Will gas cause rude noises?

A Watcher writes to remind us of a Wanganui Chronicle article published over a year ago (28 July 2005 to be exact) titled, "No sneaky sale of gas utility, Laws promises".

In particular, our correspondent quotes the passages which say "Mr Laws said council had to find a way to deal with ballooning debt... Council had debts of around $25 million, which were projected to increase to $55 million by 2008-09..." and has Mickey saying "'That debt is largely a consequence of the new sewage treatment facilities and the wastewater separation project.'"

True enough. But then, as this Watcher so accurately, if rhetorically, enquires: "Based on this fact, how on earth can this 'Heart of Wanganui' project be pulled off? This is not good governance, and by no means financially [in] the best interest of Wanganui". Indeed.

Even if one unequivocally accepts that the proposals contained within the Heart of Wanganui plan are good for the city (and we're not, at this stage, saying they don't have the potential to be) it's still legitimate to ask, as our correspondent has, whether or not they are affordable for a city already faced with "ballooning debt".

So let'sadd a question of our own: Faced with the unavoidable debt mountain created by necessities such as sewers and wastewater, and trying to find a way to fund the grandiose schemes of its Fuhrer Mayor, how tempted will Council be to ask itself, even rhetorically, how much it might get if Wanganui Gas were put on the block?

Despite the Mayor's attack on the Chronicle for daring to suggest back in December 2005 that Wanganui Gas might be sold, Deputy Dotty managed to confirm that it was indeed a possibility in her River City Press column of 27 October that year:

I note that there have been some letters to the newspapers recently about the potential sale of Wanganui Gas. Well, I would suggest that we do not panic as there are a myriad of options available that could ensure Wanganui ratepayers are gaining maximum value for their investment funds, and the outright sale of Wanganui Gas may not even be an option.

Wanganui District Council Holdings’ directors are researching the value of all of Wanganui’s investment assets and in due course there will be various reports on their findings. Such investments include harbour and city endowment land, the airport, forestry, the port and Wanganui Gas.

Whatever recommendations are made, these will be debated in council and wherever possible put out to consultation. Give the director’s (sic) a chance to get their feet under the assets table and suggest some options that might enhance our asset value (Our emphasis - Ed).

While there have been reports on the value of the city and harbour endowment, and forestry, and recent debate on the figures for the airport, we can't recall any such report on Wanganui Gas.

There's no doubting that the gas company represents a significant asset. Council's recent acquisition puts it in an ideal position to capitalise on not only the existing returns but also the company's significant potential. Of course there's the recent DHB contract and the lucrative supply contracts with commercial customers in Auckland. But Wanganui Gas is a big enough player to have looked at entering the Australian market (pdf link) in 2003 before later withdrawing (MS Word link).

Not only does that make it the jewel in the crown of Wanganui's asset base, but it also means it's a desirable takeover target if Council decided to divest it's shareholding - a task made much simpler now that it owns 100% - and might, by Mickey's own calculation, enrich Council's coffers by $20 million if they did so.

Mercury Energy has already sniffed around the company back in 2001 and there'd no doubt be many other interested buyers. All of whom would want "commercial confidentiality", of course. As with Council's purchase of Vector's shareholding, when Mickey explained "it’s one of those incredibly delicate confidential matters where we have to notify that we're having a meeting but we can't say too much about it."

Quite how such a process is reconciled with his promise that "there will be no sneaky sale" remains to be seen, if in fact such an event occurs. The anti-sneaky pledge was wrapped in talk of yet another referendum - presumably one with the same cast iron, no-wriggle-room sort of figures people were presented when asked to decide on the Splash Centre, or the "comparative costs" and "assumptions" connected with the Heart project.

We're not predicting the sale of the utility - at least not yet. If it happens, it's likely to come after Wanganui has referendumised itself into more debt by opting for an unaffordable "Heart" on top of an unaffordable "Splash". Then, when your assets are sold, you'll only have yourselves to blame.

(Yes, we know the illustration bears no relation to the post topic. But with so much confusion in comments on the last post, we thought perhaps some readers needed a pictorial clarification of the facts).

Comments on this post are now closed.

Ka ching! Ka ching!

Watchers are reeling in from the evening "Heart" presentation with a sound akin to being trapped in the bowels of a pokie machine ringing in their ears.

Millions and millions and more millions are talked of... full details are available on a reasonably informative website (which wins multiple extra points for managing to avoid including so much as a single photo of the Mayor!).

The status quo, they tell us, will cost $13.5 million over the next decade, because of the requirement for structural work on several buildings. Then the options range from $9 million (Option 7) to $69.7 million (Option 5) (and that's not counting the underground carpark for a mere $4.1 million, which can be added to any of the other options much like one might choose to add a garage to their granny flat).

The costs are helpfully broken down into a "per ratepayer per year" figure, with the maximum dip into your back pocket being $246. That, pesumably is not "a signifcant rise in rates", since Mickey is on record as telling the Chron that that wouldn't be needed.

However, all is not as clear as it seems, since the project descriptions aren't explicit about what happens to the bits of the infrastructure which aren't earmarked for an upgrade. For instance, Options 2, 3 and 4 merely offer various choices for the library, including "media walls" (looped re-runs of 'Game of Three Losers', anyone?).

Presumably the other buildings will just receive the minimum work needed to bring them up to spec, which is why a "status quo" figure sits alongside the various figures required to build Sally and Mickey's dream house.

So each of the option totals needs to have added to it the "status quo" figure alongside it. That's a tad misleading, in our opinion - the average punter might think that "status quo" is the "do nothing" choice, as outlined in Option 1.

In other words, they won't for instance add the $10.5 million to the $69.7 million in Option 5 to arrive at a grand total of $80.2 million.

Clearly, some of the options are exclusive of one another and others are meant to be at least considered as part of a "package"of options, combining two or more to produce a desirable outcome. Which options are which is also not made explicitly clear on the website (though Option 6 does mention that it works in with Options 2, 3 and 4. But then what if voters opt for Option 6 but not the others? And if they do choose both, will the misnamed "status quo" figure then reduce?). Hopefully things will become clearer as the discussion continues.

The website seems a surprisingly straightforward (by Mickey's usual standard) presentation of the options. But the devil is in the details, including just how much "flexibility" lies within those cost estimates.

There's also the claim that "some external funding can be secured". This is projected at up to $8 million for Option 5, but zero for the status quo. Who's to say a corporate donor wouldn't step in to, for instance, install climate control at the Sarjeant so the works curated there weren't slowly deteriorating? And who's to say $8 million will fall from the pockets of corporates?

There's a comprehensive list of community meetings happening all over Wanganui, so if people haven't pinned Mickey, the architects and councillors down on the details by the time they come to vote, they'll have only themselves to blame.

The questions posed in our previous post are, as we expected, neatly skirted around. But Honest Mickey's Used Architecture Inc offers a customer service hotline and an email address to ask "questions... which are not answered in the information you have seen so far". Given Mickey's record to date, we'd advise using the email option - that way the answers are recorded for posterity and for LawsWatch): heart@wanganui.govt.nz

Comments on this post are now closed.

Once, twice, thrice

Amidst the hoopla, fanfare, smoke, mirrors and carefully orchestrated patsy questions from the floor at tomorrow's meetings to reveal Mickey's plans for the Heart of Wanganui project, Watchers need to ask three simple questions. And keep on asking them, three times three times three times if necessary.

1. How much will it cost?


2. How firm is that figure and what measures are being taken to ensure cost over-runs don't occur?


3. In the event that 1 and 2 above prove to be porkies, who foots the bill for the blow-out? The contractors? The architects? The Council (i.e. the residents of Wanganui).

If Mickey isn't gnawing on his own gavel by then, you might even slip in a fourth:

Will you reiterate your previous pledge that Council will not, under any circumstances, step in with our money to cover operating expenses?

In the interests of keeping everyone's minds focused on those simple questions, here endeth the post.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Say it isn't so!

Rumours are reaching the Cave - and we emphasise they are only rumours - that the Diva will not be standing again for mayor. No less than half a dozen informants have contacted LawsWatch in the last 24 hours, breathlessly imparting the news (well, the emails read like they'd been written breathlessly, anyway).

Our informants claimed to have sourced their information from "business people in the know", to "someone at the Chron" to "my neighbour who works at Council". A variation on the rumour is that, while abandoning the mayoralty, he'll still stand as a councillor.

Like much of the information which reaches our ears, we're taking it all with a Dead Sea's worth of salt. We find it particularly difficult to believe that Emperor Mickey would be happy to become a mere courtesan in the court of, say, Queen Dotty. But then again, when he's made a mess of things before he's been smart enough to realise that he can do as much - if not more - by lurking in the shadows and pulling the strings of a figurehead too lazy or too stupid to do their own thinking (c.f. NZ First).

At least as likely are two other possibilities:
- our informants are as mad as Mickey; or
- this is a disinformation campaign.

However, given that we've now exceeded the usual trigger point for something to rate a passing mention - we've heard it independently from at least three reasonably credible sources* - we'll dutifully make mention of said rumours and leave it to you, dear reader, to decide whether you attach any credibility to it.

Being Friday afternoon, we're not averse to opening the odd bottle of Pinot Noir and speculating on a post-apocalyptic post-Mickey future. Like, what if an ambitious diVisionite decided that serving under Mickey's chosen successor was more than she could bear and decided to have a tilt at the top job? Would there then be two diVision candidates for the job? Would one be forced from the fold? And what would Dotty do if Mickey failed to endorse her as per their agreement?! A catfight in Guyton Street? Jelly wrestling in (enough! For the love of God, enough! - Ed).

* Credible sources: anyone who manages to correspond using complete sentences, avoids using ALL CAPTALS and, most importantly, puts their name to their emails.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Popularity hilarity

There's been a fair bit of debate on the topic of just how far Mayor Mickey has managed to erode the popularity that saw him and the diVisionites elected with a healthy margin at the last election.

Now, we realise that any poll here will be held to be unscientific (particularly by those whose views don't seem to accord with the majority of responses) but we figure it may be interesting nonetheless to run one a poll on the topic.

As always, please read the question carefully. It doesn't ask "how much more do you personally like or hate Mickey?". It doesn't ask "how much more liked / hated do you wish he was?". We're asking whether, as you've talked with friends, neighbours, people waiting in line for coffee, folks at the footy, you get the impression Wanganui's welcome mat is well and truly worn out, or whether, given the abject failure of Radio Dive (now sitting at just two percent) to prop up his media "career", he'd get over the line for a second term?

Has Michael Laws' popularity increased or decreased since he was elected?

Increased by 50% or more
Increased by 25% - %50%
Increased by 20% - 25%
Increased by 15% - 20%
Increased by 10% - 15%
Increased by 5% - 10%
Increased by up to 5%
Remained static
Decreased by up to 5%
Decreased by 5% - 10%
Decreased by 10% - 15%
Decreased by 15% - 20%
Decreased by 20% - 25%
Decreased by 25% - %50%
Decreased by 50% or more

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Comments on this post are now closed. The poll will remain open till further notice.

Voltaire's bastards

There's always been one debate on which this blog has come down firmly against the majority of anti-Mickey commenters.

Whenever a comment supporting the Mayor appears on the blog, those opposed to him tend to leap to the conclusion that it's Mickey himself in various anonymous guises. And the more odious the response - descending at times into overt racism, sexism and personal abuse - the more they see this as indicating that Mickey himself has been at the keyboard again.

They believe - being in the main kindly people who'll gladly entertain a civilised debate with someone who happens to hold an opposing view on any issue - that the majority of their neighbours are the same. Ergo, it must only be that confirmed bully and potty mouth M.B. Laws Esq who'd visit here and defecate thoughts which read like this:

...you losers contribute nothing except your mostly, foreign, negativism. Piss off home you whinging poms, fat Tongan king lovers and ugly Yanks.

...to cite but the most recent example.

However, we've always disagreed. We're sure the Mayor does visit here - seriously, can you imagine Mickey being able to resist reading anything that's written about him, however uncomplimentary, and then, having read it, being able to resist responding? But we've never ascribed all, or even the bulk, of the abusive comments to him.

Nor do we think, even for a moment, he's called up the organisers of a planned peaceful protest - not even a protest, really, more a sort of harmless hippie hand-holding - and spewed venom and made threats of violence. But equally clearly, the people who did this are people who support him.

Michael Laws knows the effect his behaviour has on a section of society. Just as he knew when crafting NZ First policy that, while it in no way advocated violence or threats against sectors of society, it would nonetheless have that effect by allowing those who would commit such acts to cloak themselves in legitimacy. But he didnt care - the policy (almost) got him what he wanted, and if some people were sacrificed along the way, well... none of them were Michael Laws, so who cares?

It's a sad truism that any town has a proportion of its population which harbours ugly, racist, sexist and even violent sentiments. But usually those people keep their inner demons controlled, expressing their milder prejudices over a few beers with their mates perhaps, but generally keeping their worst excesses in check.

That's because in most towns there's a prevailing climate of tolerance and politeness, and it's obvious that boistrously giving voice to irrational prejudices and threats of violence wouldn't be tolerated.

But what happens in Wanganui, where the town's First Citizen is wont to descend to personal abuse - everything from"single issue nutters" to "fat brown slug" to "useless ____" at the merest whiff of an opposing opinion? It doesn't take a highly-subsidised team of sociologists to figure out that, for the small proportion of other citizens who harbour extreme ill-will toward others, this lowers the bar.

If the Mayor has no standards of personal behaviour in terms of what he says, a small number of people will see that as a reason not to have to exercise restraint in what they do. After all, they're not in an exalted position like the Mayor, so their standards can be even lower, right?

The inevitable end result is that some citizens start making gutless, anonymous threats of violence against other citizens, particularly those who wish to peacefully protest the words and actions of the person they see as their de facto leader.

We're not breaking any new ground in pointing out that denigrating and dehumanising some people removes an important barrier which prevents other people feeling able to openly abuse and threaten them.

The end results of that are always ugly. It's happening here in Wanganui. And it's happening because of Michael Laws.

(The title of this post, for those that were wondering, is both a reference to Voltaire's famous statement that he disagreed with what the speaker was saying, but would defend to the death his right to say it, and to John Ralston Saul's excellent book of that name in which, amongst other things, he critiques "the news media's focus on false events and manufactured celebrities". Are you listening, Mrs Pickett? Incidentally, Voltaire also said "Prejudices are what fools use for reason".)

Comments on this post are now closed.

Danger: money

Funding of politics - everything from election campaign advertising to politicians' salaries - has long been a fraught topic. Given the standard of "representation" offered by elected representatives in most Western democracies since at least the mid-1980s most people are averse to being taxed to pay for what they see as unaccountable politicians living in the lap of luxury.

And they have a point. Like any service business, politics is suffering from not having done a particularly good job of serving the needs of its customers - so why should they keep paying? It's incredibly tempting to say that not only should they have to fund their own campaigns, but that once elected they shouldn't even get paid. That'll show 'em.

But, like most simple solutions, it doesn't work.

The problem for most people, disenchanted with the process and disillusioned by those elected through it, is that the notion of investing to improve the political process seems like an anathema. "Don't give them a cent; their superannuation is too generous; they waste our money on the baubles of office; hell, don't even pay them a wage" is a seductive battle cry. But it will have precisely the opposite effect - a fact that a political operator as canny as Michael Laws knows only too well.

That's why those who have done the research don't agree with him. In the UK the Power Commission, whose final report is well worth reading, was recently tasked with discovering "Why has disengagement from formal democratic politics in Britain grown in recent years and how can it be reversed?". It would have been easy for the Inquiry to appease the disenchanted by recommending less, not more, public money be invested in democracy. But it didn't. Amongst a raft of recommendations aimed at getting people to re-engage with the political process at all levels is this one:

State funding to support local activity by political parties and independent candidates to be introduced based on allocation of individual voter vouchers. This would mean that at a general election a voter would be able to tick a box allocating a £3 donation per year from public funds to a party of his or her choice to be used by that party for local activity. It would be open to the voter to make the donation to a party other than the one they have just voted for.

The Inquiry pointed out that "if 30 million people voted in a general election, there would be a potential pot of £90 million available to fund local party political and candidate activity". Why pay for politicians who are increasingly isolated and seemingly unwilling to listen? Because, as The Independent (the UK version) put it recently, "If you don't pay for politicians, the rich will".

At the same time as seeking to reform the political process to make politicians more accountable (and Power has many other recommendations seeking to do this) it's important to maintain access to, and equity within, our democracy by ensuring that lack of money isn't a barrier to running for office - and that an excess of money ought not to provide one candidate with an unfair advantage over his or her rivals.

Equally importantly, anyone who devotes their time to elected office needs to be remunerated - and for exactly the same reason. As Democracy Matters puts it "those without access to wealth are locked out of the system, unable to afford to run for office". If they don't earn their salary, then by all means sack them. Even institute some performance indicators which they must meet during their term. Make them subject to recall. But pay them - or risk a homogenous and unrepresentative council (or parliament or senate or congress); one at risk of widespread corruption.

Because to claim, as Michael Laws does, that holders of elected office ought not to be paid assumes one of two things:

1. Either that we are comfortable returning to the days when politics was the pursuit of "gentlemen"- wealthy landowners with independent incomes and time on their hands, elected by people who knew that their place in life was to be ruled by their betters. There were no women, no people of any ethnicity other than white, and of course no one who did an honest day's toil - they were too busy toiling.


2. Or that we want diversity but we're happy to have our politicians derive an income from sources other than the public purse. Inevitably, that will be business and other special interests.

Clearly the argument is populist nonsense, debunked perfectly by Laws himself: if a person is elected who is wealthy enough not to need the income, they can simply "put it back in the pot" by giving it to the body to which they were elected or, like him, devote it to private philanthropy within the community.

Similarly, allowing someone (in this case, Laws himself) to privately fund the election campaigns of people on a particular party ticket further erodes choice: why would someone less well resourced even try to run a campaign against a diVision candidate with access to the Mayor's deep pockets? And if they do run, what are their chances against an opponent who can afford billboards, glossy fliers and even electronic media?

By hand-picking the starters, it's possible to run a completely fair race but still bias the outcome. Then, as The Nation (Thailand) noted back in 1998 (in an article on increasing corruption in Asian democracies), "since for the most part only the rich people backed by wealth can afford to run for office, leading to effective control of the political system by economic elites that have the added advantage of legitimacy owing to their democratic election".

Even if election spending is capped, the candidate who didn't have to fund-raise from multiple donors, who got all their money from one source and could devote all their energy to campaigning, is at an unfair advantage. And more importantly, once elected they owe their allegiance not to a local branch made up of many people with divergent views but solely to one man or woman - their benefactor.

Unless we restore the people’s sovereignty over government, unless we reform our public institutions to meet the demands of a new millenium, we will squander our destiny... I have spoken against forces that have turned politics into a battle of bucks instead of a battle of ideas. - US Senator John McCain

Comments on this post are now closed.

Since when is politics a charity?

Much discussion in comments as to the disposition of the Mayor's salary and his support for the idea that elected representatives ought to perform their duties for free.

One anonymous commenter even went so far as to locate a back issue of Community Link (15 December 2005, for those other anonynmii who keep every word written by and about Mickey in their scrapbooks) to note that:

For the 12 months from inauguration in late-October 2004, Mayor Laws has donated his net salary to the following purposes:
Event Sponsorship $17,720
Public Art Commissions $10,552
Additional Staff & Wages (2) $5,625
Mayoral Entertainment $4,738
Upgrading Communications $3,030
Charitable Donations $2,029
Bank Fees/Misc $1,250
Total Distributed $44,944

The events that have gained sponsorship from Mayor Laws include the Mayoral Mile ($10,000), Stayz/YMCA Salsa Spectacular ($3,200), Storm Relief Fund ($2,500), Bridge-to-Bridge Swim ($1,000), Red Eye Mural ($500) and Reclaim Wanganui Vigil ($500).

That's around $45,000 from a total income of $71,000 less tax at 38 cents in the dollar, so there's no denying he gave the lot away.

But let's look slightly more closely at those figures as we eagerly await the release of details of this year's largesse, shall we? Yes, we've already reported on this when the figures first came out, but it's a useful preamble to the next post, which will deal with the funding of political campaigns - specifically those of diVision's candidates.

Event sponsorship and art commissions, which make up over 60% of the total, are entirely at the personal whim of the Mayor. Sure it's his money, but most wealthy philanthropists establish an independent trust to make the hand-outs. That way they can't be accused of using their charity to favour some groups, events or people over others. Which is not to say the events or the art he sponsored aren't worthy of support - just that most donors keep themselves at arms length from the actual distribution of funds, having first set parameters for the type of event they wish to support. That avoids any perception that, say, if you disagree with the donor you might as well forget applying, no matter how worthy your event or good your art.

Additional staff and wages are, in fact, completely improper. If the WDC pays your wages, you answer to the CEO and you act solely in the best interests of the public of Wanganui. But if Mickey gives you a "top up", who's your boss? Where do your loyalties lie, especially if his interests diverge from those of the rest of Wanganui?

And if WDC wages need topping up to attract a suitable calibre of person to the job, that's a policy issue that needs to be considered as part of the budget round. No one expects David Warburton to dig into his handsome salary package to top up the pay of his PA, do they? And imagine if he did - what possible reason would people attribute to such unwarranted generosity? Setting aside that Warburton wasn't reading from The Bill Clinton Manual of Staff Relations, some might uncharitably assume he wanted some goings-on kept quiet.

Which is precisely why no employer, Warburton included, explicitly subsidises an employee's wages from their own pocket.

Upgrading communications is merely a euphemism for "paying to print and deliver party propaganda on behalf of Vision". If that's charity, then Labour just found the perfect excuse for their pre-election "pledge card" spending.

Mayoral entertainment apparently used to be paid out over and above the Mayor's salary. In this case it totals more than 10% of the Mayor's nett income. And according to official records it was spent on activity such as a celebration of the outcome of the referendum. That's a political victory celebration, for diVision and its supporters. If Chas Poynter had held a champagne knees-up to celebrate winning a vote and tried to charge it to the ratepayers, how many would have been happy to pay?

It's entirely right and proper that Mickey foots the bill for such things himself - but to imply that it's somehow a charitable donation is disingenuous in the extreme.

Which just leaves actual charitable donations of a little over $2,000 and bank fees of $1,250 (on what is presumably a simple chequing account?! Change banks, Mickey!).

Of course this strategy of feigned nobility isn't new. It's carefully designed to buy publicity which, to someone like Mickey, is more precious than gold. We reproduced this Tom Scott cartoon back in December and it's worth repeating again:


Comments on this post are now closed.

Separated at birth?

Television reception is, at best, erratic here at the Cave. So we weren't watching a couple of nights ago when "Austin Powers: Goldmember" was apparently screening.

Thus it fell to an alert Watcher to... well, alert us... to the striking resemblance between Powers' nemsis Goldmember and Wanganui's very own Mad Mayor.

"Not only did his general appearance seem to be [some sort of] ghastly mayors doppelganger…… but his behaviour wasn’t too far off the mark either!" our informant wrote.

His general appearance, his facial expressions, his frothing excitement at doing evil… his evil bid to destroy the planet… his penchant for crotch enhancing lycra… The parallels were endless…"

Whilst we'd dispute that any crotch is enhanced by lycra, we'd concur with the general... err, thrust... of these remarks.

Our correspondent notes that she is "now left wondering if indeed the aforementioned mad mayor has used Goldmember as a prototype for how to look / behave".

If that is indeed the case, what models have the other diVisionites followed, we wonder? Dotty, of course, is Mini Me, with Nickie Higgie as her eager understudy. But who, for instance, is Fook Mi? And who is Fook Yu? Who's Frau Farbissina? And who could possibly be Foxy Cleopatra?!

Watchers are welcome to speculate, but we don't just mean look alikes, we're interested in which method actors in the diVision troupe have taken on the personas of these characters. But in the interests of remaining relatively charitable, we won't be taking nominations for the role of Fat Bastard.

Comments on this post are now closed.