Open Letter to Auditor General




The following comment was 'spammed' from the NBR today - comment follows NBR story: "Super city advertising labelled "PR campaign" By admin Created 06/05/2009 - 18:14 * Politics NZPA A $500,000 advertising campaign outlining the Government's Auckland "super city" proposal was labelled a "PR campaign which doesn't tell the full story" in Parliament today. Labour's Auckland issues spokesman Phil Twyford said the four-week advertising campaign failed to tell Aucklanders how much the transition from its current structure to the proposed one was going to cost. He said in Parliament today it amounted to $240 million -- or $550 per ratepayer. The Government's plan for Auckland was significantly different to one outlined in a Royal Commission report, and ratepayers were entitled to know what its price tag was before advertising campaigns were undertaken, Mr Twyford said. He also accused the Government of charging ahead with its plans without allowing Aucklanders to have a say. Local Government Minister Rodney Hide said the advertising figure ($533,000) was correct. "That was in response to people wanting to know what was going on with the Government's proposal ... " The level of spending was in line with departmental baselines. Mr Hide had a dig at Labour about "spending taxpayers' money to change people's minds" while in power, and disagreed that the Government had not engaged with the public of Auckland. Mr Twyford said 71 percent of Aucklanders believed the Government should pay for the reforms, while 63 percent believed there had been too little consultation. Mr Hide said the Royal Commission report had outlined the significant costs expected if nothing was done to change the city's structure. Source URL (retrieved on 07/05/2009 - 16:52): http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/super-city-advertising-labelled-pr-campaign-102047 My 'spammed' comment on this story... "7 May 2009 How about some attention being paid to the IMPORTANT $UPERCITY stuff? Did you know that there has NEVER been any 'cost-benefit' analysis of ANY Council Controlled Organisation (CCO), which confirms its 'cost-effectiveness for the public majority? Yet, this is the (untested)model under which the Royal Commission want $28 BILLION worth of OUR public assets placed? " All Auckland Council's major commercial trading and infrastructure activities should be undertaken through CCO's" [Recommendation 21 A of the Report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance] How fiscally prudent is THAT? How 'scholarly' was the Royal Commission Report - if their arguably most significant and far-reaching recommendation was based on.... fresh air? http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Presented/Petitions/c/4/6/49DBHOH_PET2954_1-Petition-of-Penelope-Mary-Bright-respectfully-requests.htm "Petition of Penelope Mary Bright respectfully requests that the House of Representatives note that 120 people have signed a petition Requesting that there be no legislative change to enact recommendation 21 A of the Report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance that: " All Auckland Council's major commercial trading and infrastructure activities should be undertaken through CCO's" until an independent cost-benefit analysis confirms the cost-effectiveness of the CCO model (particularly for water services) for the majority of citizens and ratepayers. Petition number: 2008/18 Presented by: Sue Bradford Date presented: 5 May 2009 Referred to: Local Government and Environment Committee " For FACTS about the $UPERCITY - $UPER RIPOFF that you're not getting anywhere else - check out www.stopthe supercity.org.nz Penny Bright Media Spokesperson Water Pressure Group Judicially recognised 'Public Watchdog' on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance issues. waterpressure@gmail.com