Len Brown: sworn in/at

Len Brown was sworn in as Mayor of the Auckland Council on Tuesday night at the Town Hall.

Len alone. Lenny no mates.

An unamused deputy, Penny Hulse, looks on with pursed lips as Len signs up for another three years of - quite literally we know now - fucking over City Hall.  Peering down at the chain is the CEO who will have to run the code of conduct review into Len's corruption.  What a joke this all is.

NZ Herald:
--
Len Brown says the career of a mayor ebbs and flows, and the wave of negative publicity that has swamped him since news of his two-year extra-marital affair broke will pass.
"I'm just wanting to get on with my job," he said.
"I choose to put those matters where they belong and that's between myself, my wife and our family. Aucklanders have basically said 'that's something you need to deal with'. They want me to lead and that's what I'm going to do."
--

Aucklanders want someone to lead, and because of historical circumstances it just happens to be Len Brown.  Aucklanders' commitment to him personally is as thin as Len's hair, as thin as his credibility to set any sort of a worthy example as a leader.  A big, big joke. Len is the one subjecting his wife and kids to this exposure because he's digging in when he ought to be bailing out.  An affair carried out under the mayoral auspices utilising the office of Mayor, the limo, the meeting rooms etc. is most certainly the purview of the voter.

NZ Herald:
--
Mr Brown appeared awkward and fidgety through the evening and endured shouts of "shame" from a small, but vocal group of protesters as he was being sworn in for a second term.It was the first official public appearance for Ms Inglis with Mr Brown since news of the mayor's two-year affair with a woman 25 years his junior was made public.Ms Inglis, sitting four rows back from the stage and not wearing a wedding ring was accompanied by the couple's eldest daughter, Sam and her husband Tim Colgan.
Mr Brown was wearing his wedding ring, which glistened under the stage lights of the Town Hall, where councillors, dignitaries and families gathered for the formal occasion featuring the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, Auckland Choral, a violin soloist and a young Polynesian orchestra.
Mr Brown acknowledged the love and support of Shan and his family on this occasion and the love of the past three years.
Mr Brown joined councillors and guests for refreshments outside the hall chamber, while Ms Inglis left by a side door, said a few hellos, and departed.
--

Pursuing his own appointed and Council-paid advisors for sex, writing out a reference for a job at the Auckland Art Gallery to the woman he was trying to bed (even though she had been fired and convicted in court the previous year for hacking into her boss's email while at the Auckland Museum) and then proceeding to root her all over the Town Hall and quite probably in rooms comp'ed by hotels because he was Mayor - and these antics went on for most of his term of office - is apparently acceptable and excusable behaviour in the minds of Auckland's political establishment - certainly amongst the ranks of the credulous, hypocritical lefties.  The corruption is right in their face and they choose, for politics and nothing more, to look the other way. 

Len may be able to buy his way out of trouble by dishing out the goodies he's entitled to as the mayor, but this cover will only get him so far.  At the moment though far from being put on notice, Len has been given carte blanche to predate on whichever staff member he wants because he has been told by his supporting councillors that there will be no consequences.

Whether he was heckled over the erection of affordable homes, or whether he was merely heckled over affording erections, either way it was a messy and undignified beginning to what promises to be a messy and undignified mayoralty.

American allies and Jewbag bundlers

The NZ Minister of Defence was in Washington DC at the Pentagon earlier in the week for some heavy petting with his counterpart Sec. Chuck Hagel.  For all of this neo-colonial fawning from the NZ regime the Americans will do the tremendous favour to the neo-colonial fawning NZ military establishment and will graciously permit the RNZN to dock one of their dinghies in the Pearl Harbour naval base.  This is all supposed to be a big deal? 

Like a desperate and tragic separated partner feeling alone, NZ remains the American's fuck-buddy without any status.  The slow clawing back of that former "ally" status as time drifts by is more to do with the US not caring anymore about nuclear quibbles as China looms as the big threat (and NZ becomes relatively more valuable to the Americans because of the Pacific orientation).   Nothing could encapsulate the one-sided relationship more than the Minister's flippant comments over the damaging NSA spying revelations:

NZ Herald:
--
The announcement comes amid concerns about US intelligence agency the NSA spying on its allies - the most recent revelations have centred on claims it bugged the mobile phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and 34 other leaders.
At a press conference this morning, Dr Coleman gave a light-hearted reply when asked whether New Zealand was concerned by the latest claims.
"New Zealand's not worried at all by this, we don't believe it would be occurring.
"Quite frankly there'd be nothing anyone would be hearing in our private conversations that we wouldn't be prepared to say publicly."
He went on to describe a newspaper cartoon run here which depicted a spy listening in to a communique from New Zealand - who had fallen asleep.
--

NZ is an open book he says - read what you like.  An open book to the US that is.  He couldn't care any less because his government would supply the US with whatever they want, whenever they want - and as the Kim Dotcom copyright raid proved - using whatever methods they want.  

Of course it is simply not possibly true that NZ has no secrets worth keeping - just the government considers all of our business to be their business and that we ought to have no secrets from the Americans.  NZ is the willing proxy, exercising America's will.  It is a pitiful and pathetic situation for any nation state when its Minister of Defence declares the nation effectively has no national interests - or none that can be decoupled from a distant power.

And not so [un]coincidentally...

NZ Herald:
--
The next United States ambassador to New Zealand has been named as Mark D. Gilbert - a former professional baseball player, banking executive and Democratic Party fundraiser.
He has just been nominated by President Barack Obama and nominees have to be approved by the Senate's relations committee.
According to the State Department, Mr Gilbert played major leagues baseball with the Chicago White Sox in 1985.
He is currently a director at Barclays Wealth, formerly Lehman Brothers, in West Palm Beach, Florida. He was senior vice president of Goldman Sachs in Miami from 1989 to 1996 and before that worked for Drexel Burnham Lambert, as an investment banker.
--

A new ugly American on a free holiday from Uncle Sam.  Chances are - going by his CV - this guy has possibly schmoozed with John Key before in East Coast banking circles.  That's right - he was one of the people who helped create the credit-fuelled boom - and must also be responsible for the credit-collapsing bust.  Everyone seems enraptured by Gilbert's fleeting baseball fame (he's got a baseball card according to the blog of the out-going US Ambassador), but here is some other information I found interesting:

Sun-Sentinel:
--
2009:
He developed a close relationship with the candidate, who now president – and was a large bundler, raising more than $500,000 for the campaign.

[...]
He served as finance chairman for Ron Klein’s 2006 congressional campaign, in which Klein raised millions and defeated then-U.S. Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fort Lauderdale.
And on Sunday, Gilbert was appointed deputy national finance chairman for the Democratic National Committee.
Mark Alan Siegel, chairman of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party, said Gilbert is known for more than his political activity. He’s a big player in the Jewish philanthropic community, Siegel said.

[...]
2007:
The Gilberts, both originally from Pennsylvania, have been attending the synagogue since they moved to Boca Raton 22 years ago.
"We walked through the doors when our second daughter was born and we needed a place to have her named, and we never walked out," Nancy Gilbert said.
"It was natural for Mark and Nancy to be selected this year because of their top level of service," said Stephen Lippy, the temple's executive director.
Mark Gilbert served three terms as temple president and 12 years as a board member. He also led the major gifts committee for seven years and the budget and finance committee for five years, Lippy said.
The Gilberts are a high-powered couple. Nancy owns The Masorti Travel Bureau/Travels and Dialogues, which coordinates tours to Israel. She developed the itinerary of the first trip of what is now known as Birthright Israel, an organization that arranges free trips to Israel for first-time visiting Jewish students ages 18 to 25.
--

Tampa Bay Times:
--
Since 2007, Gilbert has raised more than $3.3 million for Obama, records show. In 2012, Gilbert's daughter, Dani, had to apologize after a conservative news outlet uncovered Facebook photos that depicted her and friends holding money under the caption "Jewbags." Dani Gilbert was an aide to Florida Rep. and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.-- Washington Free Beacon:--The Democratic Party’s newly appointed Jewish outreach liaison is pictured on Facebook in a series of provocative photos with her friends holding dollar bills and referring to themselves as “Jewbags” and the “Jew cash money team.”
Dani Gilbert, who has been a staffer in the office of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), was recently appointed as the Democratic National Committee’s Jewish outreach liaison, according to her Twitter feed.
[...]
In one photo, Gilbert is seen kissing paper currency of undetermined denomination. The caption at the bottom of the photo reads “JEWBAGS.” A comment left on the posting refers to Gilbert and a coterie of female companions as the “Jew cash money team.” Other photos depict Gilbert as a bit of a party girl, including one featuring an assortment of condoms.
[...]
Update (9:31 p.m.): A senior GOP aide with close ties to the Jewish community emailed the Washington Free Beacon in response to this report.
“A lot of folks on both sides of the aisle know Dani and these photos do not reflect her professionalism,” the aide wrote.
--

So... His wife's actively collaborating in the destruction of Palestine by the colonial process of population transfer and his daughter is a trust fund dolly with a bullshit job for one of her father's Democratic Party friends - a job fundraising.  Nothing says America more than big money and Israel.

TV Review

My TV Review is posted up over at The Daily Blog. This week: The Paul Henry treatment.

NZ Police: wrong to shoot

And the sooner the NZ Police stop killing people the better.

NZ Herald:
--
Police officers who chased and shot dead an armed teenager broke a number of police policies, but were justified in the shooting, a report into the incident concluded today.
Lachan Kelly-Tumarae, 19, died after being shot numerous times in a stand-off with officers in Hawkes Bay in March 2011.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) released its report into the fatal shooting this afternoon, finding the officer who pulled the trigger was "justified in firing as he genuinely believed his life was under immediate threat".
However, it also found other aspects of the police response that day "did not comply with relevant police policies or meet standards of good practice".
--

To start with it's hardly an "independent" body - we all know it is police investigating the police and they let each other off - so the report already lacks credibility.  We will never know what really went on, we only know what the police said went on.  A story that will obviously suit themselves.

The point here (like with other cases of killer cops such as the Waitara main street incident and more lately the killing at the Waitara golf course) is that it is the police that are the ones chasing, pursuing, hunting and advancing with firearms - not the teenager (he's trying to escape and flee - to a cemetery as it happens where there is no-one, so there is no immediate danger of anyone being shot by him at any rate).  It is spurious to claim a necessity to shoot (and to kill) as the police did in this case when they are the ones advancing.  It is quite simple: the person doing all the chasing and the firing (and all the killing) cannot claim self defence.  Just as Bruce Emery (who stabbed to death a teenager for tagging) couldn't claim self defence when he chased after and cornered the victim. 

The police seemed to have set out to kill rather than to contain and diffuse - a treatment reserved mainly for Maori. 

If the police put themselves into a situation where they are exposed and without cover in an armed situation then that is there doing - in this case they are on the attack after all and the offender is on the defensive. The police are manufacturing an excuse to kill when they claim they had no choice.  Was there any attempt by the police to do anything other than kill this teenager?  I ask that because of this sickening revelation:
--
The 19-year-old ran towards the cemetery, then stopped and turned around, aiming his gun at the armed officer.
"Fearing that Mr Kelly-Tumarae was going to shoot him, the officer discharged a volley of shots. Mr Kelly-Tumarae remained standing, and believing he had missed, the officer fired another volley of shots," the report says.
A total of 14 bullets were fired from the police officer's weapon, with four wounding the teen. Another bullet appeared to have passed through his clothing, the report said.
The IPCA said this explained the large number of holes in Mr Kelly-Tumarae's clothing - a total of 13 were found - which the family have questioned.
--

The police officer in question riddled this guy with bullets.  After the first volley - and no return fire from the teenager - the reaction from the cop wasn't to call on him to surrender again, or for the cop to seek cover - no it was to open fire with another barrage: emptying the whole clip by the sounds of it. That isn't self-defence that is a deliberate killing.  We call that sort of deliberate killing, murder.  He tried to kill him 14 times over.  Was the police officer still fearing for his life when they squeezed off the fourteenth round from their Glock?

David Farrar at Kiwiblog offers this black and white opinion - which although disturbing would be a common position of most people, ie. a cop-worshipping establishment mentality:
--
In that situation the Police had no option but to shoot him. If you have armed police telling you to surrender, you don’t point a gun at them. Mr Kelly-Tumarae is entirely responsible for his own death.
--

The police had far more control and were much more capable of making and considering their own options than a frightened, drunken teenager being chased around town.  The person who pulled the trigger - 14 times - is entirely responsible for the death.  Will they ever be held to account for their deliberate killing, ie. murder?  Of course not - this is New Zealand!  No policemen are murderers, no policemen are rapists, no policemen are corrupt...

NZ Police: wrong to stop

More casual fascism from the NZ Police today.  Most people won't have a problem with cops throwing up roadblocks wherever and whenever they like, but I do because it's fascism.  To make their job easier they do whatever they want - regardless of what the law says.  There is no way that questioning everyone at a checkpoint - ie. forcing them to stop and demanding they answer their questions on a state highway - is legal in this instance.  I don't believe it can be.  And of course this is a chance for them to carry out the secondary objective of filling their quotas with the typical harassment associated with checking the car and driver for any fault they can detect.  It's lazy policing being dressed up as a pro-active response.

NZ Herald:
--
A road block has been set up to talk to drivers travelling a rural Otago road where a 22-year-old man was killed yesterday.
The man was killed after an object smashed through the windscreen of his blue Subaru station wagon while he was driving along State Highway 6, near Wanaka about 6.25am.
[...]
Queenstown Detective Sergeant Brian Cameron today told Radio New Zealand all drivers heading along State Highway 6 were being questioned this morning.
"We've had the checkpoint in place this morning between the hours of 6am and 7am, stopping all vehicles travelling along the stretch of road where the crash occurred.
"We've had [a] very good and positive public response which has provided some information which may be of value to the investigation team."
Police were still interested in the movements of a white ute, which was heading out of Wanaka, on the north side of the Maungawera Hill towards Hawea, sometime between 6.15am and 6.45am yesterday.
[...]
The female passenger in the blue Subaru had to grab the car's steering wheel when the incident occurred, however she was uninjured.
"The passenger has provided a statement to police in which she indicates that she believes that something may have come from the rear of this vehicle travelling towards them.
"Of course, it's still very early in the investigation and we're open to all possibilities."
--

So wrong. Firstly, the police can only make a roadblock in the presence of a crime scene and at the moment they don't know whether it is a crime or not.  Secondly, the incident happened yesterday - a full 24 hours before - so they cannot reasonably impose a crime scene at this stage and then use that as an excuse to question every motorist on the road about something that might not even be a criminal matter.  Thirdly, the facts as reported by the victim's passenger - the only information available - indicates a white ute as the possible source of this object (but no indication of whether it was deliberate or accidental) in which case that ought to be the focus of the inquiry.  Setting up a dragnet to perchance get some information on a white ute from motorists who travel that route would be helpful, but it can't be lawful.

The power to do what they are doing is not here:

Section 35 of the Policing Act 2008:
--
(1) A constable may temporarily close to traffic any road, or part of a road, leading to or from or in the vicinity of a place, if the constable has reasonable cause to believe that—(a) public disorder exists or is imminent at or near that place; or(b) danger to a member of the public exists or may reasonably be expected at or near that place; or(c) an offence punishable by 10 or more years' imprisonment has been committed or discovered at or near that place.
--

It is not here:

Section 113 & 123 of the Land Transport Act 1998:
--
113 Enforcement officers may enforce transport legislation
(1) An enforcement officer in uniform or in possession of a warrant or other evidence of his or her authority as an enforcement officer may enforce the provisions of—
(a) the Local Government Act 1974, the Local Government Act 2002, the Road User Charges Act 2012, the Government Roading Powers Act 1989, the Railways Act 2005, the Land Transport Management Act 2003, and this Act:
(b) regulations and rules and bylaws in force under any Acts mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2) Without limiting any other powers conferred on an enforcement officer, an enforcement officer, in enforcing any provisions referred to in subsection (1), may at any time—

(a) direct a person on a road (whether or not in charge of a vehicle) to give the person's full name, full address, date of birth, occupation, and telephone number, or such of those particulars as the enforcement officer may specify, and give any other particulars required as to the person's identity, and (unless the person is for the time being detained or under arrest under any enactment) give such information as is within the person's knowledge and as may lead to the identification of the driver or person in charge of a vehicle:

(b) inspect, test, and examine—

(i) the brakes or any other part of a vehicle on a road or any associated equipment; or

(ii) a land transport document, or a document resembling a land transport document, displayed or carried on the vehicle:

(c) if the enforcement officer believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle on a road causes an obstruction in the road or to a vehicle entrance to any property or that the removal of the vehicle is desirable in the interests of road safety or for the convenience or in the interests of the public,—

(i) enter, or authorise another person to enter, the vehicle for the purpose of moving it or preparing it for movement; and

(ii) move, or authorise another person to move, the vehicle to a place where it does not constitute a traffic hazard:

(d) direct the driver or person in charge of a vehicle on a road to remove the vehicle from the road or a specified part of a road, if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that it causes an obstruction in the road or to a vehicle entrance to any property or its removal is desirable in the interests of road safety or for the convenience or in the interests of the public:

(e) forbid an unlicensed driver to drive a motor vehicle:

(f) forbid a person who is operating a transport service without a licence to operate that transport service.

(3) An enforcement officer in uniform or wearing a distinctive cap, hat, or helmet, with a badge of authority affixed to it, who is for the time being engaged in the regulation of traffic on a road, may—

(a) direct a person using a vehicle or riding or driving an animal on the road to stop the vehicle or animal, as the case may be, or to cause it to proceed in or keep to a particular line of traffic or direction:

(b) direct a pedestrian not to proceed across the road in contravention of a direction to stop given by the enforcement officer (whether given to pedestrians or to pedestrians and other traffic).

(4) In paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (2), road includes any land vested in or under the control of the Crown or any local authority.

[...]
123 Enforcement officer may seize and impound vehicle for up to 7 days where serious accident or hit and run offence or for failure to stop
(1) An enforcement officer may seize and impound a motor vehicle for such period (which may not exceed 7 days) as is necessary to preserve evidence (or to enable a scientific examination of evidence) or to establish the cause of a serious traffic accident, if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that—
(a) the vehicle has been involved in a serious traffic accident or a hit and run offence; or
(b) the driver has failed to stop in contravention of a signal or request made under section 114(1) or (2).
--

Lots of fascist bullshit, but no authority to stop and question drivers about a car accident and driver fatality that might be a crime (or might not be). 

They rely on the open-ended provisions in these Acts to stop and demand identity of motorists.  The statutory justification of erecting road blocks for gathering information from motorists for a specific purpose like this tragic incident is far from clear.

NZ Police: wrong to swear

The parliament had to rush this bill through yesterday - all in one sitting - because of a self-described "monumental cock-up" by the NZ Police.   It was disappointing that Hone Harawira wasn't there to chuck a spanner baton in the works and deny the necessary leave to push it through - now that would have been beautiful: to have these twits left twisting in the wind - all witless and warrantless.

Far from unusual or exceptional the public have come to expect this Keystone Cops blundering from these oafs in blue. People have come to accept the NZ Police are incompetent at every level and this is merely a footnote in a chapter in their sorry story.

RNZ news:
--
Parliament had to rush through a change to the Policing Act on Thursday after it was revealed 63 police officers had been incorrectly sworn in over the past four years.The blunder created a loophole which defendants could have used to challenge their arrests.
Police Minister Anne Tolley says the blunder is embarrassing and should never have happened.
A similar mistake was discovered four years ago.
Labour Party police spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says the minister needs to explain why she did not ensure the right processes were in place after that mistake.
Ms Tolley says the Police Commissioner has assured her it won't happen again.
[...]Acting Police Commissioner Viv Rickard told Morning Report it is clear the issue was the responsibility of the police, and an apology has been given to the minister.
--

The hilarity of their incompetence comes from the fact it was the NZ Police themselves who wrote their own Policing Bill in 2008.  The politicians didn't want a new Act and they didn't drive it either, all the work and the text came out of police headquarters as their own wish list - a list duly, dutifully rubber-stamped by the parliament.  So far so pathetic.  So when the Minister (as below) attempts to offer an excuse of a change in wording between a 1958 Act it is no excuse whatever - they did this to themselves.  The NZ Police can't even carry out their own laws they crafted and drafted for themselves, if that is not a reasonable example of incompetence what is?

Anne Tolley, Minister of Police:
--

Police Minister Anne Tolley says that an amendment to the Policing Act 2008 has been introduced into Parliament under urgency.
The Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill makes a technical change to the Act, which removes any doubt over the validity of the actions of a small number of former constables who have rejoined the Police.
63 officers who returned to Police between October 2009 and July 2013 were sworn in by District Commanders or Inspectors. This would have fulfilled the requirement under the Police Act 1958, however the Policing Act 2008 included a new procedure which states that the oath can only be administered by the Commissioner or a person specifically authorised by the Commissioner.
All 63 officers were properly sworn in once this administrative error was identified.
“Police received advice from Crown Law that a legislative fix was also required,” says Mrs Tolley.
“To avoid any attempt by defendants to exploit this issue, the Bill will retrospectively authorise the oath given to the officers when they first rejoined the Police, as if it was administered by an authorised person.
“It’s disappointing that we are having to take this action, and I’ve expressed my concerns to the Commissioner.
“I’ve been assured that this will not happen again, and that Police now have the necessary safeguards in place.”

--

It won't happen again!  LOL. Of course it will.  If iPredict cares to run a book on when the NZ Police will come crying to their Minister demanding a clean-up bill for another one of their this-will-never-happen-again cock-ups: in the next 3 years it would probably be even money - in the next 5 years almost a certainty.

And what will happen if the NZ Police carry out another, routine, breach of the Policing Act or any other Act?  What will the Minister do exactly?  Who will be held to account?  Like now and in the past the answer is the New Zealand government will always validate the unlawful acts of their police force - no questions asked.

Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill - concerns

A member's bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, is back up for its final reading this afternoon.  I have written on the problems with this well-meaning bill in an earlier post. My SOP to remedy the situation didn't quite make it in time.  I had a email correspondence with the Greens spokesperson who was considering putting it up.  I'll OIA myself on it:

---
On 9/25/13, Eugenie Sage wrote:
> Kia ora Tim
>
> Kevin Hague passed on your draft SOP to me as Green Conservation
> spokesperson. I saw it 30 mins before the last debate session on the
> committee stages of the Bill   started. This finished 10 minutes ago..
>
> I'm not sure the SOP as drafted would have  improved the situation for
> customary fishers. There are no offence provisions  in relation to customary
> fishing.  As you know  section 26ZH in the Conservation Act says Maori
> fishing rights are unaffected by Part 5B which deals with freshwater
> fisheries and includes some offence provisions. The SOP  risked weakening
> the position of customary fishers by  inserting a provision which implies
> that there are offences and that these are to be treated as if they were
> offences in respect of warranted officers (section 41).
>
> Ngai Tahu was the only iwi to  submit on the Bill and did not raise
> customary fishing as an issue.
>
> I was unwilling to put forward an SOP which in the short time available to
> consider it,  I was uncertain whether it would improve the situation for
> customary fishers.
>
> Nga mihi
>
> Eugenie Sage, Green MP
>
> Green spokesperson on Water, Environment/RMA, Conservation, Local Government
> and Christchurch Earthquake Recovery
---

My response:

---
Tim Selwyn  Sep 25
 to Eugenie

Kia ora, Eugenie.  You gave a good speech.  Ngai Tahu have their own
provisions in subsection b - that's why they didn't object.  There
were seven other submissions and they were not from Iwi.  I think the
Bill's name meant it went under the radar.  But seriously, DoC just
got a wish list through and next time one of their officious rangers
is verbally abused by tangata whenua for trying to stop them fishing
that Crown agent can now get them locked up longer.  What are Maori
supposed to do? Stop fishing?  Each time they go back and get arrested
the sentence of imprisonment increases.  The only ones going to cop
the wholesale increased maximums you are voting for will be Maori who
refuse to fish like the Pakeha tell them to, ie. the customary fishers
who act like the s.26ZH is a fact. The Crown agencies, esp. DoC act as
though it isn't.  In the real world that statutory protection needs an
offence and a penalty attached.

This Bill is a tool to enforce the colonial state against the
indigenous people and their right to exist as a people of the land
more than it is to punish the red-herrings of Germans with gekos down
their trousers.  The question is not why s26ZH should be included as
an offence equivalent to obstruction of a warranted officer, but why
it has been excluded.  It's being treated like the Treaty has for too
long, as a token thing with no actions to enforce it.  Maori have
rights in name only without that offence and penalty being inserted.
Those are my thoughts.

I remain very sceptical about this Bill, incl. why the commercial
relativity of x3 (LawSoc submission) was not accepted.  The drafting
is odd, I can't find a similar instance of a penalty on a penalty that
has different criteria the way the commercial gain provisions are
worded.

Thank you for engaging.  Green MPs are the best.  Great comms to get
this far at short notice.  Nice speech too - only real critical input
I managed to hear of the debate.

Nga mihi.

Tim
---

 

Settlement Bills: Tuhoe's turn

Today's parliamentary order paper shows the government will be giving Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill its first reading this morning - that's scheduled for two hours.  Then there are two Bills together (Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill) - another two hours.  And if they have time they are on to the second reading of the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Bill - which I have had something to do with (and posted here).

The Tuhoe Bill is a settlement more of smoke and mirrors than of substance from what I can work out.  The Crown, having taken so much off the tribe, is very reluctant to give any of it back - and they aren't really giving any of it back.  The Crown is quasi/semi giving some elements of management of the Urewera conservation area (a National Park since the 1950s) back to a body that Tuhoe will - eventually - control.  That's not actually that much on paper, although because of the isolation it will mean a lot more in practice. But it isn't that much - and the boundary disputes with other Iwi caused by this settlement deal have upset relations somewhat with neighbours.  It's a better deal than many Iwi have got - mainly because of the geographical and historical circumstances - but like all deals it isn't nearly enough.  Tuhoe literally have all the high ground so this statute is a concession.

The best thing would be a restoration of the original 1896 Urewera Act that the conservative government of the 1920s abolished (amid the reaction to the Irish republican rebellion and wanting to settle returned servicemen cheaply onto land suitable for farming).  Just five years before that the same Massey government ordered in a police column to march on the Tuhoe village set up by Rua Kenana to arrest him on frivolous charges - the NZ Police shot two villagers dead, including Rua's son.  Just seven years ago the NZ Police - fully armed - marched on and occupied Ruatoki village in an operation to suppress a non-existent plot of rebellion.  So little has changed. 

No element of that 1896 Act exists in the Bill as far as I can see.  There is no provisions for self-government, there is no provision to get the district and regional councils out.  All the mechanisms of confiscation and interference in tribal life will continue under the Act.  I do not see any relief from these impositions in the Bill.

The make up of the trust to which the government is going to give the compensation is heavily corporate and not at all what one would expect from the populous and sectioned composition of the Hapu of that Iwi.  It is very top-heavy and power is concentrated above the flaxroots under their scheme.  They are already building their capital at Taneatua before the Bill is through the House.  From what I can work out this is all Tamati Kruger rather than a team effort.  He is front and centre. 

There have been groups within Tuhoe opposed to this plan and they have protested all around the rohe, but without much visibility or media attention.  This will go to select committee who will almost certainly want to hold meetings there at which point it becomes interesting.

The ouster

Heard Len Brown on the radio just now telling media that the Auckland Council's Code of Conduct is just this thing between councillors. Like it was nothing - as disposable as the potentially high-maintenance mistress at the centre of Len's epic down trou. He really doesn't get it. Like how Rodney Hide decided initially to tough it out when he got caught perking. Like that. Like he didn't hear the taunts of shame at an earlier appearance today - the first public outing since John Campbell's patsy interview the day it broke (my TV review on that is posted up on The Daily Blog.) Len has shown that he uses the office of Mayor and its power as an aphrodisiac, but assuming the right to commission his appointed advisors for sex romps all over the Town Hall however is just wrong regardless of any official code.

Len has dismissed the code and is about to hand out the perks of office to all his councillors - given they will determine any breach and the sanction this means he is buying his way out of trouble and, once again, abusing the office of Mayor. The councillors are compromising themselves when they do so. The Mayor is under investigation and there are reports in the news every day of government officials losing their jobs for having affairs and yet at Auckland Council it's all kosher, apparently. It's a joke and Len is the biggest joker. He is a hack and a face-slapping fool and now it turns out also a bit of a sleaze. In any other country they would describe a Mayor who keeps a mistress on the city payroll as corruption; but in NZ the political establishment looks upon this as some sort of 'daggy Dad moment'. They are a joke. The women who validate Len's behaviour have to ask themselves what their conduct limits are for public officials, esp. giving men a green light to predate on the female staff.

If he had to cut his credit cards up on Campbell Live to regain people's trust he wouldn't spend recklessly ever again will he now do the same to the Mayoral cock? Gotta ask. If he says it's a 24/7 job (and they are certainly remunerated as if it were) then all that rooting is on the clock.

It's going from lenslide to lenicide. It's unlenable, it's lenbarassing.

The problem for Len is that in the same audio today he has admitted that he wrote a reference for his mistress when they were 'in a relationship', but that 'it was early on' - as if that means it was not as bad! It is actually worse. Early on means he was using his office for favours or to seek further favours from her, or maybe it was her reward for lenny-lenny not so long time. It's all part of his panties-down pantomime and that job placement part can be unravelled by asking His Worship-elect: 'How many references of a similar nature have you given out to your other Ethnic Advisors? If it's just her then he's lenburger.
There are more questions every day and yet, if I understand it, he turns up to the councillors induction today to preach to them about accountability, standards and setting an example. How much longer can they tolerate this?

Len's daks are around his ankles and the Aucklanders are still saying the Emperor is technically still wearing his tie and that we need the Emperor to contain rates and cut ribbons and stuff and so, basically, he could have set fire to Santa and be raping the elf children on a float down Queen Street at the Farmers parade and the jaded Aucklanders will still give him another three years.

Get rid of him if he won't get rid of himself. What are the ousting provisions?

Len's done nothing wrong? What the Code of Conduct says

Len's done nothing wrong... ?  Oh really.

From his Council's Code of Conduct (my bolding of the relevant parts):
--
2.6. Summary
The objectives of a Code of Conduct are to set out:
the conduct of members toward one another, staff and public;
how information is disclosed;
legislation that applies to the actions of members;
the relationship between elected members and management.
 [...]
4. Objective
The objective of the code is to meet the requirements as summarised in 2.6 of the Code and to enhance:
the effectiveness of the Auckland Council in meeting its statutory responsibilities for good local government;
the credibility and accountability of the Council within its community; and
mutual trust, respect and tolerance between all elected members and between elected members and management.
[...]
5. Key Principles
[...]
5.2. Honesty and Integrity Members have a duty to act honestly and with integrity at all times.
[...]
5.4. Declare private interests
Members must declare any private interests or personal benefits relating to their public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts of interest in such a way that protects the public interest. This means fully disclosing actual or potential conflicts of interest; avoiding any financial or other obligation to any individual or organisation that might reasonably be thought to influence them in the performance of their duties.
5.5. Impartiality
Members should make decisions on merit and in accordance with their statutory obligations when carrying out public business. This includes the making of appointments, awarding of contracts or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits. This means fairness to all; impartial assessment; merit selection in appointments and in purchase and sale of council’s resources; considering only relevant matters.
5.6. Accountability
Members are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and should consider issues on their merits, taking into account the views of others. This means co-operating fully and honestly with the scrutiny appropriate to their particular office.
5.7. Openness
Members should be as open as possible about their actions and those of the Council and should be prepared to justify their actions. This includes approaching decision-making with an open mind and a willingness to listen to differing points of view. This means giving reasons for decisions; communicating clearly; not being close minded and taking personal ownership of comments made publicly.
5.8. Respect
Members should treat others, including council officers, with respect at all times. This means not using derogatory terms towards others, or about others, including in public-facing new media; not misrepresenting the statements or actions of others (whether they be other individual members, the Governing Body, Local Boards, committees or officers); observing the rights of other people; treating people with courtesy, and recognising the different roles others play in local government decision-making.
5.9. Duty to Uphold the Law
Members should uphold the law and, on all occasions, act in accordance with the trust the public places in them.
5.10. Stewardship
Members should ensure that the Council uses resources prudently and for lawful purposes, and that the Council maintains sufficient resources to meet its statutory obligations.
5.11. Leadership
Members should promote and support these principles by example.
[...]
7. Relationships and Behaviours
[...]
7.2. Relationships with Chief Executive and Staff
The effective performance of the Council also requires a high level of cooperation and mutual respect between elected members and staff. To ensure that level of cooperation and trust is maintained, elected members will:
 [...]
make themselves aware of the obligations that the Council and the Chief Executive have as employers and observe those requirements at all times;
treat all employees with courtesy and respect (including the avoidance of aggressive, offensive or abusive conduct towards employees);
observe any guidelines that the Chief Executive puts in place regarding contact with employees;
not do anything which compromises, or could be seen as compromising, the impartiality of an employee;
avoid publicly criticising any employee in any way, but especially in ways that reflect on the competence and integrity of the employee;
[...]
7.7. Conflicts of Interest
Attached as Appendix 1 to this Code is the Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. It is a requirement of this Code of Conduct that all elected members fully acquaint themselves with, and adhere strictly to, its requirements. These cover two classes of conflict of interest:
A financial conflict of interest
[...]
A non-financial conflict of interest does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.
The policy also requires elected members to make full and complete annual declarations of interest.
7.8. Ethics
The Auckland Council seeks to promote the highest standards of ethical conduct amongst its elected members. Accordingly, elected members will:
claim only for legitimate expenses as laid down by any determination of the Remuneration Authority then in force, and any policy of the Council developed in accordance with that determination;
not influence, or attempt to influence, any Council employee to take actions that may benefit the member, or the member’s family or business interests;
not use Council resources for personal business;
not solicit, demand, or request any gift, reward or benefit by virtue of their position. 8. Compliance
[...]
8.2. Lodging of Code of Conduct Complaints 
All complaints must be addressed to the Chief Executive (or his or her nominee).  Any allegation of a breach of the Code must relate to Section 7 of the Code, be in writing, make a specific allegation of a breach of the Code and provide corroborating evidence.
Complaints alleging a breach of the Code of Conduct may be made by any elected member or by the Chief Executive acting on behalf of staff or on behalf of a complaint from a CCO conveyed through that CCOs chief executive.
The Chief Executive may determine whether a complaint from a member of the public concerning an elected member constitutes a question of breach of the Code of Conduct. In making this determination, the Chief Executive may consult a convenor of the Independent Conduct Review Panel. The Chief Executive may determine jointly with a convenor of the Independent Review Panel to dismiss or terminate a complaint from a member of the public on grounds which may include that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or has been adequately resolved.
8.3. Preliminary Steps
The Chief Executive may request from the complainant further information/ evidence in support of the complaint and, if considered appropriate, may also request a preliminary statement in response from the elected member against whom the complaint is lodged.
8.8. Responses to Breaches of the Code
To avoid doubt, a breach of the Code of Conduct does not constitute an offence under the Local Government Act 2002. The exact nature of the action the governing body/local board may take depends on the nature of the breach and whether there are statutory provisions dealing with the breach Where there are no statutory provisions, the governing body or local board may take the following action:
censure;
removal of the elected member from representative type bodies;
dismissal of the elected member from a position as Chair or Deputy Chair of a committee.
A decision to apply one or more of these actions requires a resolution to that effect.
--

Contrary to what Len's political backers are claiming there are several grounds upon which he could be at fault in the conduct of these trysts.  Using the arse of the advisor he appointed (and who he would soon be considering for re-appointment) to polish the table in the Ngati Whatua Room at the Town Hall while his daks are round his ankles - and while a mortified security guard looks on (knowing full well he would be sacked for the same behaviour) - is a conduct issue now it is in the public domain.  Allegations His Worship engaged in heavy breathing sex calls and wanking at his work desk in the Mayoral office during work hours all in pursuit - persistent, stalkerish pursuit according to the allegations - of one of his appointees is of public interest. 

If what Len has been up to is all kosher then what does that say about the standards at Auckland Council and his future behaviour?  What example is Len setting for the dozens of elected officials and the thousands of staff he leads?  Is it a Town Hall or Len's love nest?  Too busy drilling the help and not enough helping to drill the terminably delayed city rail tunnel.  No wonder Len has been so invigorated... but so distracted.

So the mistress - as a staff member (an advisor to the Mayor appointed by the Mayor) - may complain via the CEO, or a member of the public may complain via the CEO. There is definitely a case for Len to answer beyond the personal and family crisis he has brought upon himself.  All it takes is for one person to complain and the shit ball starts rolling.

---
UPDATE 17/10/2013 3pm:
NZ Herald reporting:
--
Auckland Council chief executive Doug McKay is this afternoon expected to announce an inquiry into the Len Brown sex scandal.
The decision was made following inquiries from the New Zealand Herald about whether Mr Brown's affair breached the council's code of conduct and conflict of interest policies.
--

That was predictable, but a bit quicker than I imagined.

Len's down trou

One of these men is a rambling clown who likes spurting his little gun, the other one is Steve Martin.

What an almighty down-trou!  Couldn't have happened to a nicer politician that has deserted his principles.  Len, you are a little fucker - aren't you.

Whaleoil:
--
by Stephen Cook
Len Brown’s hold on the Auckland mayoralty is in serious jeopardy following bombshell allegations of a two-year extra-marital affair with a council employee 25 years his junior.
[...]
Brown did not return phone calls or messages this afternoon despite multiple attempts to contact him.

According to a sworn affidavit provided by the woman, Brown – who she rated a ‘generous’ 4 out of 10 in the lovemaking stakes – would also routinely masturbate at his desk while chatting to her on the phone.
[...]
The woman has decided to speak out about the two years she spent as the mayor’s mistress after claims Brown treated her no better than “a porn star” – a reference to how, according to her, it was common practice for him to ejaculate on her during sex.
“At least if I was a hooker I would have got something out of this, but I got nothing. I was starting to feel like Monica Lewinsky,” she said.
The affair is not only likely to cost the father-of-three his career and reputation but also his 20 year-plus marriage to lawyer wife Shan Inglis. The couple have three daughters together.
[...]
She says she and Brown were having sex in the Ngati Whatua Room at the Auckland Town Hall when a security guard burst in through the door.
“It was horrific. I had no clothes on and Len had his pants down around his ankles. The security guy was clearly embarrassed and made some apologetic noises before closing the door and leaving.
“Len was distressed, saying ‘This is it, this is it… how are we going to get out of this.”
But ‘get out’ they did, she says.
“We laid low waiting for him to come out with all the detail but he never did. We were very surprised.”
--

And it just gets better and better (I mean worse and worse), but this is not the place for such salacious details. Keeping a mistress may be de rigueur  for the continental Europeans, but in the Anglosphere wowserocracies it is decidedly dodgy.  And he's a Christian too, isn't he?  If this scandal had broke during the campaign what would have happened?

NZ Herald this afternoon:
--
Mr Brown was not immediately available for comment.
Council chief executive Doug McKay went to the mayoral office at the Auckland Town Hall about 3pm to meet senior staff in Mr Brown's office and deputy mayor Penny Hulse.
Talks took place in Mr Brown's personal office.
After the talks he told the NZ Herald he had spoken with the mayor's staff about the situation.
"My job is to go back and run the organization.
"He needs some space to deal with it. He has got some family and personal issues to work through and I think we should give him a bit of time to do that," said Mr McKay,
He said he had not spoken to Mr Brown about the matter.
Mr McKay said the mayor was not at the mayoral office. His mayoral car was not parked at its spot outside the town hall.
--

And what will happen now?  Live down the disgrace... grow... learn... move on...?  Or resign in humiliation and a by-election?  Len probably needs a very great deal of space right now.  From hero to zero in 72 hours.  Second day back on the job and he hits a Cam Slater shit storm from Hell.  But I have no sympathy for a politician who connives with the National government to allow a giant tunnelling machine to be used on a motorway under Waterview and Avondale before they have even properly zoned the CBD rail link.

When he should of been focussed on the rail loop we find the only thing Len's being tunnelling over the last two years has been his pet staff member.

TV Review

My TV review is posted up over at The Daily Blog.  This week: 'Xenotype' on the impact of foreign and migrant workers in the NZ media.   And as I flick through today's local rag I see even more of this problem: two instances where locals have rung the 111 emergency number and have got staff speaking in English and Irish accents who haven't been able to understand Maori names and have dispatched ambulances to the wrong end of the district and even the wrong end of the country! NZ is a colonial backwater of Xenophiliacs - as the ridiculous situation with this call centre proves we are literally dying for the love of foreigners.

Board gaming: drawing a line on local electioneering

The Belgians went without a government for over a year with few problems.  The American government is currently working through a Congressional budget crisis which has seen their federal level shut down for the last fortnight (with a debt default deadline looming in a few days which could be big trouble if their Congressmen keep playing chicken).  It does not seem necessary for a government - the Cabinet or the political leaders - to be in charge 100% of the time, or for a full term, for a democratic state to function.  As long as the money is voted (or even in the case of the US when it has expired) there is a period when things will tick along as normal. 

The concept and expectation of political oversight in the system is crucial, but there are times and situations when there are only minor consequences of power and decision-making not being exercised by the Executive or the Legislature (and of course some would say there is great deal to be gained by any sort of limitation or exclusion of politicians altogether!)  I state all this to demonstrate the difference between the central and local government rules around elections in NZ.

Parliamentary elections are full of jargon: writ days, returns, quotients, proportionality, electoral officers etc., but the idea is that when an election is called the parliament concludes several weeks beforehand and the election period begins wherein MPs cannot spend on parliamentary services.  The MPs and Ministers continue to hold office in the election period, but are limited in their activities.  The reason for these rules is simple: the incumbency advantage of using those parliamentary resources - and the free publicity - is unfair on the other candidates.  The local body elections, though, appear to be conducted with quite a different understanding - a misunderstanding.

The local body politician has enough tricks up their sleeve already without having to game the election.  For example you can't help but notice all the high-profile public works (the pointless cosmetics of re-sealing a perfectly good main road again, the maintenance and cleaning of the local shopping centre etc.) will coincide with the start of the election period to give the impression the incumbents have achieved something tangible. This delivery roll-out is totally political - and also unavoidable.  I accept these things will happen and there is very little that can be done - or even that should be done about this. 

What I do object to however is attempting to run local councils right through the election period as if it was business as usual.  It is far from usual and the necessity of a local body (and all their committees) having to meet in the middle of an election is non-existent.  What possible urgency is there that committees are meeting up to two days before the election date - and almost three weeks after electors have their ballots?  Any meeting is basically going to be unfocussed anyway with such a huge distraction as an election with a propensity to descend into politics and electioneering. How can it not? It is all highly suspect. Crazy wrong.

If it is good enough for parliament to close for a month or two then it should be more than acceptable and reasonable for a local council to close up shop in plenty of time for the elections.  It is not right that the people already in office get to set and use the meetings schedule as part of their hustings.  Setting a hard date for the dissolution of the council and its boards - like 40, 50 or 60 days before the election - would be a welcome improvement to the situation.  Here's hoping this issue will garner some attention in the review parliament normally conducts after each local body election.

TV Review

My TV review is posted up over at The Daily Blog. This week: Message brought to you by the New Zealand Government - Part 2.

Bain family massacre: reloaded

It's the killing that just keeps giving.

NZ Herald:
--
Fingerprint and firearms experts have rejected claims Robin Bain had gunpowder marks on his fingers, police say.
Claims were made on TV3`s 3rd Degree programme in June that the marks shown in photographs were made by loading the rifle's magazine.
But police said scientific analysis by fingerprint and firearms experts did not support that conclusion.
--

Well they would say that, wouldn't they. The truth is, of course, that the Police and the David Bain defenders are both right and wrong.  Robin didn't make those marks by loading the gun.  But they are from the cartridge...

When you see the impossibly close proximity - barely a centimetre, maybe less - from the hand of a man who has just shot himself in the head (supposedly) to the magazine lying on its edge on the carpet it is difficult not to draw the conclusion this is a staged scene.  It couldn't be more staged.  It is there to demonstrate the correlation between the marks on the fingers and the magazine. 

Only two people would have reason to arrange the body and the magazine in such a fashion: a police officer or forensic expert for the purposes of a photograph because they have noticed the marks and believe it to be from the magazine, or... the murderer trying to alert the police and the forensic experts to the markings and its relationship to the magazine. If anything this reinforces the very reasonable conclusion that David Bain was trying to cook up another alibi apart from the computer message. The chances of the murder-suicide standing a magazine on edge and having his hand land in that position is vastly, unreasonably remote.

Lordy, Lordie, Lordé, Miss Lorde

Tributes and acclaim are pouring forth this morning for Lorde - whose single "Royals" is now top of the Billboard chart.  The article doesn't mention this is the first time a NZer has got to No.1 [UPDATE: Maybe it was 'How Bizzare'? - At least this is the first time in the internet era at No.1.]

It's a catchy, poppy, tune so I am aware of Royals - although I keep substituting 'loyal' instead when I think of it, so that it sounds less of a horribly conceited young girl's ego and fulfilment projection.  As for the rest of the songs of hers I've heard (via Grooveshark cause it's not something I would pay for): they are billed as alternative, but not to my ears.  To me this is pure contrived, manufactured, production-line pop. [UPDATE: OK, I haven't really listened to the lyrics because it's all a bit bubblegum for my tastes and I haven't got the patience to try and listen to something I'm not that into, so these are my general, prejudicial hatings for someone I know nothing of. Please, please understand that before reading further. Please also bear in mind I lived in Devonport and went to Takapuna Grammar :/]

As for her as a phenomenon, it appears that she is a creation of wealthy, ambitious and indulgent parenting and as she has spent the last five years (a third) of her life under development and under contract with an American record company, so I'm not particularly astounded or indeed impressed, with the sort of rags-to-riches/discovered-talent stories circulating in the media.  This is very, very far from spontaneous.

The phenomenon is as contrived as the name. Lorde as a stage name isn't any more absurd than Snoop Whatever-animal-it-is-today, or Eminem, but it does encapsulate where it's at for her (and her management).  The little princess from Devonport is called Lorde and her dreams are coming true by singing a song about how a little princess thinks she is a little princess - appealing no doubt to all the other little princess wannabes who are downloading her stuff like it was porn.  Not my cup of tea.  [UPDATE: Neither is listening to the lyrics of pop songs my cuppa because on the radio she says it's not at all about that. I suppose my crusty old ears are so clogged with old man hair combined with the loss of the full range of frequencies that the kids can pick up means I've only ever heard the key words of Royal and put together the logical story: want to be royals, queen bee, live that fantasy. Loyal would be much better than Royals for that tune.]

As for the physical look, my first impressions (before I knew her age etc.) was that she was a late 20s or early 30s washed up teen pop star looking to rekindle earlier success by going all Kate Bush.  She looks like, and has the demeanour and attitude, of your typical skinny white girl wanker at the Elam School of Fine Arts - maybe that has something to do with my scepticism this isn't exactly raw talent.   What else was there to see behind the thick, goth-type, make-up and the impish, self-satisfied smirk like an only child on their birthday? The only thing I was astounded by was that I later learned she was only 16!  If that's what five years of intensive preparation for stardom does then Christ only knows what five years of actual stardom is going to do. [UPDATE: Commenter disputes this - 3 years - but I'm going off what I've heard as part of forming a first impression, which includes incorrect reports as well as the carefully controlled media content.]

With the usually credible Metro editor voicing breathless radio ads like he was Michael Hill, Jeweller - pumping their exclusive interview - I do wonder about the value of the hype.  It's so not about the music. 

Had to laugh when I saw a tweet saying in the UK people are pronouncing it lordy. That's what you get for teenage pomposity.  Yes, I know I should be happy for her because she is one of us.

Pokies porkies

Len Brown is a muppet - isn't he?  He's a hopeless numpty from what I've seen.  He has no discernible critical faculty and has been adrift from his left wing supporters for some time after a series of ideological gaffes.  The worst and most unforgivable was his personal backing of the port company management when they tried to sack all the staff that do the actual work and locked them out, costing millions.  That particular piece of toast landed buttered side down on the pube-encrusted lino for Len, but he had to eat it anyway - he should have choked on it.  That event - from many - proved he was a man of the business elite and not the people.

What are Len's signal achievements? On his campaign site he promotes these:

Building strong communities

The Central Rail Link

Affordable Housing

Keeping Rates Low

Building jobs

Enhancing the environment

Going through this list shows a less than impressive leadership.

Building strong communities: Essentially an empty, wanky, statement.  He is taking credit for the normal, tedious business of the Council and its local boards. His lack of accomplishment is thrown into stark relief when he says:

"In particular, I will push to extend free entry to swimming pools to over 65s and disabled persons in a next term."

Meaning he hasn't even managed to do that one token policy in three years of bluster.  Could he set his expectations any lower?

The Central Rail Link:  During Len's term a giant tunnelling machine has begun digging a 7km long tunnel... for a motorway out the arse end of Mt Roskill.  Meanwhile the CBD rail corridor hasn't even been zoned.  Utterly hopeless.  To have the equipment needed - and the central government funding - for twin motorway tunnels in Auckland, but to have made no progress at all on the city rail loop demonstrates firstly his lack of vision and secondly his lack of influence.  And the long-term funding for the urban rail system as a whole? Much too difficult to have thought about, so he's leaving that till later.  But he is in favour of tolling and screwing the Auckland motorists as part of the package - charming.

Affordable Housing: This will be done via the government's Apartheidy sounding Special Housing Areas legislation - and Len's happy about it.  Gawdsake. House prices are out of control because of immigration and immigration alone (not land supply, not development contributions, not the RMA, not the Building Act, and not labour shortages).  Keep everything else constant and reduce immigration and Auckland's congestion and under-development issues will also ease, perhaps even to the point of sustainability.  But Len is a cheerleader for a million more people by lunchtime, so any commitment he pretends to make housing more affordable is a super, massive, gigantic, awesome lie.  The huge population changes he encourages makes Auckland less Auckland and more like any other generic colonial conurbanation around the Pacific Rim.

Keeping Rates Low: BFD. Big Fucking Deal.  So would any Mayor want to keep rates in check.  So do the Councillors. It isn't his achievement.

Building jobs: Right.  He backed the mass sacking of the port workers to convert their jobs to crappy casual conditions and bringing in scabs! And he reckons he's in favour of building jobs?! Developers are flying in Asian work gangs on lower rates and conditions than locals to build the houses (which will mostly be for Asian migrants anyway) and he thinks he is building jobs?  Really? Was that what he was doing swanning around the America's Cup in San Francisco during half the campaign waiting to coat-tail on an inevitable NZ victory (Ha!).  All that rubbed off was the smell of loser.

Enhancing the environment:  There doesn't seem to be anything here apart from the usual jargon about "liveable cities" and reducing carbon emissions.

A whole lot of not very much.

And now he's also a big fat liar:

NZ Herald:
--
Mayor Len Brown is trying to rewrite history over his support for the SkyCity pokies-convention centre deal, says mayoral challenger John Minto.
After being an enthusiastic supporter of the deal since day one, Mr Brown appeared to change tack in yesterday's Herald Super City election guide.
[...]
Mr Minto said Mr Brown had always strongly supported the trade-off of more pokies for a convention centre and voted against councillor Cathy Casey's motion in June to oppose "the Government's proposal for SkyCity to develop a convention centre in return for changes in our gambling legislation to increase gambling at the SkyCity casino"."Now in the middle of the election campaign, Mr Brown wants to rewrite history. What a shameless porkie. His fingerprints are all over this grubby deal with SkyCity," said Mr Minto, the Mana mayoral candidate.
When SkyCity was chosen to build a convention centre in June 2011, Mr Brown talked up the economic benefit to Auckland.
He opposed calls from councillors for a report on the social and economic impacts of more pokies at the casino, and figures on SkyCity's grants to charities.
Last year, he called for measures to reduce the impact of more pokies at the casino on problem gamblers, but did not oppose the funding model.
--

Len isn't much of an accomplished bullshitter.  He has legions of staff to do that crucial aspect of politics for him.  Len hasn't risen to any special level of bullshit artistry - so he's just a simple liar.