STEPPING TO RULE

Once upon a time, chilluns, there was a wonderful island with a Woolworths and a Placemakers. Many were the islanders who shopped there, and happy they were because they were good places to shop and good places for good nattering.

Sadly, some islanders habitually used their feet to get there. Yes, I know that's terribly bad taste, and that everyone should use an SUV, or even better a Hummer on steroids with loose tappets, but there are obviously loonies who think feet are provided for walking with on footpaths.

Even more sadly, most of those despicable walkers came down the hill to the W and the P, and, being people of brain and efficiency, they didn't walk right round and come in through the same entrance as all those steroidal Hummers. No, they took a clever shortcut down the bank at the top corner of the Woollies/Placemakers place.

Sadly the bank was steep, and somehow got slippery when wet stuff fell out of the sky, so the shortcut was a tad dicey in the downward direction, and even tadder in the upward when them people was carrying a load of goodies what they'd bought.

So along came this 'Barking Mad' Bloke, who said, 'Aha, let's fix that. Let's build steps down that bank, with a handrail even, then people can't fall flat and bend-or-break important bits.'

'Whatta good idea,' chorused Other Mad People, so the BMB asked the boo-rock-rats to build the steps with a dollar or two of the dosh they'd extorted from all the islanders. 'No!' shouted the boo-rock-rats. 'Why not?' quoth the BMB, 'it would be good for people.' 'Cause,' explained the boo-rock-rats to this BMB dummy, 'on page 57 of the sacred SLIPs manual it says under "Rules" that you can't use public dosh to get access to private parts (besides, we don't understand this "good for people" stuff).'

So there you are. Akl Qaeda Council, which loves to send bureaucratic car-bombs to blow your pleasant island life to smithereens, has Rules, and the Rules say that if the start of a berm-crossing is public (tick), and the middle is public (tick), and the other end is public (tick), but one nanometre past the other end is private parts (doh!), even if them private parts is public shops, ya can't build that there public crossing with public dosh.

'So jus' keep fallin' on your faces (like we do all the time).'

Isn't that wunnerful?

SOUL CITY BEHAVIOUR

My thanks to Sheryl in Rocky Bay who told me about this. Auckland City Council has on its Website a document entitled Auckland City Behavioural Competency Framework, which sets out, in twenty-two pages, how it can 'take a journey from being a good organisation to becoming a great organisation' so that it will 'achieve our vision for Auckland to become a sophisticated, growing and vibrant international city with a soul.' (Follow the links from careers on the homepage to progressive employment policies to the competency framework.)

That is the same organisation whose performance was described as 'in many respects only mediocre' by its CEO David Rankin in an induction seminar for the newly elected late last year.

One wonders how long the 'journey' will take.

So if you ever get a hard time from council staff you need only point out to offender the relevant page amongst the twenty-two. If things don't get better instantly send a complaint to David Rankin or John Banks or both.

CLUELESS SLEDGEHAMMERS AND MINISCULE NUTS

I find the way the Auckland City Council operates incredible. A lot of kerfuffle and serial five-act dramas to go millimetres towards conclusions that ordinary mortals could reach in nanoseconds.

I received an email recently, for example, inviting me to a workshop, written of course in
polysyllabic, word-heavy ACC spin: 'Please find attached a memo regarding a workshop being held this Thursday 29 May from 5:30pm (6pm start) for community boards members' input into the levels of service provided by Auckland City Council. The feedback from board members will help set realistic service-level improvement targets in the asset management plans, which are a key driver in the development of council's LTCCP (Long-term Council Community Plan).'

That arrived on Monday the 26th of May. Three days' notice, which shows how much they really wanted the feedback.

And we all know that such meetings are nothing but words. Look at the results, the ACC's long-term plans. The one for 2006-2016 is 474 pages (335 more than its predecessor), strong on top-spin; and projected islands' expenditure must be plucked out of thin air because actual figures are many tens of millions more.

But don't they know what 'realistic' (i.e., good) service is? Why go to all that expensive palaver to find out what they should know, and could easily find out by going out and talking directly to lots of real live people.

DOGGED BY LIES

For the record, on the subject of dogs, but this time the truth in a publication worthy of being called a newspaper--unlike Wicked & Weak, which has yet to print the truth associated with my name--what I advocated in my submission on the proposed dogs bylaw was not what W&W 'reported.'

I did not say that no one should ever be allowed to have more than one dog.

I simply pointed out an anomaly in the bylaw between the mainland, Waiheke and island wastewater systems. The responsible, healthy thing to do with dog poo is chuck it down your loo, and therefore the capacity of island wastewater systems on small sections should be heeded when setting limits for the number of dogs on a property. On small sections (under 850 square metres) systems were installed for a maximum of two residents, and because a dog can produce as much solid waste as a person, that should be taken into account. On those small properties only there should be a limit of one dog.

(On Great Barrier, more than one dog is already not allowed on properties under two hectares--20,000 square metres, 5 acres.)

So the woman who called me, sounded off and hung up without waiting to hear the truth, and said she has half an acre (2000 square metres) and more than one dog, what I advocated would not affect you.

Please, Waiheke, never believe anything that Wicked & Weak prints in association with my name. It either lies outright or misreports and distorts a mischievous selection of out-of-context snippets to craft the cleverest kind of lie--'The truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent.'

ACC'S SHADY DOINGS IN THE WATERWORKS

Last year Parliament's Local Government & Environment Select Committee called into question what can only be called the less than ethical way in which Auckland City Council intended using water and wastewater charges to plump up its revenue. Click here for the page giving the link to the full PDF report issued by the committee. Well worth reading, partly as yet another example of Auckland's questionable behaviour and partly as an example of what a few determined people can do by heading off to Parliament with a petition. Take a bow, Penny Bright!

ACC: PARTISAN NOT IMPARTIAL

Under the Local Government Act 2002 everyone elected to a local-body position must make the same statutory promise when sworn in: 'I [name] declare that I will faithfully and impartially, and according to the best of my skill and judgement, execute and perform, in the best interests of [the name of the commmunity], the powers, authorities and duties vested in or imposed upon me ... by virtue of the Local Government Act 2002 [etc]'

Which means that the council on our western horizon, Auckland City Council, has been operating contrary to law for years, because it has long been dominated by parties--Citizens & Ratepayers and City Vision, which are just National/Act and Labour under different names.

Auckland councillors who belong to those parties are therefore by definition partisan, which means they cannot possibly be impartial. Nor, if they are voting according to party lines and kept to them by party whips, can they be acting according to the best of their individual skill and judgement. They are acting according to party ideology or policy. They are in breach of their statutory oath right from the start.

Only councils made up of independents are in accord with the letter and spirit of the Act. Only in such councils can there be true democratic debate. Only in such councils can there be true consultation, because that requires listening, and that can hardly happen when councillors are fitted in advance with party ear-plugs.

The council on our eastern horizon, Thames-Coromandel District Council, is 100% independents, and it is very refreshing to watch their deliberations. They are individuals, each debates according to the best of his or her individual skill and judgement. And they emphasise again and again and again the 'four well-beings' which the Act commands them to promote (social, economic, environmental and cultural, in section 10).

THAMES-COROMANDEL: THE VISION AND MISSION

Copied from pages 8 and 9 of the Thames-Coromandel District Council's Annual Report for 2006-2007:

THE VISION

The Vision adopted by the Council in March 2005 is:

'The Coromandel Peninsula will grow in a way that embraces its spirit and natural beauty, by working with our communities to acknowledge diversity, nurture ecology and value our identity.'

The statement acknowledges that the challenge and vision to guide change and growth in our District in a way that ensures the Peninsula retains its special character including its diverse communities and natural environment.


THE MISSION

The mission adopted by the Council in March 2005 is:

'To ensure the enhancement of the special nature of the Coromandel.'

The statement recognises that Council's role is to act as a 'guardian' of the Coromandel Peninsula so that residents and visitors are able to experience the 'magic' or special nature of the Coromandel. This 'magic' includes the District's environment, the character, or spirit of its diverse communities that help create a strong Peninsula identity and their different needs.

The Council has a role in providing leadership to the community. This approach is consistent with the purpose of local government as defined in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. [section 10 is copied in the previous posting, plus section 14: see below]


PRINCIPLES

The principles are a set of core values that support Council's Vision for the District as a whole. They represent the way in which Council wishes to work with the community and they underline the key policies.

The Core Principles of the Council:

1. One Peninsula
The Council will act in ways that:
* Support and nurture a sense of community,
* Acknowledge the stewardship of our special environment,
* Respect the need for fairness and equity while recognising diversity.

2. Sustainability
The Council will act in ways that:
* Accepts responsibility for our future generations.
* Promotes environmental, social, economic and cultural sustainability,
* Are financially sustainable long-term.

3. Inclusive
The Council will act in ways that:
* Engage our community in setting the overall direction for the development of the Peninsula,
* Ensure that those affected by our actions have the opportunity to contribute to Council decision-making,
* Ensure our communities are well informed,
* Respect the different perspectives that we each have.

4. Leadership
The Council will work with communities to:
* Develop a clear vision for the future of the Coromandel Peninsula and the individual communities that together create the District as a whole,
* Work with our communities to achieve their visions,
* Acknowledge responsibility for future generations.

5. Striving for Excellence
The Council is:
* Committed to providing an environment that promotes excellence,
* Committed to improving the way we carry out business,
* Committed to encouraging innovative solutions to the challenges we face.

THE PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Sections 10 and 14 of the Local Government Act 2002, which are constantly emphasised and referred to when TCDC is going about its business and in its deliberations--in particular 'the four well-beings' in s10(b):

10 Purpose of local government

The purpose of local government is--

(a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and
(b) to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities, in the present and for the future.


14 Principles relating to local authorities

(1) In performing its role, a local authority must act in accordance with the following principles:
(a) a local authority should--
(i) conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner; and
(ii) give effect to its identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and effective manner:
(b) a local authority should make itself aware of, and should have regard to, the views of all of its communities; and
(c) when making a decision, a local authority should take account of--
(i) the diversity of the community, and the community's interests, within its district or region; and
(ii) the interests of future as well as current communities; and
(iii) the likely impact of any decision on each aspect of well-being referred to in section 10:
(d) a local authority should provide opportunities for Maori to contribute to its decision-making processes:
(e) a local authority should collaborate and co-operate with other local authorities and bodies as it considers appropriate to promote or achieve its priorities and desired outcomes, and make efficient use of resources; and
(f) a local authority should undertake any commercial transactions in accordance with sound business practices; and
(g) a local authority should ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of its district or region; and
(h) in taking a sustainable development approach, a local authority should take into account--
(i) the social, economic, and cultural well-being of people and communities; and
(ii) the need to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment; and
(iii) the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations.
(2) If any of these principles, or any aspects of well-being referred to in section 10, are in conflict in any particular case, the local authority should resolve the conflict in accordance with the principle in subsection (1)(a)(i).

PAYBACK-TIME ALWAYS COMES

Those who like to have Auckland City Council governing us, because they see it as a council that 'spends more money on the island than it collects', are overlooking the fact that whenever that seems to be the case what is really happening is that we are borrowing Auckland's money. Then, sooner or later, we pay it back in higher rates.

In short, any money above what we put into the island is not a gift. It is a loan.

(And to Auckland it is money in a high-interest investment account.)

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

DR ZHIVAGO

A marked change from the normal fare here is this passage from Boris Pasternak's famous novel Dr Zhivago. It is also a good description of our politically-correct age, except that the consequential deaths are generally psychological and spiritual not physical. Larissa Fyodorovna Antipova is talking to Yuri Andreyevich Zhivago.

'I can still remember a time when we all accepted the peaceful outlook of the last century. It was taken for granted that you listened to reason, that it was right and natural to do what your conscience told you. For a man to die by the hand of another was a rare, an exceptional event, something quite out of the ordinary run. Murders happened in plays, newspapers and detective stories, not in everyday life.

'And then there was the jump from this calm, innocent, measured way of living to blood and tears, to mass insanity and the savagery of daily, hourly, legalised, rewarded slaughter.

'I don't suppose this ever goes unpunished. You must remember better than I do the beginning of disintegration, how everything began to break down all at once--trains and food supplies in towns, and the foundations of home life and conscious moral standards.'

'Go on. I know what you'll say next. What good sense you make of it all! It's a joy to listen to you.'

'It was then that falsehood came into our Russian land. The great misfortune, the root of all the evil to come, was the loss of faith in the value of personal opinions. People imagined it was out of date to follow their own moral sense, that they must all sing the same tune in chorus, and live by other people's notions, the notions that were being crammed down everybody's throat. And there arose the power of the glittering phrase, first tsarist, then revolutionary.

'This social evil became an epidemic. It was catching. And it affected everything, nothing was left untouched by it. Nor did we escape its influence in our home. Something went wrong in it. Instead of being natural and spontaneous, as we had always been, we began to be idiotically pompous with each other. Something showy, artificial, forced, crept into our conversation--you felt you had to be clever in a certain way about certain world-important themes.'

'Children are more honest. They aren't frightened of the truth, but we are so afraid of seeming to be behind the times that we are ready to betray what is most dear to us, and praise what repels us, and say yes to what we don't understand.'

Or say no to good things because we cannot be bothered considering them.

ACC's TRUE INCOME ON GREAT BARRIER

Auckland City Council has just supplied revenue figures for Great Barrier, which were requested back in March under the Local Government Official Information & Meetings Act (known as LGOIMA, pronounced ligoyma). They show that the figures given in Barrier Bulletin and Gulf News a few months back by Paul Downie were wrong. Those letters did not have a single correct figure in them (not even Auckland's population). For example, he said the income for 2006/7 was $1.9 million. Auckland says it was actually $2.587 million. So he was 36% out.

Excluding penalties the average rates per property in 2006/7 for GBI's 1418 properties was $686 and in 2007/8 was $735 (a rise of 7.3%). In 2005/2006 the average per property was $534, so the rise from 2005/6 to 2007/8 was a huge 37.7%. So much for being better off under Auckland.

The average rates per property across all of Auckland's administrative area in 2006 was $857. On GBI the average was $686. On Waiheke the average was $1624.

The Council's income per head of population for GBI works out at $3036 in 2006/7 and $3320 in 2007/8, far higher than the $1364 average over Auckland's entire administrative area, or even the $1964 average for Waiheke (all averages use 2006 census figures). The Council's average income for GBI in 2007/8 is $3320 per property.

DETAILED RATES COMPARISON: THAMES v AUCKLAND

There has been a lot of misinformation spread by rumourmongers, the hate-machine, and others who should know better, about what our rates would be if the Local Government Commission rules that we would get better local government under Thames-Coromandel than Auckland, and transfers us. All sorts of wildly imaginative figures have been put up, like scarecrows in a cucumber patch. 'Rates will be three times as high, five times as high, ten times as high.' have been flung out as if they were statements of fact.

The fact is that Waiheke's rates now average $1624 per property, and Thames-Coromandel's average $1541 (on data from Quotable Value, Auckland and Thames).

But those figures don't tell the whole story. They don't say anything about the power and autonomy that Community Boards have under the Thames-Coromandel District Council, and how deeply involved they are in setting budgets and local rates in consultation with their local communities. One effect of that system is that rates under TCDC can vary considerably from one board area to another, so if we were with it our rates would be OUR rates, not any other area's.

That point is underscored by the draft reorganisation proposal, which emphasises a financial firewall, (click here for the full text), and by that fact that the proposal also says that the total rates-take shall not rise in the first year after amalgamation, and that it shall then not rise by more than the rise in the Consumer Price Index (unless the community wants a greater increase to fund some desired project or projects).

To make the point even more clearly TCDC's rates team worked out what our rates would be if we were under them, and as if we were in each of its five existing Community Board areas (but, of course, leaving out charges for water and wastewater reticulation, which would not apply here). They used values from a real property on Waiheke, in Palm Beach, because it is close to Waiheke's averages (a capital value of $564,587, a land value of $406,775, and an improved value of $157,812). The sample Palm Beach property has a capital value of $570,000, a land value of $380,000 and an improved value of $190,000. Its rates under Auckland are $1557.

If it were magically put under the Thames Community Board's jurisdiction its rates would be $1685; under the Coromandel-Colville Community Board they would be $1417; under the Tairua/Pauanui Board they would be $1227; under the Whangamata Community Board they would be $1196; under the Mercury Bay Community Board they would be $1185.

But if the sample property happened to be in a part of Waiheke where the stormwater charge did not apply, the rates would instead be $1415, $1176, $1130, $1131 and $1066 respectively under those five boards. The stormwater decision would be made for each village and area by the Waiheke Community Board--which shows how fine-grained a board's authority is under TCDC.

You can see the range of rates, and therefore why it is impossible to say from looking at the rates in one area what they would be in another, and therefore why it is bunkum to quote rates in Thames as if they would be Waiheke's or Great Barrier's or Rakino's (or Smelly Nelly's), especially when you are including Thames's wastewater and water reticulation charges, which is what is usually done.

Obviously the rates we would have on Waiheke if we were with TCDC cannot be known to the last dollar because the local-rates portion would be decided by our Community Board after community consultation. But we do know that they would have to obey the firewall, the no-initial-increase, and the CPI-increase clauses in the reorganisation proposal. We also know from the comparison of averages and the comparison for the sample property above that they could not be three times ACC's rates, or five times, or ten times. Or even double.

But it is obvious that if the Waiheke Community Board tried to set such outrageous local rates, it would the very next day--quite rightly--be hanged, drawn and quartered in the supermarket carpark to the loud cheers of the whole island.

GO FOR THE BEST

We owe it to ourselves to get the best local government--the best available government at local level. That is also our legal right, and the Local Government Act 2002 provides a way of making sure of it, by enabling citizens to petition the Local Government Commission (LGC) to move them to a better council.

For nineteen years we have been under the Auckland City Council. Is it the best local government available? That is a question that should be asked. The petition to the LGC to move us to the Thames-Coromandel District Council will answer it. And because the LGC's over-riding criterion is good local government, its process rigorous, and its ruling law, that is what we will then have. East or west, we will have the best of the available options. (Having our own council is impossible under the Act, because a population of 10,000 is required.)

For the detail of what we would then have, read the Draft Reorganisation Proposal.

LOST IN THE TRACK-FULL WASTE

Bravo! to Diana Worthy for the front-page lead on Waiheke tracks in last week's Marketplace.

As a member of the Waiheke Community Board I have been trying to get some sense into shemozzle that is Auckland City Council's tracks 'policy.' But with that infernal empire every piddling little thing is made more involved than the D-Day landings.

I was recently asked to sign off a new 120-metre track between O'Brien Road and Valley Road. I refused, saying that the budgeted $8000 was far too high, and asked them to get quotes, not just go to a 'preferred' supplier (they are, in law, meant to have 'sound business practices' and 'stewardship'). But they went ahead and did it anyway. It cost us $5230, which included a massive $3970 for the six steps at the top.

Even worse those platinum, gold-plated, diamond-studded steps are ugly, out of keeping with their surroundings, and have risers so high and treads so deep that they are hard to use unless you have the legs of a praying mantis and the muscles of Pop-Eye.

I tried to put on the agenda of the last board meeting a notion of motion asking for a review of tracks standards, and the development of an island standard so that our tracks would not only be safe but pleasant to use and in harmony with the environment. Too often new tracks give people a construction experience not a nature experience. But the Machine deleted my notice of motion.

It is about time Auckland's profligate waste, disregard for the island environment, and bureaucratic arrogance were stopped in their tracks. Permanently.

THE LGC AND THE REORGANISATION PROCESS

If you want a good summary of the law on reorganising local-body boundaries and therefore the process we shall be going through, click here to see and/or download the guidelines from the Local Government Commission.

WORSHIPPING PROFLIGACY

A true tale in three parts:

In ancient Babylon King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, ninety feet high and nine feet wide, and set it up in the plains of Dura. He summoned all the hierarchy of his empire from high to low, and the herald loudly proclaimed: 'O peoples and nations of every language, you are commanded, when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, zither, triangle, dulcimer, music, and singing of every kind, to prostrate yourselves and worship the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. Whoever does not prostrate himself and worship shall henceforth be thrown into a blazing furnace.'

Auckland City Council has loudly proclaimed a standard for making bush tracks. It is, O peoples and nations of every language living on Waiheke, a most sacred standard. It is made of gold--your gold. It is most high and most mighty. It includes the most golden Auckland City Council 01 Type A Standard Step, for which no timber carried by any Waiheke timber merchant is acceptable, and it must therefore be brought over specially from Auckland. The result, O peoples and nations of every language living on Waiheke, is that every step in a bush track costs at least $120 (not counting bureaucratic overhead), and a flight of six in Rocky Bay has just cost $3970. O ratepayers, you are commanded to rejoice and be exceeding glad, and to prostrate yourselves before the great sacred 01 Type A Standard. For is not your gold being used most wisely? (Please ignore the fact that the steps are not made for human legs and feet.)

O horror! The story gets worse? Yea! That most sacred flight of steps could have been done, should have been done, very easily, for a mere $500. Only $100 worth of materials and $400 of labour were needed. So the whole 120-metre track, for which $8000 of ratepayers' gold was budgeted, and $5230 spent, should have cost just $1800.

Anyone hear a zither braying? Or feel the blazing furnace of profligacy burning in your rates bill?

--

Footnote: Since this was written, Auckland City Council's Asset Manager has acknowledged that the steps were not done well (wrong height of risers, wrong depth of tread and an unnecessary handrail), and advised the Waiheke Community Board to handle projects in a much better way. He says standards will be reviewed. But why did it take forever and five days for Auckland to see an obvious problem and to propose getting a bit of stewardship and sense into the system? We shall see if it happens. But the first action was not promising. The 'fix' proposed for the steps was trivial.

PEOPLE WOULD HATE IT

People in the Hauraki Gulf who are building or planning to build would absolutely hate being under the Thames-Coromandel District Council. It has an online service that shouldn't be allowed in a civilised country. Or even in New Zealand. It is headed Consent Tracking, and it allows people to track resource and building consents. Fancy being so open and transparent! I know the Local Government Act 2002 says councils have to be, but, please, let's keep to Auckland's example and never let the law interfere with policy and bureaucracy (or profligacy).

Click here to see the site.

Nothing good will come of it, obviously.

It is obviously madness to want amalgamation with such a shonky outfit.

;-))

------------------------------------------

Footnote: The Resource Management Act 1991 sets a limit of 20 working days for processing resource consents unless there are lawful reasons for extending the time. But a planner on Waiheke of considerable experience told me she had never seen a single consent go through in 20 days [or less]. Another senior planner told me that consents are now taking about eight weeks. The eleven planners processed 407 applications in the 2006/2007 year, an average of about three per planner per month (up from 382 in 2005/2006; in 2007/2008 it was 438; but the meaty applications, for new dwellings, was 121, 125, 121 over those three years, an average of 0.9 per planner per month; the other applications were for alterations, earthworks, trees, etc).

Thames-Coromandel's annual report for 2006/2007 shows that it processed 612 applications in an average of 16.5 days and that 62% were processed in under 18 days. Its target of processing 75% in under 18 days was exceeded in September, November and June. It has ten planners, so they processed an average of about five per planner per month.

PRAISEWORTHY BLUEPRINT

This page and the ones behind it are by themselves enough to show the praiseworthy nature of the council that they have in Thames-Coromandel.

Click here for the first page.

Their aim is to create a blueprint looking 50 years ahead--far beyond the 10 years required by the Local Government Act 2002--so as to protect the special nature of the peninsula.

We need the same vision and forward-mapping for the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

WICKED AND WEAK

A professional newspaper, a real newspaper, is interested only in faithfully informing people of the facts. It strives to make the closest possible approach to the truth. It strives to ensure that its articles present a fair, accurate impression of whatever it is reporting. It always gives right of reply to people mentioned in the story, so it calls them, it tells them a story is to be run, partly to be courteous, but mainly to ensure that it gets its facts right at source. It also chooses headlines that are both true in themselves and accurately catch the essence of the story. It always takes seriously its role as a medium, a transparent medium, so it conveys what happened in a manner uncoloured by journalistic activism, personal ideology, or the desire to beat up mythical muck. It does not stoop to gratuitous insults.

Waiheke Week, better called Wicked & Weak, is therefore not a newspaper worthy of the name. It is grossly unprofessional. In essence it is nothing but the malignant mouthpiece of a man whose views may seem to make sense to him but make none to those of reasoned perception. The fundamental dictum of logic--'If, if and only if the premise is true and the reasoning is true'--needs to be foremost in his awareness. It seems entirely absent.

In the latest issue, he plumbs the depths of hyprocrisy by condeming in his editorial the practice of playing the man not the ball--which he has been doing to me for weeks!

He has nothing against my Thames-Coromandel initiative that is true and reasonable. Not could he, but he hates me, so in he pitches.

He should remember that 'Hatred is the poison you drink in the hope that someone else will die.' His hatred only damages him on the inside. It does not affect me. I just feel sorry for him. He needs to get himself untangled.

Wicked & Weak lacks principle. Its publisher, under his nom-de-plume Surfdale Sally, even made light of his arrest for drink-driving.

He, and his editor, should read and keep to the principles set down by the New Zealand Press Council; they need to learn to be professional journalists; they need to learn to be people of integrity who keep to the fundamental principle of law--'recognition of the inherent dignity and worth of the human person.'

That the publication is capable of writing good articles that inform the community is witnessed by the story it did on the new seismograph being installed on Waiheke. But it habitually blurs or ignores the line between news and editorial comment, and the variability of its reporting does not inspire confidence in enough of its content to make it worth reading.

..................

But in its issue of the 15th of May 2008, Wicked & Weak's publisher, under his nom de plume Surfdale Sally, again descended into the pit. What follows was my response to that, sent as a letter to the editor of that publication.

Madam,
I challenge the publisher of Waiheke Week, who also publishes as Surfdale Sally, to put his money where his malice is--that he pays the full costs for both of us to take a battery of psychometric tests and psychological interviews (with three separate psychologists so as to get a broad, expert balance), on condition that we both see each other's results and that your paper then publishes them, in full.

Then we shall see who has the most normal psychological profile. Me, or the man who obviously thinks that gratuitous insults, character-assassination, lies and the wilful abuse of the truth are commendable activities. Me, or the man who obviously has a problem with alcohol, who has in print treated lightly his recent drink-driving charge, and whose body-language as he walks down the street is revealing and interesting.

Me, with four national awards for IT journalism, including best in the country that year, or the man whose publication again and again breaches good principles set down by the New Zealand Press Council. Me, or the man who likes to call himself Surfdale Sally and insult people, or treat as amusing people who are so drunk that they cannot stand up (Paralytic And Falling Over--PAFO--is his term), or make 'jokes' that are about as funny as a train-wreck, etc.

Me, or the man who loves to be highly selective or abysmally careless in what he states as fact, and frequently falls most foul of William Blake's profound observation: 'The truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent.'

Me, or the man who is clearly not interested in truth, or logic, or balance, or natural justice, or fair play. For example--in one of myriad instances--he omitted to publish the fact that a judge declared me to me 'a man of good character.'

So, Mervyn Bennet, I lay down the gauntlet. Do you have the guts to show the world what you are really made of? I do. So fork out, take the test, publish the results, or shut up.

..................

DRAFT REORGANISATION PROPOSAL FOR AMALGAMATION WITH THAMES-COROMANDEL

Philippa Barriball, the mayor of Thames-Coromandel, expressed her satisfaction with the draft proposal. She said, 'I am comfortable that the draft represents a fair and reasonable platform to launch public consultation on the issue.'

But because the four councils decided to send the proposal straight to the Local Government Commission there will not be the consultation phase that she and I had anticipated, but there is the 60-day submission phase laid down in law. That began on the 16th of February 2009 and ends on the 20th of April.

Click here for the LGC's website.

This version of the reorganisation proposal differs from the one you will see there, because it has been revised and improved since that one was lodged in September 2008.

........................................................................................

RE-ORGANISATION PROPOSAL
For transferring the Hauraki Gulf Islands Ward (except Rangitoto Island and Browns Island) to the Thames-Coromandel District

As the originating proposer, and the representative elector under Clause 36 Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002, with the support of more than 10% of the 6692 registered affected electors in the Hauraki Gulf Islands Ward under Auckland City Council, being co-signatories on a petition/application made under Clause 1 Schedule 3, I, Nobilangelo Ceramalus, of 2-4 O'Brien Road, Rocky Bay, Waiheke Island, propose that:

Preamble:
* Recognising the closely similar character of the Hauraki Gulf Islands and the Thames-Coromandel District, and the closely similar characters of their communities, and;
* Recognising that the character of the islands is village-rural and insular, and therefore that the urban-isthmus environment and political direction of Auckland City Council make it impossible for it to sympathise with the aspirations and true well-being of the island communities, and;
* Recognising that 75.5% of the land area of Auckland City Council's district is in the village-rural environment of the islands, but that the decisions for it are made by urban decision-makers, and;
* Recognising therefore that the present local government is inimical to the best interests of the islands, and;
* Recognising the advantage to New Zealand of having the bulk and main parts of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park under one local authority and one regional authority:

Purpose:
This reorganisation is to ensure that the Hauraki Gulf Islands have good local government, to the best standard available; sympathetic local government that enables democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, their communities, and that promotes the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of their communities, in the present and for the future, in a way that is fundamentally sympathetic to their traditional character and independent spirit, and must therefore be separate from a city; and so that the traditional values of the Tangata Whenua are respected and represented; and to reverse and cancel the amalgamation of the islands with the city in 1989:

Proposals:
1. The Hauraki Gulf Islands now under the administrations of Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council (but excluding Rangitoto Island, an Auckland icon, and Browns Island, which was a gift to Auckland City, hereinafter 'the islands') shall by a boundary-change be transferred to Thames-Coromandel District Council (hereinafter 'the Council') and Environment Waikato Regional Council (hereinafter 'the Regional Council').

2. (a) The Council now has 9 members for 22,215 electors, this boundary-change would make that 28,907 electors by adding 6692 (23.15%), and reckoning proportionally on the new total makes 11.71 members; therefore there shall be 12 members by adding 2 from a Waiheke Ward made up of Waiheke Island and its smaller neighbours (hereinafter 'Waiheke') and 1 from a Great Barrier Ward made up of Great Barrier Island and its smaller neighbours (hereinafter 'Great Barrier');
(b) The present peninsular councillor on the Regional Council shall represent both wards also;
(c) There shall be a by-election for the 2 new district councillors, and to fill any vacancies caused by resignations in 3(b), using the method of voting then in use by the Council;
(d) The present Hauraki Gulf Islands councillor on Auckland City Council, who lives on Waiheke Island, shall become a Waiheke councillor on the Council, subject to 3(b).

3. (a) There shall be two community boards for the islands, one for Waiheke and one for Great Barrier, (hereinafter 'the community boards' or 'boards'; and hereinafter 'community board‘ or 'board' means either of those boards) each with 5 members elected from the general local electoral roll, plus one representative of the Tangata Whenua elected from a subdivision of each ward that shall consist of all those on the relevant local Maori roll, plus the councillor/s for each ward who shall be appointed to its board, plus the mayor of the district who shall be appointed to each board, making a board of 9 members for Waiheke and 8 members for Great Barrier;
(b) (i) To ensure good local government, within seven days of the Order in Council that establishes this reorganisation (hereinafter 'the Order in Council') all existing members of the community boards, both elected and appointed, must in writing commit themselves unreservedly to this reorganisation, witnessed and counter-signed by the mayor and chief executive officer of the Council, and any who refuse to must immediately resign;
(ii) The wording of the declaration in 3(b)(i) shall be: 'I [name], a [community board member/councillor] of the [Waiheke/Great Barrier Ward] solemnly declare that I will while I hold this elected office unreservedly support the local-body reorganisation that by an Order in Council in [month] 2009 transferred via a boundary-change the islands in the Hauraki Gulf Islands Ward of Auckland City Council, except Rangitoto Island and Browns Island, into the jurisdiction of [name of council], and from the jurisdiction of Auckland Regional Council into the jurisdiction of Environment Waikato Regional Council.';
(c) All who stand in the by-election and in the local-body election in 2010 must in writing within seven days of their nomination commit themselves unreservedly to the reorganisation in the same words as in 3(b)(ii), witnessed and counter-signed by the mayor and chief executive officer of the Council, and any who refuse to must withdraw their candidacy, and clear reference to that commitment must be clearly included in all their campaign advertising;
(d) The wording of the statutory declaration made under Clause 14 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 by those who sit on the community boards shall be as it was before this reorganisation except that the phrase '[island] community' shall be changed to '[island] ward';
(e) Within fourteen days of the official results of the by-election an extraordinary meeting of each community board shall be held at which the present chairs and deputy chairs shall resign, then each board shall elect a new chair and deputy chair from among the 5 elected community board members;
(f) (i) Decision-making in the community boards will be in accordance with Council Standing Orders, save when matters being decided are of significance to Tangata Whenua, when decisions shall be by consensus;
(ii) Decision-making of the Council on islands matters that are of significance to Tangata Whenua shall be by consensus, and shall use advisory committees representing affected Maori;
(g) The regional councillor shall attend all ordinary meetings of the community boards to report and be consulted and advise from a regional perspective, and to keep closely aware of ward issues that affect and are affected by regional decisions;
(h) The mayor may vote at community board meetings by any method of proxy.

4. (a) All decision-making for the islands shall be according to law, in particular the Local Government Act 2002, and in most particular it shall be founded on, informed by, and referred to ss10 and 14 of that Act (the purpose and the principles);
(b) Breaches of the Act in governance or management may be submitted to the process laid down in s238;
(c) The document Essentially Waiheke (but with wording revised as necessary due to this change in administration, statistical updates, errors, changes in statute, and non-conformity with statute), in particular its five core principles, shall be referred to and inform all decisions made for Waiheke, in particular annual plans, district plans, regional plans, and individual planning applications;
(d) Documents to match Essentially Waiheke shall be written for each island, after comprehensive and open consultation, in particular with permanent residents whose majority wishes shall be preferred, and it shall be referred to and inform all decisions made for each island, in particular annual plans, district plans, regional plans and individual planning applications.

5. There shall be a financial firewall for capital expenditure and loan-repayments, so that the peninsula's undertakings under those headings do not add to any island rates, and no island undertakings add to the peninsula's, and no island ward's add to any other island ward's.

6. (a) The islands shall share proportionately their actual and reasonable share of the administrative overhead in Thames, but that shall not exceed their proportion of the registered electorate, initially 23.15%, then adjusted at each triennial election;
(b) The existing service centres on Waiheke and Great Barrier shall be the Council's primary contact for the islanders, supported as necessary from Thames, in the main using information and telecommunications technology.

7. (a) (i) The community boards shall have a high level of autonomy; local decisions shall as far as possible be made locally in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; they shall be treated as independent bodies as laid down in ss51-52 of the Local Government Act 2002; they shall have delegated authority under section 34(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991; and they shall have primary responsibility for their wards' annual plans and budgets, which shall be deeply rooted in comprehensive and open consultation in particular with permanent residents whose majority wishes shall be preferred;
(ii) And in the case of the smaller islands (those outside Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island) their residents and ratepayers shall have the primary say in decisions made about their island and must be represented and included and reasonably deferred to in the decision-making process whenever their island's affairs are discussed by a community board or the Council;
(b) It shall be recognised that the (main) islands consist of villages, neighbourhoods, and rural areas, whose voices must be heard, and to that end the creation of village, neighbourhood and rural forums shall be actively encouraged so as to form a true grassroots democracy, which shall be consulted, listened to and referred to by community boards and planners;
(c) Best use shall be made of modern telecommunications technology, in particular the Internet, by the Council and community boards to communicate with the community, engage with it, and involve it in decision-making;
(d) Brookfield's opinion on s52 of the Local Government Act 2002 and the independence of community boards shall be considered the correct one and used accordingly;
(e) Section 14(1)(e) of the Local Government Act 2002 shall be invoked to retain the present arrangement between island libraries and libraries in Auckland for access to books;
(f) Provided that sections 14(f)&(g) of the Local Government Act 2002 are openly complied with, contracts for major activities, such as roadworks, refuse-collection and recycling, shall on the islands be awarded to local enterprises, especially non-profit community trusts, as recommended to the Council by the relevant community board after community consultation;
(g) If the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance recommends a structure and system of governance that would give the islands a greater level of autonomy than the Council has proposed or agreed to or implemented it will after consultation with the islands propose and implement one that gives them at least the same level.

8. (a) There shall be no increase in the total rates-take from each island in the first financial year after the Order in Council, and annual rises thereafter shall not be more than the change in the CPI unless for some reason the majority of the permanent local community wants a greater increase, such as to fund a special community project, which shall be via a rate struck on improved value;
(b) To prevent the development of a lopsided demography that would destroy each island's special character, that part of their rates struck on improved value shall employ a rising graduated scale on multiples of the average improved value;
(c) To encourage long-term ownership there shall be a rates discount calculated on years of occupation;
(d) There shall be rates relief at 23 cents in the dollar in the year of the donation for donations to registered community groups in the district, subject to approval by the relevant community board;
(e) There shall be a significant targeted rate that shall employ a rising graduated scale on improved value for properties where the postal address is outside the Council's district;
(f) To discourage speculation there shall be a high special rate on capital value imposed on the vendor when a property is sold within 2 years of purchase and when the vendor cannot prove that he or she occupied it for that period;
(g) There shall be a targeted differential rate struck on capital value where there are two or more separately inhabited parts of the rating unit (Schedule 3.7 of the LG(R)A 2002) and where the improved value exceeds the average for that island;
(h) There shall be a targeted differential rate struck on capital value where any habitable part of the rating unit exceeds a gross floor area of 200 square metres or 15% of the land area whichever is the lesser (Schedule 3.11 of the LG(R)A 2002) and where the improved value exceeds the average for that island;
(i) Serious consideration shall be given to removing capital value from the rates and using only improved value;
(j) When a person or persons work/s from his/her/their residence in a way that can reasonably be deemed not to harm the purpose of the relevant zoning or degrade the character of the area, that property shall be rated at the residential rate usual for it, not at a commercial rate, in part or in whole;
(k) (i) Where the owner of land that contains archaeological or environmental features of value to the community, who takes steps to protect them, or where a prohibition in statute or bylaw prevents use or part-use of the property, the Council will recognise those conditions by offering inducements, subject to the effect on the environment, or rates discounts;
(ii) If the land in 8(k)(i) is unused or uninhabited the rate shall be as for 'Offshore Islands Uninhabited' in the Council's rating schedule.

9. Where any of the sub-sections in section 8 prove impossible under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, central government shall be lobbied for amendments to make them possible so that the Council can better fulfil the social well-being requirement in s10 of the Local Government Act 2002.

10. (a) Any Proposed Hauraki Gulf District Plan or Plan Change shall--
(i) Be subjected to the high level of prior consultation required by the Local Government Act 2002, with preference given to the wishes of permanent residents;
(ii) Specifically take into account the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000;
(iii) Each community board shall openly and transparently scrutinise every resource-consent application made for its ward under every sub-section of section 7 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to make sure that particular regard is being given to those that are relevant, and if it is in doubt or cannot agree the application in question shall be subjected to the judgement of the community, in particular under ss7(c) and 7(f), to ensure that each application complies and that the quality and character of the built environment are not degraded;
(iv) Always take the word amenity in section 7(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as meaning pleasantness and no planning decision may give it any other meaning;
(v) Manage the islands on catchment-based principles as they relate to natural and physical resources.
(b) The time-limits in Section 115 of the Resource Management Act 1991 shall be strictly adhered to in all planning applications unless the community board for that ward uses or approves s92 to extend one by a specified period that can be reasonably justified under sections 5 to 8 of the Resource Management Act 1991 or sections 10 and 14 of the Local Government Act 2002 or both.
(c) Any proposed development whose total cost or total projected cost is valued at more than 25% of the total rates-take in that ward in the previous year may not take place or in any way begin unless approved by at least 60% of those who vote in a ward referendum and;
(i) To be valid the referendum must have a turnout of over 50% of registered voters and;
(ii) All costs incurred by the referendum shall be met by the developer and;
(iii) For the purposes of the referendum the value of the development shall be taken as the average of the values determined by three independent valuers chosen by the Council or community board.
(d) All resource-consent applications must--
(i) First be presented by the applicants in person to a full open meeting of the relevant community board, and;
(ii) The presentation must include realistic computer mockups of the proposal superimposed on photographs taken from eight points of the compass or from all practical and relevant vantage-points that may be requested by the community board, and;
(iii) No application shall proceed to detailed examination and report by designated planner/s unless it has first been approved in principle by the board, which shall consult widely with the community if it is in doubt, and it shall second person/s with specific expertise when it considers that that is needed for it to make an informed decision, and;
(iv) The final decision on whether to approve or decline the application shall be made by the community board on behalf of the community, based on the planner/s report, and;
(v) All decisions in 10(d)(iii) and 10(d)(iv) must be made in accordance with 10(a)(iii).

11. A practical alliance shall be negotiated with the Department of Conservation to operate jointly in the best interests of the inhabitants of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, and to share in any benefits that may accrue from carbon-trading.

12. (a) The Regional Council may consider becoming Environment Waikato-Hauraki to reflect its much more important role in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, a national treasure.
(b) If the Local Government Commission wants the Council renamed for this reorganisation, the preferred name shall be Peninsula and Islands District Council, which shall have a logo with the same green and blue graphics as for the Council but with the new wording in the centre, as on the appended mockup below.

13. (a) The Auckland City Council shall be prohibited from selling or transferring any asset on the islands until the Commission has ruled, and then only if the ruling goes its way, and it shall be prohibited from any retaliatory act of any sort for this application, and any breach of this subsection shall immediately be reported to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance and the Local Government Commission as evidence of governance unfitness;
(b) When the Order in Council takes effect--
(i) All assets owned in the islands by Auckland City Council shall be transferred to the Council and;
(ii) All assets owned in the islands by Auckland Regional Council shall be transferred to Environment Waikato and;
(iii) Any shares in Auckland International Airport and in any other entity that were formerly owned by the Waiheke County Council shall be transferred to the Council but any earnings from them shall be used only on Waiheke, or at the discretion of the Waiheke Community Board elsewhere on the islands and;
(iv) Any shares transferred in 13(b)(iii) shall be transferred as the number of shares or the equivalent percentage, whichever is higher. To avoid misinterpretation and eliminate doubt, that means, for example, that in the case of the shares held by Waiheke Borough Council in Auckland International Airport in 1989, which numbered 241,500 of the 210,000,000 issued by that company at that time, representing 0.115% of the total, what is transferred back shall be 241,500 shares or 0.115% of the present issue, whichever has the higher value and;
(v) All financial assets belonging to the islands shall also be transferred, including but not exclusively, the credit balances of bank accounts of all types, the Hauraki Gulf Islands Development Accounts, targeted rates not yet spent on the islands as purposed, the credit balances of rates raised on the islands but not yet spent, and the credit bank balance that the Waiheke County Council had when the books were reconciled at the time of amalgamation in 1989.
(c) Any liabilities, actual or potential, such as leaky-building claims, or any other claims that may arise at any time after the Order in Council, that were caused by Auckland City Council's actions or errors of omission or commission during the period of its authority shall be met in full by Auckland City Council and no liability of any sort shall be due to the Council.
(d) Any liabilities or claims that may arise at any time after the Order in Council that were caused by Auckland Regional Council's actions or errors of omission or commission during the period of its authority shall be met in full by Auckland Regional Council and no liability of any sort shall be due to the Regional Council.
(e) Any confidential agreements, formal or informal, concerning the islands that there may be between any persons or corporate entity shall remain in force only at the option of the affected islands ward or wards.

14. (a) This reorganisation scheme shall be reviewed from time to time but only in the years in which there are local-body elections, commencing in 2013, and;
(b) Any review shall be completed by the 1st of July, and;
(c) Changes may be made only if they are approved by at least a two-thirds majority of the council and the affected community board/s.