SPECIAL REPORT: By Kim Meredith, Local Democracy Reporter

As I sat in Auckland Council’s extraordinary meeting deciding on its proposed annual budget, I was reminded of the time my late father came through the door looking bereft, having just been laid off, clutching his last pay cheque.

My parents quickly switched from English to Sāmoan, but I knew what they were talking about. How were they going to make ends meet?

It was the same air in the council’s Auckland Town Hall chambers.

With the number of television cameras lined up, you could have easily mistaken the event for a film premiere.

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Councillor Josephine Bartley said it was a first, having the media in such strong force for the council’s controversial proposed annual budget.

Yet the anticipated fireworks turned into a mostly civil affair, with the only pointed comment coming from Mayor Wayne Brown, reprimanding members of the public for occasionally breaking into applause, “there will be no more of that”.

Mayor Brown said from the outset it could take several meetings to work through the budget, before allocating councillors five minutes to speak about their views — the first public signal that he was prepared to move from his fixed position and negotiate.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Auckland Council ended its meeting yesterday without a decision on the annual budget.

The long-debated budget will attempt to close a $325 million deficit, exacerbated by a further $40 million in storm-related costs.

Councillors arrived in good cheer, cracking jokes about the lengthy session ahead of them, which included a debate over the council’s sale of its 18 percent stake in Auckland International Airport Ltd.

The mayor said the meeting would take as long as it needed to.

“This is a difficult process. It may take more time than expected, that’s fine,” Mayor Wayne Brown said. “We may have to come back next week, we’re not rushing this process.”

Three councillors declared a stake in the airport ahead of the meeting.

Airport shares declared
Just a few hours before, Albany Ward councillor Wayne Walker admitted to owning $3 million in shares through a trust. His neighbour at the table, Maurice Williamson, poked fun at Walker on his way into the chamber.

Chris Darby and Julie Fairey also declared airport shares in the days leading up to the meeting, prompting questions of whether they could vote on the sale.

All three said they had received advice from the auditor-general.

“In their view, my situation does not represent a conflict of interest,” Fairey said.

“Their advice was that I do not have a financial interest in the share sale,” Darby said.

“Same advice, and so I can participate in today’s decisions,” Walker said.

Backdown from the mayor
The mayor’s original budget proposal called for a full sale of the council’s 18 percent share in Auckland Airport. But during the meeting, he compromised.

Just three councillors — Andy Baker, Maurice Williamson and Desley Simpson — unambiguously declared their support for a full sale.

After hearing the positions of his fellow councillors, Brown offered a partial sale of 8 percent, meaning the council would hold onto a 10 percent stake.

“I’m now proposing that we sell 8.09 percent of our 18.09 percent shareholding,” Brown said as councillors returned from their lunch breaks.

“This means that we have to find another $32 million in operating savings or rates to balance the budget. I’m proposing we fill this gap with a general rates increase of 7.7 percent.”

The issue of selling the shares was contentious, leaving councillors divided. Manukau Ward’s Lotu Fuli opposed the sale, declaring the shares had value.

“This is a high-performing asset, it is an asset that we ought to keep,” she said. “And yes, we should consider our underperforming assets, but that’s a discussion to have at the long-term plan.”

Council would regret sale
Fuli said the council would regret letting go of the shares.

“Let’s not be rash, let’s not sell off these shares, $2.3 billion worth of shares, in order to plug a $325 million hole,” she said. “Let’s not make the mistake that past councils have made.”

Waitematā and Gulf Ward councillor Mike Lee agreed the shares had value.

“This is a real asset, folks,” he said. “This is an earning asset, just like the Ports of Auckland. Not only does it earn us money, but it earns us capital gains on our balance sheet. Any decent accountant will tell you that.”

North Shore Councillor Richard Hills said the months of debate around the budget had soured its culture.

“This has been the hardest six months of my career, it hasn’t been nice,” he said.

“It hasn’t just been about things you’ve said, mayor, there’s been a lot of other discussions around this table that I’ve been appalled at around staff, each other. It isn’t a nice place at the moment and I think the city knows that.”

He said the council needed to be careful about repeating the same mistakes next year.

“I want to work with the majority here, because we will break our staff and our city if we make them do this again next year,” he said. “I think we need to be really clear about that — we’ll do that again if we don’t make a hard decision today.”

Few in support
Albany Ward councillor Wayne Walker said the council needed to adjust its spending habits if it wanted to fix the issue.

“We’re not addressing the underlying financial issues, and that is that we are spending beyond our means. We’ve been doing it for successive years, and that has to stop,” he said.

“Fortunately, we have a mayor that’s committed to turning that around.”

He said there was time enough to make large decisions like selling the shares.

“We have a very, very good situation to go forward and not have to make decisions immediately in this long term plan that may be counter-productive.”

Some councillors, like Maurice Williamson, strongly favoured a full sale. He said the assets were not making enough money.

“I’m very much in favour of selling any asset that’s costing us more to keep than it’s returning to us. There’s a good old Tremeloes song, ‘Even The Bad Times Are Good’ — well, even the good times are bad.”

Williamson warned other councillors against accepting more debt.

“There’s so much more coming down the pipe at us,” he said. “The CRL, god knows what’s coming, I’ve been told the final figure is going to be $7.25 [billion], we’re going to have to borrow debt to fund that, and that debt ratio is already near the ceiling.

“So please, please look at trying to bring that back down.”

Auckland Mayor’s revised proposals:

• Mayor Wayne Brown is now pushing for the sale of 8 percent of the council’s shareholding in Auckland Airport, instead of the full 18 percent of shares
• Brown has also proposed $4 million of reductions to local board funding, and $5 million of unallocated to chief executive, Jim Stabback
• An average general rates increase of 11 percent has been proposed, with adjustments that will result in an overall rates increase of 7.7 percent for average households
• Plans to establish a political working group on the council’s investments has been set out, which aims to oversee assets like the remaining council shares in Auckland airport, and make recommendations to the governing body on long-term investment in other funds

Even Brown’s deputy, Desley Simpson, cautioned members. She said the final form of the budget needed to be balanced.

“We’ve talked this through so much, and it’s going to be a hard task to balance a budget that is fair for Aucklanders and meets the needs and desires of all those around the table.”

Brown’s new proposal included the establishment of a working group to oversee council investments, as well as a $4 million reduction to local board funding.

Questions about the updated proposal brought the meeting to a close at 5pm, with no time left to debate or cast votes.

Mayor Brown said the council would reconvene at 10am today.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

This area should become like Sydney’s Circular Quay. The question is: where is Auckland’s equivalent to Sydney’s Botany Bay? This question has become pressing, with Prime Minister Ardern declaring that the port must shift.

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1911/S00048/auckland-port-move-cabinet-ministers-deliberate-on-decision.htm

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1912/S00104/cabinet-should-agree-tomorrow-to-move-port.htm

There is another option that should be added to the present list of options. The option is Māngere Inlet, the portion of Manukau harbour between Māngere Bridge, Southdown and Ōtāhuhu; Port Southdown.

While the capital costs for this option would be higher than other options, most likely, the operational benefits would be higher, and the ongoing operational costs would be lower. The essential component of this option would be the construction of a ship canal across the Ōtāhuhu portage.

History:

A ship canal in Auckland is not a novel idea. The first formal proposals for such a canal date to around 1850. The debates peaked in the 1900s’ decade. Legislation preserving land‑rights for such a purpose was eventually repealed, in 2010. It was in the 1890s that the Manchester Ship Canal and the Keil Canal were built. The first Welland Canal in Canada – which allows ships to bypass Niagara falls – opened in 1829. The present Welland Canal was completed in 1932, and carries trans‑Atlantic as well as domestic shipping. In April this year, I enjoyed a stay in the old Pilot Lodging which overlooks this ship canal at Port Colborne.

In September 2019, Lisa Truttman published The Canal Promoter, available from:

https://www.wheelers.co.nz/books/1010702-canal-promoter-the/?publisher=NZ+%2F+SP+Author+Self+Published

Ms Truttman outlines the various canal proposals, in the context of an account of the life of one of the most prominent canal promoters, David Bruce Russell. The booklet is an important addition to the growing body of material exploring Auckland’s history. For my purposes here, however, I will just cite Truttman’s final paragraph:

Today [2019], there still exists a Local Purposes Reserve (Canal) along the old line delineated in 1850 from the Ōtāhuhu Cemetery on one side and the Portage Canal Foreshore Reserve on the other at the Tāmaki River side, bisected by Great South Road, and ending at Saleyards Road. Much of it is used by adjoining buildings encroaching onto it, carparks, storage yards and the like. With the repeal of the 1908 Auckland and Manukau Canal Act in 2010, there is no intention of land being taken … under the Public Works Act, for a canal. So, the reserve at Ōtāhuhu remains, more or less, simply as a historical anomaly.

These historical proposals all differ,  in one major respect, from my Māngere Inlet proposal. Past writers saw such an isthmus canal as a means of access to the Waitematā from the west. They were not at all envisaging a day when the Waitematā port itself might need to be disestablished. Rather they wanted to shorten the sea routes to Auckland from Australia and from the South Island. And – before the Panama Canal – the main sea route from the United Kingdom. Indeed, in the 1900s most passions were exercised over where the canal should be, not whether it should be. The route through New Lynn – though requiring more earthworks than Ōtāhuhu – would have created a more direct shipping route from the Manukau Heads to Port Waitematā.

The economic case for a canal to solve this Auckland access problem diminished with the growth of the railways and the motorways, and more latterly, with the growth of international trade with Asia. Further, the once important coastal shipping industry became only a faint shadow of its former self.

My proposal is for Māngere Inlet as an east coast harbour. The reserve at Ōtāhuhu should remain reserved.

The ‘Port Southdown’ Proposal:

The proposal is that a new Auckland port be created in Māngere Inlet, through the construction of a dyke to the west of the inlet (the site of the old Onehunga bridge could have been a possibility), and a ship canal to the east, presumably at the site of the Ōtāhuhu portage. While a Tāmaki canal itself would be quite small compared to the foreign canals cited – therefore not über‑expensive – other substantial costs would be the re‑acquisition of land, and the construction of tunnels and bridges to allow existing roads and rail lines to cross the canal. There may also need to be a partial relocation of existing railway infrastructure, and of the fuel pipeline to Wiri.

A possibility could be to have a lock running through the dyke. However, there are already coastal shipping facilities at Onehunga. Container transhipment by land from Onehunga to Southdown should not be a problem. The new (low) Māngere Bridge, for which construction started last month, would be incompatible with shipping. Rather, the Māngere side of this facility is intended to have a recreational focus.

The Operational Benefits of the Māngere Inlet site:

Māngere Inlet is the site that best links with the Auckland’s existing industrial locus. It is close to the present Southdown landport; close to Auckland International Airport; close to the Ōtāhuhu railfreight hub; close to both Auckland’s motorways; and close to Auckland’s main southern hinterland. A container port in the Inlet would not conflict with other land uses, because this is already a contaminated industrial zone.

In a future low‑carbon world, shipping and rail will need to displace road haulage. It means that there will be a substantial revival of coastal shipping, given the constraints on rail expansion in New Zealand. A Tāmaki canal – giving Auckland a new east coast port – can facilitate coastal transhipment between Auckland, Northland and Bay of Plenty.

The Operational Costs:

I expect that there will be a need for ongoing dredging of Māngere Inlet. However, with no river outlets into the new harbour basin, the accumulation of silt may not prove to be the major problem it is in many foreign ports.

Such a low‑cost operation contrasts substantially with the operational costs associated with getting substantially more freight into (and out of) Auckland by land. These high operational costs are all characteristics of the Northland, Bay of Plenty, and Firth of Thames proposals.

The Capital Costs:

These are the cost of construction (canal, dyke, and new port facilities), of initial dreging, of land acquisition, and of building new road and rail links under and over the canal. (And maybe a railway over the dyke – from Onehunga to Middlemore – with a branch to the airport.)

While probably higher than for the other options, these costs may not be much higher if the other options are costed properly. For example, the costs to the residents of West Auckland that would arise from intensive rail and road freight construction (and operations) from Northland would need to be properly included in the Northland option that the present government appears to be favouring.

A Level Playing Field:

A Tamaki‑Southdown‑Māngere proposal – such as that outlined here – should be included as an option for a relocation site for Port Waitematā. The comparative cost‑benefit analysis should be equitable, with due consideration for differences in the long‑term operational benefits and costs, with transport sustainability – impact on climate change among other things – firmly in mind.

Last month I noted that Māori voter growth in Auckland (Tāmaki Makaurau) was slower than in all the other Māori electoral districts, and that this almost certainly reflected very low Māori population growth in Auckland. I also argued that Pakeha as well as Māori were leaving (or not arriving in) Auckland in larger numbers than in the past. And I said that the census data would show that Auckland’s population (excluding the former Rodney and Franklin Districts) would be less than 30 percent of the national total.

This month’s chart comes the day after the census data was released. Because the infill process – filling in for census non‑participation – was more comprehensive than for past censuses, the population growth data overall may be slightly inflated. But, on the whole, these growth data are probably as reliable as in the past.

The chart shows that, in Auckland’s inner isthmus suburbs (from Mt Albert and Point Chevalier through to St Heliers, and including the central business district), population growth in 2013‑18 was comparable to Palmerston North and Dunedin. This is in contrast with 2006‑13 when central Auckland grew by ten percent. We may note that residential property prices in these years grew much faster in central Auckland than Dunedin, suggesting that population pressure was not the driving force behind these rising prices. Rather, people responded to inflated property prices by leaving inner Auckland (or not coming).

The rest of the isthmus grew faster in 2013‑18, compared to inner Auckland and compared to 2006‑13. But the growth was not remarkable; it was comparable with Napier and Nelson. Likewise the ‘outer core’ – which includes much of North Shore and Manukau had population growth after 2013 that was well below the New Zealand average of 10.8 percent.

Auckland’s ‘less unaffordable’ outer suburbs grew faster. The ‘outer’ axis includes areas like Henderson and Massey in the northwest, and Manurewa, Otara and Howick in the southeast. In those areas, population growth was comparable with Hamilton.

In the super‑’city’, the fastest growing areas were the fringe – Papakura, Upper Harbour, Hibiscus and East Coast Bays, and Waitakere Ranges – and Rodney and Franklin. Growth there was comparable with Northland (which includs Whangarei) and Bay of Plenty (which includes Tauranga).

The census data confirms the election data, showing a substantial demographic shift from core Auckland to (and beyond) Auckland’s fringe. Although Auckland City is growing relatively slowly, the historic Auckland Province now holds 54.6 percent of New Zealand’s population, up from 53.8 percent.

Auckland excluding rural Rodney and Franklin had 30.4 percent of New Zealand’s resident population. This includes the ‘Hibiscus’ area of Orewa which was in Rodney District before the super‑city was formed in 2010. So it looks like I am correct, the combined population of the former Auckland, North Shore, Waitakere, Manukau and Papakura – what most people have thought of as Auckland – is below 30 percent of the national total. The rest of the country continues to have much life and soul.

Auckland’s 2012‑16 real estate bubble was just that, a bubble. It had the substantial consequence of revitalising much of the rest of the country, though creating many of the same social problems as Auckland (especially relating to unaffordable rental housing) in many other cities.

As a final note, Auckland’s unoccupied dwelling count increased by over 6,000 to 39,393. 97 percent of the national increase in empty dwellings was in Auckland. And Auckland province registered a 9,363 increase in empty properties, 151 percent of the New Zealand net increase of 6,201 unoccupied homes.

Auckland Council is split into two significant blocks, referred to as Goff’s A-team and his opposition, the B-team, which is often strategically positioned by Manurewa-Papakura ward Councillor Daniel Newman.

Over the past twelve months, the B-Team has siphoned support off the Mayor, and can claim some big hit wins, including out-politicising Goff over the city’s stadium-strategy and also winning a reprieve for Speedway, effectively ensuring the sport is able to continue operating at Western Springs albeit for a finite period.

Auckland Council’s CCO, Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA), has come under significant attack by the B-Team, and Newman singles it out for pushing what he calls, a “disastrous Venue Development Strategy”.

The B-Team councillors want to have some of the CCOs axed and the structure of Auckland’s supercity council reformed.

Newman’s reaction to the Mayor’s campaign promise suggests at least half of the city’s councillors believe Goff’s move is tepid and will not correct a power imbalance where CCOs have too much control and elected councillors are rendered ineffective due to the legal and corporate structure of the Auckland supercity.

CCOs were initially set at seven, but now number five. They are: Auckland Transport, Watercare, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (Ateed), Regional Facilities Auckland and Panuku Development Auckland.

The supercity was designed in 2010 by former leader of the ACT party, Rodney Hide. He was then the local government minister in John Key’s National-led Government and was given free-reign to restructure and legislate to pull all of the greater Auckland region’s city and district councils under one supercity umbrella.

Hide, like those of his party, ideologically believed Auckland’s councillors had too much say in the city’s affairs, and structured the new Auckland Council so that the CCOs could effectively operate undeterred as commercial entities or elites. Problems arose when the CCOs were seen to under-perform (as Auckland Transport did during the Rugby World Cup). They were seen by the public as beyond reach and faceless corporate entities.

Under the current structure, there’s a sense that at least half of the city’s elected councillors feel they are unable to adequately represent their constituents – even when they inject a good dose of public interest into their politics.

Clearly, something has to change. On one side, the current Mayor Phil Goff promises to have an ‘independent review’ of the CCO structure. On the other hand, Daniel Newman and the B-Team want some CCOs to be axed, brought under control, and for councillors to again become effective representatives of their respective communities.

For more, read Mayor Phil Goff’s view in the New Zealand Herald report by Bernard Orsman titled: Auckland Mayor Phil Goff promises review of council-controlled organisations if re-elected

For Councillor Daniel Newman’s view, read below:

Not good enough. This is completely insufficient and is doomed to deliver no meaningful change.

I am not surprised that Mayor Phil Goff reportedly favours appointing “… four independent people” to review council-controlled organisations (CCOs). Nor am I surprised that he reportedly has no fixed plans to axe any of these organisations.

I have come to the conclusion that Mayor Goff prefers to appoint ‘independent people’ to undertake review exercises such as this one because it’s a convenient way to avoid taking a controversial decision.

Here’s a better option: how about we axe CCOs that are not fit for purpose.

The most obvious CCO to go would have to be Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA). That CCO’s performance in relation to its disastrous Venue Development Strategy has bled support within the community for years.

The debacle over trying to turf speedway out of its spiritual home at Western Springs is a case in point. I note that years of forecasting the demise of Western Springs as a venue for speedway was reversed after approximately one week of bad publicity and 30,000 (THIRTY THOUSAND) Aucklanders signing a petition declaring they wont stand for that eviction.

The EBITDA results for stadia run by RFA is inferior to the financial performance of Eden Park. The financial performance of RFA in relation to other entities like the Auckland Art Gallery isn’t much better, frankly. Quarterly meetings with RFA have become something of a ritual …. questions from me and colleagues like John Watson and Wayne Walkerabout unfavourable results against financial targets elicit sobering reflections about the need to constantly review assumptions etc etc. You get the picture?

I support Watercare Services Limited but I think Panuku is the product of the wrong strategy to sell-down too many publicly-owned landholdings when in fact you hold assets to build your wealth. But the A-team are generally the practitioners of asset sales, which surprises me as many of them claim to come from the Left-side of politics. As from ATEED, it was Mayor Goff’s decision to promote the controversial Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate, which (wrongly) rates the capital value of property rather than bed-nights (and which is now subject to a judicial review in the High Court).

Unlike the majority of my colleagues I did not vote to put the boot into Auckland Transport in April 2019. I am surprised the Mayor did but suspect it had more to do with political calculation.

Mayor Goff removed elected councillors from the board of Auckland Transport. The Mayor took the decision to remove Christine Fletcher and Mike Lee from the board of directors, thus removing an immediate reference to the community that elects regional councillors.

Mayor Goff championed the regional fuel tax despite that tax being hypothecated. A hypothecated tax does not provide for revenue derived from charging my constituents 10 cents per litre of fuel at the pump with the means easily move that revenue around to address community need and community expectation in the transport space. This is something that colleagues like Fa’anana Efeso Collins, Mike Lee, Greg Sayers, Desley Simpson, Sharon Stewart, Sir John Walker and I pointed out.

Mayor Goff lamented Auckland Transport’s no-show at St Heliers (but I do pay tribute to Desley Simpson who is a formidable advocate for her constituents). Did he front similar meetings at other centres subject to painful and controversial changes such at the Mt Albert and Mt Eden town centre upgrades?

This campaign promise is a bland one.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

Get ready for a more lively local government contest in New Zealand’s biggest city this year. Recent local election campaigns have been relatively dull affairs. In fact, at the last elections in 2016, voter turnout slumped to the lowest level for some time – with only about 38 per cent bothering to turn out. But this year’s Auckland mayoralty contest looks set to be the most colourful in a while.

The contest is shaping up to be between two very different centrist politicians: Phil Goff, the grey technocrat, versus John Tamihere the wild post-political populist.

A red-blue double act of “post-political” unity

Launching his campaign in the weekend, Tamihere surprised many with the campaign he has constructed, which involves big political players from across the political spectrum. In particular, by including Christine Fletcher as his running mate for deputy mayor, Tamihere’s campaign could be seen as a very clever attempt to put forward a “post-political” option for Auckland voters. It’s being sold as a team that is putting its ideological backgrounds and loyalties aside for the good of the wider city. This will have some immediate appeal in our anti-political age.

Auckland Stuff journalist Todd Niall has been covering the recent developments well, and refers to the Tamihere/Fletcher ticket as “a red-blue double act”, but says it isn’t yet clear if the combo is “a stroke of genius, or a strike-out” – see his column today: Which John Tamihere will run for Auckland mayor?

Niall explains the logic behind the red-blue council ticket: “The winners of Auckland’s three previous mayoral contests – Len Brown twice and Phil Goff once –have cleaned up not only in their Labour-heritage heartlands of the west and south, but also done well in blue areas across Pakuranga, Howick and the isthmus. Victory has been about broad appeal”.

But Niall isn’t yet convinced it’s a winning formula, asking the following questions: “Can Tamihere achieve the crossover needed to get election-winning support, and if not can Fletcher’s presence persuade blue voters to “come on in, the water’s fine” ? Can he deliver his strong views on social housing, in a way that doesn’t suggest a conflict of interest with Waipareira? For both Tamihere and Fletcher, can their pairing with a running-mate some might consider a polar opposite, enhance rather than damage their own support bases?”

Nevertheless, Niall also argues that the Tamihere/Fletcher campaign “could be the most intriguing bid yet in four elections in the Super City.” In fact, writing prior to the announcement, he also argued that the campaign was shaping up to be interesting: This year’s race could be the most interesting since the inaugural ‘clash of the titans’ duel of 2010, in which Len Brown beat former National and Act party MP John Banks” – see: The summer of Auckland mayoral wannabees.

In this article, Niall draws attention to the centrist political operating styles of both Goff and Brown as mayors. But he says that a Tamihere-Fletcher combo would be the first campaign to “feature a US Presidential-style running mate”. This “would provide plenty for voters to get their heads around, trying to figure out the direction the pair would take.”

The New Zealand Herald’s editorial on this development in the Auckland mayoral race also says that it “should make for a lively start to local body election year” – see: John Tamihere offers a shake-up to mayoralty but he could be vulnerable to attack .

The Herald explains why the Tamihere/Fletcher combo is strategically clever: “The Labour Party would classify Tamihere on the right too but he will probably have more appeal to many in Labour’s constituency, especially Māori, than to conservative or business-minded voters. It is probably to appeal to the latter constituency that Tamihere is running on a ticket with Christine Fletcher, a former mayor and still a councillor. Fletcher stands to be Deputy Mayor and gives the ticket an element of local body experience that Tamihere lacks.”

The logic of this left-right unity strategy is also put forward by leftwing blogger Martyn Bradbury: “that’s important because the fundamental changes Tamihere is seeking in forcing Central Government to pay for Auckland’s growth and the vast increase in social housing he is proposing will demand across the spectrum support. If elected, Tamihere would be Auckland’s first ever Māori Mayor, something that won’t go unnoticed in the South and West Auckland voting bloc. Tamihere’s attack against the large vested corporate interests of Auckland has been part of his previous attack on Goff and his ‘Auckland for us not them’ narrative will be heard across the city” – see: Tamihere brings together left-right coalition to defeat Goff.

Tamihere’s anti-establishment populism

There’s more than a hint of anti-Establishment politics to Tamihere’s campaign. Everything from his five-point plan, which includes the populist promise to “Clean the house” through to the main slogan of “Shake it up and sort it out” is vintage populist politics, and even reminiscent of some of Donald Trump’s successful 2016 campaign. There’s a very clear theme amongst Tamihere’s campaign, so far, about the need to “take back control”.

Some of this can be seen in TVNZ’s coverage: John Tamihere announces bid for Auckland mayor, crosses party line for running mate. This article reports Tamihere’s “promise to ‘open the books and clean the house’ at Auckland council, ensuring a thorough audit of where taxpayer money is being spent.”

According to TVNZ, Tamihere “said he wants control of the city to go back to the people instead of ‘faceless managers in central Auckland’. Other issues Mr Tamihere has pledged to address include social housing, homelessness, the regional fuel tax and council spending. Key themes of his campaign are integrity, efficiency, democracy and leaving a better legacy for the children of our generation.”

Some of this will resonate widely, especially for those who believe Phil Goff hasn’t been active enough as mayor. See, for example, the Herald’s editorial comments on Tamihere’s pitch, pointing out that Goff hasn’t delivered: “the shake-up he promised for the council last time has hardly happened. The council still seems detached from the needs and concerns of citizens and may need a new broom.”

Tamihere’s running-mate is also channeling a more outspoken style. Bernard Orsman reports: “Christine Fletcher has unleashed an extraordinary attack on Phil Goff, accusing the mayor of weak leadership and failing to make Wellington sit up and listen by holding their feet to the fire” – see: Christine Fletcher calls Phil Goff a weak leader who has failed Auckland.

Amongst many criticisms of Goff, the article points out “Fletcher was one of nine councillors to sign a letter to Goff last year saying he runs a ‘non-inclusive style of leadership’ and trust and transparency at council is getting worse. As deputy designate on a mayoral ticket with Tamihere, Fletcher said Goff works alone behind closed doors with bureaucrats, commissioning expensive reports from consultants that only come to light for councillors under the Official Information Act.”

Phil Goff has responded to some of this criticism, especially about the so-called “Goff gas tax”, pointing out that Fletcher actually voting in favour of it – see RNZ’s Phil Goff fires back: Dumping ‘Goff’s gas tax’ would create $4.3b revenue gap, Auckland mayor says.

Goff adds: “Before anybody criticises a form of revenue, they’ve got to say how they’d fill the revenue gap of $4.3 billion if they were to do away with it, and if you don’t do that there’s a real question of credibility.”

Tamihere’s past 

Tamihere’s possibility of success might hinge on whether Auckland voters care about his past controversies – which are very well covered in Scott Palmer’s John Tamihere’s most controversial moments.

Will people hold past misdemeanours against him? As Grant Duncan of Massey University comments, “Possibly people are prepared to put that in the past. But people I’m sure will start to drag up some of those old stories as the campaign goes forward” – see Newshub’s ‘Old stories’ may derail John Tamihere’s mayoralty bid – expert.

Duncan also says: “One thing you can’t accuse Mr Tamihere of is political correctness. He is entertaining and an outspoken person, and it will be interesting to see how he gets along with Christine Fletcher.”

Todd Niall has also dealt with this, reporting from the Tamihere/Fletcher announcement: “His running-mate Christine Fletcher said at their campaign launch that Tamihere had ‘matured and moved on’ since the episode in which he’d described women as ‘frontbums’. Tamihere’s demeanour went steely when his past was raised, obliquely asking in return whether anyone had not learned from mistakes.”

Tamihere was also interviewed this morning on RNZ’s Morning Report, and responded to a question about his past controversies, saying “Here’s the thing, my name is JT not JC. I’m not totally in control of the whole shooting match all the time, I make mistakes. I’ve indicated I own them, what do you want me to do – jump off the Harbour Bridge?” – see: Tamihere bids for Auckland mayoralty: ‘My name’s JT, not JC’.

It’s possible that raising these controversies might even work in Tamihere’s favour. As with the 2016 attacks on Donald Trump – especially by Hillary Clinton and her supporters – sometimes this can actually play into the hands of those under fire. Martyn Bradbury has put the case for this: “I think a woke attack by Goff could be terribly counter productive. Many Aucklanders stuck in traffic every day are furious at smug pronouncements from woke activists on cycling, and if the attack against Tamihere are seen as coming from that part of the political spectrum, Tamihere could throw caution to wind, assume he has nothing to lose… and come out with some populist attack on cycle lanes and reap the vast angry chunk of Auckland’s gridlocked voter block.”

Finally, for the most in-depth and recent examination of Tamihere’s past and present orientation to various controversies, as well as how he plans to take Auckland forward, see Simon Wilson’s John Tamihere on Roast Busters, front bums and running for Auckland mayoralty.