Now, I'm not part of the tribe who automatically thinks that Auckland Transport is a bunch of ideological toss-pots who want to force us out of our cars.

I'm the sort of urbanist that gets there's a limit to the number of cars that can use our roads, and when that limit is hit then you have offer choices so we can all get somewhere.

I don't reflexively hate cycleways or bus lanes. I comprehend congestion charges and I'm excited for the Central Rail Link and even Light Rail. Mostly because I've seen the good a co-ordinated public transport system has done elsewhere in the world.

But AT's 24/7 parking charges change is beyond the pale.

Having developed the city centre with apartments, it will inconvenience residents who have been trying to take their cars off the roads by living in town. It's going to cost ratepayers. Either directly, such as the residents who reckon it will cost them $11,000 a year to park their car now. Or by funding a bureaucracy to run resident parking schemes.

It's said it will affect hospo workers. It won't stop punters who tend to cab or even use public transport into town because they're on the lash. The people it will really affect are the minimum waged workers who need to get in and out of the city outside public transport times - and who are least able to afford it.

But the most chilling part of the story is that the mayor and the Council are powerless to stop it, even though they've helped to cause the problem.

Councils fund council controlled organisations but they don't run them. In this case, the Council looked to reduce its funding so AT unilaterally increased its external fundraising by hiking the parking charges.

But that is AT’s constitutional right. The main Council body, including the elected representatives, have no operational control.

Rodney Hide designed them that way so politicians couldn't get the filthy, compromised hands on big assets.

Which is why I've always laughed about National's plan for council controlled operations to run all our water.

Councils may own and fund CCOs, but they certainly don't control them.

Just look at Auckland Transport.

LISTEN ABOVE

Now, I'm not part of the tribe who automatically thinks that Auckland Transport is a bunch of ideological toss-pots who want to force us out of our cars.
I'm the sort of urbanist that gets there's a limit to the number of cars that can use our roads, and when that limit is hit then you have offer choices so we can all get somewhere.
I don't reflexively hate cycleways or bus lanes. I comprehend congestion charges and I'm excited for the Central Rail Link and even Light Rail. Mostly because I've seen the good a co-ordinated public transport system has done elsewhere in the world.
But AT's 24/7 parking charges change is beyond the pale.
Having developed the city centre with apartments, it will inconvenience residents who have been trying to take their cars off the roads by living in town. It's going to cost ratepayers. Either directly, such as the residents who reckon it will cost them $11,000 a year to park their car now. Or by funding a bureaucracy to run resident parking schemes.
It's said it will affect hospo workers. It won't stop punters who tend to cab or even use public transport into town because they're on the lash. The people it will really affect are the minimum waged workers who need to get in and out of the city outside public transport times - and who are least able to afford it.
But the most chilling part of the story is that the mayor and the Council are powerless to stop it, even though they've helped to cause the problem.
Councils fund council controlled organisations but they don't run them. In this case, the Council looked to reduce its funding so AT unilaterally increased its external fundraising by hiking the parking charges.
But that is AT’s constitutional right. The main Council body, including the elected representatives, have no operational control.
Rodney Hide designed them that way so politicians couldn't get the filthy, compromised hands on big assets.
Which is why I've always laughed about National's plan for council controlled operations to run all our water.
Councils may own and fund CCOs, but they certainly don't control them.
Just look at Auckland Transport.
LISTEN ABOVE

With decades of broadcasting experience behind him, Andrew Dickens has worked around the world across multiple radio genres. His bold, sharp and energetic show on Newstalk ZB is always informative and entertaining.

Andrew Dickens Afternoons

Andrew Dickens: Auckland Transport is proof you can't control a CCO

So, the Herald, in the weekend, came out and called the anti-cycle lane movement a culture war in its editorial.

They pointed out the bleeding obvious - that cycleways aren't the reason there is not enough money to improve our roads.

They pointed out that cycleways make up 1 percent of our transport spending. It's far less than footpaths - but you never get talkback calls moaning about footpaths, do you now?

This comes after the owners of the Westmere Butchery complained about a proposed cycleway outside their door affecting business.

There's no parking outside their door. Look at Google Maps. There's 25 cars parked down Garnet Road and there's room for more. They're talking bull. They've turned out to be useful soldiers in a culture war.

So was the Wellington owner of Pandoro Bakery, whose main shop on Allens Street is 100 metres from a free supermarket carpark and there's not a cycleway nearby or even proposed.

I have no idea what their motivation is. Other than a desire to prevent us from having good things. Other than a desire to have a mediocre country.

It's the common line from politicians these days - we can only have the 'need to haves' but not the 'nice to haves'. But it's a nonsensical slogan when you can't figure out the difference between the two.

It's the 'need to have' thinking that gave us the flawed Harbour Bridge. Someone somehow figured out that 8 lanes and a railway line were a 'nice to have' and 'not a need' to have for a future growing city.

The Prime Minister claimed that the Wellington Convention Centre was a 'nice to have' and that's we don't have money to fix the burst pipes. The pipes are broken because they weren't replaced 50 years ago and now they're 100 years old. That's because someone 50 years ago decided that water pipe maintenance was a 'nice to have' and that someone in the future can pay for it when it becomes a 'need to have'.

On an overseas trip before the election, the Prime Minister gave New Zealand a serve for being wet and having no mojo.

Well, look in the mirror, Christopher and Simeon.

Businesses will look at you and all your false economy and see a so-called CEO who doesn't believe in capex or investment in plants and machinery.

And we'll look at other countries and wonder why our 'nice to haves' are their 'need to haves'.

LISTEN ABOVE

So, the Herald, in the weekend, came out and called the anti-cycle lane movement a culture war in its editorial.
They pointed out the bleeding obvious - that cycleways aren't the reason there is not enough money to improve our roads.
They pointed out that cycleways make up 1 percent of our transport spending. It's far less than footpaths - but you never get talkback calls moaning about footpaths, do you now?
This comes after the owners of the Westmere Butchery complained about a proposed cycleway outside their door affecting business.
There's no parking outside their door. Look at Google Maps. There's 25 cars parked down Garnet Road and there's room for more. They're talking bull. They've turned out to be useful soldiers in a culture war.
So was the Wellington owner of Pandoro Bakery, whose main shop on Allens Street is 100 metres from a free supermarket carpark and there's not a cycleway nearby or even proposed.
I have no idea what their motivation is. Other than a desire to prevent us from having good things. Other than a desire to have a mediocre country.
It's the common line from politicians these days - we can only have the 'need to haves' but not the 'nice to haves'. But it's a nonsensical slogan when you can't figure out the difference between the two.
It's the 'need to have' thinking that gave us the flawed Harbour Bridge. Someone somehow figured out that 8 lanes and a railway line were a 'nice to have' and 'not a need' to have for a future growing city.
The Prime Minister claimed that the Wellington Convention Centre was a 'nice to have' and that's we don't have money to fix the burst pipes. The pipes are broken because they weren't replaced 50 years ago and now they're 100 years old. That's because someone 50 years ago decided that water pipe maintenance was a 'nice to have' and that someone in the future can pay for it when it becomes a 'need to have'.
On an overseas trip before the election, the Prime Minister gave New Zealand a serve for being wet and having no mojo.
Well, look in the mirror, Christopher and Simeon.
Businesses will look at you and all your false economy and see a so-called CEO who doesn't believe in capex or investment in plants and machinery.
And we'll look at other countries and wonder why our 'nice to haves' are their 'need to haves'.
LISTEN ABOVE

Andrew Dickens: We need to learn the difference between needs and 'nice to haves'

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/17f8a8b8-f27e-4047-9d0d-b1ed0031a8af/transcript

So the latest twist in the Treaty Principles debate is that the churches have come out against it.

More than 400 church leaders are urging MPs to vote against David Seymour's bill.

It's the latest chapter in a debate that has been described as 'divisive'.

If you don't think it's been divisive you weren't listening to Māori at the King's funeral. They're not hearing the One People argument, because they don't believe the bill promotes that. In fact, they believe the opposite. They believe the Treaty is how we achieve One People Together in agreement.

Personally, I don't care. I don't care if you support Māori and I don't care if you support Mr Seymour.

The fact of the matter is this is a virtue-signalling sideshow and it is divisive. Just like vaccinations and mandates and the Middle East.

The Treaty Principles Bill is divisive. And the reason why it's a virtue-signalling sideshow is because both National and New Zealand First have already said it won't get past the first reading. So it's a dead policy walking.

Why not kill it now and stop wasting our time, money and emotion?

Or the other parties could change their minds and help their coalition partner. But then you'll be branded as flippy-floppy.

Either way, I can't see how this helps National. You have a divided angry nation at each other's throat or you look weak.

Who's in charge of this coalition?

And speaking of which:

Former gun lobbyist Nicole McKee has used her power as a Government minister to reduce regulation for gun clubs - without any public consultation. It's not a major thing, but it is an abandonment of the true democratic process.

Perhaps National needs a reminder that when the legislation was first introduced after the mosque atrocity that every single member of National voted for it. So were you wrong then or are you wrong now?

Both these stories feel like the tail wagging the dog and makes National look weak. And I don't like that.

LISTEN ABOVE

So the latest twist in the Treaty Principles debate is that the churches have come out against it.
More than 400 church leaders are urging MPs to vote against David Seymour's bill.
It's the latest chapter in a debate that has been described as 'divisive'.
If you don't think it's been divisive you weren't listening to Māori at the King's funeral. They're not hearing the One People argument, because they don't believe the bill promotes that. In fact, they believe the opposite. They believe the Treaty is how we achieve One People Together in agreement.
Personally, I don't care. I don't care if you support Māori and I don't care if you support Mr Seymour.
The fact of the matter is this is a virtue-signalling sideshow and it is divisive. Just like vaccinations and mandates and the Middle East.
The Treaty Principles Bill is divisive. And the reason why it's a virtue-signalling sideshow is because both National and New Zealand First have already said it won't get past the first reading. So it's a dead policy walking.
Why not kill it now and stop wasting our time, money and emotion?
Or the other parties could change their minds and help their coalition partner. But then you'll be branded as flippy-floppy.
Either way, I can't see how this helps National. You have a divided angry nation at each other's throat or you look weak.
Who's in charge of this coalition?
And speaking of which:
Former gun lobbyist Nicole McKee has used her power as a Government minister to reduce regulation for gun clubs - without any public consultation. It's not a major thing, but it is an abandonment of the true democratic process.
Perhaps National needs a reminder that when the legislation was first introduced after the mosque atrocity that every single member of National voted for it. So were you wrong then or are you wrong now?
Both these stories feel like the tail wagging the dog and makes National look weak. And I don't like that.
LISTEN ABOVE

Andrew Dickens: Why not kill the Treaty Principles Bill now?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/57c45e9f-5990-4bea-bfc8-b1e60032a1c0/transcript

I was going to start my programme today with some thoughts about the energy crisis, but something else has popped up.

But I will share with you some fun facts:

Did you know that New Zealand uses the same amount of electricity in 2024 as we did in 2004?

Even though our economic activity and population have grown immensely in the past 20 years. What happened is that we, as consumers, became more efficient with our electricity use. We started using LEDs, we started saving, we started being more careful with our use.

So the energy crunch is because we're not making as much electricity as we used to - even though we've been saving electricity ourselves 

Meanwhile, did you also know that there are currently 22 renewable electricity projects fully consented but not started by the gentailers?

So sure, blame the oil and gas exploration ban and that will result in an energy crunch in 10 years.

But today's energy crisis is because the generators, who are also the retailers, have not ensured supply despite having it all available to them for years now.

I've got more on that - but right now, I have to mention outgoing Treasury head Caralee McLiesh who's leaving for a job as Australia's auditor-general.

In her exit interview she said the New Zealand Government needs to make more revenue. And the only way a Government makes more money is more taxes. She'd like to see a capital gains tax

She's like to see a capital gains tax - and she says the Government needs to save more in the big expensive items. She mentions super. She'd like to see the age limit raised.

Now, Caralee is not some crazy ideological lefty who wants to see the old and rich punished.

She's pointing out the bleeding obvious. We are structurally bad. Economists have been saying this for generations. We don't tax enough. When we tax, we tax the wrong people. We don't spend enough and when we do, we do it cheap and too late and then complain when it all starts to fall apart.

Faced with all this economic reality, the current Government decided to reduce its revenue to help some taxpayers and landlords. That's the exact opposite of what the problem needs.

And then to make things worse, they've stopped spending. And we end up with a country where pregnant Mums can't have toast, Nelson can't get a new hospital building, we run ferries that should be in museums, we run out of power and water, and then we moan we're becoming a third world country and it's all Labour's fault.

Someone has to point out the bleeding obvious now and then. I'm pretty sure nothing will happen on Caralee McLeish's advice because to change our structure would be too expensive politically. No turkey votes for Christmas.

So before you moan again about how useless this country is, remember it's the country you voted for.

LISTEN ABOVE

I was going to start my programme today with some thoughts about the energy crisis, but something else has popped up.
But I will share with you some fun facts:
Did you know that New Zealand uses the same amount of electricity in 2024 as we did in 2004?
Even though our economic activity and population have grown immensely in the past 20 years. What happened is that we, as consumers, became more efficient with our electricity use. We started using LEDs, we started saving, we started being more careful with our use.
So the energy crunch is because we're not making as much electricity as we used to - even though we've been saving electricity ourselves 
Meanwhile, did you also know that there are currently 22 renewable electricity projects fully consented but not started by the gentailers?
So sure, blame the oil and gas exploration ban and that will result in an energy crunch in 10 years.
But today's energy crisis is because the generators, who are also the retailers, have not ensured supply despite having it all available to them for years now.
I've got more on that - but right now, I have to mention outgoing Treasury head Caralee McLiesh who's leaving for a job as Australia's auditor-general.
In her exit interview she said the New Zealand Government needs to make more revenue. And the only way a Government makes more money is more taxes. She'd like to see a capital gains tax
She's like to see a capital gains tax - and she says the Government needs to save more in the big expensive items. She mentions super. She'd like to see the age limit raised.
Now, Caralee is not some crazy ideological lefty who wants to see the old and rich punished.
She's pointing out the bleeding obvious. We are structurally bad. Economists have been saying this for generations. We don't tax enough. When we tax, we tax the wrong people. We don't spend enough and when we do, we do it cheap and too late and then complain when it all starts to fall apart.
Faced with all this economic reality, the current Government decided to reduce its revenue to help some taxpayers and landlords. That's the exact opposite of what the problem needs.
And then to make things worse, they've stopped spending. And we end up with a country where pregnant Mums can't have toast, Nelson can't get a new hospital building, we run ferries that should be in museums, we run out of power and water, and then we moan we're becoming a third world country and it's all Labour's fault.
Someone has to point out the bleeding obvious now and then. I'm pretty sure nothing will happen on Caralee McLeish's advice because to change our structure would be too expensive politically. No turkey votes for Christmas.
So before you moan again about how useless this country is, remember it's the country you voted for.
LISTEN ABOVE

Andrew Dickens: Someone has to point out the obvious now and then

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/8b7c6263-1380-4065-97e7-b1df003a5aa2/transcript

Andrew Dickens: Auckland Transport is proof you can't control a CCO

Andrew Dickens Afternoons

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips