The Manurewa Local Board is developing its first Pan-Pacific strategy in Aotearoa New Zealand to amplify Pasifika voices in local decision-making.

A recent community workshop brought leaders and residents together to develop a strategy that will help guide how the board engages with Pasifika communities. The plan will then be presented in June.

Akerei Maresala-Thomson, an Auckland Council partner and facilitator of the workshop at Manurewa Library, described it as a listening session.

“A lot of work has gone into reaching this stage, with investment from both past and present board members. This will be the first Pasifika strategy for the board-a win for our community.”

The strategy aims to amplify Pacific voices in local decision-making, promote cultural recognition, improve access to services, and encourage Pasifika participation in governance.

Maresala-Thomson facilitated a similar workshop in 2019, laying the groundwork for this initiative.

The strategy, expected to be presented in June, will be informed by feedback from the workshop and an online community survey.

According to the 2023 Census, Pasifika make up nearly 40 percent of Manurewa’s approximately 39,450 residents. The consultation process involved gathering demographic information and identifying key priorities for the community.

“There was a diverse mix of expertise and perspectives in the room,” said Maresala-Thomson. “Some smaller Pasifika communities weren’t represented, and our youth were largely absent.

“However, many contributed via the online survey, which helped guide our discussions.”

The local board wants a Pan-Pacific approach — not just input from the larger island groups but representation from all the diverse Pacific communities, he said.

“More often than not, and this is no fault of our own, our Samoan, Cook Island, and Tongan communities naturally make up the larger share of our population.

“But they wanted to make sure we also reached our smaller community groups, like our Niuean, Tuvaluan, Solomon Islands, and even Rotuman communities.”

The group received great representation from the Tuvaluan, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, and Niuean communities, in addition to the larger, traditional networks from Samoan and Tongan communities, he said.

‘Great networking opportunity’
One attendee, Kate*, who asked not to be identified, said she joined the workshop to understand how local boards align with Pasifika priorities.

“It was a great networking opportunity, but ultimately, I wanted to know how I can best support the community,” she said. “The issues raised today aren’t new. We’ve been talking about them for years.”

Kate believes many Pasifika families struggle to engage with local government because they don’t see the impact of their input.

“There’s access to these spaces, but people don’t know where to go or why it matters. We need better ways to bring the conversation into people’s homes,” she said.

Engaging Pasifika youth was another key discussion point.

“There are youth in different spaces, and we need to find the champions — whether through youth councils, community groups, or other networks-who can help share the message among their peers.”

Kathleen Guttenbeil-Vatuvei, a community educator and financial mentor at Vaiola Pacific Island Budgeting Service Trust, said she attended the event to ensure financial capability was part of the discussion.

“When you hear ‘strategy,’ you want to be involved in shaping solutions,” she said. “What is the local board going to do about these issues? Are they listening? How do we fit into this strategy, and do we have a voice?”

She stressed the importance of youth involvement.

“Youth should be equally represented. But sometimes, they feel intimidated around elders or community leaders. It’s important to create spaces where they feel comfortable contributing.”

Angela Dalton, Councillor for Manurewa-Papakura and former chair of the local board, received a message from Maresala-Thomson thanking her for initiating the strategy years ago.

“I always felt we weren’t turning words into tangible outcomes for Pasifika,” Dalton said.

“I was determined to build strong relationships to ensure we deliver projects that meet the needs of our growing Pasifika population.”

A steering committee will oversee the project, ensuring it reflects the aspirations of Manurewa’s Pasifika communities and fosters meaningful engagement with local government.

Maresala-Thomson said: “What we get from today, from your feedback, which has been amazing, this will help to draft the strategic plan specifically for Pacific and Manurewa.”

Local Democracy Reporting (LDR) is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air. Asia Pacific Report is a community member of the LDR project.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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 councillors crossed swords, singling out one another and raising impassioned concerns on debt borrowing, rates and selling council’s shares in Auckland Airport before deciding on their annual budget.

Elected members ended yesterday’s meeting undecided but council reconvened this morning to hash out amendments to Mayor Wayne Brown’s budget proposal, before finally voting to approve it.

The governing body of the city with the Pacific’s largest Polynesian population spent the majority of the day going back and forth on many of the points previously raised at the initial meeting yesterday.

The morning finished with council voting to reject the first tabled amendment, going back to square one.

Councillor Chris Darby said if the discussion was like “eating rats”, then council had rat flesh in its teeth.

It was a tense atmosphere in the council chamber, with much back and forth and very little compromise from councillors.

As the meeting dragged on, two members of the public gallery began to speak up, urging councillors to think of the impact the budget would have on the community.

They yelled at council to listen to them, and to spend time in their communities to see the impacts of their budget first hand.

The mayor adjourned the meeting briefly and ordered the two women be removed from the council chamber.

The meeting came to a head, as the council voted to pass the mayor’s proposal, which meant selling about 7 percent of the council’s 18.09 percent shareholding

It also means an average residential rates increase of 7.7 percent.

During the meeting, Christine Fletcher said the discussions held around the budget would serve as good lessons for the governing body.

“There are some magnificent opportunities for all of us to provide leadership,” she said.

As the vote was cast, another member of the public called out, “shame on all of you”.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s Media Freedom Council has called Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown’s exclusion of some media outlets from his budget speech today “unacceptable”.

In an appearance at Auckland Transport’s Viaduct headquarters, Brown took time out of pitching his plan to sell the city’s holdings in Auckland Airport to complain about road cones, his “not financially literate” councillors and target the “nasty” media.

Brown’s team invited journalists from only a few organisations to the announcement. RNZ was allowed in, but Stuff, TVNZ and Newshub were not.

Stuff reported among those allowed in were “business leaders, former politicians and former rugby league coach Sir Graham Lowe”.

Some reporters threatened to walk out of the event in protest, drawing this response from the mayor: “They weren’t invited, but some of the media have been pretty nasty. We did invite media who are sensible; and the media who are not weren’t invited, and have now decided, some of them, to bugger off — well, that’s all right with me”.

Stuff queried the mayor’s decision, and was told only a “select few journalists… we feel were best able to convey the mayor’s message” were invited.

Media Freedom Council chair Richard Sutherland — also head of news at RNZ — wrote to Brown shortly afterwards, to “express our deep concern about the attempted exclusion of journalists from today’s budget presentation in Auckland”.

In addition to RNZ, the MFC represents Newshub, Newsroom, NZME, Stuff, The Spinoff and TVNZ.

‘Today’s events troubling’
“Today’s events are troubling. The media plays a crucial role in informing the public and holding officials accountable. Denying access to journalists compromises the public’s right to be informed,” Sutherland wrote.

“Furthermore, we are aware that invitations that were issued were selectively targeted to specific journalists. It is imperative to ensure equal opportunities for all bone fide journalists to cover significant public events, irrespective of their perceived affiliations or perspectives.

“To be blunt, it’s unacceptable to cherry-pick journalists based on who you think will give you the easiest ride.”

Sutherland called Brown’s decision an “affront to the democratic process and an insult to voters”.

Brown did not take questions after his speech, saying he did not have time.

He has had a strained relationship with the media since taking the mayoral chains last year. Mediawatch in April described it as “frosty”, at best.

In January, as Auckland suffered its worst floods in living memory, he called journalists “drongos” in messages to friends, upset he had to cancel a tennis engagement to deal with the media. He later apologised.

He refused 106 media requests in his first month of office, granting only two.

‘Sell them all’
The guts of Brown’s speech was to convince his councillors that selling the city’s 18 percent stake in Auckland Airport was the only way to avoid massive cuts to services and rate hikes.

He has his deputy Desley Simpson on side. She told RNZ’s Midday Report she did not want to sell the shares at first, but had listened to advice and had been convinced.

She said the mayor’s second budget proposal was as good as it was going to get, and she hoped other councillors agreed to it.

“In my heart, I didn’t want to sell the airport shareholding. But professional staff advice has said ‘sell them all’. And you know, that’s a hard pill to swallow when in your heart, you want to keep them.

“It’s an emotional wrestle that I think a lot of people are struggling with.”

Simpson said selling shareholding was not just a short-term fix, and would save the council $100 million a year in debt interest.

The council’s debt is currently more than $11 billion.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A state of local emergency has been declared in Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest city Auckland today as heavy rain and thunderstorms affect the region.

Auckland’s Emergency Management duty controller said a band of heavy rain was expected to come across the Auckland region between now and 7pm.

Controller Parul Sood said that while there had been a lull in the rain further downfalls were possible with localised downpours of around 20 to 33 mm expected.

She said Auckland Council had received about 490 stormwater related calls, the majority of which were to do with surface flooding, and only about 18 to do with flooding in homes.

Fire and Emergency has received 277 weather-related call outs today, most from Auckland.

Its on-call commander for Tāmaki Makaurau, Brad Mosby, said that about one third of the calls were urgent.

He urged people to avoid unnecessary travel and stay clear of floodwaters.

Meanwhile, thunderstorms continued to roll across the top half of the North Island.

Metservice said severe thunderstorm warnings were in place for South Waikato, Matamata Piako, Western Bay Of Plenty, Taupo and Rotorua until just before 4.30pm.

A severe thunderstorm Watch was also in force for Auckland, Coromandel Peninsula and the rest of Waikato and Bay Of Plenty.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A new $100 million apartment complex is coming to Manukau — Auckland’s heart of Pacific communities.

But you’ll have to be aged at least 55 to get in.

Kāinga Ora is expected to start construction of the 123 apartments in Osterley Way in March. The 16-storey tower will include 94 one-bedroom and 29 two-bedroom apartments.

The government said it was necessary to target targeting specific age groups to match an increasing demand from “older customers”.

“Kāinga Ora recognises our older customers have specific housing needs, which we are addressing through senior housing developments such as the proposed project in Manukau,” regional director for Counties Manukau Angela Pearce said.

Pearce said one in five of the agency’s homes in Counties-Manukau had someone over 65 living in it, while 670 of its homes in the area were occupied by sole tenants in the same age group.

“With an aging population, Kāinga Ora recognises the importance of dedicated senior housing where our older tenants can live well, feel safe and secure, both in their homes and the community.”

Two years on state house list
Maureen O’Meara, 75, spent two years on the state house waiting list and was renting a two-bedroom unit in Pakuranga for $420 a week until earlier this year.

“I had $17 left a week after paying the rent,” O’Meara said. “Being on a pension and paying market rent meant I didn’t have a lot of money left to live on.”

O’Meara managed to find somewhere more affordable in May after she was put in touch with Haumaru Housing, a joint venture between Auckland Council and the Selwyn Foundation.

But O’Meara said the Manukau development reflects an increasing number of people reaching retirement without a home.

“And I think there’s going to be a need for more places like it,” she said.

Age Concern Auckland chief executive Kevin Lamb said it’s important the development was close to public transport and community facilities.

“We think it’s high time older people had accommodation that is new and more appropriate for their needs.”

Big part of pension on housing
Recently-released research by Te Ara Ahunga Ora Retirement Commission showed superannuitants still paying rent were more likely to be spending 40 percent or more of their pension on housing.

While long-term trends suggest more older New Zealanders are likely to still be renting in their retirement.

Te Ara Ahunga Ora director of policy Dr Suzy Morrissey said with declining home ownership rates there was a growing need for public housing and accommodation for those aged 55 and over.

“When NZ Super was introduced, it was with the underlying assumption that those accessing it would be mortgage-free homeowners,” she said.

“Today, the reality is very different. There are declining home ownership rates, more people needing to continue working longer because they still have mortgages to pay, are paying rent, or haven’t been able to save enough to retire.”

• Auckland is currently in the middle of the local body elections with a Pacific candidate, Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, one of the two top contenders for mayor of the super city.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Despite total borrowings reaching $11.1 billion, the Auckland Council Group’s latest results show it has managed to weather the worst of the storm created by the covid pandemic.

But the super city’s statement to the NZX shows it will face some tough times ahead as it seeks to balance its next budget.

In June the council with New Zealand’s largest Pacific population — almost 250,000, more than 15 percent of the city’s total of 1.7 million — agreed to defer $230 million in capital works over the next three years to address a $150 million per annum shortfall in its operating costs.

South Auckland projects affected included a new Flat Bush multi-use centre, the upgrade of the Papakura park and ride and the Ōpaheke Park sports fields.

Auckland Council finance and performance committee chairperson Desley Simpson said a number of projects were impacted on by the cutbacks, but increases in revenue and operational savings meant it was now in a stronger position.

“The key point we considered when preparing our Recovery Budget last year was to provide significant support to the economic recovery of Auckland,” Simpson said.

“This proved to be crucial, with our ongoing capital investment programmes helping to counterbalance some of the anticipated economic pressures in Auckland, as well as supporting future infrastructure growth needs for the region.”

Council’s results ‘positive’
The council’s debt increased $757 million to $11.1 billion in the 12 months to June 30, while its revenue grew by $361 million to $5.7 billion.

Manurewa-Papakura ward councillor Angela Dalton said the council’s latest results were positive.

“I think considering the last few years we’ve had, they are pretty good,” she said.

“But I think the future budgets are going to be really tough for us and we are looking at some challenging times ahead.”

Dalton said the results need to be looked at in the context of the Auckland Council Group’s total asset base, which grew by $9.7 billion to $70.4 billion in the past year.

“Considering the huge drop in revenue we’ve faced we’ve still been able to build our city and work on capital projects like the Central Interceptor and City Rail Link. They are the big game changers for Auckland.”

Some council projects were delayed, but it still spent $2.3b on capital works, including over $1b on transport-related assets, $815m on water, wastewater and stormwater and $384 million on other assets.

Climate change funding juggle
Simpson said whoever won Auckland’s mayoral race would have to juggle funding for climate change initiatives, infrastructure and transport spending, community facilities and parks and reserves.

She said while some projects that were deferred might be brought back from the brink, some may be consigned to political history.

“We’ve come through the worst period any Auckland Council has had to deal with. But it’s not going to get any easier.”

Auckland mayor Phil Goff’s final budget was announced in June and included $600 million for new bus services, funding for electric ferries and buses and completion of key links in the city’s cycling network.

The budget’s climate change package will be funded by a targeted rate, generating $574m over 10 years, with plans to seek a further $482m in funding from the government and other sources.

• The political campaign for mayor is being keenly contested with a Pacific candidate, Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, narrowly leading opinion polls for the October local body elections.

Local Democracy Reporting is Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ on Air. Asia Pacific Report is an LDR partner.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Auckland Mayor Phil Goff has appealed to the 1.7 million people in the city to “roll up your sleeves” and get vaccinated immediately to help New Zealand cope better with the covid-19 pandemic.

Writing in The New Zealand Herald today to back the newspaper’s 90% Project for maximum vaccination, Goff said the the city should be aiming for a “summer of freedom for Tāmaki Makaurau”.

“It’s a much better scenario than staying at home in our bubbles, locked down at level 4, and at risk of a disease that may put you or your family in hospital,” he said.

“The first option is one we all crave. To help achieve it, we need to get as many Aucklanders vaccinated as possible, as soon as possible.

“Ninety percent of the eligible population is a good target, which is why I support The New Zealand Herald’s 90% Project. If we can get higher than 90 per cent, that’s even better.

Goff said that yesterday the city had hit the target of 80 percent of Aucklanders having had at least one dose, with more than half of that number becoming fully vaccinated.

“More than 20,000 people a day have been getting immunised, but more than 200,000 still need to book or get their first vaccination,” he said.

Stringent measures
“New Zealand did the right thing in putting in place stringent measures to stop the incursion of covid-19 into our community. We did better than almost any other country.

“However, new variants of covid, currently delta, make it really hard to stop community transmission and we can’t continue indefinitely closing down our economy to stop its spread. The human and financial costs are huge. And sooner or later we will have to open up again to the world.”

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said at today’s covid media briefing that tools used in the future to fight covid-19 did not need to be as disruptive as the ones used now — such as lockdowns — as long as the country achieved a high vaccination rate.

Jacinda Ardern and Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield were speaking after the release of new modelling which suggests lockdowns may still be needed if the country achieved an 80 percent vaccination rate.

Ardern said vaccine certificates, better ventilation, some mask use, and the possibility of changing border restrictions so a full 14-day quarantine was not required could be used in the future.

But for now vaccination was the main tool.

“It all comes down to vaccination.”

Lockdowns needed in first phase
She said lockdowns were needed in the first phase of the pandemic because there were no vaccines and everyone had to be isolated.

“With vaccines, we can turn that model on its head,” she said, so positive cases could be isolated as others have the protection of vaccines.

“Children can’t be vaccinated. It will reach them. And we’ve seen it reach them in this outbreak,” she said.

The plan was never zero cases, but “zero tolerance” for covid, she said.

The Health Ministry announced 15 new community cases of covid-19 today, a drop of seven on yesterday.

Ardern said the government’s plan for the future, included aggressively isolating cases, catching cases at the border, and ensuring the health system was not overwhelmed.

“It’s not the Aotearoa way to leave anyone behind,” she said.

“There remains one simple message – Get vaccinated.”

Today was the second day that Auckland was at alert level 3 after five weeks in lockdown.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Radio New Zealand

Auckland Council has declared a climate emergency after an Environment Committee meeting today.

The council’s motion was passed unanimously and was met with applause from activists in the packed public gallery.

Activists had told committee members many of them would be voting this election and their votes depended on what councillors would decide.

READ MORE: UN Security-General tells youth be ‘noisy as possible’ on climate change

Waiata Rameka-Tupe from the group Climate Conscious Mana Rangatahi brought a stuffed New Zealand sea turtle to the table with her, saying it had died because its stomach was filled with plastic.

Rameka-Tupe said her group was excited the council had made the declaration but warned it would be watching carefully to see if they followed up with action.

Representing the school climate strikers, Generation Zero’s Sidd Mehita put the council on notice if they wanted their votes.

“We need to see you have skin in the game,” he said.

It was not just young people speaking today, with activist Rosie Gee telling the council it was time to stop using soft words like “encourage” when it comes to making change.

Policy change was the best way to limit climate change and it was needed now, she said.

The Environment Committee includes every member of the council, so its decisions are binding immediately without having to go through further council processes.

In a press release, the council said the declaration meant it was committing to:

• Robustly and visibly incorporate climate change considerations into work programmes and decisions.
• Provide strong local government leadership in the face of climate change, including working with local and central government partners to ensure a collaborative response.
• Advocate strongly for greater central government leadership and action on climate change.
• Increase the visibility of our climate change work.
• Lead by example in monitoring and reducing the council’s greenhouse gas emissions.
• Include climate change impact statements on all council committee reports.

Councillors also voted that all reports presented by staff to decision making committees should include a climate impact statement.

All supported the declaration, but several said the council did not have a handle on the problem and would need to make major, concrete changes if the declaration was to be meaningful.

This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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.

By Bryce Edwards.

“All liberation movements fall apart and devolve into factionalism” suggested Kim Hill yesterday in her RNZ interview with Pride festival board chairperson Cissy Rock. Although expressed in rather a negative way, Hill’s statement is one of the clearest observations of the current meltdown in the LGBTQ+ community over whether uniformed police should be allowed to march in the annual Auckland Pride parade. 

You can listen to the fascinating 23-minute encounter here: Cissy Rock – Pride Parade wrangle. The interview, which is sometimes terse and difficult, is a useful discussion of the colourful contemporary politics of identity, gender and sexuality that is part of the culture war tearing the queer community apart.

Of course if this current schism in the LGBTQ+ community proves anything, it’s that there really is no “queer community”. Instead there are broadly (at least) two different queer communities: a radical one and a mainstream one. And increasingly, it seems, the two sides can no longer be contained in one movement, let alone one Pride event.

The anti-police faction is championing a more anti-Establishment movement of protest, activism and an anti-authority ethos. This approach has a strong history in a movement that has had to fight in countries like New Zealand against a status quo that was opposed to their very existence.

The pro-police faction of the queer community now generally works alongside, as well as within, Establishment institutions such as the police, the armed forces, and corporations. After many important victories and a profound shift in public opinion, this element of the struggle has taken on a more politically mainstream character. This has meant that gay pride events have also gradually become less overtly political, and more mainstream.

These two radical and mainstream “factions” have always been there, but what’s changed is that it’s now simply proving too difficult to bridge these two sides together anymore. This has best been acknowledged by Green MP Jan Logie who says that the Pride board that organises the parade is making huge efforts to “hold together our communities, which have very different histories and realities” – see Jason Walls’ PM Jacinda Ardern says the Pride Parade is ‘at its best when it’s an inclusive event’.

The same article quotes other politicians expressing their disappointment and dismay about the Police and other institutions no longer participating in Auckland Pride. But should we be surprised about this major division in the queer community? Arguably, not.

A couple of weeks ago, when the issue first became public, I argued that the notion of a unified queer movement is akin to the idea that Māori form an homogenous group. As the Māori Party discovered, Māori as a putative political force actually can’t be easily contained in one political party: “The Māori Party was a lesson in this – it sought to represent Māori as some sort of homogenous voting group, but the contradictions of its support base meant that it broke apart (most notably with the more radical Hone Harawira departing)”

Likewise, there are very different political views and realities in the queer community, and these reflect the different demographics involved – see: The Schism in the LGBTQ+ movement over police (paywalled).

The evolution of sexual and gender progress in terms of civil rights and societal acceptance means that the whole basis of the “queer community” has changed. With important victories being achieved, the Pride march, for example, has come to reflect the mainstream majority of queers. It’s become a celebration rather than an activist event.

Politicians from all sides of the political spectrum now participate in Pride events, and large companies have become sponsors. The military, police, and prison officers have attended – increasingly in their uniforms. As part of the pride scene, now, there are rainbow coloured police cars and ANZ’s “GAYTMs” for withdrawing cash.

Not everyone in the queer community has welcomed this evolution. The more radical activists have been uncomfortable with the idea that “diversity” means banks, police, and other authority figures getting a place in their parade. For such radicals, these “oppressive” institutions are engaging in “pinkwashing” – in which institutions or corporations are seen as attempting to win over citizens and customers with superficial marketing.

There are other ways of thinking about the dispute. The Southland Times sees it as less about ingrained ideological differences in the movement, and more about the occasional problems of bureaucracy and democracy in all institutions – see: A momentarily pallid rainbow.

Here’s the editorial’s main point about the “whole shemozzle”: “Perhaps the Pride community is no more immune to eddies of disagreement, personality clashes, mishandled meetings, oldsters and youngsters exasperating each other, than the rest of us. In which case we’re seeing nothing much more than it being their turn to screw up, as malfunctioning committees are prone to do. Maybe, as one wag has noted, it’s just the case that the committee needs diversity training.”

The mainstream voices

To get a perspective on why many in the LGBTQ+ community are frustrated by the exclusion of the police from Pride, see Aziz Al-Sa’afin’s opinion piece: The not-so-inclusive Pride Parade. In this, Al-Sa’afin explains why he’s boycotting the parade. He complains about the radicals that are now organising the event: “They do not speak for me. They do not speak for my friends. And, quite frankly, they do not speak for the entire LGBTQI community.”

Also strongly opposed to the ban on the police, Levi Joule, a former editor of New Zealand LGBT publication Express, has hit out at the radicals: “Those views are outdated and out of touch with the vast majority of our community who pay taxes, raise children and have careers. The LGBT community is colourful and includes people from a range of political perspectives, religions and ethnicities” – see: Let uniformed LGBT police parade their Pride.

Joule makes it clear that the positions of the two sides are rather intractable: “it appears a small group with extremist agendas are once again dictating to the rest of the community who can and cannot participate in our parade and festival, regardless of what the overwhelming majority of LGBT people want. Similarly, a small group had prison officers banned from the 2017 parade, attempted to forcibly disrupt the Israeli embassy from marching in the 2014 parade and have asked for a number of corporations they don’t like to also be excluded.”

Mainstream allies are also putting the spotlight on the radicals in the movement, arguing that they are extremists – see, for example, David Farrar’s blogpost, So how extreme are PAPA? He argues, “The banning of the Police wearing uniforms at the Auckland Pride Parade has come about due to capture by an activist group called People Against Prisons Aotearoa. Now their agenda is not just banning of Police uniforms at the Pride Parade. They are at what is basically the lunatic end of the political spectrum. Don’t take my word for it. Read their manifesto.”

A number of international mainstream figures are being asked to comment on the dispute – see Aroha Awarau’s Rupert Everett on Auckland Pride Board’s police uniform ban: ‘We can’t pretend they don’t exist’.

It’s possible that although police might not march in the Pride parade, there may be a protest fancy-dress “police” force participating in February – see: Facebook group set up to ‘Attend Pride Parade dressed as a policeman!’ in wake of ban.

The radical voices

With a large number of the corporate sponsors pulling out of the Pride parade, ActionStation organiser Laura O’Connell Rapira has launched a crowdfunding campaign to replace lost business sponsorship – see Amy Williams’ Crowdfunding for Auckland Pride parade raises $3000 overnight. The money raised now totals about $16,000.

And along with Kassie Hartendorp, O’Connell Rapira has explained the opposition to Police marching in uniform: “Police uniforms represent oppression and violence to many rainbow folk and people of colour. Because the history of police toward rainbow folk and people of colour is violent. In the 1940s and 50s, it was still legal for gay men to be sentenced to whipping, flogging and hard labour” – see: Police and Pride: We need to heal our relationships first.

There are a number of leftwing activists in the radical camp, and activist Eva Allan has explained their strong differences with the more mainstream faction: “At the core of the current dispute is a failure of the privileged within the LGBT community to compromise in order to allow wider participation in what should be a more open, less pinkwashed Pride Parade. This is a continuation of the old politics of respectability, where wealthy LGBT people largely ignored the plight of the less well off in the community” – see: No Pride In the Police.

Laura O’Connell Rapira has also penned a political poem that nicely encapsulates the radical view – see: Brown bodies and blue uniforms.

Overseas allies are also being pulled in to give support for the radical position – see Mandy Te’s RuPaul’s Drag Race star films video in support of Auckland Pride Parade’s uniform ban.

There’s a serious ethnicity component to opposition to police involvement in Pride. Waikato University’s Leonie Pihama has outlined her problems with the police and justice system that are relevant to the decision to exclude the police – see her blogpost, A day in Twitter-Verse.

Pihama argues that many police efforts to be more sensitive to her community are just superficial: “Painting a rainbow on a car does not make that a different kind of Police diversity car, it is still a car that Takatāpui and LGBTIQ are placed into for arrest. Just like painting koru and the word “Pirihimana” on a Police car does not make it a ‘Māori-friendly’ car, it remains a Police Car.”

Finally, veteran leftwing commentator Chris Trotter has come out in support of the radicals, and he explains how “the rainbow community turned out to be so conservative” and says there’s a need to make more progress on the civil rights of those at the sharper end of current discrimination – the “trans community” – see: The Perils of inclusion.

The Nation on Saturday (4 June), ran a panel interview (including Phil Goff and Winston Peters) about where and when Auckland’s main Waitemata Harbour port would be moved to some other location, just as most other big city ports around the world have outgrown their original city locations (The future of Auckland’s Port).

While the key assumption that Auckland’s main port will someday be moved en masse rather than incrementally is probably not correct, all the alternative port options mentioned were unconvincing. Clearly the best location for a new port is the Manukau Harbour, near the substantial infrastructure around the airport, the Otahuhu freight rail terminus, and the existing Metroport in Southdown. The obvious problem is that large numbers of large ships cannot and should not negotiate the dangerous Manukau Bar.

Winston’s preference of Whangarei could only be a solution for a partial move, rather than a complete relocation of Auckland’s container port. The infrastructure needed to get this mass of goods from Whangarei to Auckland (and points south) would be both expensive and an environmental nightmare. (I am imagining a rail tunnel underneath Glen Eden, from Henderson to Mangere.) Other suggested options, such as having a port like Sydney’s Botany Bay in the Firth of Thames, seem as far-fetched.

So I put on my engineer’s hat, and thought, “why not use the Tamaki River and build a ship canal across the Otahuhu portage, into the basin of the Manukau Harbour east of Onehunga’s Mangere Bridge?” The 3km route I thought looked best goes south of Sylvia Park between the Eastern Line railway (which is also the North Island Main Trunk) and Panama Road, coming into the Mangere Inlet of the Manukau between Southdown and Westfield, just a kilometre from Metroport Auckland. My vision was that the Mangere Inlet east of the Mangere Bridge would be dredged, with a causeway just east of Mangere Bridge built from the tailings, creating a large shipping marina bordered by Mangere, Favona, Otahuhu, Westfield, Southdown, Te Papapa and Onehunga. A locking system could connect the new harbour with Port Onehunga, exploiting the two-three hour tidal difference between Auckland’s two coasts.

A Tamaki canal was first proposed in 1860 by one Colonel Moule at £22,876 (Paddle your way around Auckland, Colin Moore, NZ Herald 25 Feb 2002). In 1887 Public Works engineer JW Blair upped the cost to £250,000 (reported in Waitemata-Manukau Canal, NZ Herald 6 Jun 1907). Interest was quite high in the 1907-11 period (eg Waitemata-Manukau Canal, NZ Herald 5 Sep 1911). The idea was back on the agenda in 1960: “District must get behind Tamaki ship canal project now that there is a distinct possibility, it would open the way for new industries in area”. And in 1962, for the Otahuhu Golden Jubilee publication, a section was titled History of the Canal Scheme.

More recently we have this amusing piece by Chris Barton (Canals in Auckland’s south, NZ Herald 8 Apr 2005). And there’s this interesting 2007 (9 Feb) blog entry (and visualisation) by scientist David Haywood (The Geeks Shall Inherit the Earth), which refers to this entry (Manukau Harbour, European Settlement) in the 1966 Encyclopedia of New Zealand (“Future development of the harbour will depend largely on the construction of a canal linking it with the Waitemata, where the tides are approximately two hours later”).

In all these times the suggested solution was on a much more visionary scale than the problem being addressed. Now, however – as expressed on The Nation – the problem really has come. Port Waitemata has reached its growth limits (or exceeded them, given the city’s need to reclaim its harbour and gulf as Auckland’s playground and tourist magnet). Yet the visionary thinking that characterised our past seems to have gone.

I searched the newspaper literature for arguments why a Tamaki Ship Canal could not be built as a part of solution to Auckland’s growth. I could find none. Much bigger ship canals were built long ago in Greece (Corinth, completed 1983), Manchester (also 1893), and Kiel (1895). The Tamaki proposal seems puny in comparison. Yet this seemingly obvious piece of development infrastructure for Auckland is almost never mentioned in polite circles. If planned for, it could be a perfect ‘shovel-ready’ project for New Zealand’s next Great Depression (probably in the late 2020s); as the Sydney Harbour and Golden Gate bridges proved to be in the 1930s.

• resource its animal management functions
• go door to door to assess and impound menacing dogs.