Last night Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide appeared on Close Up to answer questions from host Mark Sainsbury about the super city, and claims on the front page of yesterday’s Herald that Hide’s CCOs lack transparency and accountability.
The interview was a big disappointment. Mark Sainsbury failed to ask the hard questions and repeatedly gave Hide an opportunity to spin his lines. Have a look at it here. (The interview kicks in about halfway through the item.)
In contrast, John Campbell also recorded an interview with Hide on the same subject yesterday. I am not sure that it actually went to air but you can watch it on the TV3 website. Campbell doesn’t let Hide off the hook.
What do you think?
John Campbell certainly asks the right questions, and it is notable that the answers given did not adequately address the issue and were couched in sloganeering language. Why indeed should a bunch of unelected officials control half the council budget and simply report in every three months? By what process can the council sack them, and under what conditions? Saying transparency and accountability over and over again is no answer to either of these questions.
I would watch the Closeup clip but don’t want to relive the trauma
Campbell Live here I come 
Again, Campbell nailed it. The ‘other guy’ was hopeless. No, he was appalling. When is someone going to put him out to pasture and hand it over to Mike Hosking? Hide has obviously watched tapes of Maggie Thatcher, who also used to just repeat her lines over and over, regardless of the question, regardless of the context, regardless of how disleading or shifty they were. Fortunately, Hide is so damaged now that it doesn’t matter what he says.
all the more reason to sell TVNZ I guess. Sainbury often reminds me of someone who’s living in a kind of ‘man with a big mustache’ wet dream… it’s quite discomforting and I’m not surprised he went easy on Hide.
Hide is a sleezy little guy who should not be a minister, and is breaking all rules of democracy. Also, i don’t like his clothing tastes
, if you could call it taste
GO JOHN CAMPBELL
BOO MUSTACHED GUY
I can’t make up my mind if Rodney really believes the rubbish he talks, or if he’s maliciously misleading us.
Either way, this is one Aucklander who does not want the whole supercity mess foisted on him. I’d be open to considering it if we could see a) what (quantified) benefits it will bring, b) what it will cost (with some accountability behind the estimates), c) a project plan for the implementation, and d) if we did not have to give away fundamental issues of democracy to get it done. No laws passed under urgency either.
If Rodney really believes there are benefits for Aucklanders, and that most Aucklanders really want this, he’d have the courage of his convictions and put this to a binding referendum. ACT is no longer a party of principle (even wrong principles!), they’re a hodge-podge of opportunists.
When Hide appeared on Q+A, Espiner was ‘away’ so Hides old Mate
Paul Holmes did the honours.
Not one word about the super city, even though its Hides portfolio ( a question about dog laws though)
This smacks of a set up.
So Sainsbury wants Hide as Mayor.
As a Cantab it was a relief to see Sainsbury do the interview and finally get some answers. What is it with AKL local politics that you just argue and bitch all the time instead of getting on with it. Its embarasing and you need to try something knew, thank god that Helen set up the royal commission to bang heads together. Do her proud and make it work, go Len, put him in charge and make it work. For all our sakes.
David, out of interest what were the answers you were looking for that were finally answered by Hide?
Did they ask. How much is this costing? What are the main benefits of the whole process? What performance measures are you using to measure success? What are the main risks you see with the whole process? Can you guarantee the quality of the service standards for the new organisation?
Could someone please ask Rodney who I complain to when my train is late for the 5th day running? The elected councillor who can’t do anything or the unelected CCO staff member who won’t give a damn?
Don’t you have better things to do than stalk me Spud? What did you think of the interviews for a start? Do you think that the set up of Auckland Transport is a good thing? Do you have a problem with greater emphasis being placed on Auckland Transport giving effect to the government policy statement (read: roadsfest) rather than the regional land transport strategy (Auckland’s most balanced transport strategy in 60 years)?
Come on Spud, let’s talk the issues.
“Don’t you have better things to do than stalk me Spud?”
- Hey man I didn’t even get home until 8.00, I’ve hardly had any time to blog today! I’m not stalking you I was just surprised when you changed your name!
“Come on Spud, let’s talk the issues.” – Nah, I’m tired
I see the CCo’s, particularly with respect to Transport going one of the following ways
semi-privatised, by Board make up, with a profit motive. It may not be openly stated but that is what I infer from “cost efficient”. That being the case we wont see much if any improvement in our transport issues, because “transport” will mean roads. No one be fooled by Banksie’s faux shoulder to shouler with citizens rubbish, he is a roads man through and through. Congestion? Build more roads. Encourage more cars. Auckland traffic is a nightmare, and it used to be almost solely during peak hours. Now, with the advent of school children with no ability to walk or catch a bus the peak extends to school hours. The bigger problem, and the red flag is that traffic volumes are high on our arterial routes almost all day long. I have reason to be travelling them at peak and outside. The outside peak volume must be similar tot he peak volume of 10 years ago (from my observation). For the record I have lived in Auckland for over 40 years, with a brief foray into Christchurch (lovely city).
The second, but I dont hold my breath, is that the CCo’s, by virtue of their make up (businessmen and maybe the occassional woman, appointed by National and Act who might use their influence to get major Central Government buy-in to the concept of sorting out our commercial centre and home to 1.4 million of our citizens.
This is not at the expense of the regions because, my understanding, for years Aucklanders have paid more in taxes to contribute to roading etc than it has received back as a region. I am happy to be corrected, I am going from memory of statistics.
Are the Boards appointed for limited terms? Will they therefore become political puppets. When nats are in we get their folks, when Labour are in we get their folks. If that is the case there is a thrid option, nothing will change, and that aint good either.
“regional land transport strategy (Auckland’s most balanced transport strategy in 60 years)” Couldn’t agree more.
IIRC Auckland pays about $7 in road taxes for every $4 it gets back, also from memory though that ratio is pretty standard throughout the country…
Infrastructure in Auckland is poor and has been underinvested in for about 25 years (at least) with the first new railway in 80 years being currently built (disgraceful)…
Thanks jeremy… I think this may be what was in my mind, from 2005 in a report on Auckland in 2009
“Auckland’s contribution to the Government’s surplus in 2005, proves that Auckland is a net contributor to New Zealand’s billion-dollar tax surplus, and not a drain on the country
In 2005
*
Auckland was responsible for $3.8 billion (60 per cent) of the Government’s $6.2 billion operating surplus
*
35 per cent of national GDP
*
Auckland generated more in tax revenue than received in the major areas of government spending on health, welfare and education.
*
It received less than its share in terms of its proportion of the total population. “