Mike Lee – Waitemata and Gulf Ward Councillor

Rakitu Island from Awana, Great Barrier

The following letter was sent to the Barrier Bulletin the local newspaper on Great Barrier Island and was published in April. I wrote it because a sort of moral panic, in part drummed-up by the newspaper, was building among the community against the proposed Department of Conservation project to eradicate rats from the island of Rakitu (328 ha) – and use of rodenticides in general. And as a result of this members of the Great Barrier Local Board were coming under intense pressure from local activists. Here is my letter:

“Dear Editor,

I have been following the present controversy about eradicating rats from Rakitu with some concern.   While I respect the feelings of those in the community who appear to be have genuine trepidation about the use of rat poison, I must respectfully disagree with them.   Just to make it clear to the community, I have long been an advocate for removing rats from Rakitu and indeed all our offshore islands, including Great Barrier.  Most of the neighbouring islands, Cuvier, Mokohinau, Hauturu are now free of rats thanks to the one-off use of the same rat poison which is routinely used on this island and has been long available from any general or hardware store.   In 2011, I reminded DOC of the commitment it had made back in 1993 to remove rats from Rakitu when it was seeking funding to buy the island.  In June 2013 I successful secured for funding for this operation as a member of the government Nature Heritage Fund which had helped purchase the island twenty years previously.  In September 2013, five years ago, I travelled to Rakitu with then Conservation Minister Nick Smith and local MP Nikki Kaye to publicly announce plans to remove rats from the island in 2015.

Had DOC managers upheld that plan and got the job done in 2015, I daresay the leading stories in Barrier Bulletin would now probably be about how well the little spotted kiwi were doing on Rakitu and how native bird species long lost from Rakitu were being released with enthusiastic community participation.   That indeed Rakitu had become a popular venue for Barrier islanders of every age including school kids who were actively involved in restoring the island, planting flax and pohutukawa etc.  But the reality instead is that last week the pupils of Okiwi and Mairehau schools went on a two-day hike up to Mt Heale and saw and heard NO birds – not a single bird!  A chilling reminder that the ‘rat-induced environmental catastrophe’ that drove numerous native bird species, bellbirds, saddlebacks, stitchbirds, parakeets, whiteheads, kokako (in our lifetime) and Lord knows what else, into extinction on the island in the 19th and 20th centuries, has never really ended.  The process of extinction is ongoing.  I would remind readers of a race of Bellbirds notable for their distinctive melodic song, which were recorded on Rakitu right up until the 1980s but were gone for ever by the end of the century –  driven to extinction by rats.
So for those who don’t know me, or my views let me place on the record that I fully support the eradication of rats from Rakitu and indeed Great Barrier. 
I look forward to the day very soon, when rat poison will no longer be needed on Rakitu and to a future day, hopefully not too long off, that rat poison will not longer be needed on Aotea.  In the meantime I make a plea, 
please let the Department of Conservation people get on with their job on Rakitu and let us give them our support.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Lee
Auckland Councillor
Waitemata & Gulf.”

Just one week after the imposition of the council’s regressive fuel tax, more bed taxes and a bunch of new targeted rates, came the disclosure in the NZ Herald that mayor Phil Goff has been planning ways to impose a so-called ‘Toilet Tax’ on the ratepayers of Auckland.

 The new tax would be used to repay the $1.2bn capital cost of the long-talked-about ‘Central Interceptor’, the planned sewer pipeline, in a tunnel, running deep beneath the city, 13 km from Western Springs to the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant. The new interceptor is needed to take the extra sewage and to reduce overflows resulting from Auckland’s continuing population growth. Subject to funding, construction is planned to start in late 2019.

Heavily redacted Treasury documents obtained by the National Party reveal that Goff has been talking to the government since November last year about ways to borrow the money for the project and yet keep the debt off the council’s books. Central to the plan is a ‘special purpose vehicle’ (SPV), which is jargon for an entity, separate from the council, underwritten by the government, which would be set up to borrow the $1.2bn and empowered to send ratepayers bills to repay the principal and interest.

Why would this SPV be needed, you may ask, with council income (rates and charges) now $4.1bn per year. After all, sewerage provision is a basic local government responsibility, and in Auckland the job of Watercare Services, the water and wastewater agency established by the ARC in 1992. Over the past 26 years Watercare, the ‘quiet achiever’ in the Auckland Council family, has successfully delivered a number of major projects, including Project Manukau, the $500m upgrade of the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant, Project Waikato, the $100m, 37 km water pipeline and treatment facility bringing water to the city from the Waikato River, and Project Hobson, the $114m tunnel from Parnell to Orakei which enabled the replacement and demolition of the old Hobson Bay sewer line.

Watercare says it could fund and build the Central Interceptor itself. Furthermore it admits this approach would work out cheaper for ratepayers.

So why? The answer sadly is that the Super City, since its establishment in 2010, has despite hundreds of millions of asset sales, profligately run up an enormous debt – currently at $8.7bn and rising, with interest costs currently at $471m a year. Council finance managers fear that the cost of the Central Interceptor would push the council over its borrowing limits, endangering the council’s credit rating with the international rating agencies, resulting in an increase in interest costs.

The SPV then is essentially a financial instrument, a bankable package if you like. But we are told it will come with ‘governance’ attached – that is people – directors, managers, consultants – in other words the usual suspects.

So the SPV will also mean the establishment of a parallel local authority in Auckland. Except that it will be an undemocratic, unelected authority, and given its proposed legal stand-alone status it is unclear to whom it would be accountable. It is supremely ironic, given the cost and disruption of abolishing the old legacy city councils and the ARC to form a single unitary ‘Super City’, that the mayor and council management are now attempting to persuade the government to establish another, non-democratic, authority to rate Aucklanders.

This is all very disingenuous – up until now carried out in secret. Sadly, as we are learning, Phil Goff is proving to have form when it comes to concealing important information. He apparently hopes to claim he is not increasing rates to repay this loan; Auckland ratepayers apparently being expected to take comfort that the ‘toilet tax’ bills they will be getting is from the ‘SPV’ – not the council. The government would be mad to go near it.

In response to the disclosures, Goff is saying, quite correctly, that no formal decisions have yet been made. However he did tell the Herald, that if the council could move the cost of the Central Interceptor from its books to appear on the SPV books, that would free up $1b to invest in other ‘areas of public need’.

However Mr Goff’s ideas on spending for ‘public need’ are not necessarily shared by the public. Recent examples are the $44m plus scheme to divert sewage contaminated storm water from Westhaven to Point Erin and regularly discharge it in the Harbour. The resource consent for this is currently been contested by the Herne Bay Residents Association, St Marys Bay Association, ‘Stop Auckland Sewage Overflows Coalition’ (SASOC), local residents and myself – among others. These submitters are arguing instead for separation of sewage and storm water as the best way to clean up pollution of the western bays. Another is Mr Goff’s $2bn ‘downtown’ stadium. Another, a giant, 25-50 metre-high, ‘Earth Mother’ statue at Bastion Point which Goff believes could become ‘a symbol of Auckland’.  The latest a ‘lightweight O sculpture’ artwork with the heavyweight price tag of $266,000.  Auckland really deserves better than this.

This article appears in the Ponsonby News August 2018 issue.

It’s fair to say that the democratic element of our society has been weakened in recent years, a by-product of the neoliberal revolution that has swept across the western world.  Unfortunately this revolution didn’t stop with the disappearance of Sir Roger Douglas down the political plughole of the Act Party; we now know only too well that this ‘rust never sleeps’ revolution is ongoing. Events around the world and right here at home under the Super City confirm this disquieting trend.

I guess in a small island community like Waiheke we are more sensitive than most to the declining role of democracy in our daily lives. That is why a substantial number of Waiheke residents would cheerfully break away from the Super City tomorrow and restore genuine local government – if the authorities would allow it.  But of course they will not.  The truth is democracy, accountability and the rights of ordinary citizens count for a lot less than what they used to.

That being said I have to admit I was still rather taken aback to read of the vehemence of the criticism of elected politicians of the Hauraki Gulf Forum by Environmental Defence Society policy director Raewyn Peart in her recent Gulf News article about the Hauraki Gulf and so-called ‘Sea Change’.

I have known Raewyn Peart since I was chairman of the Auckland Regional Council (ARC). She has worked on and off as a consultant for the Hauraki Gulf Forum for 10 years or so and also for ‘Sea Change’.  One wonders whether it was just naivete or being in the constant company of fellow-minded consultants that emboldened her to reveal such open contempt for elected ‘politicians’ – and by implication the democratic process.

As an elected politician and a Hauraki Gulf Forum member I will defend myself by telling the people of Waiheke the plain truth as I see it about the troubling elements of this so-called ‘Sea Change’, and about the high stakes power play currently underway over the ownership and control of the Hauraki Gulf.

My own role as a Hauraki Gulf environmentalist goes back a long way before I became a politician in 1992 when I was elected to the ARC, and certainly long before the establishment of the Hauraki Gulf Forum.   As for Waiheke’s other elected politicians involved in the Forum, I rate John Meeuwsen and his alternate Paul Walden as public representatives of the highest integrity.

Raewyn Peart’s article was apparently to promote the merits of ‘Sea Change’ but so intent was she on attacking the Hauraki Gulf Forum – or should I say its elected members – that she didn’t get round to spelling those merits out.   The Hauraki Gulf Forum is not and was never meant to be a governing body, as she seems to think. Its role and responsibilities are set out very clearly in part 2 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act.   In short it is meant to be an interagency sounding board; a clearing-house for sharing information between the government departments, councils and the six Māori representatives of manawhenua, with responsibilities in and around the Hauraki Gulf and to advocate for the Gulf.  The Hauraki Gulf Forum has its limitations but that it is actually more well-known than the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park itself (Part 3) is a pretty sad commentary about the lack of willingness of successive governments to create a genuine, not just a paper, national marine park in the Hauraki Gulf.

It is also important to note that ‘Sea Change’ is meant to be a marine spatial plan for the Hauraki Gulf.  From the outset its advocates including Raewyn Peart seemed to believe that a ‘spatial plan’ in itself would somehow achieve environmental enhancement of the Gulf.  Those of us on Waiheke, familiar with bureaucratic plans are only too aware that they can also achieve the very the opposite of the stated intention.

Readers will find it ironic, given the bile now targeted at the Hauraki Gulf Forum, that when it came to leading and overseeing this spatial plan process, the Hauraki Gulf Forum was deliberately by-passed –for a role which any reading of the Act would have concluded it was tailor-made for.  Instead an ad-hoc ‘Project Steering Group’ based on racial lines, 8 manawhenua and 8 others representing government departments and councils was set up.  ‘The Project Steering Group (the mana whenua–agency governance group)’ to give its full name was co-chaired by lawyer and businessman, chair of the Maunga Authority, chair of the Hauraki Collective and Ngati Maru Treaty negotiator Paul Majurey, and Cr Penny Webster of Rodney, the former ACT MP who revealed her attitude to the Hauraki Gulf by voting against the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act in 2000. Curiously this ‘Project Steering Group’ and its membership is not mentioned at all in the ‘Sea Change’ report and references to it on the internet have been taken down. The ‘Sea Change’ report only refers to “key leaders with an interest in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park who in October 2013 were invited to participate in democratic process to from the Stakeholder Working Group.”  To head the ‘Stakeholder Working Group (SWG)’ was an ‘independent chair’, merchant banker and CEO, now chairman of Deloittes, Nick Main was appointed and then after him from 2015 a lawyer from Wellington, director (now chairman) of the law firm Buddle Findlay, Paul Beverly a specialist in Māori law and Treaty settlements.

After adopting the snappy corporate brand ‘Sea Change’, (to give it its full name ‘Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari’) those involved made it clear they were not particularly interested in working within (or really even that much aware of) the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act.

It was all very much a behind-closed-doors process, with the SWG dominated by, as Raewyn Peart puts it, a ‘collaborative group’ representing aquaculture, commercial and recreational fishers, dairying and forestry sectors and Treaty claimants. There also two ‘environmentalists’ one of whom was Ms Peart. Meanwhile the general public, including those island communities who live in the Gulf, were effectively shut out.

The Waiheke Local Board, which during this time initiated scientific research into marine ecosystems around Waiheke Island and commissioned professional public opinion surveys on marine reserves incredibly had the door closed on it by the ‘Sea Change’ bosses and its evidence rejected.   The SWG finally reported its findings in December 2016, a year behind schedule. Interestingly on the critical issue of marine protection ‘Sea Change’ turned out to be weak indeed. In fact the most detailed measure advocated by ‘Sea Change’, but one that is not broadcast too widely, is a 2550 square kilometer ‘Ahu Moana’ which would cover the total length of the Hauraki Gulf coastline from the beaches extending seawards for one kilometre, which would also encircle every Gulf island including Waiheke. These would be, according to ‘Sea Change’ co-governed ‘50-50’ by ‘Coastal hapū/iwi and local communities’. What this would achieve in regard to environmental protection remains unclear.

On the pressing issue of marine pollution, ‘Sea Change’ soft-pedals the pollution of the Firth of Thames by intensive dairying and of the scale of the pollution of the Waitematā Harbour from human sewage. The fact that at least 2.2 million cubic metres of sewage-contaminated stormwater pours into the Waitematā each year is not mentioned nor that that the proposed Central Interceptor is designed for sewage not stormwater and as Watercare has pointed out does not provide a sustainable solution to contaminated stormwater pollution.

In mid-2017, three years after shutting the Hauraki Gulf Forum out of its statutory role, ‘Sea Change’ independent chair, Mr Beverly appeared before the Forum urging that it agree to reform itself on racial ‘co-governance’ lines. It was at this point that Waiheke’s Paul Walden intervened to move a procedural motion, reminding the Forum that before supporting any recommendations to change the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (properly the role of Parliament), Forum members must consult with their parent agencies and the general public. To the chagrin of ‘Sea Change’ proponents the motion was carried.

Could the proponents of ‘Sea Change’ really have been that ignorant of legal processes? Or was this a ‘try-on’ to pre-empt and pressure the government on matters properly dealt with by Parliament and the Treaty settlement process?

I’m not bothered about being criticized for supporting local democracy and for calling out ‘green washing’ and corporate dominance of public life when I see it, but I am really worried by the attempt to undermine the concept of no-take marine reserves and to repeal the Marine Reserves Act 1971.   Right now there is a concerted campaign to put pressure on the new Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage to do just this. This would be a retrograde step for nature conservation but also a dangerous precedent not only for the integrity of hard-won existing marine reserves but for our terrestrial reserves and parklands. The network of pathetically small ‘Type Two Marine Protected Areas’ which ‘Sea Change’ proposes whatever they are, are not ‘no take’.   Even so-called ‘Type One’, ostensibly ‘no-take’ marine reserves, would be placed effectively under the control of ‘hapū/iwi’ who would also have the right to resume ‘customary take’ in them. These would also be subject to a 25-year ‘generational review’ (whatever that means). Which brings me to the another aspect of ‘Sea Change’ which Raewyn Peart places much emphasis on, that is under the ‘Sea Change’ regime, democratic representation on the Hauraki Gulf Forum would be replaced by ‘co governance’ by what she calls ‘strong leaders’ (presumably unelected) and the Forum itself would be reconstituted as a ‘controlling agency’ which would in its decision-making “take into account future Treaty settlements.”

Leaving aside the human politics and getting back to the fundamental issue of the marine environment, I believe the most critically important measure to protect and enhance the Hauraki Gulf is a simple one, marine reserves.

Marine ecosystems in the Hauraki Gulf are under enormous pressure from overfishing and pollution. We need to change our attitudes; it is time to start putting nature first. The very positive conservation work happening on the land, especially on Hauraki Gulf conservation islands demonstrates just what really can be done. It was Waiheke volunteers, whom we should remember, began the game-changing restoration of Tiritiri Matangi back in the mid-1980s. We just need to apply that successful restorationist philosophy to the sea by creating a network of no-take marine reserves.   Not only would this be the practical recognition of the intrinsic value of ecosystems but setting some areas aside from exploitation will mean there will be more fish for future generations. The Hauraki Gulf belongs to all of us and should not be handed over to a non-democratic elite and their consultant advocates.

This article appeared in Gulf News 21 June 2018.

It’s certainly proving to be a Winter of Discontent within the Auckland Council. It’s this discontent that was behind the recent letter expressing ‘strong dissatisfaction’ with the ‘secretive and non-inclusive’ leadership style of Mayor Phil Goff, signed by nine councillors including myself, (the so-called ‘Albert Street Nine’). The letter can be traced back to a report commissioned by the mayor on a ‘downtown national football stadium’, and kept secret from the councillors for nearly a year. It didn’t help either that the report cost nearly $1 million. Nor that Goff only made it available to councillors when its existence was disclosed by Radio NZ and under pressure from the Ombudsman – and then in a form so heavily censored that it was quite unreadable. I have been in local government for 26 years and I’ve never seen ‘redacting’ on this scale. Whole pages were simply blacked out. Several weeks on, Goff has finally agreed to release the report uncensored, on request – but the damage has been done.

At a meeting called to discuss the affair I had the opportunity to question the mayor face-to-face. Mr Goff confirmed that he requested the report early in 2017, via the CCO Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA). The report by PWC was completed in June 2017 but according to Goff, while he was briefed on its contents, he never asked for a copy. However at this briefing he asked for further information and so a second report was commissioned, again by PWC, and completed in September. Same story. Goff was briefed but according to him he never asked for, nor was he given a copy. Nor did he ask for or was told the price. Goff claimed he only received the report(s) and became aware of the cost in April this year. We have to take his word for all this but for someone who obviously has a bit of an obsession with a new football stadium, not reading the reports he commissioned is certainly strange behaviour. And certainly given the secretiveness, unacceptable behaviour. Goff’s fixation with a ‘downtown’ stadium can be traced back to late 2006 when the then Labour government led by Minister of Sport Trevor Mallard came up with the idea of a ‘waterfront’ stadium located in the harbour, for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Goff has been putting it about that the government pledged to build the stadium for free.   This is simply not true. Fortunately as I was the chairman of the Auckland Regional Council at the time I’ve kept a file. While there were certainly hints of government largesse, Mr Mallard was careful to avoid making commitments. Talk of government support melted away as the estimates for this very challenging project (in terms of engineering and deadline), climbed towards $1billion. After two weeks of intensive briefings from a range of experts, including Mallard himself, in November 2006 the ARC unanimously voted against it. It was my job to tell Prime Minister Helen Clark that having carefully studied the proposal it was our best judgement that Eden Park was a more sensible and affordable option for the Rugby World Cup. It was a sound decision and was backed by a clear majority of Aucklanders – but clearly not by Mr Goff.

Back to the present where it appears that despite all the other pressing problems and costs Auckland faces, a new football stadium appears to be still very much the mayor’s ambition. The final catalyst for the nine councillors was to be called to an ‘urgent briefing’ late on 7 June to be told discussions were underway about moving Speedway from Western Springs where it has been for 90 years, to a venue in South Auckland. Despite assurances that this was no ‘done deal’ and had no implications for cricket, the NZ Herald the next morning announced a memorandum-of understanding was to be signed that day by the mayor, RFA and Speedway promoters committing to the move and that Western Springs indeed was intended for cricket. Speedway has long complained of pressure to get out but now to assist the move support amounting to $14m including up to $300,000 for a council-paid project manager is part of the deal. That RFA and Goff want to move cricket from Eden Park to Western Springs is no secret – and hotly opposed by Auckland Cricket. The game plan seems to be to undermine Eden Park (which completed a major upgrade in 2011) and thereby make a ‘downtown’ stadium (now estimated to cost nearly $2 billion) to be somehow justifiable. It’s this sort of behaviour that’s causing councillors from across the political spectrum to question Mr Goff’s leadership style and judgement. And now we have learned of the existence of another report, this one on light rail, commissioned by Goff from Auckland Transport. Given the importance of this project, the mayor’s convoluted explanation for keeping it from councillors for 8 months is unconvincing. This is why this council is not a happy ship. It looks like it’s going to be a long winter.

This article published in the June issues of Ponsonby News, The Hobson and also The Daily Blog.

I was as intrigued as most when Transport Minister Phil Twyford announced the NZ Superannuation Fund’s interest in building, owning and operating the Minister’s favoured light rail project – costed provisionally at $6bn for two lines. As we know one of these will link Auckland International Airport with the central city via Dominion Road and the other will service the Minister’s Te Atatu electorate, eventually extending to Kumeu. One can only conclude that the Super Fund’s reported eagerness to invest in a public-private partnership (PPP) for this project means PPPs are as lucrative as their critics have long been saying – that is from the ‘private’ partner’s perspective.   And it’s that role ironically, that the Crown-owned Super Fund is evidently planning for itself. ‘Privatise the profits – socialise the losses’ is the name of the game. But any profit must come at the expense of the ‘public’ partner. That’s us. The ratepayers, taxpayers, fuel tax-paying motorists and fare-paying passengers, in other words the people of Auckland – and New Zealand. But I thought the public were meant to be the beneficiaries of the NZ Superannuation Fund – not its fall guys. I trust the government is getting good advice on this proposal because the worry is that when it comes to choice of rail mode to the airport, it clearly doesn’t have good advice at all. Opting for widely criticised light rail (trams) instead of heavy rail (trains) to the airport is a very high-risk call; one taken on dubious technical advice and without a business case. It also out of line with international best practice. Getting the NZ Super Fund to build it would mean the government doubling down on a deeply-flawed strategy. Leaving to one side the tramline to Te Atatu, let’s look once again at the pros and cons of light rail to the airport.   To be fair, light rail has the benefit of being a versatile and efficient form of public transport. Modern trams can service busy inner city streets like buses, (‘street car’ mode), but can carry much more people (11,000 per hour) and in greater comfort than diesel buses (2500 per hour). Trams are great people movers, based on frequent stops, usually conveniently spaced at 350m to 800m apart. (Ideal for the inner city and waterfront). On the other hand electric trains (EMUs) can carry even more people (48,000 per hour) and go much faster than street-running trams.   This is not just due to the superior power of EMUs, train stations tend to be spaced more widely apart, between one to three kilometres. The latest plan I have seen for a heavy rail connection from the airport via Puhinui to Britomart (journey time 30 minutes and costed at $750m) has it stopping at only two stations but providing cross platform connections to the rest of the suburban network – from Henderson to Pukekohe.   In contrast the 22.8 km airport-Dominion Road-Britomart tramline will have 18 stops. It will be at very best 15 minutes slower than the train but due to traffic conditions much less predictable. From the user’s point of view (overlooked as always), weary international travellers, with their baggage, probably strap-hanging, through multiple tram stops to reach their central city hotels on a crowded tram would not be an ideal prospect. Even less so in the case of travellers, going the other way, anxious to get to the airport on time to make their flights.

When I visited Queensland’s Gold Coast a couple of years’ ago to inspect its brand new tramline, the managers emphasised to me one of their key ‘learnings’: light rail means ‘mass transit’ – not ‘rapid transit’. This is a fundamental point for ‘horses for courses’ mode decisions, one that both Minister Phil Twyford and Mayor Phil Goff worryingly still don’t understand.

So the key question, one that the cocksure politicians have overlooked in pushing their trophy project, is, will a slow tram journey between the central city and airport provide genuine competition to the private car and therefore combat growing traffic congestion? Because it is for this key reason, based on speed, capacity and predictability of journey time, that Melbourne which has biggest and most sophisticated light rail system in the world, will NOT be using trams for its airport connection but trains.

Phil Twyford proudly boasts his light rail scheme is ‘the biggest transport project in New Zealand’s history’, yet it will only service a comparative handful of Auckland suburbs. Is that really the smartest use of six billion dollars of public money?

One of the most worrying aspects of this decision, besides the lack of rigour and contestable advice backing it, is the remarkable unwillingness by both Minister and Mayor to even acknowledge, let alone learn from overseas experience. This will be a hugely expensive, technically challenging project. The stakes are high. If things go wrong the fallout will not only do lasting damage to the government, but could also financially cripple the ‘Super City’.

This article published in the June issues of Ponsonby News and The Hobson and also The Daily Blog.

Well, thank goodness for David Parker.   By his stepping in to stop another Auckland Council/CCO planning debacle the Minister for the Environment, Attorney-General etc, etc, has achieved a much better outcome for the waterfront and the America’s Cup. It’s a pity this highly-intelligent, experienced politician (and Grey Lynn resident) is not in charge of transport as he was during the Clark government. Instead of the dubious proposition of light rail (trams) to the airport, Auckland could be focussing on light rail on the waterfront, where the existing heritage tramway (engineered to modern light rail standards) could readily be connected to Britomart and the CRL, as pledged in the 2012 Waterfront Plan, in time for the America’s Cup.

I wrote a year ago on the trams to the airport debacle citing historian Barbara Tuchman’s acclaimed March of Folly – from Troy to Vietnam (1985). Tuchman’s book was about ‘the pervasive presence, through the ages, of failure, mismanagement, and delusion in government – contrary to its own self interest.’ It will be recalled this particular ‘March of Folly’- began in June 2016 when the boards of NZTA and Auckland Transport overturned previous plans for heavy rail (trains) to the airport. Unfortunately new mayor Phil Goff and the new governnent led by tyro transport ministers Phil Twyford and Julie Anne Genter (but not Winston Peters who prefers trains) have fallen into lockstep.

Auckland International Airport is of critical economic importance to Auckland and to New Zealand – the premier gateway to the country. Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars recently spent on road construction, congestion on the route to the airport is already back where it was 10 years ago, chronic at peak times, periodically at grid-lock. With airport passenger movements currently 19 million per year and predicted to increase to 40 million by 2040, this chronic congestion can only get worse – with serious consequences.

It need not be so. Following on from work initiated by the Auckland Regional Council, in September 2011, a multi-agency study after examining light rail, busway and heavy rail options, concluded that heavy rail from Onehunga and Puhinui (10 km and 6.8 km from airport respectively) would be the ‘most economically efficient’ solution – providing a fast train journey to and from downtown Auckland, including the future CRL stations like Aotea and K Road, and, in some with cases cross-platform transfers, all points on the rail network eg Parnell, Newmarket, Henderson, Glen Innes, Papakura, Pukekohe, and ultimately Hamilton.

In 2012, endorsed by AT and after wide public consultation this became a policy commitment in the Auckland Plan: ‘route protect a dedicated rail connection in the first decade (2011-2020); construct in the second decade (2021-2030)’ – [after the City Rail Link (CRL)].

However the consensus, as so often happens (Auckland has a history of this), was overturned when AT bureaucrats (none of whom had any experience with light rail) claimed trams travelling from the CBD to the airport via Dominion Road despite stopping at 20 tram stops and numerous intersections while keeping to the 50 kph speed limit would get to the airport within one minute of electric trains travelling up to 110 kph. In late 2016 soon after the election of Mayor Goff, the favoured Onehunga to airport rail corridor was blocked by AT when it demolished the Neilson Street overbridge immediately to the south of the Onehunga train station, putting the road straight across the rail corridor.

Melbourne has the most highly developed, sophisticated light rail system in the world. Unlike Auckland however Melbourne is NOT opting for a light rail connection to its international airport – but heavy rail. This on the grounds that trains can carry a lot more people and luggage, and providing a faster, more predictable journey-time than street-running trams. It’s a decision based on decades of experience operating both light and heavy rail modes.

Last month the Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced a A$5 billion Federal government contribution to building four dedicated heavy rail routes between Melbourne International Airport and the CBD. The Australian decision is instructive and should give our new government reason to pause.

However in Auckland there seems there is a yawning gap opening up between the political class and ordinary citizens. To most Aucklanders I speak to, the idea of trams to the airport is a joke – and now not so funny given Aucklanders will have to pay for the $4 billion estimated cost of the airport and Westgate tram lines, not only in their rates but also in an extra double-whammy fuel tax – for a project that has no business case.

Light rail to the airport will take a lot longer to build, provide a slower journey, serve a much more restricted catchment and be considerably more expensive than extending the existing rail network. Why on earth isn’t the new government capitalising on the huge strategic investment going into the CRL?

Barbara Tuchman made up some rules on how government policy decisions get to qualify as a ‘March of Folly’. First the policy must be contrary to self-interest, [Check]; secondly a feasible alternative policy must be available [Check]; and finally the policy must be that of a group (not an individual insane ruler) [Check].

The feasible alternative of connecting Auckland Airport to the main trunk line at Puhinui has been costed by one recent study at around $750m. This corridor must be protected urgently before it too is sabotaged. There certainly is a role for modern trams as we reach maximum bus capacity in our busy inner city routes and waterfront – but trams will be a hugely expensive failure as an Airport connection. David Parker help!

Versions of this article were published in May editions of Ponsonby News, The Hobson and NZ Herald (1 May 2018) and on The Daily Blog and on Whale Oil blog sites.

On this day the people of New Zealand and Australia gather as they have since the first Anzac Day, to commemorate the fallen and honour those men and women who have served in all our wars.

This is the fourth year of the commemorations of the centenary of the Great War, New Zealand’s bloodiest war, with some 17,000 killed and another 41,000 wounded, and the origin of Anzac Day, so it is appropriate again to cast our minds back to this time 100 years ago. In April 1918 the climatic battle that would decide the outcome of the Great War was raging across northern France. Difficult though it may be for us in the 21^st century to comprehend, New Zealand soldiers who first went into battle at Gallipoli on that April morning in 1915, were still fighting on the western front three years later. In the crisis of late March 1918 the New Zealand Division was called on to play a role that would help change the course of history.

Miraculously the NZ Division had recovered from the dreadful slaughter it had suffered at Passchendaele the previous October when in one morning 843 NZ soldiers were killed after being ordered to attack in the mud and rain against curtains of barbed wire and walls of machine guns. Despite this devastating blow, the NZ Division remained one of the elite formations of the British Army. When in March 1918 the German High Command launched its supreme effort to win the war, the offensive called Kaiserschlacht (the Kaiser’s battle) or Ludendorff’s Offensive, attacking with overwhelming numbers of troops and artillery, spearheaded by highly-trained storm troopers, the British 3^rd and 5^th Armies reeled back in retreat. In a matter of days the Germans had advanced nearly 100km. All the gains that had been won over months during the bloody attacks on the Somme of 1916 were lost, indeed now at stake was the war itself. As the German armies advanced on the strategic city of Amiens, the British high command turned to the New Zealanders and the Australians. Such was the reputation by then of these ANZAC troops, that when they moved up, along roads crowded with retreating British troops and French civilians, their very arrival stilled the panic. Military historian Glyn Harper in his book Dark Journey Passchendaele, the Somme and the NZ experience on the Western Front quotes from the diary of Lieutenant Kenneth Luke: ‘We met remnants of the British Divisions that had fought from the beginning of the terrible battle struggling along the road & everywhere our peaked hats were espied the anxious questions were asked ‘Are the ANZACs coming? And cheers and smiles met us everywhere.”

Harper adds:

‘When asked why the French civilians had halted their flight from the Germans at Amiens, the answer attributed to a French general, no less, was:

They had learnt that the troops they had just passed were the New Zealanders moving in and so there was no need for them to move out & so the evacuation came to an end. Yes he [the French general said,] such was the reputation of the New Zealanders’.

The Anzacs would go on to meet the advancing Germans head on and stopped them. Amiens did not fall, the German offensive failed. The NZers making their reputation as, the British military historian John Keegan described them, ‘the best soldiers in the world in the 20^th century’ would go on to play a key role in the fighting, right up until 11 November 1918 when the Great War finally came to an end.

I recall these events not out of chauvinistic pride, or to glorify war, that is not the New Zealand way, but to remember a part of our history almost completely forgotten and to remind ourselves again of the calibre and courage of those New Zealanders and the sacrifices made by them and the whole nation. One wonders why those events largely disappeared from collective memory. Perhaps Harper provides an answer when he writes: ‘Life for all New Zealanders could not turn back to 1914. Too much blood had been shed and too much pain, often borne in silence, endured. The shadow of death had fallen across the land and it would remain for some time to come.’ Perhaps another reason was because the First World War, supposedly the ‘war to end all wars’ was followed only 21 years later by the Second World War – when again New Zealand was called upon to make another great sacrifice.

And then, only narrowly avoided was a third world war in the 20^th century, a nuclear war, 20 years or so after the second, avoided mainly because most of the world leaders and statesmen of that time– unlike the leaders of today – had experienced war at first hand and rightly fearing its consequences, they pulled back from the brink.

Those world leaders are no longer with us and today according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Science and Security Board we are closer to a third world war than we ever have been. Two weeks ago, the Doomsday Clock that symbol, maintained since 1947, representing the likelihood of a man-made global castastrophe was moved up to two minutes before midnight.

So as we gather once again in the darkness of this Autumn morning, as is our custom, to keep faith with the fallen, and to remember the sacrifices of our ancestors, I wonder if only those people could look forward 100 years and see us gathered here – and all across New Zealand, keeping vigil. I’m sure they would be comforted to know that they had not been forgotten. They would be even more comforted to know I am sure, if we people of the 21^st century – in these dangerous times of spiralling international tensions, did not forget the lessons of 1914 and the chain of events that spun out of control – and could not be stopped – that led on to a catastrophe then and could lead on to an even greater catastrophe now.

‘Consultation Frenzy’, my friend Luke Niue calls it. Over the past four weeks Auckland Council has been consulting on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan – along with a stack of other plans. The Long Term Plan (LTP) is simply council’s budget projected out over ten years. It will cost a truly massive $65 billion, comprising $25b of capital and $40b of operational expenditure. Breaking it down to a yearly basis that’s $2.5b of capex and $4b of opex. It will be funded annually by $1.69b from rates; with the balance from borrowings, user charges, government subsidies eg for public transport; and dividends from Ports of Auckland and Auckland Airport. This year rates will increase on average by 2.5%. Of course depending on how individual property valuations have moved, many homeowners will be paying more, some will pay less.

But the Super City as we know is a hungry beast. Rates and all the other normal revenue sources will be insufficient to cover its spending. A large part of the problem is due to the cost of Auckland’s growth (which government and council policy actively encourages), including NZ’s extraordinarily high construction costs. Part of it frankly, is that Auckland Council simply spends too much on itself; and part of it is fiscally self-induced. The existing (2015-2025) Long Term Plan was budgeted on rates increases of 3.5% per year. However in 2016, Phil Goff while campaigning for the mayoralty promised to hold rates increases to 2.5%. In this new LTP rates increases will go back to 3.5% but in ‘Year 3’ – after the next local body elections. To cover the shortfall, last year the mayor pushed through a targeted rate on accommodation, the so-called ‘bed tax’. Unfortunately, as it turned out, for reasons never satisfactorily explained, while Auckland central and Waiheke accommodation providers have to pay the full rate, those in other parts of the region, eg Waitakere, Franklin and most of Rodney pay less or nothing at all. This means that the targeted rate only brought in about $13.5m, half that originally estimated. This year the council is proposing new, additional forms of revenue, most significantly a regional fuel tax of 11.5c per litre. This will go towards the proposed $12b, LTP transport spend. Exactly for what though, rather surprisingly, is still not clear. The mayor announced the setting up a ‘political advisory group’ of his close political colleagues to work out where the fuel tax will go. On top of that, additional targeted rates are being proposed to provide funding for stormwater to reduce the pollution of our harbour, beaches and streams ($66 per year), and for environmental initiatives $21 or $47 per year).

If you thought the LTP was challenging enough to respond to, there is also the raft of other documents the council is consulting on – notably a ‘refreshed’ Auckland Plan. Remember that?   The Auckland Plan, legally the ‘Spatial Plan for Auckland’, was produced in 2012 under Mayor Len Brown and designed for 30 years. A great deal of funding and public input went into it and the document as it turned out was actually pretty good.   However council officers argued that despite its time-frame, it’s already out of date and needing ‘refreshing’.   This they have done by removing much of the content of the original.

Of real concern chapters dedicated to Auckland’s natural environment and built heritage have been removed and the words ‘built heritage’ totally expunged. This I believe is totally out of step with what most Aucklanders would want. The following ‘Direction’ I think, sums up the ‘refreshed’ Auckland Plan rather succinctly, ‘Use Auckland’s growth and development to protect and enhance our environment’. Oh really? So extreme is the council’s ‘refreshing’ (read gutting) the new Auckland Plan is no longer compliant with the requirements of the Local Government Act legislation.

Council is also consulting on a new Waste Management Plan with changes to services, including lucrative outsourced ‘pay-as-you-throw’ and highly centralised kerbside food waste collections. Finally there is the Regional Pest Management Plan, which deals with serious problems like kauri die-back and ecological pests but unfortunately also includes a silly proposal to microchip pet cats.

So how do Aucklanders respond to this ‘consultation frenzy’ in a meaningful way in such a short time frame? Unfortunately the traditional right of ordinary ratepayers to present submissions to the councillors was quietly dropped three or so years ago. Now only ‘key’ or ‘regional stakeholders’ retain this right. Regrettably attempts by some of us in the last two years to restore this right have been voted down. Interested citizens, not part of a recognised lobby group, are therefore encouraged to attend ‘Have Your Say’ meetings. The problem with these is that, despite their name, they tend to be dominated by council people having their say.  Ratepayers are also encouraged to send their submissions to a website. My advice is to make sure you also email them to the mayor and to all the councillors. Good luck. This council’s track record for listening is not exactly encouraging. And remember while you may ‘have your say’ the council will almost certainly be having its way.

This article appeared in the April issue of Ponsonby News

Early on Waitangi Day morning a small group of inner city residents, mainly from Grafton, Parnell and Arch Hill but even from as far afield as Ponsonby Grey Lynn, as they had the year before, quietly gathered at the grave of Governor William Hobson to pay tribute to the man who gave us the Treaty of Waitangi and brought New Zealand into the British Empire. A wreath, posies of flowers and a New Zealand flag were respectfully placed on the marble gravestone.

Waitangi Day morning. Inner city residents gather at the grave of Governor William Hobson

Waitangi Day and the Treaty has had more than its share of controversies over recent years, so much so that Captain William Hobson R.N. and his role in those momentous events of early February 1840 has been rather overlooked.

What of the man himself? Interesting enough, this very dutiful servant of Empire was born in Ireland in 1792, the son of an Anglo-Irish barrister in the city of Waterford.

Hobson joined the Royal Navy in 1803 during the Napoleonic Wars, just one month short of 11. Graduating to midshipman he passed his examinations and was commissioned lieutenant in 1813. Command followed in 1824. Most of Hobson’s sea service was in the West Indies intercepting pirate ships and launching raids on their bases (’nests’). In those times this duty was especially arduous not least because of the region’s often deadly tropical diseases one of which Hobson reportedly contracted. Illness was followed by a period six years ashore on half pay.

However Hobson’s luck changed in 1834 when the First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Auckland (George Eden), to Hobson’s eternal gratitude, arranged for him the highly desirable command of the frigate Rattlesnake. In her Hobson was posted to the East India Station, during which time he visited Port Jackson, New South Wales in 1837. While he was at Sydney Hobson was ordered to New Zealand to show the flag and to report on the country’s ‘lawless’ situation. His report so impressed his superiors it led to his appointment in 1839 as Consul to New Zealand.

Hobson’s Treaty of Waitangi and his achievement in persuading the leading rangatira of the north to sign it (they had very little to go on except for their impression of his integrity) was a remarkable triumph. But as so often happens great success was followed not by acclaim and happiness, but rather misfortune and sorrow. On 1 March Hobson suffered what is believed to be a hemiplegic stroke. However he soon recovered. Returning to full duties he resolved to move his capital to Tāmaki on the Waitematā harbour, thereby founding the city of Auckland. This, his second great historic accomplishment drew bitter criticism from NZ Company settlers in Wellington where almost overnight from canvas tents and nikau whares colonial society had sprung up complete with declaiming newspapers and turbulent meetings of irate settlers. Thereafter Hobson was constantly denounced by the colonists – even in Auckland! (Lending truth to the adage ‘no good deed goes unpunished’).

Hobson’s task to build a country with an administration that was hopelessly under-resourced, mediating between the Māori chiefs with whom he had signed the Treaty on the one hand, and land-hungry businessmen who proved to be more formidable than the pirates of the Caribbean, on the other, would have difficult enough for the most experienced politician or bureaucrat. William Hobson was neither of these. A sea officer trained to obey orders and to have his orders obeyed, he found criticism, especially public criticism, extremely difficult to bear. As Prof Russell Stone observed in his ‘From Tamaki-Makau-Rau to Auckland’:

‘In Captain William Hobson there was much to admire. He was brave, conscientious, and diligent in his public duties. His private life was beyond reproach; he was a loving husband and a devoted family man. Yet of all the governors…he was the least popular and the most calumniated.’

Dr Ron Trubuhovich in his remarkable investigation ‘Governor William Hobson – His Health problems and Final Illness’, wrote of Hobson’s mysterious final days:

‘During the months after returning to Auckland, pressures mounted, particularly at the hands of the town’s ‘Clique’ whose members hounded him mercilessly, instigating public meetings to humiliate him when his enfeebled condition was worsening. In Aug. 1842, too sick to attend public meetings, he was asked to sign petitions condemnatory of himself in attachments to memorials from citizens’ meetings’.

Dr Trubuhovich concluded ‘Perhaps it was all too much for him, he simply gave up in spirit and allowed/wished himself to die.’ He was only 49.

Governor Hobson, architect of the Treaty of Waitangi, founder of the modern state of New Zealand, founder of the city of Auckland, is buried in Symonds Street cemetery. It is a strange feeling to go there and stand at the grave of this ancient figure from an entirely different age to our own. There is a quietness there, even though it is only metres from the Southern Motorway on-ramp, where traffic roars by. He has lain there for 172 years, largely forgotten by the citizens of the country and the city he founded. He was the only governor to stay.

This article was published in the March issues of Ponsonby News and The Hobson

In response to my December Ponsonby News column, I received from ratepayer Dave Lyons the following email. It was so compelling I thought I should share it.

“ …I am a Westmere resident and have watched in horror as they dug up Richmond road and Garnet road, spending millions and what do we get, nothing. Well, fewer car parks. I honestly have never seen such a waste of money as the Garnet road cycleway. The section that has been completed is an absolute joke. They built it across the grass berms outside peoples houses, which is exactly where the residents park their cars…And did they ever stop to ask the people who live here if we wanted this? No… And we dont!!!

So as we sit here, wondering why we have raw sewage rolling into the streams and into the harbour, we can sit back and look at the totally un-useable cycleway, which nobody wanted, and no-one will use. What a great use of our rates money. 

But seriously, when will AT have their heads pulled in? When will they stop this ridiculous war on cars, and when will they stop the absolute wasting of our money…Talking to you probably doesn’t highlight anything that you don’t already know, but the question still remains, why are they getting away with this? What do we, as in local ratepayers, have to do to get some common sense policies applied? As we seriously need to do something.

I mean how can any councillor or the mayor seriously stand there and say the council has no money, when we have this wastage happening all around us? How can someone have the bare-faced audacity to increase taxes (talking petrol tax here) when we have over $600 million being spent on cycleways? Really? I mean seriously? …My 6-year-old son would do a better job of prioritising initiatives than this. Its not rocket science. If we want to build trains then fine, spend the $600m on trains, but cycleways? Really I mean yes, lots of people cycle. But 90% do it for fun. Not for transport. So spending this sort of money on a leisure activity is crazy. Now I am not some overweight car lover, I cycle two or three times a week (only for fun), and ride a motorcycle to work every day, so I am not saying this out of any selfish desire for more roads, as such. But I mean 99% of people want to drive. 

Anyway. Rant over. I just feel absolutely disgusted with the way these organisations operate, with their bullshit business cases and international best practices. We need to stop this craziness…”

Meanwhile Auckland Transport is pushing ahead in the face of growing public opposition. Over Christmas the focus shifted to Quay Street where 15 pohutukawa trees are being removed to make way for a cycleway extension. Protesters from Grey Lynn lent their support to the Urban Tree Alliance fighting to save these trees. But it is not just protesters, the Parnell Community Committee (PCC) an eminently respectable organization with the backing of the Parnell community have been trying to save these trees and the ‘canopied boulevard’ they form for months now. PCC is not against the cycleway extension but AT’s continued use of Quay Street as an all-day bus park. Actually AT and Council plans for Quay Street from the Strand bridge to Albert Street are a nightmare – a jumble of bad decisions.

The next area to watch will be Karangahape Road where AT plans to build cycle lanes on both sides of the street, potentially taking out dozens of car parks and loading zones at peak time. K Road retailers who are bravely prepared to put up with several years’ disruption caused directly or indirectly by City Rail Link construction (they have already lost a bunch of car parks and taxi stands due to relocated bus stops) are worried, given what has happened to businesses in Victoria and Albert Street and West Lynn, that this could be the last straw. Led by manager Michael Richardson (a cyclist himself) the Karangahape Road Business Association (KBA) has sent a well-argued submission to AT pointing out that the cycleway could be of ‘limited value to K Road businesses as the area would be ‘a thoroughfare rather than a destination.’ Meanwhile a ‘K Road Action Group’ with the slogan ‘Don’t kill K Road’ has joined the fight. K Road people are not anti-cycling or reactionary. Actually they are probably the most progressive, avant–garde set in the country. They argue for alternative cycle routes on or around K Road that don’t destroy parking that retailers especially depend on. Given the impacts of the CRL, not to mention light rail, the KBA is making a plea to AT to delay the cycleway until these regionally significant projects are completed. It’s not an unreasonable request given what at stake – the livelihoods of hundreds of small businesses and the viability of historic Karangahape Road itself as one of Auckland’s iconic shopping streets.

This article appeared in the February 2018 issue of Ponsonby News.