Under starter's orders

In a straight-to-the-point story on last night's Finance and Administration Committee meeting, the Chron headlines "Sale of donated Sarjeant art not ruled out by Laws". Can't sound a much clearer warning than that.

It won't endear us to some of our readership, but from the LawsWatch secret cave it seems the Wanganui arts community couldn't fairly be described as the most effective political force in town. Not surprising, really... an artistic temperament is probably the antithesis of the qualities that would make a good politician. The closest we can recall an elected official coming to art was Sir Robert Muldoon's fondness for lilies - he couldn't create art, but at least he could appreciate that which can be found in nature.

In the end, the decision on the Sarjeant, like any other matter before Council, will come down to votes. Certainly lobbying has the potential to influence that vote, but there can be no more effective tactic than electing someone who's committed to policies you support. After all, will you be voting for an unknown quantity on 17 September? Or will you back the party whose policies most closely mirror your own opinions?

As some commenters have said, an "arts candidate" would be an easy target for derision. But that doesn't mean a strong candidate whose raft of popular (as opposed to populist) policies included support for the arts wouldn't have a chance.

Over at LawsWatch polls, after gaining a clear lead, John Martin (on 29%) is back to level-pegging with Jodie Dalgleish (on 28%) from a reasonably significant total of 139 votes. The only person who comes close is Carla Donson, back on 15 percent.

If Graeme Taylor leaves Council "by the end of the year" as his Leader has instructed he shall, it's possible Wanganui might be facing a by-election in the midst of summer, when people have better things to think about, like what wine goes well with over-cooked barbeque sausages. That means campaigning probably needs to start in a month or so.

So might we suggest it's time people - particularly Mr Martin and Ms Dalgleish - declared their hands, and people started getting organised? If only one intends to stand, then we'll run a poll to see if support from the other will transfer across.

P.S. LawsWatch intends to offer space to every declared by-election candidate - including anyone put up by Vision - to publish a statement and profile and then, through the comments facility, debate with and answer questions from visitors. We'll also link to any individual website maintained by a candidate.

P.P.S. Over on the General Election poll, Jill Pettis is way out in front with 63 percent, Chester Borrows on 25 percent, (with John Milnes six percent and Debbie Lucas two percent), whilst things look even worse for National in the party vote stakes, with only five percent compared to 50 percent for Labour. Despite asking for party votes not personal votes, Jim Anderton's Progressives are showing no support, and neither are Winston's mob. The Greens are doing well with 21 percent, the Maori Party and the Alliance both have seven percent, the Direct Democracy Party are on five percent (so someone likes referenda!) and Destiny NZ and the Libertarianz are both on two percent.

Comments on this post are now closed.

But wait, there's more!!

The purpose of art is washing the dust of daily life off our souls
- Pablo Picasso

"Artists fear Wanganui’s council could hock off millions of dollars worth of treasured works from the city’s Sarjeant Gallery" - The Wanganui Chronicle, 30 August 2005.

Meanwhile, after tonight's triumphant Finance & Administration Committee meeting, the Council pose for a pre-sale portrait, copies of which will adorn the blank spaces on the walls of the Sarjeant:

While at the Gallery itself, a subtle change begins:


Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere
- G.K. Chesterton

Update (posted @ 8.30 pm):

A minor revolt in Committee Room 2 has granted a temporary reprieve for the Sarjeant Gallery. The motion eventually passed was that a paper "outlining the policy parameters under which the gallery operates" be presented at the next meeting. The Diva had intended to bypass Nicki Higgie, commenting that he and Rangi Wills would be the ones to do the review. Higgie showed some spine, expressing her belief that de-accessioning work would be unnecessary, a view which was met with cynicism from the chair. Dot McKinnon tried to out-Diva the Diva, demonstrating her ignorance of matters artistic; Bill Milbank was on hand to help her out, giving a potted history of the Gallery's policy development.

Perhaps the most telling exchange was that between Rangi Wills and the Diva. Rangi thanked Bill and the Gallery staff for the "astute purchasing policy" that has resulted in "significant movement in some of the valuations". The Diva responded, amid general derision, that "we would have been better off buying a house in Castlecliff".

There was a sense of general unease, met with defensive umbrage from the chair, but Laws was eventually forced to accede to the pressure applied from around the table.

We now await the document outlining the parameters for the review: who will conduct it and the terms of reference. There seemed to be a majority feeling that "The Friends" would be involved in this, but again, the Diva signalled his resistance to this, so no doubt pressure is to be applied at the next Vision "caucus"...

Further update (posted @ 10.15 pm): Sue Westwood also had words to say about the "significance" of the policy changes signalled. She made the point that Council should signal there was no intention to sell any donated piece. The Mayor informed the meeting that that debate would be had later.

Barbara Bullock pointed out that the new Friends of the Sarjeant would be "worth it's weight in gold". Laws then started talking about The Cooks Gardens Trust Board and Cooks Gardens, and it was some moments before he realised he was talking about the wrong organisation. Cue general laughter. Councillor Bullock then asked what they were doing commissioning a report with no input from the Gallery staff. The Mayor responded "why should there be?"

(Our thanks to on-the-spot reporter Matt Dutton for that update).

Comments on this post are now closed.

Heart flatlined

Here we are, toiling away at our various paid pursuits, and there you all are, wanting more information. Those calloused by their toil at the Chron might well demand another five percent. If we were to get an additional five percent, we'd still be earning zip. So, as Your Mother (whom we haven't seen commenting for a while - are you well, Mother?) would say: Time for some self-reliance.

As we've said before, you're all LawsWatchers, and you're all citizens. Most of you are ratepayers. So you have every right to seek - nay, demand - answers from your elected representatives and public servants, and to share them with your fellow citizens here on this blog. So if you want to know, ask - you can only be told to sod off. And that in itself is information worth sharing.

Meanwhile, we're doing our best. Thanks to the valiant efforts of LawsWatch supporter Matt Dutton we've got our first answer to a request for information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. And that answer is: The Vision salute - two fingers raised and shoved right up the nose of any ratepayer rude enough to ask what our betters are up to to.

We asked to see the brief for the Heart of the City project. Nope, we're told, we wouldn't be able to understand it. Excuse us? There are people in Wanganui, and beyond, far better qualified to understand budgets, plans, architectural diagrams (or whatever the information actually is) than most of the people who happened to get themselves elected to Council. All they need is the information on which to base an informed assessment.

So we've responded thusly (or rather, Matt has):

Mr. McGowan,

I asked to see the brief for The Heart of the City project. I find it hard to believe that I would be unable to derive "meaningful" information from it. The brief is a vital part in the development of any design proposal, and I believe "the public" has a right to know how this brief is being developed, especially in light of the fact of the inherent flaws in the design brief that led to the Warren Mahoney proposal.

I do not accept your refusal to provide this information, and I will be requesting an opinion from the auditors as to its legality.

Matt Dutton

Meanwhile, more LGOIM Act requests were filed today regarding

• River Queen
• Audit Office Port report
• Any correspondence between Council & Westgate Port of Taranaki
• The Independent OSH report into the Sarjeant

Comments on this post are now closed.

Prime candidate?

A late entry in our "pick the new CEO" contest, worth repeating we think (with a little help from our art department):

Hi Mikey, me old Mate,

Even for an old l-o-s-e-r (I see from that blog thing that's your preferred term of address nowadays) like me, it’s great to think you and the good folks of WangaVegas still want and need me. Once we’ve got these couple of piddly little negotiating points out of the way, WangaVegas will be getting none other that the Late, Great Paul Holmes as its CEO, eh Michael? We may no longer be in our Prime, but there’s still plenty of gratuitious recreational trouble in the old firm yet, eh Matey?

Oh, what a team we’ll make Michael, and how I’ll use my high media profile to help you put Wanganui on the map. Here are some ideas I’ve had while I’ve been roaming the deserted badlands of Albany the last few weeks:

PRIME TIME TV SHOW: Let’s call it These were our people today, those are your mugs everyday. A new reality tv series broadcast from my new downtown office in which we pick various citizens and staff at random and abuse them. You can txt your abuse from your downtown office, which will of course be right next door to my downtown office.

MY SALARY: Because I know WangaVegas is on the bones of its bum and you need a cool few million for the Michael Laws Memorial Splash Centre, I’ll settle for exactly twice what Judy Bailey gets and immediately donate half it to you, Michael, since I hear you’ve already given every penny of the mayor’s stipend towards your fabulous downtown office.

RACE RELATIONS: I’m the obvious bloke to sort out that cheeky darkie Ken Mair and I’ll put the H (for Holmsey) straight up him. They don’t like it up ‘em, Michael, as Graham Adams would have told you as his Mayor's Massed Vigilantes paraded for you.

ECONOMY BOOSTER: We’ll turn that old white building on the Queen’s Park hill into a giant celebrity rehab farm and get our old Mate Marc Ellis to open it. We can offer Julie Christie a discount rate and before you know it the place’ll will be swarming with celebrities and superstars. We’ll turn Balgownie into Trash Island and build a giant film set. Soon, Matey, they’ll be beating a path to your door. We’ll be able to film your Sky rugbyhead show there and you won’t even have to leave town to do those Trash Island celebrity shows.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I will of course also hold the new title of Secretary of Foreign Affairs in what will henceforth be known as President Laws’ Cabinet. My fleet of aircraft will be hangared at the new Paul Holmes International Airport across the river and will be available for hire to Wanganui’s First Citizen. Oh Michael, we’ll soar across the skies, the wind rushing through our LawsWatch daks, making cruel fun of the pathetic little settlements beneath us. I’ll stage spectacular crash landings in places like Raetihi, Dannevike and Murupara and we’ll walk away from the wreckage bellowing gratuitous recreational insults about their gene pools.

I really enjoyed meeting your people that night at the secret caucus but it was a touch and go when the security guard caught me sneaking out of my bi-plane round the back disguised as your Amazonian-fresh-from-the-Gold Coast.

Not to worry, eh Michael. We’ll show em! WangaVegas, this is your Holmsey, today.






Comments on this post are now closed.

Credibility and accountability - going down for the 3rd time

We pays our taxes. We pays our rates. But when it comes to knowing what our employees down in Wellington or over on Guyton Street are up to, they conveniently forget who's boss. It's okay for them to know exactly where you are, but not for you to know exactly what they're up to.

Still, that hasn't stopped various anonymii asking some very astute questions:

• Councillors can only set policy: council officers then implement that policy. So what startling new policy will Council now reveal to sort the Port?
• I suppose that's why the mayor set up this new harbour committee and put Dahya and Bullock in there to sort it out. Looking at that committee tho' it includes I note the mayor, deputy and Graeme Taylor. Fairly high-powered, theyre planning something.
• It's funny, though, because, according to the LGA, they're supposed to listen to and implement the will of the District, not pull startling new policy out of the hat all the time.
• I don't understand the difference between what this Council and any previous Council have been landed with re the port. There has been very little tonnage thru the Port since the 60's. Chas Poynter always put up the case that by abolishing the Harbour Board and leasing it to OTL harbour rates ceased, and he's correct on that point. I very much doubt that Laws would have done it differently at the time. Just what is this alleged "incompetence" all about, nothing printed by the Chron explains it. I find the Laws spin of continually alleging incompetence in Chas's council, although predictable, is now past its use by date. They were even blamed for the forestry prices crashing. It's now time to actually do something, rather than just try to make himself look like a white knight coming to the rescue.
• Which begs the question: have all Councillors (esp. Harbour cttee) received copies of this report, or not? Has Michael "arranged to have copies couriered to them"? When do you suppose Vision will meet to discuss it?
• But Audit aren't that secretive so they must have given council a draft or something to respond to.

Indeed they have. But despite the Audit Office existing - in theory only, it seems - to protect the ordinary rate- and tax-payer, don't bother asking them for a copy of the report. Or "our letter" as they interestingly refer to it. They're not making copies public. Seems they are that secretive.

According to the Auditor General's own standards:

1.3 The Auditor-General has broad powers to investigate and report on matters arising from audits. The activities and performance of many public entities are of interest to a wide constituency and audit findings are often of a sensitive nature. (our emphasis)
1.4 The Appointed Auditor must communicate significant audit issues to the appropriate person or body within the entity. The Auditor-General will report audit findings to a wider audience where necessary. (our emphasis)

So it seems the Audit Office don't consider it "necessary" to inform Wanganui just what's happened to one of their most significant assets. As one of the anonymii neatly pins down above, nothing in the Chron details the alleged "incompetence" of previous Councils (though it seems probable they acted less than prudently, given the present mess). And as another points out, the present Council (blameless or not) can't simply head off on a tangent of its own making without letting the rest of us into their confidence.

So that leaves - as a starter - the following questions, deserving of an answer from someone, somewhere, who's in receipt of the public's coin. We wonder who'll be brave enough - and honest enough - to step forward:

1. What, precisely, constitutes the alleged incompetence of previous Councils in relation to the Port?
2. Has the loss to Wanganui of Councils' previous handling of the Port been quantified and, if so, in what amount?
3. Is the present Council specifically absolved of responsibility by the Audit Office?
4. The present Council clearly has at least an outline plan as to what it wants to do about the Port. What is that plan?

Comments on this post are now closed.

Diva Strangelove

Can it be long before we see a journalist "embedded" in Guyton Street?

No, we don't mean buried beneath the roadway. We mean the modern military strategem of having a reporter from a supposedly independent media organisation attached semi-permanently to a troop unit.

While the media first thought they were going to have unrivalled access to the front lines, what actually happened was that the reporters understandably became friends with the soliders with whom they shared foxholes, and sent back stirring tales of "our boys" derring-do. Meanwhile, the non-embedded journalists back at HQ were kept subdued by pretty pictures of "smart" bombs going down chimneys.

As a result it's widely acknowledged that reportage on the Gulf War (I or II) was in fact less truthful than, say, the footage we (eventually) saw from Vietnam or even World War II.

What has this to do with Wanganui, you ask?

Well, Field Marshall the Diva Michael Laws (to give him his full title) is certainly familiar with information management. Here, for instance, is the purpose of information as defined in a military context (in this case, Bosnia-Herzegovina):

The Role of Information

Gain and maintain public support
Exert “media diplomacy”

pressure adversaries
encourage allies

by selective release of information

Influence local population

Going on to explain the close co-ordination between the army PR people and PSYOPS (i.e. the brainwashing crowd) this paper goes on to note:

...the use of information as a 'non-lethal weapon system'... At headquarters level (as well as in some divisions), information was systematically used to reinforce the appropriateness of IFOR’s activities. For example, MND (SW) commander often relied on press statements to lay blame publicly on the factions who violated the DPA to pressure them to comply. Information was always on the commander’s mind as one of his major tools for action. CJ3 was constantly aware of the possibility to use the media..."

The Diva's handling of the Audit Office report into the entire Port of Wanganui saga surely suggests it can't be long before Sean Hoskins, or someone from the Chron newsroom, is sent off, hard hat in hand, to "embed" themselves at City Hall.

The Report was selectively released to the Chron - via fax, so no chance anyone might press that pesky "forward" key on the email, and with the Diva's spin, just prior to deadline. And so duly appeared as a relatively small story because space was tight. As it always is in a Saturday newspaper, as the Mayor well knows.

We're not being critical of the Chron here - it got the news, it ran with it, and it gave it as much space as it could. The newsroom isn't staffed or funded to undertake critical analysis of complex reports - specially not in a short space of time - and there's a natural tendency to at least start whatever analysis can be done from the perspective of the spin you've been given. Nevertheless, the eventual report doesn't make any Council look particularly good - so what might the unvarnished version tell us?

Neither the Council nor the Audit Office have opted to make the entire report available to the public, and it's pointless expecting Port of Wanganui Limited (whose commitment to openness equals that of the Diva) to tell us either.

Since some pro-Diva commenters seem to love the scorecard approach to politics, let's summarise the results of that approach:

• Laws - 1
• Open government and informed discussion - 0

So let's settle back in our armchairs and watch the pretty picture of the bombs hitting PoW (and what an appropriate acronym that turned out to be). After all, we can be certain Guyton Street's PSYOPS are giving us an accurate picture with their non-lethal weapons system. Can't we?

---

While we're talking open government, don't forget the first batch of questions under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act go in on Monday. Already we have some interesting questions, one even pre-dating the present Council. So let's have your contributions to our special LGOIA address: LetsAskMichael@bigfoot.com

Comments on this post are now closed.

Welcome to the LawsWatch Fantasy League

Computer games have been like human catnip to a section of the population, dating back to the days when a small white square bouncing off two white rectangles (with the unfortunate name of Pong, we seem to recall) fascinated some of us.

But the blip blip blipping of Pong looks positively compelling next to Fantasy Football. Rather than the action-packed Playstation style of game, which at least might get the blood pumping through those chip-grease lined arteries, Fantasy Football devotees spend their time "automatically downloading statistics and calculating leagues game results... In one single step, you can create more than 20 reports that can be uploaded to a web site, e-mailed, or printed without any user intervention!"

If you sit watching statistics being calculated and then spam your friends (not that you're likely to have any) with them for enjoyment, what kind of sad life must you be living? Why, the kind that brings you to LawsWatch, of course!

So, sports fans, welcome to the LawsWatch Fantasy League, where you get to pick the new CEO from absolutely anyone. Since Council aren't telling who's up for the CEO's job, let's resort to what some anonymous commenters do best - spreading disinformation a.k.a. "gratuitous recreational trouble".

Who'd be the perfect pick to work with the Diva? Here's some nominations to get you started:

Jeffrey Dahmer. Yes, best known as a serial killer who ate people, but Dahmer has many fine qualities that recommend him as the Diva's right hand man (just don't leave the hand lying around near anything sharp). For a start, lots of people spread nasty rumours about Jeffrey, which hurt his feelings dreadfully. No one realised what a nice chap he was, underneath all that dismembering. Much misunderstood, so likely to identify with his new boss. And while Michael shared his sleeping bag with a young TV bimbette, Jeffrey shared a sleeping bag with a shop mannequin, so they have a lot in common there, too. And while the Diva has a lot of trouble digesting the points made by his opponents, Jeffrey would have no trouble at all digesting the opponents themselves.

Gunderic, leader of the Vandals. The Diva is always complaining how busy he is - why, just recently he told us all he couldn't even manage to join the family for a holiday on the Gold Coast. Gunderic could make sure Nicki Higgie was implementing Michael's plan for the Sarjeant, thus freeing him for the serious tasks of civic leadership, like getting made up at Sky TV. And Gunderic's clearly on Michael's wavelength when it comes to civic leadership: "Gratuitous cruelty was only one symptom of the Vandals’ swift degeneration", we're told.

Matthew Hopkins. The self-appointed Witchfinder General could lead the Diva's relentless quest to uncover the Laws Watchers, hundreds of whom are hiding throughout Wanganui cunningly disguised as ordinary people. No need for a ducking stool - if mention of the Diva evokes barely suppressed sniggers, it's time to stoke that bonfire of "surplus" Sarjeant artworks and toast another heretic (and we don't mean with Pinot Gris). And Hopkins seems to emulate the Diva's tactics when it comes to handling diVision team members who step out of line. Under Hopkins, "hanging was mandatory for the first offence".

Comments on this post are now closed.

Hold the front page. Indefinitely.

Wanganui truly is served by fearless media. First the River City Press get so frightened by the Spin Fairy they actually turn away money rather than publish an innocuous advertisement for LawsWatch. Now it seems the Chron takes its editorial direction from APN's Sydney office tower.

Why else would there be no mention of the fact that 50 EPMU members (including those cloth-capped sons of toil at the Chron itself) walked off the job for 24 hours at 8.30pm on Tuesday night?

The Chronic made no mention of the fact in it's Wednesday and Thursday editions. Wonder if APN's interim six-monthly net profit of AU$66.1 million (a 17% rise, no less) made it to the business pages? The overworked and definitely under-appreciated scribes want an audacious five percent increase, by the way.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Roll up the red carpet, they need it in Toronto

world (n)
The earth.
The universe.
The earth with its inhabitants.
The inhabitants of the earth; the human race.

pre·miere or pre·mière(n)
The first public performance, as of a movie or play.

Ah, those were giddy times back in July, when the chill winter mists hanging over the Whanganui cleared and the poor folks stopped in their daily toil to read the word from their beloved leaders.

On July 21st they picked up their hand-set daily bulletin and saw to their amazement that their raw, humble settlement was to host a World Premiere. (This was, remember, before Hollywood was even invented.) “Roll out the red carpet .... city to host River Queen premiere” screamed the headline that glorious day. “Roll out the red carpet – Wanganui will hold the world premiere of the River Queen” said the scribe’s story.

The very next day there was more. As the citizens queued outside their local newspaper office in the pouring rain, the billboard went up: “River Queen gets $150,000 premiere grant”. They waited for the warm newsprint to be handed out, hot off the press and with trembling hands read “Wanganui District Council is to contribute $150,000 toward the world premiere of River Queen in Wanganui - once it knows when and where the film can be screened.”

Today, with spring in the air and blossom on the trees, their daily bulletin answered that question. 'Tis... TORONTO! The crowd fell silent. Nobody had heard of Toronto. Was it perhaps a Maori settlement buried deep in the impenetrable bush up the river, they wondered.

Some of the artistic types reminded their fellow citizens they’d warned them not to listen to that snake-oil salesman - christened by a scribe in faraway Auckland as the Queen of the Whanganui - who had come to town the previous year promising to put their humble town on the map.

All along the rough-sawn walls of the newspaper office, tattered and fading billboards reminded them that that the River Queen waka was as good as sunk the day the hoity-toity mob from City Hall jumped on board.

River Queen premiere date soon

Back to drawing board for premiere plans

Temuera Morrison wants world premiere in Wanganui

River Queen figures corrected

No blunder: Council pushing for River Queen premiere

Council blunder may sink River Queen premiere

NZ director axed from River Queen

Dismissed director returns to helm of 'River Queen'

Cursed Film 'River Queen' Suffers Another Setback

So they sighed and went about their toil, as honest folk do to this day ...and it's said that if one listens closely just as the early mist rises off the Whanganui, one can hear an ethereal sobbing emanating from the direction of City Hall.

'Tis the ghost, some say, of the old settlement's credibility, weeping for having lost to those arty Toronoto types, them and their cursed shoe museum.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Say what?

Find out which councillor we think has been supping too much Diva Devotion Potion - all for your reading pleasure on Council Watch.

Spot the flip flops

Yes, we know that, for some reason lost in the mists of history, we in NZ call them jandals. But most of the rest of the world call them flip flops (and some call them thongs, leading to embarrassing and at times unsightly confusion with underwear). But the term "flip flop" has entered common political parlance, particularly after the last US Presidential race when both candidates levelled the charge at the other. So there.

WDC website 22 August: "Time to reduce councillor numbers"

Mayor Michael Laws says that Wanganui has too many local body politicians and that it is time to reduce district councillor numbers. "The best configuration, in my view, would be to reduce Council numbers from 12 to 10, and rural board members from six to four".

WDC website 12 August: "Let the 'h' debate begin"

On representation issues, he said that it made sense to abolish the rural ward (which would be reduced from three to one councillors by 2007) and have one district-wide ward "that allows all residents the chance to vote for their entire Council. I have no desire to see rural ward residents confined to voting for just the mayor and one councillor. That doesn't make sense".

Vision Wanganui Policy Release - 28 May:

3.5 - Immediately request a Local Government Commission review of representation arrangements in Wanganui with the intention of reducing the number of elected councillors to eight instead of the current twelve (estimated saving $100,000 per annum);
3.6 Replace the rural community board with monthly mayoral forums on rural issues (estimated saving $100,000 in a full council term)
3.7 Investigate withdrawing from the Horizons Regional Council and creating a unitary authority for our region (as is the case in Gisborne, Tasman, Marlborough and Nelson).

The referendum will ask, along with the water and "h" questions, whether we agree:

• To create a separate Maori ward for Council
• To abolish the rural ward and create one district-wide ward
• To reduce the numbers of councillors from 12 to 10

So it's now ten not eight councillors, the abolition of the rural community board has become the abolition of the rural community ward and maybe the reduction of rural board members from six to four but that's not actually in the referendum, that's just one of those personal opinions that might become policy, it seems. And withdrawing from Horizons Regional Council has disappeared right off the agenda. Wonder why?

Comments on this post are now closed.

Let's do the Time Warp. Again.

Astute commenters have already noticed the Chron caught in a Time Warp of it's own making - with Dave Laurence reporting on one page that NZ First's list wouldn't be released till that afternoon whilst another part of the paper had said list in its entirety. Meanwhile sister paper the NZ Herald had the story straight in time for it's readers.

Even Dr Frank-n-Furter wouldn't swap his laboratory for the editor's chair at the Chronic, we expect. On the plus side though, the arrival of new columnist Terry Sarten means we might be able to laugh with the paper occasionally instead of just laughing at it. And they've belatedly discovered anonymous interactivity via their "have your say" line on 0800 90 90 10. So by all means, have it. Your say, that is.

Poor Winston. When NZ First kicked off in 1993, and again in 1996, it was a point of some pride to him that it was able to field a candidate in every seat. Now they can muster barely a third, with some long-standing party loyalists pressed into service at the bottom of the list to even make it to 40, with no one willing to stand for Whanganui. Amazingly, that hasn't lengthed those 501 odds being offered by Centrebet.

And another thing: Winston is 60 this year. When this Parliament ends he'll be 63. His namesake, Winston Churchill, was over 60 when he became PM. Then again, John Howard - self-described as "Lazarus with a triple bypass" after coming close to the Prime Ministership but not quite making it - only took till he was 57. Over at Island Life David Slack has come up with a cunning plan to make Winston PM this time round. But if it doesn't work, will he run for another term, leading people as lacklustre as Doug Woolerton, Peter Brown and Brent Catchpole (whom Winston doesn't allow to speak anyway)? Or will he retire to his isolated holiday home up north and, if he does, who will aim to fill his shoes, we wonder? Any guesses?

Comments on this post are now closed.

Decisions, decisions

Don't you just know the TV networks will call their election night coverage something like "Decision '05" or "NZ votes: 2005"? Why not something creative, like "NZ picks the least incompetent" or "NZ chooses the bloke whose name they vaguely know", or combine it with the Lotto results so we can at least have a real stake in the outcome?

Well, with today being Nomination Day (The day when final nominations for electorate and list MPs must be received by Chief Electoral Officer or returning officers) we'll bow to audience demand and run a national political poll.

Amid much grumbling in the LawsWatch secret cave about off-topic posting, we were reminded that it would produce an interesting piece of data after the election proper - to what extent do Laws Watchers mirror the wider Wanganui population, at least in political affiliation?

So, first up, who will you be giving your candidate vote to?

Jill Pettis - Labour
Chester Borrows - National
Debbie Lucas - Progressive
John Milnes - Greens
Undecided
Won't vote
I'm in Te Tai Hauauru

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Then you'll need to come back here (there'll be a button marked "back" once you've voted and the results are displayed) and tell us to whom you'll be giving your party vote?

99 MP Party
ACT New Zealand
Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
Christian Heritage New Zealand
Destiny New Zealand
Direct Democracy Party
Jim Anderton's Progressive
Libertarianz
Mâori Party
New Zealand Family Rights Protection Party
New Zealand First Party
New Zealand Labour Party
One New Zealand Party
Outdoor Recreation NZ
The Alliance
The Greens, The Green Party of Aotearoa/New Zealand
The New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit
The New Zealand National Party
The Republic of New Zealand Party
United Future New Zealand



Free polls from Pollhost.com

Note: We're limited to 20 options in any one poll, so are unable to include every single party registered with the Electoral Commission. We don't want a tantrum from Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne though, so we've been sure to include them. Links are to those official websites of which we're aware - if any need to be added please leave in comments.

Update: A punter writes to advise that you can, of course, have a Prime Ministerial flutter via Centrebet. Elections must be the only events on which the participants themselves can legally bet. We wonder if Winston has taken up the odds of 501 on him ever becoming PM.

Comments on this post are now closed. The poll remains open.

Flagging it II

Perhaps LawsWatch could have a competition to design a suitable flag for Vision!

...said one of the anonymii. Here's our best effort. Those who fancy themselves of an artistic bent might like to email their efforts to lawswatch-at-hotmail-dot-com and we'll post them here, and those who don't can describe their imaginings in comments (keep it PG13 in both cases, please).

Update: Another entry has arrived:


Update II: And another (our favourite so far):

Comments on this post are now closed.

Honest Matt Dutton's LGOIA Emporium

The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (click on "L" then on the Act in the side menu) provides that:

10. Requests— (1)Any person may request any local authority to make available to that person any specified official information.

and that:

11. Assistance— It is the duty of every local authority to give reasonable assistance to a person who— (a)Wishes to make a request in accordance with section 10 of this Act

And let's not forget that all-important Section 17:

17. Refusal of requests— A request made in accordance with section 10 of this Act may be refused only for one or more of the following reasons, namely:

(a) That, by virtue of section 6 or section 7 of this Act, there is good reason for withholding the information;
(b) That, by virtue of section 8 of this Act, the local authority does not confirm or deny the existence or non-existence of the information requested,
(c) That the making available of the information requested would—

(i) Be contrary to the provisions of a specified enactment; or
(ii) Constitute contempt of Court or of the House of Representatives;

(d) That the information requested is or will soon be publicly available.
(e) That the document alleged to contain the information requested does not exist or cannot be found.
(f) That the information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or research.
(g) That the information requested is not held by the local authority and the person dealing with the request has no grounds for believing that the information is either—

(i) Held by another local authority or a Department or Minister of the Crown or organisation; or
(ii) Connected more closely with the functions of another local authority, or a Department or Minister of the Crown or organisation.

(h) That the request is frivolous or vexatious or that the information requested is trivial.

In comments on a post a few days back, Matt Dutton made the somewhat rash offer to become the medium for all Laws Watchers to make requests of Council under the Act, thus preserving the anonymity of the questioner.

"Are you serious?!", we asked. "Absolutely," he replied. We politely left unasked the next question - the one about sanity - and gladly accepted his offer.

So, you can now email us asking for information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act; we'll pass these on to Matt; he will put in the request to Council; they will answer; he will pass the answer to us, and we'll post it here. Clear? Good.

Bear in mind that the questions must be about the activities of Council or of the Mayor or any councillor in their elected capacity. We reserve the right to edit requests for clarity and to reject those we are certain would not be eligible for answer. If we're in doubt, we'll put it in and see what happens.

We've established a new email address just for LGOIA queries: LetsAskMichael@bigfoot.com

So if you've ever wondered just how many cartons of 3-ply bog roll they spend your rates on each month, and whether any of it finds its way to the toilets in Majestic Square or if it's all used at Guyton Street, here's your chance...

Update: Someone with Official Information Act experience at both national and local level offers this advice:

Information requested must specifically be available in document format, ie not just in someone's head, and the document must be clearly identified. So, fishing expeditions, while they might seem fun at the time, don't really get anywhere. And it takes up to 20 working days to find out that you could have done a better job of framing the request to point to a specific document, report, invoice etc., so you then have to start all over again...

Comments on this post are now closed.

Excuse me, your democracy is at half mast

"Well, it's clear that the committee has agreed that your new policy is a really excellent plan but in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the committee was that while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice, that, in principle, it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, and the principle of the principle arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval, in principle."

- reputedly the longest sentence ever uttered by Sir Humphrey Appleby of "Yes, Minister" fame (as opposed to our own Sir Humphrey).

We've always found that the effectiveness of a committee tends to be inversely proportional to the number of people on it. But in local authority terms they're where a lot of the real work gets done, with full Council meetings being, of necessity, a rubber-stamping exercise. In commenting on the revelation of diVision's secret meetings, some commenters have said it doesn't matter, really, because:

If there WAS a party approach to council, then Vision would have ALL the chairmanships. I've checked the council website and Crs Wills, Dahya and McGregor have chairs and important ones.

...aren't non-vision councillors like McGregor & Dahya chairmen of committees? And Wills? And hasn't Pepperell been demoted to a deputy? Just asking.

Well, the Council's website obliges with a handy list of Standing Committees (Strategy, Finance & Administration, Infrastructure, Community Development and Economic Development), their membership and function. There are also Specialist Committees (Hearings, Harbour, Heritage, Maori, Youth and the Wanganui Rural Community Board).

Of the Standing Committees, all councillors are on Strategy and the others each have seven members, all with four (i.e. a majority) from Vision. Only infrastructure has a non-Vision chair in Don McGregor but still has a Vision majority.

When it comes to Specialist Committees, there are indeed other non-Vision chairs but there is a similar majority of Vision over non-Vision members.

As for Sue Pepperell's fate, yes she was demoted (nothing to do with her breaking ranks and apologising for the way the Diva got off the leash and savaged the arts community, we're sure) but in favour of another Vision councillor.

Now before commenters rush to say "well of course there is, because there are more Vision than non-Vision councillors, dummies" we acknowledge that. We're not advancing a conspiracy theory here. Although some independent talent was overlooked in favour of some questionably capable Vision people, given the numbers there was always going to be a Vision majority, and Vision chairs, on most committees.

But we are pointing out that in a Vision-dominated Council, on Vision-dominated committees, with Vision councillors chairing four out of five of the major committees and having a casting vote, the fact that independents chair a handful of minor committees and that one Vision councillor (who had the temerity to break ranks) was demoted in favour of a less capable but more easily controlled Vision councillor is hardly a bulwark against the erosion of democracy.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Flagging it

Seems the assumption by some commenters that the Diva had ordered the Council's flag flown at half mast to mark the death of that well-known despot King Fahd was wrong - and in fact it was none other than the Diva who ordered the flag re-hoisted.

Since repeated and increasingly desperate pleas for a full investigation have been appearing in comments, we've obliged, though frankly we're more alarmed when pants fall to half mast.

Seems someone in central government sends out ideologically-blind notices when heads of state turn up their toes. So whether it's Queen Elizabeth or Robert Mugabe, the people of Wanganui are meant to mourn, apparently.

Council has always rushed to lower the flag on these occasions, but when the Diva saw it on this occasion he went ballistic and ordered it restored to full mast, saying it should only be lowered for prominent New Zealanders.

The two military types on Council (Don McGregor and Rangi Wills) protested and said it ought to be done for significant other outsiders. They rightly pointed out that it shouldn't be an "executive" decision (as the Diva apparently described it in dismissing their protests) but a policy set by the Council as a whole (presumably after the diVisioners have discussed it over a bottle or two of pinot gris).

So we start the week with yet another example of Diva(iant) behaviour - the right decision for the wrong reasons, after riding roughshod over procedure and the opinions of others.

(Our thanks to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage for the useful illustration, If it wasn't for these highly-paid mandarins we're certain no one would know what half-mast actually meant).

Comments on this post are now closed.

It's partay time at Michael's

So, as was presaged here in a comment some days earlier, a misplaced Mayoral email has revealed that diVision councillors get together (given the nature of the meetings, "caucus" is far too grand a word) before meetings of the full Council.

Now, as some commenters have pointed out, Vision candidates clearly indicated their alignment when they stood. But then the question arises, did the people who voted for them, do so as individuals or as a team? And the answer, alas, is that we'll never really know, we can only go on anecdote:

I admit to voting for them as a team because I wanted the changes they promoted. I expect them to work as a team to give me the policies I voted for.

That is actually the GOOD thing about this council. The majority have a clear idea of what they're going to do. That's why things are getting done.

Have to disagree with the "we employ individuals" line. It depends who you voted for. I seem to remember that some people stood on party tickets when I voted. They had their affiliation clearly marked on the ballot paper... You may have voted on their individual strengths / weaknesses but I voted for councillors with clear views and policies.

Thats a fair analysis. I chose not to vote for any Vision candidate at the last election -liked Dot but didn't vote for her because I didn't like her leader. I had friends who voted all Vision because that would give them a majority around the council table to do the things they promised. So we can't say, no matter which way we voted, that we were not aware that 'teams' were standing and 'teams' might be elected.

And we mustn't forget, diVision are amateurs when it comes to the politicisation of local government - the Labour Party started it off decades ago. Then again, at least they have a broad membership base and anyone can join:

"Open and transparent?" We can't even join Vision to see how they do things. This is the very opposite of "Open Democracy", and as for transparency, forget it.

And, as other commenters have countered:

We employ councillors not just as dumb voting machines, but for their individual skills. There are 12 councillors because the multiple issues require that many hands on board to get a handle on all of it. By deciding policy direction without the benefit of all that experience and talent, Vision are selling Wanganui short.

Now, when at the next Council meeting, one of the other councillors comes up with a good argument, we know why Vision pays no attention to it.

When policy has already been debated and decided at the Vision caucus, the Vision councillors turn up at the council table. Why would they need to listen to the arguments our other elected representatives bring? They already know how to vote.

Why should policy discussion be confined to the council table? I'd like to think all 13 of the mob I pay for, talk & Debate policy all the time. Even in their sleep, otherwise I'm not getting my money's worth.

Party politics has no (zero, nada, zip) place in local body politics.

Yes, it's unsurprising the diVision (and has there ever been a more appropriate instance of the use of that monicker?) people meet secretly. It's even perfectly proper if they were discussing who they wanted on their ticket for the by-election - that's party political business. But the appointment of a new CEO, and what's going to happen over the Cooks Gardens mess?

We find it reassuring to hear that, as one commenter (supporting Vision) said:

Poor old Dick Hubbard in Auckland [is] pulling his hair out... because deputy Hucker white-ants him every week. Or Kerry Prendergast in Wellington who was lamenting in last month's Dominion-Post that she spends all her time assembling council majorities on minor issues that she has stuff all time for the big picture.

That proponents of one viewpoint or another have to work hard to form temporary coalitions who agree to act in concert means that decisions are being made - hopefully - on the basis of the strength of one argument over that of another (though we're not so naive as to assume there's not horse-trading going on either).

National politics in NZ is littered with examples of elected representatives who didn't like what their parties were doing and, instead of their dissenting voices being welcomed as a sign of good political health (and perhaps swaying the argument from time to time), they've been rounded on and excised from the party. Look no further than the Diva's former hand-puppet Winston Peters for an example.

The majority of people voted for MMP, presumably to try to put an end to one-party control of the House of Representatives, yet some commenters seem okay with it at local level.

An excellent analysis of the effect of party politics on local government (in a UK setting, but applicable anywhere) is the book Party politics and local government by Colin Copus.

Unfortunately the Politicos bookshop (which is where the link takes you) summary tells you very little about the book, but the Institute of Local Government Studies at the University of Birmingham have this analysis (pdf file) which says:

The book provides evidence to show that political parties have come to dominate the local political landscape to the almost total exclusion of citizens wishing to become involved in local politics outside the framework of a national party. Political parties serve to de-legitimise any political activity not conducted within the very strict definition of local politics constructed and shared by the three main parties. Finally, the book sets out the changes necessary for political parties to make if they are to become meaningful and relevant to the citizens they claim to represent and if local politics is to no longer be the domain of the Leviathan that is the political party.

So Wanganui, it seems, is on a path that risks the "total exclusion of citizens" outside the party framework. And that reference is to parties - the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats - that anyone can join, even online. Whereas, as we pointed out earlier, not only is diVision a party it's impossible to join, but the Vision Wanganui web site has disappeared, to be replaced by one devoted entirely to the Diva.

Comments on this post are now closed.

A local yoof speaks...

Over on the Council Watch website, in comments on our Report Card on Sue Pepperell, none other than Morgs Hunter-Bell provides a wealth of useful information on youth initiatives in Wanganui. Since comments seem to be used by a few over-excited onanists to abuse their victim-du-jour (thus ensuring many visitors can no longer be bothered reading them at all) it's worth repeating here:

In February, the word was put out to the community through a number of outlets that the council was interested in hearing youth opinions on all issues, including the possibility of a youth council.

Over the first month, approximately 80 young Whanganui-ites came along and discussed matters. Eventually as the group solidated (sic) into a more regular collection of committed attendees, we decided that we were open to the idea of establishing a youth council as well as doing our own things as a separate entity.

So first off, the youth that had any interest to begin with DID decide that a Youth Council could be something worthwhile. BUT this is not directly opposing skate parks, make out spots, etc. Much the opposite in fact. Just in the Skate parks area we have a high-profile member of the Wanganui Skate Trust, and a worker at Cheepskates among our attendance.

Here's what we've been trying to make clear for some time (often at the Community Committee table):

• While we are interested in establishing a Youth Council, we are not ALL automatically wanting to be on it. The group that meets every Monday is WYC'D, and we have our goals set at making things happen directly. If you care ot take a look at the FtM columns from the past two weeks you'll find that we met with Ross Mitchell-Anyon with a view to co-operate in using his recently acquired Brass Band Hall in Wicksteed street as a venue for Young musicians among other things.
• Currently we are in the process of getting a comprehensive survey out to a target 5,000 youth in Whanganui through schools, training programmes, Ucol, organisations that deal with 'non-school' youth, and a variety of business around town. We have everythig planned out realistically, and have designed the survey to get the best results (ie not leading to pre-determined answers) from the widest audience possible.
• The function of a Youth Council, would be to make sure that there is more opportunity for things to happen for us from a policy level. It does not conflict with the very real efforts and 'grass roots' level, but supports it in ways currently impossible.

Morgs (who claims "very little interest in pursuing politics as a career") also says "I'll be more than happy to provide this site with comprehensive information regarding both the "Youth Committee" and WYC'D (Whanganui Youth CollecteD)" so feel free to use the comments to ask...

Comments on this post are now closed.

Poll Update #1

The Do-It-Yourself Referendum

The Diva and diVision came to the election offering "direct democracy", yet all we've seen so far is a one way street. They choose the issues you get to vote on. Which is all very well, but there's no doubt other questions that some people feel ought to be put to the people of Wanganui.

The disappeared diVision democracy policy said citizens could initiate their own referendum by signing up 10 percent of the voting population. That's a lot of winter days spent sitting at a rickety card table in various public spaces trying to explain some complex concept in 25 words or less to busy shoppers. That's why only one citizens-initiated-referendum has got off the ground in NZ - because it had a simple question about paying fire fighters more, and who could argue with that?

Because referenda cost a lot of money to run, there has to be some barrier for the proponents to get over. After all, it would be chaos if half a dozen disgruntled ratepayers could force an expensive city-wide referendum every fortnight.

But since there's going to be a referendum anyway, run in conjunction with the by-election, we feel it wouldn't hurt to include a few additional questions. Questions that the people actually want answers to. It certainly won't cost any more.

So, we're running a two-stage poll. The first stage, running now, allows you to write in up to six questions you'd like to see answered by way of referendum. We'll then collate these, try and find some commonality amongst the responses, and then conduct stage two - a run-off vote to determine the most popular suggestions. These will then be submitted to Council for consideration.

You can write in your questions by going here and following the instructions. This poll runs for 30 days. It started yesterday so, surprisingly, you have 29 days left.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Poll Update #2

Who do you think would make the best candidate in the forthcoming by-election?

Since our last update, Graeme Adams, Richard Moore, Judith Timpany and Bob Walker haven't picked up any support and remain on zero.

Candidates with negligible support (one or two percent) are Stephen Palmer, Jill Pettis, and Chas Poynter.

Of the remainder, Margaret Campion, Ross Mitchell-Anyon and Alan Taylor all have four percent, while Ken Mair has five percent and Rob Vinsen, six.

Then there's a big jump to Carla Donson with 12 percent.

Then another, even larger, jump to Jodie Dalgleish and John Martin, currently on 30 and 31 percent respectively.

Our conclusion: There's two clear favourites here, who, if they were both to run, would almost certainly spoil one another's chances. Similarly, if Dalgleish or Martin were to run, and Carla Donson were also to enter the race, there could be a split. Or if enough of the lower-polling candidates entered, and people did not vote tactically (and let's face it, this is a local authority election, so how likely is that?) then the vote will also split.

As we've already said, those people concerned about getting a voice at the Council table should start strategising. It wouldn't be a bad idea if some of the people being touted as candidates expressed an intent one way or another, so that support can begin to coalesce around those who are actually considering a run.

And an observation: clearly, some of the people who visit here are Vision supporters, if not members. Yet no support showing for possible Vision-aligned candidates. So who might they be intending to run? Possibly someone in the mould of the departing "GK" Taylor, we hear.

Update: In response to a question in comments, yes, you can still vote.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Poll Update #3

Your rates and how they're spent

Even though the total number voting is somewhat smaller than the other polls, and thus the result less reliable, one figure stands out - only seven percent of you are happy with the status quo.

Given the present Council is only about a third of the way through it's term, that's probably more of a reflection on the previous council(s) than the present one.

You're divided on which way this Council ought to go, though. Fifty three percent want lower rates and are prepared to put up with fewer services to get them, while 40 percent are willing to pay more rates because they want more services.

Our conclusion: Too close to call.

Though it does suggest that a referendum listing a few items chosen by Council itself is far too blunt a tool to determine what Wanganui wants it's money spent on, or even how much it wants to pay. Asked this sort of question, people's reaction tends to come more from the heart than the head. A percentage of those who say "I want more money in my pocket" will be among those who complain when facilities are downgraded as a result. Similarly, those who support more money being spent on one thing may balk when it's spent on something else, or when their higher rates bill actually needs to be paid.

Face-to-face consultation, if conducted in an inclusive manner that encourages all points of view, would seem to be needed first to attempt to arrive at some consensus.

Comments on this post are now closed.