Public Works Act Quotes

I am currently working on a book that will be a guide to acquisitions under the Public Works Act from a lay-person’s point of view. Many of the following quotes will be incorporated into that book that will relay primarily my own experiences but also include comments from other affected property owners.

8/2/10 “It is noted that currently the Waitakere District Plan has a 2.88 metre designation along both sides of the corridor between Edmonton Rd and the motorway interchange. This will need to be uplifted and replaced to reflect the current concept design as it requires a wider designation up to 7 metres.” Hussam Abdul-Rassol, Manager : Transport Services WCC
8/2/10 “Public consultation will need to take various forms to ensure the public is fully informed of the Te Atatu Road corridor project. Due to the significant amount of land acquisition required, Council officers anticipate a lengthy consultation process.
Hussam Abdul-Rassol, WCC
30/9/10 WCC Council Meeting Clews/Neeson
“Agree that the Council’s preferred option for Te Atatu Road corridor improvements is as outlined in this report.”
20/9/11 “Auckland Council has authority to acquire land under the Act and to negotiate compensation for that land. It is responsible for ensuring that compensation is negotiated fairly in the interests of both ratepayers and affected landowners.”
AT pamphlet
20/9/11 “The test of value is the price that your land would fetch on the open market.” AT pamphlet
20/9/11 “The route along Te Atatu and Edmonton Roads experiences a high level of traffic on a daily basis, and the project’s benefits will improve traffic flow.”
Mohammed Alsakini, AT
20/9/11 “We have organised a Drop-in Day for property owners so the Auckland Transport project team can answer any questions.” Mohammed Alsakini, AT
20/9/11 “It is important for you to note that Auckland Transport will pay a fair market value for the land it acquires and will also reimburse your reasonable legal and valuation costs associated with the acquisition.” Mohammed Alsakini, AT
7/10/11 “Ms Hunter says it’s too early to say how much Auckland Transport is budgeting for land acquisition.” Western Leader
26/10/11 “A drop-in day was held on Saturday 1 October to commence consultation with key stakeholders. About 50 property owners attended the meeting.”
AT Business Report
27/10/11 “Formal negotiations, under the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981, are planned to commence in February 2012.” Michael Riley, AT
27/10/11 “The time taken for negotiation does largely depend on the property owner’s preparedness to negotiate in good faith.” Michael Riley, AT
3/11/11 Information Report to HMLB
4/11/11 Sharon Hunter said there would be little or no impact on residents like Osborne. Western Leader?
5/11/11 “What gives AT the right to take my land?
A designation is a provision in a district plan that allows a council to use land in future for a public work or project. It is a signal to landowners and prospective purchasers that the land will one day be needed for a road or similar public work.”
AT pamphlet
14/11/11 “I do not consider there is any reason why Auckland Transport would revisit the decision for construction of cycle lanes on both sides of Te Atatu Road.”
Darryl Griffin, Manager Democracy Services, AC
17/11/11 “We will provide you , and your tenants with at least 48 hours advance notice of a site visit.” Mohammed Alsakini, AT
17/11/11 “We expect that we will be able to present indicative design options for your property access by 16 December 2011.” Mohammed Alsakini, AT
17/11/11 “The accredited supplier will ensure that the compensation negotiated is “fair” both to you, the landowner, and the Crown.” Mohammed Alsakini, AT
21/11/11 “ACPL will engage with the landowners in informal negotiation prior to commence the formal process.” Mohammed Alsakini, AT
22/11/11 “The results of the consultation will be made available end of November as the close off of the submission period was end of 21 November 2011. The results will be summarised for external parties’ use, with individual feedback not supplied due to confidentiality requirements.” Mohammed Alsakini, AT
23/11/11 “A Public Open Day was held on Saturday 5 November. AT and NZTA jointly presented the latest design for Te Atatu Road and the motorway interchange. Approximately 185 visitors attended and feedback forms were made available to receive comments from the public on proposed designs or they could make submissions online until 17 November through the project webpage.”
AT Business Report
9/12/11 “I advise that the blue-shaded area represents the area of land that was originally designated in, I believe, 1986. The blue-shaded area is 2.88 metres deep. More recently in the course of the engineers’ developed design, at this position along Te Atatu Rd, additional land beyond the original designation is now needed.”
Michael Riley, AT
9/12/11 “It is not necessary to amend the District Plans because the excess land take can be acquired using the PublicWorks Act (PWA) process (through AC). No further designation process will be undertaken as part of this land acquisition exercise for this project.” Owena Schuster, AT
9/12/11 “Can you please endeavour to direct all your communications to me in future as your first point of contact as this will help in obtaining prompt responses to you.” Owena Schuster, AT
9/12/11 “Auckland Transport as an entity takes responsibility for the external communications of the organisation – any response you get is from the organisation, and does not reflect the personal views of any individual.” Owena Schuster, AT
13/12/11 “It is not necessary to amend the District Plans because the excess land take can be acquired using the Public Works Act (PWA) process (through AC), hence, no further designation process will be undertaken as part of this land acquisition exercise.” Mohammed Alsakini, AT
16/12/11 “TPOG is concerned that the budget of $4m allocated for property purchase may not be sufficient. As discussed, the if amount of money turns out to be inadequate, then that’s a problem for AT, not the property owners.”
Roger Wilson, AT
21/12/11 “As you have already been provided with a summary of the information contained in the body of these submissions your request for what is essentially the same information but in a different form is considered to be frivolous (section17(h))
Roger Wilson, AT
9/1/12 “It is not a statutory requirement that a Council entity must designate land it requires for public work.” Roger Blakeley, Chief Planner, AC
9/1/12 “In the current situation Auckland Transport has obviously identified it needs more land for the roading upgrades and has chosen to negotiate directly with affected land owners rather than amend existing designation.” Roger Blakeley, AC
9/1/12 “A budget line of $5,067,000 for “Te Atatu Rd corridor improvements” was contained in the transport component of the materials submitted by Auckland Transport to Auckland Council for the 2011-2012 Annual Plan.” Roger Wilson, AT
17/1/12 “It is an Auckland Transport decision whether they choose to use the designation process to acquire land for roading projects.” Roger Blakeley, AC
24/1/12 re Property Acquisition outside designation. “Auckland Transport is not required to notify Auckland Council of its intentions and has not done so.”
Darryl Griffin, AC
26/1/12 “ACPL’s intention is to negotiate with affected owners on a willing buyer willing seller basis and to compensate them, applying principles of the Public Works Act 1981.” Linda Holdaway, ACPL
3/2/12 “An offer to buy the property outright was declined by you.” (Bunkum!)
Linda Holdaway, ACPL
3/2/12 “With respect to the PWA our intention is to reach agreement in all cases, therefore it is our intention to act under S.17. This applies to all the owners.”
Linda Holdaway
13/2/12 “Auckland Transport Board meetings are not subject to LGOIMA. There is no statutory timeframe that requires Board agendas and papers to be available publicly before meetings.” Darryl Griffin, AC
15/2/12 re Complaints System “In my opinion transparency is not a major goal.”
Darryl Griffin, AC
19/2/12 “Raised your concerns at Auckland Transport board meeting. Was told Auckland Transport staff are consulting you and other residents.”
Mike Lee, AC Councillor Board member, AT Board
28/2/12 “Hi Gary – just a quick note to let you know that we are still working on the new garage/access for you.” Linda Holdaway, AT
23/3/12 “We can’t change the past so relitigating it is not going to assist with progressing your concerns.” Stephen Rainbow, AT
4/4/12 “I see no basis to take any further action.” David Warburton, CEO, AT
16/5/12 “You questioned and were reassured that the council would take care of all consents etc required for the garage.” Linda Holdaway, ACPL
5/7/12 “The term reasonable costs is included in the Public Works Act to stop the potential for rogue professionals increasing their fees beyond what is reasonable.”
Mark Hannan, AT
5/7/12 re front yards becoming less than 3 metres “Under the principle of existing use rights there will be no breach in this case even if the section becomes smaller than current regulations allow.” Mark Hannan, AT
6/7/12 “AT has no list of “rogue professionals” as such.”
Roger Wilson, AT
9/7/12 “Arguably choosing to proceed with a valuer who is charging substantially above the “normal” cost, would be a breach of this duty to mitigate loss and the additional costs incurred by the owner would not be recoverable.”
Simpson, Grierson for ACPL
11/7/12 “The government does provide a subsidy for the overall project based on broad criteria but it is not contingent on the inclusion or omission of a cycle lane.”
Alex Sie, Parliamentary Agent
2/8/12 “Please be assured that Auckland Transport endeavours to act in a fair and transparent manner in its interactions with the public and we can assure you that the owners will not be financially disadvantaged.” Len Brown
14/8/12 “As the legal test for existing use rights requires a factual analysis of the factors set out above, it is not possible or appropriate for Auckland Council to give an assurance that existing use rights would apply to all properties affected by any road widening works in Te Atatu. There is a statutory process under section 139A of the RMA whereby persons can seek an existing use certificate that confirms existing use rights.” Darryl Griffin, AC
28/9/12 “The writer endeavoured to arrange a property inspection in order to complete the valuation but the landowner withheld his consent to do so.” (Bunkum!)
Alan Roberts, Valuer, Roberts McKeown Ltd
9/10/12 “I have sent ACPL and (sic) amended report simply stating that — I was instructed to prepare a roadside valuation.” Alan Roberts, Valuer
10/10/12 “The decision to proceed with the project was originally taken by Waitakere Council through the Infrastructure and Works Committee in 3rd February 2010, and then by full Council in 29 Sept 2010.”
Doug Snell, Acting Manager Property, AT
10/10/12 “Since Te Atatu Rd represents an important link in the Auckland Regional Cycleway Network, the inclusion of a cycleway as part of this corridor improvement project is required.” Doug Snell, AT
10/10/12 “The Local Board has been consulted and kept updated throughout the whole public consultation and design process.” Doug Snell, AT
11/10/12 “I believe that best way forward is to put this matter behind us and carry on with your continued cooperation.” “It would be very helpful, going forward, if you could provide me with the name of your valuer and solicitor, for my records.”
Linda Holdaway, AT
19/10/12 “Thank you for your email of the 17th October with the offer of a suitable viewing time. Unfortunately, because your email was sent after the close of business on the 17th, I did not receive the email until there was insufficient time for the valuer to meet your proposed time.” Linda Holdaway, AT
25/10/12 “Apologies for the lack of contact! Earl Gordon has informed me that your complaint is due to be discussed at a Professional Practices Committee meeting tomorrow Friday. He should be in contact with you in due course thereafter.”
Deidre Moran, Membership Services Manager, Property Institute of NZ
2/11/12 “Please desist from advising property owners not to reach agreement with AT/ACPL.” (Bunkum!) Michael Riley, AT
2/11/12 “Please do not pass on any details of others’ negotiated agreements to other residents.” (We live in a Democracy!) Michael Riley, AT
13/11/12 “Upon completion of my investigation report, the file will be sent to the Valuer’s Registration Board.” John Reid, Valuer, Logan Stone Ltd
30/11/12 “I consider the staff have provided you with appropriate responses and will now treat the matter closed.” David Warburton, CEO, AT
21/12/12 In response to my request for answers to questions I put to the HMLB on 9 December re the Te Atatu Road widening project.
“Should you wish to proceed please arrange to either forward to us by cheque, or electronically transfer $1,900 to our account.” Roger Wilson, AT
22/12/12 “I have read Michael Riley’s letter of 2nd November 2012 carefully and in my view I do not believe it is threatening.” Lester Levy, Board Chairman, AT
22/12/12 “I would reflect that my experience is that differences of opinion are best resolved by measured and constructive dialogue (face to face).” (I made several offers to meet Lester Levy face to face to no avail.) Lester Levy, AT

22/2/13 “I am very pleased to advise that Jack Burton has been appointed to help Te Atatu residents affected by the Te Atatu Road widening project.”
Vanessa Neeson, Chair, HMLB
27/3/13 “We are being requested to serve a notice pursuant to Section 18 of the Public Works Act 1981 to formally invite you to sell the required land to Auckland Council.” Linda Holdaway, ACPL
28/3/13 “The local board have had information provided in relation to the project which has been adequate for our non-decision making role.” Vanessa Neeson, HMLB
5/4/13 “The request to ACPL to serve a notice subject to Section 18 was a corporate decision, not attributable to any individual Auckland Transport Manager.”
Owena Schuster, AT
7/4/13 “I understand that Linda Holdaway has indicated that Auckland Transport is considering serving Section 18 notices under the Public Works Act 1981.”
David Rankin, CEO, ACPL
10/4/13 “The evidence before the Board does not enable it to conclude that the Board should order a formal inquiry.”
Michelle Doyer, Registrar, Valuers Registration Board
18/4/13 “Your concerns about process to date and the possible use of a S18PWA 1981 Notice of Desire to Acquire should be directed to Council.”
Michael Appleyard, Private Secretary for Hon Maurice Williamson
9/5/13 “I would urge you to move forward constructively so that we can resolve matters without recourse to statutory procedures.”
Sir John Wells, Chairman ACPL Board

Abbreviations used:
WCC Waitakere City Council
AT Auckland Transport
AC Auckland Council
NZTA New Zealand Transport Authority
ACPL Auckland Council Property Limited
HMLB Henderson-Massey Local Board

I would welcome any comments on this site from others who have been affected by the Act.

PUBLIC WORKS ACT BULLYING 2

Following broken arrangements I sent 6 specific questions to Linda Holdaway, negotiator for partial purchases of properties in Te Atatu South on 9th October 2012. Despite not receiving answers I agreed again to an internal inspection of my property. Once again there was a breakdown in communication. I informed Ms Holdaway I would resume communication once she answered my six specific questions.

On 27th March 2013 I received an email from Ms Holdaway advising me “we are being requested to serve notice pursuant to Section 18 of the Public Works Act 1981 to formally invite you to sell the required land to Auckland Council.” I rang her but she still refused to answer my questions from 6 months earlier.

On 7th April I sent an email to David Rankin CEO Auckland Council Properties Limited asking two specific questions:
1. Does ACPL have statutory authority to issue such notices?
2. Were you aware the major delays in my negotiation process have not been of my making?

Having received no reply by 16th April I rang Sue Ross, David Rankin’s EA to be told Mr Rankin had other priorities.

On 17th April I complained to Hon Maurice Williamson (my previous post on this blog site). An hour later I received an undated letter from David Rankin.

Here it is:
Dear Gary,
Thank you for your email dated 7 April 2013. I have been briefed on the matters you have raised in your email and can now respond.

ACPL is managing the partial acquisition of your property on behalf of Auckland Transport as part of the Te Atatu Corridor Improvement Project. The negotiation requires agreement with you on the reinstatement work, financial compensation for the land purchase and the other terms of the acquisition agreement.

It appears that the main thrust of your email of 7 April relates to the circumstances around contact with ACPL’s appointed valuer in September 2012. In particular you are seeking an answer to six questions that you raised in an email to Linda Holdaway on 9 October 2012. Linda replied to the substance of the email that same day but for clarity I am happy to confirm ACPL’s views on the questions you have raised.
1. Did Alan Roberts tell you he had arranged to ring me in 3 weeks after 14 September to arrange a time for a valuation?
Yes, he advised ACPL that he had contacted you on 14 September to arrange access to the property and been asked to call back in 3 weeks to discuss access arrangements. He has informed us that this was because you had yet to obtain feedback from your solicitor to the reinstatement proposals.
2. Did you instruct him to do a roadside valuation?
Yes, we requested this in order to prepare the offer sent to you on 5 October for the partial acquisition of the land. This offer invited you to engage your own valuer in order to negotiate the compensation amount.
3. Why? What was the hurry?
Given the partial nature of the acquisition we considered that the valuation advice based on the limited access was a sufficient basis on which to make an offer for the land and commence negotiations. This was done to continue progress with the acquisition.
4. Are you aware that Alan did not ring me subsequent to 14 September?
Yes, with a ‘kerb side’ valuation completed, we anticipated that any site access could be arranged once you had obtained valuation advice and any points of difference identified.
5. Are you aware of the clause in the valuer’s report “The writer endeavoured to
arrange a property inspection in order to complete the valuation but the
landowner withheld his consent to do so?
Yes, this was addressed in our emails to you of 9 October 2012, 11 October
2012 and 9 November 2012.
6. Do you agree that this is a misrepresentation of the facts?
No

In terms of this acquisition, ACPL on behalf of Auckland Transport is keen to complete the terms of the purchase. I understand that Linda Holdaway has indicated that Auckland Transport is considering serving Section 18 notices under the Public Works Act 1981. Any such notices are served by Auckland Council and will be delivered by ACPL.

We would hope that affected owners can engage co-operatively to resolve land sales without the need for recourse to the more formal acquisition processes that this Act allows.

In terms of progress with our negotiations in respect of your property, I am advised that you have indicated in June 2012 your agreement to the rein statement works proposed, subject to your solicitor’s review. You have yet to communicate your final view on this matter. Further, we are not aware as to whether or not you have engaged a valuer. We have also not received any comments from either you or your solicitor on the terms of the legal agreement or the compensation amount.

Please advise if you need any further information from ACPL to enable you to progress this acquisition. We would be pleased to arrange a meeting with you (and your solicitor if you desire), as soon as possible, to discuss any issues that are proving a hindrance to the acquisition being resolved in a timely manner.

Yours sincerely,
David Rankin
Chief Executive
Auckland Council Property Ltd

I was not happy with aspects of this letter so rang Sue Ross to ask for the email address of the Board Chairman, Sir John Wells. She refused to give it to me. I sent her an email but that brought no response either. At 5 pm I posted the following letter to Sir John Wells enclosing a copy of David Rankin’s letter.

Dear Sir,

This undated letter from your CEO is unacceptable.

On 14th September 2012, Alan Roberts, valuer appointed by ACPL, rang me at 12.50 pm and asked to make an appointment to inspect my property. I asked him to ring back in three weeks and he agreed to do so. I was surprised to receive an offer on 5th October despite having heard nothing further from Mr Roberts. I obtained the valuer’s report and when I asked why he had not rung me as arranged he said he saw no point. I asked what he meant and he said he had been instructed by Linda Holdaway to do a roadside inspection. I saw two points – basic courtesy and good business practice to follow through on arrangements made. His valuer’s report indicated a roadside inspection had been made on 25th September. I was perturbed by a misrepresentation of the facts in his comment “The valuer endeavoured to arrange a property inspection in order to complete the valuation but the landholder withheld his consent to do so.”
I also challenged Linda Holdaway on the matter but she said she saw it more as a “summary of the facts” rather than a “misrepresentation”. I was not happy and on 9th October sent her 6 specific questions.

I will now go through the feeble attempt by your CEO to give specific answers to the questions.
1. When the valuer asked for access I reasonably assumed he meant access inside the dwelling. At no stage was I advised there would be a roadside inspection.
2. Why did Linda Holdaway request a roadside inspection when the valuer had already made arrangements to ring back in three weeks to arrange “access”?
3. If a roadside inspection was considered sufficient why was I rung by the valuer to arrange “access”?
4. Despite getting Mr Roberts to ring me to arrange access Linda Holdaway then ordered him to do a ‘kerb side’ valuation, without having the decency to tell me of a change in the arrangements.
5. The quoted statement was a misrepresentation of the facts.
6. Despite all that has happened the CEO denies that statement was a misrepresentation of the facts.

Furthermore, on 27th March Linda Holdaway sent me a threatening email saying “we are being requested to serve notice pursuant to Section 18 of the Public Works Act 1981 to formally invite you to sell the land required to Auckland Council.”
I did not believe ACPL had such statutory authority so asked Linda Holdaway who, had issued such instructions. She was not prepared to be specific.
I emailed the CEO and Board Chairman of Auckland Transport to ask who specifically, had issued such a request. On 5th April I received a reply from Owena Schuster, AT acknowledging a request had been made but from no one person as it was a “corporate decision”

On 7th April I sent an email to David Rankin asking two specific questions.
1. Does ACPL have statutory authority to issue such notices?
2. Were you aware the major delays in my negotiation process have not been of my making?
David Rankin has specifically dodged the first by saying “I understand Linda Holdaway has indicated that Auckland Transport is considering serving Section notices under the Public Works Act 1981.” NO Linda Holdaway said “we are being requested to serve notice…”
As to the second, Linda Holdaway’s refusal to answer 6 specific questions delayed the process by six months. My solicitor was advised some months ago of the situation.

The dogged denial of your CEO, despite all that has gone on, that Alan Roberts’ misrepresentative statement was not a “misrepresentation of the facts” does little to engender goodwill and repair damage from misstatements of the past.

When I rang Sue Ross to ask for your email address this afternoon, she refused to give it to me before hanging up on me. My request by email for your email address at 3.52 pm has likewise brought no response. I am therefore sending this letter by surface post.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Osborne

PUBLIC WORKS ACT BULLYING

For those of you have never been subjected to a Public Works Act land acquisition, be thankful. Assurances of good faith bargaining don’t always eventuate.

Below is my letter to Hon Maurice Williamson of 17th April 2013

“Dear Sir,
I am writing re my property at 313 Te Atatu Rd.

On 20th September 2011 notices were sent out by Auckland Transport (AT) informing us parts of our properties in Te Atatu Rd were required for road widening. I immediately saw this would cause access problems for my garage and rang to advise accordingly.

On 5th November we were provided with some vague timelines.

On 14th February 2012 (5 months after initial notice) the Project Engineer visited my site (without a tape measure) and proceeded to illustrate how a skilful driver would be able to manoeuvre a Mini out of my garage and enter the main road in a forward position without any change to my garage.

On 14th September 2012, Alan Roberts, valuer appointed by Auckland Council Properties Limited (ACPL) rang me and arranged to ring back in three weeks.

On 5th October I received an offer for the land required from my property without having heard back from the valuer. I rang him and was told he had been instructed by Linda Holdaway of ACPL to do a roadside inspection.

On 8th October I asked him to retract a statement in his report claiming I had denied him internal access.

On 9th October I put 6 specific questions to Linda Holdaway regarding the matter. She had claimed Mr Roberts’ statement was not a misrepresentation of the facts but rather a “summary of the facts.”

On 10th October I lodged a complaint with the Valuers Registration Board.

On 11th October Linda Holdaway asked if they could have their valuer do an internal inspection of the property. I agreed but said in view of past events I would require any new appointments to be confirmed in writing.

On 15th October Linda Holdaway advised me of three possible viewing times.

On 16th October I submitted them to my tenants.

On 17th October my tenants advised me 10am Friday 19th October was acceptable. I sent an email to Linda Holdaway advising her of that.

On 18th October, having had no confirmation from Linda by 5 pm I cancelled the appointment and advised my tenants accordingly. I also sent an email to Linda advising of the cancellation.

On 19th October, shortly before 10 am Alan Roberts rang me and said Linda had had trouble with her computer. I told him the appointment had been cancelled.

On 8th November, despite all that had gone on, and her refusal to answer my questions, Linda Holdaway asked me to arrange an internal inspection with a new valuer.

On 12th November I advised her I would resume communication once my six questions were answered.

On 21st February 2013 Jack Burton, Community Advocate appointed by Henderson-Massey Local Board, paid for by AT, visited me and asked what was needed to progress matters. I told him answers to my six questions. He has since visited on 3 further occasions and when I asked him what the response had been from AT, he said they had told him they were “working on it.”

On 27th March I received an email from Linda Holdaway containing a veiled threat “We are being requested to serve notice pursuant to Section 18 of the Public Works Act 1981 to formally invite you to sell the required land to Auckland Council.” I asked who issued such an instruction but she would only say AT.

On 4th April I sent an email to David Warburton CEO, AT and Lester Levy Board Chairman, AT asking who had issued the instruction.

On 5th April I received an email from Owena Schuster, AT saying no one person made the request to ACPL, it was a “corporate decision.” She told me they intend to serve notices in “two to three weeks”.

On 7th April I sent an email to David Rankin CEO, ACPL asking
1. Does ACPL have statutory authority to issue such notices?
2. Were you aware the major delays in my negotiation process have not been of my making?

On 16th April at 1.50 pm I rang Mr Rankin’s EA to ask when I would get a reply. She said Mr Rankin had other priorities and she did not know.

Throughout this process I have found the bureaucrats dismissive of our concerns yet demanding and threatening when they want something. Many other property owners whose properties are under acquisition share my concerns.
1. Does ACPL have statutory authority to issue Section 18 notices?
2. Do you consider the process followed to date illustrates “good faith bargaining?”
Yours sincerely,
Gary Osborne”

Auckland Council Communication

Address to Henderson-Massey Local Board 4 April 2013

Madam Chair, Ladies and Gentlemen

Democracy is a strange animal. It is capable of camouflaging itself into unrecognisable forms. The department within Auckland Council entitled Democracy Services has the slogan “Enabling Democracy”. You can imagine my chagrin when I found out that an officer within that department was blocking my emails to elected representatives.

Following the questions I put to this Board on 1 November 2012 regarding the widening of Te Atatu Road, I have commented at subsequent meetings and indeed asked what the formal response was from Auckland Transport. I was disturbed recently to find out, Madam Chair, that despite receiving a copy of a letter from Michael Riley of Auckland Transport on 4 December 2012, at no stage have you indicated to me the existence of that letter, nor it seems to the fellow members of your Board.

In that letter it was stated “We (collectively) decided the best response to these particular questions is to assure the board that a post-project audit will be carried out and any concerns at that time could be reported with the benefit of hindsight.”
“any concerns could be reported with the benefit of hindsight”
You may well have shared this information with some members of your Board, Madam Chair, but let me remind you the Henderson-Massey Local Board comprises 7 representatives, not just yourself. Did you indeed share this information with any of your fellow Board members? The information sought affected not only me but owners of 108 other properties in Te Atatu South. I am amazed that you allowed yourself and consequently your fellow Board members to be so easily fobbed off.

On 28 February 2013 Auckland Council resolved to “Refer the complaint regarding censorship to the Chief Executive for investigation and a report back.”
On 13 March I was shut down half-way through my speech to the Accountability and Performance Committee – somewhat reminiscent of my speech to the HMLB on 7 April 2011 when you declined me permission to talk about the Film Studios.
Your letter received by me yesterday dated 28 March made no mention of the 4 December letter from Michael Riley.

For any democracy to function effectively there must not be impediments to communications between the participant parties. It’s time for this Board under your leadership, Madam Chair, to go beyond rhetoric and put into practice effective advocacy on behalf of the people you represent.

Auckland Council Grey Power

Address to Waitakere Grey Power Association 21 March 2013

Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
Two key words were heard time and time again in the lead up to the Super City –accountability and transparency.

In theory we live in a democracy. What’s that? It’s something many servicemen died fighting for. Literally it means power to the people as was the original concept 2600 years ago. Today, in practice, it often means power to the bureaucrats.

I want you to reflect on the thoughts of two philosophers –one was Irish, one was Greek. In the late eighteenth century Edmund Burke said “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Just over two thousand years earlier Plato said “The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

If you deal with Council on a regular basis there are two key words that you’d better get used to – procrastination and obfuscation. Councils don’t take kindly to criticism. If you dare to put your criticisms on paper or ask searching questions be prepared to experience lengthy delays and answers that are often no more than flannel. You will often be blocked at every turn. The Local Government Act is often used to delay matters rather than speed them up. You will often find Council officers reluctant to give specific replies to specific questions. They are masters of half-truths and well practised in the art of denigration by insinuation.

My first experience in dealing with a Council was in 1972. It was the Glen Eden Borough Council and Janet Clews was its Deputy Mayor. My next door neighbour in Tahi Terrace and I, fought for seven years to get a footpath. Then in 1979 when I was teaching at Kelston Boys High School and Janet’s husband Ernie was Chairman of the School Board, at a “meet the Board” function, Mrs Clews came over to me and said “I’ve got good news for you Mr Osborne. Our $5m loan has come through and we’re putting in a footpath in Tahi Terrace and stormwater drains and we’re resealing the road.” “That’s great,” I said. “Now I’ve got good news for you Mrs Clews, I’m leaving on Friday.” And so it was I moved to Te Atatu South.

It was not until 2002 that I started again taking a keen interest in Council matters. Waitakere City Council was proposing a new Civic Centre at an estimated cost of $25m. I, and many others signed John Riddell’s petition against it on the grounds that the existing site was quite suitable for expansion and had adequate parking. There’s only one problem with petitions. They may have 1000 signatures but it only counts as one submission. About the same time Waitakere City Council started coming down heavy-handedly on swimming pool owners with its particular interpretation of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act. A declaratory judgment was sought by WCC in 2003. In 2004 the council lost its case and $20,000 was awarded to POAG – the Pool Owners Action Group. It’s perhaps an ironic twist that today I am serving on AC’s policy committee for swimming pool fencing.

Swimming pool fencing also woke me up to the way democracy functions in a Council environment. In 2003, some three weeks before a full Council meeting I applied to speak on “Swimming Pool Fencing”. Three days before the meeting I was denied speaking rights on the grounds that the matter was “sub judice”. The following month I applied to speak on “Stormwater Retention Ponds”. Again, at the eleventh hour, I was turned down on the grounds that the matter could be sub judice. The following month I applied to speak on Democracy, with the added rider “surely that can’t be sub judice.” I was allowed to speak. After the Council’s loss of its declaratory judgment it introduced an exemption regime. At the time Councillor Pat Booth asked how many people would be involved in exemptions and was told “only a handful”. Since then hundreds of exemptions have been granted in Waitakere. It was ironic that monthly reports by the Legal Services Manager that had formerly been written were reduced to verbal reports to the Planning and Regulatory Committee. The Chair of that committee was Vanessa Neeson.

Every time there is a Local Body election the public are accused of apathy. As I’ve got older I’ve been convinced it’s not apathy but cynicism. To give one example, when WCC was drafting its own brothel by-law, there were 128 submissions. 120 submissions opposed the Council’s plan to allow brothels in residential areas, 8 supported it. The Council plan went ahead. Such actions make ratepayers cynical. At the time I asked to address the Planning & Regulatory Committee on the issue. I was declined permission. The Chair of that committee was Vanessa Neeson.

This is an election year. There will be lots of rhetoric, lots of promises,
glowing self appraisals in Western Leader Letters to the Editor.
Prospective Councillors and Local Board members will tell you how they believe in service to the community and want to act as your advocates to the best of their abilities.

One necessary qualification that I believe should be mandatory for all prospective candidates is the ability to read and digest a Profit & Loss Account and a Balance Sheet. How many of the incumbent representatives can claim to be able to do so competently?
The Film Studios is a prime example of what ratepayer money should not be spent on.
In 2008 total assets for AFSL were $15m. By 30/6/12 they had reduced to $8.5m. The Board Report of ACIL in October 2012 showed asset value as at 31/8/12 as $4.8m. Despite this, moves are secretly being made as we speak for a bigger better Film Studio probably around the $50m mark entirely funded by the ratepayers of Auckland. I quote from a report that most Councillors, if not all Councillors, are unaware of. “Public sector organisations generally invest in order to overcome a market failure.” In other words, the private sector has pooh poohed the idea, so let’s use ratepayer money. Councils have no business investing ratepayer money in speculative ventures. They should concentrate on core services as they once did many years ago. The boat building industry is another example of wasted ratepayer funds.

If you attend Local Board meetings you will be amazed at the high percentage of speakers in Public Forum who go along asking for one form of grant or another from ratepayer money. The greatest portion of your rates goes to CCOs. What are CCOs? They are Council Controlled Organisations but the Council has virtually no control over them and they act as autonomous bodies. CCOs control services such as transport and water that were once core services delivered by Councils. Although they take the bulk of your rates their accountability to ratepayers has diminished as time goes on. I believe it is up to effective Councillors and Local Board members to push for far more accountability from these organisations. There has been a trend over many years for bureaucrats to run the Council and the “representatives” to merely act as rubber stampers.

Recently, in September 2011, 109 property owners in Te Atatu South were told parts of their properties were required for road widening. The public consultation on the road widening was a farce. A year later on 1 November 2012 I tabled a number of questions about costs to my Local Board. On 29 November I was told by the Board Chair they were awaiting a reply from Auckland Transport. When I decided to write directly to Auckland Transport I was told they required $1900 before they would provide me with answers. Unbeknown to me AT had already forwarded a letter to the Local Board Chair, Vanessa Neeson, on 4 December saying “We decided the best response to these particular questions is to assure the board that a post-project audit will be carried out and any concerns at that time could be reported with the benefit of hindsight.” No mention was made of this at subsequent Local Board meetings.

Too often our Local Board members complain that they are only part-timers and they lack any power to be effective. What salaries are they paid?
The Henderson-Massey Local Board Chair, Vanessa Neeson, receives $77,500.
The deputy chairman, Assid Corban receives $54,800 plus a $700 communications allowance because he chooses not to use a computer.
Other members receive $38,400 each.
Is this good value for ratepayer money? Unless our representatives are prepared to stand up and be counted and not allow themselves to be fobbed off, and in turn fob off the ratepayers they represent, I don’t believe it is.

I would doubt that there’s a person in this room who is not concerned about rising rates. We have a right to see that rates levied against us are spent wisely. We have a right to ask for details of expenditure but try to get details and you are likely to get shut down. I recently discovered that my emails to elected representatives were being blocked and had been for several months. When I challenged this practice I was told there was no legal requirement for emails sent to a council email address to be delivered unfiltered to that address. After I raised the issue at a full Council meeting on 28 February, the CEO, Doug McKay insisted there had been no blocking or censoring of emails to elected representatives. That same day I received an email at 4.58 pm from Electoral Officer , Bruce Thomas saying “I am advised that the email rule redirecting your emails has been removed. Any future emails will go direct to the addressee.” Then 4 days later I received an email from Bruce Thomas stating there had been no discussion with elected representatives but the decision had come from Doug McKay. On 15 March Mr McKay claimed “There was never an intention to block emails or withhold information from elected members.” The censorship didn’t stop at emails. I applied to speak on “Censorship” at a meeting of the Accountability and Performance committee on 13 March. Initially, permission was declined by the Chairman, Richard Northey but 8 Councillors supported my right to speak. Half way through my speech Mr Northey gave an order for my microphone to be turned off. — So much for free speech! The office of the Minister of Local Government has told me such matters are outside his jurisdiction. Council have called for an investigation by Doug McKay into the censorship and a report back. To me that’s asking a man to be judge and jury at his own trial. It’s against the principles of natural justice.

I urge everyone here to take a very active interest in the affairs of Auckland Council.
Use your votes wisely. Remember the penalty for indifference to public affairs.
It’s time to bring the power back to the people.
For those of you with a computer I have a blog site on Auckland Council. http://www.accountabilitynz.wordpress.com

I would like to put a motion to this meeting “That this branch of Grey Power requests Auckland Council to initiate an independent enquiry into censorship of ratepayer communications.”

Auckland Council Censorship 4

Address to Accountability & Performance Committee 13 March 2013 by Gary Osborne

Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The last time I addressed this committee was in February 2011 over my concerns about the Film Studios.
I’m here today to speak on Council censorship and to call for an independent enquiry.

On 28 February I spoke at a Council meeting where it was unanimously agreed that the practice of blocking emails to elected representatives should cease. It was reported in the Herald next day that the CEO, Mr McKay had said there had been no blocking or censoring of anybody’s email, but since the start of the Auckland Council three people had been “case managed”. I do not wish to enter into a game of semantics but as far as I’m concerned if my emails to elected representatives are intercepted and don’t reach their intended destination they have been blocked.

Since then I have received messages of support from a Councillor, several Local Board members and numerous members of the public. At the Council meeting I tabled an email sent to Doug McKay on 21 February and an email dated 22 February sent to Electoral Officer, Bruce Thomas, to whom I have been requested to direct all communication.

The Council has called for an investigation by a team led by Doug McKay into the blocking. This is totally unsatisfactory as the directives were initiated by Doug McKay. It is against all the principles of natural justice that a man should be judge and jury for his own trial. I have raised the matter with the Minister of Local Government, Hon Chris Tremain. My questions to Doug McKay on 21 February re blocking and the answers from Bruce Thomas on 4 March were:
1. Why was this instigated? A As advised in an email sent to you on 22 June 2012, the case managing of your emails was instigated to manage the large amount of correspondence generated.
2. Why did no discussion take place on this with Councillors and Local Board members before its inception? A It was a decision of the Chief Executive.
3. Were Councillors or Local Board members afforded any opportunities to request that their emails not be blocked? A Yes, recently the Elected Members were afforded opportunity.
I would like to point out that as late as 1 March my emails were still being blocked.

There was a suggestion in the Herald article on 1 March that I had rung a council officer 17 times in one hour. I have refuted that and on 3 March asked for substantiation of the claim. I received an email on 5 March from Information Advisor, Blair Doherty, saying my request will be treated as a LGOIMA request.

Elected representatives I respect your right to block my emails if it is your wish but I absolutely abhor the idea of a bureaucrat making that decision for you. Indeed only a few days after the unanimous decision by Auckland Council to order the cessation of blocking I received an email from a Councillor asking me to “reframe” from sending him any more emails. I assumed he meant refrain so I have removed his name from my list of representatives. I respect his right to make such a request just as I respect his right not to read daily newspapers if he so chooses.

Invariably in the past when I have raised concerns I have been proven to be right. Why does Council work so hard to conceal facts? My questions have always been fair, seeking relevant information, but have time and time again been treated dismissively. Specific questions deserve specific answers.

Rather than attack the argument, so often this Council embarks on a tactic of denigration by insinuation. Unfounded claims by Council are then dismissed as errors or oversights or misinterpretations. On 20 February Bruce Thomas sent an email to all Local Board members that claimed General Counsel, Wendy Brandon had sent an email to me about another ratepayer. Under “Copied email” it read “Gary You will be aware of Grace Haden’s recent complaints in relation to the diversion of her emails to a single point of contact in Auckland Council. Grace is one of 3 vexatious litigants whose emails to council are directed to a single point of contact……..”
On 21 February 2013 Wendy Brandon sent an email to Bruce Thomas saying she had not sent any emails to me. She stated “The email below appears to be an edited version of an email sent by me to Grace Haden.”
On 22 February an email was sent by Bruce Thomas to all Local Board Members under the heading “Erratum” saying “The “Copied email” that was included in my email to you was intended for internal council use only.”
When I spoke to Bruce Thomas on 22 February he said he would need to speak to Wendy Brandon first and made no mention of the email Wendy Brandon had sent him on 21 February. His 4 March reply to my 5 specific questions was totally inadequate.

Ladies and gentlemen, my dealings with Auckland Council have reminded me of that old British program “Yes Minister” but so far I’ve failed to see the funny side.

It is entirely inappropriate for the CEO to investigate himself. I urge you to call for an independent enquiry.

Auckland Council Censorship 3

Address to Henderson-Massey Local Board 7 March 2013

Madam Chair, Ladies and Gentlemen

At the meeting on 7 February, Madam Chair, I said I had not received the courtesy of a reply to my email to you dated 2 January. When I spoke to you next day, you demanded an apology from me. I said I would apologise publicly because that is my way. I apologise.

I would like to point out, however, that I had no reason to believe that emails addressed to the official advertised addresses of representatives on the Council website would not reach addressees. I expanded upon that matter at a full Council meeting on 28 February. The Council passed a unanimous resolution at that meeting to remove blocking.

On 8 February I sent you an email, Madam Chair, asking what the formal response from AT had been regarding the questions I put to this Board re Te Atatu Rd over 4 months ago. I know you received my email, Madam Chair, because you confirmed so in our phone conversation at 6.45 pm that night.

Is the reason I have received no response from you because you have not yet received a formal response from AT or is it because you have received a response but you are as yet undecided as to whether or not it is formal? I also asked you for the date upon which such a response was received. One way or another, Madam Chair, I would appreciate the courtesy of a response from you.