|
|
Post by muzled on Aug 24, 2024 18:47:14 GMT 12
$800,000/day for three days?
Must be fun spending other peoples money.
At least Luxon made the most of his ten mins.
For the staff here at the Taxpayers' Union, we're always looking for new ways to torture poke-fun at Jordan. But after making him sit through three days of this year's Local Government New Zealand conference, even we felt bad for him!
Day one included 43 minutes of pōwhiri, 15 minutes of "transgender paper scissors rock" (yes that's literally what LGNZ called it) and countless sing alongs for the 800 atendees, but they allocated just ten minutes for the Prime Minister to talk about the Government's plans for local government. Talk about priorities.
The conference cost nearly $1,000 per day to attend (though 99% of the attendees were not paying for it themselves!) and Jordan tells us that even with the open bars in the evening and open (all you can eat) ice cream bar during each of the three days, it wasn't worth the money.
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Aug 28, 2024 17:14:57 GMT 12
More kiwiblog reality. A tale of two conferences A number of readers attended both the recent National Party Annual Conference and the Local Government annual conference. They were struck by the differences between the two. A key factor being that those who attend the National conference pay the cost themselves and those who attend the LG conference have ratepayers pay the cost.   |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Aug 29, 2024 17:39:50 GMT 12
Interesting, one can only guess that a mayor has had a word to Winnie? |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Aug 31, 2024 21:47:43 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Sept 1, 2024 11:51:12 GMT 12
Excellent article! A case in point is the Whangarei District Council, which this year increased rates by 17.2 percent, despite the opposition of 87 percent of public submissions.
Included in their list of “nice to haves” was $100,000 to belong to Local Government New Zealand; almost $600,000 to host a Warriors game; and just over $200,000 spent on appeasing local Maori over a roading upgrade: $87,000 for “Kaitiaki Monitoring – cultural input to the landscaping design and blessings of the site”, along with $120,000 on a culturally appropriate roadside artwork!
Under their ‘cultural wellbeing’ banner, over a ten-year period, the Council has paid over $1.15 million for “engagement” with Maori.Council didn't pay it, the ratepayers paid it... |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Sept 6, 2024 13:13:31 GMT 12
Prob should change the title of this thread to Wellington council... Surely only wokeland wellington could build a half million dollar bike stand. At least they don't have massive issues with water pipes that need a fortune spent on them. Good reminder of what voting for a diehard leftwing zealot gets you. www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/the_550000_bike_rack.html#commentsThe total cost of the upgrade came to $562,942 with the cycle rack sucking up $136,000 of that – eclipsing the $85,000 spent on a similar bike rack alongside Freyberg Pool in Oriental Bay by $51,000. |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Oct 7, 2024 19:17:08 GMT 12
Makes a good point
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Oct 9, 2024 7:59:47 GMT 12
This is mindbloggling. First comment down - Nadine is Dame Chloe's partner! What an incestuous little 🤡 world. Just trying to picture the media outrage if it was any right leaning party involved in this. www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/10/a_huge_conflict_of_interest.html#commentsA huge conflict of interest Readers will be aware of how WCC set up an inquiry into allegations a Councillor had leaked information to the media about the proposed corporate welfare deal with Reading Cinemas. Many months later it was revealed that the anonymous source who sparked the inquiry was Nadine Walker, the Chief of Staff to Tory Whanau (both are former Green Party staffers). But it gets far worse than that. Documents just released under the OIA reveal that the person who came up with a shortlist of people to conduct the inquiry was also Nadine Walker, and that this was based on talking to Green Party staff in Parliament. Then she helped select the reviewer. So Nadine Walker was the anonymous whistleblower. She also did the short-list of reviewers, helped select the reviewer and then presumably got interviewed by the reviewer in her capacity as the anonymous whistleblower. This is beyond belief. The conflicts of interest are huge. There is no criticism of the reviewer (whom I have considerable respect for in terms of her ability and integrity), but with WCC who poisoned and politicised the Code of Conduct complaint process as an act of political utu. How could they allow the anonymous complainant to be the person who shortlists the reviewer? |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Oct 9, 2024 9:48:11 GMT 12
This is mindbloggling. First comment down - Nadine is Dame Chloe's partner! What an incestuous little 🤡 world. Just trying to picture the media outrage if it was any right leaning party involved in this. www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/10/a_huge_conflict_of_interest.html#commentsA huge conflict of interest Readers will be aware of how WCC set up an inquiry into allegations a Councillor had leaked information to the media about the proposed corporate welfare deal with Reading Cinemas. Many months later it was revealed that the anonymous source who sparked the inquiry was Nadine Walker, the Chief of Staff to Tory Whanau (both are former Green Party staffers). But it gets far worse than that. Documents just released under the OIA reveal that the person who came up with a shortlist of people to conduct the inquiry was also Nadine Walker, and that this was based on talking to Green Party staff in Parliament. Then she helped select the reviewer. So Nadine Walker was the anonymous whistleblower. She also did the short-list of reviewers, helped select the reviewer and then presumably got interviewed by the reviewer in her capacity as the anonymous whistleblower. This is beyond belief. The conflicts of interest are huge. There is no criticism of the reviewer (whom I have considerable respect for in terms of her ability and integrity), but with WCC who poisoned and politicised the Code of Conduct complaint process as an act of political utu. How could they allow the anonymous complainant to be the person who shortlists the reviewer? I'm sorry muzled, you are going to have to explain this more slowly for me. I can't keep up, it's making my head spin. Dame Chloe is Lesbian (pre-requisite for Green party membership) Her partner is the Chief of staff for Tory Whanua. She leaked confidential information that triggered an investigation. Then she ran the investigation, including appointing the reviewer?!? If she is the chief of staff, why would she want to leak information? Surely the Chief of Staff is the one with all the power and influence over the elected member anyway? Wonder what Tory will do now she know's her Chief of Staff has double crossed her. I really can't keep up. Perhaps Netflix could do a miniseries so I can work out what is going on. And in other news, Bordeux Bakery shuts after 30 years because of two years worth of roadworks on Thorndon Quay, and the removal of carparks. But get this, within the 2 years of roadworks, they are NOT replacing the 110 yr old water pipes under the road... But they are shifting bus stops and installing loads of raised pedestrian crossings, on Thorndon Quay... |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Oct 15, 2024 11:11:16 GMT 12
TPU on Hastings wackjob mayor and fascist media
As you know we're taking on the Hastings Mayor and her ridiculous decision to give unelected school-kids voting powers on Council committees.
We committed to a full-on campaign to make sure this undemocratic skullduggery (to skew the voting numbers in the Mayor's favour) is stopped. If Hastings proceeds, this undemocratic practise will spread to the rest of the country.
But we've hit a massive hurdle: the owners of the local paper, NZME, are refusing to run our adverts because they might (wait for it) 'offend someone'.
We did a great stunt outside the Council (the so-called "Bouncy Council"), but that wasn't quite enough. The Mayor and Council are praying the issue goes away and that the public forgets.
That's why we put together some high impact, full page newspaper adverts to run in Hawke's Bay – specifically the local rag, the Hawke's Bay Today.
We figure the only way to win this is for local ratepayers to express their displeasure to the Mayor and Councillors who voted this through.
Major snag: NZME refuses to accept ads criticising politicians 🤦
Below are the concepts our team worked up – that NZME won't allow to be published.
The ads were designed to drive locals to contact their Mayor and Councillors and demand they start acting like adults (i.e. keep the elected adults as the decision makers).
Here's a second concept:
The short point is this: We can't do our job holding local councils to account if we can't advertise in local media outlets. We need an 'anti-discrimination' law applicable to lawful advertising to stop media companies picking and choosing what adverts can and can't run.
Local newspapers now won't let us hold local councils to account... 🤬
You might remember in August, Hobson’s Pledge ran some adverts in the NZ Herald regarding their concerns about ownership of the seabed and foreshore.
That brouhaha saw the Taxpayers' Union having adverts in the Herald about Government debt being pulled as well.
But now we've found out the "no politics" policy isn't just for the Herald. It applies to every newspaper owned by New Zealand's largest newspaper stable.
This new censor's veto for provincial newspapers like the Hawke's Bay Today, means that local Councils can get away with anything: no one is allowed to advertise to call them out.
So much for the "fourth estate", eh?
NZME took more taxpayer money from the so-called Public Interest Journalism Fund than any other media company!
They swore at the time that the funding definitely wouldn't affect their editorial decisions (yeah, right).
How can we raise public awareness if we cannot speak to the public?
The Hawke's Bay Today, as the local and long established newspaper, has a near monopoly on news in the Hawke's Bay. We can go to local online publications (the "Hawke's Bay App" is very good by the way), but only the local newspaper has the reach we need.
And it's a complex message. We'll of course use the funds for this campaign for options like billboards. But this message is too long for a billboard.
Remember, the position: This isn't about criticising those smart kids on the youth council. But we need to able to hold to account the so-called adults on council who have voted to give school-aged kids full voting rights on Council committees.
And, we should be able to speak to local ratepayers with that message, right? Isn't that what democracy is all about?
This is why we need an anti-discrimination law for advertising for media organisations that take taxpayer funding. After our adverts were rejected by NZME last time, we started drafting a bill, and now we are asking for your support so we can finish the job and get this over the line in Parliament.
We say that, if you take taxpayer money, you shouldn't be playing politics with who can and cannot run adverts. If you agree, stand with us to get this over the line.
We know that this decision to refuse our ads in the paper is not the decision of local editors. It's the millennial newsrooms in Auckland who believe that what can be advocated for is best left up to them. They don't like pesky advocacy groups like us trying to hold politicians to account. Back this effort to put them in their place.
No one said standing up for local democracy would be easy. But without the ability to speak to voters, it's damned near impossible. I hope you're with us on this.
Thank you for your continued support,
|
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Oct 15, 2024 11:29:20 GMT 12
So what’s the call to action here?
Specifically what are they asking people like me to do to support?
I have no ability to influence NZME editorial policy.
So what else can I do?
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Oct 15, 2024 11:39:36 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Oct 16, 2024 16:34:42 GMT 12
Ahh ok I missed that. So they want my cash.
And what will they do with that?
If NZME won’t run ads how will more cash help?
I’m genuinely not trying to be obtuse - I agree it’s not a great situation - but I’m just trying to understand what their cunning plan is when they ask for “support”.
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Oct 16, 2024 19:53:24 GMT 12
Ahh ok I missed that. So they want my cash. And what will they do with that? If NZME won’t run ads how will more cash help? I’m genuinely not trying to be obtuse - I agree it’s not a great situation - but I’m just trying to understand what their cunning plan is when they ask for “support”. I'm not entirely sure but at a guess it was going to be used for advertising campaigns prior to the crooks at NZME deciding that the money Jacinda gave them was more than enough to flick the bird at advertisers that didn't suit their narrative. Possibly also legal costs? |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Oct 23, 2024 9:41:04 GMT 12
10/10 for slipping 'cunning stunts' in there young man!  Hopefully the southland farmers block access to fish in the rivers. That would piss all of the F&G southland sector off. breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/10/alan-emerson.html?m=1Alan Emerson: Good sense and stewardship heading south Gore council is the latest to abandon reason in pursuit of an agenda I’m starting to think there must be something in the water in our southernmost province. Last week I wrote about the 3000 Southland farmers who will require a permit to farm, largely due to the cunning stunts of Southland Fish & Game. For Fish & Game to now assert they didn’t know their court action would cause the result it did shows either complete naivety, arrogance or both in my view. Southland Federated Farmers wants Fish & Game’s advocacy role removed, which I support. Now Southland farmers have another mountain to climb, or specifically those in the Gore district do. The local council wants to classify the entire Gore district under Section 6 of the Resource Management Act, which would make it an Area of Significance to Māori.
Predictably, Groundswell is on the case and has released a statement saying why the proposal should be strongly opposed. I agree with it. It makes the point that once land is classified under Section 6 “it becomes subject to counterproductive, unworkable and intrusive bureaucracy”. It adds that landowners could spend years and fortunes on applications and legal costs just figuring out what they’re allowed to do with their land. The mortgage doesn’t go away while the circus continues. ACT MP and Primary Industries Select Committee chair Mark Cameron is also on top of the issue. He points out that property rights are being “pointlessly threatened” in Gore. He adds that “as glorious and historic as Gore may be, it’s just not credible to say the entire district is a culturally sensitive site”.
He also believes that the Gore council’s actions are “more like a land grab”. The facts, according to the local website, are that Māori arrived in Gore in the early 1800s and European settlers were there in mid-1800s. That’s hardly justification for classifying the entire district as significant to Māori.
You can also read that the district enjoyed the prosperity it derived from agriculture. It then adds that “Gore found comfort in its country roots, music and agriculture”. I’m only surprised the Gore council didn’t allocate Areas of National Significance to farmers and country and western artists. Of interest is the Gore council website that talks of “45 different ethnicities in the Gore district”. Groundswell’s Bryce McKenzie, never one to mince words, made the point that if the plan “goes through in Gore it will set a precedent of the rest of New Zealand”. He added, “We must stop this stupidity in Gore.” I totally agree, we must stop this stupidity in Gore. There are many other local government areas with considerably more Māori history than Gore, so if the Gore plan goes ahead heavens only knows where it will end.
I have two questions for the Gore council. The first is to ask if the council even remotely cares about the hassles its actions will give farmers? The second is to ask the same organisation why it is so hell-bent on pursuing Section 6 of the RMA when the government has promised to repeal it? |
|
