for some, you do not need to know much about what is going on to participate, because the critical act of participation is mechanical (voting). The decisions may well contribute to material, or even spiritual, progress for human beings, but this is not the imperative of the event of the vote. The experience of Māori – historically and today – is that in climacteric determinations voting (the essence of democracy) may undermine their very survival as a people with distinctive kaupapa (practices and purposes) of their own. Democracy is thus a mechanism that perpetuates colonisation and which hold the potential to extend the scope of colonisation. The case of Ngāti Whātua in Auckland is of an extension. To avoid such predicaments the Council of Europe must penetrate further into its own constitution and be less enamoured with democracy, the mechanical technique of decision-making.
“Critical and constructive dialogue” is not the essence of democracy. It is not even a necessary preliminary to the vote. The main reason that democracy works as a mechanism is that it renders irrelevant allegedly critical and constructive dialogue. As Ranginui Walker said, his role as a kaumātua was to move beyond the arguments of the day and summarise the recommendations. In democratic decision-making people like Walker do not have a role – a mechanical process replaces them. That some cultural groups repudiate the mechanical process, preferring their own mechanisms of decision-making, is the specific challenge of the Council of Europe. The search for “common ground” when there are disputes is attractive. However, the determination of outcomes ultimately achieved by the democratic mechanism renders as irrelevant all moral judgements, including those of “common ground”.
If democracy – properly understood as a violent mechanism of decision-making that overcomes incommensurable choice – entails difficulties, what might assist the Council of Europe with its task of “Managing Europe’s increasing cultural diversity” (Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, 2008, p.3)?  Each cultural group must base the extent of their engagement with democracy on a realistic understanding of democracy. If democracy, and let it be bluntly said, if the Council of Europe, renders cultural groups as “stakeholders”, which is to say subordinate participant groups, conflict will ensue. In Aotearoa New Zealand, Māori participated in democratic processes for 150 years, but they now publicly acknowledge the limitations of that mechanism and (in the observation of the present writer) actively seek alternatives. We may embrace this as a positive initiative and not become sentimental about democracy, which is but one useful tool in the quest for civic accommodation.
The Council of Europe acknowledges with words, and with funds, the importance of local and regional authorities (Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, 2008, p.28). Earlier the present paper indicates the pervasiveness of democratic decision-making in subordinate authorities. A feature of this is the personal involvement of many more individuals than those engaged in national governance, and this provides an opportunity to explore the interrelation between democracy and alternative decision-making mechanisms. If the neophyte South Pacific experience tells us anything, it speaks to the increased sophistication of participants, a situation advanced by ethnic television channels and the internet. It also demonstrates intense, impenetrable human relationships that endure personally, professionally, commercially, and publicly. The power of decision – in democracy exclusively the province of the vote – transcends intercultural dialogue. The task for the leadership within the Council of Europe is to overcome this transcendence, and forge mechanisms of decision-making which allow those who reject democracy to be themselves and flourish.

References
Arlidge, A. S. (1980). Some Thoughts on the History of the Local Government of the Maori People. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 89(3), 329-340.
Bohannan, P. (1965). The Differing Realms of the Law. American Anthropologist, 67(6), 33-42.
Cleave, P. (1983). Tribal and State-Like Political Formations in New Zealand Maori Society, 1750-1900. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 92(1), 51-92.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. (2008). White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue: "Living Together as Equals in Dignity" (Launched by the Council of Europe Ministers of Foreign Affairs at the 118th Ministerial Session). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Eco, U. (2001). Five Moral Pieces. New York: Harcourt.
Fuller, T. (1642). The Holy State. Cambridge: John Williams.
Gorst, J. E. (1864). The Maori King; or, the Story of Our Quarrel with the Natives of New Zealand. London: Macmillan.
Keesing, F. M. (1928). The Changing Maori. New Plymouth: Board of Maori Ethnological Research.
Kersten, F. (1989). Phenomenological Method: Theory and Practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Knight, D. (2007). Local Authority Decision-Making, Community Views, and Stadium Aotearoa. New Zealand Law Journal, October, 2007, 354-358.
Lafont, C. (2006). Is the Ideal of a Deliberative Democracy Coherent? In S. Besson & J. L. Martí (Eds.), Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents (pp. 3-25). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Mead, S. M. (1997). Landmarks, Bridges and Visions: Aspects of Maori Culture. Wellington: Victoria University Press.
Pihama, L., Cram, F., & Walker, S. (2002). Creating Methodological Space: A Literature Review of Kaupapa Maori Research. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 26(1), 30-43.
Reid, M. (2009). The Auckland Debate: Is Big City Governance Always This Difficult? Policy Quarterly, 5(2), 39-44.
Sarabi, H. (2009). Interview with Governor Sarabi in Bamiyan, 17 December 2009 (in Association with "Bamiyan: In the Heart of Afghanistana" Exhibition at Pataka Museum and Gallery, 6 February - 23 May 2010). Porirua City, New Zealand: Porirua City Council.
Sharples, P. (2010). Speech: Race Relations Day Dinner (21 March, 2010). The Official Website of the New Zealand Government. Retrieved 16 July, 2010, from http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/speech+race+relations+day+dinner
Shaw, R. K. (2007). The Peculiar Place of Enlightenment Ideals in the Governance Concept of Citizenship and Democracy. In M. A. Peters, H. Blee, P. Enslin & A. Britton (Eds.), Handbook of Global Citizenship Education (pp. 153-168). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Shaw, R. K. (2009). The Phenomenology of Democracy. Policy Futures in Education, 7(3), 340-348.
Sorrenson, M. P. K. (1963). The Maori King Movement, 1858-1885. In R. M. Chapman & K. Sinclair (Eds.), Studies of a Small Democracy: Essays in Honour of Willis Airey (pp. 33-55). Hamilton: Paul's Book Arcade for the University of Auckland.
Walker, R. (2010). Te Ahi Kaa (Radio Interview with Maraea Rakuraku, Broadcast 11 Hōngongoi 2010 ). Wellington: Radio New Zealand National.
Warren, T. R. (2006). Constructing ‘Traditional’ Concepts – the Case of Māori Governance (Centre for Indigenous Governance and Development Working Paper No. 3/2006). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University.

councillor naureen palmer memorial

Yesterday the City Council hosted a memorial service for the family and friends of Councillor Naureen Palmer. She died a few weeks ago and was buried at Taupo next to her parents. The service was an important occassion for the city. It was managed by an exceptionally competent and human Anglican minister, Robert Kereopa.

Naureen was one of the very few councillors who did not speak about herself. She truely did speak about the needs of others. Of particular note at the memorial service was a large contingent from the Women's Refuge. Such a public display must be very unusual and special.

I miss Naureen on the comittees of the Council and reflect that her dedication is not so common. We served together most on the Recreation Committee and the Hillary Commission Local Committee. When I chaired the City Services Committee in 2007, an analysis showed that she moved more motions than any other councillor. With sadness I remember our meetings at her office at Family Start. Below is an email she sent which I placed on www.porirua.net at the time. It is very typical of her critical but positive approach to Council.

Robert
April 25, 2010

From: Naureenp [mailto:naureenp@familystart-porirua.org.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 11:15 a.m.
Subject: Last nights Village strategy community Feedback

Tena koe,

I believe last nights community feedback was pretty exciting and for me it showed a lot of consultation and hard work took place by Community Groups, Council Staff and lastly Councillors to bring it to this stage. 

It was a shame that light refreshments were not put on afterwards for this event.  I observed that the community groups wanted to stay awhile and talk about their presentations, to each other and to Councillors.  I'm assuming this might have been the first time they had seen the dreams, ideas and work of each other. The sense of ownership was awesome.

I would like to propose that in future, as these plans take shape, we should be celebrating in some way to acknowledge everyone's achievements so it doesn't go by like another city development plan.

Naureen Palmer
November 11, 2005

aotea wake park - media report

Tuesday, 6 April, 2010 - 07:56

Porirua City Council moves in the Aotea Lagoon controversy are deplorable, a councillor said today.

Council will remove the signs of opponents on, and around, the Lagoon - yet advertising on this site has been a customary use for commercial, political and community groups, Porirua City Councillor Robert Shaw said.

The Council claims it is unfair to the developer that the park displays signs against his proposal.

What is unfair is that the Council without public consultation carried a motion to support the wakeboard project. It has spent the ratepayers' money to develop a workable proposal and to negotiate a lease. All this expenditure on the project before asking the public.

If Council wants to be fair they will help those who oppose the project as they helped the developer. The developer is to hold a public meeting and council officers will be there. This is his method of advocacy.

If the developer wants to erect a sign he should be able to do so, but so should others who have an opinion. Those who oppose the plan have their methods of advocacy and the Council should not interfere with them. Having set up the consultation, Council should now let it roll. This clash of opinion is similar to that which occurred when it was proposed that there be commercial golf on a Plimmerton park. Councillors who support commercial development in the city have the view that public parks are available to developers.

aotea wakeboard park - name

Call me old-fashioned if you will, but I do not want the effective name change for the Aotea Lagoon. It will be advertised throughout the lower north island as the Aotea Wakeboard Park.
Robert

residents' association meeting

by Porirua City Councillor Robert Shaw

I attended the Residents 2010 conference in Wellington on 10 April. The one-day event was held in the Beehive and hosted by the Hon. Peter Dunne.

In opening the conference the Minister stressed the importance of the conference because it addressed a crucial issue for the Nation: how do we activate the public response to large issues? He congratulated the residents associations on their work.

Porirua City had delegates from associations in Titahi Bay, Pukerua Bay, Plimmerton, Paremata, and Whitby. The councillors present were Fran Wild and Chris Laidlaw from Greater Wellington, Robert Shaw from Porirua City Council, and Celia Wade-Brown from Wellington. There were about 100 delegates, from as far away as Auckland.

This was the first ever national meeting of associations. It was prompted by the common concerns of associations about their role in local government and the changes to structures being imposed by central government. I believe it inaugurates a new era for the associations. These associations are the voice of small communities with distinctive needs. The information they have, and the judgement that they bring to local matters, is vital for councils as they seek to address the needs of suburbs

In Porirua City, the Council relies on the associations for the information needs to maintain and develop roads, drainage, parks, walkways, beaches, parking, rubbish, and other facilities. This is primarily the work of council officers and not of councillors. Councillors should not stray into the details of city management. Our city was the only one represented at the conference that could report on the success of having a council officer attend residents association meetings on a regular basis. Such liaison work is an essential part of the functioning of both the councils and the associations. It is not work that should concern councillors. The councillors have more than enough to do as they wrestle with the annual plan and the District Plan, and the host of other strategy documents and control policies. In these matters the residences' associations have also have a role, but that is distinct from the "housekeeping" work.

Pat Hanley from the Pukerua Bay residents association gave a keynote address. He set out the background to western democracy, beginning with the revolutions in Britain, France, and the United States. He highlighted the struggle to obtain the right to vote and the way that democracy was (and still is) associated with property rights.

There is growing concern throughout New Zealand about how citizens can influence councils. Everywhere residents find it difficult to have their views heard and to direct councils. Most see that the councils are driven by officers and that the ability of citizens to alter projects thought the annual planning process is minimal. The approach of the group was basically to consider techniques to work more effectively within the existing structures. Sharing information, writing submissions, lobbying and the use of the internet are all current techniques.

My own view is that much can be done to alter way councils make decisions to allow for more democracy in the process. I have written papers for fournals and chapters in books on this topic.

The meeting was closed by the Chief Ombudsman, Beverley Wakem. She summarised the day and indicated sections of legislation that are not commonly used when people seek to gain information from Councils. The number of complains to the Ombudsman is increasing at the moment and the Office has strategies to manage its current 2,000 case workload. It is expected that complains in accordance with local government official information legislation will continue on their upward trend. The Ombudsman concluded her address with the slogan "It's okay to complain!".

14 April 2010

towers again and again

-----Original Message-----
From: Victoria Jakobs @ The Fundraising Foundation [mailto:victoria@tff.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2009 5:13 p.m.
To: 'litea.mufasa@xtra.co.nz'; 'denyslatham@paradise.net.nz'; 'hemi.matenga@xtra.co.nz'; 'taima1@xtra.co.nz'; 'timothy.manu@gmail.com'; 'marilyn.ken@xtra.co.nz'; 'henrysmith@xtra.co.nz'; 'liz@kellyhygiene.co.nz'; 'suedow@paradise.net.nz'; 'euon.murrell@tommysmana.co.nz'; 'nick@leggett.co.nz'; 'robert@porirua.net'; 'tmsheppard@gmail.com'
Cc: Jenny Brash; mana.electorate@xtra.co.nz; Roger Blakeley; Peter Bailey; 'Graeme'
Subject: Another cellphone tower in titahi bay? No consultation? Again????????????????

To our elected representatives

I have just received a call from City Life Newspaper asking for comment about the installation of a cellphone tower at 47 Thornley St, Titahi Bay.

Where do I start?

Whilst we were happily involved in discussion with Telecom about their tower – after a huge community protest -  council deemed that NZ Comms targeted mail drop to 80 households was ok? I’ve just spoken to a home owner on Thornley St, who knew nothing about this tower.

Where are our local ward councillers? Why are you not respecting the overwhelming view of Titahi Bay residents that we want a stake in our community’s future?

Frankly, I had hoped to move on. I personally have invested hundreds of hours at the expense of my family to try and ensure that our community is a safe and pleasant one. I am saddened, disappointed and surprised to find that for the third time we have found ourselves let down.

In disappointment

Victoria Jakobs

For your reference

http://www.pcc.govt.nz/pages/Home/News---Events/Newsletters/Council-Update

RESOURCE CONSENT FOR A NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY

Resource consent has recently been granted to Two Degrees Mobile Limited (previously

New Zealand Communications Ltd) for a new telecommunications facility in Titahi Bay, Porirua. The proposal is for a 15m tall structure and associated cabinets.

The application site that has been selected is 47 Thornley Street (also known as Whitireia Park), and is land owned by Radio New Zealand Ltd and the Radio Network Ltd. The site is designated for radio communications facilities, and several radio masts currently occupythe site.

Two Degrees Mobile Limited agreed with the Council that they would go through a

consultation process before applying for resource consent. This process included public meetings and newspaper advertisements, as well as a targeted mail drop to 80 households in the surrounding area. This consultation process was discussed and accepted at the City Services Committee meeting held on 27 November 2008, and the Council agreed that applications could be processed by Council officers. Council officers have found this consultation process to be satisfactory.

As a result of this targeted mail drop, three submissions were received. One supported the proposed new facility, and two (from the same household) opposed it. A site visit was carried out by Council officers as part of assessing this application, and it was determined that the potential adverse visual effects of the facility would be no more than minor. This is due to the significant separation distance of the proposed facility to any nearby residences, and the surrounding physical environment comprising tall trees and existing radio communications facilities. In addition, the application proposed several mitigating factors, such as painting the mast and all equipment a matt, forest green colour, and carrying out landscape planting as part of the development.

In addition to this, it is noted that a report from a radiofrequency engineer was submitted with this resource consent application, and concludes that the effects and cumulative effects of the new telecommunications facility are well within the New Zealand Standard.

RESOURCE CONSENTS GRANTED WEEK ENDING 19 JUNE 2009

RC Number Street Name Description

RC5530 Durham Street Relocate dwelling exceeds front yard rule and site coverage

RC5524 Thornley Street Telecommunications facility

RC5533 State Highway 1 Rural farm shed

rates increases

Take care when you use this information which is derived from an informal survey of councils.The numbers refer to the general rate, and do not necessarily include special targeted rates such as those for transport, water, and even in some places tourism. However, they indicate the basic direction for the leading tax struck by local government.
r

auckland challenge

ROBERT COMMENTS:

Many people like the Auckland report. What is more some see it as a way ahead for Wellington. If you take a mechanistic view of local governement, you believe it is mainly about the delivery of services, then you want to streamline things and make them efficient. The other side of the debate is the development of democracy, the involvement of families in their community, and ensuring everyone feels a sense of belonging in their community. There is a serious challenge to democracy itself at the moment. One part of it comes from the example of Maori decision-making which seems to work well but is not democratic. More on this later.
r
March 29, 2009

LOCAL GOVERNMENT NEW ZEALAND RESPONDS TO THE AUCKLAND REPORT:

“We share the concerns expressed by the Government about the loss of local democracy and community representation in Auckland,” President of Local Government New Zealand  Lawrence Yule said on the release of the Report of the Royal Commission into Auckland Governance.

“We commend the Hon. Peter Salmon and the Royal Commission for its comprehensive report. However, we are very concerned about the loss of local democracy, the loss of community boards and the lack of detail on any significant savings.

“We agree that this work is a matter of urgency, given the last 18 months of uncertainty for staff and elected members. However, it is too important to get wrong. The Government must consider these recommendations and their implications thoroughly.

“Any new solution must be better than the current arrangements. Auckland citizens must be confident that the new structures will provide strong representation, be responsive to their expectations and provide a role model for local government. It is now up to the people of Auckland to tell the Government what they think of these recommendations.”

Mr Yule said the report was in response to a unique set of governance issues in our largest metropolitan area.

“The Government must consider if this is the best approach for Auckland before we consider if this proposed solution could, or should, be applied to other parts of New Zealand.

“Once the Government finalises its intentions, it has to ensure a successful implementation and transition from the current arrangements. This will not be an easy task and without risk, given the high expectations on the outcome. We have offered to assist the Government on any transitional arrangements,” said Mr Yule.

ENDS

environmental protection agency to over-ride district plans - another layer of decision-making to avoid the first

As our government says:

"As a transitional measure, this package of reforms proposes to establish the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as a statutory office.

Pre-election policy announcements also signalled an intention to create an EPA to achieve national environmental goals. One of the functions for a new EPA is to centralise some regulatory roles which are best exercised on a nationwide basis.

The roles, functions and powers of the EPA will, for the time being, be exercised by the Secretary for the Environment. The Secretary will be able to delegate these functions to his or her employees within the Ministry for the Environment, to allow the administrative work to be carried out by a dedicated unit. The creation of the EPA as an independent statutory office gives the necessary degree of separation from the Ministry for the Environment’s core business." \\\\\\\

minister against the environment (nick smith)

Do you believe that people should have a say in their community and be secure in their environment? If you do then you have to accept that there needs to be a mechanism to (a) set out local rules and (b) operate those rules. The first requirement is satisfied by District Plans, and a few other plans like the coastal plans. The second requirement relates to the procedures set out by the Resource Management Act. Always there will be conflict about these things in operation because people have different interests.

Now the plan of the Minister for the Environment is to cut into the system in the name of improved efficiency. You have to be very naive to think that the result of his proposals will better quality decisions. The Bill is named to be innocuous, but analysis will show it to be otherwise.

The problems in Porirua City with RMA decisions are derived from committees that go against officer advice without good reason. Well that was the most recent spectacular case. Also, because we are so slow to develop the DP all sorts of poor developments are allowed. Developers have discovered it is best to go for a plan change to facilitate their projects and the council is quite incapable of holding the line in these circumstances.

Minister's comments on his The Resource Management (Simplify & Streamline) Amendment Bill

Changes to the Resource Management Act will simplify and streamline processes
without compromising environmental protections, Environment Minister Nick Smith
says.
“The costs, uncertainty and delays of the current Act are adversely affecting New
Zealand jobs, infrastructure, and productivity and causing economic frustrations for
homeowners, small businesses and farmers. The reforms we are introducing in
phase one will address these significant issues.”
Key elements of the reform package are:
• Removing frivolous, vexatious and anti-competitive objections
• Streamlining processes for projects of national significance
• Creating an Environmental Protection Authority
• Improving plan development and plan change processes
• Improving resource consent processes
• Streamlining decision making
• Improving workability and compliance
• Improving national instruments
“The Government is taking an innovative approach to major projects by increasing
the input from local councils into a streamlined Board of Inquiry process. This
recognises that major projects have both an important local and national dimension.
“These reforms have required a delicate rebalancing between the rights of people to
participate in resource consent decision making, and to appeal decisions, and the
need for efficient decision making."

superb performance by derek fox

Derek Fox sometimes performs well and sometimes he does not. In the Te Papa debate on the Maori seats he was right on form. In a play based upon fundamenatal principles of justice he made the case for the Maori seats, against a Canterbury University law professor.

Professor Phillip Joseph

Professor Joseph's arguments were logical and sounded reasonable. The problem was that the fox runs for his dinner and the rabbit runs for his life. In this debate the Fox was the rabbit.

I was reminded that the best Maori have ever done in local government elections is to achieve 2% of the seats on councils. This when Maori are almost 20% of the population. Listen via http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio

Derek is now working for the Maori Party and still manages his media company.
r
February 8, 2009

4 million people should write her a reference

"The government is supporting former Prime Minister Helen Clark's bid for a top job at the United Nations. Miss Clark is a candidate to take charge of the UN Development Programme, according to this morning's Sunday Star Times. She would have control of the largest budget of any UN agency. - Newstalk ZB 08-Feb-2009"

ROBERT COMMENTS

All New Zealanders will wish Ms Clark well in her bid for this position. Her skills and insights have served New Zealand well and now they are to be available in another vital policy role.
r

the auckland solution

8:16AM Monday March 31, 2008

"The Herald expects the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance will recommend a bold shake-up of local government, including radical proposals for an executive mayor along the lines of London and the creation of a super city council. The super city will stretch 140km from Pukekohe in the south to Wellsford in the north. With 1.4 million people, it will be the largest city under one council in Australasia."

ROBERT COMMNETS

The most important thing to know about local government in New Zealand is that every place is different. That means the aspirations and requirements of the people there are different. The vast majority of the 1.4 million people in the Auckland region expect no more from their council than low rates, basic services, sports grounds and a free library. Local government is not a part of the their lives.Nor is community. Most cannot name their neighbours let alone those around them. In these circumstances running Auckland like a machine is sensible. It does not mean Auckland is a good place to live. This is why Stephen Hart's survey is so important. Those who will benefit most by the big city model are not those who live in Auckland. Eight years ago I made a study of the City of Westminster. We could learn much from them given all this talk about a Lord Mayor for Auckland!
r
February 8, 2009

stephen hart's survey is the most important of all

5:00PM Friday Jan 30, 2009

Dunedin has been ranked the top place to live in New Zealand. And the news hasn't been good for the northern centres.

A survey by the ASB Bank ranked Dunedin - the country's eighth-largest city - as the best city community ahead of Rodney District, north of Auckland, and Wellington. On the bottom of the ranking was Waitakere City although it was a close run with adjacent Auckland. The survey looked at several aspects which made people feel comfortable and happy living in the area. They included:

* The sense of community in local neighbourhood;

* Feeling of trust;

* Availability of support;

* Frequency of feeling lonely or isolated;

* Contact with neighbours;

* Culturally rich and diverse arts scene;

* Sense of pride in the way their city looks and feels;

* Rating of graffiti, vandalism and litter as a problem;

Stephen Hart, the author of the report, said Dunedin was a clear winner after finishing in the top four rankings in seven of the eight categories.

He said all towns and cities "have their own sense of community or a collective sense of belonging, pride, culture and co-operation that stems from the people. "Some cities seem to have a friendly, trusting atmosphere about them that lifts their residents and makes them proud of where they live," he said. "Others have a colder formality and distance that affects how locals mix and socialise together."

The survey did not cover every city in New Zealand but included 56 per cent of the population and used data from the current Quality of Life Survey which examined peoples' perceptions of their own wellbeing. The rankings from one to 12 were:

* Dunedin 650 points

* Rodney District 555 points

* Wellington 545 points

* Porirua 455 points

* Hutt City 440 points

* Tauranga 390 points

* Christchurch 375 points

* Hamilton 310 points

* North Shore 295 points

* Manukau 195 points

* Auckland 125 points

* Waitakere 120 points
- NZPA

as the porirua city council seeks to save us from the recession by spending ratepayers' money

ROBERT COMMENTS

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Porirua City Council plans to use the recession as an argument to do what it has always done - take increasingly more money from ratepayers every year. Unless ratepayers revolt this will be the outcome of current deliberations on the ten-year budget.

In the meantime, Telecom continues with no notion at all of corporate social responsibility. They are going to cost our country more jobs in the quest to boost their own income. My comments on a media statement located on Share Chat are in yellow below.

By Jonathan Underhill
Wednesday 4th February 2009
Telecom, the biggest company on the NZX 50 Index by market value, will shift a further 250 call centre jobs to the Philippines to help reduce costs. The move, over about 18 months, will bring staff in Manila to 700, with 1,600 jobs remaining in New Zealand, the company said in a statement.

The trend is what counts. More and more jobs are going overseas. One wonders what the response is going to be from John Key now that he is busy investing taxpayer funds to prevent this very action.

Regarding the 250, this is about the total number employed full time by the Porirua City Council.

The decision to move more call centre workers to a lower-cost country comes as Telecom is facing more rivalry for phone calls in New Zealand, as customers migrate to mobile services from landlines and costs rise to meet government edicts on competition.

That is a good idea, blame the government for your lack of loyalty to New Zealand.

Spokesman Mark Watts said Telecom may limit redundancies because attrition at call centres is "fairly high" and there is room for some workers to be redeployed.

"May"?? what about a firm commitment to the country? Also the welcome high attrition rate is due to people not having adequate incentive to do the work. In changed times people will be forced to accept poor working conditions.

Figures tomorrow are expected to show the jobless rate climbed to 4.7% in the fourth quarter from 4.2% three months earlier as the slowing economy spurs companies to reduce their workforce and limit new hires.

And it might be added that our tax money and our rates money is to be used to ameliorates the effects of the global recession. Telecom charges on regardless.

dompost story about non-issues

Kiwibank proposal sprung on council

MATT CALMAN  -  DomPost -  Tuesday, 27 January 2009

PORIRUA'S deputy mayor believes her council was blind­sided by a proposal to jump into bed with Kiwibank after the idea was sprung on councillors last month.
    Kiwibank and six North Island councils have been talking for more than a year about installing Kiwibank franchises in council service centres and libraries, with profits filtered back to the community through an umbrella trust.
    However, Porirua city councillors were told of the scheme only during a council meeting on Decem­ber 10 at which the public were excluded.
    Deputy Mayor Litea Ah Hoi said councillor Ken Doug­las "lost his toe rag" at
fellow councillors when one questioned whether he had a conflict of interest and others questioned the proposal.
    Ms Ah Hoi believed Mr Douglas should not have taken part in the discussion because he is the New Zealand Post board deputy chairman.
    The Dominion Post under­stands Mr Douglas had known about the proposal before the meeting and been involved in promoting it.
    He said he was the one who made the councill aware of his "interest" at the meeting but it was not a conflict of interest because there was no pecuniary advantage for him.
    It was accepted that he take part in discussions by all the councillors, chief executive, mayor and deputy mayor. "There's no issue at all."
    Mr Douglas said Kiwibank had its own board, which was effectively independent of NZ Post.
    Kiwibank has branches in more than 300 Post Shops and is considering the council scheme to extend its reach to areas without bank branches.
    Council chief executive Roger Blakeley said the councils would set up pilot branches to test the scheme's viability and announce sites next month.
    An elected councillor could head the um­brella trust.
    Reaction to the franchising scheme is divided.
    Councillor Nick Leggett said the council should not be getting into banking. He was concerned it would be forced to buy failed or unprofitable franchises, es­pecially in poorer areas.
    Councillor Robert Shaw said the idea was simply to rent out underused council space to make money for the city, something councils had been doing for years, which could "ease the burden on rate­payers".
    A council report on the pro­posal was leaked to media last week. On Friday Mr Blakeley sent an email to councillors asking them not to talk to the media.

facts always spoil a good story

ROBERT COMMENTS

Sorry the bank story is so dull. But reality is that councils have facilities and they sometimes rent them out to make some money. In this case there is capacity in service centres which are open to the public. This space can be rented out, in the same way that councils rent out tennis courts, meeting rooms, art space, and venues for child care. The whole purpose of the exercise is to gain a return on a community asset and thus reduce the burden on ratepayers. Evidently, the space available is attractive to KiwiBank. Good, we must charge them a high rental!
r
January 26, 2009

council's plan to become banks

can you help?

Someone is trying to read some disks that were made with the machine below. It is a Panasonic Personal Word Processor which was great twenty years ago. It is thought to be a KX-W1505 or similar. Unfortunately, it was used to write someone's war experiences. Evidently, there is no way these disks can be read by any current computer. If you know of anyone who might have one of these machines, please email robert@porirua.net. Your assistance would be gratefully appreciated.

message from plimmerton residents' assocation

Plimmerton Promenade Update -

a)Celebrating the next stage.

Many thanks to all those hardy members of the community, those people who have given endlessly of their time and expertise to date, Her Worship the Mayor, Councillors Leggett, Latham and Sheppard  and Council officers who braved the elements this morning to officially open  our Plimmerton "Hyde Park Piazza" – (well almost…!) and then enjoy a delicious morning tea at the Pavilion.

It has been very exciting to see the developments take shape and we very much appreciate the work of Downer EDI who carried out the work around the feet of those desperate for their coffee. They did a great job .

 But wait there's more………..The shop frontages are still to get a new coat of paint (only the 4 Square will remain yellow) and hopefully there will be a wee tidy up of the delivery area as well.

There are many more promenade developments as detailed on the original concept plans in the pipeline and, as a community, people have been very patient. However every little step takes time so please bear with us for a while longer.

We are going to need a lot more of your support.

b) Street Furniture

You told us the street furniture was drab and ubiquitous, some of it quite embarrassing for such a beautiful area. You asked for consistency of design and something which reflected our special environment.  We took your concerns on board and with a part of the infrastructure now in place, we can go the next step to address this .

For those like myself, worried about the spring in my ageing knee joints, be assured there will be an option to the wonderful low level macrocarpa benches.There is more seating to come!

This week we were delighted to meet on site with the Head of Industrial Design at Massey University, Lyn Garrett , one of his Department lecturers, Chris Jackson as well as Council Officers. When Term 1 starts, 22 unsuspecting 3rd year design students will be carrying out a real life project from design through to production. They will be tasked with designing our street furniture as part of their final year degree course!

In conjunction with Council Officers, we have set them an environmental challenge as the Plimmerton promenade is a rugged landscape for any street furniture. One thing is for sure – it will be unique to Plimmerton and the successful designer will be awarded a $1000.00 scholarship on your behalf, from the Plimmerton Residents' Association.

 The lecturers have suggested setting up a website as things progress and we will keep you informed as this happens. As a result of this exciting initiative it is unlikely our new seats will be designed, fabricated and in place until the end of 2009. Keep your fingers crossed.

c) Your part - sponsorship

To all those who have patiently waited and generously offered to sponsor a seat , thank you for your amazing patience. We will be in contact with you personally in January. In this regard we would love a lot more sponsorship for the seats and rubbish bins, as well as some new picnic tables. The new seats will be positioned at many spots from SH1 through to Hongoeka. We would like to offer the opportunity to sponsor some furniture to everyone.

If for instance you would like to consider sponsoring a family seat, would like to dedicate a seat specifically, have a team or organization seat, if you have a business or even know of a business which would like to sponsor a seat or rubbish bin or table, please let us know . (Helen 233 9495, Carolyn 233 6385 or Pip 233 8591)

At this stage we have suggested a budget parameter to the designers of around $1500.00 per seat. All sponsored furniture would bear a plaque reflecting the generosity of each benefactor.

d) 2009

Although there will be some planting in the pocket parks along the foreshore , 2009 will largely be a design rather than an implementation year for Plimmerton. There is much planning still to do at the entrance into Steyne Avenue , the fence by the railway line,  the railway crossing itself , the bridge over the Taupo stream and the promenade around the foreshore from the Fire Station . It sounds easy but we have learnt that Nike's "just do it" doesn't seem to work for us. It is a step at a time but we strongly believe it will happen.

d) Art Trail

Now that we have at least some of the infrastructure in place, we can turn our thoughts to some "icing on our Plimmerton cake." The original concept as suggested by you at our 23 street meetings in 2004 was for some public art along the foreshore to add vibrance and interest for all the many people who walk, cycle, picnic, swim, fish or simply sit.

We know we have some amazing talented artists in the community and we are looking for ideas and offers of help in this regard – what about wind/stone/wood sculptures, pavement or wall mosaics, carvings, tiles, etc etc

An initial theme which has been suggested to guide our thinking is "Plimmerton-The place where we belong."

What do you visualize? Can you offer skills, ideas, materials, time, talent, enthusiasm?

Please let us know ALL your positive, innovative, creative  and supportive thoughts.

And finally….

From the start our goal was to make a genuine effort to reflect what people in this community told us they wanted. Our Village Strategy has guided all the developments to date so far. The journey has been quite a long one (2001 was the beginning with the Isthmus study) but with the support of people in the community we would like to start planning the next steps .

Please keep in contact via the database which acts as a collection point for all communication and have a wonderful Xmas and New Year. The global situation is increasingly dire but we are all hugely fortunate to live where we do, in a priceless environment and with each other for neighbours!!

Let's make the goal for 2009 to make Plimmerton – the Place where we all belong.

resident satisfaction survey

There has been a dramatic fall in the number of people recording as satisfied with the services of the Council (NRB Survey). The library is given as one of the services to suffer this decline in user satisfaction. I am inclined to question the data. I cannot find any reasons why people would suddenly be less satisfied with the library.
r
November 13, 2008

budgeting questions

I have sent 38 specific questions to the chief executive regarding LTCCP budgeting. The process used by the council is inadequate, but there is nothing that I can do about that. See earlier blogs where an alternative has been developed at length.

The Council needs to decide its strategic direction: spend less, spend the same, spend more. At the moment we are a de facto "spend more". Officers spending proposals swarm in to the councillors who are unable to resist them and who have some additions of their own. We will never get the budget under control unless we separate strategy from detail. Governance and management are totally blurred at the moment in the council.

My views on council strategy were sent around some months ago when we began the process, however, they appear to have had no impact at all. I like that old German saying: as you begin so shall you continue. Council has again begun the process in the wrong way and they will not be able to recover it.
r
November 13, 2008

update: who indicates what

Two meetings have been held, chaired by the mayor and Cr Leggett. I have received reports about the poor quality of these sessions, particular the first that the mayor chaired. There was no adequate time keeping by the chair and the chair felt everyone needed her view on everything. I was not there and only report what was said to me. Hopefully someone else can comment in a more positive way.
r
November 13, 2008

Cr sheppard consults

From: Tim Sheppard <tmsheppard@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/11/10
Subject: Progress report on draft long-term plan FYI
To:

Dear Res Assn friends

You might be interested to learn of Council progress in putting together a new draft community-council long-term plan (which will go out for wide public consultation in the new year). In the last week a number of officers and councillors have spent considerable time debating some "first principles", including a provisional agreement on funding levels and on some ranking priorities for expenditure within those levels. As always there are tough decisions to be taken in working out what can sensibly be afforded and what proposals must be rejected. (And of course your elected councillors are responsible - and accountable to you - for these decisions.)

I'd warmly welcome any feedback from you on any of these matters please.


Financial issues

First we had to agree on some financial fundamentals, recognising first our legal obligations and the need to budget "prudently". We are required to aim for a budget surplus (but for Porirua this remains a medium-term goal). The Auditor-General has raised concerns about our being the only council in the country not to have a depreciation fund, so we're going to have to start phasing one in (a big challenge). We need to have "inter-generational equity". And of course we must do our best to ensure that our rates are "affordable".

As you know Porirua's rates are among the highest in NZ on a per household basis (even though our expenditure is among the lowest on a per capita basis). Most (but not all) councillors are no happier than the general public at this problematic state of affairs. We think the current property valuation rating for local government is inequitable and we made a strong submission to Government last year on this - but to no avail. So we have no option but to continue with our unfair property rates, even though we're also striving to diversify our revenue beyond rates.

So what is "affordable"? Many people claim council rate increases should be capped at the CPI level. I'm not personally persuaded by this but acknowledge the popularity of this claim. Actually it blithely accepts the current level of rates, while I'd rather see if we could reduce them! And frankly I see little logical relevance between the inflation of consumer prices and that of council prices (eg PCC's large expenditure on plastic piping, energy and labour costs bears no relationship to household spending on food and clothing). Further, if we look just at the price inflation on current expenditure we would not be able to make any forward progress in terms of facilities and services.

But despite my personal views Council as a whole is determined not only to contain costs as much as reasonably possible but also to make a binding public commitment linking rates "permanently" to the CPI. The only exception that is going to be made is an extra allowance for the new depreciation fund the A-G is requiring us to provide (and which should, in due course, help fund asset replacements and renewals). To put this more clearly we're proposing to make a long-term commitment to rate increases being capped to the CPI plus an allowance for the phased depreciation of water services. (Note the exceptional allowance for depreciation would apply only to water services - our underground pipes are probably our biggest asset - and depreciation for all other assets would need to be contained within any CPI increase.)

I'm sorry to tell you that, even with a slowly phasing allowance for depreciation, this might add approx 2 - 2.5% to annual rates increases on top of the CPI. Ouch! (But please don't shoot this messenger! If you don't like me keeping you informed of bad news as well as good I'll be like most other councillors and not bother to tell you about anything! And do recall that Council is legally obliged to do as the Audtior-General has advised us...)


Proposed expenditure

So from the above agreement we can calculate our funding envelope and make provisional agreements on expenditure priorities. Let me assure you it's no easy job trying to make ends meet! A tremendous number of very important proposed projects must be rejected.

You may know PCC has four "strategic focus areas" :-

1. Investing in infrastructure for the future (sewage; potable water; stormwater; solid waste; roading & transport)
2. Protecting our landscape & harbour (harbour & catchment management; District Plan rolling review; recreation & heritage)
3. A vibrant city centre for residents, business & visitors (City Centre revitalisation; economic development strategy)
4. Active & connected communities (village plans; safer communities & graffiti; festivals...)

I've made no secret that my Council focus is on core services and infrastructure (and so I spend little time thinking about things like Sister Cities and "creative communities"). So please excuse me if I report here just on the big ticket items coming under asset management and the like.

In 2006 Council made provision for better asset management plans and these have shown that our previous blithe but ignorant assumption that our city should not need to allow for any expensive asset replacements for at least 15 years was totally wrong. As an important example, many of our water pipes already need replacement (as those who live near the mains pipe in Moana Rd that has burst ten times in the last 18 months can well appreciate!). So we were presented with a long list of important asset renewals totalling $85 million over the next 10 years! Impossible. To keep within our funding envelope we had to reduce this to $47 million - a helluva cut.

(NB: the $ figures given here are for 10 years and do not correspond to direct rates funding - for example, much roading expenditure is subsidised by central govt and most projects would be loan funded for intergenerational equity. We're also actively seeking opportunities for extra central govt funding for "accelerated investment in infrastructure".)

Looking first at the backlog of (potable) water mains renewal, we were advised this would cost $12M over the next 10 years. After much deliberation we have provisionally agreed to fund $8.5M for this - and to get even that restricted compromise amount we have had to stop all increase in stormwater capacity for the decade. As a local example of this cutback there is now no allowance for new stormwater catchments from Duck Creek, nor Pauatahanui/Judgeford (nor for various other locations).

Similarly we have had to cut out proposed (potable) water supply projects for Pauatahanui and Motukaraka Point (and a major one for Elsdon/Titahi Bay).

I am very unhappy at this, so if you have a magic wand please can I borrow it?

Moving onto wastewater (sewage), we are relatively better placed since some of the expenditure comes within the joint venture we have with Wellington City Council at the Titahi Bay treatment plant and that has separate accounts which are healthy enough to fund some critical work there without any recourse to rates. But of course Porirua is solely responsible for our own sewer reticulation and pump stations and we have provisionally allocated $4.8M to some essential renewals here.

Nevertheless we could not find money for two related wastewater projects which I consider to be of special importance. The existing wastewater pipeline from Paremata to the city centre pump station is overloaded to the point where raw sewage overflows onto SH1 are occurring and discharge into the harbour is highly probable. In my view we really need a $2.8M rehab of this cross harbour link. And we also need extra sewage storage tanks at Tangare Drive ($750,000) to smooth out the flow of sewage during peak periods: currently when incoming sewage exceeds the treatment station's capacity it simply bypasses the plant and goes straight into the harbour. These are issues of public health; environmental management and legal obligation (we are at least in breach of the RMA and our resource consent conditions).

The argument given for the deferral of these projects was that, with luck, the peak demand on our wastewater system could reduce significantly if we could reduce the degree of stormwater infiltration into our wastewater system. This is known to be a specific problem in parts of Whitby and along Mana Esplanade where some stormwater links go into the sewers, thus causing overloads and overflows.

What do you think of that?

Now from water services to roading and transport. Even excluding Transmission Gully on-roads this will cost $20M over the decade (but there will be significant subsidies from central govt). Most expenditure will be on regular road maintenance but the total also includes footpath renewals, retaining walls (plus Moana Rd and Titahi Bay Rd seawalls), minor safety repairs (Whitford Brown; Pukerua Bay and Grays Rd), a replacement Airlie Rd bridge, repair & repainting of Pukerua Bay footbridge, streetlighting etc etc.

The only problem I have with the reduced roading program is that no allowance has been made for a replacement Flighty's Rd bridge. While the old bridge remains sound, a new one will be required if Transit upgrades the intersection of SH58, Flighty's and Murphy Rds.

A tough line has also been taken with the proposed renewal program of leisure assets: walkways/cycleways; playgrounds; parks & reserves; sportsfields & courts; boat ramps & jetties. Essentially what we're proposing in this sector is that Council will only part-fund any renewals, with community funding to be sought for the balance of the costs involved. This will transfer prime responsibility to the key users and project proponents: they will need to advocate more widely for funding support instead of simply expecting Council (ie the public at large) to pay for everything. You will recall that we have a contract with a commercial fund-raiser (they succeeded in securing more than $3M for the new Te Rauparaha Arena) and they are expected to make up much of the shortfall.

What do you think of that?

Proposed new sports & leisure projects which have been rejected include one to expand the capacity of Trust Porirua Park (to 6,000 seats and all-weather ground); another for an all-weather athletics track (at Elsdon Park or Trust Porirua Park), and a third for a multi-purpose youth centre. These are all considered to be luxuries which need to be driven by community proponents.

Other items which cannot be included within the budget envelope are a proposed emergency operations centre; a performing arts centre; city marketing strategy; youth development staffing; Porirua visitor strategy; resident satisfaction survey; boardwalk from Wi Neera Drive to Onepoto etc etc. Please note that not all of these latter items have been shot dead in the water: some will be given further deliberation - so if you have any thoughts on any of them please let me know.


I hope this email is usefully informative, even if not too joyous, and as I said I'd welcome your thoughts on it all please. I'm also happy for you to forward it to others who might be interested. Constructive feedback would be especially useful!

Thanks and regards

Tim

--
Cllr Tim Sheppard
78 Cluny Road
Plimmerton
233.6373
(021) 203.8999

who indicates what

I feel for the officers in our leaderless council. They are doing what the mayor and committee chairs should be doing: talking to the public and leading the intellectual debate.

Missing.

Unfortunately, when you ask these people to lead discussions it is rather obvious what the conclusions will be. If you want to see the contrast, just consider the outcomes if church leaders had been predominant. Incidentally, Rod Oram is a great speaker.
r
November 9, 2008

Forum 1   - Thursday 23rd October 2008
Points of Difference: building on success, defining who we are as a City and how we look to the future.
Speakers: Rod Oram, Sue Veart, Euan Dempsey.

Forum 2 – Thursday 30th October 2008
Economic Vitality: Growing the economy and attracting visitors.
Speakers: Don Campbell, Roger Blakeley, Darcy Nicholas, Matt Trln

Forum 3 – Thursday 13th November 2008
Family Friendly City: Nurturing our social and cultural well-being.
Speakers: Matiu Rei, Ole Maiava, Helen Chipper, Kay Paget and team.

cr tim questions me

Robert

Even if other colleagues have said nothing to date on this matter I do hope you realise that many of us share Euon's disappointment at your lack of involvement in Council matters.

You have chosen not to serve on any of the "optional" committees of Council;

This is correct. I realized I had a heavy workload this year and have managed it by not taking on peripheral committee work, my commitment to the betterment of our city is not diminished.

you decline to represent Council on any external agencies;

This is not correct. In the past I was Council's representative on the most important external agency. I refer to the Regional Land Transport Strategy Committee. This committee is set up by Act of Parliament to set priorities regarding public and private transport. I was first appointed to membership by Greater Wellington, and then by our City Council. I enjoyed the work and the politics. In particular there was a great partnership between myself and some of our City Council officials. Together we advanced many important decisions. I also established the drill of making full reports (which I wrote myself) back to our Council. All this upset Jenny and she did deals with councillors to gain the numbers to force me out of the position. She now is our representative and the main output from the committee so far as Porirua City is concerned is bulletins about Jenny's absurd carping over the Mayor of Wellington whom she sees as an enemy.

you have never come to any public "councillor clinics"

Correct. I support the notion of clinics (although I would change their form somewhat), but the work is well covered by others who enjoy that sort of thing. I indicated to Euon that if there is a time when others cannot attend the northern clinic, to let me know.

and I don't think you have attended a single Council workshop this triennium.

That is correct. The workshops are educational forums and given the large number of new councillors they are introductory. They give councillors a chance to consider issues and prepare themselves for the debate at committee. I am quite sufficiently served by the briefing papers for meetings and ask questions of officers by email if I have a question.

While you may think that you "know it all" already because of your many years on Council, your interventions at full Council meetings often show that you are not up to the play on current matters.

I am sorry if i give that impression, for I certainly do not feel that I know it all.

As usual you didn't come to last Wednesday's workshop, nor Thursday's Council meeting. Your absence from Friday's crucial workshop developing the next long-term plan was utterly predictable but still very disappointing.

In advance of the meeting I set out what I saw as the most critical challenge that confronts us. See blog item below "Time for council to tighten its belt". This same ideas have been sent in various forms to newspapers. As Tim indicates below, the meeting was a re-run of these meetings every time they occur. No decisions are made, and the officers entrench a view.

And of course you didn't make the effort to attend this morning's formal naming ceremony at Te Rauparaha Arena either. I think you let the side down.

I do not attend the ceremonial events unless there is a special reason, for example I attended the laying of the foundation stone for this complex, but do not feel the need to repeatedly "celebrate" things.

Much more interesting is Tim's comment "you let the side down". This raises critical matters about whether there is a "side" or a "team" and these matters relate to the most critical thing of all: what is a council, how does it effectively function, and what are the responsibilities that different people hold.

Our council is dysfunctional. As a sweeping generalization, people do not know what they should be doing, and they have little interest in making the place work. They have more interest in playing politics and advancing themselves. In the magazine Local Government I published an article entitled "How to be a councillor". The critical people are the mayor and the chairs of the two committees. I expect to be challenged on this so will not say more for the moment.

With all your local government experience I am sure you could easily contribute and help us more.

One would think so, but experience suggests otherwise. Tim to his credit understands the council is in deep trouble. However, look at the way that we selected our leadership. Liz Kelly said at the time that it was vital that we put the best people in each post ion. She was shouted down for this and accused of supporting Ken and myself for personal reasons. Now it is that leadership that must lead. Given that it is incredibly difficult to engage them in meaningful dialog it is unlikely that we are ever going to have them alter their ways. This is something else I expect to be asked about further.

If you had bothered to come to yesterday's workshop you would appreciate just how hard it now is to make ends meet (exacerbated in part by the new need to fund depreciation).

It was not a question of "bother" it is a question of need. I already know how hard it is to make ends meet. Indeed, the same situation confronts us right now that confronted us three years ago when we did the last LTCCP. Read back through the blog and you will see my answer to the problem. It is to change the way we budget. The process of budgeting is such that there is no strategic direction set.

We are having to omit from our next long-term plan many extremely important infra structural investments.

Yes, agreed.

Just as an example I am personally appalled that, at least at this stage in the planning process, we have no allowance for the rehabilitation of the cross-harbour sewage pipe and the construction of some sewage storage tanks by the Titahi Bay treatment plant - both extremely important projects to prevent the current scandalous overflow of raw sewage into the harbour and across SH1. While the problem could be mitigated somewhat by remedial work to reduce the infiltration of stormwater into the wastewater system, there remain very important public heath, environmental and legal issues. But it seems we simply cannot afford to deal with the problem fully.

Tim is quite correct. We are constantly bringing forward the wrong priorities. The other large scale problem is that we make decisions that build up costs for the ratepayers in the future.

The approach to budgeting that does this accommodates the officers well and they are not likely to change it. The responses to the situation will go down well worn tracks. Yet the method has been proven again and again not to work. Government tried to fix some of this by legislation but that is unlikely to work. There will soon be a big push to disestablish councils, including our own, as John Key's conservative government seeks things to do. One large part of the justification for our amalgamation with Wellington is that we take more from our ratepayers than any other city in New Zealand.

In circumstances such as these I simply cannot accord a high priority to your concerns about Eskdale Rd (even though I am concerned by any road accident). The reality is that we have many older parts of the city which are far worse off in terms of inadequate and aged water services, sub-standard roads and absence of footpaths. Newer suburbs, including Papakowhai, enjoy far better core services from Council. My priority will always be to bring the others up to scratch before addressing issues such as yours.

Tim is right to focus on the larger structural needs - particularly in the context of the ten year budget. However, the Kahu Rd / Eskdale / Papakowhai problem will require amelioration. As indicated in my reply to Euon Murrell, the action is now underway as a part of the traffic management function of Council, funded by existing money. There will always have to be money spend on traffic management and my play was for a priority for this existing money.

Regards

Tim

There is much that could be said to develop the lines of thought being raised here. I will wait to see what others say and then respond.
r
November 9, 2008

why i am frustrated with our council (see also comment below)

Let me tell you why I am so frustrated with our Council. As I write this there are two police cars and three police officers outside my house on Eskdale road tending to a road accident. It is 8.15 am on a Tuesday. Three weeks ago, not 50 meters away there was another accident, although the police were not called.

It is obvious that Eskdale Road cannot cope with the traffic. Equally, it is obvious that the situation is going to get worse not better. This is because houses and units of great density are being built in the area.

So why am I frustrated? Because Council has been told about this problem for at least five years. They have done nothing about it, either in the form of realistic planning or in the form of engineering. Instead - against the advice of officers - the councillors approved a further subdivision.

Where are the councillors who made these decisions? I can tell you they are not anywhere near Eskdale Road. They do not give a thought to the mess they have made.

Council does not listen. I mean really listen, with insight and understanding. They make foolish decisions for foolish reasons, which are often driven by personal motives. The accidents in Eskdale Road are largely the result of the work of your councillors.

You want to know what the councillors do worry about. Read the blog, the mayoral race, the fight with Wellington City over a confusion, and their own travel at the ratepayers' expense. One of them leaves on a "free" trip to China this very week. He is not worried about the people standing on Eskdale Road.

In the time it has taken me to write this a fire engine and an ambulance have arrived.
r
October 14, 2008

EUON REPLIES (Robert's comments in yellow)

Robert

Your comments re Eskdale Rd amuse me In the 4 years that I have been on council Not once have you mention at any committee meeting that I have attended the so called problem that you refer to.

It has been said many times at council meetings, blog readers will have seen comments on this topic, and there was a letter to the Kapi Mana News in which I quoted an officer's views on the problem. (Part of the problem was addressed through new Kahu Road road markings.)

Again I find your remarks about council and your fellow Councillors not only insulting but ironic as is your signature in The Whitby News brief laughable  “proud to serve your Community”

Euon often says he finds things insulting and leaves it to others to sort out what he specifically means. I did not name any councillors. Regarding Whitby, all I can say is that I am very proud of our city and my being a part of it.

In your Blog you make comment about my trip to China with the reference that I don’t, care  If only your readers knew the The real facts  

The most important fact about the policy is that we are now back to the good old days of sending councillors on trips around the world for no good reason. I have never accepted such a trip (they have been offered to me twice) and always opposed wasting the ratepayers' money.

 In my opinion it is you that play lip service to your role as a councillor I will give you credit that you are an expert in conveying perception when we all know  “The Reality”

Look forward to you bringing up Eskdale at the next City Services Meeting if you can be bothered that is

This is not necessary, because an officer has taken up the issue in the blog and work is being done to gain a professional assessment of traffic management needs in the area.

Euon Murrell AREINZ  Dip RE  JP
Tommys Real Estate Ltd MREINZ
Mana Office
Mobile: 0274 458 191
DDI: 04 233-0690
Office: 04 233 0690
Fax : 04 233 0691
euon.murrell@tommysmana.co.nz

apology to sue

Councillor Sue Dow, with some force, tells me that I should not have made the comment about her being the councillor who has traveled further and longer than all others at the ratepayers' expense. I admit it: my statistics were very dated. I have not asked the chief executive for an update on councillor trips but would expect Sue to no longer be at the top of the list.

Former traveler Dow

Whist on the topic of Sue Dow, she is making good contributions to council debates. I seem to disagree with them more often than not, but they are sensible things and she gains good support from others around the table.
r

the spca view on jumbo (from their CEO)

Robert

Thank you for your email.

The Society's policy is to oppose the use of animals in the circus, however as there is only one remaining circus left in the country now, with very limited numbers of animals performing our campaigning on this issue has now subsided.

With regards to Jumbo he is a well loved elephant and very well treated with limited duties in the circus - his day in this arena are not likely to continue for much longer

Hope that helps

BOB

-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT SHAW [mailto:robert@porirua.net]
Sent: Sunday, 12 October 2008 2:44 p.m.
To: Bob Kerridge
Subject: elephant

Dear Bob
Might I please ask if the SPCA is concerned about the treatment of Jumbo the elephant that has recently appeared in Porirua City as a part of a circus. I have read your animal policy and wonder if your organization
has ever made an assessment of the situation regarding Jumbo. I am a member of a city council and people have raised the matter with me. There are a considerable number of local people concerned, rightly or wrongly. I visited the animal but cannot make an informed assessment.
Further, are you aware of any approaches other councils in New Zealand have taken regarding the performance of elephants? The present situation is on our land and in the agreement established we never thought to consider animal issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Robert Shaw
Porirua City Councillor

spca policy

Performing Animals

The SPCA is opposed to the use of animals in any form of entertainment where the animal is subject to ridicule, is made to perform activities outside its normal patterns of behaviour, or where such performance may cause distress or suffering.  These include exhibitions, circuses, rodeos, endurance riding events and traveling menageries.

ROBERT COMMENTS

I was sent this policy. The treatment of Jumbo that I observed did not comply with this standard. As one example: The elephant is well outside its normal pattern of behaviour being kept in a small box. It is appreciated that work was done to improve the box, allegedly the new box cost $3000,000. There have been news reports about it in the Sunday Star Times. One wonders why the SPCA is not involved.
r
October 12, 2008

large moral issue - elephants

ROBERT COMMENTS

I was invited to be present at the protest about the elephant on Council land as a part of a circus. The elephant has a small mobile house and was obviously stressed when I saw him. Whether this was from his overall circumstances or the pending performance I do not know.

I was unable to obtain a photograph of the elephant because he had retreated into his dark box and was swaying. I can show you the width of his box.

I met protesters from Paremata, Titahi Bay, and Cannons Creek. Some were elderly and some were young. Here is their banner on Titahi Bay Road:

In an effort to remove the protesters the circus management warned the protesters off (well two of them anyway) and claimed that they had control over the whole of the council property as they had leased it all. I do not think any of those involved realized I had a particular interest in events.

Then the police arrived in the form of two constables, male and female. They spoke to everyone and an arrangement was made whereby the protesters would hand out leaflets some distance from the circus structures. That was a good common sense arrangement.

The issue of who has a right to be on a leased council park probably can only be resolved by looking at the lease. Even then it might not be obvious. As no one seemed to have a copy of the lease there was no actual basis on which the police could have acted.

There is an issue for local government here. Your council is responsible for public land in the same way that you are responsible for your property. If someone is cruel to an animal on your property you will act. Just as I would. On this basis, local government cannot turn a blind eye to the situation.

Now whether or not the elephant, known as Jumbo, is being improperly or cruelly treated is a question for those who know about elephants. What I do know for certain is that there are a significant number of Porirua City residents concerned about the Council's action in allowing this use of a public park. For this reason the Council is responsible.

Other council's have taken a position. I understand Wellington does not allow any circus with animals at all, although Hutt City does. Wellington City invests in a circus trust that manages human performers. Also, the Auckland City Council is another that does not allow any circus with animals. Whether these rules have anything to do with issues about animals, I do not know.

I checked out the situation with Council officers, and can confirm that the Council issued a right to occupy council land and a building consent for the "big top". In neither of these cases was there any consideration given to animals. The use of the Council property on Tithahi Bay Road for events such as this is quite common.

I intend to explore the means by which we can address our responsibility. In the meantime your views are most welcome. Information on the actions of other councils might assist us.
r
October 11, 2008

damage control arrives, see item below

UPDATE

Following enquires by Cr Ken Douglas, the Deputy Mayor says she gave her personal view and did not think the reporter would make use of it. I am not sure why the deputy mayor thinks reporters ring her for a chat.
r
October 13, 2008

ROBERT COMMENTS

The media statement below came about because Deputy Mayor Litea Ah Hoy has minimal understanding of sensitivities and issues. She does like to fight, and any opportunity to fight is taken. Hence, there she is on the front page of the Dom Post, fighting a fight that does not need to be fought.

We might ask: if the two councils are working so actively and closely on the Pauatahanui issues, why is it that the deputy mayor has not heard of this?

That said, remember it was Jenny who wanted her as deputy mayor in a political deal with the Labour Party. The one simple rule with council appointments is to select the person best able to do the job. It is rather obvious that Jenny has never seen the importance of this. Please do not think it is a trivial matter. We pay good money in rates for a very poor return, and things just slowly spiral downwards. Our council needs a good routing.
r
October 11, 2008

MEDIA STATEMENT
Transmission Gully/ SH 58 interchange: cooperation not conflict

The Draft Porirua Development Framework sets out long term land use management on a key highway for the region. The Framework is currently open for public comment.

Wellington and Porirua City Councils are engaging in “productive dialogue” over the Draft Porirua Development Framework which identifies the Pauatahanui/Judgeford area as possibly being suitable for long-term industrial/business development, confirms the Mayors of Wellington and Porirua cities.

The Wellington Regional Strategy, developed by the region's nine councils, identifies Pauatahanui as a “change area” due to its proximity to the proposed Transmission Gully Motorway and State Highway 58 interchange. It states that it is likely to come under development pressure and makes sense for local authorities in the Wellington region to work together.

Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast and Porirua Mayor Jenny Brash say the cities are working together to curb developments that might negatively impact on other commercial centres in the region.

In its draft Development Framework, Porirua City Council has taken a very long term view (50 years+) of how to control development in this area.

Ms Prendergast says: “Wellington City Council’s submission is our chance to provide feedback on that Framework. The submission simply reinforces my Council’s position on development in the Pauatahanui area. We are engaging in productive dialogue with Porirua on this.”

“The position that Wellington City took in April 2006 in accepting the Hearings subcommittee’s recommendation that Transmission Gully should proceed was that we needed assurances from other councils such as Porirua that they would implement land use controls to minimise urban sprawl along the Transmission Gully route.

“Our submission is therefore consistent with our position on this and with the WRS. It is about Porirua understanding what our concerns are.”

Ms Brash says the intent of the draft framework was to receive feedback.

"Both Councils agree on the need to carefully manage future development opportunities in the Pauatahanui/SH58 area that will arise from the future Transmission Gully interchange.
"Transmission Gully motorway as the future State Highway One is essential to the long term economic viability of the lower North Island but its impacts on urban form and economic development in the Wellington region must be anticipated, planned for, and well managed. 

"This cannot be done by one Council alone, so it's important we listen to all points of view to gain a shared understanding and consensus," says Ms Brash.

confusions

Cr Ah Hoy has a backlash over her speaking out against the Wellington City Council over plans for Pauatahanui. The WCC were confused over what was said by PCC. Cr Ah Hoy fires back at WCC with emotion and more mis-information

Now the mayors are involved in a pat down operation to sideline Ah Hoy and convince readers of the Dom Post that all is well. As if anyone cares.

In the meantime, you have your chance to participate in the officers' forum on the future of Porirua City. Four meetings are arranged all featuring officers, with the mayor and councillors cut out. Long ago we were asked for input on the speakers, so we cannot say it is new. It is, however, a bit blatant.
r
October 10, 2008

mayoral race

Jenny Brash has told several people she will not stand for election again (not myself). Already, you see people working towards the job. The battle will probably be between Nick Leggett (Independent) and Litea Ah Hoy (Labour). There will be the usual raft of minor aspirants and some outsiders. The only prediction we can make right now is that the outsiders will not win. Remember this is not first-past-the-post.
r
October 10, 2008

wind farm wars

Preserve Pauatahanui Incorporated: Media Release

8 October 2008

Greater Wellington Regional Council Misleads Ratepayers

Greater Wellington Regional Council’s (GWRC) recent announcements regarding wind farm development in Belmont Regional Park and changes to its contract with RES (NZ) Limited for the development of the Puketiro Wind Farm are misleading and irresponsible (DomPost 30 September 2008 and GWRC’s website) according to local action group, Preserve Pauatahanui Incorporated.

Despite newspaper headlines proclaiming otherwise, the five year moratorium on the development of a wind farm in Belmont Regional Park is a recommendation only and has not been formally resolved.

Discussion on the recommendation was deferred at its meeting on 29 September due to a range of complexities covering multiple land ownership, legal issues regarding council’s ability to dispose of the land for a wind farm, and the cumulative effects of wind farms on the Wellington landscape.

GWRC’s long term intention is clearly to develop a wind farm on this site when it is able to do so.

With respect to Puketiro, GWRC entered into a contract with RES (NZ) Limited late in 2006 to develop a wind farm on the site above Pauatahanui which included Battle Hill Farm Forest Park, despite its officials having legal advice against the use of public reserves for commercial purposes.

Local groups and residents contended that the inclusion of turbines and access through the Battle Hill Park was illegal under the operative Park Management Plan.
Furthermore, officials of GWRC subsequently agreed an amendment to the management plan which gave preference to activities associated with wind farming over all other activities in the Park and perverted the unbiased consultation required of this process.

This is now the subject of a Judicial Review in the High Court sought by Pauatahanui Futures Society Incorporated against GWRC and RES (NZ) Limited

For GWRC to suggest that the changes they have made to remove three turbines proposed in Battle Hill resulted from a boundary error is complete nonsense. GWRC’s outline of the proposed wind farm footprint has always included Battle Hill and earlier maps showing proposed location of turbines have up to five turbines on Battle Hill Land.

Preserve Pauatahanui Incorporated is extremely concerned, as should all ratepayers be, that GWRC has so blatantly disregarded its legal obligations, and has attempted to whitewash the issues at both Belmont and Puketiro in their latest public statements.

This council needs to be called to account for its actions.

For Further Information:

Contact Diane Strugnell,
Secretary
Preserve Pauatahanui Incorporated
PH: 04-5283891
Cell PH: 027-2401463

time for council to tighten its belt

Whilst the world gasps at financial and economic developments, the Porirua City Council continues in its profligate ways.

The Council has yet to discover that business is down in Porirua City, that unemployment is set to surge, and that inflation is hitting households hard.

Families are already being hit. I hear more about problems with electricity bills, gas bills, cost of food, and of course petrol, bus and train costs. It is relevant to notice how few of your councillors themselves support families. Most are retired or unmarried.

Businesses are down. The real estate businesses have collapsed, lawyers, truckers, hire firms, and others involved in the downstream of house sales face a downturn. It has all begun. Retail businesses forecast dramatic drops in revenue. Our smaller developers who depend on the banks and investors for ready money are already hitting stop signs.

Instead of working to reduce costs, and downsize for hard economic times, the Council expands on all fronts. It can do this because it has the power of taxation. Councils are not subject to market forces like the rest of us. They have no trouble passing on increased costs. The power of taxation is an horrendous power. So we see a new entrance and counter for "customers" who are actually ratepayers. We see a new logo, and staff numbers are entrenched at all time highs.

Our council has the highest level of rates of any council in New Zealand. We drifted there in the time of the current mayor.

In the economic woes of the 1980s and 1990s the local government sector did well. They continued to expand when other businesses fell by about 15%. We are about to see history repeat itself.

What should the Council's long term plan say? It should say that the Council will align itself with the community, suffer some downturn, and aim to reduce rates by 15% over the next ten years.
r
October 9, 2008

PS Readers views on this are most welcome.

brian supports nick on bamiyan

I do not support 'friendly city status' for Bamiyan. Although support may not cost a lot , a few thousand here and a few thousand there mounts up. It could even be an excuse to take on another staff member which should be discouraged.

There is plenty of opportunity and our duty for social support for our own people without going overseas. Would the Bamiyans be seriously deprived if we did not adopt 'friendly city status' or would they be sustantially advantaged if we did?

Council should not be going into anything without costs/benefit being determined. That is really the basis for responsible financial managment..
Bryan Helm

kelly on the big shake

Morena Roger

Did you see the show on TV3 last night about the effects of a earthquake in our region?

Anyway well I was watching it I was thinking about how well PCC is prepared and your foresight to employ a full time staff for Emergency Management and preparation a couple of years ago.

Do you think it would be useful and timely to do something to remind councilors of our responsibilities and perhaps the new ones might like to look over the facilities we have in place in the case that there is a civil emergency?
kia ora
Liz

smartlinx3

Kapi Mana News readers will know that I have been concerned about the inadequacy of information supplied to councillors on our one investment in a company.

Following the Kapi Mana story and my further request the PCC chief executive located for me the accounts for the company from two years ago and I am to read them in his office. Evidently this is the latest set of accounts provided to PCC. The ceo points out that these accounts were attached to a report that went to council and he provided me with a copy of that report. Hence, I am happy to report that my statement that we have "never" had the accounts is not strictly correct.

Once I have read those accounts, I will be seek the more recent accounts. I cannot tell you what is in them because they are considered commerecially confidential.

I can repeat what has been published in newspapers. Our Council invested in the company on the basis that they would provide new infrastructure into our City. Specifically, fibre optic cable would be established in places that it would not otherwise be established. In the jargon, the ratepayers' money was to be used to overcome a market failure.

Accordling, I am concerend that the company leases facilities from others when our concern is the establishment of new facilities. I also worry when they provide wireless interent in competition with other companies.
r
October 8, 2008

asset values

The new vested assets of the Council for the present financial year are valued to $5.5 million. This is an adjustment from the forecast figure of $1.25 million.

You may not think this is very exciting news, but it follows:

2004/05 $12 million

2005/06 $18 million

2006/07 $9 million.

These increases in the value of assets helps the council's overall financial situation to look much better. They also show that ratepayers' funds are going into valuable things like land, water and waste infrastructure, and roads.
r
October 8, 2008

your councillors are hard at work - throwing abuse at each other

ROBERT COMMENTS

There is a long history of dispute between Litea and Liz. The present excitement began when Ken met with Jenny and Roger yesterday, I am told to complain about Litea's language and to ask that Jenny works with Litea. (I did not put all the material about the Family Court and violence on the blog.) The result was Jenny foolishly sent the email you can see below. I replied to point out that Jenny could not really assert mayoral authority and quote the code of conduct at Liz when the dispute between Litea and Liz derives from Jenny breaking the code of conduct. Evidently, it is all my fault.
r
October 8, 2008

litea

euon

Euon's new real estate company is at

http://tommysmana.co.nz

Robert

I really do not want to wade into this but I have to say you are starting to annoy me big time You sit in the background taking pot shots at everyone including staff.Your Blog all that does is create mischief you go to the press when it will make you look good never mind that you distort the facts\But the reality of it all YOU DO STUFF ALL .You never attend Workshops have not once fronted up to a LTTCP Roadshow Public meeting or Councillor Clinic

Your continued inferences about Real Estate Agents is offensive

It is in my view that it is time for you to take your council responsibilities seriously you owe it to the people who voted for you and to your fellow Councillors    However  having said that I will not hold my Breath

PS I look forward to reading this on your Blog

Euon

nick

liz to jenny and jenny's email

As usual Jenny your comments are selective, however if you can't controll your Deputy don't make sweeping comments that include me. Can I remind you that the Local Government Act defines your role only as the Chair of the Council, your rights are the same as all councillors ,you have one vote. There seems to be some sort of perception that (perhaps you are driving) that you are a leader and your suggestion to meet with you as some sort of facillatator (I assume that is what you are implying) implies this further. Let me assure you Jenny, YOU are not my leader. Whilst I have respect for the position you hold your behaviour and skills in chairing meetings is in my opinion what leads to the utter confusion in our meetings. Respect is earned and what is obvious is that over the years you have gained that within our City the votes spell that out very clearly. I wonder if the result would be the same if the general public really understood what goes on. Please refrain from further suggesting in any way that you would like to influence my behaviour. You get on with your job and I will try to do mind other then that there is no relationship.

Just for the record I have no problem with Councillor A Hoi but it is very obvious from her comments she has one with me. You two are buddies if you want to play "mummy" do it with her.

Have a good day and I'll see you tonight ... or will I have rocks and boulders thrown at me??

KIA KAHA
Liz Kelly

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jenny Brash" <JBrash@pcc.govt.nz>
To: "Cr Litea Ah Hoi (Deputy Mayor)" <litea.mufasa@xtra.co.nz>; "Cr Liz Kelly" <liz@kellyhygiene.co.nz>
Cc: "Cr Tim Sheppard" <tmsheppard@gmail.com>; "Cr Denys Latham" <denyslatham@paradise.net.nz>; "Cr Euon Murrell - Home" <murrells@xtra.co.nz>; "Cr Hemi Matenga" <hemi.matenga@xtra.co.nz>; "Cr Henry Smith" <henrysmith@xtra.co.nz>; "Cr Ken Douglas" <marilyn.ken@xtra.co.nz>; <nick@leggett.co.nz>; "Cr Robert Shaw" <robert@porirua.net>; "Cr Sue Dow" <suedow@paradise.net.nz>; <taima@healthlinks.org.nz>; "Cr Tim Manu" <tim.manu@xtra.co.nz>; "Cr Nick Leggett" <nick.leggett@colliers.co.nz>; "Cr Euon Murrell (work)" <euon.murrell@tommysmana.co.nz>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: Elected Members Training Needs Survey

Liz and Litea
Please stop these abusive e-mails to each other. The language does not reflect well on you both as experienced Councillors and does not present a good example to new Councillors. Please remember you signed up to the values of respect and supporting each other at Margrain in October 2007. I am happy to meet with you both to sort out any differences you may still have. Jenny
-----Original Message-----
From: Litea Ah Hoi [mailto:litea.mufasa@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 October 2008 8:12 p.m.
To: Cr Liz Kelly; Allie Dunn; Jenny Brash; Cr Tim Sheppard; Cr Denys Latham; Cr Euon Murrell - Home; Cr Hemi Matenga; Cr Henry Smith; Cr Ken Douglas; nick@leggett.co.nz; Cr Robert Shaw; Cr Sue Dow; taima@healthlinks.org.nz; Cr Tim Manu; Cr Nick Leggett; Cr Euon Murrell (work)
Subject: Re: Elected Members Training Needs Survey

Tena koe Liz
I've passed 101, i'm seeking to do 102 and 103.

The family court ruling in my case was from my late father and his judgement other than God's is the only one i adhere to.  Not any man/women on this earth will make a difference to my thinking let alone image as to whether i change.

Sorry that my house is made of wood and cost's under 150k, i'm sure your house is made of glass and worth more, but as a pacific islander, i'm really good at throwing stones, actually rocks or boulders are more of a preference, and i think i have a pretty good aim, particularly if the target is a good one, i like to aim straight for the bullseye.

Hope that helps you if your interested in attending the course. Litea Ah Hoi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Liz Kelly" <liz@kellyhygiene.co.nz>
To: "Litea Ah Hoi" <litea.mufasa@xtra.co.nz>; "Allie Dunn" <ADUNN@pcc.govt.nz>; "Jenny Brash" <JBrash@pcc.govt.nz>; "Cr Tim Sheppard" <tmsheppard@gmail.com>; "Cr Denys Latham" <denyslatham@paradise.net.nz>; "Cr Euon Murrell - Home" <murrells@xtra.co.nz>; "Cr Hemi Matenga" <hemi.matenga@xtra.co.nz>; "Cr Henry Smith" <henrysmith@xtra.co.nz>; "Cr Ken Douglas" <marilyn.ken@xtra.co.nz>; <nick@leggett.co.nz>; "Cr Robert Shaw" <robert@porirua.net>; "Cr Sue Dow" <suedow@paradise.net.nz>; <taima@healthlinks.org.nz>; "Cr Tim Manu" <tim.manu@xtra.co.nz>; "Cr Nick Leggett" <nick.leggett@colliers.co.nz>; "Cr Euon Murrell (work)" <euon.murrell@tommysmana.co.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: Elected Members Training Needs Survey

camborne radiation

outcome of council meeting on radiation

the worry

Rightly or wrongly, people are going to worry about radiation from masts. They will ask Telecom (for example) about their plans before they buy a new house, and they will be given no definitive answer. People with concerns, particularly those with young children, will sell their houses if devices appear, and they will move elsewhere. You think I exagerate? Let me tell you that I chaired the hearings committee meetings of Greater Wellington on the issue of the fluoridation of the Wellington water supply. I know how genuine people are in the concerns they hold about health matters. I do not share their concerns, but I do respect their right to define wellbeing as they wish and to be supported in that by their council. In the case of fluoride, we provided an alternative water supply without Fl and that operates today at Petone. In the case of cell tower radiation, there is no escape. Do not expect this issue to go away.
r

update on national environmental standard - it is obvious that there will be appeals against the new regulations

Hi

Thanks again for getting involved in the Celltower issue. It was great having you on the Select Committee, and it felt like there was a good level of interest from your colleagues.

I understand from Pavan that he is trying to schedule another session for the Select Committee to hear from Telecom and MfE. I will try to put some thoughts on their written responses together before that hearing.

I’m just working through a batch of OIA responses from MfE. The attached document is really interesting as it is page one an email from Sally Gilbert of Min Health to MfE and others on the Telecommunications Reference Group expressing a series of concerns about the proposed NES (I’ll send page 2 shortly as my scanner can only do one at a time). Many of these are similar to the concerns that we have identified in the last few weeks.

For example, like us, MOH was questioning the MfE analysis and the advantages of an NES for EMR emissions. Sally also questions Dr David Black’s analysis.

It is also interesting to note that of the 14 people on the Telecommunications Reference group, 5 were from Telcos, 2 were from Min of Economic development, 4 represented MfE, Min Health had one and the others were local government reps. There was not a single community rep.  This would not be so serious if MfE was trying to implement the purposes of the RMA, however its very serious when it is off on a policy frolic of its own.

Back in November 2005 Min Health said that the cost benefit analysis needed be done as the next step. I agree that it should have been done then.

Instead the proposed NES went through the whole public consultation process and a series of cabinet sign offs without a cost benefit analysis. The mandatory s32 cost benefit analysis was completed only a couple of weeks ago.

The s32 cost benefit analysis that was eventually done is seriously defective as it asks and answers the wrong question. It incorrectly looks at the costs and benefits in relation to promoting the policy of rolling out more celltowers and the government’s digital strategy. The correct question was the costs and benefits in relation to the sustainable management purposes of the RMA.

This is just a hint of the many serious problems with the proposed NES. We will formally challenge it if we have to, however it would be preferable if the Select Committee could take a proactive role and reel it back into something more sensible and balanced that has regard to the needs of communities not just Telcos.

I’m happy to provide any supporting information or explanation that may help.

NB: Since last week I have had contact from groups in Christchurch and Churton Park, Wellington about unwanted celltowers.

Sue Grey
Ph 03 5450878

ROBERT COMMENTS

I intend to move two amendments regarding this matter at the full meeting of the Porirua City Council on Wednesday, at 5.30 pm.

1) That the Council appeals the telecommunications NES.

2) The work be undertaken urgently to amend the District Plan regarding telecommunications towers and facilities.

This will be about the fourth time that I have moved something like 2). Let us hope the mayor and councillors now support it.
r
September 16, 2008

incredible revelations on the health aspects of cell towers

how to appeal regulations

Cr Tim Sheppard helpfully points out that there is a way in Parliament's Standing Orders to appeal regulations. It does not take much immagination to see that many of these provisions apply in the present telco regulations. There is an issue as to whether the telco Act should override the RMA.

Tim with masts

The HOR Standing Order follows:

315 Drawing attention to a regulation
(1) In examining a regulation, the committee considers whether it ought to be drawn to the special attention of the House on one or more of the grounds set out in paragraph (2).

(2) The grounds are, that the regulation—

(a) is not in accordance with the general objects and intentions of the statute under which it is made:

(b) trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties:

(c) appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made:

(d) unduly makes the rights and liberties of persons dependent upon administrative decisions which are not subject to review on their merits by a judicial or other independent tribunal:

(e) excludes the jurisdiction of the courts without explicit authorisation in the enabling statute:

(f) contains matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment:

(g) is retrospective where this is not expressly authorised by the empowering statute:

 (h) was not made in compliance with particular notice and consultation procedures prescribed by statute:

(i) for any other reason concerning its form or purport, calls for elucidation.

full text of new regs

Here is the new regulation>

Select Committee hearing report by lawyer Sue Grey to be posted shortly.

ROBERT COMMENTS

I am a radio amateur and I now plan to string an antenna between three lampposts on Eskdale Road. I always wanted to have good beam antenna for the lower frequencies.

Amateur radio has an important role in civil defence preparations and I feel obliged to strengthen my infrastructure in the national interest. I will enjoy being a network operator in accordance with section 5.

I will not make any private profits from my community service.

I will of course compete for lampposts with Vodafone. However, as they are based in Berkshire England and my family have for six generations contributed to building the infrastructure of our country, I feel I have the moral high ground. I hereby claim the lampposts on the high ground.
r
September 12, 2008

new telco regulations & robert's media release

The national environmental standards for telecommunications facilities were gazetted on 11 September 2008 and will come into force on 9 October 2008.

In essence, the standards  say:

The regulations will substitute existing district plan rules on the subject material. A plan change is not required to substitute that part of a district plan affected by the regulations. 

Activities that do not qualify as permitted activities under the regulations will continue to be managed by local councils through the existing rules in their district plans under the Resource Management Act 1991.

The Ministry for the Environment will be running a series of workshops to help councils and the telecommunications industry understand and implement the new regulations.  A user’s guide is also being developed and will be available shortly.

ROBERT'S MEDIA RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE USE

Telcos 1 : Communities 0

The national environmental standards for telecommunications facilities were gazetted on 11 September 2008 and will come into force on 9 October 2008.

Already the standards are controversial.

Porirua City Councillor Robert Shaw said central government has "denied communities their right to be involved in decisions that they find important".

"This cuts right across the covenant of local government in New Zealand.

"We expect communities to work together and cooperate with government agencies.

"But now, large companies such as Telecom and Vodafone are elevated above such lowly concerns.

"Companies that are accountable to their shareholders have taken on the powers previously held by elected local councils.

"There is no practicable appeal available to people who object to the decisions of these companies.

"That rights to our streets can be given by Government to a company like Vodafone which has its headquarters in the UK is quite staggering.

"This regulation transfers valuable rights to companies and follows a pathetic underfunded, eight week consultation. They only received 85 submissions from the whole country and vested interest groups dominated the submissions.

"The Government hides behind such piffle as the alleged need for 'a  nationally consistent planning framework'.

"Fact is, the companies all compete with each other, are profit driven, and show little willingness co-locate facilities or minimise their impact on communities.

"Before you rewrite the District Plans of all the councils in the country you should at least put your plan in front of Parliament.  Instead, the Government chose to establish regulations through a decision of Cabinet.

"New Zealanders work best when they are are treated in a fair way, involved in decisions, and can pull together. We have a magnificent capacity to cooperate and reach practical compromises. I am at a loss to know why the Government does not trust people and wants to impose threats, stress and tension on communities and households.

There is more on this decision on Cr Shaw's local government web site www.porirua.net

For further information, Porirua City Councillor Robert Shaw  04  233 0252

astronomy book

cell towers - pope street

Hi Robert,

I have been following the publicity regarding additional Telecom cellphone sites in Porirua. I was actively involved a few years ago when Vodafone installed an additional 6x towers.

Can i just summarise the situation:

1. The quoted power output of the Vodafone towers was not the peak output, but the average output over 24 hours. In the early hours of the morning, the output is close to zero. The actual peak output was 4-5 times higher, and close to the World Health Organisation's concern levels. The peak output should be disclosed, and any increase should require further public / PCC approvals.

2. Vodafone's consultation process was a joke. I think u attended both meetings. A question asked at both was what difference will consultation make to your plans? Answer from Vodafone. None.

3. Telecom and Vodafone are using 60's legislation relevant to power and telegraph poles to insist on their right to install new towers on road reserve / berms. This is why some of them are disguised as street lights. There is a height limit related to cable crossing roads and land contours, which is also now being exploited as many towers are well above the height of standard telegraph poles. Where services are reticulated underground, the legislation does not apply, but this hasn't stopped the telcos bamboozling councils. No council has had the balls to challenge the telcos.

4. Telcos also have no automatic right to erect cellphone towers on any other land, including their own. To erect the towers at the top of Pope Street on PCC land, the approach was let us erect one each (of very high power) on council reserve, or we will opt for 2-3 each on the street. And PCC has the backbone of a jelly fish and said OK. Even when both companies erected a 2nd tower on the same site, on condition the redundant towers (obsolete technology) were removed, they ignored the requirement, and have now deployed additional equipment on the old towers.
Regards, Andrew

national very active in mana

ROBERT COMMENTS

select committee - cell towers

-----Original Message----- From: Pavan Sharma [mailto:Pavan.Sharma@parliament.govt.nz] Sent: Friday, 5 September 2008 4:27 p.m.
To: Sue Grey
Subject: RE: Petition 2005/179 of Sarah Allen and 3100 others for Atawhai Playcentre, Brightsparks Preschool and Ban the Tower Inc

Hi Sue,

To confirm arrangements for next Thursday's hearing. This item of business is on the agenda from 10am to 11am. The meeting will take place in Select Committee Room 6, Parliament House, which is on the ground floor. Please advise by Wednesday 12pm the names and designations of the people from your group who will be appearing before the committee. If you have any further queries, do let me know. I'm not in the office on Monday however. If you need to speak to someone then, please call my colleague Simolo Manase on 817 9687.

Kind regards, Pavan

recent trip

Several have asked about my trip to the UK.

Ruth and I spent 10 days in London where she had a conference and I spent much time at as a reader at the British Library. From there to Oxford where I presented a paper on management, hence on by hire car to Glasgow University to catch up with those I met during my sabbatical 6 years ago (this relates to the work on democracy and citzienship). Visited Ruth's relations in delightful rural villages and then home out of Heathrow. We have a complaint about Air NZ seats. As Johnie Johnson used to say "we went second class because there was no third". The whole trip took just under a month. England in the summertime has much to commend it, when it is not raining.

And then there was Newton:

Newton's room as professor of mathematics at Trinity College is above the tree slightly to the right. It is still occupied by staff, although modified somewhat. I was delighted with the Wren Library at Trinity. To see the original work of Wittgenstein and Newton was inspiring.

One highlight of the trip was my pursuit of Isaac Newton. This in London, Trinity College Cambridge, and at Woolsthorpe Manor which is his birthplace and the site of his critical work in 1666. Went on a fruitless search for this mother's grave.

The window of Newton's room at Woolsthorpe Manor. (Needless to say I am now on a diet.)

Ruth and I were given a private tour of the Manor and we were so excited we donated £40 to their garden fund (£20 each). Expect the flowers to bloom at the front of the Manor. I am writing an analysis of some of Newton's work on optics from a Heideggerian perspective. Consequently, in my mind the flowers are a research expense. Pity the auditors would not see them this way.

r
09-Sep-2008

impartiality of health advisors

Hi Stuart

Thanks for that and for getting involved.

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of published papers about the dangers of EMR- from cellphone's and cell towers. However Telecom and co seem to discount every single one of them for various spurious reasons in favour of research they have funded themselves.

We have a really odd system here in NZ where a group called the “Government Interagency Advisory Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Radiation” is a the “gatekeeper” for the government’s view. I would have expected such an advisory group to be a team of qualified experts, preferably with various relevant interdisciplinary skills and no vested interests.

However it is largely made up of Telecom, Vodafone and other vested interest reps- most of whom have no relevant health expertise at all. The only medical doctor on that committee is Dr David Black. He is an “honorary senior lecturer” (whatever that is) at Auckland Med school who apparently hasn’t actually lectured for years since his course ceased.

He seems to spend most of his time working for Telecom, Vodafone and their equivalents in Australia who cant find local experts who are prepared to say the type of things that Dr Black says.

Auckland Med School has set up NIHI (National Institute of Health Innovation) – which got $7m from the government which it matched with private funding. Top of its list of private funders is Vodafone. One of the main projects of the Auckland Med school/NIHI team is the NZ part of the Interphone study – which was supposed to be finished in 2004 but we are still waiting for the results.

Its all so incestuous and the public interest seems to be so tainted by private funding that I’m no longer confident about what can be relied on and what cannot.

The rest of the committee is largely made up of Ministry of Economic Development reps – who by MED’s own admission have no relevant skill at all except to represent the interests of development, plus a few lightweights who seem to do what they are told.

In summary our health seems to be managed by economic interests. The government interagency committee minutes (which I have), record views along the lines that its better not to consult about new celltowers as this upsets communities!!!!

They conveniently seem to ignore the fact that it’s the celltower being thrust on us that upsets us, not the consultation. We have a hearing before the Local Govt and Environment Select Committee this Thursday (providing Parliament is not in urgency) and one of the things we are asking for it a more balanced advisory committee with people who are suitably qualified and represent community interests as well as Telcos.

I have written so many letters to the relevant Ministers but all they ever do is come back with inane replies based on what the Health Committee says. I don’t think the Ministers understand the issues at all themselves. I cant see much hope of change unless we get interested new Ministers and/or a more balanced advisory committee.

I love the look of your qualifications. Your input both for your local situation and nationally would be fantastic. We’ve now got a group of people with some excellent skills who have done a huge amount to try to get some balance into this issue. It includes people who made submission on the proposed NES (National Environmental Standards ) for Telecommunications and communities who have faced unwanted celltowers.

I’ve tried to get everyone as coordinated as possible so we can get some synergy- and maximum impact for our time.

So far its all been ad hoc and fitted around all our other commitments. I’ve been working ridiculous hours on this assuming its just a case of getting the right information to the right people. However there seems to be some very willful blindness in high places and if we want to get a permanent NZ wide solution we need to use our resources as effectively as we possibly can. If anyone is interested in putting together a national group- so we can be as effective as possible, share ideas and try to avoid reinventing the wheel then please let me know.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSc

Somme House Plimmerton

I am asked about the history of Somme House at Plimmerton. Below is an extract from a Council report.

The land on which Somme House is situated was once part of George Troup’s estate which extended up Cluny Road and included Motuhara, Moana and Airlie Roads.

In 1910 the land was subdivided and sections sold off over the subsequent years. On 17 May 1915 Troup sold Lot 79 to Robert Hird Hustler, a painter from Johnsonville. Hustler took a mortgage out on the land on 28 February 1916, probably to build the house. On 23 April 1918 the land was sold to Juanita Heather Sylvia Craw of Linton, a spinster.

According to Porirua City Council records the house was designed by one Archie McMahon as a beach house. The house was named to commemorate the New Zealand soldiers killed in the Battle of the Somme in World War I.

Juanita Craw may have had a brother Eric Hector Dunstan Craw who was a bombardier in the First World War and was killed in the Battle of the Somme on 25 September 1916. Eric Craw also came from Linton. Various owners have come and gone since that time.

waiheke - cell towers

Hi Robert

  Sue Grey from Nelson gave me your name.  Thank you for being prepared to be known for your stance against the installations.

  Vodafone has consent to erect an installation on the roof of the local Bowling Club, right in the middle of the suburb of Surfdale.  Several things are wrong with the consent:

1.                   The consent was non-notifiable because it was only noise 39 decibels and the height of the mast 9.7m that was considered discretionary.  Mervyn Chetty, Auckland City Council Environmental Health Officer, signed off the health issues, negligible exposure was his findings.

2.                   The Bowling Club is a community club yet did not seek input from the residents.  They have since signed to have a 12m Telecom tower to be installed on their property as well.  This is in front of the ACC planners now.

3.                   The lady right next door to the club is recovering from beast cancer and only found out about the installation when workmen in white, unmarked, vans turned up to survey the site.  She is very distressed.

Our Councillor is Denise Roche, a first time councilor, also the Greens candidate for the upcoming elections.  Her email is cr.roche@aucklandcity.govt.nz do you think there is any value in you contacting her directly?  I forwarded Sue’s email, and attachments, onto her.  Your name and email address as well as Sue Kedgely’s details were in the email so if you do contact her she will know who you are.  

Our campaign to date is focussing on:  

1.                   Trying to get the Bowling Club members to groundswell against their committee and get the permission for Vodafone and Telecom removed.  Unfortunately the committee think they have done nothing wrong and aren’t about to admit they may have made an error in judgement.

2.                   Trying to get the ACC to re-open the consent so we can lodge submissions.  We have written to David Rankin, CEO, and the Mayor’s office as well as the planning team in a hope to get a chance to have a say.

3.                   Asking the Ombudsmen’s office and Judith Tizard’s office and the Waiheke Community Board to bring pressure on the ACC to re-open the consent.

  However we are not getting very far so Sue’s words of advice and support were very appreciated.

  Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

  Regards

  Andrew Crawford

10 Surfdale Road

Waiheke

09 372 8234

telecom has crisis of confidence whilst they ugly-up porirua city

By Jonathan Underhill
Friday 5th September 2008

Telecom Corp., the biggest company on the NZX 50 Index, deferred its dividend reinvestment plan while it considers whether to accelerate investments on faster broadband services.

The company last month said it was evaluating whether to speed the roll-out of its $300 million broadband mobile phone network. Investors who had opted to reinvest the fourth-quarter dividend will receive a cash payment instead, the company said in a statement.

"Telecom considers it is not prudent to proceed with the issue of shares under its dividend reinvestment plan for the upcoming quarterly dividend, or undertake the associated on-market share buyback of Telecom ordinary shares," the company said. "This is a strategically important and material decision."

Telecom is racing rival Vodafone Group which is offering a nationwide broadband network. Vodafone has a larger share of the nation's mobile phone market.

Shares of Telecom fell about 1% to NZ$3.09, near a 15-year low.

www.businesswire.co.nz

ROBERT COMMENTS

Porirua City Council leadership is apparently totally unable to understand that for Telecom the network roll out is a business venture. It is not the provision of a social service. We should not offer up our City to them as if they were Catholic Social Services. They are here to make money from our residents, and the Council's responsibility is to realistically charge for the use of valuable public assets.

We did not invent capitalism. We are however amidst capitalism. Thus, we must play that game or suffer the financial consequences. It is little wonder that Porirua City ratepayers pay more than any other ratepayers in the country. This is the price we pay for blind Council leadership.
r
September 6, 2008

telecom profits

Telecom forecasts lower annual earnings next year. This year they made $713 million. Fear not, the Porirua City ratepayers will continue to subsidsie Telecom shareholders.
r

serious detachment from reality

No one in the Porirua City Council has noticed New Zealand's changed financial situation. Our households are being hit with higher costs all round, and jobs are about to be lost. Still Council plans for the revitalization of the city center (costing millions) and digital investment. Expect increasing complaints about rates. Council is in expansion mode when it should be in contraction mode.

In the 1990s recessions, councils were the only sector that did not contract. The power of taxation works every time. The ability to tax is a woeful power and carries a heavy responsibility. Few in our council have noticed this.

Witness the rush to give $350,000 to rugby. Many saw this as about loyalty to rugby - a sort of test of manhood. Cr Ah Hoy, to her credit, did not. Virtually no-one, including council officers, saw it as being about our responsibility to ratepayers. The motion that was considered, if passed, would have agreed to pay the money. This in spite of the fact that in public it was being said that this would be subject to consultation. Whether this was their inability to read or a deliberate ploy we will never know. It might have been a fall-back position as the heat went on. My view is that they simply do not pay enough attention to the meaning of words.

The latest parade of dreaming and drifting is in the presentation to the conference of local government managers. This is remarkable because the council apparently claims some credit for e-learning. Well, it mentions it in the context of Porirua stories. It arrived in Porirua 7-years-ago, I learn. Funny, I thought it arrived in the rest of the world well over 15-year-ago, and that fad is now over. I have published papers on e-learning in science, and designed and built a significant facility to teach all NZ secondary school students astronomy online. This proved its worth with schools around New Zealand and was destroyed this year by the Board of the Carter Observatory. The Carter Observatory is now being run by the Wellington City Council.
r
September 6, 2008

rates hurt

North Point industrial area ratepayers are complaining about a rates increases of 57% in one year. I feel for them in the recession.

Evidently, they did not notice the valuations for their properties when it could be challenged, and they did not read the rates assessment at the time when that could be challenged. Now - after the actual bill arrives - they are to visit the mayor to ask for relief. They will receive a cup of tea.
r
September 6, 2008

history repeats itself - telecoms

The Porirua Council decided to do nothing about the influx of new telecommunications towers and facilities into our City. When confronted with a motion (moved by myself) to have work done on the District Plan and the new regulations, they decided they would rather not. Just as in 2005!!!

They voted against the public being notified of proposals as of right.

They voted against controls on the height and placement of towers.

They voted against requirements that the telcos share sites.

They voted against making the telcos declare their network plans for the city before any single towers are built.

What did they vote for you might ask: they voted to keep the chief executive rushing around in small circles trying to negotiate deals in secret after communities complain.

The chief executive needs to focus all his attention on the real challenges that fact the Council.At the moment we have three companies involved in tower constructions in our City. Presumably, the chief will simply work longer hours as more companies appear.

r
September 5, 2008

thursday's committee meeting

MORE CELLPHONE TOWERS COMING

TO PROTECT YOUR HOUSEHOLD WE NEED YOUR PRESENCE ON THURSDAY 4 SEPTEMBER

We need you to attend a meeting at Porirua City Council on Thursday 4th September from 9:00am to 10:00am to help ensure you DON’T have a cell phone tower put outside your house or your local school without consultation.

After an abysmal attempt by Telecom to put a cell phone tower in Titahi Bay, without consultation, the community has managed to halt the construction and force them to consult with us.

We have been given a chance to speak at Porirua City Councils next Strategy, Finance and Regulatory Committee Meeting concerning cell phone towers in our City and need at least 200 people there.

With your presence we hope to force Porirua City Councillors to change the District Plan so that the lack of consultation cannot occur again by Telecom or any other telecommunications company.

By a stroke of luck New Zealand Telecommunications (a new cell phone company) will be speaking at this meeting prior to us – here is your chance to get an insight into their plans as they want to construct 1,300 cell phone towers nationwide some of which will be in your suburb.

Act now or you could have a cell phone tower/antenna outside your house by October. Details for the meetings are: Date: Thursday 4th September Time: 9:00am to 10:00am Venue: Council Chambers, Level 2, Porirua City Council

IT’S TIME TO STAND UP FOR “THE BAY” BRING YOURSELVES, YOUR FRIENDS AND YOUR NEIGHBOURS YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE

This flyer has been created and distributed by concerned residents. For further information please contact Helen Bennett via e-mail helen.bennett1@gmail.com

whitby newsbrief - info issues at council

I was asked to write something for the Whitby NewsBrief. Here it is:

What on earth is going on?

How can any citizen keep up with what happens at Council? How can you participate in the decisions of your Council? We should all ask ourselves these questions in a serious way. The mantra from councils around the country is that there are "current issues" that they can list on their web sites and from there you can read about the issues and make submissions in writing.

If you have a degree in public policy and time on your hands, you probably could make submissions as requested. But, for most people the task of regular participation as prescribed by the Council is impossible.

The first battle everyone fights with their Council is very basic: what on earth is going on? It is actually a challenge for the elected people to answer this question. All the briefings and the papers provided - some how or other - just do not provide the level of understanding that people seek.

A brave councillor recently (one of the new ones), admitted that he could not follow what was happening at meetings. He asked, would it be possible to have the motions and amendments displayed on a screen as they were debated. At least that way we might know what we are voting for or against, even if we do not understand it very well.

This idea is an old idea around our Council. It has been rejected at least four times when I have raised it. The last time I raised it was when I became a chairperson of a committee for a brief spell. Overseas, and in many NZ councils it is common practice. The usual approach is to have the committee secretary's laptop connected to a data show.

Two other techniques that use technology are often used to convey information to citizens. The first and most effective is to broadcast all council meetings on the interment. I investigated these systems when I was in Illinois some years ago. It is common practice there in councils much smaller than our own. This system puts the heat on the councillors. What they say is recorded for all to see at a later date. More important than this however is the fact that it contributes to better decisions being made. What really counts in your council  is the quality of the decisions made.

Another simple way to improve communicates is to use a system that allows people to see how their councillors vote. This is used in our neighboring council, Wellington. The idea is that councillors vote each time by pushing a button and the vote displays in lights on a board. Apart from helping us know what is going on, this will give the councillors an incentive to keep up with the meetings. Nothing interests a councillor more than seeing their name flash in lights.

Robert Shaw
Porirua City Councillor
Proud to represent Whitby for over 15 years.

cell phone tower problems in hutt city

road standards - bikes

1 September 2008

The Chief Executive
Porirua City Council
PO Box PORIRUA 5240

Dear Sir

With summer approaching I expect the Council will soon start its road maintenance and resealing programme.

I commute by bicycle daily from Papakowhai through to Wellington. The road surface from Porirua City proper along Keneperu Drive to wherever the Porirua and Wellington City Councils responsibilities for road maintenance meet, is not great. The section from the Porirua Hospital entrance near Moore Wilsons through to about the Pukitero Centre is particularly rough because very large road chip has been used to form the road surface. When the Council next reseals the main arterial routes into and out of the City, would it please consider using asphaltic concrete or a smaller size road chip.

I appreciate that there is an additional marginal cost for doing so, but there are good reasons for doings so:

* a road bike normally has tyre pressure at 120 – 160lbs, some go over 200lbs. A puncture from a sharp stone or other material can be dangerous when a tyre explodes at that pressure.

* While a family recreational rider might travel at 12-20kph, a person commuting to and from the city will generally want to ride at between 30 – 40kph. The roughness of the stone chip used on Keneperu drive near Bowlland and Kapiti Mana School reduces the speed of commuting cyclists by between 5-10kpm.

* The stone chip tends to come loose on corners – see corner near Bowlland, and works its way to the side of the road used by cyclists. When a road bike which has roughly only 1 cm of rubber on the road at any time, comes in contact with loose road metal it is dangerous and especially dangerous on corners.

* I assume Porirua City Council supports the regional initiative to encourage alternate forms of commuting to and from work rather than by car. A good quality road surface, particularly on main arterial routes shows good support of that initiative.

Last, if the council could also sweep the roads on regular basis, say 4 monthly that also would be appreciated. The road has not been swept all year.

Yours sincerely
Peter Brocklehurst

re-run of blog on cell towers - 2005

MARK WHALEY'S COMPLAINT - CELL TOWERS IN THE SUBURBS - IT IS NOT JUST THE PUTTING RIGHT THAT COUNTS

Mark Whaley, citizen of Titahi Bay, asked the Prime Minister about the establishment and operation of a cell tower in Titahi Bay. The Hon David Benson-Pope, Minister for the Environment, wrote back (3 November, 2005) saying that the Porirua Council had complied with the law.

He does not mention that the Porirua Council actually wrote the law that pertains. The Minister's reply is hardly likely to satisfy Mr Whaley.

Looking into his question, we can see that he really wants to know how it can be that a company can intrude in a suburb, create concerns about safety, and produce a monstrosity for us all to view.

The problem is the District Plan does not protect the residents. Cell towers are "permitted" activities in our suburbs, and that means that they can be hoisted up into the air without warning. The Council is doing well in its amelioration, but altering the rules must be a top priority also. The consultation now being undertaken on cell tower policy is just about cell towers on Council owned land - we need to fix the rules as well and at this moment no progress has been made on that project at all. Mr Whaley might like to ask the Minister for the Environment some other questions: what provisions do the District Plans of our Councils throughout the country have regarding cell towers in suburban areas? Might the Minister suggest how we can better manage issues of aesthetics?
r
Saturday, December 3, 2005

ROBERT COMMENTS

Robert is quite right. The lack of leadership and focus in the Council has meant that absolutely nothing has been done to change the District Plan and hence several communities now face the forecast problem.
r
August 31, 2008

PS I promise not to write a comment about my own comment again!

rugby motion

For those who have asked me, this is the motion the council carried on our funding the rugby.

That the Chief Executive be requested to continue discussions with his Chief Executive colleagues across the region to develop a reworked plan for Porirua support for the Wellington regional bid for the Rugby World Cup 2011. Consideration of infrastructure funding in the 2011 Long Term Council Community Plan and non ratepayer sources of funding, to be brought to Council in due course.
CARRIED

information issues

The move by the ceo to have the Councillors' Bulletin made public was strongly opposed by the mayor (email to all, etc). I can remember asking Mr Seddon, the former ceo, to make the Bulletin available to all, but with no success. Now Dr B offers it in an effort to improve communications within the city.

Few people will remember that the Bulletin started as a result of my advocacy. The original concept was to alert councillors to issues. Instead it quickly came to be a "good news" briefing. I want to know about problems not successes. We have plenty of people congratulating others.

Where the bulletin goes is not anyone's business but the ceos. It is entirely his publication, the law says he is in charge of Official Information (which it is), and he can send it where he likes. I look forward to an electronic version being sent to residents' associations and other interested individuals.

One of the major problems with our Council is no one knows what is going on. Hence, a weekly bulletin of serious material would be really useful for interested residents and ratepayers. Had this been done then no one could have complained that they were not made aware of the Telecom tower proposals in January when the Council approved them. The towers were mentioned in the Bulletin, but evidently nothing of this was conveyed to anyone by the councillors.
r
August 30, 2008

why we have no money to amend the district plan

A small unit within the Council does the work on the District Plan. They have been rather busy, but not dealing with towers or the protection of households. The major effort has been a futile attempt to make new policy in the middle of a neighbours' dispute. I refer to Duck Creek.

Blog readers will know that I asked for the cost of this work, and subsequently there was an OIA request from one of the interested parties. That OIA request produced some data which was more than I had managed in a couple of months of effort (see below for the data).

The cost of some consultants work on Duck Creek to 27 May 2008 is $240,466.92. This figure will rise as there are still bills outstanding. Before I went overseas I asked for the other costs to be estimated. These included officer time (probably the largest single item), printing, publication, advertising, the hire of facilities, and so on. Since the 27 May there have been further substantial legal costs. My own estimate is that ratepayers would have paid something over half a million dollars. I have not seen the resulting figures, produced whilst I was overseas, but have been told they are around somewhere. For all this money there has not been one blade of grass saved or one drop of water diverted. Nor has there been one new policy established. It is an outcome of the lack of leadership and insight at Council.

This work with Duck Creek has diverted attention from the rest of the District Plan. The Chairperson of the responsible committee has some serious work to do in relation to priority setting. When I was a chairperson I made a bid for two new officers for the unit but that was turned down by elected councillors.

For over seven years I have been talking about District Plan reform priorities. Wonder if they will ever be sorted. Remember this is ratepayers' money that should be diverted to advance the interests of home owners.

All this goes on whist Jenny Brash sits on her hands and the chairpersons look dazed. They all have an offer of a right of reply!
r
August 30, 2008

robert's submission to the select committee

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ENVIRONMENT SELECT COMMITTEE

RE: PETITION SARAH ALLEN AND 3100 OTHERS RE CELLPHONE TOWERS IN COMMUNITIES

My name is Robert Keith Shaw and I am a Porirua City Councillor. I write this personal statement in relation to cell towers and the petition you are considering.

The Porirua City Council has attempted to assist community groups as they deal with the excitement of new towers, first with Vodafone and then with Telecom.

It was the Council’s hope that the companies would begin a consultation with communities themselves and work with the Council to establish networks with the minimum impact. To facilitate this the Council was prepared to make some public land available as a way of ensuring the towers were away from private property.

Regardless of whether there are, or there are not, health risks, residents do not want the towers in their communities. This is a reasonable point-of-view and needs to be addressed if we wish to build strong communities to support families.

The Titahi Bay tower incident with Telecom was extremely disappointing for those of us who sought a managed process for towers. The company was forced to delay construction whilst they talked to the community. However, it was all too late as the required consents had been earlier issued.

One of the most unsatisfactory aspects of the Titahi Bay incident was that the company did not reveal its work on a further five towers in Porirua City. All of these were proceeding in secret.  Had the company been genuine in its approach to the Council and the community they would have been open about their plans. Instead, they stonewalled.

It is clear that we cannot rely on the vast number of teleco companies to all be reasonable and to engage in proper process.  It is also clear that circumstances vary greatly throughout the country and what is satisfactory in one area is not so in another.

It has not been possible to establish co-location of facilities in our city. Everyone agrees in theory, but the competitive aspects of the business ascend in practice.

Fortunately, the RMA provides a process to determine structures in communities. Each Council should have in its District Plan requirements appropriate to its situation. Applications for towers should be decided in relation to the each unique situation.

Finally, it is not appropriate to use regulations established by Order in Council in a situation where there is wide public debate and the issues are very personal for households. Parliament is the proper venue for any decisions on new rules. There is no need for new rules at all however, assuming the Council’s hurry up and develop their District Plans.

Robert Shaw BSc BA MPhi(Hons) MPubPol
23 August , 2008

43 Eskdale Road
Papakowhai
PORIRUA CITY

Telephone 04  233 0252

progress with telecom - ceo is working hard on this

plan for villages money - for discussion

ROBERT COMMENTS:

This draft for discussion has been issued by the Council. It has several problems. The first is that we have yet to properly sort out the rules for this moment. In its base conception it is to be "bottom up" decision making, but in fact it is the councillors who are being asked to decide the schedule, and hence it is "top down" like everything else! There has been a rather pathetic review of the programme, which showed absolutely no insight into the purpose of the policy.

In the draft below you will see a mix of "business as usual" projects (ie those that should be funded from other budgets - eg lighting. (WHAT ON EARTH HAS HAPPEND TO THE COUNCIL'S BUDGET FOR LIGHTING??) and community priorities. One major problem is that some suburbs have been quick to become involved and others have not. Whtiby is the the dramatic negative example. They have missed out on distributions of over $2 million so far and the residents association continues to stand as a "one issue" organisation, in spite of a burst of interest and activity in relation to the villages money just before the election. On the positive side of this Takapuwhaia has established itself as a village, compare this with Elsdon, and they are doing okay.

Another major problem is the amount of money now going to policy research and not to practical asset development. That was never the intention. More officers need to be employed I guess.

It has now become established that this money - intended for asset development according to the local residents' wishes - can in fact be used for policy analysis and a bus service (I need to check if this happened). How can anyone cope with a Council that jumps around like that?
r

Council's document:

THE 2007/08 PROGRAMME

A programme of works was prepared for 2007/08.  In some areas this was indicative only as discussions with residents were still in progress.  Costings were also indicative as much of the project work was still to be designed and closely costed.

Eastern Porirua

Plimmerton

Pukerua Bay

Takapuwahia

Titahi Bay

In addition $150,000 of minor safety works were planned for Titahi Bay

*In the half year budget review $120,000 was reallocated from other budgets to Titahi Bay for shopping centre improvements.

Whitby & Pauatahanui
$5000 each earmarked for community planning assistance to each Resident Association

misleading picture

This picture is the one that went to Cabinet when they approved the new telecoms regulations policy in February 2008. Lovely green background and innocuous location. There is not a house, nor a child, in sight. Nor does it indicate the radiation.

Be aware that the new regulations do not relate to new towers and that our Council needs to amend the District Plan to provide for towers. The easiest way is to make all new towers a notified resource consent.

telecoms policy agreed by cabinet in February this year - extract from cabinet paper

Appendix A – Proposed National Environmental Standards for
Telecommunications

Pursuant to s43B of the Resource Management Act 1991, no rule or resource
consent shall be more stringent than the national environmental standards for
telecommunications facilities.
1. Radiofrequency field exposures from wireless telecommunications
infrastructure

Permitted activity
An activity by a telecommunications operator that generates radiofrequency
fields is a permitted activity provided the following conditions are met.
1. Exposures to the radiofrequency fields generated by the activity (in
conjunction, where applicable, with exposures to radiofrequency fields
from existing transmitters in the vicinity) comply with NZS2772.1: 1999
Radio-frequency Fields Part 1: Maximum Exposure Levels 3 kHz – 300
GHz (“the New Zealand Standard”).
2. Prior to commencing any activity that generates radiofrequency fields, the
following are sent to and reviewed by the relevant Council:
a. written notice of the location of the facility or proposed facility; and
b. a report prepared by a radio engineer/technician or physical
scientist containing a prediction of whether the New Zealand
Standard will be complied with.
3. If the report provided to the Council under condition 2(b) predicts that
exposures will reach 25 percent of the exposure limit set for the general
public in the New Zealand Standard, then, within three months of
radiofrequency emissions commencing, a report from an appropriately
qualified person/organisation (for example a Radiofrequency engineer)
certifying compliance with the New Zealand Standard, based on
measurements at the site will be provided to the Council.
16

2. Telecommunications equipment cabinets within road reserves
Telecommunication cabinets in road reserves shall be permitted activities
subject to the following restrictions:
Limitations on cabinet size and location
(Above ground level)
Adjacent area
type
Maximum height: 1.8m
Maximum footprint of any single cabinet: 1.4m2
Maximum footprint occupied by all cabinets:1.8m2
Maximum number of network utility cabinets exceeding
900mm in height in any location: one6
Minimum separation distance from any existing utility
cabinet exceeding 900mm in height: 30m
(except where specific provision by way of dedicated
areas has been made for utilities infrastructure within
the road reserve)

Residential
Maximum height: 2m
Maximum footprint: 2.0m2
Minimum separation distance from any existing utility
cabinet exceeding 900mm in height: 30m
(except where specific provision by way of dedicated
areas has been made for utilities infrastructure within
the road reserve)

Non-residential
All cabinets permitted by this standard shall comply with:
· Any specific performance standards contained in a plan or design
guide (that forms part of a district plan) relating to design or external
appearance of utility cabinets in the road reserve.
The relevant district plan rules shall prevail over this standard in the following
circumstances:
· Where the cabinet is located in an area, or adjacent to a site, to which the
district plan applies rules protecting historic heritage, or visual amenity
values7, for example:
o Within view shafts identified in district plans (covered above)
o Commercial areas i.e. CBD, shopping precincts (covered above)
· where any excavation work to install the cabinet needs to be undertaken
within the drip line or branch spread of any tree or vegetation.
· where the cabinet is proposed to be located on the seaward side of the
road centre-line, and the road abuts the Coastal Marine Area
· where any above ground power supply is not contained within the cabinet
[FOOTNOTES; 6 Cabinets in new subdivisions are often located in areas allocated for utilities, for example dedicated
areas of road reserve are provided. In these cases it would be considered a reasonable condition of a
Road Opening Notice that the cabinets be located within those areas.
7 Areas identified as historic, historic heritage, cultural sites or open space]

Other considerations:
Cabinet means either an individual cabinet, or a cluster of cabinets. Provided
that in the case of a cluster, these cabinets are interdependent on each other
to provide a service, and that the spacing between adjacent cabinets is no
more than 500mm, and that the total dimensions of all cabinets (excluding the
space between the cabinets) does not exceed the maximum height and area
restrictions set out in this standard.

An additional cabinet can be abutted to an existing cabinet, so long as the
combined size or foot print of the cabinets does not exceed the maximum
specified in this standard.

Issues to do with location of structures to ensure they do not create a safety
hazard, including frangibility of structures are addressed by road controlling
authorities through the provisions of the Telecommunications Act 2001. The
development of a national code of practice for utilities access to the road
corridor and the development of a consistent set of reasonable conditions that
can be required by road controlling authorities will provide clarity and national
consistency.

media statement on porirua city tower plans - telecom

FOR IMMEDIATE USE

Council and Telecom fail to reveal 5 more towers

Unknown to its residents, the Porirua Council gave Telecom the go-ahead for six cell towers. There are also two further approvals pending.

Councillor Robert Shaw said he was appalled that the public has not been told about all the towers. "Five approvals only came to light when I asked about other sites because of the public outrage about the Titahi Bay proposal" .

"Telecom put the Titahi Bay tower on hold because of public opposition, but they did not tell the public about the other towers". The sites approved are: Titahi Bay; Bedford Street next to the Freedom Church; Waitangirua, adjacent to the shops; Broken Hill Road; Kenepuru Drive; and Colonial Knob.

Resource consents applied for are a new towers in Pukerua Bay above Rawhiti Road and at Moonshine Road. Cr Shaw said Telecom's plans for the whole city need to be considered together. "It is vital that our Council establishes rules in its District Plan to manage the serious conflicts that now appear between telecommunications companies and residents."

The whole purpose of local government is to resolve such issues in neighbourhoods, Cr Shaw added.

For more information Councillor Robert Shaw, telephone 233 0252

tim before he was convicted

MEDIA RELEASE

19th July 2008

Tim Manu Councillor Porirua City Council Having spent the last two weeks overseas due to the sudden death of his grandmother, Cr Manu returned home last Friday 11th and was greeted by what he has interpreted as a personal attack by the media.

An article in the Dominion Post and Kapi Mana provided inaccurate and misleading information in that Cr Manu allegedly 'smashed windows' during an argument. In an effort to leave the abusive situation, Cr Manu found himself locked outside while his belongings ie. clothes, car keys, wallet and cell phone were in the house.

"With no other option available to me I decided to break the door window in order to retrieve my belongings, so that I could leave the situation, with the intention of taking full responsibility ie. writing a letter of apology to the landlord and paying for the window, which in fact was completed two days after." "I am confused and feel personally attacked that the media brought this to light 3 months after it happened, as I never requested a name suppression in the first place, nor did I ever make a police statement."

"Above all, it is important to obtain background information before a story is substantiated."

END

reply by nick

Thanks for the right of reply Robert.

Can I suggest you read the report before jumping in and pronouncing my statement, WRONG!

Firstly, this paper came to my committee, I didn't agree with it and felt it required further detail. However, as it was an issue the Mayor had been working with the CE on I felt the best way to deal with it was to democractly put it before the committee and they could either support it, or vote it down. Robert you said I 'left it hanging.' No. I didn't move it because I didn't agree with it, knowing that many councillors did I knew someone else would move it.

In the end Crs Manu and Ah Hoi moved and seconded it. There is a long established rule at PCC that if a chair doesn't want to lead a debate or doesn't agree with the issue, they simply don't move a recommendation. Chair people are not all-powerful, they are facilitators of a process. They hold no executive power and have the same ability to influence a vote as any other councillor. Some perspective, please!

Specific Points $50,000.00 cash and $25-$50k of officer time. ie. Up to $100,000.00. Certainly at least $75,000.00. (Paras 1 and 2 of page 2 of the report) Read the report. 5 people will be employed initially. Page 139 of the order paper under heading 'Project Scale.' Up to 20 eventually if things go well. This is totally a failure of discipline.

We have an annual plan and process to signal very clearly within a budget and timeframe how much and what we are going to spend ratepayers' money on. We were signing the Annual Plan off that evening. It wasn't good decision making to say, "Ratepayers, here's our budget for the next year, many of you have submitted and told us what you think, but wait here's another project you haven't been able to comment on." Robert said: "The only decision in front of the committee was to approve the use of a trust (which the council had set up)." We are a partner in the Employment Hub (which Robert you had to be told about at the meeting).

They are NOT the Trust that is doing the work. The Employment Hub will manage the contract between PCC and the Te Kotahitanga Trust. A 'middle man' if you like. They won't be using other groups as Robert suggests, just this one. There is no strategic reason for council to be doing this work. It is not a case of 'general maintenance' either as Robert suggests.

The Council report states clearly that if PCC were to do this work, they would use machines, not people with tools as the most effective method. Robert is right about maintenance budgets being standard. But if this were mere maintenance and operational in nature it wouldn't come before the council. Why would I move this into the next budget round as chairperson? I don't agree council should be doing this project and I don't come from the pedigree that you put everything off so you don't offend people. The council is there to do a job and make decisions. A committee that sends things a lot of issues back for consideration is scared to do the business required of it. PCC has a resource issue in some areas with projects being carried over for completion in the last financial year. Read between the lines of the officer report on this matter and you will see that this project would be difficult and labour intensive for council staff. Why would we want to add the burden when projects are already behind??

Robert says my job as chair was to advocate and defend the decision of the committee. My first responsibility is to the residents of Porirua City. I believe I was justified in going to the media because I felt this exercise was a big waste of council's time and money. The public support I've had on this issue reinforces this.

And a personal note: I'm, like all my colleauges Sue Dow, Euon Murrell, Tim Shepphard and Liz Kelly (who voted against) am in favour of assisting the long term unemployed find meaningful work. In fact in my speech I proposed that council sponsor one position in every project contract it tenders for someone who is unemployed, so they can be mentored, up skilled and supported by an experienced contractor. When council contracts for work however, we have to be sure we are getting value and that the project can be completed. This issue is about how council does it's business, not about the guys wanting to have a decent crack at work. They are fully supported by the whole council on that front. It's likely this will go back to the Strategy and Finance meeting this Wednesday so officers can report more fully on the expenditure and project.

Watch this space. Debate is healthy!

Hope you are enjoying the UK Robert. I see Labour were pushed into 5th place in a by-election in Boris JOhnston's seat - behind the Nationalists!!!! Ouch.
Cheers Nick

QUICK COMMENT ON NICK'S MEDIA RELEASE

MEDIA STATEMENT ISSUED BY CR LEGGETT  ROBERT'S COMMENTS IN YELLOW

Porirua City Council last night voted 8-5 to spend almost $100,000.00 WRONG of un-budgeted WRONG ratepayers' money on employing five WRONG gang members WRONG to clear scrub WRONG.

City Services Committee Chair Nick Leggett, refused to move the motion HE LEFT THE OFFICER'S ADVICE HANGING WITHOUT MOVING ANY MOTION - HE SHOULD HAVE ARRANGED FOR IT TO BE MOVED, OR HAVE MOVED TO REJECT IT, OR MOVED THAT IT BE CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THE NEXT ANNUAL PLAN DELIBERATIONS - THAT IS THE RESONSIBILITY OF A CHAIRPERSON WHEN HE HAS SERIOUS ADVICE FROM THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE for the six month project WRONG when it came through to his committee and is outraged that councillors could be so un-disiplined THIS IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF THE FAILURE OF DISCIPLE.

"Frankly, we are spending $20,000.00 per worker WRONG on a project that was invented out of thin air WRONG to give these guys something to do WRONG. It might make the 'bleeding hearts' feel good but in terms of common sense or doing what's right for these guys, it's madness," he says.

ROBERT SAYS

The only decision in front of the committee was to approve the use of a trust (which the council had set up).

The trust MIGHT repeat MIGHT hire another trust which has gang members to do some of the work. They might hire other trusts or groups, who knows.

It is true the Council rejected a particular project on this park in its Annual Plan decision making. That does NOT, repeat NOT, mean that council does not have budgets for park maintenance. I cannot remember the exact amount but it is probably between a quarter and half a million dollars. Maintaining parks is one the core activities of council and we budget for it.

The reason we supported the current proposal is that it brings central government money into play for us. Hence, we gain by having work done more cheaply. This is not about "bleeding hearts" as Nick says. It is about work on our parks.

You cannot say that this involves 5 people, let alone 5 gang members - because officers have not yet worked out what the project will be. We actually have a Management Plan in place for the park and there will be a project designed in accordance with that plan and the Trust that can access the central government money.

Another reason we support this work is that there is talk of a larger, ongoing, initiative. The plan being to use employment trusts regularly to do council parks work. This might work out well. Many remember the PEP scheme that built walls and did much park work in our city. We want to be able to use central government resources whenever we can. It actually saves the ratepayers' money. Hence, this $50k project is something of a trial. We need to know that the Trust that will manage the projects (and be the Council's contractor) can perform.

No ratepayer is paying any new money because of this project. You have all been hit for this funding already.

The Council is grasping an opportunity that has come forward after about two years of preparation. The idea that this is a sudden rush forwards is quite wrong. It should have been brought into the Annual Plan process in the last round and the officers now know my criticism of them on this point. I set this out when I spoke at the Committee.

But note, if the criticism is one of process, then the chairperson should have moved the motion that this matter be held over for consideration in the next round of budget decisions. That is a procedural motion and I for one would have voted for it. It would have carried. The only reason we considered the paper now because the chairperson did not take the appropriate steps. When I chaired the committee there were a steady stream of things that I headed off by bringing them into the next budget round. It is the correct thing to do.

The role of the officers in this is also important. They are hot to trot, and hence thinking of our staff management responsibilities, I am inclined to let them fly. On the other hand, this could divert them from their delivery of the Annual Plan projects and it will make them work harder. I do not support working people to death.

Further, the officers have to design the project in accordance with the Management Plan, the needs of the park, and the abilities of the Trust that is the contractor. The contract might seem simple but it has to address things like health and safety provision and so on. Most critical in this are the performance criteria. I spoke privately with the officer responsible right after the meeting and advanced my view that contract should be substantially "pay for performance". When  the work is done satisfactorily we will pay the Trust. I also emphasized to the officer that we deal only with the Trust that is our contractor and stay right out of their subcontracting other trusts including those that have gang members.

About Nick's media initiative and intention to oppose the recommendation, the matter should have been resolved at the committee but now the substantive debate will be held at the full council meeting. This puts excessive pressure on the full council, makes for long and miserable meetings, and renders the time spent in committees pointless.

Finally, the prime responsibility of the chairperson is to speak for, and represent, the decisions of their committee. Hence, once they had decided the issue, Nick was obliged to be the advocate for it and to defend it. That is why it is he who moves the motion at the full council "that the recommendations of the Services Committee be adopted". The fact that there was a majority at the committee and that the chair now must support the decision , assures that things run smoothly at the full council. It is also important in the officers knowing where they stand. Yo yo decision making costs us a great deal in officer time and morale.
r
28-Jun-2008

PS, Nick has a right of reply. He is not a bad chap.

puketiro wind farm proposal

It is very significant that the Guardians of Pauatahanui Inlet oppose the Puketiro Wind Farm Proposal. The Guardians are the intelligentsia of our City regarding environmental matters and their enduring commitment to the environment cannot be questioned. Their June 2008 annual report sets out the process of decision-making and the range of concerns.

With their opposition it is difficult to see the proposal making much headway.
r
June 22, 2008

support for nick (see item below)

A blog reader writes:

"Why did we have an Annual Plan to establish budgets? It certainly makes a mockery of the Annual Plan process.

I too have spent 30 years of my life working in often deprived environments and would like to see a more egalitarian society in NZ. This isn’t the way to do it.

Look at the way this type of support has backfired in Auckland with the Killer Bees. We just don’t seem to be learning. Bleeding hearts don’t make a difference.

Eradication of drugs, violence, sustainable employment etc etc will not be helped by 5 people cutting scrub at Ratepayer expense.

This is patronizing, feel-good luddite-ism at best. We have machines now in the 21st century to do this work. What sustainable skills will these people gain from an exercise like this? It equally suggests Porirua City Council is reverting to Jam Jar accounting practices which doesn’t fill me with confidence either.

Leave WINZ Officers to do their job and let the decent hard-working Council Officers get on with theirs."

CITY CENTRE REVITALISATION

As I said at the council table recently, we need action on the city centre, we do not need to heap more reports on those that we have. It is highly unlikely that the current owners, or any new investors, will invest in a major redevelopment. Yet we live on in an Alice-in-wonderland hope. Consider the extract below from an old report. It gives the completion dates for actions. We did not complete those actions. What make anyone think the Council is more competent now? Those who say we need to reduce expenditure should consider the things that cost us the big money.

Action
· Complete City Centre Review, by 30 September 2001, and implement it.

· Implement a City Centre Revitalisation plan to revitalise the city centre area under
the canopies, by 30 October 2001.

· Implement property, roading, landscaping, signage and other changes from the
City Centre Review, by 30 June 2003.

The completed 2001 review was undertaken by the people listed below. Evidently, we are not confident with what they said.

Alistair Aburn - Urban Perspectives Ltd
Resource Management Planner
Project Leader
Deyana Popova - Urban Perspectives Ltd
Urban Designer
Megan Wraight - Megan Wraight Landscape Architects
Landscape Architect
Graeme McIndoe - Graeme McIndoe Architect and Urban Designer
Architect and Urban Designer
Mark Georgeson - Traffic Design Group
Traffic Engineer
Frank Boffa - Boffa Miskell Limited
Landscape Architect
Dr John Bolland - Booz-Allen & Hamilton (New Zealand) Limited
Transportation Planning Specialist
Dr Philip McDermott - McDermott Fairgray Group
Strategic Planner
Robert Cameron - Wareham Cameron
Property Consultant
Different team members fulfilled different roles between Stages 1 and 2 of the
review.
John Bolland, Philip McDermott and Robert Cameron wrote Stage 1 “working
papers”. Megan Wraight and Mark Georgeson joined the core review team for Stage
2. The other members of the core review team (for both Stage 1 and Stage 2) were
Deyana Popova and Graeme McIndoe. Frank Boffa assisted with consultation during
Stage 1 and Stage 2 and acted as a peer reviewer for Stage 2. John Bolland also
acted as a peer reviewer for Stage 2,

Whist doing the same piece of research, I saw this:

"The Te Rauparaha Park proposals were a revelation. Kobus was clearly worried about the daunting visual impact of 14m high blank wall created by the S&EC to the west of the park. "

That prophetic comment was written by Jim Dearsley a few years ago.  The blank wall is now there and the main feature of "the brick" or the "cake tin" that is on our park.

According to what was said by officers at a recent council meeting, all our plans are in place but we are now consulting on them with selected groups or individuals prior to action. I have been trying to discover exactly what this means.
r
June 21, 2008

Smartlinx3

I was asked for a definitive statement on the investment of PCC in the private company Smartlinx3. Here it is as provided to the councillors by the ceo some years ago:

On 's formation in 2004 Porirua City Council invested $75,000. In May 2006, the Government launched it's Broadband Challenge Fund. This fund provided dollar for dollar matching funds for the roll out of open access broadband networks and presented a significant opportunity for the three cities. To seize this opportunity a further call was made on all shareholders, Porirua's contribution being $100,000. Porirua therefore has $175,000 invested in Smartlinx3. Smartlinx3 has advised they expect to be cashflow positive by the end of this year and no further call on shareholders is anticipated.

plimmerton & pukerua bay green action

Porirua Tree & Vegetation Policy
Plimmerton & Pukerua Bay Focus Group

Background
Porirua City Council is working to develop a Tree & Vegetation Policy to provide a consistent approach to management of trees and vegetation across council land in the City. Its scope will include all tree and vegetation management on council controlled land from street trees to public reserves, management of road reserves and clearance of services. The policy will set out how the City's green infrastructure of trees and vegetation will be managed and enhanced.

Tree and vegetation management is critical to the environment of Porirua City and will help ensure a City that is attractive and sustainable. The green infrastructure of trees and vegetation can provide major benefits in areas as diverse as stormwater management, amenity and biodiversity enhancement. However interference with services, views and sunlight can also create negative impacts. An effective and consistent approach to management is important to avoiding and resolving conflict between neighbours, residents and Council over vegetation issues.

The early development of this policy includes the following broad steps:
1. Focus groups to gain early community input. Separate focus groups will be held for different areas of interest.
2. Drafting of policy document
3. Review of an early discussion draft
4. Formal public notification and submissions on a draft policy document
5. Approval of final policy

Focus Group Meeting
We would like to invite you to a focus group meeting at:
The Supper Room
Plimmerton Hall (The Pavilion)
9 Sunset Road, Plimmerton
Thursday 26 June at 7pm.

This focus group will aim to provide particular input related to trees and vegetation in the Plimmerton & Pukerua Bay Communities. Other focus groups will seek input from different local communities.

Your input at this stage is important to help identify:
· The key issues for managing trees & vegetation in Porirua
· Existing community and other initiatives that need to be considered
· The opportunities for tree and vegetation management
· Ideas and solutions for management of trees and vegetation.

I hope you will be able to attend.

It would be appreciated if you could let me know if you will be attending, so I know approximate numbers.

Please contact me if you have any questions at this stage.

Many thanks for your input.

Regards

Peter Handford
PA Handford & Associates Ltd
Ph 04 904 0876
Email: peter.handford@pahandford.co.nz
Contracted to Porirua City Council

chairperson supports his committee - i joke

MEDIA STATEMENT ISSUED BY CR LEGGETT

Porirua City Council last night voted 8-5 to spend almost $100,000.00 of un-budgeted ratepayers' money on employing five gang members to clear scrub.

City Services Committee Chair Nick Leggett, refused to move the motion for the six month project when it came through to his committee and is outraged that councillors could be so un-disiplined.

"Frankly, we are spending $20,000.00 per worker on a project that was invented out of thin air to give these guys something to do. It might make the 'bleeding hearts' feel good but in terms of common sense or doing what's right for these guys, it's madness," he says.

The WINZ sponsored scheme focusses on Bothamley Park in Porirua East. No clearing had been planned in the area and council officers admitted that if they were to commence the work as a formal project, they would use machines.

"The council approved a 4.4% rate increase last night. I think ratepayers know we have better things to do than providing training for the long term unemployed that central government agencies should be prioviding.

This cost amounts to one third of one percent of our annual rates bill. Where is the benefit?" The council report states that there will be a $50,000.00 cash injection found from current budgets and a further $30-$50,000.00 staff time designing, implementing and monitoring the project.

"Porirua City Council is carrying over many important projects from last year because staff resources are stretched. Instead of letting our officers finish those we are loading them with difficult, pointless projects like this. Something's got to give."

The full council is required to confirm this decision at its meeting in early July.

Nick Leggett hopes enough councillors will see sense before then and that the Porirua community makes its voice heard on the issue.

ROBERT COMMENTS

There are several things wrong with the statement, some more serious than others. Let us see what the newspapers do with it.
r
20-Jun-2008

annual plan - costs you more

I could not help but smile when I read this:

"This year, we have set a budget that will require an average
rates increase on residential ratepayers of 4.4% which is lower than
the 5.1% prediction for the 2008/09 year in the LTCCP."

It is an extract from Jenny Brash's introduction to the annual budget. Our ratepayers are the hardest hit of all ratepayers in New Zealand. The target of 5.1% is an artificial figure that council invented. Go back a decade and the equivalent invented figure was 2.5% - each year for a decade. The is noting to celebrate in the 4.4% increase. Given that we are the highest rated people in New Zealand, the sum of money for a 1% increase in Porirua is greater than the sum of money for a 1% increase anywhere else in the country.

Jenny might celebrate the council's tax take, but you should note there has been absolutely minimal effort gone into the scrutiny of the budget, let alone deliberate effort to save money. Plans for a detailed look at everything were forgotten. We need leadership with a memory and adherence to intent.

We probably have the greatest inflation of staff numbers in the whole country this year if you count the part-time contract post ions (on a percentage basis).

monte ohia

It is with great sadness that I record the death of my friend Monte Ohia. We worked together on many projects in Maori education and I gained from him many insights. The work we did in Maori education is referred to in publications from time-to-time. One of the early publications was Te Reo O Te Taitokerau: He Tirohanga Na Nga Kaimahi. This is a very strange publication. Monte had strong views on how it should proceed and you see his influence at the start of the paper, and mine later. Within this single paper there is a working out of a project style that will be adequate for Maori within the context of the hegemonic public service. I quote from the leading text of the "guiding statement" that Dave Para wrote for Monte and I (some will recognise it):

Te Taitokerau - Te Hiku o te Ika nui a Maui

Ko to reo he mana - he wehi - he ihi - he wairua

whangaia a tatou tamariki mokopuna i te taonga tupuna nei

Kia tupu ake ratou i roto i te korowai o te reo a o tatou matua tupuna.

Ko te timatatanga of te kauri rangatira

Ko te kakano nohinohi.

I hope I can remember the many lessons Monte taught me along the way. We last spoke on the telephone just a few weeks ago. His death was most unexpected. Monte was all set to become a Member of Parliament for the Maori Party.

"For he was likely, had he been put on,
To have proved most royally." - William Shakespeare

r
June 13, 2008

where is smartlinks3 ????

ROBERT COMMENTS

I cannot find reference to Smartlinks3 in our new Annual Plan at all. Given that it is the only company in which we own shares on behalf of the ratepayers, I would have expected a bit of a nod in their direction.

I am reminded that over a long period of time I have been asking for financial information on our investment, and planning documents. I will ask again. In the meantime, below is the text of an earlier blog to remind people. I have as at 18 June 2008 asked again for the information on our company, including the last annual report. 

DOMPOST REPORT:

Publicity-shy Wellington telco FX Networks will spend tens of millions of dollars setting up an alternative fibre-optic backbone that will connect Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. Managing director Murray Jurgeleit says its cable will contain 30 pairs of fibre, each capable of carrying data at 320 gigabits per second, and will provide much-needed competition to Telecom and TelstraClear. "We can offer bulk data transport at a substantial discount to Telecom. Simply because of the prices being charged, there is a very profitable opportunity." Mr Jurgeleit headed up multinational Logical CSI in New Zealand till its Australasian business was bought by IBM for $100 million in 2004. He says the first part of the link, between Auckland and Wellington, should be ready during the second half of the year. It is understood much of the cable will make use of railway line ducting to avoid trenching costs. FX Networks is one of 10 firms that was selected by the State Services Commission to provide infrastructure and services for the Government Shared Network earlier this year. The Government hopes all core government departments will use the GSN to some degree by 2008. IBM was selected as the main preferred contractor. The GSN is due to be piloted by August. Roger de Salis, formerly at Cisco, is a director of the company.

ROBERT COMMENTS Porirua ratepayers invested $70,000 in Smartlinks3. What have we for our investment? Are they doing what was said? Instead, I see other companies moving in and being competitive in our area. I do not blame Smartlinks3. They were smart in the move to get our money. The Council voted to give it to them. Last time they came to Council with a report I put my hands in front of my mouth to remind myself not to say anything. It is us who made the silly decision. The railway's cable that runs next to the main trunk line is a major network vitually unused. It is for train management and major emergencies. We could access it thought the blue painted building in Tawa, if my memory serves me correctly. Now it looks as if someone is going to capitalise on the opporutunity, and we will have to buy service form them - and pay for it!
r
Tuesday, April 4, 2006

light work

the power of prayer - silt

See the item earlier in the blog regarding the actual practice of silt control. The picture here shows one of several offending sites that could be listed. The action taken for silt control is to pray, as per the item below.
r
04-Jun-2008

parliament watch - well done anne tolley

On Thursday there was an opportunity to compare a senior government minister with the Shadow Minister of Education, Anne Tolley. Incredible as it may seem, she had the best of the exchange. Trevor Mallard lost.

How did this come about? It came about because Tolley had facts, including statistics, about schools, teachers, budgets, and the curriculum. She delivered these in a convincing, even-handed way.

Mallard did the usual thing. He commented in general terms about how Ms Tolley apparently has not been in schools recently. He listed the advances of recent times in broad sweeping terms. It was unconvincing. You only have to read the newspapers to know of the stressful situations in schools and the shortage of resources. Things are not going well. Mallard did not answer Tolley's statistics on leaving qualifications, possibly because he could not. Then Mallard turned to attack John Key. The standard operating procedure. But as a subsequent Green Party speaker observed, both National and Labour seem to only have one speech. It is more true of Labour than it is of National as Tolley's speech showed. Assessment of Tolley (who seems to have benefited from her long experience in local government):

And now Minister Mallard:

The one mistake Tolley made was that she left the House before Mallard had completed his speech in reply. Mallard, the experienced campaigner, managed to refer to this in his speech. It is very much against the Standing Orders to refer to the absence of a Member, and we heard the Acting Speaker correct the Minister. She was not outraged about it - she should have said more. But Mallard knows how to get away with it, and he scored a good point against Tolley.

If the National Party do not allow themselves to engage with Labour's strategy, Labour will be left stranded in the mud. All National has to do is make moderate, factual, thoughtful speeches. They must ignore the Government and not be seduced by their own voices. Chris Auchinvole has yet to discover this. He was totally unable to land one credible punch. His whole delivery (including the quote from Churchill) was all about his acting and himself. Even when he spoke about rail it was himself and his wife that featured, his substantial points were trite. He wasted the precious speaking time available to his Party and assisted the government. But, he obviously enjoyed himself. He ended with a foolish quote. Might I suggest a quotation for him to consider: As the great Prime Minister Whitlam often said: "less art and more matter".
r
29-May-2008

colonial knob name change

Hello Robert,

I am currently doing a Vic university assignment on Local Govt. Hence my procrastination and thought I’d flick you a quick email to get some discussion going in the community on my desire to see the name of our most prominent hill changed from Colonial Knob to what I understand is its Maori name of Rangituhi (painted sky). I brought this up at the opening of the track last year with none other than Litea Ahoy and Phil Goff (minister of corrections- there for the day since prisoners built the new track). It seemed so incongruous with a Ngati Toa elder speaking in Maori but breaking into English to say Colonial knob! Both Litea and Phil seemed quite supportive of the idea, with Phil giving advice on the precedents of moving to a combined name then eventually everyone just using the Maori name.

I am not sure of the Ngati Toa or other local Iwi’s attitude to such a move. I would have thought they would be supportive but I note there was no support for my letter in the Kapi Mana earlier this year from anyone but yourself. This doesn’t mean that there is no support (one Ngati Toa friend gave very positive feedback) but I don’t have easy access to local Maori elders to check it out.

Is this something that you via Council could do?

I am involved with the recently revived Ranui Heights Residents Association and could get feedback from our area. Colonial Knob/Rangituhi is a huge part of our outlook and effectively my families Maunga. It’s a fantastic walk with the best views in Wellington (on a good day) and my 5 year old has made it to the top twice already.

I don’t know the history of the name but neither Colonial or Knob are appropriate nowadays. The beautiful sunsets we get from Ranui heights over the hill make the Maori name (painted sky) very appropriate. I want my children to be proud of their mihi.

Regards

Richard Witheford-Smith

Eco-Kiwi Community Networker

Porirua

ROBERT COMMENTS

I support an investigation of this. I do not know much about the Maori name or the colonial name. Both are probably significant historically. Perhaps we need to have both. Comments from others on this are most welcome.
r
June 1, 2008

greater wellington on the economic aspects of the puketiro wind farm

ROBERT COMMENTS

I have often spoken about the need for full information regarding the wind farm proposal at Battle Hill and Puketiro. The last time I spoke about this at the Council table the mayor indicated that she supported the provision of full information in accordance with my request, and I said I was well satisfied with the statements PCC formally made to GW about wind farms.

Specifically, the PCC position is that no decisions should be made about applications until there is a geographical framework established that indicates where such things are allowed. Consequently, the PCC intends to have two specific parts of its District Plan refer to wind farms. First, there is chapter 1 which is the output from the Development Framework work that has been the subject of consolation and is well advanced. It is this that indicates the minimum sizes for blocks may be altered in Pauatahanui, the places (for example north of Plimmerton) that will available for development into suburbs. Here there needs to be the determination by PCC of where wind turbines are acceptable. Applications for precluded sites would simply never be processed.

Second, there are the rules to be incorporated into the District Plan which relate to how wind farm applications will be processed and the criteria to be used to judge the structures both individually and collectively. One contested matter in this is the distance that a turbine must be away from a neighbour's property. Height restrictions, access requirements, and development levies can all be incorporated here.

Both these actions are the responsibility of Cr Murrell as chairperson of the appropriate committee, and there is a dedicated but small team of officers working on them.

What PCC is asking of GW is that they set out for the region their geographic framework for windfarms. Presumably, they do not intend to allow windfarms where ever the wind blows sufficiently. So lets have some forward planning and the formal incorporation of this into planning documents.

It was in relation to my thinking about development levies to be imposed by PCC at the time wind farm resource consent decision-making, that I realised that I did not know much about the financial aspects of the current work by Greater Wellington. Accordingly, I asked the PCC chief executive to obtain from GW something that indicated the financial situation as they saw it. GW wears three hats in the wind farm business. First, as a land owner, second as the designated controlling authority for the regional parks, and third as a consenting authority under the RMA. We must also be mindful that GW is a representative organisation - our ratepayers are there ratepayers. They are acting in the best interests of the regional community as they see it, even when there view is not that of the PCC.

Consequently, I provide the statement from the ceo of GW as a contribution to the debate about the financial aspects of the wind farm business. You will be able to see that he advances a reasoned account of the benefits to Porirua City residents and indicates why GW is working to establish wind farms. He also responds to some specific matters I raised. This is published with the support of GW as a positive contribution to an important discussion.

STATEMENT FROM GW CEO ON WINDFARMS

Roger

Sorry for the delay in responding to Councillor Robert Shaw's comments regarding the Puketiro wind farm. I would comment as follows.

There will be considerable benefits to Porirua city from the wind farm development, particularly during the construction phase. Based on other wind farm developments, between 25-30% of the development cost will be spent in New Zealand which would amount to $70-90M. Some of this money will no doubt be spent within Porirua city. Also a small number of staff will be engaged in the future maintenance of the turbines. Furthermore, if the example of the wind turbine at Brooklyn is repeated, an increase in visitors to the Battle Hill Farm Forest Park is to be expected, though at this point, the public will only have walking access to the turbines, not vehicle access. It is acknowledged though that Councillor Shaw is correct in that there will be some disbenefits to Porirua city and I expect RES NZ Ltd to indicate the relevant effects in their resource consent application and indicate what means may be available (if any) to mitigate them.

I do not agree that there will be radical alteration to the use of the Battle Hill Farm Forest Park. At best, there may be 3-5 turbines positioned within about 50 metres from the eastern edge of the park. It is also possible a road may be constructed through the park to get to the site though there is already provision for a forestry road in the current Park Plan. RES is yet to advise whether they will connect the wind farm to one of the transmission lines in the Puketiro forest area to the west of the park, or run a new transmission line down the hill to near the proposed Transmission Gully motorway. The Council expects further details about access to the site and the transmission connection within a few months.

RES NZ Ltd was chosen as the potential developer as a result of a tender process, one of the factors considered was the amount they would pay the Council over the life of the wind farm. These details have not been made public. The Council is currently concluding another wind farm agreement for Stoney Creek in the Wairarapa and it is possible other sites may be considered in due course. The Council does not believe it is prudent to release the financial details.

As noted above, there will be both benefits and some disbenefits to Porirua city if the development proceeds. Greater Wellington is of the view that the financial benefits from the development should be used for the benefit of the region rather than partly allocated to Porirua City Council. Porirua City Council though has the opportunity, if it believes particular issues should be addressed, to do so through the resource consent conditions that are imposed if the development is approved.

There are several issues that Porirua City Council and Greater Wellington can work together on this wind farm project and I am sure we will continue to do so.

Cheers

Dave

parliament watch - maurice williamson

What a disaster Mr Williamson was on Thursday 29 May, 2008. He shouts and bobs, speaks too quickly, and confuses words. He called the Minster by his first name; expect the Hansard editors to fix that kind of mistake. He quoted well known right wing city councillor as if no one was to know this man's longstanding bias. Then he trotted out dated arguments about Telecom.

Michael Cullen replied. His voice is better modulated and although he spoke quickly but managed to be entertaining. Cullen continued the Labour strategy of attacking National, and he used the events of the week as his spring board. It created excitement in the House. Of course the strategy is to deflect serious debate away from themselves and it often wins on the day. However, nothing can save Labour and rightly so. Cullen spoke last in the debate, and hence he did not have to consider rebuttal. Overall, he did not convince anyone of anything.

I can see that there needs to be more thought given to the criteria, and I appreciate the emails from those who have been making criticism and suggestions alike.
r
29-May-2008

council meeting

Most councillors did not speak. Speakers were Ah Hoy, Shaw, Kelly, Leggett. I raised issues about the wind farm business and in particular the involvement of Greater Wellington. The mayor says we will follow up on the financial aspects of the wind farm business. That is a promise I note.

I also spoke against Local Government New Zealand. The officers will find out how much we send them in annual fees. Evidently, it is a number they do not hold in their heads. The mayor greatly supports Local Government New Zealand. I hear she told other councillors that next time round she intends to stand for Greater Wellington the Regional Council. It may be true.
r
May 21, 2008

parliament watch: ron mark

Assessment of Ron Mark's speech on the second reading of the the Young Offenders (Serious Crime) Bill, May 21, 2008.

Good points were made with an excellent focus on substance and not political gain. Simon Power and David Benson-Pope (used very extensive notes obviously provided by the public service) responded reasonably well, and acknowledged Mr Mark's sincerity. However, whilst they said the Bill was not the way to go, there were not many other ideas about how to address the issues. It is the case that "get tough" will not work. It was unfortunate for Mr Mark that a senior judge spoke out against the Bill. Judy Turner (United Future) spoke in support of Mr Mark and stressed that he had not had a fair hearing. Kate Wilkinson speaking for National was rather average with her head down and reading. If National were really committed to their Youth Plan, they would have sought to have aspects of it implemented through the current Bill.

All marks are out of 10 for Mr Mark on the basis of one performance.

For comparison, Kate Wilkinson who read all her speech with her head down. Apparently, she did not write the speech. If I remember rightly Members are not allowed to read their speeches:

senior net in porirua city

I am asked for the contact for Senior Net in Porirua City. They have a great service and are a part of the national network of Senior Net.

http://www.seniornet-porirua.org.nz/index.htm

The committee includes some regular contributors to this blog.
r
May 18, 2008

local government new zealand

Both Wanganui and the Far North District Council have left Local Government New Zealand. LGNZ is the council's union. It has been a dead loss for years.

I do not know what we pay to LGNZ, probably about $100,000 a year. We need to hold a debate about our ceasing to be a member.

When I was a younger councillor, I thought LGNZ could save us all. I wanted to attend their conferences. Year after year I tried to gain support for this from John Burke to no avail. Then I actually had a paper I had written accepted for presentation there - still the Porirua Council was not prepared to send me to the conference.

At another function I met Basil Morrison shortly after he became president. Oh dear. Later, when on the regional council, I became involved in moves to reform LGNZ led by some very senior and insightful people. There was a major employment problem with the ceo of LGNZ but we went beyond that in a mature way.

What are my substantive concerns? One is that they do not bring out the statistics we need to know the position of ratepayers in the country. Their statistics are as you would expect from a union, they are about self justification.

Also, they are too much of a talk shop. They are focused on their own selves. Witness the recent debate about having a Maori unit within the organisation. It is a good training ground for our young councillors so I support the debate and advance, but let us not pretend that it does anything for local government.

Also, watch as people manoeuvre towards the gaining of key positions in the organisation and the structuring of the organisation. Have you heard of the "metro group"? for example. It is all "support me, support me" stuff. Nothing about real vision or advance. Our Jenny loves it all.
r
May 18, 2008

public administration

As one interested in public administration, I am appalled that a senior official can tell a significant lie, be found out, and be allowed to stay in the employment of the public sector. That is contrary to the code of conduct the State Services Commission promulgates, and it is unfair on all the honest people who might have applied for her position.
r
May 17, 2008

i am asked about the cost of trains

My comment on the increased cost of rail transport for Porirua City people is based upon the $210 million spent by GW's company to purchase new trains. The purchase of the new trains is good, but someone still has to pay That someone will be ratepayers and train travelers. There is no one else. There is other money also available from central government subsidies and you can be sure GW will do a good job accessing these. I have not looked up the details in GW's AP but they may not be there because the business is managed within their company.
r

plimmerton residents' association inc submission

Please note that Robert's comments are inserted after some items. Marked in yellow.
r
May 17, 2008

  SUBMISSION  -  DRAFT  ANNUAL  PLAN  -  2008 – 2009

Contact:  Pip Piper -  tel:  233-8591   or  email:   pippiper@paradise.net.nz
We wish to be heard   on   Friday – 23 May  - anytime.

1)   We note that the DAP increases average rates by 4.5% which is higher than the increase for pensions and most wages.  Why is this proposal above inflation?

The level of rates is no longer an issue in Porirua City. The balance of opinion around the Council now is very much on the side of a high rates City. We are probably the highest rated ratepayers in New Zealand. No one can say this is true or false because the right data is never collected by local government people. Consumer Magazine has in the past done the correct kind of investigation.

Council had at a retreat agreed to a new form of budgeting that was designed to bring the rates down over time. With the advent of new chairperson's and Jenny obtaining a majority of votes at the table (coalition of the Labour Party and the real estate agents), the challenge of the budget was abandoned and we reverted to our old ways.

Personally, I think the Council spends too much money and there is something that can be done about it. However, I have been saying that for years and it is rather obvious that nothing is going to happen.

2)   DAP p. 8 + 25 – Litter Enforcement Officer – ($60,000) – How does this proposed person actually enforce and prevent people dumping rubbish and litter ? $60K for “management support” – does it mean support from managers i.e. extra staff?

Council seems to have given up the litter control officer scheme whereby councillors and appropriate people in the city can hold warrants in the area of litter control. This was a scheme that worked well in the past (I was one of those with a warrant). The level of paid staff and contractors is a real concern for us.

Another aspect to the litter question is the establishment of security cameras. The commercial sector has been asking for this for years and somehow it seems to be beyond the Council's ability.

3)  DAP p.9 + 28 -  Te Hiko/Wineera intersection – ($700,000) – How much of this is for overheads and administration? This is much more than a “minor” variation to the LTCCP.  It does not set a very good precedent for other city intersections that need improvement.

All overhead and administration costs are now to be set into the overall project budgets. Thus the "true" cost will appear in the AP. This is a part of the move to increase dramatically the number of contract staff and to complete more of the asset management projects. I am sure officers will be able to provide the breakdown of costs for this project.

4)   DAP p.9 – Toby replacement programme – ($50,000) – this partial deferment of  $114,000 for pipe-line renewals is reasonable.  However, this programme needs a firm check on the contractor – many toby replacements have sunk below footpath levels !

It is interesting to consider our investment of the ratepayers' money in this area given the likely middle term restructuring of the Wellington water business.

5)   DAP p.18 + 20 – Economic Development Strategy ($127,000) – we note the “advancement of a Citywide and Broadband communications and Digital Strategy” – but where are the details for ordinary ratepayers needing ‘broadband’?  Does the excessive contribution that Council has made to “Smartlinkz3” not help ratepayers?

Yes this is a good question. I have been asking it for years. I occasionally obtain a quote from Smartlinkz3 for the provision of wireless to my house. It was last time at three times the cost of Telecom for the same level of service.

The Smartlinkz3 business of the Council is set up wrongly. The company managing director (ceo) is our representative on the board. It is no wonder we never become a priority. He is much more pressured by the Hutt Valley. All that saved Smartlikz3, in my humble opinion, was the advent of central government money for broadband. They have been given a grant and now we wait to see the results. Do not expect much. As for a return on the investment of ratepayers' money - forget it.

Recently Samtlinkz3 insiders indicated they were about to make a dramatic announcement. I have yet to see it. Presumably they have let the fibre optic cable contracts for Porirua City. We shall see.

6)  DAP p.21 + 24 – City Centre Skate Park  we believe that the $200k odd “saved” from the relocation decision could easily have been transferred to the Renewals of Public Toilets project, which is a much needed and worthy project.  Some public toilets are a disgrace to the City !.

The two issues are separate. Budgets are not to be done this way. I am just pleased we are not digging up the skate park. Putting things down and digging them up is not something that appeals to my Scots ancestry. There is a budget for the toilet business and the best should be made of it. It is a management matter and council management would do well to listen to, and involve, the community.

7)   DAP p.21 + 24  – Youth Development Activities – ($110,000) – this is good example of  central government attempting to remove support from its youth development programme. This new project should not be undertaken and a protest delivered to our Porirua MP.

There was much fuss made by some councillors about the terrible central government agency that provided the first contract. Officers loved it. However, the fact is there was a contract we entered into and it had an end date. There will probably be another contract, but we will have to wait and see. In the meantime we have to maintain the item in the budget to keep the new staff in place and the forward momentum.

8)   DAP p.21 + 24 -  Contribution to Upgrade (Porirua) Railway Station ($100,000) -  For this new project we need more than “co-ordinate inputs from the organisations involved”.  We need to see definite agreement from the other four organisations.  PCC ratepayers already pay a very large proportion of their  GWRC rates under the heading of  “Regional Transport”.

Yes, and what is more our contribution is likely to increase now the government has become involved in the running of the rail business again. The annual co-operation agreement we have with GW is not worth the paper it is written on. Platitudes abound, but ask them for details of their income stream from the wind farms in our City and you get zip. Nor was the City Council properly involved in the alterations to the regional park management plans. These alterations radically changed the purpose of the regional parks, and to our determent and financial cost.

9)  DAP p.21 + 24 -  Speed Limit Review of Whitford Brown etc – ($90,000) – this new project has arisen from a very untimely death.  It basically raises the question of why the southern entrance to the Aotea Block has not been completed as promised. Whitford Brown Ave was designed to cope only with traffic from Ascot Park and beyond. Further, surely the speed limit review can be organised much quicker than proposed.  TransitNZ has temporary speed limits organised overnight!

There are several points here. 1. Projects regarding Whitford Brown traffic have been proposed in many draft AP exercises and always lost out. It takes a death (and some popularist campaigning) for priority to be given. 2. The Aotea Block traffic situation is a disaster. The second entrance to the Aotea Block is no longer available to us under the original arrangement. The original arrangement was a shared cost venture with the developer and the Council. Notice how the developer has his profits and we have the headache. All this goes back to the strategic development plan which I spoke against for virtually a year - fine words, abstract nouns (as I called them repeatedly at the time) would never a contract make. Porirua ratepayers are going to have to pay millions for this error. 3. The statute makes it a bit awkward for councils to alter speed limits. However, the best approach in my opinion is for the councllor's to vote the speed limit they want and to set the officers the task of putting it in place. We did this on another road and it worked fine. Officers prefer that we trot along according to the logic of the law - but that means nothing much will happen practically for about two years. The chairperson of the City Services Committee needs to work on this.

10)  DAP  p.21 + 24  - Norrie Street Promenade – ($161,000) -  this new project appears to be one that comes under the orbit of the Sports and Events Centre.  Is this a way of keeping under the cost of $17.5 million ?  What is precisely wrong with the present footpath?

The Arena is an incredibly ugly thing that looks like a biscuit tin. There are desperate moves being made to find ways to make it look better. Thinking about its appearance in the first place would have been a good idea. It will be disguised by plantings and other things. It will be used as the wall for an outdoor picture theatre and stage. All of which will help to disguise the biscuit tin. There will be a series of projects over the $17.5 million. I think it is the chair of the strategy committee who is responsible.

11)  DAP p.28 + 29 – District Plan Rolling Review – (was $27,000 but now absorbed in to the general operational budget).  This Review was approved in 2004 and consists of reviewing the rural, suburban and heritage sections of the Plan. This has been of great concern to Northern Ward residents for the past two years. Council has requested -“officers provide a list that shows the target dates on which specific alterations to the District Plan will be publicly notified”.  This has not been done with any reference to the Suburban District Plan.

This is indeed a worry. Ask Euon to explain it, he is responsible. The original design of the rolling reviews has been in part lost because the review date in the statute is upon us. Now we are having rolling reviews AND a major statutory review. That is the best I can figure out on the basis of what has been provided.

12)  DAP p.28 + 30 -  Information Management ($65,000)  - another new project. Where are the details of allocation to justify another staff member?

What is even more of a challenge is counting the staff members. We must now include the contractors.

13)  DAP p.28 + 30 -  Preparation of 2009-2019  LTCCP – ($152,000) -  these LTCCP’s are needed to be prepared every three years and we assume  should be done as part of normal tasks by the staff.  Where are the details for staffing and the necessity for this amount? This should not be a “new” project.

Well spotted. I did not notice this. More contractors. We have totally lost the focus of the committees. The committee meetings do nothing much and then there are extra meetings added to do things like the Annual Plan. The main task of the strategy committee is to do the planning - and that within the framework of the normal meetings. More and more meetings are being called and the agendas are once again expanding.

14)  DAP p.28 + 31 - Business Development Resource – (expected credit of $380,000)
Part of our residential rating goes into supporting Business Porirua and the Regional Strategy which should be participating in a function of this kind.  It is difficult to figure out the expectation of “self-funding” and where the money comes from.  Of all the new projects, this one is of great concern , as more than $100,000 could be spent by ratepayers during the first year of operation.  Overall it is a“pie-in-the -sky” proposal.

Your increased regional rates are your compensation for this move. The cut that Porirua City obtains from the regional strategy remains to be seen. I thought the arguments put forward, by Ken Douglas and others were quite powerful. Personally, I am a skeptic from way back, but they may be right. All boats might rise together they say, but I always find my boat has a hole in it as the tide comes in.

There is a great deal of work to be done regarding business development strategy IN PORIRUA. We are drifting along with no focus or coordination. Business Porirua is weak and made weaker by the regional initiatives. I remember in the mayoral campaign meeting they organised there were only three people who attended from their membership.

The council needs to show inspired leadership in this area. I have been thinking about several possibilities, but only Jenny and the real estate agents could implement anything and hence it is unlikely anything is going to happen.

15)  DAP p.28 + 31 – Software Application and Support –($382,000) – this could mean more staffing – more rates.  Software applications seem to be never ending if previous DAP’s are anything to go by.  If the costs are allocated “cross-corporately” again it should be explained how and where this is done.

Unfortunately, computing costs big bucks and we have to pay. How we know we are getting value for money is another question. I would have liked to see an audit in this area, but the officers seem to have given up consulting the councillors on the programme of specific audits.

16)   INCREASE  IN  PCC  STAFF  -  It seems clear in analysing the projects listed above that a large increase in staffing is in the offing – probably in the vicinity of eight new staff members. This is a major link in increasing rates for the future and not justified in any way.

This is the first time in over 15 years that I have not been able to tell people how many staff are employed by PCC. Once I conduced by fax a survey of all the councils in NZ and brought out comparisons on staff numbers, using various denominators including council income, population, etc.

17)  GENERAL  STAFFING  - Porirua residents should be informed about the utilisation of staffing considering that we are the main payers.  We are entitled to know about the number of staff employed by the Council which is probably well above 300.  We know little about the number of consultants that are being used, and what proportion they are in the overall picture. It is apparent that a number of very capable ex-staff working for other organisations are being used by Council.

In one way the number of staff employed should not worry us. We vote sums of money and it is the task of the chief executive to get the job done. However, people feel that rates are exorbitant and that there are many people doing jobs that do not seem to be vital. They also feel an uneasy ness about council, they say they are not to be trusted, and so on. The answer really is for the council leadership to ensure that we are getting value for money and to convince the public of this. Jenny and the real estate agents were sent on a media relations course and so perhaps we are to see an advance in credibility.

18)  “NEW  PROJECTS”  -  A number of the new projects noted and listed above from  (2) to (15) should be removed from the 2008/09 DAP, which would mean a significant reduction in Council spending.  If we take $380,000 as an equivalent to 1% of rates input then a significant project reduction of DAP suggestions could easily reduce the rates take from 4.5 % to 3% or less.  This could be reasonable acceptable to ratepayers.

Always a discussion of percentages tells but a part of the story. In our city what counts as one percent is a far greater sum of money than in other cities. We need to alter our approach to budgeting so that we bring rates down and get better value for money.

19)  THE  DAP  BOOKLET  ITSELF  -  This needs some comment.  The present issue contains 146 pages, the number of which is enough to put most readers off for a start. There is much general data about performance measures – pretty boring stuff.  Why do we need – what Council wants to achieve? – is the Council reaching its goals? – activity summaries – on-going services – etc etc.   These topics are not the place in a DAP.  They could well be posted from time to time in notices sent out with rate demands during the year with requests for feedback and comment.

It is ironic that the plan to simplify and compact the booklets was associated with a new approach to budgeting which included better communications. We have the reduction within the books but not the additional new communications techniques. Council leadership needs to address this.

20)  ADMINISTRATION COSTS -  Throughout the DAP document little is said about running costs  (i.e.personel costs, direct expenses etc.) except in a general way. These administration costs should be allocated within each DAP proposal and other basic projects. As an example we have concern about the rising rate of council staffing and consulting fees.
As a percentage of “Direct Expenses” over  “Total Operating Revenue”
The figure for 2005/2006 was 55%   -   (PCC Annual Report 2006/07)
                 for 2006/2007  was 61%   -       “          “          “            “
                 for 2007/2008  was  69%  -   (PCC Draft DAP  2008/09  -  p.117)
          and for  2008/2009  is    74%           “          “      “            “              “
This steady rise is alarming for the future. Council should consider the magnitude of these increasing  costs and  control them as a way of limiting rates increases.

21)  SUMMARY  -  This DAP for 2008/09 is an ill-formed document that does not give a clear indication to Porirua ratepayers of exactly where and how the money is spent.
Staffing and consultants fees are increasing year by year and little concern is taken about keeping rates rises under a inflation-based level.  There is greater need to explain to the general public in clear and simple terms the Draft Annual Plan accounts. 
 eg;  for Cultural Services – Arts & Heritage, Library Services, and Cemetery & Crematorium only gives the total expenses and revenue for the 3 items.
And under Leisure Services  - Financial Summary – is it possible to ascertain how the swimming pools are doing financially?

I will comment on the after shot, even if it is meant to be sardonic: I also have become concerned that we have all lost touch with the cost of the capital and operational budgets for the large items. It is all very well to have the information for "culturally appropriate aquatic recreational facilities" but a swimming pool is still a swimming pool and it is a sensible question to ask how much it costs.

MANA SERVICE LANE - PRA report

The contractors have finished and the one way lane behind the Post Office building has now been reversed to go north. However, none of the other measures discussed in a meeting with PCC’s Geoff Marshall seem to have been implemented i.e. painted footpath along side of Sandbar and in front of townhouses, connected to walkway behind PO etc. No news about discussions with ON Track re widening lane and entry to station for pedestrians from footpath along Harcourts. It was suggested that questions about these matters should be included in a submission on the Draft Annual Plan.

ROBERT COMMENTS

The key to this is the opportunity to winden the road. This was a realistic propositon according to council officers who were in discussions with the appropriate authorites. I am sure this project will be pushed along by those who live there and have a stong interest it the outcome, so I will leave them to it and wish them well.
r

PLIMMERTON SUBWAY OPENING

The official opening of the new $300,000 subway at Plimmerton Railway Station will take place at 11am on Saturday 24 May. Porirua City Mayor Jenny Brash will be joined by local residents, councillors from PCC and Greater Wellington Regional Council and representatives from Ngati Toa iwi, On Track and Toll NZ.

WESTERN CORRIDOR/TG - pra report

The Land Transport Committee is meeting on 9 April. According to Graham Taylor work on the TG project is tracking to programme. Work on estimates and other preliminaries will however not be finalised until July 2008.

mana esplanade and related - pra report

The PRA, Russell and Judi, had an informal meeting with Rod James from Hyde Consulting. He stated that PCC had suggested he draw up an ‘issues paper’ to allow further consultation. However he had advised against this. He mentioned his recommendations would suggest: amongst other things:-

 To have normal ‘clearways’ instead of T2 lanes as the latter only added to the confusion and the lane monitors created unnecessary expense.

 To have electronic ‘red light’ monitors on the traffic lights which apart from identifying red light runners would allow data to be gathered re traffic patterns

 Traffic lights and a pedestrian crossing at Marina View. (Transit still not keen on that.)

 Change the wording on the relevant VMS signs to state – “Left hand lane parking and cycling (only)” to get traffic used to stay in the right hand lane. He intended to meet with Marina View residents and businesses after the Review had come out.

ROBERT COMMENTS

Nick will be chairing a meeting to resolve the issues about Mana Esplanade once those involved have availed themselves of an opportunty to become familiar with the report commissioned by Transit and the PCC.
r

youth advisory group - the look good, but will they do anything?

power of prayer

You may have noticed the new regulations for silt control. Nothing effective there. [We know how to establish effective silt control but do not have the courage needed.]

The main method of silt control in Porirua City is prayer.

First, the developer prays that it does not rain.

Then the developer prays that the mud running down the hill is not noticed.

Then the developer prays that any complainant is dismissed as a nutter by the Council.

Then the developer prays that the inspector is helpful (the developer will use the word "reasonable").

Then the developer prays that his inaction does not precipitate legal action.

Finally, the developer prays that he finishes the job and defuses the issue before any legal action comes to fruition.

So far as I know, having been 15 years on the Council, prayer always works.

r

april fools

Incredible the letters to the editor about the April Fools Day joke. The whole thing was about but one thing: Nick was raising his profile. Deliberately and cleverly. Notice how he also promoted his friends. He used the same technique used by his colleague Chris Gollins some years ago. The joke had nothing to do with humour. Nor did it have anything to do with Whitby. It was a very well executed move: in real estate and as a councllor you need to promote yourself. Nick is very skilled. Credit where credit is due. Part of his skill is that he gets everyone writing about him and his joke, and that is exactly what they did. He made them all work for him.

Incidentally, it is not actually in the Council's power to change names, there is a thing called the Geographic Board (established by Act of Parliament in 1946 if I remember rightly).
r
May 7, 2008

conflicts of interest

I am aware that there is considerable discussion in the community about conflicts of interest at Council.
r
May 6, 2008

wra focus - legal case

Dear Mayor Jenny Brash,

Duck Creek Esplanade Reserves

On Friday last, representing WRA as an interested party, I attended the Environment Court hearing of the WCE v PCC case seeking clarification of the method of measurement of rivers in relation to Duck Creek and determining the banks for esplanade reserves.

As you know Robin Gunston has taken over as WRA Chairperson but committee members are heading up certain specific issues. I am responsible for coordinating on Duck Creek, amongst other matters. It is in that capacity I write to you.

I believe the PCC case put by Peter Winchester and the council’s experts was compelling, although it was difficult to be sure of the position that the Judge and two commissioners may take.

My reason for writing is really related to some statements made by Peter Winchester and others during the hearing suggesting limiting the amount of reserve and I seek your assurance that, while they may represent initial opinions of some officers, they do not represent Council’s policy. Those statements had no bearing on the actual determination being sort from the Court and I made no comment at the time but I was inwardly concerned.

Mr Todd, representing WCE, stated that Council intended taking 5m and 15m esplanade reserve from the banks as a “land grab”. I hope no such intent to limit esplanade reserve to those amounts has been conveyed to WCE and I wish to confirm that this council policy represent the minimum amounts required for the management of Duck Creek. It presumably has no bearing on the amount taken, as of public legal right, to fulfil the other stated reasons in the RMA for esplanade reserves. The Act actually states it shall be 20m unless there are reasons for taking less. It is assumed those reasons must be good and in the interests of the community and the environment. Giving up such a public right to maximise the profit for the developer would not presumably be a valid reason.

A comment made by Peter Winchester and later by Stuart Kinnear was that Council was not intending to seek the full esplanade reserve because of the cost involved (or words similar). I must ask if this is Council’s policy or is an emerging position. If it is, then we wish to discuss matter with you. It is not appropriate that the public’s legal right to reserves should be given away without consultation.

We have always taken the position that we would be flexible about reserve areas providing WCE is prepared to negotiate in good faith. On that basis WCE and PCC might agree to a lesser width of reserve in one area if a greater width was provided elsewhere so that the total reserve area remained unchanged. On that basis we might establish that 20m from each bank equates to 4ha per kilometre of river. Over the 3km length of Duck Creek this is about 12ha. This is esplanade reserve taken for the purposes stated within the Act and does not include road reserve or drainage control ponds or facilities. Neither would it include the river itself as defined by the banks at MAF levels that would also become publicly (council) owned. It could reasonably include land required to provide east/west pedestrian linkages. None of the above would absolve WCE from paying reserve contributions.

Officers are about to start discussion and negotiations with WCE. I assume they have no authority at this stage to negotiate away rights to reserve land but rather to discuss how that reserve land might be distributed to the advantage of both sides.

This should be made clear to WCE. If they are not prepared to negotiate on that basis, the council should merely follow the RMA provisions and take the 20m from each bank as specified. That is not a tenable position for WCE as it would make sensible development of the remaining area difficult and expensive. It is there