Red Alert

Author Archive

Morale suffers while McCully makes the cuts

Posted by Phil Twyford on September 2nd, 2010

A telling excerpt from a document released under the Official Information Act quotes Foreign Affairs CEO John Allen telling staff:

I understand the impact on morale of the challenges that staff have faced in the past year. I understand that the decisions that have been made are tough and they impact on people, on organisational identity, and on staff morale. It is legitimate for people to have strong feelings and views on these issues. Given that these decisions are unpopular and impact on morale then why have they been made? Cabinet mandated a change from a stand alone agency to closer integration with the Ministry….Allen goes on to explain the changes.

Morale is low at the aid programme formerly known as NZAID.  In what was once an energetic and innovative organisation staff now spend their time trying to stay out of the Minister’s way and repackaging work so it fits within the Minister’s narrow prescription for economic development.

They are embarrassed by his continuing campaign against the NGOs.  By all but ending the $900,000 a year funding to the NGO umbrella group Council for International Development. By changes to the funding arrangements for NGO projects made without consultation. And by the recent cut to the excellent Wellington-based Global Focus which provides information resources on development issues.

The latest casualty of the Minister’s red pen is a Pacific regional programme doing village-based disaster risk-reduction work in four countries. It helps communities reduce the impact of cyclones, floods and tsunamis through preparedness training and working with local government. It is run by the Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific out of Suva.

The three-year $2.5 million effort was set up in close collaboration with NZAID, with a commitment of $500,000 a year from New Zealand. McCully has pulled the funding after one year, with no assessment of its impact.

No wonder MFAT aid staff are suffering from low morale. They are the ones who have to deliver this sort of news.


Hide hoses down Auckland water fears

Posted by Phil Twyford on August 31st, 2010

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide has intervened in the Auckland mayoral and council elections with a carefully contrived announcement on water rates.

You would think water rates would be decided and announced by the new Auckland Council. The election is, after all, only six weeks away. And the water company, is after all, owned  by the Council.

But no, Mr Hide yesterday trumpeted a new water rate that will see all Auckland houses pay the same tariff of $1.30 per 1000 litres of water.

Asked why he was announcing it now, he replied because Aucklanders have been “anxious about water” charges.

Why have they been anxious about water charges? Because the Government wants to roll out volumetric or user pays pricing for waste-water expected to result in hefty increases for most Aucklanders. And because the centre-right Citizens and Ratepayers ticket has the same policy. And the C&R mayoral candidate Mr Banks has been taking heat on this issue.

Mr Hide was happy to announce the new rate on water piped to the home, but he was keeping quiet on the new rate for waste water which is the one that is likely to go up significantly if it gets the full user-pays treatment. If he was going to announce one I don’t see why he couldn’t have announced both, because Watercare has had a full year to do the calculations on both.

The farsighted Mr Hide has legislated that waste water charges, and general rates, won’t be going up until mid-2012 which just happens to be after the mayoral and council elections, and after next year’s general election.

By the time the new waste water and general rates kick in, the Auckland Council will have been in place for 18 months and Mr Hide will be able to wash his hands of any responsibility. He is hoping the Council will have to carry the can for the structures and budgets he put in place 18 months before.

If in 2012 the waste water charges and general rates do go up, as most Aucklanders believe they will, with any luck we won’t have to listen to Mr Hide blaming the Auckland Council.  He will be long gone by then.


Hide’s appointees to run Auckland Corp

Posted by Phil Twyford on August 30th, 2010

Hide and Ford

Rodney Hide’s hand picked appointees to run the new corporatised Auckland have been announced.

Apart from Sir Don McKinnon and Mayor Bob Harvey most Aucklanders won’t know who they are. And that is the point: these people will now wield enormous power over local government in Auckland but they’ve been selected in secret by the Minister, without Aucklanders having a say.

Not only did the Key-Hide Government insist on corporatising the super city against the will of Aucklanders. But Hide couldn’t wait two months and let the newly elected Auckland Council make the appointments – he had to put his own people in there.  Hide promised to consult Auckland Mayors on the appointments and then promptly broke that promise.

The appointment that sticks in the craw is that of Mark Ford. Mr Ford is a former chief executive of Watercare and chair of the Auckland Regional Transport Agency(ARTA). He is Hide’s man put in place to run the Auckland Transition Agency setting up the super city. Along with Hide he is the main architect of the over-centralised and undemocratic corporate jack up that the super city has become. He has been extraordinarily influential, at times advising Cabinet directly.

As well as setting up the super city, and overseeing the appointment process for the directors of these council owned companies, Mark Ford now has arguably the most powerful job in the whole set up. He is going to run the new mega-transport agency which will spend 54% of Aucklanders’ rates.  Transport is the area Aucklanders most want to see fixed. It’s importance cannot be over-emphasised.

Underlying the concerns about the Auckland super city has been a fear that power is being concentrated in the hands of a highly centralised bureaucracy, and corporate boards operating behind closed doors. Mark Ford is the personal embodiment of both.

I think the Auckland Council should hold US Senate-style confirmation hearings on the appointment of these board chairs. Let the newly elected Mayor and Councillors question Hide’s appointees on behalf of the people of Auckland in open session. Ask the questions their electors want asked and then decide whether these appointments should stand.


Keeping the peace

Posted by Phil Twyford on August 25th, 2010

Kiwi cops play an increasingly important role in our foreign policy. They are working alongside diplomats, aid workers and peacekeepers in Afghanistan, Timor Leste, Bougainville (in PNG), Tonga, and in the Solomon Islands.

I was in the Solomons recently in a UN election observer team and caught up with some of the 35 New Zealanders deployed there on six month stints. They are part of a bold experiment in post-conflict state building, helping the Solomons get back on its feet after years of civil conflict.

Keeping citizens safe is the first duty of the state but in 1999-2003 things went bad in the Solomons. Ethnic tensions turned violent and the local police force splintered along ethnic lines with some personnel joining in the fighting. RAMSI, the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands, was deployed in 2003 with police and defence personnel from NZ, Australia and other Pacific nations charged with getting rid of the guns and keeping the peace.

The police-led mission was remarkably successful at restoring order. However the regional aid effort has found it more difficult to make progress in getting the economy growing or strengthening government.  As well as contributing police, New Zealand is leading an excellent multi-donor aid programme helping rebuild the country’s primary education system.

The regional mission is unusual: invited in by the Solomon Islands Parliament but exercising an extraordinary level of influence on the government with foreign advisers in key line ministries. Few people in the Solomons, locals or expats, think RAMSI could pull out tomorrow without the country facing problems. Yet Solomon Islanders rightly want to control their own destiny, and the donors don’t want to keep pouring such large amounts of aid in indefinitely.

Meanwhile on the streets of Honiara, Kiwi police are backing up the local police, advising mostly and taking action when needed. The Kiwis I spoke to were up for the job and full of  sympathy for their counterparts but told me how lack of basic equipment makes it difficult for Solomon Islands police to do their job. How would you feel being asked to sort out crime incidents without vehicles, boats, radios, truncheons or handcuffs?

I saw RAMSI police on the streets of Honiara, and on the outer islands. I was impressed by the way they went about their work and got on with the local community. The Solomons faces hard development challenges and it is not clear how soon its regional partners will be able to withdraw with confidence.  In the mean time our police are great ambassadors and helping deliver what Solomon Islanders want most: peace and security.

Kiwi cops in Solomon IslandsKiwi cops serving with the Regional Assistance Mission: (from left) Pauline Jones, Dean O’Connor, Brendan Thomson, PT, Michelle Seager, Aaron Bunker.


Let your fingers do the walking

Posted by Phil Twyford on August 24th, 2010

What is going on with the Prime Minister’s diplomatic snub to Australian caretaker PM Julia Gillard?  He reluctantly admits to a journalist’s question that he phoned Opposition leader Tony Abbott after the weekend’s election, but not Prime Minister Julia Gillard, because he did not have her number.

So it is OK for the Prime Minister to phone the Australian Opposition Leader who is a fellow leader of the centre-right…but not call the Australian Prime Minister who happens to be a Labour leader?  He doesnt have the Australian PM’s number in his phone? He couldn’t get foreign affairs to give him the number?

Does he realise that Australia is this country’s most important relationship?


Elections Solomons-style

Posted by Phil Twyford on August 24th, 2010

All eyes are on Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott as they try to cobble together a majority. But just as close to home the Solomon Islands are in post-election negotiations, and if anything their task is even more complicated.

Political parties in the Solomons are little more than loose groupings. For the past two weeks groups of MPs have camped in Honiara’s top hotels, in shuttle negotiations to form a majority and choose a Prime Minister. The country has been watching nervously mindful that in 2006 the announcement of a new PM sparked rioting that saw the capital’s Chinatown burnt down.

I have just returned from a UN election observer mission to the Solomons. Nine Kiwis took part including my Labour colleague David Shearer, several other MPs and a city councillor, MFAT staff, and led by former deputy PM Wyatt Creech.  We were part of a 60-strong contingent coordinated by the UN.

I was deployed to Makira, a relatively undeveloped province in the east. It is the real Solomons: not much town to speak of, most people living from subsistence agriculture and a bit of fishing, a reliance on open motorboats to travel between villages because of a lack of roads. And sadly the Malaysian logging companies are ripping the guts out of the forests as fast as they can go.

On election day, my colleague (an American from the East-West Center) and I visited polling stations in 10 villages. We travelled with the two police officers, one Aussie and one Fijian, stationed on the island by the Regional Assistance Mission (RAMSI). Without their old 4WD we’d never have been able to travel the unbelievably pot-holed road.

It was quite something observing the elections. Churches, school rooms, health clinics and in one case even a private dwelling had been converted into polling places. Well trained and equipped polling staff ran them like clock work. Briefed by the UN and with a clipboard in hand we looked for even the slightest irregularity, and mostly found none. (more…)


Taking the public out of transport

Posted by Phil Twyford on August 22nd, 2010

National-ACT’s determination to corporatise Auckland’s transport operation has been one of the most controversial aspects of its super city plan. They rammed it through against the advice of three government departments who argued a council-owned company would be less accountable to ratepayers than if it was run in house. The transport agency, governed by a hand-picked corporate board, will spend 54% of the super city budget and have 1000 staff.

There is no doubt getting progress on transport is top of Aucklanders’ must-do list for the super city. If it fails on this it will be judged harshly. And more specifically, it will be judged on its success or failure in ramping up public transport.

Which is why it is worrying there are early signs public transport might not be top of mind for those setting up the new transport agency.

For starters it appears the Auckland Transition Agency has overlooked the need for ongoing development of the bus system, which still carries the majority of Auckland public transport passengers.

It has specialists on urban design, storm water, cycling and walking, and several parking meter specialists. But no bus system development specialists. These are the people dedicated to the initiatives that give buses priority, from bus lanes to special signals at traffic lights, and the green patches in the middle of intersections that allow buses to queue jump.

Huge numbers of Aucklanders, especially in the outer suburbs, depend on the buses to get around the city. And the buses also feed the railway stations.

This public transport blind spot is reflected in the agency’s 306-page workforce plan which is mostly about roads. Bus stops, bus shelters, and bus priorities only get one mention each in the entire document. The words bus lane only get one mention, and that is in the context of revenue collection.

Josh Arbury over at the Auckland Transport blog has more to say on the apparent lack of focus on public transport in the new transport agency. He is also concerned about a lack of integration with urban design and land use planning, a point well made to the select committee when the bill was being considered.

The announcement of the newly appointed interm chief executive of the transport agency David Warburton gives further cause for concern. Mr Warburton does not appear to have any significant experience in urban transport.  While the ATA says he has a PhD in environmental engineering, he did his thesis  on dairy shed effluent at Massey. He was Wanganui District Council’s CEO under Michael Laws, and then led a Melbourne-based engineering firm that does very little urban transport work.

He may well be a good manager, but don’t we need leadership on urban transformation? It has been reported urban transport high fliers from Perth and London pulled out of the recruitment. Perth is the public transport success story of Australasia. They are where we would have been if we had adopted Robbie’s rapid rail 25 years ago. Perhaps the Perth candidate got wind of Steven Joyce’s roads fixation and a super city being set up by people who just don’t “get” public transport?


The thoughts of Chairman Lee

Posted by Phil Twyford on August 21st, 2010

Mike Lee has a new blog as part of his campaign to win the Gulf & Waitemata seat on the Auckland Council. He has a great post on the cheek of Steven Joyce criticising Auckland mayoral candidates for pushing pet rail projects when he is imposing his own Holiday Highway folly on Aucklanders at a cost of a cool $2 billion. Exactly what I was thinking!

You can also find a presentation Mike gave earlier this year called Sins of the Fathers – The Decline and Rise of Rail Transit in Auckland.  And a speech on Auckland’s local government history that Mike delivered as the Bruce Jesson lecture a few years back.  Both essential background to the current debates on Auckland.

Mike is a champion. He has done more than almost anyone I can think of to promote the necessary revitalisation of public transport in Auckland. Along with Bruce Jesson and others he saved the Ports from being sold off in the nineties. Under his leadership the ARC has expanded its superb network of parks. His submissions to the Royal Commission and two select committees on the future of Auckland governance have been in my opinion among the smartest and soundest.


The Future of Auckland

Posted by Phil Twyford on August 20th, 2010

Auckland’s best years are ahead of it.

We can fix the mess Rodney Hide and John Key have made of setting up the super city.  We can invest in a modern public transport system and defeat Stephen Joyce’s obsession with the holiday highway. We can tackle poverty and inequality unlike this Government who have virtually ignored the Royal Commission’s ambitious plans on community well-being. We can build a vibrant, prosperous, job-rich economy. We can revitalise the downtown and waterfront – and build great neighbourhoods and streets and public spaces to match the sublime physical environment.

The Labour team have spent the last year fighting the Hide-Key Auckland jack up. But now we are developing a plan for The Future of Auckland that we will take into the election next year. We will put people at the heart of the super city. And Labour in government will work hand in hand with the Auckland Council – unlike this Government who try to control Auckland from Wellington.

If you want to hear more, or want to help us develop the plan, come along to hear Phil Goff and invited guests this Sunday at the University of Auckland, 3pm Sunday. It is a panel discussion chaired by journalist and blogger David Beatson. Joining Phil on the panel are Ngarimu Blair of Ngati Whatua, songwriter Don McGlashan, ideas guy Mike Hutcheson, and Auckland University’s head of architecture and planning Jenny Dixon.

See here for more details.


Speaking truth to power

Posted by Phil Twyford on August 18th, 2010

Social policy expert Ian Shirley has launched a blistering attack on the Government’s super city model for Auckland.  Prof Shirley is pro-vice chancellor of AUT University, and professor of public policy with the university’s institute of public policy.

He says the proposed model for Auckland’s governance effectively removes local government from Auckland and argues that it will be “a corporate structure where the major beneficiaries will be the exclusive brethren of big business, merchant bankers and a narrow range of consultants dominated by legal and accountancy firms”.

Prof Shirley was speaking to the National Policy Makers Conference 2010 in Wellington today.

The super city…”ignores history, fails to connect in any meaningful way with the diverse populations and neighbourhoods of the region and has established a corporate framework and process that will not gain the trust of ratepayers.”

He says the policies are driven by a form of economic fundamentalism that equates ‘governance’ with managing a ‘business’ and reduces democracy to a token engagement in the decision-making systems of local and regional government.

Amen to that.


Common sense the winner on the day

Posted by Phil Twyford on July 16th, 2010

So we got there in the end. Rugby fans get their fan-zone. Auckland gets a cruise ship terminal. And Mike Lee stood up for Aucklanders who didn’t want to see both sheds bowled  to make way for a semi-temporary structure on the Queens Wharf.

Murray McCully’s trantrum (I don’t know what Mike Lee has been smoking, Auckland local government is a train wreck, the sooner we get the super city the better) is exposed for what it was: the wailings of a Minister who hasn’t given his portfolio the attention it deserves, and who wasn’t able to stitch together a deal.  The Prime Minister’s threats to explore other venues for the party-zone came to nothing.

In the long run I hope Queens Wharf will be the site of a stunning development for the people of Auckland, as part of a waterfront master plan developed by the Auckland Council.


Murray needs help

Posted by Phil Twyford on July 9th, 2010

Maybe he could ask Paul where to put party central?

urn:newsml:dpa.com:20090101:100622-10-10423


Could these two possibly be related?

Posted by Phil Twyford on July 9th, 2010

Did anyone see Murray McCully’s brilliant impersonation of a Latin American tinpot general on 3 News last night commenting on the party central debate?

I guess the Prime Minister told Murray McCully to sort this thing out pronto, but I am not sure berating Auckland in this way is going to get us a solution fast.


The keen to please PM

Posted by Phil Twyford on July 7th, 2010

Does John Key really think New Zealand is about to be hit by a wave of boat people?

“What I’ve said to the Australian prime minister is that we recognise there is a problem, and we recognise that from New Zealand’s perspective it’s a problem that is coming towards our shores at some point in the future.”

Mr Key said that from all the intelligence he had received, this was “a real issue”.

Has he looked at a map recently? There is a lot of ocean between us and them. Short of us putting out the welcome mat for people-smugglers it seems very unlikely they will make it this far.

Phil Goff has said the PM should stay out of Australia’s election campaign debate on what is a very difficult issue.  Key’s very keen to please. We saw that when he was moved to change his mind and extend the SAS deployment in Afghanistan, dazzled by the four stars of General Stanley McChrystal. I am sure Julia Gillard can be persuasive but New Zealand should think very carefully before stepping in to this debate.


Goodbye to the slug?

Posted by Phil Twyford on July 7th, 2010

The Herald reports Rugby World Cup Minister Murray McCully is furious at the prospect of the ARC and Auckland City cutting a deal to save one of the Queens Wharf cargo sheds.  If the body language at Monday’s opening of the Kingsland rail station upgrade is anything to go by, McCully’s feelings towards Mike Lee are somewhat deathly. One insider at the event told me McCully refused to speak on the same platform as Lee, causing a strange re-jigging of the programme that saw the Minister’s speech separated from the others by a 25 minute tea break.  By contrast John Banks’ and Mike Lee’s speeches were a veritable love-fest.

What’s got Muzza so peeved?  The latest attempt to salvage John Key’s party central was a deal hammered out between ARC Chairman Mike Lee and McCully to knock over both the cargo sheds on Queens Wharf and spend $9.6 million on a semi-temporary party central venue and cruise ship terminal gloriously dubbed a ‘giant slug’ by heritage adviser and blogger Joshua Arbury. Lee and McCully announced the plan in April.

Local architects have waged a spirited campaign to save the sheds and restore them in the way that has been done successfully on the wharves of Sydney and countless other cities. Events supremo Michael Mizrahi made a compelling case for the sheds on Sunday a couple of weeks back. Personally I reckon Queens Wharf is such prime real estate  it should be used for a major long-term development with ample public space that would be a magnet to bring people down to the waterfront.  I have felt uneasy about about the prospect of a semi-temporary development cobbled together for the Rugby World Cup.

Now it appears Mike Lee has found a way to save one of the sheds, probably with the help of some additional funding from Auckland City. We should hear the details after today’s ARC meeting.

Update 2.15pm: Slug stays, shed survives, Muzza not happy.  Herald


Time to take action against water privatisation

Posted by Phil Twyford on June 7th, 2010

Not content with the damage it has done to Auckland, the National-ACT Government is now turning its sights on local government across the board by opening council water up to privatisation. If you want to fight this, read on.

The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill allows private ownership of water infrastructure for up to 35 years.  Much of the initial public debate focused on whether this amounted to privatisation, with the Government arguing that because it wasn’t the permanent disposal of a publicly owned asset then somehow that is not privatisation.

But hey, how long would the contract need to be for it to qualify as privatisation: 50 years? 100?

The changes are designed to encourage public private partnerships (PPPs): long term contracting arrangements in which corporations will often build, own, and operate a waste water plant for example and then sell it back to the Council at the end of the contract.

Labour is against privatisation of water supply. It is a natural monopoly. It makes no economic sense to hand it over to the private sector. What’s more, New Zealanders believe water is a human right and its supply should not be driven by the profit motive.

The Government is 20 years behind the curve with this particular economic fad. Water privatisation via PPPs was all the rage internationally in the 1990s but the tide has turned with a wave of cities around the world bringing water back under public control because of dissatisfaction with over-pricing and under-investment. The latest is Paris where city government was elected last year on a platform of terminating contracts with Veolia and Suez and bringing its water supply back into public hands. Ironic given that the French virtually invented the water PPPs, and its two partially-state owned water companies dominate the international market.

Veolia is the parent company of United Water who already have seven contracts to deliver water services in NZ. Fifteen years ago they picked up the contract to run South Australia’s water supply. Three months into the contract Adelaide was engulfed in “the big pong”, an overpowering sewage smell that took three months to fix. An independent inquiry blamed it on equipment failure and lack of monitoring caused by cost cutting.

The Government argues  PPPs will bring private sector capital that will allow cash-strapped smaller councils to invest in much needed water infrastructure.  But they fail to explain that corporations don’t bring their own money to these deals. Ultimately all the costs of this infrastructure have to be paid through rates (or taxes) or user charges. What’s more the corporation has to make a profit. And the cost of capital for private borrowers is almost always more than the Government pays.

If you want to fight this folly, then join the National Day of Action Against Privatisation, this Saturday: details on facebook, and web. There will be a rally outside a town hall near you.

If you are in Auckland come along to this public meeting Wednesday night this week hosted by Labour and the Greens.  You can download this guide to help you make a submission to the select committee. Deadline June 18.

The Bill has other obnoxious features. It repeals the requirement to consult the community before public services are contracted out or corporatised, reduces the obligations on Councils to consult the community more generally, and imposes an arbitrary list of core services that surprise surprise doesn’t include community well-being (pensioner housing for example), economic development, or protection of the environment.

Update: Good article in Vanity Fair on how Big Water is taking over the world. Hat tip: John Whyte


This American Life

Posted by Phil Twyford on June 6th, 2010

One of the things I miss about living in Washington is listening to This American Life, a radio show on Sunday nights on the US public radio network NPR. It’s a quirky hour-long compilation of stories on a theme: some documentary, some fiction.

Here’s an episode they just did on Haiti where the international community has pledged US$9 bn to rebuild after the earthquake. The first segment sends a couple of economics reporters to Port au Prince to look at some of the frustrations of small NGO aid projects. A woman wants to increase her mango production but needs irrigation – aid budgets have money for canals but it is impossible to get the money freed up. A mango magnate distributes bins and washing equipment to poor farmers so the mangoes can meet US import standards but the gear gets used for furniture. It gives a good insight into the difficulties of development aid.

Click for streaming here. Or if the aid story doesn’t interest you check out some of their other shows.


200 years that changed the world

Posted by Phil Twyford on June 6th, 2010

If you haven’t come across Hans Rosling and his gapminder graphs, have a look at this. Brilliant representation of the last 200 years of economic development. It puts the NZ debate about catching up with Australia in an interesting time and space context.

Now link here and press play to track New Zealand v Shanghai since 1952.

Thoughts?


Minister of Transparency and Accountability

Posted by Phil Twyford on June 4th, 2010

Hide

In case you missed it, this Morning Report interview makes entertaining listening as Rodney Hide tries to explain to Sean Plunket that he doesn’t know how much executive redundancy payouts are going to cost the Auckland ratepayer. Or what impact Hide’s super city will have on rates.


Hide spins on super city costs – hold the front page

Posted by Phil Twyford on June 3rd, 2010

I know the claim that Rodney Hide is sowing confusion over the costs of the super city is likely to be met with a sarcastic “Hold the front page!”  but his performance at select committee this morning took his excellence in the art of spin to dizzying new heights.

The latest best estimate of super city costs is $266 million, which includes $66 million in I.T. integration that the Minister has postponed to next year. But that is today, who knows what it will be tomorrow?

A month ago, and a year after the Government began its “Auckland reforms”,  the only information in the public domain was the figure of $34 million attributed to the work of the Auckland Transition Agency.

Then the Budget papers revealed an additional crown loan to fund the transition. Not a peep from Hide, but the Herald pieced together known information and Official Information Act disclosures and put the total bill at $112 million.

Then last week Hide trumpeted in the House that he had kept costs down to $94 million, explaining in a subsequent press release that the total cost was $160 million. Strangely he omitted $40 million from his tally, including $26 million being spent on setting up the new water organisation, and $14 million spent by Councils doing transition work at the request of the Government. The Herald’s headline: Super City’s set-up costs top $200m and counting

Then at select committee officials revealed another $66 million would be spent on I.T. integration to be spent by the new Auckland Council next year.

For a year now Hide’s approach to all this has been to avoid giving any information out. Last week he obviously concluded he couldn’t do that indefinitely. So now he is re-defining major line items off the balance sheet by pretending they are not “transition costs”.

He argued at select committee this morning that the following are not transition costs: $26 million to set up the water organisation, $14 million spent by Councils on transition work at the request of the Government, and the $66 million on IT integration postponed to next year.

In any case it is all going to be paid by the Auckland ratepayer.

The next bombshell is likely to be redundancy pay outs. Dozens of senior executives are going to be made redundant. It is well known they have gold plated redundancy agreements. A well placed source in Auckland local government has told me the bill for redundancy pay outs could reach $47 million.  Hide wouldn’t confirm this, and just said any such pay outs were the business of the Councils and not his concern.