Welcome to my campaign website. My name is Wiremu Thomson and I am standing in the Wigram electorate as an Independent. A basic summary of my policies can be found in my most recent flyer, and a slightly better explanation of a few of them are here.
On this site you will find:
My policies
Correspondence: To help voters get a better idea of my views, to inform them of some issues, and to provide an example of what it can be like interacting with the public sector, I have included my correspondence with some parts of government. The correspondence regarding Christchurch's Te Kaha stadium covers emails with the Christchurch City Council, the Office of the Auditor-General, and The Treasury among others. The correspondence regarding climate change covers emails to the prime minister at the time Jacinda Ardern, a reply that it was forwarded to the Minister of Climate Change and some other emails.
Climate change graphs: The graphs indicate that from my analysis NZ is not doing enough to comply with the Paris Agreement.
Some other stuff including some flyers summarising policies in the News/Posts section.
Policy
The portfolios are in most important to least important order, though not all policies in a portfolio are as important as others. Click on a policy to see the rationale behind it.
Require those processing submissions to list every idea or important detail mentioned by submitters - that has some sensible reasoning behind it and is reasonably on topic - at the end of their summary reports (if not mentioned elsewhere in the report) even if only mentioned by a single submitter. Ideally the idea would have an ID back to a submission that covers it, so a reader could read the idea in its context.
Members of the public could complain to a complaints agency and if the complaint is substantiated, the staffer responsible could face a non-indemnable fine of up to $2,000 per breach depending on factors such as the potential significance of the idea. Repeated failures could lead to termination of employment. Any ideas that have been found to have been missed will need to be mentioned in some appropriate form such that those who were interested in the report are made aware of the ideas, and the missing ideas should probably be added as an errata to the document.
Rationale: Too many good ideas get missed and so new ideas never enter debates or discussions when only a handful of submitters mention them, and policies just go round and round with little progress and wasting submitters' time. The consultations and reports should provide a basis for future work to move the debate forwards, but instead tend to entrench the same old, stale ideas that people don't want to go ahead with.
The fine sounds over the top (or not enough), but missing good ideas could be far more costly than a lot of crimes, and may discourage people from bothering to submit good ideas in future. It also provides staff added incentive and the ability to push back on management who might try to get them to not mention something. The public servants are paid to process submissions into a summary so others don't have to trawl through all the submissions; failure to adequately reflect submissions is failure to do the job. The fine improves accountability and promotes trust in reports that are produced.
I will perhaps treat reports that are produced before this law is implemented the same way as many submissions seem to be treated. Also until the law is implemented, there is very little point making a submission given the amount of time it takes to read what they are proposing, put your ideas together in a hopefully coherent way, and then possibly read what they have written only to find you have wasted your time; and then after a while they repeat the process. Probably the only people who would put themselves through this are those that are paid to.
In addition to my climate submissions, I have seen someone else's submission in the justice area which seemed to be ignored by the summary report.
Repeal the Plain Language Act.
Rationale: I think the public service (except perhaps one or two groups) tries its best to write things in a clear way, and adding extra compliance checks is an unnecessary overhead that reduces their effectiveness and wellbeing. For an act such as this I would have expected specific quoted examples where not using plain language was the problem, but as discussed further below no one provided good, specific examples for why the Act is needed - if anything those supporting the bill provided the opposite. Also, if something is unclear, there are generally already ways to provide feedback to the agency.
Though the Act is ironically unclear, my concern is that it applies to sometimes technical documents such as annual reports, information about compliance requirements, and consultation documents; and when hassled by the appointed plain language officers (with potentially little expertise in what they are policing), public servants might just delete the useful information they were going to provide because it's easier and the Act only requires that the document is clear, concise and well-organised (the easiest way to meet that definition is to provide an empty document, after all does any of the information really need to be said?). Elaboration often helps people to understand a point, but is not strictly necessary. For example, s 6 of the Act has an Examples section, which is unnecessary and not concise; and yet for whatever reason they have included it in an Act that says people should not be doing that.
Some aspects of the initial bill that was introduced were okay, but it became worse as it went through Parliament. Parliament would have been better to restrict it to very specific situations by small amendments to the specific act for the conflicted agency.
Regarding examples from Labour as to why the Act is not needed, there were the following.
Both Ginny Andersen and Rachel Boyack made a similar comment:
"Here's a great one, here's one from the New Zealand Transport Agency's 2017 report, and it says that they are going to "'Transform the Transport Agency' establishes a deliberate change management approach to successfully transition the Transport Agency to the refreshed strategy and the new ways of working. It drives improved organisational effectiveness through tenacious alignment of strategy to business planning, resource allocation and performance measurement. It embeds our new DNA and the shift required to ensure we are customer focused, collaborative, curious, and seeking innovation and value for money in all we do." So, in other words, they want to improve the customer service and spend the money more carefully, which would be easier to say it that way.
Before having looked at the NZTA report, it seemed obvious that the members had lost some of the meaning of the original quote because 'change management' is a popular business management subject. Having looked at the report, the quote appears to be from a conclusion or summary type of section, which do tend to condense a whole lot of ideas down into concise sentences. The DNA seems to be the name of the NZTA's 'shared vision statement' (another popular thing organisations do). The curious and seeking innovation was not just to do with spending money but also safety and compliance improvements.
If the MPs had changed it to their subjective view of plain language (by cherry-picking only a couple of ideas), then they would have lost a lot of the original meaning. I feel sorry for the public service when even a cabinet minister seems like they would struggle to be a good plain language officer (the Act establishes these officers for most Government agencies).
The author of the NZTA report probably could have improved their writing skills, but I think the author's problem was not that they were not using plain language, but partly that they were using plain language. For example, conciseness; and, also the NZTA seems to be cursed with a whole lot of planning documents that each need their own name, and instead of the author using acronyms, they wrote them out in full each time.
Returning to Labour's examples for why the Plain Language Bill is needed: Duncan Webb mentioned the Code of Welfare for Dogs, and he and Emily Henderson mentioned summons for bad driving. Firstly, as far as I could tell, neither of those documents would be subject to the Plain Language Act (because it does not apply to those agencies/minister). Secondly, there is already a requirement that the draft code of welfare needs to be clearly written. Finally, I had no problem with the Code of Welfare for Dogs: it reads like a manual, but what does he expect for a partially enforceable document on how to look after an animal? The Code also uses slightly technical terms for different types of dog (e.g. terms for female, mother, and young dogs): are people no longer expected to be able to use a dictionary?
Another reason given for why the Act is needed was that MPs often had people coming into their offices asking them to explain the meaning of a document. Well, I don't understand the Plain Language Act and would need to ask them to explain it. Naisi Chen (Labour) said it would not apply to "a specific piece of direction that was aimed at tax consultants, at accountants, at tax lawyers as well [as the public]", and I cannot understand how the legislation can exclude the above whilst including 'a specific piece of direction that was aimed at beneficiaries, at those wanting to be beneficiaries'. I also don't fully understand what the Act means by a public education initiative and no definition was provided: is it any new document that educates the public about something, e.g. what the agency has been working on, etc.?
Naisi Chen speaking in support gave a good reason against the Act: "Firstly, on the personal side, a letter to an individual, we decided not to put into this legislation, because ... we needed our Public Service to be able to give them the right and the most accurate information possible."
Also, the Act is not enforceable in a court, so whether the Act is followed depends on the whims of those in management positions, which is the same as what it would be without the legislation.
The Act does a couple of things though.
One it creates a lose-lose situation for the Public Service Commission and other agencies due to having to report annually on how each agency complies with the Act: they either waste time reading largely pointless reports, or they don't read them and risk being criticised for not doing their jobs.
And two, it legitimises harassing and berating people over their writing style; and potentially allows senior people in Government to arbitrarily fire public servants they dislike simply because they wrote a passive sentence or one with more than 20 words after they were warned not to write them. This is because the Act requires them to take reasonable steps to ensure they use clear, concise, and well organised language; and the Act empowers the Public Service Commissioner (who is appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister) to issue official guidance on what that means. Normally, a judge would have discretion to consider that firing someone for writing more than 20 words in a sentence was unjustified, but if an employer was just following the law then it can hardly be called unjustified.
In conclusion, no good reasons were provided to justify the Act, and it makes things worse, so it should be repealed.
Education
Encourage high-school English teachers to teach students the basics of reading legislation by year 12 (sixth form) at the latest. That is, that NZ statutory law can be read at legislation.govt.nz; if they don't understand some words in the legislation, that they might be defined in the interpretation section, and if not there possibly do a search for the word in the Act, or check a dictionary; and that to refer to a section or subsection of an Act the shorthand 's' is often used, e.g. something along the lines of "s 71(1)(c) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999".
Rationale: Being able to read legislation is a useful skill for many jobs, and in general we expect people to be able to read and understand terms and conditions (if not, to find someone who can). Some jobs where it may be useful: lawyer, tradesperson, politician, manager, and many other professions.
Consult primarily young students (15-21), but also to some extent teachers and lecturers, about whether to ban year 13 (7th form) prerequisites for attending university, or alternatively allow those that have good grades in year 12 to go straight to university. Or just leave things as they are.
Rationale: I am concerned we keep teenagers in school too long, and maybe this contributes to acting out. Also the first year of university seemed pretty similar to year 13 anyway, perhaps partly to make up for any deficiencies in the high school education.
Alternatively, if it is just those with good grades, then this allows those in year 13 to get some extra tuition before going to university (or perhaps a remedial summer school course would be enough), which may allow universities to teach at a higher level. This sounds horrible, but my personal view was that some undergraduate courses had to dumb things down to cater for the lowest common denominator.
It might help to reduce the association of growing up with being old enough to drink booze.
Also it reduces education costs and increases workforce/tertiary participation.
Conservation of the night sky
Consult on how people feel about using satellites for commercial internet and whether any rules should be put in place, and/or lobbied for at the international level. Until consultation has taken place, ban the use of satellites for commercial internet (i.e. mobile coverage) and the launching of commercial internet satellites above NZ. At the very least, Māori probably need to be consulted under the Treaty of Waitangi.
Rationale: Starlink satellites have been visible to stargazers and astronomers, changing the look of the night sky and leaving observers wondering whether the light they are looking at is a star/planet or someone's commercial venture. Tens of thousands of these closer to the surface of the earth satellites are being launched or about to be. Aside from light pollution and hemisphere differences, the night sky largely hasn't changed in millions of years, so if you were to look at the night sky it would have been pretty much the same as your ancestors saw all those years ago. The night sky also holds special significance for Māori. However this is now changing to provide people with something that most people already have or possibly would have had in time; so we need to ask is commercial satellite internet worth it? What's more, if a satellite breaks down, are the companies going to remove it or just launch another one? Also do we really want to become reliant on an overseas owned technology that may be harder for us to regulate or inspect to ensure they do not have other functions we would be uncomfortable with e.g. spyware. For more information, https://theconversation.com/spacexs-starlink-satellites-are-about-to-ruin-stargazing-for-everyone-149516.
Climate Change
Most of my suggestions from my submissions, specifically the CAA_Submission.pdf. Also, I would want to treat it as an urgent matter similar to COVID in how decisions were made, and then afterwards reviewed or consulted on as to the merits of the decision. This is because I know how long it takes to do bad consultation and good consultation would take even longer, and we really can't afford to lose that time. It's probably practically impossible already for us to comply with the Paris Agreement, but any contributions may help and we don't know if the window is fully closed yet. I have listed some of the more important policies here.
Rationale: In the submissions, and as above.
Refund most of the revenue from an ETS and/or carbon tax back to NZ residents in the form of a Universal Payment possibly implemented via IRD tax credits. They are called tax credits but some are refundable even without tax obligations and are more like a benefit (e.g. Working for Famillies is administered by IRD). Though there would possibly need to be some correspondence to passports to determine for how much of the year people were in the country.
Rationale: The point of taxing carbon is mostly to set a price on it, so people might choose better options.
The Government does not need to take the money thinking they know best how to spend it, and the Government taking money out of the economy could result in businesses with little to do with climate change struggling e.g. cafes. There would be some things worthwhile for the Government to fund though, so not all of the money would be returned.
Refunding the money also allows a higher carbon price to be set, because people would still have the money to afford the things they needed; unless of course their use was excessive relative to others.
Increase the price of petrol at the pump by 40-50 cents a litre over the course of a year (depending on whether the price of oil overseas drops), by increasing the price by 1.6 to 2 cents a fortnight. Similar changes for diesel and any other forms of fuel.
This would mean on average petrol would be 20-25 cents more expensive in the first year, and 40-50 cents on average more expensive in the second year. Price changes due to other things could add or subtract from that change, as this policy would remain the same.
Further consideration would be given to raising the price in the third year.
For emergency service budgets, look into some way to determine their fuel use, so they can carry on as usual if necessary.
Rationale: See the "Opportunity Cost of Cycling and Public Transport" section of my submission for a better explanation, but basically petrol is too cheap relative to other forms of transport that are better for the climate. It should be raised even a little higher than that, but this would be a significant start.
People would still be able to drive for important things, but a higher price would allow greater consideration of whether other options should be used.
The policy should not be to the detriment of emergency services, which would otherwise not be able to pass on their costs.
Cap the quantity of fuel available for international flights to half of what it was in 2019, or if that's more than this year, then cap it at this year's quantity.
Consider further reductions in future years.
Rationale: See "Quota on Aviation Emissions" section of the submission, but basically aviation is a luxury we can be reasonably confident NZers, serious about mitigating climate change, will not share in for the next few decades as much as we have, so to be fair to future NZers we should be cutting aviation now. There are lost opportunities by only cutting it by a half; it would be better to cut it more than that, but unfortunately compromises have to be made in politics to even make some change.
Consider launching a compensation buyback process to address the NZU stockpile, because some of them were worth $1.45 in mid-2013 (pg. 127 of Low-emissions economy Final report). In July 2017, the then Government announced that NZUs would be auctioned by 2021, and that the fixed-price ceiling of $25 a tonne would be increased once auctioning was in place. Towards the end of last year, the price got as high as about $80 a tonne. The Government has announced the trigger price setting that acts as an indicative ceiling will increase by a little over 12% each year.
An average return of 56% per year for 9 years due to Government incompetence is not ok. The NZUs are costs that spread through the economy with pretty much everyone paying for them.
According to pg. 135 of the Low-emissions report, there were 135,451,968 NZUs and NZ AAUs held by participants in 2016 with most of these held by foresters to cover future liabilities at harvest. If half of these were held for non-harvesting reasons, then with a price difference of $80 - $1.45 the Government has potentially lost up to $5.3 billion due to their own incompetence.
Alternatively we could just crash the market, and if the petrol price increases are implemented separate to the ETS then that may be what happens. After all, the biggest risk to the price of NZUs has always been from Government decisions. But some people may feel aggrieved, so it is probably best that we look into the transactions that have occurred and try to seek that no one has gotten a rate of return better than our other problem area of housing.
I think most, if not all, of the transactions should have been recorded on the ETS register.
At the very least, we need to check that no one involved in the decision making around climate policies (whether as an MP or in an influential advisory role) benefitted from these extreme returns. If they did (even if they were unaware of their investments), they should be required to pay it back so their return is only that of inflation because it is totally inappropriate for them to profit at such an exorbitant rate from their own incompetence.
Due to the sensitive nature and falling public trust, there should be independent observers/auditors probably from the UK.
Rationale: As above.
Set aside the existing NZU stockpile, and start a new Emissions Trading Scheme where the NZUs expire after 2-3 years.
Rationale: See the "There should be an expiry date on auctioned NZUs" section of my submission. Having an expiry date gives the Government better ability to make changes to the scheme, and helps to reduce speculation because investors (particularly those who have little need due to having no emissions) could have to sell their NZUs for basically nothing relative to what they paid for them.
Remove the free allocation of NZUs to Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed businesses.
Replace it with not having to surrender NZUs for exports, and having to surrender NZUs for imports. This is not as easy as it sounds, but determining the correct free allocation is just as difficult and not as fair.
Rationale: See pg. 2 of my submission to the Productivity Commission.
Mention that conceiving one less child would help reduce emissions and make climate adaptation easier.
Rationale: Obviously we are the ones digging up millenia old biological life and burning it; if we reproduced less we would have a slightly smaller problem. Sea level rise is expected to displace large populations of people and so it would help make space for the new arrivals.
Banks
Repeal the Depositor Compensation Scheme part of the Deposit Takers Act 2023. It does not need to be repealed urgently as it will not be in effect until an Order in Council is made, or July 2029.
The Depositor Compensation Scheme is an insurance fund for banks and other finance companies that will be built up slowly over time by levying the banks such that when a company fails, depositors in specific products will be protected up to $100,000 per troubled company. If the fund does not have enough money, the Government must pay the bill no matter how large without needing any consent from the Government or Parliament, though the Government can make terms such as specifying it is a loan. Also it is unclear to me whether there is any requirement for the Minister to tell anyone how large the bailout was until it appears in periodic financial statements (though you'd think it would be revealed voluntarily or in answer to an MP's question).
Rationale:
Though bailouts tended to happen anyway in the GFC much to the public's annoyance, the Government is now guaranteeing this sort of response, which encourages people to not take care and just go for the greatest return.
For example, a bank starts providing loans to a Mr Ponzi who is willing to pay high interest rates, and thus the bank can pass on high returns to those who deposit their money with the bank. Eventually Mr Ponzi goes bankrupt, the bank fails, those who had been receiving great returns would normally be out of pocket in this situation, but now other depositors and possibly taxpayers pay so the risky investor who potentially made a lot of money can keep it. As many speakers on the bill said, it creates a moral hazard.
I should point out that other provisions in the Act try to prevent a Ponzi situation, and the risky investors will probably pay a higher levy. However, rather than the stability of the financial system relying on a range of actors with skin in the game, it will now largely depend on the competence of the Minister of Finance because he/she recommends the levy settings. What's more the competence of the Minister is likely to be continually tested by lobbyists now with little interest other than to increase their profits.
The Minister of Finance is taking on too much responsibility and control of the financial services market. Get the settings wrong, and new competitors may be prevented from entering the market, or overly risky behaviour at others' expense may be encouraged. The Act also allows the Minister to pick who makes a good profit and who doesn't because the Minister can decide the levy for each company, which seems totally inappropriate (s 238(3)(a) and 238(3)(h)).
Also, how the legislation has been written, it looks like the Compensation Scheme will come into force without having levied much from the banks, unless the plan is to tell banks that when it comes into force in a few years they will need to pay a few years worth of levies. If the Government doesn't require years of levies and compensation is needed shortly after commencement, then the claim that banks rather than taxpayers are paying for the scheme would be wrong (aside from the possibility of repayments from a company that has failed to be profitable, and future levies). Additional risk is locked in for 2025 with the wind-down of the Reserve Bank's Funding for Lending stimulus loans to banks.
The previous system of the Government making decisions only once a bailout was required was better. The level of bailout could be based on the level of risk, and it encouraged people to make their own choices about how much risk they wanted to take on due to it being more up to luck whether the Government bailed them out to a level they would be happy with.
My other policies would be even better as they provide an almost no risk safe option, which makes it clear when someone is choosing to take on a risk, and so no bailouts would be required. Also if somehow a bailout was required, the 0.25% deposit tax would have hopefully contributed enough to justify providing a bailout.
Introduce a type of bank account, which I will call 'Cash Accounts', that a bank cannot touch; they can only store the money or allow payments from or to them; they cannot lend on the money; and if the bank fails those accounts are safe.
The banks can charge a fee for this service. The Government will require that KiwiBank's fee is largely only to cover the cost of the service and will have a low profit margin.
Initially the accounts will have zero interest. The Reserve Bank will be charged with progressively changing the interest rate until they are maybe only 1% below inflation, but it will ultimately be up to the Reserve Bank as to the interest rate they feel is appropriate for the economic conditions.
The Reserve Bank will also decide how much of the account balance for each natural person will earn interest (e.g. only the first $10k per person earns interest), but probably not more than $300k. The money to pay the interest will come from Government revenue or from printing money (whatever they like to call it).
As this is a special taxpayer-funded service, the interest payments will be limited to either NZ tax residents or NZ permanent/citizen tax residents (I am unsure which one would be better).
Rationale: The Government should not have to bail out banks! As far as I know, banks can use any money people store with them, which means the money may disappear and the person left out of pocket even if they were just looking for a safe place to store it. The Cash Accounts would also give people a way to say to banks 'stop using our money' (to make home ownership less affordable or on vanity projects. Sure the point of mortgages is to make homes more attainable, but the banks give us low returns because they either get the money for free or people are forced towards them by inflation, and then the banks possibly lend it to risky operators who drive up prices/rents, and we can't let the market crash on them because they have borrowed our deposits).
Inflation is effectively a wealth tax on cash (checking account) assets in that it reduces their value.
Firstly, this encourages people towards investing in assets or term deposits just to maintain the value of their money. Investing, even in term deposits, is not without its risks, so we should not be forcing people to take on risks they do not want. Alternatively, it encourages people to spend money before it gets further devalued, which only creates more inflation.
Secondly, due to rainy day fund requirements and lack of investment knowledge, it seems like poor people would have a greater percentage of their assets in cash or checking account form, so inflation is effectively a wealth tax for poor people.
By matching inflation up to a limit, the Reserve Bank protects poor people from inflation and could get inflation back under control in a more humane way than the current approach by increasing the interest rates on the cash accounts to promote saving. With the current approach, if economic activity is slow, the Reserve Bank lowers interest rates which gets people hooked on cheap money, and then if activity increases too much, they increase interest rates for the people they've just encouraged to take on debt.
Inflation is necessary to stop people hoarding cash, which could lead to deflation getting out of hand, but this should not come at the expense of low wealth individuals for which inflation should be zero, so that the money they earned is worth the same when they go to spend it. Also if inflation is kept stable at a level above zero, it can provide lower lending costs for operating a business due to people wanting to maintain the value of their money.
The accounts will initially have zero interest to reduce the risk of people flocking to these accounts, and destabilising the financial system. Only those who don't want to risk their money (except for inflation) would be interested in them to start with. It will also give the Government time to figure out how to pay for it.
Change the Reserve Bank's targeted inflation range back to 0 to 3% with no specific target within this range. Currently the target range is 1 to 3% aiming for a midpoint of 2%.
Investigate whether it would be possible to change the lower bound to -1 or even -2% whilst being able to recover if deflation goes below this range. Also investigate directing printed money to the Government to issue to everyone as a Universal Payment, rather than directing it to bank loans in which the banks get a chance to take a cut.
Rationale: As said in the previous policy, inflation is effectively a cash tax that causes money to be worth less when someone goes to spend it than when they earned it.
Targeting lower inflation means the Government would have to pay less interest on the 'Cash Accounts'.
The inflation target range has moved around with successive governments but it started out at 0 to 2%. The target is currently aiming for 2%, but it seems irrational to try to force price increases on the market. The 2% target possibly leads to the Reserve Bank desperately trying to get people to take on really cheap loans, which leads to increasing house prices and mortgages. Then when inflation increases the Bank increases interest rates, which may lead to further inflation as people ask for pay rises to try to cope with increased interest rates. Trying for 2% seems to promote housing bubbles.
It seems like it would be good to extend the range to -1 or -2% because we want competition and prices to decrease as the economy becomes more efficient. Deflation also means that holding cash provides a return, which may lead to those that are speculating on assets (partly to avoid inflation) to sell some assets in favour of having cash. This allows those that actually want to make use of the assets to buy them. Alternatively, those with assets might increase prices, which may bring inflation back into the traditionally acceptable range.
Allowing deflation also means that lending costs would be cheaper because people typically want an interest rate that is above inflation. Obviously lenders will still charge a positive interest rate but the amount that inflation figures can move around before they affect the interest rate would be increased. Reduced lending costs promotes competition and increases the value of labour. People that do invest may want to invest cooperatively to reduce risk from deflation, and more cooperative investment may be a positive change compared to markets merging more and more into monopolies.
There is a danger with deflation though, in that it can be triggered by people hoarding cash who then benefit by continuing to hoard cash as the value of that cash increases. However, the 0.25% deposit tax and the ability of the Reserve Bank to print massive amounts of money just by changing a value in a computer may be able to prevent deflation getting out of control.
I would prefer the Reserve Bank gave the printed money to people directly similar to the Cost of Living payments than having each step of the banking system take its cut before the money gets to people. It does not seem to matter who the Bank gives the money to as from my perspective the point is to devalue the money people are hoarding by making it more plentiful.
Inflation and deflation can both be good depending on someone's circumstances, so it does not seem like there is a need to target a specific midpoint in the range. A midpoint would just indicate the Government's favoured form of wealth, which could allow wealthy people to speculate on that form with little risk. Low wealth people and retirement savings would be mostly protected from higher inflation by the 'Cash Accounts', or investing if they have investment knowledge.
Introduce a deposit tax consisting of a 0.25% tax on positive bank account balances (basically a -0.25% change to the interest rate) including 'Cash Accounts'. Maybe the interest rate could be used to reduce the fees on the 'Cash Accounts'.
To discourage avoidance, apply a total 0.25% tax to either one-way or round-trip international bank transfers, and to cryptocurrency conversions.
Avoiding the tax by using cash stored outside of an account as collateral for lending might be considered tax avoidance.
Someone taking cash home for non-collateral reasons would not be considered avoidance, but I am unsure whether going to the effort of avoiding a 0.25% tax by withdrawing cash and putting it in a safety deposit vault would be considered avoidance or just sad.
Rationale: It is a good way to diversify the Government's tax base and could create some goodwill for a bailout or the interest for 'Cash Accounts', which likely reduce the risk of a bailout by not overinflating loans and giving the Reserve Bank some ability to increase lending funds by discouraging no risk saving.
It could help keep inflation or deflation under control, by destroying or redistributing the revenue respectively.
Taxing for some ways of avoiding and not others is partly to do with the effort and risk required, and if the money is just sitting around somewhere without earning anything except for deflation then that's not too bad.
The low tax rate would hopefully discourage people from going to the effort of avoiding it.
Split the Offical Cash Rate (OCR) into two rates: a deposit rate (ODR) and a lending rate (OLR). The lending rate must always be at least 0.5% more than the interest rate paid on Reserve Bank deposits.
Encourage the Bank to initially consider keeping them 1% apart, and to consider larger differences such as 2 or 3%.
Consider commissioning an independent review/report into the operations of the Reserve Bank, in particular looking at the quality of the decision to go from the previous tiered corridor system to the floor system for the OCR.
Rationale: The following provides a good description of how the OCR worked in 2017:
"Since 1999, monetary policy in New Zealand has involved the setting of short-term interest rates through adjusting the Official Cash Rate. The OCR influences the wholesale price for borrowing or lending for New Zealand’s registered banks. The banks pay interest on any funds borrowed from the Reserve Bank (at a rate 50 basis points above the OCR) and receive interest on any overnight funds deposited with the Reserve Bank (at the OCR up to a certain value, and then at an interest rate 100 basis points below the OCR). This creates the upper and lower bounds of the overnight rates banks are willing to pay/accept from other domestic banks. The resulting interest rate is called the Overnight Interbank Cash Rate, which normally tends to be slightly lower than the OCR.[6] Through adjusting the OCR, the Reserve Bank influences short and long-term interest rates in New Zealand, and thus the cost of borrowing money from banks and the return on deposits. Other factors, such as international interest rates also influence interest rates in New Zealand (especially long-term interest rates)." (Monetary Policy and the Policy Targets Agreement, by Grant Cleland, Research Services Analyst - Economics, Parliamentary Library. Licensed under the https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
The above is called something like the corridor system with tiers. I guess because of the upper and lower bounds and if deposits are too high the lower bound drops by 1%. It seems like when the OCR was first implemented it had a range of plus and minus 0.25% ( A cash rate system for implementing monetary policy, by Archer, Brookes, and Reddell of the Reserve Bank of NZ). As they state "In this context, the choice of a 50 point range represents a pragmatic judgement, rather than the application of any great science. We will be monitoring closely the way markets adjust to the 50 point corridor".
Regarding my policy, if the bank had two rates then the distance between the upper and lower bounds could change, which would allow the bank to maintain a high lending rate when inflation is low. Otherwise the bank's lending rate would have to drop to low levels to prevent banks from earning a great return on their deposits. However, with a low lending rate the bank is actively engaged in the market to keep mortgage rates down rather than acting as a reserve if things get out of hand. In the Emissions Trading Scheme, they talk about having a range between the lower and upper bounds to allow for price discovery.
Having a small difference between the lending and deposit rates may decrease competition in the banking sector. For example, if a bank loses deposits to another bank it might be like "No problem, we'll just use the Reserve Bank to cover the lost funds at a reasonable interest rate"; or if they lose mortgage customers, it could be "No problem, we'll just invest the extra capital with the Reserve Bank at an ok interest rate". Whereas if there is a range to the rates, there would be more incentive to not rely on the Reserve Bank, so banks could be more desperate for customers, and generally with increased desperation comes increased competition. If they are after more stability bringing the two rates closer together might help.
As a result of COVID, the OCR system changed to the floor system below, and in May 2022, the Reserve Bank announced they would not be going back to the corridor system.
"At the start of the COVID crisis we saw significant market dysfunction, particularly in specific short-term interest rate markets. This dysfunction caused short-term interest rates to spike, and the Reserve Bank responded by conducting operations which injected a large amount of settlement cash. Further operations to help anchor short-term interest rates were necessary; however, these risked the settlement cash level exceeding the sum of all banks’ credit tiers, meaning it would not be possible for banks to avoid incurring a penalty interest rate. This would have resulted in short-term interest rates trading well below the level of the OCR. We made the decision to remove credit tiers and move to a floor system of monetary policy implementation, as we had seen many other central banks do since the GFC.
Under a floor system of monetary policy implementation, the Reserve Bank remunerates all ESAS balances at the OCR. This means that the Reserve Bank just needs to supply an amount of settlement cash that is greater than, or equal to, the minimum amount needed to prevent upward pressure on short-term interest rates (figure 1). Supplying enough settlement cash so that short-term interest rates are anchored ensures that payments and settlements function smoothly, as settlement cash is not scarce. By remunerating all banks’ ESAS accounts at the OCR, there is no incentive for banks to lend out their cash in the interbank market below this rate. This creates a ‘floor’, which acts to keep short-term interest rates from coming under downward pressure." (Copyright of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, New Zealand’s Monetary Policy Implementation Framework, Karen Silk, Reserve Bank Assistant Governor)
The decision to change to a floor system concerns me because they have not said whether they increased the upper bound or whether the range between bounds is now only 0.5%. I don't understand the Settlement Cash system that well but it confuses me that their problematic situation seemed to be that they had an inadequate supply and too much supply at nearly the same time. I wonder whether they would have been better increasing the OCR; increasing the quantity at which the deposit rate drops; having some other form of reserve to quickly inject funds; or whether the increased range of 1.5% is actually the desirable normal state of the market and the smaller 0.5% is just a bonus for small players to promote competition. I also wonder whether the banks were able to reduce their balances to avoid the rate drop, e.g. by withdrawing physical currency for better investment options.
A small range difference, combined with only reviewing the rate seven times a year, means it is easier to get the OCR decision wrong, which seems like it could lead to low-risk excessive profits for banks. If the market assesses the lending rate to be somewhat higher than what the Reserve Bank has set, then their mortgages could be at that higher level while it would make little sense for any bank to offer a higher deposit rate than the Reserve Bank's lending rate. Similarly, if they assess the market deposit rate to be lower than the Reserve Bank's, then they would lower deposit rates and have little reason to lower their lending rates below the return they get from Reserve Bank deposits.
I don't have other concerns aside from that, but there was a 2017 Stuff article that suggested it would be good to have an independent review, and it might provide better documentation of the institutional knowledge staff of the Reserve Bank take for granted e.g. whether they changed the lending penalty interest rate when they changed to the floor system.
Social Welfare - Jobseeker
On WINZ's website and other documents, clarify the maximum hours each week that they expect jobseekers to be looking for work; and ensure that this does not mean they are effectively working for less than the minimum wage (I think paying for 18 hours jobseeking each week seems appropriate). Tasks required by WINZ would take priority though in terms of how time should be spent.
Look into how accommodation supplements would fit into this, or whether to do away with them.
Rationale: I don't know much about WINZ, but it's not really clear what they think are "reasonable steps to get a suitable job", and looking for a job is effectively work that provides candidates to employers. 18 hours seems appropriate because we don't really want to pay more than that, it's often not particularly productive work, and only paying for about half of the hours they are looking for provides some benefit to finding employment.
Introduce another part-time jobseeker benefit option that is available without requiring a person to have a disability, etc. of some kind to be able to access it. It would pay minimum wage for 10 hours a week. This would not be available to students because the current system for students seems fine.
Rationale: Part-time work may be more suitable than full-time work for some people, but WINZ currently does not provide it as an option unless the person is considered not fit for full-time work.
Allow WINZ to require a jobseeker to work from the WINZ office up to the maximum hours per week expected (and rest breaks like a normal job), though WINZ may need to provide them with reasonable commute costs, sufficient privacy, an email address and sufficient notice of the hours required. It would almost be like an employment contract. As with any job, it would be up to the WINZ office and WINZ management as to the level of slacking off they tolerate (e.g. non-work related YouTube or phone use).
Rationale: It gives WINZ greater ability to ensure they are actually looking for work and to help them; and probably provides some of the benefits, expectations, and costs of an actual job to jobseekers.
Reasonable commute costs and sufficient privacy perhaps depend on the person, but allow jobseekers to raise issues they have. Providing an email address is good for cybersecurity, so they don't have to log in to their personal email address on someone else's device.
Any income earned from actual work would likely reduce the benefit by that amount, but also reduce the hours WINZ would require people to look for work.
Rationale: If they're able to support themselves, WINZ should be less involved to save taxpayers' money, and WINZ shouldn't expect them to work for less than minimum wage just because they're unfortunately out of employment.
Subject to WINZ ongoing permission which could be revoked at any stage without needing a reason, allow a jobseeker to do voluntary work with a Minister approved provider (thinking of SPCA, planting trees or a similar community service) to count towards up to 8 of their required hours for full-time or up to 4 for part-time. If whilst doing voluntary work they do more than their required hours of work, probably have some sort of abatement mechanism so there is a benefit to doing both paid and voluntary work without necessarily needing to choose between them.
Rationale: It would be good to value voluntary work a bit more than perhaps we currently do, and voluntary work would probably have a range of benefits for jobseekers: a couple of which being experience and some references. It might also provide better options for people than pushing them towards a poor-quality job for poor-quality pay; if a job's not so great, the employer might need to make it more enticing. It would be up to WINZ's discretion as to how to make best use of it, taking into account responsible use of taxpayer money and good outcomes for the person, etc (incl. that welfare is supposedly cheaper than corrections), to reduce negative perceptions from voters that may lead to pushback.
Make a change so WINZ can only require someone to undertake a pre-benefit activity if they have received a benefit from WINZ within the last two years.
Introduce a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) to measure the percentage of people whose income assistance is setup on the first meeting, as opposed to subsequent meetings.
Rationale: Pre-benefit activities and the delays they introduce send the wrong message to jobseekers, i.e. that WINZ would prefer not to help them. It would be better to provide support, and kick them off or suspend them if they are not living up to the requirements. However, if the person is relying on social welfare too much then WINZ's existing processes are possibly justified.
The KPI would give an idea of how promptly support was being provided and how smooth the process is. Sometimes there might be pressure to reduce the amount spent on social welfare and this KPI might identify if inappropriate tactics are being used to achieve those ends. Though I will note, that if assistance is set up in a subsequent meeting they would backdate support to the first contact.
Change 1(b) in Schedule 4 Part 1 of the Social Security Act 2018 from 25 years to 20 years.
Rationale: I cannot see a good reason why a jobseeker who is 21 to 24 years old should receive $44 a week less than any other jobseeker. For someone who is under 21, tertiary study should be a consideration. However by making it 20 it would be consistent with the Human Rights Act 1993 if jobseeker support is considered a job as my other policies are trying to promote.
Democracy - Māori Representation
Undo the change made this year to allow Māori to switch between General and Māori Rolls whenever they want to outside of an election period. Probably change it to allow switching every census and half period between censuses, and get the Representation Commission to draw up the electorate boundaries twice per census.
Extend the period you have to be living in an electorate before you are registered on the electorate's roll from one month to three months.
Rationale: The change Labour made, potentially gives Māori greater representation than one electorate vote per person.
Māori were previously restricted to changing rolls every 5 years in line with the census, so that the number of people in each electorate (both Māori and General) is roughly the same. The Government introduced a change this year that allows Māori to change between rolls whenever they want (outside an election period), without any change to how electorate boundaries are drawn.
Māori electorates are created by dividing the number on the Māori Roll by the average number of people in a general electorate. This means if Māori wanted to, they could switch to the Māori roll every five years (when the Representation Commission draws up the electorate boundaries) to increase the number of Māori electorates/seats and then switch back to the General Roll (trusting that because it is a Māori seat whoever gets elected will be in their interest). Whilst a pākehā person could increase their representation to a small extent, it seems harder and requires them to move to a different address rather than simply filling in a form.
For the second point, spending one month in an electorate doesn't seem long enough to be qualified to vote in that electorate.
Economy/Housing
Introduce an Excessive Essential Wealth Tax (EEWT) of 3% on residential property, and assets of NZ publicly listed utilities (but probably not cellular communication companies). Tax credits to offset the EEWT would be available to natural persons (i.e. not companies or trusts), who have been tax resident in NZ in the last 1-2 years, and up to a limit somewhere in the range of $90,000 to $120,000 (so a $3-4 million threshold; aiming for the equivalent worth of four average homes/houses). Mortgages would not reduce it because (a) the threshold is high enough and (b) it would introduce all sorts of tax avoidance games.
The tax would be introduced no earlier than 2026.
It and possibly the threshold could be extended in future to cover (farm)land as well.
Alternatively in the short term, consider asking the state-owned electricity companies to reduce their returns to reflect cost of living issues.
Also consider introducing a law, not this term but maybe after 2026, that limits residential property ownership to four average homes per person. I am unsure whether this would be based on the average value of a property or land area, but something to think about, and be aware of so as not to be caught out having to sell a lot of properties at once.
Also, I am unlikely to support a Capital Gains Tax (CGT).
Rationale: Nowadays, people generally need a roof over their head, electricity, internet and food. The more concentrated the private ownership of these assets becomes the more the Government has to dole out to people, which then goes back into wealthy people's pockets potentially with little benefit if costs are increased (due to an observation that now people can afford to pay higher prices, and to make up for the increased taxes, and possibly also, though I doubt it, that they are receiving too much money given the little tax that they pay).
It is hard to improve the lives of those in poverty and better services for others as long as this situation exists. By imposing a tax, it would hopefully limit the concentration of essential wealth so that revenue from these assets is more widely distributed in the economy. Also in the housing market it would reduce speculation driving prices up, as wealthy investors would prefer other assets in which to hide their money from inflation.
This policy may be better understood as an Anti-Monopoly law in the sense most similar to the actual board game Monopoly. Remember how Monopoly ends with one person bankrupting all others; and think how it would be different if there was a limit to the amount of properties a person could own. After all, the original version of Monopoly was created to highlight the problem of monopolies.
As an additional explanation:
Basically if you have three groups owning houses: the poor, the middle-class, and the rich - then a rich person who has a good income stream from their business can outbid or offer to buy a house at an amount that a poor person might find hard to refuse. The rich person figures it will pay off eventually and the poor person is happy with the short-term gain. The short-term gain diminishes and now the poor person is dependent on Government handouts paid for by both the rich and the middle-class. This isn't fair on the middle-class and something needs to be done to stop rich people preying on poor people. A Capital Gains Tax (CGT) won't help because a rich person does not need to sell houses, but can keep accumulating. A CGT would just further hurt the middle-class if they were providing rentals for those that could not afford a house yet because the middle-class need to sell and buy houses if they want to move. This is why I am proposing a limit on the number of homes a person can own. It should help to reduce taxes and support payments as poor people will be better able to support themselves. Along the lines of what someone said in the last few years, at some point we need to decide whether homes are for living in or a commodity.
Even with the EEWT, I feel a limit would still be useful to prevent a large amount of houses being acquired and then getting some friendly politicians to repeal the law.
This policy encourages those with lots of wealth to be more entrepreneurial or philanthropic if not already. Helps to keep house prices affordable by not allowing the wealthy to buy too many houses out from under people and reduces a lot of the housing costs that are due to speculation (if wealthy people have been doing this, if not it is a good safeguard), which will help to reduce bank profits as well. Improves social mobility and competition by allowing people to save enough wealth to set up competing businesses or spend time on what they value.
The EEWT should not be introduced too early because people need advanced warning otherwise a panic might occur.
The electricity companies are probably the Government's most regressive tax. For every dollar the Government raises, an almost equivalent dollar goes to a possibly shrinking percentage of private shareholders each year. Wealthy people likely use more electricity due to owning companies, so directing the generators to lower their profits would benefit wealthy people but at least it would be the ones producing things.
Though a CGT may be useful in the short-term to recover some of the capital gains that are due to favourable Government policies, I feel it is not good for the middle-class and once it is implemented it cannot really be repealed because those that had to pay tax in the time it was operational will be annoyed.
I considered a smaller, broader wealth tax as well so as to promote competition, but it did not seem practical.
Consider reducing minimum wage if cost of living decreases.
Rationale: As the cost of living decreases due to reduced housing costs, so too should the minimum wage (though obviously not as much as the reduction in housing costs). This might help NZ exporters to improve the balance of trade. On the other hand it might be good for those on higher incomes to trim their wages first.
Justice/Crime
Change s 107 of the Sentencing Act 2002 as follows: 107 Guidance for discharge without conviction
The court must not discharge an offender without conviction unless the court is satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. offence was so inconsequential in terms of the crime that a conviction would be unreasonable.
Rationale: I believe the existing section is inconsistent with what I would consider a principle of natural justice: that all are equal in the eyes of the law. It's incompatible with Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Whilst some allowances are made for factors that may have influenced the offending, a person being well-off should not be one of them.
The problem is that those with good professions, prospects or reputation have greater consequences from a conviction because they potentially have further to fall. This can lead to situations where two people commit exactly the same crime, but only the working class person gets convicted (and also that person may have made it to the same level as the other person one day had it not been for the conviction). It would be better to convict people equally and honestly; and leave it up to the professions to decide whether that conviction makes the person unsuitable.
It seems the guidance was introduced in 2002 as part of tough on crime efforts. Previously, judges had more discretion over whether to discharge without conviction. However, in practice it may be having the opposite effect because it encourages a judge to consider the consequences of a conviction on the offender. Judges should just have to decide whether a crime was committed, and what the sentence should be within the allowable range, not what may happen to the offender if honest documentation is kept.
I can think of a few cases in recent years where people have committed rather serious offences and been discharged without conviction, e.g. a bull, named Ferdinand, that was shot with arrows. It's not just the cases that go to court though, as it may cause prosecutors to not even bother taking cases to court, and a general lack of respect for the law, which could lead to more serious offences being committed.
The change I'm proposing hopefully captures when a discharge without conviction would be appropriate (where depending on the crime there is no potential malice, harm or risk of harm), and puts the focus back on the offence rather than who committed it.
Ban employers from asking whether a candidate has convictions and any statements that imply someone with convictions will not be considered (unless someone cannot lawfully do the role with those specific convictions) until about 15 minutes before an interview. While we're at it, ban requesting identity information such as a passport until about 15 mins before an interview.
Rationale: With online application forms, and seconds-long CV skimming, people might be concerned that having a single conviction rules them out of consideration for a job. Once a criminal has done their time, we should be trying to rehabilitate them back into society. As someone said, a conviction isn't meant to be a sentence for life.
I don't believe a copy of a passport or similar ID should be attached to job applications either, because of privacy breach risks and potential for discrimination for reasons that have nothing to do with a candidate's ability to do a job.
Improve unemployment support and improve job opportunities (by reducing over-immigration).
Aside from that, likely leave it up to the Police.
Rationale: If other options were better, maybe there would be less interest in committing crimes.
Dividend Stripping Tax (what some consider to be a Capital Gains Tax)
A basic description of this policy would be that when someone sells shares in a publicly listed company, they should pay tax on any pre-tax income the company has not distributed to shareholders yet; and the buyer should not have to pay tax on a corresponding amount given they paid for their share of the pre-tax income using after-tax money. Also, with how it is implemented, people would have to pay tax on changes in valuation of a company unless they wait 10 to 22 months depending on the time of year (because the change in valuation is assumed to occur due to a change in the company's income).
The following policy is a bit technical/confusing and more for those that have to implement it, and some details still need to be worked out such as how things change if the company distributes or receives capital, but it does not seem like that should be difficult to do.
For the policy in the following paragraph, the prescribed period was mentioned in the Excess Retention Tax section of the Income Tax Act 1976 (http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/ita19761976n65143/), and means, in relation to an accounting year, the period 12 months commencing 2 months before the end of that accounting year. It was basically used to say that a company has 10 months after the end of the tax year to distribute the income for that year. I haven't had time to look for anything similar in the current legislation, but I assume it can be the case that if a company's income has not been distributed as a dividend within 10 months after the end of the tax year, then that income is locked in as having been paid at the company tax rate as opposed to being distributed and paid at an individual's marginal tax rate.
When someone sells/buys shares in a publicly listed company, treat the difference between the sale price and the start of year value for the current prescribed period as an income gain/loss respectively, where the start of year value is the price of the shares at the start of the company's tax year minus any dividends paid out between it and the start of the current prescribed period.
Rationale:
"Capital Gains Tax Necessary
Higher income earners can avoid their tax rate by selling their shares of a dividend income. Lower income earners would pay more for the income because of a lower tax rate. Thus dividend income is converted into untaxed capital gains."
The above was a letter that most NZ media (except for some radio stations) received in September 2017. I don't know whether any of the media discussed it.
Dividend stripping arrangements are considered to be tax avoidance, but for publicly listed companies it is hard to tell even for the parties involved whether dividend stripping is occurring, and the consequence if IRD catches someone is just that they have to pay the tax they should have paid. What's more some sites describe it as an investment strategy without mentioning it may be tax avoidance; instead they state it exists because of market inefficiencies, which may be true in some cases but less so in NZ.
Here is an example:
Rich has a high income and pays 40% tax
Poor has a low income and pays 20% tax
Rich has owned shares in a company that to make this example clearer has zero value except for the income it has acquired over the course of a year ($10).
The company is about to issue a dividend (distribute the $10 of income to shareholders).
If Rich keeps the shares he has to pay $4 tax on the dividend and keeps $6. If Rich sells the shares for $8 to Poor (on the NZX or wherever), he keeps $8, and Poor receives $10, pays $2 tax, and keeps $8 to breakeven; Rich can then buy the shares back at $0 (now that the income is distributed) to start all over again. By trading the shares Rich profits by $2 at the IRD's expense. In reality, Rich and Poor would negotiate in the market so that Poor gets some of that $2 profit. What's worse is that this will be happening all the time without people knowing it; any time when a high income earner sells shares in a company with some undistributed income to a low income earner they will probably be avoiding their fair share of tax, i.e. their marginal tax rate.
This policy ensures they pay their fair share of tax. To add a bit more detail to the above example, let's say Poor in addition to having $10 available to buy shares, has an income of $20, such that at the end of the year if Poor did not buy shares, Poor would have $26 after taxes. Rich sells shares to Poor for $10, pays $4 tax, and keeps $6. Poor buys the shares for $10; receiving an income loss of $10 for tax purposes (he still has an income of $20); which means Poor gets to keep $2 of tax he would otherwise have had to pay; Poor receives a $10 dividend, and pays $2 tax; so Poor's total at the end of the year is $20 - $2 + $10 - $2 = $26.
It is easier for IRD to fix the system than to have investigators looking at cases trying to detect it.
This does introduce another form of tax avoidance similar to paying a relative excessive remuneration where a higher income earner limits their income by buying shares to get an income loss and then selling them at $0, over and over again. However, as they are making a loss each time this would only be of benefit if they had an arrangement with the other person so they could get the money back. This would be a more obvious form of tax avoidance and is similar to excessive remuneration, but probably not covered by the Act, so an additional section would be needed to identify this as tax avoidance as well.
Based on an IRD discussion document, the IRD don't seem to realise they could be missing out on 55% of the taxes a high income person owes (or in the unlikely worst case 73%; tax-exempt charities would be even worse at around 100% but they pay no tax, so I assume tax credits would be worthless for them, if they are even able to buy shares). IRD think they would only be missing the difference between the top personal tax rate 39% and the company tax rate 28%, so they would only be missing 28% of taxes owed (11%/39% = 28%). Perhaps they don't realise that a dividend often comes with 28% imputation tax credits to cover the fact that the company has already paid tax on the dividend income, and that if someone has a personal tax rate of 17.5% then the individual can use the extra tax credits to cover their own PAYE tax liabilities to receive a refund, or if they don't have enough tax to pay then they can hold onto the credits indefinitely until they do have tax to pay.
The IRD also seem to think publicly listed companies are less of an issue for dividend stripping because it is harder to make an arrangement. The IRD don't seem to realise it is potentially worse because it is harder to call the price a buyer and seller agree on an arrangement and that the NZX connects high income people to a whole lot of low income people. I don't know whether managed funds could also take advantage of this internally and whether the IRD would do much scrutiny of a managed fund's internal transactions.
That the IRD seems oblivious is especially frustrating because in addition to informing the media in 2017, it was also one of the things I emailed Labour MPs Ardern, Little, Parker and Williams about near the start of August 2017. Though they could argue it was subtle because I mentioned it as one of the things needed to increase the highest tax rate, without emphasising that it was a current tax loophole (except for calling their party office and using their web contact form. From the 2017 web contact: "One of the points in the email hints that currently there is an entirely legal way of avoiding paying ones fair share of tax"). Having said all this, I have seen no evidence to suggest that anyone is deliberately taking advantage of the loophole (not that I would see).
The following image might help to understand the policy, and it may help to realise that for this policy when a dividend is issued it is generally distributing income accumulated in the previous tax year (not recent income).
Caption: An image showing that when a dividend occurs it decreases the end of year value for the current prescribed period (provided it occurs after the end of year because if it occurred before, the end of year value would already be lower due to the dividend); and when a sale occurs, the income gain/loss is the difference between the current price and the start of year value for the current prescribed period.
Immigration
Remove skilled immigration categories except for doctors, nurses, dentists, and probably aged care.
Instead use a random lottery system, where if intending to come with one's family that would need to be specified as part of the application so that there are not situatons where both partners make an application and then one gets drawn and brings or has to leave behind the other one.
To then gain permanent residency it would be something like the following: Have lived in the country for at least four years with at least three of them being consecutive years, and have worked the equivalent of three full-time years over the time they have lived in the country. Basically they lose working towards the visa if they have lived overseas or have not worked at least part-time for more than a year unless they have applied for a suspension on the grounds of a very unwell loved one.
Rationale: Since 1987, NZ has used skilled migrants as a category for immigration.
Skilled immigration seems to destroy training pathways with employers just looking to cherry-pick those who already have the skills and at a relatively cheap price because of migrants gaining a residency fringe benefit. This is not only bad for those already here, but for migrants too who may find they and their kids lack career development.
The exception for some healthcare roles is because of the demand with an aging population and health being an important issue that people would not want to risk compromising. I may have missed some, but its primarily about the roles where work cannot be double-checked and it would be a pain to correct mistakes if someone did not do an adequate job.
A random lottery seems better because then they would enter the talent pool in a similar situation to others, which should mean that skilled employers actually have to work on their training programmes and have more realistic requirements regarding what it takes to start out in a job.
It might also allow NZ to acquire new skills rather than only receiving those that can do things that we already have jobs for, and thus could probably easily teach.
There would still be temporary work visas such as working holidays, which may be able to suit the needs of some employers. Also, if an employer raises the salary enough they may be able to attract a skilled worker over from Australia.
For student visas, there would be two paths: one would be studying to then find work in NZ and work towards permanent residency; and the second would be just in NZ for academic purposes and heading home afterwards.
Rationale: It helps to be clear about expectations at the outset.
Cap new working/studying towards permanent residency visas, doctor etc. visas, and refugee visas (and any other permanent visa categories I may have missed) at about 0.35% to 0.45% of population per year. Initially that would mean about 18,200 to 23,400 visas issued.
Rationale: That would mean that for each 30 year generation, about one tenth to one eighth of people would be migrants, and population would only increase by about 11 to 14% (rough, simple calculations assuming NZ couples have two kids).
This should mean better wages and cheaper housing because over-immigration leads to wages likely going down and house prices going up due to more people competing for roles and existing housing stock. I would guess our high immigration has been one of the main drivers of wealth inequality. It would also help to reduce our impacts on the environment, such as climate change, water pollution, etc.; and prevent us from undermining our food export dependent economy and access to fresh water. It might also help to discourage population growth overseas, by not absorbing so many from the rest of the world.
Rationale: Treat people equally regardless of wealth or status. I note working visa would still be possible, and I think the OIO could still approve investments where they provide a benefit to NZ.
For healthcare graduates given their sector would still be subject to skilled immigration, try to ensure that graduates are finding healthcare work (provided they are fit for it) after they finish their studies.
Rationale: As above.
Local Government
Require Parliament's approval when a local council wants to sell down strategic assets. To provide a quick response, Parliament would perhaps need to consider it under urgency.
Rationale: There is low voter turnout in local government elections, which can lead to low quality candidates becoming mayors/councillors for a term and making significant decisions about community assets that have been held for generations. Not to mention, communities often express to councils that they don't want the assets sold, but councils keep raising the prospect of selling assets, and it only takes them being successful once for those assets to be gone. Therefore as a small degree of added security for ratepayers, councils should need to get central government approval before they sell strategic assets.
Encourage councils to consider organising more of a school pool type donation fundraiser to pay for non-essential infrastructure construction costs. The council could cover operating costs and make a contribution to reflect the benefit to the wider community.
Rationale: I feel that there should be more of a user pays aspect to the project costs to ensure those who most benefit from it, pay more towards it.
KiwiSaver
Allow self-management of KiwiSaver funds (I'm unsure if they do this in Australia). KiwiSaver would effectively be a savings account that people cannot take money out of but can invest in things, e.g. shares of a specific company, one of the existing managed funds, a Government-provided fund manager similar to ACC or Superannuation, term deposits, etc.. Where voting rights come up for shares, the options are passed on to the account owner. There may be restrictions on the account for security such as to prevent selling or buying at unusual prices.
Rationale: The point of KiwiSaver is to encourage people to save for their retirement. All that is really required for that is a savings account they cannot take money out of, some incentives to encourage people to put money in it, and some way to protect their money from inflation.
Unfortunately, I think we are creating a new class system similar to historic landlords, in the form of fund managers that have a lot of influence on where money is spent, the decisions companies make and in the media (e.g. the Minister of Revenue's something like 24 or 48 hour u-turn on taxing managed funds). If you have your own shares in a company, you could find that your own money is voting against you. Conflict of interest issues seem like they could arise where a fund manager has a large wealthy investor as a client that they don't want to lose, or when it comes to directors' salaries given that those in director/manager roles point to other people earning more in order to raise their own salaries. These managed funds could be a new problem because previously people were not incentivised towards managed funds, and were more likely to manage their retirement savings themselves.
When someone saves enough, stop making Government contributions, and potentially allow them to withdraw from having to make employee contributions.
Rationale: Once someone saves enough to support their retirement in combination with the pension, any more money the Government provides is not well spent.
It is also good if people don't save too much or save outside of KiwiSaver. This would allow them to start a business or spend, which promotes competition and creates jobs for others.
Social Welfare (/IRD) - Working for Families
Turn the majority of Working for Families, Sole Parent Support, the Accommodation Supplement and the Emergency Benefit into loans because they give too much free money to people just for having a baby. Some bad cases: about $557,000 over 14 years for a sole parent of one child and no job; about $442,000 over 18 years for the eldest child of a sole parent who works 20 hours a week on the minimum wage (so something like a total $50,000 yearly income, even if the person owns their own home as it doesn't seem to be means-tested).
The loan would be similar to student loans, but one that increases with inflation (i.e. has interest matched to positive inflation) and is spread evenly across their kids such that if the parent or the kids earn above the repayment threshold it starts to pay down in the case of the parent each loan or in the child's case their individual loan. If the parent has a loan from when they were a child, their repayments would go towards their loan before any of their children. A person's loan would be void on death, so as not to prevent them from gaining other loans that are available to them currently.
For the first two children of a person (or couple), while a child is under 16, the Government would contribute $1 per hour for every hour the principal earner works above 20 hours a week up to $20/wk; and where the person has conclusively identified the other parent another $1 per hour is available (another $20/wk). So a total gift of $80/week for a person working 40 hours with two under 16 children, though there would be an abatement mechanism to restrict the gift to only those on low incomes. The amounts would be adjusted each year to match inflation.
For those on the jobseeker benefit, the WfF payments would be a loan for their first child unless the person does their required jobseeking hours (plus corresponding hours to match the WfF payments) at a WINZ office (or any allowed interviews/volunteering outside of it); and it would be a loan for any other dependent children. WINZ staff would try to provide space to work from their offices, and dependent children would not be allowed except in emergencies, but providing space would be up to WINZ's discretion as there would be others they need to help as well.
Restrict WfF so Australians can't access it as easily, by requiring the child be born in NZ to parents who were ordinarily resident in NZ, or both parents were ordinarily resident in NZ for the 2 years immmediately preceding application, or one parent has resided continuously in NZ for not less than 5 years at some stage. And any other lawfully in NZ (except temporarily) restrictions that already apply.
Restrict WfF to only those under 16, and also for those that are still in school and have not passed NCEA Level 2 or equivalent.
The Goverment's existing payments to providers of early childcare and after-school care would remain as they are (i.e. would not need to be paid back).
Rationale: People should not have to give away large sums of money to someone for having kids when they cannot afford it. It is especially irresponsible given the pressures overpopulation puts on the environment, which is why the free contributions would be limited to the first two children.
The Government has made working part-time solo parents a viable life choice that comes at others' expense.
However, children need to be looked after when a parent is unable to, but it can be difficult to determine how much support someone needs especially if they fail to identify the other parent who could be paying child support. By providing support as a loan there is less reason for people to lie to Government departments, so it will hopefully reduce the difficult decisions that need to be made around whether someone is a partner. It also reduces the poverty trap that is created by means tested support, such that a loan encourages parents to take on more work to support their child.
The onus should first be on the parent to try to make ends meet, which may include ensuring that they are working full-time, asking for a pay rise and possibly all bunking in the same room. This won't necessarily happen if the parent is just gifted the money from other taxpayers, which is why it should be a loan.
If the child is an orphan, then the existing loan would stay but any new payments would not need to be repaid because ensuring that child is fed probably is the Government's responsibility.
The Government contributions of $1/hr provides added incentive for a parent to work 40 hours a week rather than just 20 hours and lump the loan on the child. The extra $1/hr for identifying the other parent would encourage people not to hide the identity so as to claim more money than they should be getting, and may prevent the support loan being needed at all if their combined income is enough to support the children. If they still don't want to identify the parent then they won't miss out on that much free money.
The loan has inflation interest because that is the value provided to the person at the time, and given the long timeframe a lot of the value would be lost if there was no interest. Unlike people being better educated, increased population does not provide as much benefit.
Regarding the jobseeker benefit, the goal is to make it like a normal job, but there is a limit to the amount of assistance that can be provided for largely unproductive work and there should be strong incentives to find work to look after the kids.
Restricting WfF to under 16 is because the WfF loan has a cost for both the taxpayer and the child, and once they are 16 and passed NCEA Level 2 they are not in nearly as desperate a situation as they were
Some people might not pay the loan back, but at least they will go a little way towards covering it by effectively paying a higher tax rate. Alternatively, they might go overseas to start a new life, though hopefully we can still recover repayments if they go to Australia.
The Accommodation Supplement should be a loan because someone's ordinary income should be enough to afford accommodation, and providing a benefit that only occurs if one rents is like a subsidy to landlords. The Emergency Benefit should be a loan so that it is not used to replace the other loans, and it seems to make sense to pay emergency support back anyway.
History: Sole Parent Support and Working for Families were both created to provide assistance to low-income families due to their difficult financial situations, and perhaps in WfF's case to encourage people to work. They were not necessarily created because the Government felt they deserved the money (though it does seem like Labour may view it as a good way of redistributing wealth).
Benefits for having children have been around for a long time though historically they weren't as large as they are now (maybe $2,000 a year per child under 16, and $3,000 off tax for a couple with a child under 5 where the principal earner earns less than $49,000 (reducing by $0.15 per dollar above that): so about $47,000 for the first child). In 1968, beneficiaries could have their benefits increased substantially for the first child and about one ninth of that for each additional child.
Successive Labour Governments have looked to increase money for children perhaps based on a quote from the First Labour Government that what is good for families is good for the country. The Third Labour Government introduced what is now called Sole Parent Support in 1973 and the precursors of the Accommodation Supplement (though they may have already been occurring under the Emergency Benefit category); and failed to introduce a bill that was described as the Baby Bonus Bill. A large increase for having children came from the first Rogernomics budget in 1984 because they needed a quick support measure for low-income families especially as costs would be increasing due to removing subsidies (because in their view the Government should not be pushing people towards particular actions). The 1984 increases for children did seem to be based on the parents working at least 30 hours a week and only covered up to the age of 16, but at some point this was reduced to at least 20 hours and an age up to 18. Another large increase came from the Clark/Cullen Government with the Working for Families package.
Tertiary Education & Student Loans
Consolidate graduate jobs boards into one. That is, instead of having a CareerHub (or whichever graduate jobs board) for each tertiary institution, just have one for the whole country. I think they are separate to each institution at the moment.
Possibly open it up to those that have not studied as well because not every entry-level job on there needs a qualification, but there would be options to filter based on qualifications.
Rationale: Better matching of graduates to entry-level jobs, and if you trained in one part of the country you will still have access to the jobs market if you move.
Look into whether NZers in Oz pay the repayment threshold on student loans, and if not, try to see that they do.
Rationale: Given NZ funded the education it would be nice to see the money back like would happen if they stayed in NZ.
Other countries would not count because we're never going to be able to tax them all, and we probably don't want to tax only the friendly countries. However, it makes sense for Australia given how close it is and the brain drain.
Introduce a new category of leave named 'Teaching Leave', where an employee may take up to 8 hours paid leave in a year to teach tertiary students for 4 hours (half their leave time) at an approved tertiary provider subject to the provider's written agreement.
Rationale: Employers often complain they can't find staff with the skills they need, and I believe this is partly because the connections between industry and tertiary knowledge are not strong, so the intent is to encourage more engagement between workers in the industry and tertiary providers for the benefit of students (potential future employees of those businesses).
Electoral Policy
Keep the election term at three years.
Rationale: Not enough trust in politicians and even if there was for a time, the law needs to be suitable for both good and bad times.
Also, elections provide a good opportunity to discuss political ideas, and seek consent for policies.
Keep the voting age at 18.
Rationale:
1. As with a number of things in politics there's no right or wrong answer. For those in support of lowering the age to 16, why not 15, or 12, or 5? For me 18 seems right.
2. At 16 a person's life experience is rather limited. While they may be an adult, for voting it helps to have some life experience of being an adult, and also to have some observations as an adult of how politicians words often don't match their actions.
3. With all the other things kids are learning, why burden them with more tasks to look into, and those that don't will probably just go with what their parents or friends say.
4. Then there's the alcohol argument. If the voting age is lowered to 16, politicians may offer as an enticement for young voters that they'll lower the drinking age. After all if they're old enough to make decisions on who governs the country, then surely they're old enough to decide for themselves not to take a substance that is known to be particularly harmful to them at that age. And if their brain has not matured enough to drink, has it matured enough to vote? Sure they say 18 is still too young for alcohol, but again it's about deciding on an age, and 18 seems right to me.
5. I think it's good to avoid the politicisation of youth/schools. With a lower voting age there would perhaps be added interest by politicians in speaking to school students and it may feel like compulsory attendance either because it's part of civics education or because of peer pressure to go along. I'm not sure parents would be keen to find out their impressionable young kids had felt forced to listen to Darth Vader. And the book The Wave (by Todd Strasser) springs to mind, though this seems like scaremongering in our tolerant society, perhaps our society is more tolerant because of safeguards such as a higher voting age.
Housing
See the Economy/Housing section for my main housing policy.
Rationale: In the Economy/Housing policy. It is there because it covers more than just housing.
Repeal the three-storey developments without consent legislation of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021.
Rationale: The Act may be appropriate for some cities but not all of them.
It introduces anxiety as to whether someone will build a three-storey tower or wall next to your property especially if you have just forked out a large amount to purchase it because it does have natural light, privacy, views and neighbouring trees.
It may increase demand for productive farmland due to building lifestyle blocks or larger properties to avoid the three-storey towers.
It may lead to a hodgepodge of density that is hard for public transport planners to accommodate, and perhaps more expensive infrastructure upgrades due to less economies of scale and planning certainty.
Create a new Housing Redevelopment Agency with what I think was the old Ministry of Works type model where they can requisition an area of land to build infrastructure. In this case the Agency would be building high density apartments in the middle of the area of land, scaling down the heights towards the edges to minimise adverse effects on neighbouring property owners. Though that may lead to unnecessary redevelopment so they might leave properties on the edges unaltered until such time as they plan to develop them, or if the existing homeowner is still happy to live there just pay them compensation for the loss of value.
Rationale: No one wants nice things about their property to change because someone is doing a development next door. At least this way the Agency is identifying the most appropriate sites, developing at scale and either not affecting neighbouring land owners or paying compensation. If someone's site has been bought, they should hopefully be able to use the money to buy a similar property somewhere else.
If the Agency did it correctly it would lead to desirable high-density living due to better transport accessibility; and also better geographic spread of the density so poorer people could live closer to work and promote better social mixing/cohesion.
It would benefit traditional suburban housing/commerce as well due to the increased number of public transport users on well-defined routes creating better quality services.
I am unsure whether Kainga Ora already has MoW type abilities, but they are perhaps too small and only focused on the housing waiting list, rather than the housing market at large.
Legislate that landlords cannot limit the number of people staying in a property to less than three times the number of bedrooms except for structural safety reasons or if they have a pre-existing personal issue with one of the would-be tenants. The Government would determine the nationwide additional wear and tear fee/rent that should apply per additional person. Additional people would still require all of the tenants' consent.
Rationale: Whether anyone would find use in this policy, I don't know, but limits on number of people do appear in tenancy agreements. Allowing more people to live in a property provides tenants with more ability to resist rent rises, provides tenants similar abilities to homeowners, potentially reduces housing demand and instantly provides more housing supply (even if it is not the sort of housing people want).
Extend foreign buyer ban so that only those residing in NZ at the time of purchase and have been tax resident in NZ in the year before the purchase can buy houses and extend the foreign buyer ban to apartments as well.
Rationale: Houses should be for living in, not a business investment. Rents for the basics of life should not be going overseas. Capital gains if there are any from housing should be a benefit for those that are actually living in and contributing to the country.
Trusts
Review law regarding trusts. Consider making trusts, aside from wills or charitable trusts, into a form of company that allows non-proportional voting rules. As such, the beneficial owners (and possibly the creator) of a trust would be identified as shareholders (with ownership percentages) in the companies register, and where a trust is a shareholder in another company or property, the specific trust would be identified rather than just the trustees.
Also, consider requiring any contract that gives someone the right to acquire a property (aside from a will, or short-term contracts) to be registered with a Government agency in order to have legal effect.
As far as I can tell, a trust is basically a company with non-proportional voting rights except for a will, or a charitable (or almost charitable but perhaps does not meet the definition) trust. For an almost charitable trust, a minister could provide an exemption to the requirement to identify specific individual owners, and simply identify a group, e.g. Canterbury residents. Unfortunately trusts also allow a person to pretend that someone else owns something, which can reduce trust in the tax system and decision-making. Many countries in Europe do not have trusts as a legal entity except when dealing with an international matter because of concerns around tax avoidance. There seem to be adequate alternatives for non-charitable trusts such as a company, partnership, incorporated society, power of attorney, or perhaps it isn't that important anyway (at least not when balanced against the negatives of allowing trusts). There are some situations where the non-proportional voting rules of a trust may be useful though such as when a parent is unable to look after a minor; or a farm where one child gets to manage it, but the others receive income. For blind trusts that may be recommended for politicians by the Cabinet Manual, they do not seem to be a good way of handling conflicts because how can the public ever have confidence that a trust is truly blind (e.g. Labour says Key broke asset rules)?
This policy also could have saved three months of delays in the handling of my complaint about Christchurch's Te Kaha stadium.
Check how income tests for a range of Government assistance are handled when someone uses a company or trust such that they may not have much personal income.
Rationale: Obviously to check that they would not receive assistance that they should not receive.
Supermarket Competition
Consider the following policy,
If supermarket companies wholesale (warehousing) and retail operations are above a certain size:
require the wholesale and retail operations to be split into separate companies; and,
no one who makes significant decisions in wholesale may be biased towards a specific retailer and vice versa. For example, someone cannot have a significant shareholding in both retail and wholesale, or they are aware that a close relative has a significant role/shareholding in the other.
Rationale: It's an anti-monopoly or anti-trust type law to improve competition in the supermarket sector.
It makes it easier to set up a retail store to compete with another supermarket as they don't have to set up all of the warehousing/distribution and vice versa. Requiring an existing supermarket to provide to other retailers as well wouldn't be good enough because the wholesale arm could sell at exorbitant prices such that the retail operations make a loss but the incumbent is still sustainable due to the increased profits of the wholesale arm covering the cost of the retail arm.
It would be limited only to supermarkets due to food being essential and issues have not been raised with other similar product sectors. The size limit would allow manufacturers to still set up boutique retail stores to gain a foothold in the market.
However, I would like to consider if there are other options particularly to do with supermarket brand products, which I believe do come close to fitting the traditional definitions of being anti-competitive. I would need to read more though, as I have not looked into it much.
Information Technology
Regarding Government services storing their data overseas, eventually bring all of the data storage except for encrypted backups (if that is sufficiently secure) back to NZ. This would mean that any projects currently under way that are committing to storing data overseas will quickly become obsolete.
Rationale: Jurisdictional issues and it seems inappropriate to store data on NZ citizens, survey feedback and reports overseas. We want to ensure information confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
It seems like a lot of Government data is being stored overseas nowadays. For example, the Privacy Commissioner uses overseas data storage, and also the Ombudsman's Office used SurveyMonkey to do their annual public survey.
Remove the cloud-first policy that directs public agencies to always favour cloud-computing over traditional data storage.
Rationale: I am yet to be sold on the idea that cloud-computing is better than traditional data storage, so it is inappropriate for me to support the Government's policy of overriding the decision making of those with first-hand knowledge of the situation. It also has connotations to the sort of outsourcing of Government in-house roles that has been gutting the public sector for decades.
Promote more use of Linux in the public sector if it is currently just using closed-source Operating Systems.
As part of this, donate some money to projects that are free for the public's benefit each budget (thinking of the Linux ecosystem, Wikipedia, etc.). Possibly employ a small number of people to contribute their time to the projects as well, though not so much Wikipedia due to the risk of Government propaganda.
Rationale: Supports competition from service providers to ensure we don't get locked into paying whatever price the provider sets. Also, supports user preference and efficiency.
Donations if you can and want to is sort of the ethos of these tools.
Superannuation
Raise the retirement age to 65 and a half within the next 3 years. Incrementally, so people don't miss out on six months because of a day. For example, raising it by a day every 6 days.
Rationale: It often gets mentioned that superannuation is going to be unaffordable, but increasing it by more than six months I feel would be quite upsetting for a number of people. People are living longer, whether it should be raised more I don't know: 66 could be too high. Younger people are already concerned about climate change and perhaps debt, without adding more problems like superannuation.
Finance
Introduce some Government term deposits with a good/competitive interest rate that only those who are NZ Citizens or permanent residents, tax-resident in NZ and between the ages of 20-28 can invest in (up to a limit of $5000 at age 20, progressively going up to $10,000 by age 25; limits may be subject to change after consultation with low-wealth interest groups as to saving capability), and use the money as a form of finance rather than using low-interest overseas loans. Alternatively, if the Government is happy with the level of overseas debt, then consider buying back some shares in SOEs.
Rationale: Encourages saving at an early age, but one in which they have the capability to save, and adult enough to be aware of decisions (i.e. it avoids advertising to those that are too young, only for those that may need the most encouragement to save, quietly withdrawing from it).
Provides a small bonus to those that stick around now that they're adults rather than contributing to the brain drain.
The conditions stop those that already have enough taking advantage of it.
One of the justifications for the $5-7 billion partial selling off of electricity companies was to reduce interest payments to an overseas country (I think Malaysia was the example given); this term deposit policy is similar but with better limits on foreign investment like was initially advertised for the SOE sell-off before they decided against limiting it.
Miscellaneous Tax
Reconsider David Parker's managed funds tax, or whatever the 24 to 48 hour u-turn policy was.
Rationale: I did not look at it closely, but from what I saw it seemed like a good idea given that GST is meant to be a broad tax applying to every service. Most of the opposition seemed to be coming from the outsized media influence of those it would apply to, and if people have the ability to self-manage their KiwiSaver then it won't necessarily be a KiwiSaver tax.
Transport
If not already done regularly, review whether the allocation of petrol tax between national and local roads is still appropriate so as to reflect the natonal:local proportion of revenue and road requirements.
Rationale: Just to check that roading expenses are mostly user pays. Rates should cover local roading expenses a little bit due to cyclists and non-road users benefitting, e.g. more customers for a shop or just larger economies of scale. Though drivers would receive the most benefit, so petrol tax should contribute substantially to that, and I just want to check that mostly local road users are not subsidising the national road network too much.
Consider options for KiwiRail to use buses (whether in partnership with a private company or their own), when there is not enough passenger demand.
Rationale: Train tickets are expensive compared to buses, so many people would buy a bus ticket and KiwiRail would perhaps have no idea as to level of demand they are missing. If they offered a rail/bus option, then maybe they could sell cheaper tickets and only put on a train if there were enough passengers.
Looking to support rail, because in other countries and in NZ's past it used to be a cheap form of travel. It should also be easier to electrify as it does not require batteries.
Consider bringing back the maximum distance protection regulation of 1936 from the Transport Licensing Act 1931 limiting long-distance truck freight distances.
Rationale: Long-distance freight should be travelling by rail or shipping, which are less emissions-intensive. It would mean trucks that were basically travelling next to railway lines would have to move the freight onto and off a train at each end. However, trucks that were ferrying freight from a rural area to the nearest depot could travel as much as they wanted in that area.
Consider opening up the North Island Main Trunk Rail line to high cube containers.
Rationale: As mentioned in my submission to the Productivity Commission, it was suggested in a 2011 submission by the Institute of Professional Engineers NZ (IPENZ).
Correspondence
Christchurch's Te Kaha Stadium
My opinion on the unlawfulness of the Christchurch City Council's decision to build Te Kaha stadium, why the Auditor-General should be removed from his office and why The Treasury could be considered negligent is quite a long story because it is basically several conversations in one.
To make it easier to read, there are buttons to filter to just a specific group, and I have provided the following summary, which covers the background before going into the issues I have with each organisation, followed by a more comprehensive timeline. The following are perhaps the most important attachments:
On the 14th of July 2022, the Christchurch City Council decided to invest additional money and to sign off on the construction contract to build Te Kaha stadium. I asked the Ombudsman the following morning for advice regarding concerns I had about the decision, including concerns about misleading statements and an undeclared conflict of interest. On the 3rd of August, I became concerned at how long the Ombudsman may take to respond, so I forwarded the email to the pro-bono email address of Lawyers for Climate Action NZ, but I did not receive a specific reply about it.
On the 13th of September, the Ombudsman's Office got back to me with some useful advice and saying that I should complain to the Council Chief Executive (CE) Dawn Baxendale first before they could look into it. A week later on the 20th of September, I emailed my complaints to the CE, the Auditor-General (AG) John Ryan, and The Treasury. This email also contained a complaint for the AG to handle under the Local Authorities (Members' Interests) Act 1968 (LAMIA) concerning Councillor James Gough. I was aware the CE was in the news at the time regarding an email invitation to dinner she'd received from Cr Gough on the 3rd of August, but I had not had time to look into it.
After following up with the Council a couple of times, informing the Ombudsman, a couple of councillors and the stadium construction company, BESIX Watpac, I received a response to my complaints from the CE three months later on the 21st of December.
Dissatisfied with the response, on the 31st of January 2023, I emailed the CE another complaint document responding to her email and including an additional complaint that they had failed to comply with section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002 (Identification of inconsistent decisions).
Three weeks later, the CE replied to basically say they maintained that they had done everything lawfully. A few days later on the 23rd of February, I replied to the CE regarding a new LAMIA complaint I had lodged with the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) on the 22nd of November.
After back and forth emails with the OAG since the 22nd of November, they had informed me that Cr Gough was not a beneficiary of a trust that was a possible pecuniary interest listed in the complaint and they did not think that Cr Gough had a pecuniary interest in the decision for any of the other grounds listed in my complaint. The OAG had earlier said that if it was an interest, then it would be a potential non-financial interest, and concerns about non-financial interests should be raised with the Council.
I appealed to the AG for an answer to a question I had asked that would help me better understand their decision.
On the 20th of March, I received a response on behalf of the AG from an Assistant Auditor-General (Legal, Policy and Inquiries Group) Melanie Webb that provided me with an answer, but not for the question I had asked, and she also said they did not propose to engage further unless a new issue was raised.
After the CE asked for additional information, the Council's Head of Legal & Democratic Services Helen White replied on the 30th of March, that it did not cross the threshold of a conflict of interest.
On the 3rd of April, I emailed ministers Andrew Little, Kieran McAnulty, David Parker, and my electorate MP Nicola Grigg with the subject "Possible removal of Auditor-General, and other public sector problems" informing them of the issues I was having with the Council, OAG, and the Treasury. Also on the 3rd of April, I informed the Ombudsman's Office that I was not expecting any more emails from parties to the complaint, but I had raised the issue with some MPs given the OAG was outside the Ombudsman's scope.
On the 9th of May, after having tried to get something published by media outlets to no avail, I tried to raise the issues I had with the OAG's decision, mentioned in the 3rd of April ("Possible removal of Auditor-General...") email to MPs, with the AG and OAG. On the 18th of May, Assistant Auditor-General Ms Webb replied that they had nothing further to add to their previous correspondence, and they did not have any comment to make on the LGA 2002 s 80 issue either.
The Ombudsman's Office sent me a reply to an earlier email, and then on the 25th of May sought to clarify my concerns. I replied a few days later and on the 8th of June the Ombudsman's Office replied that they were now looking into my complaint about the Council; though I had formed an impression from the Ombudsman's Office's 8th of November email and subsequent similar emails that my complaint was being taken seriously and one of their considerations may be to step in at some point, especially as their website implies they may investigate a complaint even if a complainant has not first contacted the agency. As of the 19th of September 2023, I have not heard anything since.
The following are quick summaries of the main issues I have with each of the groups.
Council
Paragraph 26 of the 31 Jan 2023 complaint document has a summary of misleading information in the consultation document, but I thought of the following basic description.
When considering what the Council has done, in my opinion it basically amounts to the following,
'The stadium is $50m (August 2021) + $150m (June 2022) over budget; we must consult.
People of Christchurch, are you happy paying rates for a $20m cheaper stadium than we previously anticipated?'
(Because whilst we have added $200m to the rates impact, we have subtracted $220m from the cost considerations because we already decided to spend that funding on the stadium.
In addition, we anticipate these changes will mean a rates increase is above our Long Term Plan's quantified limit in the 2025/26 year, however we have not clearly identified this inconsistency as we are required to under s 80 of the LGA 2002).
And to top it all off, again in my opinion, one of the councillors discussed and voted when they should not have done.
Office of the Auditor-General
Cr James Gough discussed and voted on the stadium decision when his father owns 20% of The Terrace Carpark Limited, and his uncle, with no children and for whom Cr Gough works as a company director, owns large shareholdings in The Terrace hospitality companies as well. The Terrace companies are a few blocks from the stadium site.
As far as I could tell from the OAG's responses, their view is that there is too small a possibility Cr Gough will inherit from his father for it to be considered a pecuniary interest ("However, in our view, the possibility of inheriting business or property from [his father] is too remote to constitute an indirect financial interest in a decision for the purposes of the Act."), and this is despite common practices and their family history of handing down the business to the next generation.
Aside from the OAG's logic and decision, which I think a reasonable person outside the OAG would find hard to fathom, when I pointed out that they were also making an error of law, they ignored my point.
For the above reasons, I believe the Auditor-General should be removed from his office for neglect of duty, i.e. for not prosecuting someone where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person has (somewhat blatantly) broken a law within the Auditor-General's area of responsibilities. Though I never received an email from the Auditor-General himself, he authorised those I did interact with to speak on his behalf, the buck stops with him, and I gave them plenty of opportunities to do the right thing. It should not take this sort of publicity for someone in the Auditor-General role to do their job.
The Treasury
The Treasury are looking after the Crown side of the Te Kaha funding to ensure the Council complies with the funding agreement conditions, e.g. that the stadium has a roof. From the responses to my OIA requests, it appears The Treasury has done nothing in regard to my concerns about the unlawfulness of the stadium. To have no opinion at all on whether the Council's decision was lawful, could be considered negligent.
I am not a lawyer and obviously this is just my opinion. According to the Contract and Commercial Law Act (CCLA) 2017, every illegal contract has no effect. As such if the contract is unlawful then the Council will not be meeting the terms of the Funding Agreement. It will depend on the Funding Agreement, but under the act, The Treasury would have the right to cancel the agreement and seek compensation. However, when granting compensation, a court can consider whether The Treasury took reasonable steps to mitigate losses. Given The Treasury had facts, since the 20th of September 2022, to suggest it was unlawful and took no action, this could reduce their ability to recover money on behalf of the Crown. One would think The Treasury staff have a duty to act responsibly with others' money, and failing to investigate the matter should mean that the Crown has the right to be compensated by The Treasury staff under the tort of negligence.
BESIX Watpac
Similar to The Treasury, an illegal contract has no effect, but a court may grant relief. Given BESIX Watpac, on the 5th of December 2022, received facts to suggest their contract was unlawful and carried on with the contract, this will count against any compensation claim (CCLA 2017 s 80). In addition under s 79 of the CCLA 2017, the court must not grant relief if it considers to do so would not be in the public interest. Up to the 5th of December, BESIX Watpac, taxpayers and ratepayers were without fault, though if the stadium does not go ahead then ratepayers and taxpayers have lost money, so it is unclear what the public interest would be there. However after the 5th of December, BESIX Watpac was complicit, so the public interest would favour taxpayers and ratepayers.
Ministers
I have not heard back from ministers McAnulty, Parker and Little, but they likely have a duty to uphold the law, so one would expect they have taken some action in relation to the issues.
So though it seems quite far along to have a fair consultation now, if people do decide to pause or stop the stadium, depending on the details it may be possible for taxpayers and ratepayers to recover money from BESIX Watpac, staff at The Treasury and the Council (particularly for taking three months to respond to my 20th of September 2022 complaint), and possibly even ministers and the Council's auditor.
Timeline
The following timeline has most of the events, though may be missing updates with the Ombudsman.
Pre-14th July 2022: Council consults on decision on stadium.
14th July 2022: Council makes decision on stadium.
15th July 2022: I email the Ombudsman regarding concerns.
3rd August 2022 at 17:46: Because of news articles around the time, I became concerned at how long the Ombudsman
may take to respond, so I forwarded the email to the pro-bono email
address of Lawyers for Climate Action NZ, but I did not receive a reply from the inbox managed by volunteers outside of standard working hours (according to auto-replies to pre-17:30 emails). Though I did receive a reply to my more obviously climate-related email that was sent around the same time (as can be seen in the climate correspondence section).
13th September: I received a response from the Office of the
Ombudsman to raise the matter with the chief executive of the Council first, a useful guide
document for raising issues and a useful reference to the Council's
Code of Conduct.
20th September: I sent a proper complaint document to the Council's chief executive and
the Auditor-General, and copied to the Treasury. I was aware while writing the complaint document that the chief
executive was in the news regarding her handling of a 3rd of August email she'd received from a councillor,
but I had not had time to look at it. I also emailed some funding questions to the Treasury.
28th September: I received an acknowledgement email from the Office of
the Auditor-General.
20th October: I called the Council to check they had my complaint, and
what was happening with it, but the after-hours customer service
person could not see details, but told me the job number (#[redacted]),
and said if I emailed someone would get back to me. I emailed the
Council that night to ask when they were expecting to provide a
response.
25th October: I received a reply from a Council customer services
representative that it was still with the relevant staff and an update
would be provided as soon as possible once it was available.
1st November: I received a reply from the Office of the
Auditor-General that they are satisfied Cr Gough did not breach the
Act.
2nd November: I emailed the Office of the Auditor-General and the
Ombudsman my concerns about how long the Council will take to respond,
including the forwarded email with the complaints document that the
Ombudsman had not seen yet.
8th November: Received an acknowledgement from the Office of the
Ombudsman to let me know who had been assigned the case and a more
substantive update would be provided when they were in a position to
do so.
22nd November: I replied to the Office of the Auditor-General that I
accepted the details in my original LAMIA complaint were not valid
reasons under the Act, and provided other information as to why I
believe Cr Gough has still breached the LAMIA.
22nd November: I emailed the Council again to ask when they were
expecting to provide a response.
25th November: The Office of the Auditor-General replies that they are
still satisfied Cr Gough has not breached the Act. This is the start
of a back-and-forth conversation with the OAG that would crowd this
timeline and basically ends on the 20th of March 2023. It is more easy to read
in the filtered correspondence below.
4th December: I emailed the complaints document to councillors
Templeton and Coker, who had both voted against the stadium asking
whether they could provide an update or if they were unaware they
probably wanted to ask the Chief Executive what was happening with it.
5th December: I emailed the stadium building contractor (BESIX Watpac,
using the head office address listed on their website) to inform them
of the likely unlawful nature of their contract with Te Kaha Project
Delivery Ltd, in an attempt to limit costs/loss, and copied it to the
Council, Auditor-General and Ombudsman for their records.
20th December: Received an email from the Ombudsman's office that the
Council would get back to me by the end of the week and to feel free
to let the Ombudsman's office know if they did not.
21st December: Received a response to my complaint from the Council.
9th January 2023: Emailed the Office of the Auditor-General as they
had asked me to let them know what the Council's response was, and I
also indicated that I did intend to respond, but was still considering
the response.
13th January: Sought advice from a Citizens Advice Bureau, who basically said to keep doing what I was doing, but also suggested approaching Community Law Canterbury.
31st January: I emailed the Council another complaint document
responding to their email, and also forwarded it to BESIX Watpac to
keep them updated, along with my understanding of what the situation
could mean for them, and forwarded my email to Council to the Treasury
along with some OIA questions. Also forwarded email to Council to
councillors Templeton and Coker, and have not received any response
from them to it or the previous email (though they had replied to a short email before these complaint emails).
2nd February: I contacted the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to see if they could help.
17th February: Following on from the Treasury's response to my
previous OIA questions, I emailed them some further questions.
17th February: The SFO replied that their view was the information I'd provided did not support an allegation of serious or complex fraud offending that comes within the SFO's mandate, and they understood I'd already made a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman about the Council's actions and that the Ombudsman's Office was the most appropriate agency to be handling the complaint.
20th February: Received a response from the Council to the second
complaint document.
21st February: Received a response from the OAG relaying that Cr Gough
is not a beneficiary of the trust mentioned in the complaints document
from the 22nd of November, and they did not feel he had breached the LAMIA for any of the other grounds in the document.
23rd February: I emailed the Council regarding the conflict of
interest LAMIA complaint document and common law rules.
23rd February: I tried to appeal to the Auditor-General for clarity around the decision the OAG had made.
23rd February: I emailed the OAG the Council's response to the second
complaint document and asked about the validity of the Council's
response to my complaint about a failure to meet the requirements of s
80 of the Local Government Act 2002, but it seemed from carefully
reading their emails that the OAG probably wouldn't respond.
24th February: Council responds asking for more specific info
regarding common law rules that regulate conflicts of interest.
28th February: I reply to Council providing more specific info.
28th February: I provided an update on the complaint including the
updated LAMIA conflict of interest complaint to BESIX Watpac and the
Treasury.
17th March: I received a response from the Treasury to my OIA
questions from the 17th of February.
20th March: Discussions with the OAG come to an end with an assistant
Auditor-General emailing me that they do not intend to engage further
with the matter unless a new issue is raised.
25th March: I described the issues to a law student at Community Law Canterbury, and she consulted with a back office lawyer. A receptionist told me they could not help and
that is why he was telling me because it was not legal advice. They could not help because they did not have anyone with judicial review experience, but he provided me with the
name of a lawyer who may be willing to do pro-bono work. I asked whether they could at least answer my query about whether a discharge without conviction is possible for a LAMIA
case. He replied something like that that was another reason they could not help because it did not really come under what Community Law Canterbury had been provided funding for.
25th March: I emailed some of the documents and issues (similar to the later 3rd of April email to MPs) to some relevant reporters at Stuff.
28th March: I contacted the lawyer suggested by Community Law Canterbury, and they had a brief read of what I sent them, but they felt they were not judicial review specialists, but said there were quite a few in Wellington. The lawyer also said it wasn't the sort of thing their firm could take on [at what I understood to be pro-bono] and it would cost me about $60,000 + disbursements.
Someone else I know said it could be more like $100,000, and I think the Climate Change Commission may have asked for more than that from the Lawyers for Climate Action NZ in their judicial review case. I didn't see why I should have to pay that much for someone else's mistake to try to save myself about $2,000 (and the emissions), so I didn't progress with it.
29th March: I emailed The Press to see whether their reporters got the email.
30th March: I received a response from the Council that their view is
Cr Gough did not have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest and was
able to participate in the Te Kaha decision.
3rd April: I emailed the Minister of Local Government Kieran McAnulty, Minister of Public Services Andrew Little, Attorney-General David Parker, and my electorate MP Nicola Grigg about the stadium and the issues I'd been having.
3rd April: I forwarded the Council's response to the Ombudsman's office and let them know I was not expecting any more emails from the Council.
15th April: I forwarded the 3rd of April email (to MPs) to RNZ for them to publish a story if they wanted.
23rd April: I forwarded the 3rd of April email to a small local newspaper for them to publish a story if they wanted.
9th May: I emailed to try to get through to the Auditor-General, and with the issues I had with the OAG's decision.
18th May: I received an email from the assistant Auditor-General that they had nothing further to add.
29th May: In response to an email from the Ombudsman's office, I emailed the Ombudsman's office confirmation of my concerns about the stadium decision.
6th June: I forwarded the 3rd of April email to the NZ Herald.
8th June: I received an email from the Ombudsman's office to let me know my outstanding concerns had been transferred to the Early Resolution Team for further consideration.
20th June: I called The Press to ask why they had not published anything. I received an email from one of the reporters I'd sent it to on the 25th of March. I then replied to them among other things "In terms of the story, it is one of multiple public actors not adequately performing their job." I have not heard anything since.
Filters:
Fri, 15 Jul 2022 08:35 Query about complaints
From: [WT]
To: info@ombudsman.parliament.nz
Hi,
Which of these can I complain about and to who?
- The Crown's Funding Agreement [redacted point I decided not to proceed with regarding multi-use as I realised that had not changed since the agreement was signed].
- Inconsistency of advice provided to Council by the Chair of the Te
Kaha Project Delivery Board and the independent risk assurance expert
they have employed with Barry Bragg seemingly saying the opposite of
the independent expert Peter Neven. [The Council explained the difference in their 21/12/2022 response.] Bragg said regarding risks that
still sit with the council
(https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/129255045/live-christchurch-to-get-new-stadium-after-councillors-agree-to-683m-deal,
at 2:50:10):
"Secondly because there is an enormous amount of paperwork sitting
behind this with drawings and specifications, there could be something
that we have missed during the confirmation of the developed design
scope, so we've allowed some contingency for that." and the Advice on
Design and Construct contract stating on page 9, "Key cost risks
remaining ... 9.2.2 Scope gaps i.e. detail within design that was not
apparent at time of Contract signing."
Neven said at 4:31:30,
"This contract here you are not responsible for any design delays,
omissions or errors ... so in my view this is a very good contract in
this market and one that really leaves a contractor with little
opportunity to make claims moving forward."
- [Redacted because not sure my understanding of the situation was correct] creating massive time pressure on a Council decision, which significantly limited sensible options available to the Council particularly with regard to
funding. [redacted unnecessary statement]
- An undeclared conflict of interest when a councillor is closely
related to a prominent business and land owner who may benefit greatly
from a council decision.
- Te Kaha Project Delivery Board members not passing on the outgoing
project director's report detailing the director's concerns to the
Christchurch City Council.
- Possibly misleading statements by Council consultation staff with
regard to playing down the cost by using "The total Council
contribution (cost) for Te Kaha, including an additional $150 million,
translates to $144 per annum per average residential property
occurring progressively between 2025 and 2027. These amounts would
decline slowly over 30 years as debt was repaid.", when the
non-Council contribution from the Government basically belonged to
Council as well given Labour's election policy was that Christchurch
could decide how to spend the money.
Thanks,
Wiremu Thomson
Tue, 13 Sep 2022 14:35 Office of the Ombudsman - Our ref [redacted]
From: info@ombudsman.parliament.nz
To: [WT]
Dear Mr Thomson
Please find attached a letter from Senior Investigator, [Redacted Senior Investigator's name] concerning your query about Christchurch City Council.
Kind regards
Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email may be confidential or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the recipient or recipients named in this message. Please note that if you are not the intended recipient you are not authorised to use, copy or distribute the email or any information contained in it. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender immediately and destroy the original message and any attachments.
[Redacted attachment]
Tue, 20 Sep 2022 04:18 Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [WT]
To: John.Ryan@oag.parliament.nz, info@ccc.govt.nz
Cc: Caralee.McLiesh@treasury.govt.nz, andrew.rutledge@treasury.govt.nz
Dear Ms Dawn Baxendale (CCC Chief Executive) & Controller and Auditor-General,
It is in the public interest for this complaint to be urgently
prioritised, given $868 million of public money is being unlawfully
spent.
I would like a written acknowledgement of this email and an estimate
from Ms Baxendale and the Auditor-General of how long it will take to
deal with my complaints.
Please find attached a letter outlining my complaints regarding the
Christchurch City Council's decision on 14 July 2022 to invest an
additional $150 million in the Te Kaha Canterbury Multi-Use Arena.
Please also find attached my complaint under the Local Authorities
(Members' Interests) Act 1968 concerning Christchurch City Councillor
James Gough.
I have copied Treasury into this email for their information given
their role as co-sponsor of Te Kaha.
Tue, 20 Sep 2022 04:20 Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: Info CCC <info@ccc.govt.nz>
To: [WT]
Thank you for contacting Christchurch City Council, Customer Services.
We understand that your email is regarding an urgent matter and have escalated your request to our priority queue. We will respond to your email within 24 hours.
If the matter is of higher urgency or a health and safety issue, please telephone 941 8999 or Freephone 0800 800 169 where our team of professional Customer Service Representatives are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Customer Services Unit Phone 03 941 8999 Fax 03 941 8033 Web www.ccc.govt.nz/contact-us
**********************************************************************
This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.
If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the
sender and delete.
Christchurch City Council
http://www.ccc.govt.nz
**********************************************************************
Tue, 20 Sep 2022 04:27 Te Kaha Funding Questions
From: [WT]
To: andrew.rutledge@treasury.govt.nz
Cc: John.Ryan@oag.parliament.nz
Dear Mr Rutledge,
I am unsure who at Treasury is best to answer these questions, so I am
sending them to you such that you can delegate it to the appropriate
person. They are with regard to whether the Te Kaha Investment Case
still stacks up.
Please find attached my letter with questions concerning Te Kaha.
I have copied this email to the Controller and Auditor-General, as I
do not know whether the role is a proactive one and whether there are
issues of audit concern.
Tue, 20 Sep 2022 23:07 Re: Office of the Ombudsman - Our ref [redacted]
From: [WT]
To: info@ombudsman.parliament.nz
Dear [redacted Senior Investigator's name],
Thank you for your advice. I found it very helpful and emailed my
complaints to Ms Baxendale and the Auditor-General this morning (after
having further developed my arguments).
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
On 13/09/2022, info@ombudsman.parliament.nz wrote:
> Dear Mr Thomson
[Redacted original message]
Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:38 RE: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [Redacted OAG Communications and Engagement Team email address]
To: [WT]
Kia ora Wiremu
Thank you for your emails regarding Te Kaha. I have passed them on to our Legal team as they are best placed to consider them. You should hear from someone in due course.
Ngā mihi
Chris
Communications and Engagement Team
Office of the Auditor-General Te Mana Arotake
Improving trust, promoting value
Level 2, 100 Molesworth St, Thorndon, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 3928, Wellington 6140
www.oag.parliament.nz | www.auditnz.parliament.nz | Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram
-----Original Message-----
[Redacted email seen earlier]
_______________________________________________________________
The information contained in this email message is intended only
for the addressee and is not necessarily the official view or
communication of the Office of the Auditor-General.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use,
disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information on it.
Thu, 22 Sep 2022 15:55 RE: Te Kaha Funding Questions
From: Andrew.Rutledge@treasury.govt.nz
To: [WT]
CC: [Redacted Treasury Ministerial Advisory Service Manager’s email address]
[IN-CONFIDENCE]
[Redacted because of the preceding line, and email basically just said that it would be handled as an OIA request]
________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information in this email is confidential to the Treasury, intended only for the addressee(s), and may also be legally privileged. If you are not an intended addressee:
a. please immediately delete this email and notify the Treasury by return email or telephone ([Redacted number in case it’s private]);
b. any use, dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
On 20 September 2022 you emailed two letters to the Auditor-General:
• a complaint under the Local Authorities (Members' Interests) Act 1968 (the Act) concerning Christchurch City Councillor James Gough; and
• a letter, also sent to Christchurch City Council, outlining your complaints regarding the Christchurch City Council's decision on 14 July 2022 to invest an additional $150 million in the Te Kaha Canterbury Multi-Use Arena.
In addition, you copied the Auditor-General in to a letter to the Treasury with questions about the investment case for the Te Kaha Canterbury Multi-Use Arena.
We will investigate your complaint about a possible breach of the Act and let you know when we have completed our enquiries. You might like to read more about the Act in our guide (https://oag.parliament.nz/2020/lamia), particularly how we investigate possible breaches in Part 5 (https://oag.parliament.nz/2020/lamia/part5.htm).
In relation to your other letter, as the Ombudsman advised, the first step is to raise your concerns with the agency itself. To that end, please let me know how Christchurch City Council responds to your letter, and I will pass this information on to our Inquiries team for them to consider further.
Nāku noa, nā Linda
Linda Edwards (she/her)
Senior Solicitor – Legal, Policy and Inquiries
[Redacted sign-off info and original message]
Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:52 The Treasury - Your request for Official Information
From: [Redacted Treasury Ministerial Advisory Service’s email address]
To: [WT]
Kia ora Wiremu,
Please find attached The Treasury’s response to your Official Information Act request.
Kind regards,
[The Treasury logo]
I Ministerial Advisory Service | Te Tai Ōhanga – The Treasury
Email: [Redacted]
Visit us online at https://treasury.govt.nz/ and follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram
[IN-CONFIDENCE]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information in this email is confidential to the Treasury, intended only for the addressee(s), and may also be legally privileged. If you are not an intended addressee:
a. please immediately delete this email and notify the Treasury by return email or telephone ([Redacted number]);
b. any use, dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
20th October 2022
I called the Council to check they had my complaint, and what was happening with it, but the after-hours customer service person could not see details, but told me the job number(#[Redacted]), and said if I emailed someone would get back to me.
Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:16 Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision (Job #[Redacted])
From: [WT]
To: info@ccc.govt.nz
Dear Chief Executive of the Christchurch City Council,
It's been a month now since you received my complaints and I would
like to know when you are expecting to provide a response.
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:16 Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision (Job #[Redacted])
From: Info CCC <info@ccc.govt.nz>
To: [WT]
Thank you for contacting Christchurch City Council, Customer Services.
We will respond to your email within 48 hours with a reference number for your request or advise what action has been taken.
If the matter is urgent or a health and safety issue, please telephone 941 8999 or Freephone 0800 800 169 where our team of professional Customer Service Representatives are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Please note if you are requesting information under the Official Information Act these requests have a standard response time of 20 working days.
Customer Services Unit Phone 03 941 8999 Fax 03 941 8033 Web www.ccc.govt.nz/contact-us
This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.
If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender and delete the email.
[Christchurch City Council logo]<https://ccc.govt.nz>
Tue, 25 Oct 2022 15:35 Re: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision (Job #[Redacted])
From: Info CCC <info@ccc.govt.nz>
To: [WT]
Tēnā koe Wiremu,
We have been advised by the senior advisor that your complaint is still with the relevant staff and an update will be provided as soon as possible once it is available.
Please feel free to reply to this email, or contact us on 03 941 8999, should you have further enquiries. We are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Dear Chief Executive of the Christchurch City Council,
It's been a month now since you received my complaints and I would
like to know when you are expecting to provide a response.
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.
If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender and delete the email.
[Redacted sign-off info]
Tue, 1 Nov 2022 10:08 RE: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
To: [WT]
Kia ora Wiremu
In September you wrote to the Auditor-General about your concern that Councillor James Gough had breached section 6 of the Local Authorities (Members' Interests) Act 1968 (the Act) by participating in Christchurch City Council's decision on 14 July 2022 to invest an additional $150 million in Te Kaha Canterbury Multi-Use Arena. Your letter is attached for your reference. After looking into the matter, we are satisfied that Councillor Gough did not have a financial interest in this decision, and so did not breach the Act by his participation.
As you noted, Councillor Gough is a director of The Terrace Carpark Limited, The Terrace Christchurch Limited, and The Terrace on Avon Limited. You noted that these companies relate to The Terrace Hospitality area and that, in your view, “Common sense indicates construction of the stadium would indirectly be of pecuniary benefit to his companies in a way that is not in common with the public.”
While a director, Councillor Gough is not a shareholder of any of these companies. This means that the Act does not deem him to share the companies’ financial interests. Even though Councillor Gough’s involvement in the companies is insufficient to meet the “deemed interest” test, we asked Councillor Gough for information in order to determine whether or not he did, in fact, have a financial interest in the decision. He confirmed that he is not paid for his services as director. As such, even if these companies do have a financial interest in the Council’s decision (and Councillor Gough is of the view that they do not), Councillor Gough does not, himself, have a financial interest in the decision through his involvement with these companies.
Looking at the Companies Register, we saw that Councillor Gough is a shareholder and director of Gough Corporation Holdings Limited and Gough Property Corporation Limited. For completeness, we asked him about these companies too. We are satisfied that neither of these companies will be affected by the Council’s decision.
In another letter, you also raised other concerns about the Council’s decision. As stated in my previous email, please let me know how Christchurch City Council responds to that letter, and I will pass this information on to our Inquiries team for them to consider further.
Nāku noa, nā Linda
Linda Edwards (she/her)
Senior Solicitor – Legal, Policy and Inquiries
[Redacted sign-off info and original message]
_______________________________________________________________
The information contained in this email message is intended only
for the addressee and is not necessarily the official view or
communication of the Office of the Auditor-General.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use,
disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information on it.
Wed, 2 Nov 2022 09:53 Fwd: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [WT]
To: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address], info@ombudsman.parliament.nz
Dear Office of the Ombudsman and Office of the Auditor-General,
The Christchurch City Council has not gotten back to me regarding the
complaints in the forwarded email. I phoned the Council on the 20th of
October as a follow-up and to check they had seen my complaint, and
emailed them the following as it was late and the person on the phone
could only see that the complaint was in progress:
Re: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision (Job #[Redacted])
"Dear Chief Executive of the Christchurch City Council,
It's been a month now since you received my complaints and I would
like to know when you are expecting to provide a response."
To which a customer services representative replied on the 25th:
"We have been advised by the senior advisor that your complaint is
still with the relevant staff and an update will be provided as soon
as possible once it is available."
I am a little worried that a fair consultation will not be possible if
the Council takes too long to respond. In the first consultation they
mentioned costs that had already been incurred and would be lost if
the project was stopped. These costs and the number of employees
affected will only increase as time goes on, as well as potentially
costs of demolishing what they have already built.
I am sure the Council is acting appropriately and I will get a
response soon, but my question is how long is too long to have to wait
for a response (e.g. 2.5 months, 6 months, a year?) and is there a way
that either the Auditor-General or the Ombudsman can investigate
whether the delays are justified?
I would also like to note the Auditor-General's website has an
explanatory video about the Controller function that can be used to
shut down illegal spending.
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
P.S. The Ombudsman's ref for previous correspondence regarding this
complaint is [redacted].
Dear Ms Dawn Baxendale (CCC Chief Executive) & Controller and Auditor-General,
It is in the public interest for this complaint to be urgently
prioritised, given $868 million of public money is being unlawfully
spent.
I would like a written acknowledgement of this email and an estimate
from Ms Baxendale and the Auditor-General of how long it will take to
deal with my complaints.
Please find attached a letter outlining my complaints regarding the
Christchurch City Council's decision on 14 July 2022 to invest an
additional $150 million in the Te Kaha Canterbury Multi-Use Arena.
Please also find attached my complaint under the Local Authorities
(Members' Interests) Act 1968 concerning Christchurch City Councillor
James Gough.
I have copied Treasury into this email for their information given
their role as co-sponsor of Te Kaha.
Wed, 2 Nov 2022 10:52 RE: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
To: [WT]
CC: "info@ombudsman.parliament.nz" <info@ombudsman.parliament.nz>
Kia ora Wiremu
Thanks for your email. I have passed your questions on to the OAG Inquiries team for them to consider.
Nāku noa, nā Linda
Linda Edwards
Senior Solicitor - Legal, Policy and Inquiries
[Redacted sign-off info and original message]
Tue, 8 Nov 2022 09:40 Office of the Ombudsman - Our ref: [redacted]
From: [Redacted investigator’s email address]
To: [WT]
Tēnā koe Mr Thomson
Thank you for your correspondence received on 2 November 2022 about Christchurch City Council.
Your complaint has been allocated to me to progress. At this stage, I am currently assessing it as to the extent to which the Ombudsman can assist, along with the rest of my caseload.
I will contact you again when this Office is in a position to provide a more substantive update
Ngā mihi nui
[Redacted investigator’s name]
Investigator
Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata
[Redacted contact details]
[cid:image001.jpg@01D82F0D.F0172A80]
[Redacted duplicate confidentiality notice]
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email may be confidential or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the recipient or recipients named in this message. Please note that if you are not the intended recipient you are not authorised to use, copy or distribute the email or any information contained in it. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender immediately and destroy the original message and any attachments.
Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:43 Re: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [WT]
To: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
Cc: John.Ryan@oag.parliament.nz
Dear Office of the Auditor-General,
Please find attached my new more specific legal complaint.
From further investigation I accept my initial complaint did not meet
the deemed pecuniary interest test.
Previously I thought section 6(2)(b) applied because as the terms were
not defined in the current legislation, I thought they would just mean
what they do in a dictionary. However upon inspection of the repealed
Companies Act 1955 I saw at least one of the terms was not what I
thought it was. Due to this misunderstanding, I only provided details
in my initial complaint relevant to that specific section; however I
still believe Cr. Gough has breached section 6 of the LAMIA and my
attached complaint provides additional details relevant for the
broader legal approach of section 6(1).
With regard to him not being a shareholder, though it's not really
part of my complaint because I imagine his current ownership of the
companies is small if anything, s 177(2) of the Companies Act 1955
goes a bit further than just checking whether he has a shareholding,
e.g. there are share warrants that provide a person the right to
acquire shares even if they are not currently listed as the
shareholder. I guess there would be similar concepts in the Companies
Act 1993 and there seems to be in the constitutions of The Terrace
companies, but because I figure it won't be important I have not
looked into it further.
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
On 01/11/2022, [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address] wrote:
> Kia ora Wiremu
>
>
>
> In September you wrote to the Auditor-General about your concern that
[Redacted the rest of the original message as seen it earlier]
Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:45 Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision (Job #[Redacted])
From: [WT]
To: info@ccc.govt.nz
Dear Chief Executive of the Christchurch City Council,
It's been two months now since you received my complaints and I would
like to know when you are expecting to provide a response.
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:46 Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision (Job #[Redacted])
From: Info CCC <info@ccc.govt.nz>
To: [WT]
Thank you for contacting Christchurch City Council, Customer Services.
We will respond to your email within 48 hours [redacted rest of auto-reply which was seen earlier]
Fri, 25 Nov 2022 12:35 RE: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
To: [WT]
Kia ora Wiremu
Thank you for your letter.
Our understanding is that you think Councillor Gough had a financial interest in Christchurch City Council's Te Kaha Stadium decision on 14 July 2022 because, in your view, his father's and his uncle's business and property interests are likely to benefit financially from the decision, and Councillor Gough is likely to inherit (some of) these businesses and properties from his father and his uncle. Your view is that, because of this, Councillor Gough was prohibited by the Local Authorities (Member's Interests) Act 1968 ("the Act") from participating in the decision.
Your view is not consistent with our view of the Act. We think that the scenarios you have posed in your letter are too remote and too speculative for a court to find that Councillor Gough had a financial interest (a reasonable expectation of gain or loss) in the Council's decision about the stadium.
As we note in our good practice guide on the Act (https://oag.parliament.nz/2020/lamia/part4.htm):
- A financial interest in a decision might be direct or indirect.
- Direct financial interest involves direct financial gain or loss to the councillor.
- Indirect financial interest involves financial gain or loss to other people or organisations that the councillor is connected to, such that the member is also treated as being interested in any financial gain or loss.
- The Act does not specify all of the situations in which a councillor might be considered to have an indirect financial interest in a matter, but it does set out two common scenarios where a councillor is deemed to have an interest - through a spouse or partner, or through a company.
We agree with your comment that section 6(2) of the Act does not limit a financial interest to a deemed financial interest through a spouse/partner or a company. However, in our view, the possibility of inheriting business or property from someone else is too remote to constitute an indirect financial interest in a decision for the purposes of the Act.
As you will be aware, the Act covers only financial interests. Although other types of interest are not covered by the Act, they are still subject to the common law rules that regulate conflicts of interest and bias in the public sector. This means that a councillor does not have to worry about the Act if they have a non-financial interest in a matter. However, they still need to consider whether it is lawful and appropriate for them to participate in the local authority's decision-making under the common law and/or as a matter of ethics and good practice. Our good practice guide "Managing conflicts of interest: A guide for the public sector" (https://oag.parliament.nz/2020/conflicts/part3.htm) has more information about non-financial conflicts of interest. Note that, unlike financial interests, the Auditor-General does not have a role in relation to non-financial conflicts of interest. Any concerns you have about non-financial conflicts of interests should be raised with the Council.
Nāku noa, na Linda
Linda Edwards
Senior Solicitor - Legal, Policy and Inquiries
[Redacted sign-off info and original message]
Tue, 29 Nov 2022 23:23 Re: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [WT]
To: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
Cc: John.Ryan@oag.parliament.nz
Dear Linda,
I noted in your response that you did not address my point about my
argument being supported by the meaning of interested in the Companies
Act 1993.
Can you please address this point?
Regards,
Wiremu
[Redacted original message]
Wed, 30 Nov 2022 00:34 Re: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [WT]
To: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
Cc: John.Ryan@oag.parliament.nz
Dear Linda,
In addition to my previous response, I had a look at the good practice
guide information you provided, which seems to support my arguments,
and I have copied in some relevant quotes at the end of this email.
I noticed your response did not include any evidence to support your
view, e.g. court cases. If there are no cases to provide guidance,
surely it is in the public interest to have a judge give a decision.
I also noticed you did not address whether he is a beneficiary of the
trust that almost wholly owns a property on Ferry Rd, which is near
the stadium site.
"4.18
Indirect financial interest involves financial gain or loss to other
people or organisations you are connected to, such that you are also
treated as being interested in any financial gain or loss."
"4.24
There are other ways you can have an indirect financial interest in a
matter before your local authority. For example, you might have an
indirect financial interest in a matter if you are a beneficiary of a
family trust that has a financial interest in that matter. Figure 2
sets out comments made by a judge about indirect financial interests."
Excerpts from Figure 2 (Comments made by a judge about indirect
financial interest):
"The indirect financial interest may involve an interest arising from
a relationship and not from any specific contract or monetary
connection.
An indirect financial interest may include a potential benefit or
potential liability.
A decision as to whether a particular factual situation amounts to an
indirect financial benefit is assisted by considering whether an
informed objective bystander would conclude that there was a
likelihood or reasonable apprehension of bias.
"
"4.31
As a general rule, early decisions to commission work on options or to
consult are unlikely to have a financial effect and so the
non-participation rule would not apply. However, that is likely to
change as the matter moves towards a fully developed proposal ready
for adoption and implementation. A later decision to confirm a
particular option might have a clear financial effect on the member
and so the non-participation rule would apply..."
"In Re Wanamaker and Patterson (1973) 37 DLR (3d) 575, the mayor of a
town council in Alberta, Canada, who also owned a coin laundry
business in the town's shopping centre, was ruled to have an indirect
financial interest in a decision on roads surrounding the centre.
In his capacity as a member of the council, he proposed and voted on
resolutions designed to secure the approval of the Minister of
Highways for a project to make a cut in the median strip of a
provincial highway in order to provide access for traffic on the
highway to the shopping centre. Since the effect of the improved
access to the shopping centre would be to increase the number of
customers going to the shopping centre, which would be reflected in
increased use of the coin laundry, the mayor would financially
benefit, and consequently the question was one in which he had an
indirect financial interest."
Regards,
Wiremu
On 29/11/2022, [WT] wrote:
> Dear Linda,
>
> I noted in your response that you did not address my point about my
> argument being supported by the meaning of interested in the Companies
> Act 1993.
>
> Can you please address this point?
>
> Regards,
> Wiremu
>
>
> On 25/11/2022, [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address] wrote:
>> [Redacted original message]
Sun, 4 Dec 2022 11:25 Fwd: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [WT]
To: sara.templeton@ccc.govt.nz, Melanie.coker@ccc.govt.nz
Dear councillors,
I am unsure if you are aware of the forwarded complaint. If you are,
are you able to provide me an update of what's happening with it? If
you are not aware of it, then you probably want to ask the chief
executive what's happening with it.
I am unaware of whether the council intends to handle the complaint
confidentially because in 5.8 of
(https://oag.parliament.nz/2020/lamia/part5.htm) regarding LAMIA
complaints it states:
"However, we do not reveal the identity of the complainant. This is
consistent with the approach all prosecuting agencies take. It is
important that members of the public feel free to provide information
about possible offences without fear of their identity being
revealed."
Though I am unsure it will be possible to maintain confidentiality for
this complaint, I have removed my name from the attached document,
though the details will ultimately be enough to identify me.
I have also unattached the LAMIA complaint document as I am unsure
whether you should see it given it relates to a fellow councillor.
Correspondence is ongoing about the LAMIA complaint and the initial
document is out-of-date anyway.
Subsequent correspondence with the council regarding my complaint has
been the following.
Me (20th October): "Dear Chief Executive of the Christchurch City Council,
It's been a month now since you received my complaints and I would
like to know when you are expecting to provide a response."
Council customer service rep (25th October): "We have been advised by
the senior advisor that your complaint is still with the relevant
staff and an update will be provided as soon as possible once it is
available."
Me (22nd November): "Dear Chief Executive of the Christchurch City Council,
It's been two months now since you received my complaints and I would
like to know when you are expecting to provide a response."
Dear Ms Dawn Baxendale (CCC Chief Executive) & Controller and Auditor-General,
It is in the public interest for this complaint to be urgently
prioritised, given $868 million of public money is being unlawfully
spent.
I would like a written acknowledgement of this email and an estimate
from Ms Baxendale and the Auditor-General of how long it will take to
deal with my complaints.
Please find attached a letter outlining my complaints regarding the
Christchurch City Council's decision on 14 July 2022 to invest an
additional $150 million in the Te Kaha Canterbury Multi-Use Arena.
Please also find attached my complaint under the Local Authorities
(Members' Interests) Act 1968 concerning Christchurch City Councillor
James Gough.
I have copied Treasury into this email for their information given
their role as co-sponsor of Te Kaha.
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
Serious_Complaints_Te_Kaha.pdf
[Not a redaction, just a note that this PDF attachment was a version with my name removed]
Mon, 5 Dec 2022 09:17 Unlawful nature of your contract with Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd
From: [WT]
To: receptionbne@watpac.com.au
Cc: info@ccc.govt.nz, John.Ryan@oag.parliament.nz, info@ombudsman.parliament.nz
Dear BESIX Watpac,
I am writing to inform you of the likely unlawful nature of your
contract with Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd regarding development of
Christchurch's Te Kaha Multi-Use Arena (stadium). Please see the
attached complaint for details. Regarding the unlawful nature of the
contract, section 14 of New Zealand's Local Government Act 2002 will
also be of interest
(https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/DLM171810.html).
You should also know that under NZ law, there may be some protections
for a party who is unaware of the unlawful nature of a contract.
However, now that you are aware, any money received for further work
on the stadium may potentially be confiscated in the future. I would
suggest that you may want to seek independent legal advice. In my
opinion the best way to ensure your contract is legally sound is the
relief I am seeking in the attached complaint.
The complaint was sent to the Christchurch City Council on the 20th of
September. I followed up regarding when they are expecting to provide
a response on the 20th of October and the 22nd of November. On the
25th of October I received a reply that "We have been advised by the
senior advisor that your complaint is still with the relevant staff
and an update will be provided as soon as possible once it is
available." I have not received a reply to my email from the 22nd of
November.
I have copied this email to others involved with the complaint for
their records, so they can ensure the accuracy of any future
statements the Christchurch City Council makes regarding which costs
have been committed and which are recoverable under NZ law.
Mon, 5 Dec 2022 09:18 Unlawful nature of your contract with Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd
From: Info CCC <info@ccc.govt.nz>
To: [WT]
[Redacted auto-reply]
Tue, 6 Dec 2022 08:51 RE: Unlawful nature of your contract with Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd
From: [Redacted OAG Correspondence Advisor’s email address]
To: [WT]
Tēnā koe Wiremu
Thank you for your email of 5 December 2022, sent to BESIX Watpac and copied to the Auditor-General, John Ryan.
This email is to confirm receipt. Thank you for copying us for our Office's records.
Ngā mihi nui
[Redacted name as the email is not particularly important]
Correspondence Advisor - Strategy and Communications
[Redacted sign-off info and original message]
Tue, 6 Dec 2022 11:26 Re: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
To: [WT]
Kia ora Wiremu
This email addresses the additional points you raised in your emails of 29 and 30 November.
1. Your view that your argument is supported by the meaning of “interested” in the Companies Act 1993
We are not sure we understand your point about the meaning of “interested” in section 139(1)(d) of the Companies Act 1993. A definition in one Act does not carry across to another; the definition in the Companies Act 1993 is for the purposes of the Companies Act 1993. Section 139 of the Companies Act 1993 sets out the ways that a director is “interested” in a company transaction under the Companies Act 1993, and is widely drawn.
Section 6 of the Local Authorities (Member’s Interests) Act 1968, on the other hand, covers only a local authority member’s pecuniary (financial) interests and prevents the member from voting on, or taking part in the discussion of any matter before the Council in which the member has, directly or indirectly, any financial interest (other than an interest in common with the public). We do not think that section 139(1)(d) of the Companies Act 1993 supports your argument that because Cr Gough’s father’s company is, in your view, likely to benefit financially from the Council’s decision to invest an additional $150 million in Te Kaha Canterbury Multi-Use Arena, then Cr Gough himself has an indirect financial interest (reasonable expectation of gain or loss of money) in that decision for the purposes of section 6 of the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968.
If Cr Gough’s father’s company is likely to benefit from the Council’s decision, then we think this falls into the category of a potential non-financial interest for Cr Gough. The Auditor-General does not have a statutory role in relation to non-financial conflicts of interests, and we reiterate that your concerns about non-financial interests should be raised with the Council.
2. The Office of the Auditor-General’s response did not include any evidence to support our view, for example court cases
There is very little case law on the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968. Three court decisions that considered the Act are set out in Appendix 2 of our guide. A decision to prosecute a breach of the Act is a serious matter; the Auditor-General does not do so unless there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction.
3. The Office of the Auditor-General’s response did not address whether Cr Gough is a beneficiary of the trust that almost wholly owns a property on Ferry Road, which is the near the stadium site
Your letter of 22 November said that Cr Gough’s father “seems [redacted some ambiguous words that might be misconstrued] a trust that is the majority owner of Ferry Road Property Holdings Limited, and Ferry Road is only about 200m away from the stadium….Cr Gough would have an additional interest if he is a beneficiary of the trust.”
We do not know if Cr Gough is a beneficiary of this unnamed trust. We also do not have information about what effect, if any, the building of Te Kaha Canterbury Multi-Use Arena is likely to have on the Ferry Road property that you think this trust owns. Again, these are matters for you to raise with the Council.
As we note in our guide, to investigate a complaint, we must first be satisfied that there is enough evidence to justify an investigation. An allegation unsupported by evidence, or a simple assertion that there has been a breach, is not enough.
4. The passages you quoted from the Office of the Auditor-General’s guide
The passages you have quoted do not change our view that the scenarios you posed in your letter are too remote and too speculative for a court to find that Councillor Gough had a financial interest (a reasonable expectation of gain or loss) in the Council's decision about the stadium. We remain of the view that the possibility of inheriting business or property from someone else is too remote to constitute an indirect financial interest in a decision for the purposes of the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968.
The Canadian case Re Wanamaker and Patterson (1973) 37 DLR (3d) 575 in our guide concerned a mayor who also owned a coin laundry business in the town's shopping centre. Here, Councillor Gough is not an owner of the companies that you are concerned about, so the Wanamaker case is distinguishable and does not support your arguments.
We trust this covers the points you have raised. Our view is that the Council is the correct organisation for you to raise your concerns with.
Nāku noa, nā Linda
Linda Edwards (she/her)
Senior Solicitor – Legal, Policy and Inquiries
[Redacted sign-off info]
-----Original Message-----
From: [WT]
Sent: Wednesday, 30 November 2022 12:35 a.m.
To: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
Cc: John.Ryan@oag.parliament.nz
Subject: Re: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
[Redacted external email warning]
Dear Linda,
In addition to my previous response, I had a look at the good practice guide information you provided, which seems to support my arguments, and I have copied in some relevant quotes at the end of this email.
[Redacted the rest of the original message]
Sat, 10 Dec 2022 20:54 Re: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [WT]
To: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
Dear Linda,
1. My view that my argument is supported by the meaning of “interested” in
the Companies Act 1993
The issue we are debating is what does the LAMIA mean by a pecuniary
interest.
The Act gives some examples which avoids any doubt in those circumstances,
but we agree a pecuniary interest is not limited to those examples.
A pecuniary interest is not defined in the Act, but according to the
Legislation Act 2019 s 10(1) "The meaning of legislation must be
ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose and its context."
The text is possibly not well-defined, but I understand in law there is a
concept of a reasonable person (or informed objective bystander). For
example, in Loveridge & Henry v Eltham County Council (note: all cases
referred to in this email are from
https://oag.parliament.nz/2020/lamia/appendix2.htm), there is the
statement: "[W]ould an informed objective bystander form an opinion that
there was a likelihood that bias existed?"
So the point about the Companies Act 1993 is though it is a different act,
the majority of the House of Representatives thought that meaning of
interested under the heading of "Transactions involving self-interest" was
reasonable enough to define it as such in an act.
There are also the comments from the judge in Calvert & Co v Dunedin City
Council:
"A decision as to whether a particular factual situation amounts to an
indirect financial benefit is assisted by considering whether an informed
objective bystander would conclude that there was a likelihood or
reasonable apprehension of bias."
"An indirect financial interest may include a potential benefit or
potential liability."
The other reason I was interested in your view on that point, is that
though provided for in the legislation, under your interpretation, a person
who opts in to being a shareholder of a company has more protection than
the possibly tens of thousands to millions of ratepayers of a council. In
this case, Cr Gough's self-interest may have been known, but there could be
other cases where people are unaware of a councillor's self-interest and
according to your interpretation the councillor would have done nothing
wrong.
A point about the definition of pecuniary
The following is a subtle difference but perhaps worth noting. In your
email you implied the definition of pecuniary was basically the same as
"(financial)", but in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary pecuniary is
defined as "of or relating to money", so it would have been more accurate
to say "pecuniary (monetary) interests". I know in the Cambridge Dictionary
the definitions of pecuniary and financial appear to be the same, but
looking at the examples in both dictionaries and common usage, monetary is
the more accurate informal word to use in the context of the LAMIA. Indeed
in Merriam-Webster's dictionary, though listed as a synonym, it is
debatable as to whether financial has the same meaning or definition as
pecuniary (because finances is not the same word as finance; and generally
finances is used with regard to whether you have the funds to do
something). To avoid a debate on this, I propose using the simple
definition of pecuniary (relating to money) interest.
2. The Office of the Auditor-General’s response did not include any
evidence to support your view, for example court cases
In response to your statements on this topic, see my points regarding court
cases above in particular from Appendix 2 of the Auditor-General's website
there is the following statement.
"With rather limited reference to previous cases, the judgment used the
general rules of natural justice as the base on which to state a test for
compliance with the non-participation rule in section 6(1) of the Act:
[W]ould an informed objective bystander form an opinion that there was a
likelihood that bias existed?"
3. The Office of the Auditor-General’s response did not address whether
Cr Gough is a beneficiary of the trust that almost wholly owns a property
on Ferry Road, which is near the stadium site
Your letter of 6 December said "We do not know if Cr Gough is a beneficiary
of this unnamed trust. We also do not have information about what effect,
if any, the building of Te Kaha Canterbury Multi-Use Arena is likely to
have on the Ferry Road property that you think this trust owns. Again,
these are matters for you to raise with the Council." [The OAG did eventually tell me that he was not a beneficiary of the trust.]
[Redacted]
According to the Companies Register, Ferry Road Property Holdings Limited
has the following shareholding.
Typically this ownership structure is representative of an accountant, a
lawyer, and a more interested (not solely in a professional capacity)
trustee of a trust. Kent James Yeoman is a lawyer at Mortlock McCormack Law
which is a law firm the Gough family has used for preparation of the
constitutions of The Terrace companies (as per documents available in the
company register), and the sole shareholder (Kevin Neville Bone) of KB
Trustee (2015) Limited is an accountant at Duns Limited (which is the
address for service of Ferry Road Property Holdings Ltd), so Tracy Gough
likely has the more interested (not solely in a professional capacity)
trustee role.
The Canterbury Multi-Use Arena investment case identified 'Land Value
Uplift' as one of the benefits of the project and provided a table of
international examples of the impact of stadium/sports facilities on land
value within 1km from the stadium/arena (Table 75, pg. 136 of the
investment case document mentioned in previous correspondence,
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/12/CNCL_20191212_ATT_4037_EXCLUDED.PDF).
Out of the five examples, there was one negative percentage at -1.5%, which
also differed in that it was just an announcement of a stadium, but the
rest were positive with the highest being 15%. On this basis, the
investment case estimated "A 3% increase (a conservative estimate of the
uplift percentages found in the above studies) to the average land value"
in the "area extending 400m from the boundary of the CMUA site" (pg. 137)
as one of the quantifiable benefits of the investment.
Obviously I cannot know the details of that type of trust, but [redacted] the Office of the Auditor-General, who are able, [redacted] at least look into it.
Under s 25(1) of the Public Audit Act 2001, which establishes the
Controller and Auditor-General as an officer of Parliament, "For the
purposes of exercising or performing the Auditor-General’s functions,
duties, or powers, the Auditor-General may require a public entity or any
person to:
(a) produce to the Auditor-General a document in the entity’s or person’s
custody, care, or control:
(b) provide the Auditor-General with information or an explanation about
any information."
Under s 22(2)(e) of the Privacy Act, it is not necessary for an agency to
collect personal information from the individual concerned, if the agency
believes, on reasonable grounds, that non-compliance is necessary for some
reasons including the enforcement of a law that imposes a pecuniary
penalty, or for the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal
(being proceedings that have been commenced or are reasonably in
contemplation); or to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any
public sector agency, including prejudice to the prevention, detection,
investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences.
So the Auditor-General can ask one of those listed under KB Trustee (2015)
Limited about the trust that almost wholly owns Ferry Road Property
Holdings Limited.
Due to s 31 (Self-incrimination) of the Public Audit Act 2001, you would
have to ask someone other than Cr. Gough because any evidence provided by
him would be inadmissible in LAMIA proceedings against him.
You would also need to check, if he is a beneficiary, whether the trustees
had notified Cr Gough that he was a beneficiary of the trust as expected by
s 51 of the Trusts Act 2019 and whether they had provided details that the
trust owned Ferry Road Property Holdings Ltd and that Ferry Road Property
Holdings Ltd owned [redacted], so as to determine whether Cr Gough
was aware of [redacted] interest.
If Cr Gough is not a beneficiary, but his father is, I imagine it would be
hard to determine whether he knew his father was a beneficiary of a trust
that owned that property
I do intend to share my new LAMIA complaint with the council, but would
like to give you a chance to investigate the trust first in case it is
possible to amend beneficiary information before you have had the chance to
investigate. Could you please let me know once you feel this is not a
concern?
4. The Office of the Auditor-General’s view
To summarise what I understand are your reasons for Cr Gough not having
committed an offence under the LAMIA, you are saying:
(a) There is only a small possibility ("too remote") that his father will
leave any wealth to Cr Gough despite common practices and the family
history mentioned in my complaint.
(b) There is only a small possibility ("too remote") that his uncle with no
children will leave any wealth to Cr Gough, and this is despite Cr Gough
having worked for free for his companies (no director fees).
(c) That relying on evidence presented in the investment case as to the
benefits to properties in the CBD is too speculative.
(d) That the benefits to Cr Gough's father's investment in the CBD from
having an almost a billion dollar publicly funded amenity built nearby,
though similar to the Re Wanamaker and Patterson case, is too speculative.
I am not sure I understand the bit about possible inheritance wealth not
being a pecuniary interest.
Are you saying you think a court would find:
(e) possible inheritance wealth from one's father is not an indirect
pecuniary (related to money) interest.
or
(f) though possible inheritance wealth from one's father is an indirect
pecuniary (related to money) interest, it is too remote to be likely to
affect his stadium decision for the purposes of the Local Authorities
(Members' Interests) Act 1968?
From what you have said I guess you are saying (e), on the basis of the
definition of pecuniary interest in Downward v Babington:
"... a councillor should be held to have a pecuniary interest in a matter
before the council if the matter would, if dealt with in a particular way,
give rise to an expectation which is not too remote of a gain or loss of
money by him."
Thank you for your responses so far and I look forward to your response
regarding the trust, the question around inheritance wealth, and any other
points you may like to address.
Regards,
Wiremu
On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 11:26, [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
wrote:
[Redacted original message]
Tue, 13 Dec 2022 17:01 FW: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
To: [WT]
Kia ora Wiremu
Thank you for your further email. I am on leave from tomorrow and will be back at work in the new year, so I will consider your email then.
Feel free to contact the Council in the meantime about your concerns; we remain of the view that the Council is best placed to answer them.
Nāku noa, nā Linda
Linda Edwards (she/her)
Senior Solicitor – Legal, Policy and Inquiries
[Redacted sign-off info and original message]
Tue, 20 Dec 2022 13:29 Office of the Ombudsman - Complaint about Christchurch City Council - Our ref: [redacted]
From: [Redacted investigator’s email address]
To: [WT]
Tēnā koe Mr Thomson
We write further to our email of 9 November 2022.
We made inquiries with Christchurch City Council (the Council) following our assessment of the material you provided.
The Council has acknowledged the delay and advised that you will be provided with a response this week.
If you do not hear from the Council by the end of the week, please feel free contact us to follow this up.
Ngā mihi
[Redacted name]
Investigator
Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata
[Redacted sign-off info]
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email may be confidential or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the recipient or recipients named in this message. Please note that if you are not the intended recipient you are not authorised to use, copy or distribute the email or any information contained in it. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender immediately and destroy the original message and any attachments.
Wed, 21 Dec 2022 14:40 Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
To: [WT]
CC: "info@ombudsman.parliament.nz" <info@ombudsman.parliament.nz>, [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
Kia ora Mr Thomson,
I refer to your letter of 20 September 2022 (attached) and following up letter on 5 December 2022 in relation to Te Kaha Project Delivery Limited.
First, I must apologise for the delay in our response. We endeavour to address feedback and complaints from our citizens in a timely manner. On this occasion we have failed to meet a reasonable response time and I am sorry you have had to wait so long for a response.
Staff have addressed your list of concerns in the attached document.
Thank you for your patience. I will also copy this response to the Ombudsman so he is aware of the Council’s response.
Ngā mihi
Dawn Baxendale
Chief Executive
[Redacted sign-off info]
This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.
If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender and delete the email.
[Christchurch City Council logo]<https://ccc.govt.nz>
Mon, 9 Jan 2023 01:52 Fwd: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [WT]
To: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
Dear Linda,
As you requested on the 28th of September, I have forwarded to you the
Council's response.
I believe substantial evidence that the consultation was not a fair
representation, open or transparent is in the Council's response to my
seventh statement where they say "Any alternative use of unspent funds
would need to be renegotiated with the Crown", which is different to
their statement in the consultation of "The Crown investment would be
withdrawn."
[Redacted a paragraph about my interpretation of the Council’s response to avoid risk of misrepresenting them.]
I do intend to respond, but am still considering my response.
Regards,
Wiremu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2022 01:40:58 +0000
Subject: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
To: [WT]
Cc: "info@ombudsman.parliament.nz" <info@ombudsman.parliament.nz>, [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
Kia ora Mr Thomson,
I refer to your letter of 20 September 2022 (attached) and following
up letter on 5 December 2022 in relation to Te Kaha Project Delivery
Limited.
First, I must apologise for the delay in our response. We endeavour to
address feedback and complaints from our citizens in a timely manner.
On this occasion we have failed to meet a reasonable response time and
I am sorry you have had to wait so long for a response.
Staff have addressed your list of concerns in the attached document.
Thank you for your patience. I will also copy this response to the
Ombudsman so he is aware of the Council’s response.
Ngā mihi
Dawn Baxendale
Chief Executive
[Redacted sign-off info]
This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed.
The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City
Council.
If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the
sender and delete the email.
[Christchurch City Council logo]<https://ccc.govt.nz>
Mon, 9 Jan 2023 14:03 RE: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
To: [WT]
Kia ora Wiremu
Thank you for sending this on. I have forwarded it on to the Inquiries team for their information. Once you have concluded your discussions with the Council, please let me know if it is something you think the OAG should look into. The Inquiries team will then decide the most appropriate way to proceed. Note that our inquiries work is discretionary - you can find out more about the OAG inquiries role on our website (https://oag.parliament.nz/about-us/what-we-do/inquiries)
Also - I have not forgotten your complaint under the Local Authorities (Members' Interests) Act 1968 - it is on my list for the new year.
Nāku noa, nā Linda
Linda Edwards
Senior Solicitor - Legal, Policy and Inquiries
[Redacted sign-off info and original message]
Tue, 31 Jan 2023 02:49 Re: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [WT]
To: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
Cc: info@ccc.govt.nz, info@ombudsman.parliament.nz
Dear Ms Baxendale (CCC Chief Executive),
Thank you for providing responses to my complaints. I would like to
further discuss the first ground of my complaint (Not a fair
representation of matters) because there are a number of important,
unresolved issues there. I have added an additional ground 1b (The
Council has a legal requirement to ensure those consulted are
adequately informed). I have also added another ground for complaint
relating to a failure to meet the requirements of s 80 of the Local
Government Act 2002.
The attached complaints document lays out grounds for my complaint and
the relief I am seeking.
Again this complaint should be prioritised as urgent, and I would like
a written acknowledgement of this email and an estimate of how long it
will take to deal with this complaint.
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
On 21/12/2022, [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Kia ora Mr Thomson,
> [Redacted email already seen]
Tue, 31 Jan 2023 02:55 Fwd: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [WT]
To: sara.templeton@ccc.govt.nz, Melanie.coker@ccc.govt.nz
Dear councillors,
I am forwarding you an update of my complaint regarding the Te Kaha
stadium decision.
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [WT]
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 02:49:54 +1300
Subject: Re: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
To: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive’s email address for privacy reasons]
Cc: info@ccc.govt.nz, info@ombudsman.parliament.nz
Dear Ms Baxendale (CCC Chief Executive),
Thank you for providing responses to my complaints. I would like to
further discuss the first ground of my complaint (Not a fair
representation of matters) because there are a number of important,
unresolved issues there. I have added an additional ground 1b (The
Council has a legal requirement to ensure those consulted are
adequately informed). I have also added another ground for complaint
relating to a failure to meet the requirements of s 80 of the Local
Government Act 2002.
The attached complaints document lays out grounds for my complaint and
the relief I am seeking.
Again this complaint should be prioritised as urgent, and I would like
a written acknowledgement of this email and an estimate of how long it
will take to deal with this complaint.
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
On 21/12/2022, [Redacted CCC Chief Executive’s email address for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Kia ora Mr Thomson,
>
> I refer to your letter of 20 September 2022 (attached) and following up
> letter on 5 December 2022 in relation to Te Kaha Project Delivery Limited.
>
> First, I must apologise for the delay in our response. We endeavour to
> address feedback and complaints from our citizens in a timely manner. On
> this occasion we have failed to meet a reasonable response time and I am
> sorry you have had to wait so long for a response.
>
> Staff have addressed your list of concerns in the attached document.
>
> Thank you for your patience. I will also copy this response to the Ombudsman
> so he is aware of the Council’s response.
>
>
> Ngā mihi
>
> Dawn Baxendale
> Chief Executive
>
>
>
> [redacted sign-off info]
> ________________________________
>
> [cid:image007.png@01D91163.02A088D0]
>
>
>
>
> This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely
> for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and
> may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.
> If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender
> and delete the email.
>
> [Christchurch City Council logo]<https://ccc.govt.nz>
>
Tue, 31 Jan 2023 03:09 Fwd: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [WT]
To: Caralee.McLiesh@treasury.govt.nz, andrew.rutledge@treasury.govt.nz
Dear Mr Rutledge and Ms McLiesh,
I have forwarded you an update of where my complaint regarding the Te
Kaha stadium decision is at.
Following your consideration of my attached complaint document, I have
the following OIA questions for you:
1. Does the Treasury believe the Christchurch City Council's decision
to invest an additional up to $150 million to enable the Te Kaha
project to continue as planned was lawful?
2. Can the Treasury stop spending Crown funds if it believes the
spending is unlawful?
3. Has the Treasury stopped its funding of Te Kaha?
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [WT]
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 02:49:54 +1300
Subject: Re: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
To: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
Cc: info@ccc.govt.nz, info@ombudsman.parliament.nz
Dear Ms Baxendale (CCC Chief Executive),
Thank you for providing responses to my complaints. I would like to
further discuss the first ground of my complaint (Not a fair
representation of matters) because there are a number of important,
unresolved issues there. I have added an additional ground 1b (The
Council has a legal requirement to ensure those consulted are
adequately informed). I have also added another ground for complaint
relating to a failure to meet the requirements of s 80 of the Local
Government Act 2002.
The attached complaints document lays out grounds for my complaint and
the relief I am seeking.
Again this complaint should be prioritised as urgent, and I would like
a written acknowledgement of this email and an estimate of how long it
will take to deal with this complaint.
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
On 21/12/2022, [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Kia ora Mr Thomson,
>
> I refer to your letter of 20 September 2022 (attached) and following up
> letter on 5 December 2022 in relation to Te Kaha Project Delivery Limited.
>
> First, I must apologise for the delay in our response. We endeavour to
> address feedback and complaints from our citizens in a timely manner. On
> this occasion we have failed to meet a reasonable response time and I am
> sorry you have had to wait so long for a response.
>
> Staff have addressed your list of concerns in the attached document.
>
> Thank you for your patience. I will also copy this response to the Ombudsman
> so he is aware of the Council’s response.
>
>
> Ngā mihi
>
> Dawn Baxendale
> Chief Executive
>
>
>
> [Redacted sign-off links]
>
>
>
>
> This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely
> for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and
> may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.
> If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender
> and delete the email.
>
> [Christchurch City Council logo]<https://ccc.govt.nz>
>
Tue, 31 Jan 2023 03:46 Unlawful nature of your contract with Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd
From: [WT]
To: receptionbne@watpac.com.au
Cc: info@ombudsman.parliament.nz
Dear BESIX Watpac,
I am writing to forward you an update on the status of my complaint
regarding the Christchurch City Council's likely unlawful decision to
accept the contract for you to build the Te Kaha stadium. The attached
complaint document outlines my response to the response the Council
sent me on the 21st of December 2022.
Also this is not legal advice, but just my understanding of the
situation. The Council's decision was unlawful, which means your
contract is invalid. If you know something is unlawful before you do
it, then you won't be entitled to any compensation from any party
including the Council. However, I assume you have not informed your
subcontractors, so they won't know and you will still be required to
pay them. In addition, there may be some requirement for the Council
when making a decision to consider all reasonably practicable options,
which given how long this complaints process is taking, may include
appointing a new contractor to complete the finishing touches on the
structure that you have put on the Council's property for no lawful or
contractual reason and as it has been put on the Council's property
presumably belongs to them even if they have not paid for it. I am
unsure that last part is right, but again this is something you may
want to seek legal advice about. [This one isn’t a redaction, I just want to mention that I remembered after sending that the stadium site is Crown-owned land.]
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [WT]
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 02:49:54 +1300
Subject: Re: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
To: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
Cc: info@ccc.govt.nz, info@ombudsman.parliament.nz
Dear Ms Baxendale (CCC Chief Executive),
Thank you for providing responses to my complaints. I would like to
further discuss the first ground of my complaint (Not a fair
representation of matters) because there are a number of important,
unresolved issues there. I have added an additional ground 1b (The
Council has a legal requirement to ensure those consulted are
adequately informed). I have also added another ground for complaint
relating to a failure to meet the requirements of s 80 of the Local
Government Act 2002.
The attached complaints document lays out grounds for my complaint and
the relief I am seeking.
Again this complaint should be prioritised as urgent, and I would like
a written acknowledgement of this email and an estimate of how long it
will take to deal with this complaint.
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
On 21/12/2022, [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Kia ora Mr Thomson,
>
> I refer to your letter of 20 September 2022 (attached) and following up
> letter on 5 December 2022 in relation to Te Kaha Project Delivery Limited.
>
> First, I must apologise for the delay in our response. We endeavour to
> address feedback and complaints from our citizens in a timely manner. On
> this occasion we have failed to meet a reasonable response time and I am
> sorry you have had to wait so long for a response.
>
> Staff have addressed your list of concerns in the attached document.
>
> Thank you for your patience. I will also copy this response to the Ombudsman
> so he is aware of the Council’s response.
>
>
> Ngā mihi
>
> Dawn Baxendale
> Chief Executive
>
>
>
> [Redacted sign-off contact info at end of email]
>
>
>
>
> This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely
> for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and
> may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.
> If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender
> and delete the email.
>
> [Christchurch City Council logo]<https://ccc.govt.nz>
>
Tue, 31 Jan 2023 11:09 RE: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
To: [WT]
Dear Wiremu
This is to acknowledge your email has been received and has been sent to the appropriate staff member for action. That person is away this week, but when they return, I will ensure you are provided with an estimated timeframe for receiving a response.
Kind regards
Amy
Amy Davidson
Senior Advisor
Office of the Mayor and Chief Executive
-----Original Message-----
From: [WT]
Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2023 2:50 am
[Redacted original message]
This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.
If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender and delete the email.
[Christchurch City Council logo]<https://ccc.govt.nz>
Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:48 FW: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [Redacted Treasury Ministerial Advisory Service Manager’s email address]
To: [WT]
Kia ora Wiremu, and thank you for your email.
I acknowledge this request under the Official Information Act 1982 regarding Te Kaha stadium, which was received by the Treasury on 31 January 2023. Your request has been passed on to me as the manager of the Ministerial Advisory Service team to manage, on behalf of the Secretary to the Treasury.
A response to your request will be provided in accordance with the Act.
The Treasury may publish the response to your Official Information Act (OIA) request. The Treasury will not publish your personal contact details or use the information for any reason other than processing your request. The personal information you provide is subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1982.
If you have any further questions please feel free to reach out.
Kind regards,
[cid:image001.png@01D93636.14312800]
Reubhan Swann (he/him) | Pou Whakahaere (Manager), Ministerial Advisory Service | Te Tai Ōhanga – The Treasury
[Redacted contact details for privacy reasons; redacted confidentiality notice and original message because you have already seen it]
Tue, 7 Feb 2023 13:15 RE: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
To: [WT]
Dear Wiremu
This is just a quick note to let you know we expect to provide you with a response to your follow-up email of 31 January within the week.
Kind regards
Amy
Amy Davidson
Senior Advisor
Office of the Mayor and Chief Executive
[Redacted original message and confidentiality notice]
Mon, 13 Feb 2023 16:42 The Treasury I Your Official Information Act Request 20230044
From: [Redacted Treasury Ministerial Advisory Service’s email address]
To: [WT]
Dear Wiremu Thomson
Please find attached The Treasury’s response to your Official Information Act request.
Yours sincerely,
Alastair
[cid:image001.png@01D93FC6.BF473650]
| Senior Ministerial Advisor| Te Tai Ōhanga – The Treasury
[Redacted irrelevant trailing info]
Fri, 17 Feb 2023 09:59 Re: The Treasury I Your Official Information Act Request 20230044
From: [WT]
To: Caralee.McLiesh@treasury.govt.nz
Cc: [Redacted Treasury Ministerial Advisory Service’s email address], andrew.rutledge@treasury.govt.nz
Dear Secretary to the Treasury,
I have some more OIA questions for you regarding the Te Kaha funding
agreement, and I have attached the complaint document from the 31st of
January as a reminder.
1. While I appreciate the response to my previous question ("2. Can
the Treasury stop spending Crown funds if it believes the spending is
unlawful?) was in many ways more useful than the answer I would have
gotten, could you please also provide an answer to the question I
asked which was asked in a generic way and without reference to any
specific project?
2. Your previous response indicated that "the provision (or not) of
Crown funding is limited to the conditions and matters outlined in the
Funding Agreement". Is there no implicit requirement that the parties
are acting lawfully; or for there to be a requirement must the Crown
add this explicitly to every contract e.g. '(a) it must be a covered
stadium ... (d) both parties must act lawfully (including but not
limited to having proper legal authority)'?
3. Is the Treasury satisfied given the public money they are putting
in that the conditions of the Funding Agreement will be met, given
doubts about the lawfulness of the Council's Te Kaha decision, and
thus doubts about the validity of the construction contract and
whether it will be completed?
4. What actions (aside from responding to OIA requests) has the
Secretary to the Treasury taken in response to these concerns (the
Treasury first becoming aware of them on the 20th of September, and
more recently on the 31st of January) and what were the results of
these actions (and subsequent actions and results, etc.)?
5. What actions (aside from responding to OIA requests) has the
Treasury taken in response to these concerns (the Treasury first
becoming aware of them on the 20th of September, and more recently on
the 31st of January) and what were the results of these actions (and
subsequent actions and results, etc.)?
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
On 13/02/2023, [Redacted Treasury Ministerial Advisory Service’s email address] wrote:
> Dear Wiremu Thomson
>
> Please find attached The Treasury’s response to your Official Information
> Act request.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Alastair
>
> [cid:image001.png@01D93FC6.BF473650]
>
> | Senior Ministerial Advisor| Te Tai Ōhanga – The Treasury
> [Redacted irrelevant trailing info]
>
>
Mon, 20 Feb 2023 14:13 RE: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
To: [WT]
Dear Wiremu
Thank you for your email below of 31 January. I’m responding on behalf of the Office of the Chief Executive. Please find below a response to your questions, noting we have not repeated what was covered in the Council’s last response to you.
Using your headings:
1. Ground 1a
The Council has considered your response and maintains that the information provided in the consultation material was a fair representation of the legal position and has nothing further to add.
2. Ground 1b
The Council has considered your response and maintains that the information provided was sufficient to ensure those consulted are adequately informed.
3. Ground 2
The Council has considered your additional ground in relation to section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002. The decision is not inconsistent with the Long-Term Plan. Section 80 would only be relevant if the decision was inconsistent. On 14 July 2022, the Council approved the increased project budget for the Te Kaha project. Increasing the project budget does not change the level of service provision in the current Long-Term Plan. The decision to identify how to fund the increased budget, is one to be made when the Council adopts the next Long-Term Plan which by law it must do by the end of June 2024.
Turning now to the questions you pose: the Council considers that it has covered your points adequately in this and the earlier response and in the material publicly available concerning the decision to increase the project budget for Te Kaha.
I hope this information assists.
Kind regards
Amy
Amy Davidson
Senior Advisor
Office of the Mayor and Chief Executive
-----Original Message-----
From: [WT]
Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2023 2:50 am
[Redacted original message]
Tue, 21 Feb 2023 16:22 RE: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
To: [WT]
Kia ora Wiremu
My apologies for the delay in getting back to you.
I have spoken to Cr Gough and he has told me that he is not a beneficiary of the trust that holds shares in Ferry Road Property Holdings Limited.
In relation to your other points, I have nothing further to add to my earlier responses. Based on the information we have, we do not think that Cr Gough had a financial interest in Christchurch City Council’s decision on 14 July 2022 to invest an additional $150 million in Te Kaha Canterbury Multi-Use Arena.
Nāku noa, nā Linda
Linda Edwards (she/her)
Senior Solicitor – Legal, Policy and Inquiries
[Redacted sign-off info and original message]
Thu, 23 Feb 2023 00:42 Fwd: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [WT]
To: John.Ryan@oag.parliament.nz
Dear Mr Ryan,
I know that Linda Edwards has been corresponding with me regarding this
complaint, but in her last email she did not answer a very important
question that I believe will provide me with some clarity as to the
decision the Office of the Auditor-General has made, so I am appealing to
you for an answer to the question.
On the 10th of December 2022, I wrote:
I am not sure I understand the bit about possible inheritance wealth
not being a pecuniary interest.
Are you saying you think a court would find:
(e) possible inheritance wealth from one's father is not an indirect
pecuniary (related to money) interest.
or
(f) though possible inheritance wealth from one's father is an indirect
pecuniary (related to money) interest, it is too remote to be likely to
affect his stadium decision for the purposes of the Local Authorities
(Members' Interests) Act 1968?
From what you have said I guess you are saying (e), on the basis of the
definition of pecuniary interest in Downward v Babington:
"... a councillor should be held to have a pecuniary interest in a
matter before the council if the matter would, if dealt with in a
particular way, give rise to an expectation which is not too remote of a
gain or loss of money by him."
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 16:23
Subject: RE: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
To: [WT]
[Redacted forwarded message]
Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:22 Re: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [WT]
To: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
Dear Ms Baxendale (CCC Chief Executive),
Thank you for your response. The Office of the Auditor-General wrote
to me on Tuesday regarding my new Local Authorities (Members'
Interests) Act complaint that I lodged with them on the 22nd of
November 2022 (see attached).
The Office of the Auditor-General is of the view that Cr Gough has not
breached the LAMIA. However, they said the LAMIA only covers pecuniary
interests, and though other types of interest are not covered by the
Act, they are still subject to the common law rules that regulate
conflicts of interest and bias in the public sector, so I should raise
my concerns with you.
Please find my new LAMIA complaint regarding the Council's stadium
decision on the 14th of July 2022 attached. Note regarding the trust
in Ground 2, the Auditor-General has relayed to me that Cr Gough is
not a beneficiary of the trust.
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
On 20/02/2023, [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Dear Wiremu
> [Redacted original message]
Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:53 Fwd: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [WT]
To: John.Ryan@oag.parliament.nz
Cc: [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
Dear Auditor-General,
On the 9th of January I forwarded the Council's response to my
complaint of the 20th of September 2022 to your office. As the
forwarded emails below shows, I replied with the attached complaints
document, which added a new ground for complaint relating to a failure
to meet the requirements of s 80 of the Local Government Act 2002.
The Council's response to Ground 2 may be of interest to you, and I
would be interested to know your thoughts on the validity of this
approach keeping in mind the LGA 2002 s 80 "...or is anticipated to
have consequences that will be significantly inconsistent with..."
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 01:13:09 +0000
Subject: RE: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
To: [WT]
Dear Wiremu
Thank you for your email below of 31 January. I’m responding on behalf
of the Office of the Chief Executive. Please find below a response to
your questions, noting we have not repeated what was covered in the
Council’s last response to you.
Using your headings:
1. Ground 1a
The Council has considered your response and maintains that the
information provided in the consultation material was a fair
representation of the legal position and has nothing further to add.
2. Ground 1b
The Council has considered your response and maintains that the
information provided was sufficient to ensure those consulted are
adequately informed.
3. Ground 2
The Council has considered your additional ground in relation to
section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002. The decision is not
inconsistent with the Long-Term Plan. Section 80 would only be
relevant if the decision was inconsistent. On 14 July 2022, the
Council approved the increased project budget for the Te Kaha project.
Increasing the project budget does not change the level of service
provision in the current Long-Term Plan. The decision to identify how
to fund the increased budget, is one to be made when the Council
adopts the next Long-Term Plan which by law it must do by the end of
June 2024.
Turning now to the questions you pose: the Council considers that it
has covered your points adequately in this and the earlier response
and in the material publicly available concerning the decision to
increase the project budget for Te Kaha.
I hope this information assists.
Kind regards
Amy
Amy Davidson
Senior Advisor
Office of the Mayor and Chief Executive
-----Original Message-----
From: [WT]
Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2023 2:50 am
To: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
Cc: Info CCC <info@ccc.govt.nz>; info@ombudsman.parliament.nz
Subject: Re: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
Dear Ms Baxendale (CCC Chief Executive),
Thank you for providing responses to my complaints. I would like to
further discuss the first ground of my complaint (Not a fair
representation of matters) because there are a number of important,
unresolved issues there. I have added an additional ground 1b (The
Council has a legal requirement to ensure those consulted are
adequately informed). I have also added another ground for complaint
relating to a failure to meet the requirements of s 80 of the Local
Government Act 2002.
The attached complaints document lays out grounds for my complaint and
the relief I am seeking.
Again this complaint should be prioritised as urgent, and I would like
a written acknowledgement of this email and an estimate of how long it
will take to deal with this complaint.
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
On 21/12/2022, [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Kia ora Mr Thomson,
>
> [Redacted original message which appeared earlier in this document]
I know that Linda Edwards has been corresponding with me regarding this complaint, but in her last email she did not answer a very important question that I believe will provide me with some clarity as to the decision the Office of the Auditor-General has made, so I am appealing to you for an answer to the question.
[Redacted the rest of the original message]
Fri, 24 Feb 2023 13:54 RE: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
To: [WT]
Good afternoon, Wiremu
Thank you for your email below. As a follow up, are you able to please particularise in what way you believe Cr Gough has breached 'common law rules that regulate conflicts of interest and bias in the public sector'?
The additional information would be appreciated.
Kind regards
Amy
Amy Davidson
Senior Advisor
Office of the Mayor and Chief Executive
[Redacted original message]
Tue, 28 Feb 2023 03:51 Re: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [WT]
To: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
Dear Ms Davidson,
Thank you for your response. I probably should have included this in
my previous email. The Office of the Auditor-General said:
"As you will be aware, the Act covers only financial interests.
Although other types of interest are not covered by the Act, they are
still subject to the common law rules that regulate conflicts of
interest and bias in the public sector. This means that a councillor
does not have to worry about the Act if they have a non-financial
interest in a matter. However, they still need to consider whether it
is lawful and appropriate for them to participate in the local
authority's decision-making under the common law and/or as a matter of
ethics and good practice. Our good practice guide "Managing conflicts
of interest: A guide for the public sector"
(https://oag.parliament.nz/2020/conflicts/part3.htm) has more
information about non-financial conflicts of interest. Note that,
unlike financial interests, the Auditor-General does not have a role
in relation to non-financial conflicts of interest. Any concerns you
have about non-financial conflicts of interests should be raised with
the Council."
"6.11
The courts usually approach bias by asking the following question:
Would a fair-minded observer reasonably think that the
decision-maker or member of the decision-making body might not bring
an impartial mind to the decision, in the sense that they might
unfairly treat someone's case with favour or disfavour?Footnote 12"
Cr Gough's personal and familial interests in the decision to proceed
with building a stadium in the CBD near his father's and uncle's
business interests could be seen to unfairly favour the option to
build the stadium.
Also of note in part 6,
"6.21
If an organisation's decision is tainted by bias, the courts may
declare the decision invalid or may prevent a person from exercising a
power. The risk, delay, and expense in defending a decision against a
legal challenge can be significant."
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
[Redacted original message]
Tue, 28 Feb 2023 04:27 Fwd: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [WT]
To: Caralee.McLiesh@treasury.govt.nz, andrew.rutledge@treasury.govt.nz, receptionbne@watpac.com.au
Dear BESIX Watpac and the Treasury,
I am writing to provide a further update on my correspondence with the
Christchurch City Council regarding my complaints about the
unlawfulness of the Te Kaha stadium decision. This email includes the
Council's response to the last email I forwarded to you, as well as my
complaint regarding a conflict of interest by Cr Gough (note the
Office of the Auditor-General has written to me that in their view Cr
Gough has not breached the Local Authorities (Members' Interests) Act
1968, but that concerns I have regarding conflicts of interest should
be raised with the Council).
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [WT]
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 03:51:27 +1300
Subject: Re: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
To: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
Dear __________,
Thank you for your response. I probably should have included this in
my previous email. The Office of the Auditor-General said:
"As you will be aware, the Act covers only financial interests.
Although other types of interest are not covered by the Act, they are
still subject to the common law rules that regulate conflicts of
interest and bias in the public sector. This means that a councillor
does not have to worry about the Act if they have a non-financial
interest in a matter. However, they still need to consider whether it
is lawful and appropriate for them to participate in the local
authority's decision-making under the common law and/or as a matter of
ethics and good practice. Our good practice guide "Managing conflicts
of interest: A guide for the public sector"
(https://oag.parliament.nz/2020/conflicts/part3.htm) has more
information about non-financial conflicts of interest. Note that,
unlike financial interests, the Auditor-General does not have a role
in relation to non-financial conflicts of interest. Any concerns you
have about non-financial conflicts of interests should be raised with
the Council."
"6.11
The courts usually approach bias by asking the following question:
Would a fair-minded observer reasonably think that the
decision-maker or member of the decision-making body might not bring
an impartial mind to the decision, in the sense that they might
unfairly treat someone's case with favour or disfavour?Footnote 12"
Cr Gough's personal and familial interests in the decision to proceed
with building a stadium in the CBD near his father's and uncle's
business interests could be seen to unfairly favour the option to
build the stadium.
Also of note in part 6,
"6.21
If an organisation's decision is tainted by bias, the courts may
declare the decision invalid or may prevent a person from exercising a
power. The risk, delay, and expense in defending a decision against a
legal challenge can be significant."
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
On 24/02/2023, [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Good afternoon, Wiremu
>
> Thank you for your email below. As a follow up, are you able to please
> particularise in what way you believe Cr Gough has breached 'common law
> rules that regulate conflicts of interest and bias in the public sector'?
>
> The additional information would be appreciated.
>
> Kind regards
> ______
>
>
> ___________
> Senior Advisor
> Office of the Mayor and Chief Executive
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [WT]
> Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2023 1:23 am
> To: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
> Subject: Re: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
>
> Dear Ms Baxendale (CCC Chief Executive),
>
> Thank you for your response. The Office of the Auditor-General wrote to me
> on Tuesday regarding my new Local Authorities (Members'
> Interests) Act complaint that I lodged with them on the 22nd of November
> 2022 (see attached).
>
> The Office of the Auditor-General is of the view that Cr Gough has not
> breached the LAMIA. However, they said the LAMIA only covers pecuniary
> interests, and though other types of interest are not covered by the Act,
> they are still subject to the common law rules that regulate conflicts of
> interest and bias in the public sector, so I should raise my concerns with
> you.
>
> Please find my new LAMIA complaint regarding the Council's stadium decision
> on the 14th of July 2022 attached. Note regarding the trust in Ground 2, the
> Auditor-General has relayed to me that Cr Gough is not a beneficiary of the
> trust.
>
>
> Regards,
> Wiremu Thomson
>
>
>
> On 20/02/2023, [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons] wrote:
>> Dear Wiremu
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your email below of 31 January. I’m responding on behalf
>> of the Office of the Chief Executive. Please find below a response to
>> your questions, noting we have not repeated what was covered in the
>> Council’s last response to you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Using your headings:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Ground 1a
>>
>>
>>
>> The Council has considered your response and maintains that the
>> information provided in the consultation material was a fair
>> representation of the legal position and has nothing further to add.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Ground 1b
>>
>>
>>
>> The Council has considered your response and maintains that the
>> information provided was sufficient to ensure those consulted are
>> adequately informed.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. Ground 2
>>
>>
>>
>> The Council has considered your additional ground in relation to section
>> 80
>> of the Local Government Act 2002. The decision is not inconsistent with
>> the Long-Term Plan. Section 80 would only be relevant if the decision
>> was inconsistent. On 14 July 2022, the Council approved the increased
>> project budget for the Te Kaha project. Increasing the project budget
>> does not change the level of service provision in the current
>> Long-Term Plan. The decision to identify how to fund the increased
>> budget, is one to be made when the Council adopts the next Long-Term
>> Plan which by law it must do by the end of June 2024.
>>
>>
>>
>> Turning now to the questions you pose: the Council considers that it
>> has covered your points adequately in this and the earlier response
>> and in the material publicly available concerning the decision to
>> increase the project budget for Te Kaha.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope this information assists.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> ______
>>
>>
>> ___________
>> Senior Advisor
>> Office of the Mayor and Chief Executive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: [WT]
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2023 2:50 am
>>
>> To: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
>>
>> Cc: Info CCC <info@ccc.govt.nz>;
>> info@ombudsman.parliament.nz
>>
>> Subject: Re: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Ms Baxendale (CCC Chief Executive),
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for providing responses to my complaints. I would like to
>> further discuss the first ground of my complaint (Not a fair
>> representation of
>> matters) because there are a number of important, unresolved issues
>> there. I have added an additional ground 1b (The Council has a legal
>> requirement to ensure those consulted are adequately informed). I have
>> also added another ground for complaint relating to a failure to meet
>> the requirements of s 80 of the Local Government Act 2002.
>>
>>
>>
>> The attached complaints document lays out grounds for my complaint and
>> the relief I am seeking.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again this complaint should be prioritised as urgent, and I would like
>> a written acknowledgement of this email and an estimate of how long it
>> will take to deal with this complaint.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Wiremu Thomson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21/12/2022, [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons] wrote:
>>
>>> Kia ora Mr Thomson,
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I refer to your letter of 20 September 2022 (attached) and following
>>
>>> up letter on 5 December 2022 in relation to Te Kaha Project Delivery
>>> Limited.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> First, I must apologise for the delay in our response. We endeavour
>>> to
>>
>>> address feedback and complaints from our citizens in a timely manner.
>>
>>> On this occasion we have failed to meet a reasonable response time
>>> and
>>
>>> I am sorry you have had to wait so long for a response.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Staff have addressed your list of concerns in the attached document.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Thank you for your patience. I will also copy this response to the
>>
>>> Ombudsman so he is aware of the Council’s response.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Ngā mihi
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Dawn Baxendale
>>
>>> Chief Executive
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>> This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended
>> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
>> addressed.
>> The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
>> and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City
>> Council.
>> If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the
>> sender and delete the email.
>>
>> [Redacted sign-off image link]
>>
> This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely
> for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and
> may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.
> If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender
> and delete the email.
>
> [Christchurch City Council logo]<https://ccc.govt.nz>
>
Tue, 28 Feb 2023 09:23 RE: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
To: [WT]
Good morning
Thank you for providing the additional information below--it's much appreciated.
Also, please note that Cr Gough will be informed about the complaint on the basis of natural justice.
Kind regards
Amy
Amy Davidson
Senior Advisor
Office of the Mayor and Chief Executive
[Redacted original message]
Fri, 17 Mar 2023 15:20 The Treasury I Your Official Information Act Request - 20230072
From: [Redacted Treasury Ministerial Advisory Service’s email address]
To: [WT]
Dear Wiremu Thomson,
Please find attached The Treasury’s response to your Official Information Act request.
Yours sincerely,
Alastair
[cid:image001.png@01D958E3.0F5D3F10]
Alastair | Senior Ministerial Advisor| Te Tai Ōhanga – The Treasury
[Redacted irrelevant sign-off stuff]
Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:34 RE: Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [Redacted Assistant Auditor-General’s email address]
To: [WT]
Kia ora Wiremu,
You wrote to the Auditor-General on 23 February regarding your correspondence with Linda Edwards about your view that Cr Gough breached the Local Authorities (Member's Interests) Act 1968 by participating in Christchurch City Council’s decision on 14 July 2022 to invest an additional up to $150 million in Te Kaha stadium. I am the Assistant Auditor-General, Legal and am responding on behalf of the Auditor-General.
As Linda has outlined in previous correspondence, based on the information we have, we do not think that Cr Gough had a financial interest in the Council’s decision on 14 July 2022. As a result, we do not consider that he has breached the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968 by participating in that decision. To answer your specific question, it is our view that a court would find the same. [Not a redaction and written in June 2023, but I'd like to point out their previous correspondence on the 25th of November said "However, in our view, the possibility of inheriting business or property from someone else is too remote to constitute an indirect financial interest in a decision for the purposes of the Act." (Emphasis added) Obviously it would be ridiculous if possible inheritance from some random person excluded councillors from voting because the chance of them receiving an inheritance would be in common with the public (almost zilch), but this is not just any someone, this is his father who he has a good chance of inheriting from. That along with exactly how the "too remote" fitted in was the important question I wanted answered, to which I feel they kept avoiding providing a direct answer. The answer above is just the outcome without sufficient justification.]
This Office has corresponded with you on a number of occasions now about the application of the Local Authorities (Member's Interests) Act 1968 in relation to Cr Gough and the Council’s decision, and we have nothing further to add to our previous correspondence. We do not propose to engage further on the matter unless a new issue is raised.
Nāku noa, nā Melanie
Melanie Webb (she/her)
Assistant Auditor-General – Legal, Policy and Inquiries Group
[Redacted sign-off info]
From: [WT]
Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2023 12:42 a.m.
To: John.Ryan@oag.parliament.nz
Subject: Fwd: Serious Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
I know that Linda Edwards has been corresponding with me regarding this
complaint, but in her last email she did not answer a very important
question that I believe will provide me with some clarity as to the
decision the Office of the Auditor-General has made, so I am appealing to
you for an answer to the question.
On the 10th of December 2022, I wrote:
I am not sure I understand the bit about possible inheritance wealth
not being a pecuniary interest.
Are you saying you think a court would find:
(e) possible inheritance wealth from one's father is not an indirect
pecuniary (related to money) interest.
or
(f) though possible inheritance wealth from one's father is an indirect
pecuniary (related to money) interest, it is too remote to be likely to
affect his stadium decision for the purposes of the Local Authorities
(Members' Interests) Act 1968?
From what you have said I guess you are saying (e), on the basis of the
definition of pecuniary interest in Downward v Babington:
"... a councillor should be held to have a pecuniary interest in a
matter before the council if the matter would, if dealt with in a
particular way, give rise to an expectation which is not too remote of a
gain or loss of money by him."
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
[Redacted the rest of the original message]
This message was not sent to the OAG, but it was included at the end of the Correspondence_OAG document that was sent to media and MPs. And as seen further on I did eventually raise these points with the OAG.
The following was not sent, but would be what I would have raised with them had they not indicated they do not want to engage further.
With regards to the important question I wanted answered (on pg. 22 of this document), I was trying to get to the bottom of the basis on which they were making their decision, so that I could better explain to them why I felt their decision was wrong. In some ways it was a trick question because both answers would not have been in accordance with the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968.
Option (f) was basically a restatement of s 6(3)(f) of the Act, and the important thing about that is that a written application and response needs to be made before the vote or discussion. Option (e) was on the basis of Downward v Babington, which as the following image shows the OAG has chosen to adopt this definition and previous correspondence (“too remote”) suggests that this was the basis of their decision. The point about Downward v Babington is that this was an Australian case and the last part “that our Act deals separately with the element of remoteness in section 6(3)(f) of the Act” does not, in my opinion, appear to have been acknowledged in handling this complaint.
(https://oag.parliament.nz/2020/lamia/appendix2.htm)
Reconsidering both Ms Edwards’ and Ms Webb’s responses, the necessary implications of those responses, and their guide (in particular noting the Auditor-General v Christensen case, which seems to have similarities to a number of the statements they have been making to me) it seems to me as though they went with option (e) in regard to my question.
The following table sets out the issues I have with the OAG’s decision.
Statements/Decisions the Office of the Auditor-General either made; or alluded to and did not correct when it was put to them that that was what they were saying
My responses
We think that the scenarios you have posed in your letter are too remote and too speculative for a court to find that Councillor Gough had a financial interest (a reasonable expectation of gain or loss) in the Council's decision about the stadium.
This is an error of law. Although the LAMIA does not provide a formal definition of a pecuniary interest, s 10(1) of the Legislation Act 2019 specifies that “The meaning of legislation must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose and its context.” (Emphasis added). Section 6(3)(f) of the LAMIA states “... the pecuniary interest of a member is so remote or insignificant that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence him in voting on or taking part in the discussion of that matter” (Emphasis added), and thus the context provides a partial definition of a pecuniary interest i.e. that even if it is so remote or insignificant it is still considered to be a pecuniary interest. This partial definition contradicts the OAG’s view that because something is too remote and too speculative it is not a pecuniary interest.
To answer possible questions around lack of protection for members from such a broad definition, some protections for members are provided by the words “other than an interest in common with the public” (s 6(1)), and “he did not know and had no reasonable opportunity of knowing” (s 7(2)). The first of which would be a surprising defence for this case and the second I addressed in my complaint sent on the 22nd of November, and neither of these defences have been raised by the OAG.
We do not think that Cr Gough had a financial interest in the Council’s decision on 14 July 2022.
We think that the scenarios you have posed in your letter are too remote and too speculative...
(e) possible inheritance wealth from one's father is not an indirect pecuniary (related to money) interest.
(a) There is only a small possibility ("too remote") that his father will leave any wealth to Cr Gough despite common practices and the family history mentioned in my complaint.
(c) That relying on evidence presented in the investment case as to the benefits to properties in the CBD is too speculative.
(d) That the benefits to Cr Gough's father's investment in the CBD from having an almost a billion dollar publicly funded amenity built nearby, though similar to the Re Wanamaker and Patterson case, is too speculative.
I believe these decisions/statements are wrong and that the omitted decision/statement (b) should be decided by a judge.
There is very little case law on the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968. Three court decisions that considered the Act are set out in Appendix 2 of our guide. A decision to prosecute a breach of the Act is a serious matter; the Auditor-General does not do so unless there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction.
I believe the OAG may be reluctant to prosecute, partly as a consequence of Auditor-General v Christensen [2004] DCR 524, because a judge might decide under s 106 (Discharge without conviction) of the Sentencing Act 2002 that the consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.
I query whether it is even possible for a judge to discharge an offender without conviction for a LAMIA case because the Sentencing Act 2002 s 106(1) says “... the court may discharge the offender without conviction, unless by any enactment applicable to the offence the court is required to impose a minimum sentence” (Emphasis added). The LAMIA s 7(3) and s 7(4) seem to impose a minimum sentence of “the office of the member shall be vacated”.
Personally (if it is possible for a judge to discharge without conviction for LAMIA cases) I also believe that in this case the consequences of a conviction would not be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.
The OAG might be concerned, perhaps also as a consequence of Auditor-General v Christensen [2004] DCR 524 and perhaps indicated by para. 5.29 of their June 2005 discussion paper (https://oag.parliament.nz/2005/members/docs/members-interests.pdf), that they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew there was a pecuniary interest whereas I believe the test would actually be that they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had a reasonable opportunity of knowing that he had a pecuniary interest, which again I covered in my 22nd of November complaint.
Finally and on a separate topic, the OAG may have missed or ignored the question I raised in my email on the 23rd of February 2023 as to the validity of the Council’s response to my complaint regarding a failure to meet the requirements of s 80 of the Local Government Act 2002. My belief is that the stadium decision on the 14th of July 2022 was anticipated to have consequences that will be significantly inconsistent with their Long Term Plan; either by requiring spending cuts that would reduce levels of service, or as was anticipated in the consultation document (but not clearly identified as an inconsistency) by increasing rates past the quantified limit in the 2025/2026 year.
Thu, 30 Mar 2023 13:26 Re: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
From: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
To: [WT]
Dear Wiremu
Thank you for your follow-up email of 28 February and clarification about your perception that common law rules regarding conflict of interest and bias were breached.
As I understand it, your complaint is that Councillor Gough was conflicted in relation to the Council decision regarding the increased budget for Te Kaha. Further, because of this conflict, you consider that he should not have voted on the matter.
The Office of the Auditor-General has confirmed that Councillor Gough does not have a pecuniary interest that would breach the Local Authorities (Members' Interests) Act 1968.
The Council is of the view that Councillor Gough did not have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest and was able to participate in the Te Kaha decision.
This rationale behind this is:
1)
the test for conflicts is 'would a fair-minded observer reasonably think that a member of the decision-making body might not bring an impartial mind to the decision, in the sense that he or she might unfairly regard the case of a party with favour or disfavour?’ This was confirmed in a case where a councillor was considered not to be conflicted when making a decision about fluoridation, where that councillor also held a position on a District Health Board that supported fluoridation - Woods v Kapiti Coast District Council [2014] NZHC 1661, [23].
2)
All councillors, including Councillor Gough, received guidance on the day of the Te Kaha decision about bringing an open mind to the decision. You can view the former mayor making this clear statement at the commencement of the meeting:
[Redacted link because it contained the Chief Executive's email address, and a link to a video of the meeting has already been provided e.g. on pg. 3 of Serious_Complaints_Te_Kaha.pdf]
3)
All councillors are aware of the position in relation to conflicts, through both governance documents and staff advice on an ongoing basis.
The claims you have made in relation to Councillor Gough do not cross the threshold of a conflict of interest.
I trust this answers your additional questions and we can consider this matter closed.
Kind regards
Helen White
Head of Legal & Democratic Services
Te Ratonga Ture me te Manapori - Legal & Democratic Services
[Redacted original message]
Mon, 3 Apr 2023 02:49 Possible removal of Auditor-General, and other public sector problems
From: [WT]
To: a.little@ministers.govt.nz, k.mcanulty@ministers.govt.nz, d.parker@ministers.govt.nz, Nicola.Grigg@parliament.govt.nz
Dear ministers of Local Government and Public Services,
Attorney-General, and my electorate MP,
On the 14th of July last year, the Christchurch City Council (CCC)
decided to invest additional money and continue building the Te Kaha
stadium as planned. Since then, I filed a complaint primarily on the
grounds that the consultation was misleading and not a fair
representation of the matter (i.e. did not adequately inform those
consulted), and that Cr Gough had breached the Local Authorities
(Members' Interests) Act 1968 (LAMIA) by discussing and voting on an
issue in which he had a pecuniary interest. On the 31st of January
this year, I added an additional ground that the CCC failed to comply
with the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) s 80 (Identification of
inconsistent decisions).
The CCC have said they believe their decision complied with the law.
The Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) has decided that Cr Gough has
not breached the LAMIA.
The Treasury, who are looking after the Crown side of the Te Kaha
funding, have said (as far as I can tell) that they have done nothing
regarding my concerns that the CCC's decision was unlawful.
The Ombudsman is looking into the CCC matter, but I would also point
out that Part 10 of the LGA gives the Minister powers to act in
relation to local authorities.
With regards to the OAG, my understanding is that the Ombudsman can no
longer review decisions made by the OAG, but the House of
Representatives can remove the Auditor-General or Deputy
Auditor-General under the Public Audit Act 2001 s 4(1). Please note
that I am not necessarily recommending removal, but that it is
something worth considering given that not prosecuting a, what some
may consider blatant, breach of the LAMIA could be considered neglect
of duty or misconduct. The attached LAMIA__Complaint document from the
22nd of November (note I have attached both the first and second
complaints, which names differ in the number of underscores) is the
complaint I made to the OAG. The table on pg. 27 of the attached
Correspondence_OAG sets out most of the issues I have with the OAG's
decision. I would also like to add that the OAG seemed rather casual
in handling a serious matter regarding whether Cr Gough was a
beneficiary of a trust (e.g. they did not answer whether he was a
beneficiary at the time of the decision, just that once they'd asked
him he was not a beneficiary. Though I do not expect the answer to
change, the point is that the OAG's approach seemed to lack rigour.)
Regarding the Treasury, to have no opinion at all on whether the CCC's
decision was lawful, especially in response to concerns I raised,
could be considered negligent.
There is a timeline below that hopefully covers pretty much all of the
correspondence (at least the important stuff except with the
Ombudsman, which has mostly consisted of updates); and for
completeness and to show things from their perspective, I have
compiled all of the correspondence with the Christchurch City Council,
Auditor-General, the Treasury, and BESIX Watpac into single
attachments for each conversation.
Regards,
Wiremu Thomson
Timeline:
Pre-14th July 2022: Council consults on decision on stadium.
14th July 2022: Council makes decision on stadium.
15th July 2022: I email the Ombudsman regarding concerns.
3rd August 2022 at 17:46: I became concerned at how long the Ombudsman
may take to respond, so I forwarded the email to the pro-bono email
address of Lawyers for Climate Action NZ, but did not receive advice
specifically about it.
13th September 2022: I receive a response from the Office of the
Ombudsman to raise the matter with the Council first, a useful guide
document for raising issues and a useful reference to the Council's
Code of Conduct.
20th September 2022: I send a proper complaint document to Council and
the Auditor-General, and copied to the Treasury. I also email some
funding questions to the Treasury.
28th September: Received an acknowledgement email from the Office of
the Auditor-General.
20th October: I called the Council to check they had my complaint, and
what was happening with it, but the after-hours customer service
person could not see details, but told me the job number (#[redacted]),
and said if I emailed someone would get back to me. I emailed the
Council that night to ask when they were expecting to provide a
response.
25th October: I received a reply from a Council customer services
representative that it was still with the relevant staff and an update
would be provided as soon as possible once it was available.
1st November: I received a reply from the Office of the
Auditor-General that they are satisfied Cr Gough did not breach the
Act.
2nd November: I email the Office of the Auditor-General and the
Ombudsman my concerns about how long the Council will take to respond,
including the forwarded email with the complaints document that the
Ombudsman had not seen yet.
8th November: Received an acknowledgement from the Office of the
Ombudsman to let me know who had been assigned the case and a more
substantive update would be provided when they were in a position to
do so.
22nd November: I replied to the Office of the Auditor-General that I
accepted the details in my original LAMIA complaint were not valid
reasons under the Act, and provided other information as to why I
believe Cr Gough has still breached the LAMIA.
22nd November: I emailed the Council again to ask when they were
expecting to provide a response.
25th November: The Office of the Auditor-General replies that they are
still satisfied Cr Gough has not breached the Act. This is the start
of a back-and-forth conversation with the OAG that would crowd this
timeline and ends on the 20th of March 2023. It is more easy to read
in the specific correspondence attachment.
4th December: I emailed the complaints document to councillors
Templeton and Coker, who had both voted against the stadium asking
whether they could provide an update or if they were unaware they
probably wanted to ask the Chief Executive what was happening with it.
5th December: I emailed the stadium building contractor (BESIX Watpac,
using the head office address listed on their website) to inform them
of the likely unlawful nature of their contract with Te Kaha Project
Delivery Ltd, in an attempt to limit costs/loss, and copied it to the
Council, Auditor-General and Ombudsman for their records.
20th December: Received an email from the Ombudsman's office that the
Council would get back to me by the end of the week and to feel free
to let the Ombudsman's office know if they did not.
21st December: Received a response to my complaint from the Council.
9th January 2023: Emailed the Office of the Auditor-General as they
had asked me to let them know what the Council's response was, and I
also indicated that I did intend to respond, but was still considering
the response.
31st January: I emailed the Council another complaint document
responding to their email, and also forwarded it to BESIX Watpac to
keep them updated, along with my understanding of what the situation
could mean for them, and forwarded my email to Council to the Treasury
along with some OIA questions. Also forwarded email to Council to
councillors Templeton and Coker, and have not received any response
from them to it or the previous email.
17th February: Following on from the Treasury's response to my
previous OIA questions, I emailed them some further questions.
20th February: Received a response from the Council to the second
complaint document.
21st February: Received a response from the OAG relaying that Cr Gough
is not a beneficiary of the trust mentioned in the complaints document
from the 22nd of November.
23rd February: I emailed the Council regarding the conflict of
interest LAMIA complaint document and common law rules.
23rd February: I emailed the OAG the Council's response to the second
complaint document and asked about the validity of the Council's
response to my complaint about a failure to meet the requirements of s
80 of the Local Government Act 2002, but it seems from carefully
reading their emails that the OAG probably won't respond.
24th February: Council responds asking for more specific info
regarding common law rules that regulate conflicts of interest.
28th February: I reply to Council providing more specific info.
28th February: I provided an update on the complaint including the
updated LAMIA conflict of interest complaint to BESIX Watpac and the
Treasury.
17th March: I received a response from the Treasury to my OIA
questions from the 17th of February.
20th March: Discussions with the OAG come to an end with an assistant
Auditor-General emailing me that they do not intend to engage further
with the matter unless a new issue is raised.
30th March: I received a response from the Council that their view is
Cr Gough did not have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest and was
able to participate in the Te Kaha decision.
Mon, 3 Apr 2023 03:01 Office of the Ombudsman - Complaint about Christchurch City Council - Our ref: [redacted]
From: [WT]
To: [Redacted investigator’s email address]
Dear [redacted investigator’s name],
The forwarded message below is the Council's response. So there are no
more emails I'm expecting from them.
Just to let you know, I have raised the issue with some MPs given my
understanding that the Office of the Auditor-General is outside the
Ombudsman's scope and that I feel the OAG have some fault.
Regards,
Wiremu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [Redacted CCC Chief Executive email address for privacy reasons]
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 00:26:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Response to Wiremu Thomson - Te Kaha Complaint
To: [WT]
Dear Wiremu
Thank you for your follow-up email of 28 February and clarification
about your perception that common law rules regarding conflict of
interest and bias were breached.
As I understand it, your complaint is that Councillor Gough was
conflicted in relation to the Council decision regarding the increased
budget for Te Kaha. Further, because of this conflict, you consider
that he should not have voted on the matter.
[Redacted rest of forwarded message]
Tue, 9 May 2023 02:06 Issues with the OAG decision on Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [WT]
To: John.Ryan@oag.parliament.nz, [Redacted Assistant Auditor-General’s email address], [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
Dear Mr Ryan c/o Shauna, Ms Webb, Ms Edwards,
To Shauna (Correspondence Advisor - Strategy and Communications) I
know my emails cover legal matters and so it would seem appropriate to
pass it on to lawyers, but I strongly believe you should be bringing
this to the Auditor-General's attention because people who are not
lawyers can have a view on the law too, and this is more than just a
legal matter as it pertains in some ways as to whether his office is
doing a good job (i.e. prosecuting people where there are reasonable
grounds to believe that a person has broken a law within the
Auditor-General's area of responsibilities). Also, I do not know
whether you intended not to provide a response to my second email on
the 23rd of February, so I have included an abridged version of the
email at the end of the attached document.
Please read the attached document regarding the issues I have with the
OAG's decision regarding Cr Gough (though some of the issues are more
systemic and would apply to your handling of any Local Authorities
(Members' Interests) Act complaints).
Regards,
Mr Thomson
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [Redacted Assistant Auditor-General’s email address]
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:34:35 +0000
Subject: RE: Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
To: [WT]
Kia ora Wiremu,
You wrote to the Auditor-General on 23 February [Redacted the rest of the forwarded message]
Thu, 18 May 2023 16:49 RE: Issues with the OAG decision on Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
From: [Redacted Assistant Auditor-General’s email address]
To: [WT]
Kia ora Wiremu
I refer to your email of 9 May 2023, sent to the Auditor-General. As noted in my previous email, this Office has corresponded with you on a number of occasions now about the application of the Local Authorities (Member's Interests) Act 1968 in relation to Cr Gough and the Council's decision, and we have nothing further to add to our previous correspondence. For completeness, neither do we have any comment to make about the Council's response to your concerns about section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002.
Nāku noa, nā Melanie
Melanie Webb (she/her)
Assistant Auditor-General – Legal, Policy and Inquiries Group
[Redacted contact details]
Office of the Auditor-General Te Mana Arotake
Improving trust, promoting value
[Redacted contact details]
-----Original Message-----
From: [WT]
Sent: Tuesday, 9 May 2023 2:06 a.m.
To: John.Ryan@oag.parliament.nz; [Redacted Assistant Auditor-General’s email address]; [Redacted OAG Senior Solicitor’s email address]
Subject: Issues with the OAG decision on Complaints regarding Te Kaha stadium decision
[Redacted external email warning]
Dear Mr Ryan c/o Shauna, Ms Webb, Ms Edwards,
[Redacted the rest of the original message]
_______________________________________________________________
The information contained in this email message is intended only
for the addressee and is not necessarily the official view or
communication of the Office of the Auditor-General.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use,
disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information on it.
Mon, 29 May 2023 22:01 Re: Office of the Ombudsman - Complaint about Christchurch City Council - Our ref: [redacted]
From: [WT]
To: [Redacted investigator’s email address]
Dear [redacted investigator’s name],
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to confirm my concerns, as I
realise I have mostly been providing you with information without much
of an idea as to my current opinions. I have the following points to
make.
1. The decision wasn't just to invest additional funds in Te Kaha
stadium, it was the decision to enable the Chief Executive to sign off
on the construction contract.
2. The concerns you have listed as 1 and 2 are basically the same
concern, but aside from that I can confirm that those are my concerns
in addition to points 3 and 4 below. Regarding them being basically
the same concern, the fair representation of matters was the sort of
wording I saw in the LGA 2002 that I felt expressed the ethical (and
thus typically common law) principle the Council had breached, and at
the time I was not sure whether the section in the Act applied given
they seemed to be making a significant LTP change. When the Council's
response led me to doubt whether there was a legal requirement, I
found the case law about the legal obligation to ensure that those
'consulted will be (or will be made) adequately informed so as to be
able to make intelligent and useful responses' and realised that this
covered the ethical principle I was getting at when I was saying a
fair representation of the matters.
3. Regarding the LGA 2002 s 80 issue, I think the Council's response
is bulldust and I do not consider it resolved. I sought the OAG's
thoughts on it, but the OAG replied that they do not have any comment
to make about it. The text below was copied from the document I sent
the OAG and explains my thoughts on the Council's response.
"Finally and on a separate topic, the abridged second email of the
23rd of February 2023 is below. My belief is that the stadium decision
on the 14th of July 2022 was anticipated to have consequences that
will be significantly inconsistent with the Council's Long Term Plan;
either by requiring spending cuts that would reduce levels of service,
or as was anticipated in the consultation document (but not clearly
identified as an inconsistency) by increasing rates past the
quantified limit in the 2025/2026 year.
---------------------------------------------------
23rd February 2023
Dear Auditor-General,
The Council's response to Ground 2 (relating to a failure to meet the
requirements of s 80 of the
Local Government Act 2002: Identification of inconsistent decisions)
may be of interest to you, and
I would be interested to know your thoughts on the validity of this
approach keeping in mind the
LGA 2002 s 80 "...or is anticipated to have consequences that will be
significantly inconsistent
with..."
Council's response:
The Council has considered your additional ground in relation to
section 80 of the Local
Government Act 2002. The decision is not inconsistent with the
Long-Term Plan. Section 80
would only be relevant if the decision was inconsistent. On 14 July
2022, the Council approved the
increased project budget for the Te Kaha project. Increasing the
project budget does not change the
level of service provision in the current Long-Term Plan. The decision
to identify how to fund the
increased budget, is one to be made when the Council adopts the next
Long-Term Plan which by
law it must do by the end of June 2024.
---------------------------------------------------"
4. I also do not consider the conflict of interest issue has been
resolved. Though I feel it should have primarily been handled by the
stricter pecuniary interest law, I feel it is also a non-pecuniary
interest similar to voting on something that benefits a best friend
(or business partner). With regard to raising the pecuniary interest
issue with MPs, I am not holding my breath for a reply. In my
experience, MPs will reply to little kids but when it's something
really important to do with their job, they'll just ignore you. With
regard to the Council's response, the rationale they provided does not
justify their decision. The example in their first point is simply
confirming the test for a conflict which I have no problem with and
stating that this was confirmed in a case about a very different
situation from the one at hand. The second and third points just cover
that the staffers and Mayor fulfilled their responsibilities, but none
of the points provided actual rationale for their decision regarding
Cr Gough's non-pecuniary interest (unless you consider the one about
the claims not crossing the threshold as adequate rationale).
So to summarise my concerns:
A. The Council did not meet its legal obligation to ensure that those
consulted were adequately informed so as to be able to make
intelligent and useful responses because the information in the
Council's consulation material was not a fair representation of
matters, for reasons that are summarised in my complaint document
dated 31 January 2023, at paragraph 26.
B. The LGA 2002 s 80 issue has not been resolved for the reasons set
out in point 3 above.
C. The non-pecuniary conflict of interest issue has not been resolved
for the reasons set out in point 4 above.
Regards,
Wiremu
On 25/05/2023, [Redacted investigator’s email address]
wrote:
> [Redacted the investigator's message]
Thu, 8 Jun 2023 15:24 RE: Office of the Ombudsman - Complaint about Christchurch City Council - Our ref: [redacted]
From: [Redacted investigator’s email address]
To: [WT]
Tēnā koe Wiremu
Thank you for your email.
Your 2 November 2022 complaint to this Office concerned the Council’s delay in responding to your 20 September 2022 complaint to the CEO. As the Council has provided a response to your complaint, this complaint is resolved and it will now be closed.
As you have now clarified your outstanding concerns regarding the Council’s consultation process, we will open a new ground of complaint on this issue. It will now be transferred to the Early Resolution Team for further consideration.
[Redacted a paragraph]
Ngā mihi
[Redacted investigator’s name]
Investigator
Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata
[Redacted contact details]
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email may be confidential or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the recipient or recipients named in this message. Please note that if you are not the intended recipient you are not authorised to use, copy or distribute the email or any information contained in it. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender immediately and destroy the original message and any attachments.
-----Original Message-----
From: [WT]
Sent: Monday, 29 May 2023 10:02 pm
To: [Redacted investigator’s email address]
Subject: Re: Office of the Ombudsman - Complaint about Christchurch City Council - Our ref: [redacted ref number used since the 13th of September 2022 response from a Senior Investigator]
Dear [redacted investigator’s name],
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to confirm my concerns, [redacted the rest of the original message.]
Climate
In the following correspondence, I wrote to the Prime Minister at the time, Jacinda Ardern, regarding some bad advice from the Climate Change Commission and regarding the significant, urgent reductions that my analysis found are needed for NZ to comply with the Paris Agreement we signed up to. Despite what I feel was a specific request that the PM handle the email, her office forwarded it on to the Minister of Climate Change James Shaw. Subsequently I passed on my concerns to the Climate Change Commission and an MP from each party.
After the ETS auction when the price went through the roof, I again emailed advice to the Government including ministers Ardern, Shaw, Parker and Robertson. No one replied to either of the emails and as far as I am aware the ministers did not do anything with the advice.
About a year later, I wrote to Lawyers for Climate Action NZ (LCANZ) with regard to issues I had with the Commission's advice and Minister Shaw's decision on setting emissions budgets. For the most part, I believe the Commission had a go at doing what they needed to do, and unfortunately for future generations having a go is all that the Act requires of them. I believe the advice and decision did not perform an adequate analysis of what was required to comply with the Paris Agreement, which I believe severely undermines the Climate Change Response Act, NZ's climate action and the Paris Agreement by not informing the public about the huge, urgent effort that is needed for us to comply with our Paris Agreement commitment. After LCANZ's reply, I forwarded my advice from 2021 to some climate groups, a lecturer and to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:11 Important Climate Change Issues
From: [WT]
To: j.ardern@ministers.govt.nz
Cc: [Redacted], admin@[redacted]
Dear Prime Minister (et al.),
Some of the Climate Change Commission's advice is not so good, and one
of their recommendations demonstrates a fundamental lack of
understanding of the Harvested Wood Products sector (Recommendation
5(c)(iii), criticism of it is below). This is despite me raising it as
an issue in my submission. It also appears they did not consider some
of the other important issues I raised, which is why I am raising them
with you.
Over the last four years I've interacted with most climate change
focused central government entities (except perhaps David Parker), and
none have left me with confidence that they would be able to handle
this email in a way that achieves anything. I guess this is like
asking to speak to the manager. Also, my analysis indicates that
action on reducing emissions is an urgent matter for NZ.
== The following is how I hope this email will be handled: ==
1. Read whole email.
2. Look at the graphs on pg. 34 and 35 of my attached submission. The
green line is a pathway that I believe abides by the Paris Agreement
(the exact course it follows is based on my own thoughts of what may
be possible if we acted urgently given the budget we have to work with
to 2037). The black line is adapted from the Commission's draft
budgets using judgements I have made so as to compare like-for-like.
Please note the pathways graphs are gross CO2 emissions (I already
factored MfE's projected forest removals into the gross emissions
budget, and the Commission's demo path had similar levels of exotic
afforestation. I have not factored in native afforestation the
Commission recommended, but given the timeframe I am not sure that
would make much of a difference). The green line goes haywire
post-2037 because it is based on limiting peak cumulative emissions
and post-2037 projected forestry removals provide excess capacity. The
way I did the analysis it is possible other countries have not used
all of their budgets by then, so perhaps we could "borrow" some of
their budget and make up for it later, but in my opinion we don't have
any rights to borrow their budget, so perhaps an agreement could be
made with them, or perhaps there is a way to bring removals forward to
make the next 16 years easier. If we can move removals forward then
perhaps the yellow line is what we should be aiming for.
3. The graphs have a lot of judgements and assumptions behind them, so
it would be good for you to consider your opinion on judgements made
in the submission's first two pages; and appendices A, B, and C. I
also attached email_correspondence with experts as in my submission it
is clear I was confused about whether or not we could overshoot the
budget, so the correspondence hopefully resolves that confusion (we
can't overshoot the budget). If you feel it warrants further
consideration, then someone should peer-review/update the calculations
and data to ensure it is correct according to judgements made.
4. Please make sure you read the "Lack of Discussion of Cumulative
Emissions" section of Appendix C on pg. 37.
5. Appendix B on pg. 23 raises an important question of how we account
for Harvested Wood Products, which I discuss further below.
6. Read the "Government should only sell the percentage it has"
section regarding ETS units on pg. 43.
7. Read the "Opportunity Cost of Cycling and Public Transport" section
on pg. 40. Though the calculations should probably be updated to
include wear & tear repair costs, but not regular servicing and fees
because people pay these whether they use the vehicle or not.
8. I suppose the rest of the submission is not as important. There are
some policies scattered throughout my answers on consultation
questions; in particular my answer to CQ14 (transport). In my opinion
the whole submission (except the cumulative emissions analysis) is
interesting.
9. Share anything important from this email with relevant
stakeholders, incl. opposition MPs who will be voicing their views
when Parliament discusses the emissions budgets later this year.
== Things you should be aware of regarding the Commission's advice: ==
__1. Under-resourced__
From the acknowledgements it seems like they had at most 49 staff
(excl. commissioners). They perhaps had 45 working days after
submissions closed to read over 15,000 submissions and prepare their
final advice. Some quick maths suggests if they spent the whole time
reading submissions, then they would have 68 minutes to consider each
submission. I wonder if they were under-resourced. I am very
appreciative they extended the deadline for submissions.
__2. Harvested Wood Products__
In my submission, I made the following point, "BR5(c)(iii) gives NZ a
huge, unjustified windfall of removals to only count the carbon
removed by wood products we harvest now and not consider emissions
from decaying wood products that were harvested before 2018 (based on
a 28 year harvest cycle)."
I discuss HWP in more depth later on, but basically the Commission's
advice in Recommendation 5(c)(iii) amounts to saying, 'all the old
wooden houses we have don't exist, but when we replace them the carbon
stored in the new wooden houses does exist', even though in reality
the amount of carbon stored in the houses has not changed. The old
wooden houses (and thus their emissions when they decay) don't exist
because the wood is from pre-1990 forests, which the Commission
recommends should be excluded from our domestic emissions accounting.
__3. International Aviation__
In paragraphs 66-68 on pg. 205, the Commission says:
"A significant number of submitters called for emissions budgets and
the 2050 targets to include emissions from international aviation and
shipping. This exclusion is set in law, so the Commission does not
have the ability to include these emissions in emissions budgets now
unless Parliament amends the legislation.
Like the submitters, we think that these emissions are significant and
part of the overall emissions footprint of Aotearoa that should not be
ignored ... As required by the legislation, in 2024 we will review
whether these international transport emissions should be included in
the 2050 targets ..."
I did point out to them in my submission:
"The [Commission] is able to review including international aviation
and shipping now, it is just the final deadline is in 2024. Not
including them just makes things harder for NZ."
__4. Emissions Budgets & Paris Agreement__
The Commission appear to have simplified out their obligation under
section 5W of the Act:
"... to set a series of emissions budgets ... contributing to the
global effort under the Paris Agreement ..."
The Commission says in para. 35 on pg. 66:
"The targets in the Act were set at a level that the Government viewed
to be in line with the effort of limiting warming to 1.5C above
pre-industrial levels. In setting these targets, the Government drew
on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report
on Global Warming of 1.5C released in 2018. At a high level, this
means that any emissions budgets set to meet our domestic targets are
also consistent with what Aotearoa needs to do to meet international
obligations."
I would like to point out that:
(a) in some ways you are receiving advice from a mirror (or echo chamber); and
(b) the Paris Agreement is concerned about limiting cumulative
emissions, which the 2050 targets do not cover; and
(c) the IPCC's net zero by 2050 probably includes international
aviation and shipping; and
(d) by using global pathways to determine relative reductions, NZ
would be grandparenting emissions, which may not align with the Paris
Agreement's principle of developed countries leading the way.
__5. Offshore Mitigation__
Para. 71 on pg. 369 says, "Our models have been set up to assess paths
to meeting domestic emissions targets and are independent of the NDC.
The cost of offshore mitigation is therefore additional to the costs
modelled to meet recommended emissions budgets."
So this should be thought about when setting emissions budgets that by
being less ambitious domestically, there is this unknown cost that NZ
will have to pay (though the Commission's tables on that page gives an
indication of what the costs might be).
In advising on the emissions budgets it appears they did not have
regard to the economic costs of paying for offshore mitigation to make
up the difference between the NDC and the budgets, and have not
identified viable offshore mitigation as yet, so the Commission's
advice has some credibility problems.
__6. Policies__
There is some confusion regarding whether the Commission should be
mentioning specific policies. The Commission's view as stated in the
second paragraph of pg. 339 is "... We had a lot of feedback saying we
needed to recommend specific policies to address impacts on people. We
have been clearer that the Commission's role is to set the direction
of policy, not draft policies."
I understand the Commission's view (because of 5ZH(1) of the Act), but
from the Act it seems like they could draft policies if they wanted
to:
5ZA(1): "The Commission must advise the Minister on the following
matters relevant to setting an emissions budget: ... (c) how the
emissions budgets, and ultimately the 2050 target, may realistically
be met, including by pricing and policy methods; ..."
It seems like a waste of submitters' ideas, as obviously they will put
them into their submissions to show how emissions budgets can be more
ambitious and yet achievable.
__7. __
The Commission's advice on what is achievable has probably been
influenced by the weak 2050 targets as they say in para. 23 in section
4.2.2 (We used modelling to understand the scale of the transformation
possible), "... In this case, the targets in the Act tell us where
Aotearoa needs to end up. We have used scenario modelling to
understand what types of actions and what budget levels could get us
to those targets."
__8. __
The Commission was probably right to say "We could not apply these
global pathways directly to Aotearoa" (para. 36, pg. 56). But they
could have applied other information from the IPCC's 1.5C report to
come up with a minimum contribution NZ needs to make under the Paris
Agreement: As can be seen, I did this analysis in my submission.
I should also mention the way I did the analysis reduces the
differences between countries, so it does not matter if some countries
have easier fruit to pick because their energy generation currently
has few renewables. It is just based on consumption emissions per
person, which in my opinion comes down to every person's right to
exist. To say that we should have more emissions per capita than
another country sounds like we are saying we deserve a better quality
of life than them. It could perhaps be argued that we are working on
low-emissions solutions and having to adjust to lower emissions per
person would be disruptive to their development, but again this sounds
like we are saying we are better than others in that we could achieve
more with greater productivity than they could (and anyway NZ has been
described as a technology-taker with a lot of investment just going
into property speculation).
The choice of base year for percentage of global population probably
matters; I picked 2018 because it seemed best for NZ given our high
emissions and immigration. Different years are probably better for
different countries, but I feel ultimately we just have to draw a line
in the sand and pick something.
A weakness in my analysis is that I have not included the commission's
increased native afforestation as I was unsure how many removals this
would contribute, and the slow-growing nature means it may not be
significant in the short-term.
__9. __
I'm not going to go into the Lawyers for Climate Action NZ issues, but
I made similar criticisms on pg. 25 of my submission.
== Further discussion of Harvested Wood Products ==
I was surprised to discover the production approach for HWP (that I
have been arguing against) was a standard agreed to at CMP7 and so
included in '2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice
Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol' (KP 13 Supplement).
Though thinking about it, the decision makes sense because it only
applied to Annex I (developed) countries, so the places we export to
would not lose anything from the decision, but it made things easier
for us.
I had trouble writing this so I am going to simplify it by using the
idea of wooden tables to represent all HWPs (e.g. wooden houses,
furniture, etc.) to explain what has happened and then I will use my
limited understanding of forestry in another country to suggest a
scenario of what might happen.
So Country A used to have BrandA tables that were made by deforesting
native forests. Over the decades they switched to using BrandB tables
from NZ's production forests to reduce native deforestation. So
nothing has really changed in terms of the amount of tables they have;
they just switched from one supplier to another. For CMP7, we decided
that HWP should be accounted for using the production approach, so NZ
would get to claim removals from all the tables we were replacing in
Country A's houses. To balance these removals, one would expect that
Country A would have to account for the emissions from discarding
BrandA tables; however Country A is not an Annex I nation and their
BrandA tables came from deforestation, so they did not have to account
for the emissions.
Going forward, it is now of benefit to Country A to use the production
approach for HWP, because they have none of their own brand tables
left just BrandB tables. Country A has also planted massive production
forests over the decades, so they can now go back to BrandA tables
which they will get to claim removals for when they replace BrandB
tables. Under the production approach, NZ will claim responsibility
for the emissions from the discarded BrandB tables. Hopefully we will
still be able to sell BrandB tables somewhere to offset these
emissions, but if not we may not be able to store them and would
perhaps burn the BrandB tables for bioenergy and thus not get to claim
removals from storing carbon. So we could end up paying the emissions
bill from Country A discarding all of their BrandB tables.
So the moral of the story is NZ should (have) use the incl. imports,
excl. exports approach for HWP.
Also of note, is the Commission's advice has picked only some rules
from KP 13 Supplement, which does not lead to a
scientifically-coherent approach to HWP (as pointed out in [2] above).
Also, note some HWP categories are assumed to have half-lives of 25 or
35 years, so half of the sawnwood products from 1986 are expected to
still be around today.
Regards,
Wiremu
This email was copied to [redacted journalist], and [redacted legal group] because I thought it might interest them and I only
wanted to write one email. When replying please consider whether reply
all or reply one is more appropriate.
Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:11 Automatic reply: Important Climate Change Issues
From: Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern
To: [WT]
Kia ora
Thank you for taking the time to get in touch with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
If you are writing about an issue relating to COVID-19, mental health, Immigration, [redacted]
We hope that one of the above links helps answer your question, if not we will try to get back to you as soon as possible.
Thank you again
Office of the Prime Minister
________________________________
Wed, 28 Jul 2021 08:28 RE: Important Climate Change Issues
From: Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern
To: [WT]
Dear Wiremu,
I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, to acknowledge your email of 27 July 2021.
As the issue you have raised falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister of Climate Change , Hon James Shaw , your email has been forwarded to the Minister’s office for information.
Best wishes
Warren Howe
Office of the Prime Minister
-----Original Message-----
[Redacted original message]
Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:31 Fwd: Important Climate Change Issues
From: [WT]
To: hello@climatecommission.govt.nz
I also sent this email to a relevant MP who had not already received it from each of the big four parties, and the Maori Party a week later when I remembered them.
FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:28:18 +0000
Subject: RE: Important Climate Change Issues
To: [WT]
Dear Wiremu,
I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern,
to acknowledge your email of 27 July 2021.
As the issue you have raised falls within the portfolio
responsibilities of the Minister of Climate Change , Hon James Shaw ,
your email has been forwarded to the Minister’s office for
information.
Best wishes
Warren Howe
Office of the Prime Minister
-----Original Message-----
From: [WT]
Sent: Tuesday, 27 July 2021 12:11
To: J Ardern (MIN)
Subject: Important Climate Change Issues
Dear Prime Minister (et al.),
[Redacted most of original message]
Regards,
Wiremu
Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:36 Automatic reply: Important Climate Change Issues
From: Hon David Parker
To: [WT]
Thank you for contacting the office of Hon David Parker, Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, Minister of Revenue, and Associate Minister of Finance.
Please note that as Minister Parker receives large amounts of correspondence, it is not always possible to personally reply to all emails.
The following guidelines apply:
* Portfolio related correspondence will be considered and responded to where appropriate.
* If your email is an invitation or request to meet with the Minister, your request will be processed and a staff member will be in contact in due course. As the Minister receives a high volume of invitations, it is not always possible to respond immediately.
* Media queries will be responded to by a staff member.
* Requests for official information will be managed in accordance with the provisions of the Official Information Act 1982, which may include a transfer to a more relevant Minister or agency.
* If your email falls outside of the Minister’s portfolio responsibilities, your correspondence may be transferred to another office.
* If your email expresses a personal view, or is copied to multiple Members of Parliament, then your opinion will be noted and there may be no further response.
Regards
Office of Hon David Parker
Office of Hon David Parker MP | Attorney-General | Minister for the Environment | Minister for Oceans and Fisheries | Minister of Revenue | Associate Minister of Finance
Authorised by Hon David Parker MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
You guys [redacted]ucked up. Giving away ~$1 billion to investors is not going
to help reduce inequality, and does not demonstrate smart economic
management. I am referring to the ETS auction yesterday where you sold
$633M of assets at possibly a third of what they are worth (given the
Climate Commission believes the price of carbon needs to get to ~$140
a tonne, not the $53.25 you sold them for (though the Commission
insists this does not mean the market price will get that high)). I
did not realise how true National's criticisms that Labour does not
know how to run the economy were until now.
You should have listened to the Commission's advice to urgently raise
the Cost Containment Reserve price to $70, that in combination with
what I am about to suggest would have been the best option (or
reducing the amount of NZUs you are selling. Oh well).
In the interests of NZ taxpayers (, reducing child poverty etc.), you
should do something to reduce this mistake. The best option I can
think of is suspend trading of ETS units for a week, while you under
urgency:
1. Put an expiry date (of idk I guess a year) on the NZUs just sold in
the latest ETS auction (or at least on the CCR NZUs). Obviously give
purchasers of those NZUs the offer to refund their money (if they take
up the offer within a month) as the NZUs are not the same as what they
thought they were buying.
2. Introduce a rule that ETS participants must surrender non-expiring
NZUs they have rights to before they can surrender the expiring NZUs
(with the exception of forestry-backed NZUs from the following point).
3. Create a new class of NZU that is created by removals on forestry
land. This class doesn't expire as compared with auction or industrial
allocation NZUs that the Government pulls out of its ass. Convert all
NZUs held by forestry participants and backed by the corresponding
amount of forestry land into this new class. Forestry participants
should be given enough notice of the conversion so they can acquire
NZUs to cover their land if they want.
Supporting arguments for the above option:
- You obviously like the CCR at $50 to reduce economic impact or you
would have done something about it. The expiry date on the NZUs still
allows this because companies that need the NZUs won't be bothered by
the expiry date.
- However, people that were just speculating will be bothered by an
expiry date, and may choose to take up the refund. This would mean you
might get some of the NZUs back (and thus won't be selling them
undervalued).
- Without the second point of the option, participants will just
surrender the new NZUs and speculate with their existing non-expiring
NZUs, so probably won't help that much. Alternatively an expiry date
could be introduced on the existing NZUs as well, but then you are
tampering with others property as opposed to that which is probably
still in the transaction stage.
- Suspending trading of ETS units gives you time to think about your
options while containing the mess so it is easier to fix up.
- Forestry NZUs should not expire because the landowners have the
right to alter their land use.
- Given global reduction ambitions, NZUs are a constrained supply
market akin to housing that is susceptible to speculation. Having an
expiry date on NZUs reduces the speculation problem.
- It should not be hard to have expiry dates on NZUs as we already
have bond instruments with expiry dates on the NZX.
Anyway, I hope you appreciate the honest and frank advice. I've sent
this to some of the lower ranked MPs to improve the chances of it
receiving the due diligence and urgency it deserves, and because they
ironically perhaps have more at stake than their leaders if the
Government does a bad job. To this end I have also attached my
submission to the climate change commission, which includes my
analysis of NZ's emissions budgets and from that it is evident the
Government thinks they have more NZUs to sell than they actually do.
The Prime Minister and Minister of Climate Change received it a month
ago, and Minister for the Environment last week.
I was surprised to see statements that it was "open to interpretation"
regarding the Climate Change Response Act's requirements, which
reminded me of a submission I wrote on the amendment bill, so I
thought I would email you my view (that of a person with an interest,
but no qualifications, in climate change, who writes submissions and
made an infrequently updated/visited website to encourage
accountability).
I do not know if any of it is of use to you or whether it can be a
separate court case, which seems unlikely from my not a lawyer
perspective now that I have read your applicant submission, but
attached is my perspective:
redacted_CCRA_Decision
I also attached other documents as needed, and at the bottom of this
email is my attempt to point out important climate change issues to
those who should be informed. I do not remember receiving a response
aside from Mr Howe's.
I am not expecting you to read any of it, but I thought I would email
just in case there was something there.
Regards,
Wiremu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [WT]
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:31:31 +1200
Subject: Fwd: Important Climate Change Issues
To: hello@climatecommission.govt.nz
FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:28:18 +0000
Subject: RE: Important Climate Change Issues
To: [WT]
Dear Wiremu,
I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, [redacted forwarded message]
Wed, 3 Aug 2022 17:26 Judicial Review of Climate Commission and Minister
From: [WT]
To: probono@lawyersforclimateaction.nz
Cc: president@lawyersforclimateaction.nz
Hi,
I have changed my mind from yesterday and would like to know whether
you think I have a case as described in the email to the President of
LCANZI yesterday, and the redacted_CCRA_Decision attachment?
Thanks,
Wiremu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [WT]
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 21:12:06 +1200
Subject: Judicial Review of Climate Commission and Minister
To: president@lawyersforclimateaction.nz
Wed, 10 Aug 2022 RE: Judicial Review of Climate Commission and Minister
To: [WT]
I received a nice reply to my question, and a suggestion of getting involved with a climate action group.
Thu, 18 Aug 2022 22:02 Important Climate Change Issues
From: [WT]
To: [Redacted some climate groups, and an academic. I didn't send to every climate group e.g. there was at least one notable omission]
Hi,
[Redacted a paragraph]
I like my independence and do not intend to spend any more time on
climate change; at least not until the ideas raised in my existing
submissions have been acknowledged in climate reports; and the
attached submission is pretty much everything I have to say on it
anyway. However, I realised that most of you would not be aware of my
attached submission.
So I am writing to inform you of my submission, such that you may take
it into consideration. Many of the ideas are possibly common
knowledge, but do not seem to be in officials' discussions.
I have included the following forwarded email because it helps to
elaborate on some issues.
[Redacted a paragraph]
The opinion page on my website (climatedash.nz/opinion.php) also has
some ideas for Monopoly Climate Change house rules that may be fun too
(among other things). I have not updated the main graphs on the site
in a while, because I see little point in updating them, which may
become clear from reading my submission.
Finally, the increased fuel price, which is the most important policy
in my submission, could potentially impact rural communities harder
than others (unless the exemptions due to exports reduce it) such that
politically I doubt it would be possible to do that and He Waka Eke
Noa at the same time. Increasing the fuel price seeks to address the
primary cause of climate change rather than a contributing factor, so
out of the two of them I would want the fuel price policy acclimatised
first before pricing agricultural methane emissions.
Regards,
Wiremu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [WT]
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:31:31 +1200
Subject: Fwd: Important Climate Change Issues
To: hello@climatecommission.govt.nz
[Redacted forwarded message]
Sat, 20 Aug 2022 17:43 Fwd: Important Climate Change Issues
From: [WT]
To: pce@pce.parliament.nz
Dear Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment,
I am forwarding you the following email for your information. I would
have sent it to you earlier, but I [redacted] that
you may be a good person to send it to. I can only hope one of the
people who received it, passed it on to you.
Many of the ideas are possibly common knowledge, but do not seem to be
in officials' discussions.
The increased fuel price, which is the most important policy in my
submission, could potentially impact rural communities harder than
others (unless the exemptions due to exports reduce it) such that
politically I doubt it would be possible to do that and He Waka Eke
Noa at the same time. Increasing the fuel price seeks to address the
primary cause of climate change rather than a contributing factor, so
out of the two of them I would want the fuel price policy acclimatised
first before pricing agricultural methane emissions.
Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:49 RE: Important Climate Change Issues
From: Reception
To: [WT]
Kia ora Wiremu
I am replying on behalf of Mr Simon Upton, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, to acknowledge receipt of your email on 20/08/2022.
Thank you for the information you provided it will be forwarded to the relevant staff for their consideration.
Thank you for taking the time to write to us to bring this to our attention.
Nāku noa, nā
[redacted]
Receptionist | Kiripaepae
Te Rarawa
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment | Te Kaitiaki Taiao a Te Whare Pāremata
[Redacted contact details]
This email and any attachments may contain information that is confidential or subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the information is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message and any attachments. Thank you for your assistance.
[Redacted original message]
I just want to say that I haven't included some minor emails e.g. some auto-replies, reply(ies) from climate groups, and the email to a media outlet with my attached submission (on 30 March 2021 and follow-up on 8th June 2021).
The following graphs show possible consumption emissions pathways (along with corresponding cumulative emissions if the world did the same as us) that would be compliant with my analysis of our commitments under the Paris Agreement, except for the overshoot in the cumulative graphs. The possible pathways are gross emissions, which means planting forests would not help unless above forecast because I already factored in projected forestry removals to give us some budget to work with in the first place. For more information see pages around 34-35 of my CAA_Submission.pdf.
The first pathways graph is based more on Stats NZ assumptions. As stated in the first page of my submission, I feel that a couple of those assumptions were not very accurate, so the second graph represents a situation that I think is halfway closer to reality.
The black (dark green) lines are the Commission's draft budgets (I made adjustments to them among other things to bring them into the consumption emissions approach that I think more accurately reflects our responsibilities), which were pretty similar to the final budgets the Government adopted.
The green line is focused on complying with the Paris Agreement without any temporary non-compliance (which could be allowed if other countries made up for our non-compliance), and is higher after 2037 because after that point we are forecasted to have a lot of emission removals due to forestry.
The yellow line seemed to me to be the most appropriate path for us to have adopted, and could be justified if we were to trade our post-2037 surplus forestry removals for some of another country's budget pre-2037.
As you can see if the second pathways graph is closer to reality, it will be very difficult for us in 15-20 years time to comply with the Paris Agreement. This is because it relies on drastic reductions at a time when we have probably already cut most of the non-essential emissions, and then in addition to not producing emissions we would have to significantly remove emissions from the atmosphere on top of the forestry that has already been forecast. Personally, the first graph does not seem fair to future generations either.
In my opinion the following is a more accurate picture of NZ's emissions profile: it is a graph I prepared by excluding exports and including significant imports that I was able to find information about. Typically this would be called NZ's consumption emissions as opposed to what you normally hear about, which is NZ's production emissions. As you can see, our major problem is fuel used in cars and international aviation is also not great. Agriculture is far less of a concern once you consider we export most of the food produced. For more information about all the adjustments I made to the data, so you can consider whether these were reasonable adjustments to make, see my other website (http://climatedash.nz/opinion.php).
Among ideas mentioned in my submission that I couldn't find mentioned in the final report were replacing free allocation to EITE industries with not requiring NZUs to be surrendered for exports and requiring it for imports; an expiry date on NZUs; and a compensation process to deal with the backlog of NZUs (some worth less than $1 at one stage (pg. 120 of the report)).
This is up there with the Climate Change Commission's advice as the worst report I have seen. In short the summary of submissions goes like this: some percentage of submissions agreed with it, some percentage of submissions disagreed with it, 8% of submissions had a different opinion. (You may wonder what were these different opinions, after all you are not paid to read through all of the submissions to find out. The End.) Among the other opinions, was my suggestion the Government should set a cumulative emissions target. FYI, that would be more consistent with the Paris Agreement rather than the largely arbitrary and pointless net zero target the Government set for 2050.
Despite the name of the consultation, this was not a general consultation on how the ETS could be improved but consultation on specific Government proposals. Regardless, I submitted ideas for improving the ETS, but perhaps only one of the ideas was valid in terms of the specific feedback they were seeking. Alas, even that idea, giving the ETS revenue back to everyone as a Universal Basic Income (my 4th point), did not get mentioned in the report. The report discussed phasing down industrial allocation, but my idea of replacing it with exempting exports and applying the ETS to imports was not mentioned. Other notable ideas in my submission (again not in the report): compensation of existing NZU holders as their NZUs that may have cost them as little as a few dollars should not suddenly be worth $80-100; and, an expiry date on NZUs.
As discussed on pg. 37-38 of my Climate Action for Aotearoa submission, despite my submission and many of the Generation Zero submissions on the amendment bill, the report did not mention cumulative emissions (pg. 18 of the report has the committee members).
Another election year, and more token announcements for climate action. I guess the question is, why didn't they do it earlier? Actions speak louder than words; after six years, they've had their chance and it's time to try someone else.
For young voters, National and ACT are just as bad. Similar to the Christchurch City Council, who committed to a stadium and are now looking into what assets they could sell: the last National Government committed to expensive Roads of National Significance and then sold half of the shares in the Government's electricity companies with one of the main grounds being that they wanted to reduce overseas borrowing. If I was to do a cartoon, it would probably involve a wheel of fortune of public assets.
In early 2016, I joined the Green Party. By the end of 2016, I wrote to one of the Green Party officials about policy priorities as they were doing a survey about portfolio priorities at the time. My email included that I wanted a carbon tax that only applied to goods/services sold locally (i.e. a carbon tax excluding exports and including imports). I did not receive a reply, but later wrote about a carbon tax excluding exports to some of the Green MPs, and followed up in person separately with Kennedy Graham and James Shaw. Both indicated they would consider it and Shaw said something like "It was a rather long email, but I'll be sure to get back to you". Neither of them did. Subsequently in April, I asked climate MPs from Labour (Megan Woods), National (Stuart Smith), and NZ First (Denis O'Rourke) about it after a climate debate. The debate didn't take questions from the audience, so I had to ask each of them individually at the end of the event. Both Woods and Smith said they'd have to think about it, and O'Rourke said NZ First's policy was an internal pricing mechanism but they certainly wouldn't support something like that (I didn't really understand his response, perhaps it was to do with the including agriculture aspect of it). I sent the content of the question off to some newspapers, but it didn't get published. On the 2nd of August 2017, I emailed Ardern, Parker, Little my opinion on climate change along with a few other things (then Williams who replied and I replied, and that was it), and on the 7th of August sent the idea off to NZ First again in case it was just that their MP wasn't very good. Around this time, I'd decided that I no longer wanted to be a member of the Green Party for a few reasons; at some point my membership expired and subsequently, I have not been a member of any political party.
Six years and about five submissions later, I think the excluding exports idea still has not made it into any official reports.
Contact
I am planning to run a relatively low budget campaign and so I don't know whether I'll be sending updates or needing help with things. If I do post an update, I'll probably add it to the Posts page, and may not send any emails to subscribers. However, there is the option below to subscribe in case there is something urgent to share.
If you want to volunteer as well, you only need to email the volunteer address and you'll be added as a subscriber.
For any other inquiries, please email contact@wiremuthomson.nz; if you do send me an email, could you please let me know whether it is confidential or whether I can tell others about it.
Please note that all emails may be handled by volunteers or email service providers for political purposes or other uses that the service providers require in order to provide those services.
I am not on social media.
To subscribe for updates or volunteer, please send an email with the following format to subscribe@wiremuthomson.nz, or volunteer@wiremuthomson.nz respectively. Any other information in the email will not be read.
First Name: <your first name>
Last Name: <your last name>
Electorate: <your electorate (optional, though helpful)>
Authorised by Wiremu Thomson, 67 Richmond Ave, Halswell, Christchurch
