Crikey Bruce, what do we want with a port?...
...we still have all this XXXX left to drink. PoW said it had requested a meeting with Mr Laws to present the development proposal but the mayor had refused to meet with them...
For the record, we have asked Macquarie (or rather their PR people) to elaborate on their part in the whole Port saga, and to confirm how much, if any, money they've chucked at it. We await a reply. Seems their NZ spin is run from Australia, so whether Wanganui will have registered on their radar remains to be seen. There's no reference to Wanganui on their website, even where they commit to new projects in New Zealand.
Anyone own any shares in Macquarie? Perhaps their investor relations people might confirm whether they're throwing your money around.
Meanwhile, this story in the Chron says, inter alia:
Whether you support or oppose development, locking yourself in your room and refusing to come out is a rather odd way of dealing with it, no?
The statement said PoW and the council had a binding contractual agreement that clearly outlines an agreement in principle for the development of the port. PoW said a result it had enough material to bring legal proceedings against council on the grounds of breach of contract.
“Legal recourse would represent a last ditch attempt to bring council and the mayor into line. It is hoped that support from the community and groups such as the Rate Payers Association will bring pressure to bear on the council and encourage it to get this project back on track.”
We'll forgive the Port folks for overlooking mention of the awesome power of LawsWatch and instead ask: Didn't we elect council as our representatives? That surely means meeting with whomsoever needs to be met with, and not go running the risk of defending expensive legal proceedings.
We might argue whether a Sarjeant extension or a motocross track is best use of our rates, but we're sure we can all agree that lining the pockets of lawyers isn't a desirable third alternative?
If the Port of Wanganui people had only asked us, we could have guaranteed a meeting with the Diva. Just bring along a camera, a microphone, and preferably a hairdresser and make-up person.
While we've been doing our bit, we'd be interested to hear whether any LawsWatch Fifth Columnists have had any success in seeking membership of Wanganui's most vibrant and exciting political party / movement / troupe?
As a commenter said, a political party which didn't want members would be a very strange beast indeed.
Comments on this post are now closed.
61 comments:
A couple of months is indeed a long time in Wanganui politics.
Who remembers back in April when Capt Adams of the Wanganui-on-Sea Dad's Army platoon was in the Chron giving big hurrahs for the PoW people? Of course, back then he was wearing his Ratepayers battle helmet, now he's in Winston's Army uniform and taking orders from Commander in Chief Laws, who definitely doesn't like it up 'im.
Have Capt Adams' guns fallen silent since he fired this volley on April 16th ....
Ratepayers’ Association chairman Graham Adams said this week PoW’s proposals for the establishment of an inland port and associated industrial development at Castlecliff deserved a much wider airing than had so far been the case.
“I have read the excellent business case, funded by a regional development grant, and am of the opinion that the principals have put together a project which could be the key to providing Wanganui with the biggest economic boost it is ever likely to experience,” Mr Adams said.
“It disappoints me that these people appear to have obtained the confidence of all the major players (such as Port Taranaki operator Westgate) except the council, most of whose councillors either show no interest or have not been briefed.”
Mr Adams said, for the benefit of the anti-deep water port lobby, this was at the “very bottom” of PoW’s proposals.
WANGANUI HARBOUR ACT 1988
8. Harbour committee—
(1)As soon as practicable after the commencement of this
Act, the Council shall establish a standing committee, to be
called the Wanganui City Council Harbour Committee,
consisting of—
(a)Four members to be appointed by the Council; and
(b)Two members to be appointed by the Wanganui County
Council; and
(c)One member to be appointed by the Patea District
Council.
(2)Section 104 of the Local Government Act 1974, with the
necessary modifications, shall apply to any committee
established under this section.
(3)The Council may delegate to any such committee all or
any of its functions, powers, and duties as a Harbour Board
or under this Act.
(4)The committee may exercise and perform any powers,
functions, and duties so delegated in the same manner in all
respects as if they had been conferred on the committee by
this Act and not by delegation.
--------
So it is a standing committee. So Laws' reshuffle doesn't even comply with the law. Hahahahahaha what a fuckwit.
It seems Laws, in his attempt to offer a poisoned chalice to Barbara Bullock & Randha Dahya, has instead given them a hot potato. Well, he would have if he knew how to structure committees so as to comply with the LGA. D'oh!
Macquarie must have spent something because their reps were here once already, and were coming back until...
Maybe there's a positive side to all this...if Macquarie are interested enough in listening to what Tuffy had to say, perhaps they'd be interested in whatever proposal Wanganui eventually approves regardless. I'm interested in the secrecy surrounding council's alleged dealing with Westgate. Who from Council? According to which council resolution? Using my (ratepayers) money they seek to keep it a secret from the ratepayers? I understand all too well the principles of commercial confidentiality, but when my money starts getting used to fund secret deals that then turn out to be competing with someone else's plan...
Not to mention the ongoing secrecy surrounding "The Heart of the City".
Anonymous said...
Anon said:
Has no-one read the debt projections for council ...
Yes, and it's scary stuff. It makes me wonder why anyone thinks we can afford either the splash centre or the extension. And if it's as dire as the Diva would have us believe, why isn't he concentrating on ways to tackle the debt mountain rather than tarting up the swimming pool, kowhai park, etc?
4:11 PM
because it's popular.
To tackle the debt mountain we should harness our creativity except oops... D'oh!
whoever anon is (2nd post in this thread) ... is a moron. There is no Wanganui County Council, no Patea District Council. Shit, there isn't even a Wanganui City Council. You're reading the wrong act, douchebag!!!
Yeah I read Tuffy's comments which are reported here. I read the mayor's the next day & on the council website. He said no contract, no Port of Taranaki relationship, no anything. Simple Q - same one I asked Ross M-A. Tuffy, show us the proof, (like Laws' fictional letter to M-A). Easy enough to scan the contract & post here. I suspect, it doesn't exist.
Matt, you beautiful person. You don't pay rates - only us deeply mortgaged.
Tuffy is a bankrupt. He's not likely to be suing anyone soon.
Give it away on the Port, guys. I disagree with Laws' stance on the Sarjeant & the arts but he's 100% right on the Port. It just wasn't real.
There isn't a Local Govt Act 1974 either. It was superseded by the Local Govt 2002 and a zillion bloody amendments.
There is no Wanganui County Council, no Patea District Council. Shit, there isn't even a Wanganui City Council. You're reading the wrong act, douchebag!!!
Setting aside for a moment the dereliction of duty by this commenter's mother in not having applied the odd bar of Sunlight to his (or her) unsanitary orifice, they have a point.
Whilst it isn't the "wrong" Act a look at the NZ Legislation web site (click pn "W" then on the Wanganui Harbour Act 1988) indicates that it does indeed make outdated references to non-existent bodies.
Since it seems not to have been repealed, this makes the situation interesting, to say the least. Just who has any authority here? Perhaps LawsWatch should pop down to the harbour mouth and plant a flag, thus claiming it in perpetuity.
As someone once said, "I'd love to be a Harbour Master - it means always having a tug". We're sure he meant a small boat.
We'd suggest Ms Pettis get her colleagues to lift their noses from the trough and fix it, but we hear they're otherwise engaged at present.
Anonymous said...
Matt, you beautiful person. You don't pay rates - only us deeply mortgaged.
8:42 PM
Your perceptions are leading you astray again. You clearly have no information about me beyond your imagination.
Anonymous said...
Give it away on the Port, guys. I disagree with Laws' stance on the Sarjeant & the arts but he's 100% right on the Port. It just wasn't real.
9:00 PM
Which would explain why the harbour committee is considering it and other proposals tomorrow
Anonymous said...
Give it away on the Port, guys. I disagree with Laws' stance on the Sarjeant & the arts but he's 100% right on the Port. It just wasn't real.
9:00 PM
Which project? Colin's, Tuffy's or the secret one?
Front page of todays Chron. Laws talks about "two more refendumbs" in the LTCCP. Since his council hasn't done any work on an LTCCP, I find that hard to believe. Not so the Chron., they just print it without question. When the newspapers "Council" reporter can't even get it right, what chance do we have?
re: the legal status of the Harbour committee.
Surely the answers will lie in the legislation winding up WCC and PDC. In any case, the existing act is still clear: it's a standing committee, not a specialist committee as Laws is pretending.
It's pretty dense and a bit clunky, but I think the LGA 2002 fails to repeal the Wanganui Harbour Act 1988. It repeals a bunch of earlier ones (schedule 19) but not the 1988 version. Perhaps this person:
"there isn't even a Wanganui City Council. You're reading the wrong act,"
would like to enlighten us as to which is the right piece of legislation. If however, that legislation also defines the Harbour Committee as a standing committee, the original point stands.
You've gotta love the Chron. "No sneaky sale of gas". Effectively this means that anyone who doesn't think the sale of Wanganui Gas is a good idea had better get organised, because Laws is clearly going to use the full apparatus of Council to push his assett sales, and I daresay the Chron. is going to help him.
When one side has significantly more resources leading into a referendumb, the "information campaign" cannot be seen to be "balanced". Yeah, yeah, people can make their own minds up. And how do they do that: by reading the newspaper.
If you go down to council today
You're sure of a big surprise
If you go down to council today
You'd better go in diguise
'Cos councillors from all over town
Are going to hear Mike put Tuffy down
Todays the day the Harbour Committee meets!
Wasting money for ratepayers,
Mike's going to screech and rant and rave and froth today,
Wasting money for ratepayers,
He'll try and get us all to look the other way,
While Col and the boys get a bunch of new toys,
From Westgate!
Cr Nicki Higgie turned up at Monday's council meeting wearing a TGIF tee shirt.
Cr Higgie, said the mayor. Why are you wearing that tee shirt on a Monday when it means Thank God it's Friday.
Oh no, said Nicki. I thought it meant Tits Go In Front.
OK, dumbo. Having pointed out your grievous error re the wrong legislation being quoted then here's the next issue. POW only consists of bankrupt Tuffy Churton, part-time secretary Vivienne Chapman and Tim Hungerford-Morgan of Laws' favourite Pius X mob. Yeah, if I was another port or finance company I'd be running too. Council will save my rates by not taking to take these dickheads seriously.
Was that a letter in today's Chron from Morgs taking a crack at Mitchell-Anyon??
Who's Morgs?
Anon said (verbal incontinence excused)...
OK, dumbo. Having pointed out your grievous error re the wrong legislation being quoted ...
But is it the wrong legislation? The LGA 2002 does not repeal it, and I can't find any other pertinent Act. I think you're wrong and unless you can provide evidence to the contrary you have no standing.
There are at least three port proposals in the mix. Laws has rubbished one while keeping the other one confidential. And then there's Colin Cashmore's River City Port...
I really don't care particularly which one wins the day, but I think we should at least be able to hear the debate without chucking insults around. You still haven't answered the point that it's a standing committee, but as usual I suppose that means that you have no answers, just a potty mouth.
We'll see who takes who seriously this afternoon. It's not Laws' committee it's Don McGregors, and he's already indicated that as far as he's concerned everyone gets a full hearing. Laws is going to have to pull his head in and bite his tongue. PoW are claiming that they have existing contracts with Council, and no one seems to have sought a legal opinion (at least there's none on record) from Rob Goldsbury as to the standing of these contracts.
One way or another the matter must be resolved, but while Laws clouds the issue with his self-serving grandstanding, Wanganui waits.
I'll ask the Q again: where's Churton's alleged contract? Same place as Mitchell-Anyon's alleged letter from Laws asking him to join Vision. C'mon people, we can be honest with ourselves at least. Neither exist. That's the real problem with fighting Laws/Vision - the opposition so often lets itself down. We appear twats.
Potty mouth? Who are you? My mother?
Well, a District Councillor I spoke to yesterday says there is some paperwork between PoW and Council. This councillor was saying that he/she wants more information before anything can proceed. Laws has indicated that he has little regard for any of the relevant legislation, but he's only got one vote. Even Visionaries might blanche at stepping over that line with him.
Let's leave your mother out of it shall we? Answer the question.
You are my Mum, aren't you? Its Ok - I'm heading back to school.
lol that's better now we're getting somewhere. Now c'mon, while you're in a good mood, answer the question.
I dont go to council meetings (oK once to hold a placard last year) but ... could someone tell me about this Port contract. Love to hear about it because it would mean that none of this new council are aware of it. Are the old councillors like Sue & Randy?
All will be revealed (well as much as can be wrung from Rob Goldsbury's sweaty grasp) at the Harbour Committee meeting today. Don't ask me when, go to the Council website and find out yourself.
I suspect it's along the lines of a very broad heads of agreement, but what the hell, perhaps it is all fantasy.
I want to know what the "confidential sensitive" negotiations between "council officers and westgate..." contained.
From my brief understanding of public law - so, Mum, give me a break. Parliament amends legislation all the time of acts that must be changed because of new titles, boundaries etc. There will be an amending piece of legislation for the Port. That obviously isnt posted on the site you've visited. But I've looked back at previous council plans and they have a Harbour committee with WDC coubncillors & a Sth Taranaki rep (was that the ratepayers guy? Grant-Fargie?). So obvously the last council had a different structure than is in your legislation too.
This is such a cool site. I learn something new every day and today it is the port. The bit I dont get tho is why Ocean Terminals Ltd ran the port if there was a seperate law? That might help out our adolescent friend, potty mouth.
Randy???
Do you mean Randha or Rangi?
I know some of the old councillors are aware of it in principle, but it will partly depend on what their specialties have been in the past as to how much info they have.
Laws is very good at appearing to have all the information. He will cheerfully assert all sorts of vague "facts" that later turn out to have no foundation. When the truth finally gets reported (if it ever does eh Sean?) everyone's either forgotten, or assumes it's just someone elses spin.
Somewhere under all this flim-flam there is money to be made in some sort of development in the river mouth. Who gets the contracts, guys? Follow the money, as usual. I'm sure everything is clear and above board, of course. No suggestion of impropriety from this quarter, no siree.
Anon said (having received a note from his Mum):
There will be an amending piece of legislation for the Port.
But there isn't! Go and check it out for yourself. The Local Government Act 2002, in schedules 18 and 19, repeals various pieces of legislation, but not the Wanganui Harbour Act 1988.
The most obvious explanation is that they haven't got 'round to changing it yet, but I note that the Harbour has been treated separately and specially in nz law for some time now. Perhaps there's an unresolved Treaty claim in the mix?
All this can be found on the website quoted by Lawswatch above.
Now then, back to my question - answer it please.
As to the last council's structure, there appears to have been some confusion at that level too.
You were assuming that because it's the government there'll be no mistakes, were you? Oh puppy.
No, you're not my mother after all but a bossy teacher. answer the question! answer the question! Will I get a smacky bottom if I don't? And if you're female ... that might not be so bad. I'll take the smacky bottom. I'm thinking you want an A to the standing committee question - wouldnt have a clue what a standing committee is. One that cant find a bed?
Can you two go off & flirt somewhere else. Some dating site or something.
I suppose any exchange that starts with the use of the word
"douchebag" was doomed from the start. I should have just ignored it in the first place.
Piss off grandad. We're allowed some fun. Besides, I think Carol is hot.
http://www.wanganui.govt.nz/news/showNews.asp?id=328&show=single
Laws latest spin.
He calls the deep water port a "fictional fantasy." But what about the industrial park and cargo hub? No mention of those.
Oh, and he lets on the first big screw-up of his first annual plan: they called for tenders for the upper Avenue upgrade but they didn't budget anything for it. D'ohhh!
Attended that council meeting. That tender was approved by last council, he stopped it. Some pretty incompetent managers at the WDC.
Yeah, check out the Council's website. Mayor's message to Community Meetings - this is what he's telling everone, folks. Hate to be a senior manager there.
Ouch. Why didn't Colin Whitlock tell them?
Or is Laws just attacking the messengers again?
Have to agree with anon. The 2004/5 Annual Plan & upper Vic upgrade was signed off by last council. They would have done it as part of their AP deliberations last June/July & set the AP then for 04/05. Better take back that 'doh' ...(lol)
Oops that's my misreading.
It's a stuff up whichever way you look at it. It's hardly diplomatic to shove it in the faces of the council officers, though.
it gets a bit...dare I say this..incoherent towards the end. Perhaps he was rushed, poor dear.
Looked at that Wanganui Port legislation and I'd say that they simply extrapolated the renamed districts after the local govt reorganisation of the late 1980s. The County & the City became WDC, plus the rep of Sith Taranaki (ex Patea). Whether its called a standing committee or specialist doesn't matter - the point is that it has the power to administer the resources at the Port. The real suprise for me is that they devolved that job to Ocean Terminals back in 1989 - the new WDC walked away. Then Cashmore came along in 2004 & took over the lease. Interesting that the last council had the chance to engineer POW into that lease but didn't. Probably because Tuffy didn't have
any money. One of the principals of Ocean Terminals was Pam Smith - one of our Sarjeant supporters & on the board of the Cooks (for how long?) She loathes Laws.
Quite a god rundown by Laws on the council finances. Whatever else he is, he's not dumb.
Sorry, 'good' not god. That would be too-too much.
Why don't more Council officers post here? I'be always wondered that, with Carol's blog too. It's anonymous & they could really help us big time.
They don't post because there are a limited set of people who have access to information at any one time: it makes them too easy to identify. And to the poster who says "it doesn't matter" whether it's standing or specialist, it does if the act says it has to be one and WDC start behaving as though it's the other, especially where commercial contracts are involved. All they have to do is define it propoerly before they start, but if they don't they'll have to waste money changing it later.
anon said
One of the principals of Ocean Terminals was Pam Smith
Um ... I think you mean Pam Williams
Laws not dumb? Really? What sort of a person burns bridges so flippantly? Just 'cos he can do sums doesn't mean he's clever. All the points he makes in the article have been made at one time or another in letters to the Chron.
A person who isn't standing for re-election. Wild guess.
Post a Comment