December 4, 2025 • 32 mins
Nick Mills wraps the week with former WCC Councillor and Infratil chairman Tim Brown and Regional Councillor, photographer and former WCC Councillor Simon Woolf.
Is hey an okay introduction over email? What do they think of the RMA reform changes for local government? How’s Matt Prosser doing as WCC CEO?
Brown and Woolf face off with Nick over the issues of the week, including their thoughts on the Deloitte's report – and Brown’s doubts. Plus, their hot and nots from the week.
And amalgamation, is the RMA leading there? They discuss how this would work and what they think should be done?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from News Talk. Said b in review, it's Friday face
off with Kudovic property Management, a better rental experience for
all visit Quovi dot co dot in's head.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
So then seven minutes past eleven o'clock, so that means
it's and it's on a Friday. It's Friday face off.
We've got formers, some formers, some formers and some currents.
Former City councilor Tim Brown, good Mornington, good morning? Did
your mic on? Or you're not far it and you're
getting too far away from it? Good morning? And former
it's one in City councilor and current regional councilor until
(00:50):
next Wednesday or summer. And when he's going to get that,
he's going to get fired.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Hi, everyone thinks longer than that.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Are you fired?
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Yeah, it's it's TV sounded like that.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
How do you wake up at the border you get fired?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Well, you know, we wake up in the morning and
later in the afternoon we heard something we hadn't heard before.
But I think we're going to deal with Hay first.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Don't onto that?
Speaker 4 (01:12):
Why?
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Why? Why is there people that actually think that it
is a little bit disrespectful to start an email to
a professor with Hey, Simon.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Wolf, I think that the handling hasn't been that great
in this case. It's it's similar when we talk about
the regional council. But I think Hay is okay in
a casual sense. But in a university setting where there's
a little bit more formality, I think that you know,
probably high would be acceptable. And yeah, I just think handling.
(01:47):
I don't think the professor should have just written back
and said, look, I think you should be addressing this
in a little bit more formal, not putting it on
the Facebook.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
And not saying I'm not even going to har I
look at that pedantic at best, Tim Tim Brown, would
you actually send me an email higher or one of
those not?
Speaker 4 (02:08):
If I wanted you to actually treat me with the
respect I hope you would treat me. I mean, I
think this is illustrative of something which I had a
conversation with an employer earlier this week who said she
was recruiting people at the moment and several of the
people had come to interviews had been totally unsuitable in
terms of their deportment in the actual meetings, and she
(02:31):
described chewing gum and using foul language and badly dressed,
and she just thought, people realize that if you want
to be treated with respect yourself, you've got to actually understand,
you know what it is that the employer or the teacher,
or the somebody who you should be treating with respect
actually deserves in exchange. And I think that saying you know,
(02:54):
hey to a professor is disrespectful, and so I think
that it's perfectly appropriate for the professor to say that's
not appropriate. And it's time you guys learned, because when
you finish here at school, you are going to try.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
And get a job.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
But if you use the wrong language and you turn
up and look like a dick to an employer, you're
not going to get a job.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
But the thing is the thing of Simon. If the
professor hadn't done it on Facebook and hadn't made a
big deal out of it, we wouldn't be talking about
it today.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
We wouldn't We actually should be talking about and celebrating
next week for Victoria University with their graduation and the
fact that there's a whole heap of young and new
graduates graduating and the town will be in, the town
will be vibrant, and I think we also should be
celebrating that the new fairly new vice Chancellor, Nick Smith
(03:44):
has changed a lot of the culture around Victoria University
and we're looking really good. It's one of the stars
that's lining up for Wellington.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
And I talked about it when I did the story,
because you when there's a vibrant Victoria University, the city
feels differently. You know, it absolutely feels differently when it's
on a high and it's you know, it's the highest
you know, up there with the highest level of education.
So you got bright people, good people in the city.
So what's tell me, Tim, is what's the difference When
(04:12):
you were very young, everything was hello, then it went
to high Yeah, now it's hey, Is that wrong?
Speaker 4 (04:22):
Like that of it's wrong, but it is. It's about
reading the room. It's about how you actually address somebody
to whom you should be showing respect. And so if
I walked up to Chris Luxon, I'm not going to
say a higher prime, you know, I'm going to say, you.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Know, PM, would you say hey, PM?
Speaker 4 (04:41):
Well, I sort of I have met him a few
times in the past and I would probably say Christopher,
but that I would be respectful, you know, would or
you know, I probably wouldn't be one of those people
to say hello, mister Prime minister or whatever those terminologies.
But it's just about understanding that it's quite important how
you address people. Showing respect is important and if they
(05:03):
you know, if you think hey is okay and they don't,
you've made a mistake and you should learn one of
It's a bit like it.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
It's a little bit like the lawyer's rule, isn't it.
The lawyer's rule is, well, it used to be. It
might change now. If you're meeting a client that would
arrive in a suit and a tie, you would wear
a suit and a tie. If your client was coming
in and he had an open shirt and a jacket,
that would be fine. So you're relating to who you're
meeting with. I mean, isn't that what we're talking about?
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Absolutely? You know I know that my suit and tie
the best investment gets me through the door because I
present well as a photographer, or as a regional counselor
or as anything if you want to. You know, I
was told Brian Brake, the great photographer, you present yourself well,
and things will happen for you.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
I can remember going into New World Supermarket to buy
something in a suit and tie. I very very very
really wear a suit and tie. And you know I
look pretty damn good in a suit and tie. So
I walked in there, I saw people are treating me
completely different.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Absolutely, they're teading.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Me completely different than my casual look. You know you're
a casual guy, didn't do you? Get it?
Speaker 3 (06:05):
Ye? Totally.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
I'm a big believer in understanding what the rumor is
expecting and then turning up appropriate.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Yeah, okay, talking about appropriate, When when did you find
out we're talking about regional counselor has been dropped.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
By we're talking about handling when everybody else found out?
Speaker 2 (06:24):
You know that that so you had no idea this
was coming, no idea that as a regional counselor. You
had no idea that you can be fined next week.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
No, no, not at all. And that's where this handling
is unusual, because I would have expected Bish to handle
the situation far more fairly and reasonably than he has.
And I think that, you know, this was a bit
of a media stand up in respect of the government
(06:53):
not doing too well in the polls.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Is it a layer of governance that we do not need?
I believe strongly that it is. So I know that
you're not going to agree.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
With me, but I'm going to agree with you. I am.
You know, I'm a big fan of amalgamation and having
a unitary authority or that's run in a democratcratic way.
For our city it's and and our region. It's you know,
like we've got so many issues at the moment, so
many inefficiencies, particularly you know, you look at the regional
(07:24):
council is the public transport provider, and the city Council
is the road controlling authority, and boy do we come
into conflict.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
One of them tells you where the bus, the council
tell you where the bus will stop, and you tell
when the when the bus is going to arrive. Well,
I mean, tim, is that nuts?
Speaker 4 (07:42):
I mean, I look, I totally agree that reform is necessary,
but I personally wouldn't have done it quite the same way.
And I'm not a big fan of unitary authorities either.
But I do feel that, for instance, entities like transport
could be done under you know, like the aucland transport model,
where if you create an entity that then does local transport,
just as we're creating an entity that will do local
(08:04):
water at storm water and so and so. My view
is that the breaking the regional council up and distributing
its functions across the TLAs and creating entities like Wellington Transport,
et cetera would be the way to go. And I
suspect that what we've seen with this first move is
(08:25):
a first move towards that direction, So that would be
I would assume where this thing ends up.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
I also, we had signlots on the show. He he
almost admitted that that amalgamations where they.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Wanted to go and go.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
I mean, it's you know, it's pretty simple.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
It's going to come straight out and no.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
No, But I don't look, I don't agree that it's
I don't think it's central government's role to impose of
algamation and I don't think that to be fair.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
He did say that he would if the people wanted.
Speaker 4 (08:51):
It exactly, so I think what had they? I think
a lot of people have realized that forcing a algamation
on the Auckland t las and the regional council up
there was not a good move for Auckland there were
better solutions for Auckland, and particularly getting rid of the
regional Council and then letting the TA l as sought
out things between themselves would have been a better outcome
than what has happened now. And all of the centralization
(09:12):
of benefits that have occurred in the center of Auckland
and all of the peripheral parts of Auckland kind of
losing out, and the massive increase in overhead and all
the rest of it that's gone with what's happening at Auckland.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
But we just have to learn from those mistakes.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
So I know, but that is Simon, what is the
perfect scenario. You've been on council. You've done two terms
on council or three two.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
This is my second non region three previous.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Three city council, so you've had, you know, a fair
swag at times around those tables. I mean, what's the
perfect scenario for our region?
Speaker 3 (09:40):
I think I totally agree with Tim a separate transport authority.
I do believe that we need to at least share
services with some key services with our regional tas. I
think that we shouldn't dilute what goes on in the environment,
(10:00):
and I hope that the ministers actually understand the work
that Greater Willington does. It does some absolutely fantastic.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Well that surely could be done, and I've got to
take a break. I'm going to come back. Too many,
too many layers. Surely it could be done with one CEO,
one you know, one chief financial officer, one mayor. You
won a lot of parks, yeah, yeah, one of the
parks and reserves.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Yeah right.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Friday face off with Tim Brown and Simon Wolf. Tim,
give me your perfect scenario for Wellington City Council amalgamation
and regional council, because if anybody's got thought sitting around
that table last year, you would have said, I can
sort this out by doing a B, C and D
what is it.
Speaker 4 (10:43):
I would follow some of the Auckland process, which is
to say, I would look at distributing the regional council
activities across the TLAs in particular. Obviously, the transport's the
easy solution because you created a Wellington Transport that then
amalgamates the TLA and regional transport decisions into one entity,
as they've got at Auckland with Auckland Transport. And I
totally agree with Simon that the efficiencies that came out
(11:05):
of that that was standing the current mayors, you know,
dislike of Auckland Transport. The current efficiencies were very palpable.
I would say also in terms of things like regional parks,
the water regulation and the other areas of which the
Regional Council does, they can also be distributed across the
t l as, so that I would like to see
(11:25):
the Regional Council effectively broken up and its activities distributed
across the t l as.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
Terms, can you explain to someone what a t a
t l A is, just as.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
The territorial local authorities.
Speaker 4 (11:36):
So in this particular case, we are talking you know,
Wellington Potter or Lowered Upperhart and I think Southway and
a couple of wire apple ones.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
You see, I wouldn't have I wouldn't. Once you get
near that hill, I would just cut that. I'd cut
that dry.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
I would No, it's the two huts Wellington City and
and nothing else. And Carpety could choose between going to
Horrofin or sticking with us.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
Well, they would go to Horror they would go that way, wouldn't.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Yeah, but I think that that don't go north. That's
a choice. It might be a fine thing with them
as well, believe.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
It, but I think those I think that decision of
whether Wellington, I mean, there's been a lot of talk
about Wellington and Poro are getting together for a time
of memorial but I feel that that choice should be
definitely left in the hands of the people of Wellington.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
So referendum has already done one hutsity as well.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Yeah, and the numbers, I mean everyone told me, I
think it might have been, including you, Tom, someone actually
that looked like you told me that you didn't think
the vote would go as strongly towards the amalgamation from
the smaller cities, and it did.
Speaker 4 (12:36):
Well because I think when people in a generalized sense
of yes, we would like to actually, you know, get
rid of our council, or you know, it's a it's
a protest vote, isn't there. It's a bit like you know,
the change the flag thing. Everybody wants to change the
flag until they see you know, the laser kiwi. And
so I think that if there was a proper referendum
around this issue and people were actually presented with what
it actually meant and they were like okay, so I
(12:59):
could retain my local council or I've still got a council,
because it's not getting rid of a council, it's just
making a big one. It would be interesting to see
people would vote. But that's the that's the choice that
should be made option by the people totally agree.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
It's got to be by the people to totally agree.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
But I think you know, a phased amalgamation, not like
Auckland like we we are willing to say, amalgamate with
with poor and the two huts, amalgamate and we bring
things together over a period of years, not long years,
and we amalgamate the whole lot.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Why couldn't we do it as one go? I mean,
I don't understand.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
If there's the the wherewithal to do it in one go,
all the better.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Just why couldn't we simplify? Tell me if I've got
where where I've got this completely wrong? Why couldn't we
simplify it? The next election there's a referendum, you know,
with the four in a city.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
That have already agreed, right, repeat well.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
But but a binding referendum. It says do we get
the numbers? And then the following year, with the following.
Speaker 4 (13:57):
There's there's certainly nothing to stop that actually occurring. My
personal view would be you'd be better off to do
the restructuring of the region or council first and then
wait a cycle and actually have a referendum at the
following election, so people could then decide whether they want
to amalgamate or a lot. Because it's something which I
feel it's a very irrevocable decision and it will have
(14:20):
important consequences, and so what in the down consequence it
does worry mean loss of loss of voice in communities?
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Why, I mean, why couldn't you just simplify it once
again to you've got twenty thousands, I'm just simplifying listeners.
Don't give me upset here, twenty thousand people in Lahhart
that equates to four seats in Lahart twenty one five
hundred upper heart that means five seats and upper heart
you know what I mean? That a million people and
one intern that means twelve seats. Couldn't you simplify it
(14:49):
like that?
Speaker 3 (14:50):
That voting that came out in the draft paper, it
was ridiculous, But both the options that they put on
the table there, Yeah, you're quite right in it. There
has to be a fair and reasonable and equitable way
of handling the voting and handling.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
On that with the regional council thing, haven't they Well,
that just got root of the whole thing, saying that
the Wellington's going to Wellington's got three votes you know
upper heart.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Oh you're talking about the.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Regional of the vote.
Speaker 4 (15:19):
Yeah, but no, but the water. The way they've set
up the water thing is to make sure that nobody
can actually have a defining say so you know, like
you need sixty six percent of the votes, which means
effectively it's very very hard for edy well and no
one council or even two councils could actually influence one.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Let's talk about the water because I've got a couple
of minutes before before the news, So let's let's start
on the water.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
I mean July. The first I think is when when.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
The bills start coming out.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
Yeah, and that will be interesting because your rates bill
should be lower.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Yeah, I won't know.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
I don't think that's a anyma.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
A guy that looked a little bit like what you
said to me at New World. I don't know whether
you remember the conversation you just come out of meeting
somewhere and you're as pale as it goes. So you said,
I could promise you one thing, Nick, that water is
going to cost one hell of a lot moater and
you get moored, You're going to get a fright coming up.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
You're right, yeah, So I mean to give you the
idea of the numbers. At the moment of the average
household rate for three waters is about twenty three hundred
dollars a well eaten. So if you to go through
your rate spell, if you've got a million dollar house,
you go through your rate spill, you're fine. You're paying
about twenty three hundred bucks for three waters. Now that
has forecast rise to almost six thousand dollars by twenty
(16:35):
thirty five. So it's going to rise at the rate
of about five hundred dollars a year for the next
eight years. That's the water service delivery plan. Now, if
you go through these documents, affordability and the consequences on
the community of that sort of cost is not part
of the matrix. Everybody's talking about fixing the leaks rather
(16:55):
than about the affordability and the desirability of some of
the work being done. So, you know, I think there's
the for me. The consumer voice, the people who are
going to be paid are very absent from this conversation
at the moment. Your three waters cost so Wellington Wellington
Cities three waters cost doubled in the space of five years.
(17:18):
So five years ago it cost the council's been one
hundred million.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Can I just ask you just because I think you're
confusing some of our little I'm thinking you might be
confusing the three waters you mean waste you know, Sarah
to rather than the Labour's plan of three waters.
Speaker 4 (17:31):
Oh yeah, sorry, I'm talking about the three y three services.
So we've already doubled out the spend or the cost
to consumers, I mean ratepayers, but it's been visible. But
at some point it probably will be quite a couple couple.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
Of years away.
Speaker 4 (17:47):
You will get a meter, you will get a bill.
That bill will start out at probably by that stage
about three thousand dollars a year, so you'll start seeing it.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
That's June next year. No.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
No, no, they won't because there's no meters, so that's
going to take a couple of years.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
How they're going to separate.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
It, No, because what they'll do initially is that there
will just be an allocation. The councils will continue you
to do the right thing and they will just have
the money to the enterprise until until they're at a
position to basically replace. But remember, already people in Wellington
are paying twice as much as Watercare is charging people
at Auckland, so already the charges in Wellington are double
(18:22):
those of Auckland. At Auckland, the Auckland Council went to
the government and said, Government, we don't like this reform
because it means that Watercare is going to have too
much power to actually set pricing. We want price control
and they got it. So Watercare is price controlled. Everybody
else's open slava.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
Well, yeah, I agree with totally agree with him, and
I also agree that we'll need to have water metering
because you know that will be a fairer and more
reasonable way of having things happen.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Got to take a short short break and gets Maxiny
to do some high news headlines, but fascinating conversation. I
don't know whether I've quite finished with water yet. I
might go back to it if I'm allowed to. Grace
allows me to Wellington City councilor Tim Brown and former
lots and lots of things much more than it's got
much should have much more on your CV than A
former city councilor and regional counselor and former Wellington City
(19:18):
Councilor and one of New Zealand's finest photographers, Simon Wolfe
joins us on Friday Facebook. We want to move on
from water. Let's talk Wellington City Council CEO. Now I've
been really critical on him because he hasn't come on
the show, hasn't talked. I know Tim's going to say
it's not his place to talk. I know what you know,
(19:39):
But we finally got together. We got on like a
house on fire. I really like him, Tim. What do
you think of him as the CEO? Have you had
anything to do with them? Have you have you talked
to him? What?
Speaker 3 (19:49):
Because you he employed him?
Speaker 2 (19:51):
You know the numbers you're a numbers guy.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
Yeah, I mean, I mean I think Matt Prosser was
he siddly, you know, interviewed very well and I don't
think anyone.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Did he meet him in person or was it on
a zoom?
Speaker 4 (20:03):
I had no where met him in person?
Speaker 2 (20:05):
So you flew him out here for the interview A.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Yeah, that's right. Yeah, so you know, so we were
very impressed. And the thing is, with any chief executive,
it's always going to be proof of the pudding. And
I think at the moment Matt has very wisely kept
his powder dry and also kept his cards very close
to his chest. So you know, clearly there is a
mood a foot within the council and certainly within the
(20:30):
community to have Wellington City Council review the efficiency of
its operations and how it goes about things and make
sure that it's doing its job at the lest possible
cost to ratepayers. And I think I think Matt is
very wise in the way he's signaled his interest in
making sure that counsel is as efficient as possible.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Well, get into Deloitte's reports. I mean that's pretty smart.
I mean any ceo worth his weight soult would say,
I need to I need to get all that. It's
a billion dollar company. No ceo can sort it all
out himself. I think if he goes to Deloitte and
said have a look at it, spend a bit of
money and come back and tell me what.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
So I agree with Tim Matters very wise And you know,
like he waited seven months to come on the show
and then when he came on the show yesterday, he
was impressive, wasn't he? He was here and I think,
you know, the stars are actually aligning in Wellington. I
think we're going to go through a really good, good spell.
We're on the up. You know, we're dealing with the
hots and notts later. Well, you know, the duo of
(21:30):
Andrew Little and Matt Prosser could be the absolute catalyst
for bringing the city forward once again.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
I'm going back to you as a numbers guy, you know.
I mean because I was blown away pre you going
on councilor you came on the show and you went, bah,
bah bah, this is wrong. That's wrong. This is a
dead debt and I'm looking at going I don't think
anyone else in the city knows those figures. He said, Well,
you said I went and got them.
Speaker 4 (21:56):
Yeah, I mean, just coming back to DeLute's reporters. As
you know my views about that. I felt it was
very superficial and for me, it was a catamunst Jin's
type episodes. So there's a to me, there's an element
of eta about something like that. I mean, I'm always
skeptical of reports where I don't know who wrote them,
and it felt to me like it was a sort
(22:17):
of a pressure button and something came off the word
press processor.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Do you really think that?
Speaker 4 (22:23):
Yeah, I do think that. And and the thing for
me was, I don't doubt that there are there are
certain elements of inefficiency around the council, and and so
I'm sure that council could actually be leaned than it
is today. I've no doubt, absolutely, But I also like
to just I happen to go through the numbers, and
so so I'm glad you've given me credit for being
(22:44):
the numbers go. And you know, one of the things
which they talk there is about the number of employees
which they think the council is over endowed with relative
to the number of people a Wellington. The figures are
actually completely wrong.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
What are so I mean?
Speaker 4 (22:59):
For instance, you know then these are really important figures
because that's that's sort of justifying over staffing on the
basis that they say the average number of employees per
thousand people or per per per thousand households or rate
payers around New Zealand is seventeen for TLAs, so they
say Wellington's got twenty three. Actually I went ahead a
(23:20):
look at the numbers and the actual number is nineteen
point eight. So these are very important numbers to get right.
So they haven't used FDS. I don't know what they used.
And you know, if you've got part timers and full timeers,
it makes a big difference as to what you're using.
I think also Wellington is a really unusual city because
half of its rates come from commercial and half comes
from residential, so it's got a different type rating mix,
(23:43):
and so you do need to actually adjust for that.
And just saying across all of the TLAs, you know,
Hoker Tech are in Auckland and Wellington are not going
to be in the same sort of.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
Field.
Speaker 4 (23:54):
So I feel that if when you do go for
the numbers, the numbers better be right. And my observations
of this report the numbers are wrong.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
So that I'll come back to you on that because
I mean that Scarce and Living Daylights have you. Because
I trusted you, I would take your view.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
It should be pretty deloitte, should be pretty robust.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
But do you I mean you've been on that council.
I've always said I think if I was CEO, I
could get two hundred. I've said it.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
You wouldn't ascertain a number until until you reviewed what
was going on. And I actually think Matt's doing that,
and I think that there'll be a fair and reasonable process.
I think that the council City Council has been inefficient
and has duplicated certain processes for quite some time, and
(24:47):
that there are various different business units within the council
that have ring fenced themselves for one reason or another.
And I think that you know, having a good review
and having a really good look is really really important.
So long as that comes from you.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
Know, it's more even more important. I've got to go
to another break, but you know it's even more important
for me is actually doing something about them, because it's
all very well getting this report. If you get these
reports now, now let's see some action. Absolutely right, we're
back on. We have robust conversations in the studio during
face off, especially with Tim Brown and his figures. I mean,
he's just been baffling me and confusing me and making
(25:26):
me more anxious than I was already. Tom, you just
want to quickly say something about the governance of the
of that those figures. What were you saying? You said,
I want to have an opportunity to know.
Speaker 4 (25:36):
So what I was saying is when I read the
first part of the Deloitte's report, and it went through
all of the areas of council function, you know, a
consenting management, you know, contract management, you name it. It went
through everything, you know, parks and reserves, and it had
some very good observations about areas where improvements could occur.
So I don't have any doubt there are areas of
improvement across all of the councils four hundred areas of activity.
(25:59):
But I think the area that I felt that the
Deloitte's report really missed out was saying, how do you
make the council laws more of effective at a governance level,
Because one of the critical things is is that Council's obviously,
you know, set the spending patterns, they set the strategies
of the council, but then they should be holding the
council officers to account in terms of that spending activity.
(26:21):
So when you for that, you need really high quality
information showing to give you an particular illustration, how is
the sludge motimization plant going? You know, how is the
bill going relative to the budget? You signed off a
budget of four hundred and twenty eight million. Is it
on time? Is it on budget? Are we you know,
as been going okay, do we have to make any change?
We got no information.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
We spoke about this earlier. And you know, the cultures
between the two organizations, Greater Wellington and Wellington City are
so different. You know, we get really robust information in
a timely fashion.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
Surely everyone should get that information.
Speaker 3 (26:56):
Do you to that?
Speaker 2 (26:58):
And I'm sure scaring our listeners. I don't think you've
got the quality of people around the table that could understand.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
Going no, no, no, that's not fair because the point
is is that representative of the community and they But
what that means that the officers have got to do
is recognize who are the people in the room and
provide information that's appropriate to those people.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
Okay, I get that.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
I can't fault the culture at Greater Wellington.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Really, you're God promote accountcil region.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Some of those people.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
I hate to tell you, I hate to be the
bearer of bad news on my happy Friday that I'm
trying to be positive. But you're fired. Thanks, you're fired,
You're God' You're to reside. You're getting fired. Same deal.
But you might have a couple of years.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
Well, I hope I have some ability to provide and
put my feedback to the what's going on?
Speaker 2 (27:45):
Can I quickly go to police? Have I got time
to quickly go to police? I mean new targets for
trust and police Now, I know, you know Andrew Chalmers
has coming with a very difficult situation, and I think
probably trust at the highest level of police in my
lifetimes at the last has ever been Simon, what are
you thinking? How do they get trust back in? And
it's not we know it's not the police on the street.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
Yeah. I think the new commissioner we talked about culture
will change the culture within that top echelon of the police.
We're also seeing it, particularly with Jill Rodgers and two
Shapenny and those assistant or Deputy Commissioner Roles. I have
complete and total confidence that the police will move forward
from this, learn from it, and and that will be
(28:31):
will be really well served.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Tim, you look a bit more serious on this or
what do you think? I mean, how do we retain that?
Speaker 4 (28:37):
I mean, look, at first, I'd like to say I
totally disagree with your observation about this is the lowest EBB.
I mean, I remember the red Sky era in the
Louise Nichols era. I mean back of the day, they.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Were difference between this Louise Nichols come and be fair,
what's so different? But we just haven't seen the woman
yet that's had all these problems.
Speaker 4 (28:54):
Well no, no, but I think I think that the
back in the day, the police were way more. You know,
there was this sort of famous poster about your New
Zealand's largest street gang. I think they I still think. No,
I think they've moved on a long way, and I
think that I think, you know, obviously there's been a
few problems. You know, this latest thing issue is but
I mean, let's face it, the spotlight has gone on
to the most minute level and you know a level. Yeah,
(29:17):
I think that, you know, people have been you know,
like the fact they're all happy to actually disclose their
Internet activities and all the rest of it. People that
I think some of the crimes are not some of
the crimes are more like crimes of a mission. I mean,
clearly there's been some bad stuff happened.
Speaker 3 (29:32):
There's one guy.
Speaker 4 (29:33):
Who's clearly was a bit of a prick and some
of the other people kind of rallied around to defend.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
Maybe not even rallied around. I think he.
Speaker 5 (29:40):
O.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
God, it's almost a generation gap between the side of
the studio and that side of the studio. If you
don't think there's issues at the highest.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Have been, have been and they're being addressed. But I
think you know, you look at Wellington and what's happened
with the front line in particular, and we've got police
on on down Courty Place.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
And no one has ever doubted the police on the street.
Speaker 4 (30:01):
But higher I don't think that while Louise Nichols probably
down the police of the street, I mean I thought they.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Were high up. They were, they were detective.
Speaker 4 (30:11):
It's a complete difference now between the sort of accountability
of the police and I think Richard Chambers is.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
I'm not arguing about that, but I think that we're
in a we're in a we're in the hole that
has to be cleaned out.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
To agree with you of a scheme right without, Let's
take a favor.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
Let's take a break. It's Friday, it's casual Friday. It's
been great. Let's take a little break and come back
with your hots and knots and you can bring up
anything you want and your hots and not.
Speaker 5 (30:35):
The okay, really really quickly, come on, Simon my my hots,
Andrew Little and Matt prosterit along with our voluntary sector
in Wellington.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
We couldn't do without them. My Knights are a bistion,
Simon Watts for the handling of the local government.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
Nobody likes anybody that's fired the.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
Draft proposal, so poor people could go on my Facebook
and you have a little bit of a read. I'm
getting put that on our Facebook. Lots of comment, but
I think what I've written is fair and reasonable.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
Okay, Tim Brown, WA's your Hot's not the sort of
package deal.
Speaker 4 (31:13):
Basically the Online Gambling Bill which has been going through
Parliament and is going to transit. You know, it's basically
allowing offshore gambling to be solved to New Zealanders through online.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
It's atrocious and no one's doing anything about it.
Speaker 4 (31:25):
And in the last I mean I actually got the
silly way Brown to usk in a question in Parliament
and the figures that came back was in the last
six months, at an annualized rates, New Zealander has lost
six hundred million dollars in online gambling. Now they the
IRD gets a slice of that because it is taxed,
but that's effectively there's something of the vicility of four
hundred million dollars of profit which is going to these
(31:48):
offshore providing platforms, and I would be saying, why aren't they,
Why don't we insist that all of the online gambling
is done locally and the profits have to be recycled
to the community in exactly the same way to do
with Popon's tap and lotto.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
So it really dugs me.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
Hundred I wanted to do an hour abo I haven't
had answer, but I actually totally agree with you the
absolute sports Well done. Thank you both so much for
joining us. Great to talk to you both, Great to
see you both, and.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
Tomorrow Christmas to everybody. Yeah we can say that now
you can now you're differentely hope everybody has a good
fist of seasons.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Simon Wolfson and Tim Brown, thank you. Have a great weekend.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live
to news Talks It'd be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from News Talk. Said b in review, it's Friday face
off with Kudovic property Management, a better rental experience for
all visit Quovi dot co dot in's head.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
So then seven minutes past eleven o'clock, so that means
it's and it's on a Friday. It's Friday face off.
We've got formers, some formers, some formers and some currents.
Former City councilor Tim Brown, good Mornington, good morning? Did
your mic on? Or you're not far it and you're
getting too far away from it? Good morning? And former
it's one in City councilor and current regional councilor until
(00:50):
next Wednesday or summer. And when he's going to get that,
he's going to get fired.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Hi, everyone thinks longer than that.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Are you fired?
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Yeah, it's it's TV sounded like that.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
How do you wake up at the border you get fired?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Well, you know, we wake up in the morning and
later in the afternoon we heard something we hadn't heard before.
But I think we're going to deal with Hay first.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Don't onto that?
Speaker 4 (01:12):
Why?
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Why? Why is there people that actually think that it
is a little bit disrespectful to start an email to
a professor with Hey, Simon.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Wolf, I think that the handling hasn't been that great
in this case. It's it's similar when we talk about
the regional council. But I think Hay is okay in
a casual sense. But in a university setting where there's
a little bit more formality, I think that you know,
probably high would be acceptable. And yeah, I just think handling.
(01:47):
I don't think the professor should have just written back
and said, look, I think you should be addressing this
in a little bit more formal, not putting it on
the Facebook.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
And not saying I'm not even going to har I
look at that pedantic at best, Tim Tim Brown, would
you actually send me an email higher or one of
those not?
Speaker 4 (02:08):
If I wanted you to actually treat me with the
respect I hope you would treat me. I mean, I
think this is illustrative of something which I had a
conversation with an employer earlier this week who said she
was recruiting people at the moment and several of the
people had come to interviews had been totally unsuitable in
terms of their deportment in the actual meetings, and she
(02:31):
described chewing gum and using foul language and badly dressed,
and she just thought, people realize that if you want
to be treated with respect yourself, you've got to actually understand,
you know what it is that the employer or the teacher,
or the somebody who you should be treating with respect
actually deserves in exchange. And I think that saying you know,
(02:54):
hey to a professor is disrespectful, and so I think
that it's perfectly appropriate for the professor to say that's
not appropriate. And it's time you guys learned, because when
you finish here at school, you are going to try.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
And get a job.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
But if you use the wrong language and you turn
up and look like a dick to an employer, you're
not going to get a job.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
But the thing is the thing of Simon. If the
professor hadn't done it on Facebook and hadn't made a
big deal out of it, we wouldn't be talking about
it today.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
We wouldn't We actually should be talking about and celebrating
next week for Victoria University with their graduation and the
fact that there's a whole heap of young and new
graduates graduating and the town will be in, the town
will be vibrant, and I think we also should be
celebrating that the new fairly new vice Chancellor, Nick Smith
(03:44):
has changed a lot of the culture around Victoria University
and we're looking really good. It's one of the stars
that's lining up for Wellington.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
And I talked about it when I did the story,
because you when there's a vibrant Victoria University, the city
feels differently. You know, it absolutely feels differently when it's
on a high and it's you know, it's the highest
you know, up there with the highest level of education.
So you got bright people, good people in the city.
So what's tell me, Tim, is what's the difference When
(04:12):
you were very young, everything was hello, then it went
to high Yeah, now it's hey, Is that wrong?
Speaker 4 (04:22):
Like that of it's wrong, but it is. It's about
reading the room. It's about how you actually address somebody
to whom you should be showing respect. And so if
I walked up to Chris Luxon, I'm not going to
say a higher prime, you know, I'm going to say, you.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Know, PM, would you say hey, PM?
Speaker 4 (04:41):
Well, I sort of I have met him a few
times in the past and I would probably say Christopher,
but that I would be respectful, you know, would or
you know, I probably wouldn't be one of those people
to say hello, mister Prime minister or whatever those terminologies.
But it's just about understanding that it's quite important how
you address people. Showing respect is important and if they
(05:03):
you know, if you think hey is okay and they don't,
you've made a mistake and you should learn one of
It's a bit like it.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
It's a little bit like the lawyer's rule, isn't it.
The lawyer's rule is, well, it used to be. It
might change now. If you're meeting a client that would
arrive in a suit and a tie, you would wear
a suit and a tie. If your client was coming
in and he had an open shirt and a jacket,
that would be fine. So you're relating to who you're
meeting with. I mean, isn't that what we're talking about?
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Absolutely? You know I know that my suit and tie
the best investment gets me through the door because I
present well as a photographer, or as a regional counselor
or as anything if you want to. You know, I
was told Brian Brake, the great photographer, you present yourself well,
and things will happen for you.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
I can remember going into New World Supermarket to buy
something in a suit and tie. I very very very
really wear a suit and tie. And you know I
look pretty damn good in a suit and tie. So
I walked in there, I saw people are treating me
completely different.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Absolutely, they're teading.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Me completely different than my casual look. You know you're
a casual guy, didn't do you? Get it?
Speaker 3 (06:05):
Ye? Totally.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
I'm a big believer in understanding what the rumor is
expecting and then turning up appropriate.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Yeah, okay, talking about appropriate, When when did you find
out we're talking about regional counselor has been dropped.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
By we're talking about handling when everybody else found out?
Speaker 2 (06:24):
You know that that so you had no idea this
was coming, no idea that as a regional counselor. You
had no idea that you can be fined next week.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
No, no, not at all. And that's where this handling
is unusual, because I would have expected Bish to handle
the situation far more fairly and reasonably than he has.
And I think that, you know, this was a bit
of a media stand up in respect of the government
(06:53):
not doing too well in the polls.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Is it a layer of governance that we do not need?
I believe strongly that it is. So I know that
you're not going to agree.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
With me, but I'm going to agree with you. I am.
You know, I'm a big fan of amalgamation and having
a unitary authority or that's run in a democratcratic way.
For our city it's and and our region. It's you know,
like we've got so many issues at the moment, so
many inefficiencies, particularly you know, you look at the regional
(07:24):
council is the public transport provider, and the city Council
is the road controlling authority, and boy do we come
into conflict.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
One of them tells you where the bus, the council
tell you where the bus will stop, and you tell
when the when the bus is going to arrive. Well,
I mean, tim, is that nuts?
Speaker 4 (07:42):
I mean, I look, I totally agree that reform is necessary,
but I personally wouldn't have done it quite the same way.
And I'm not a big fan of unitary authorities either.
But I do feel that, for instance, entities like transport
could be done under you know, like the aucland transport model,
where if you create an entity that then does local transport,
just as we're creating an entity that will do local
(08:04):
water at storm water and so and so. My view
is that the breaking the regional council up and distributing
its functions across the TLAs and creating entities like Wellington Transport,
et cetera would be the way to go. And I
suspect that what we've seen with this first move is
(08:25):
a first move towards that direction, So that would be
I would assume where this thing ends up.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
I also, we had signlots on the show. He he
almost admitted that that amalgamations where they.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Wanted to go and go.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
I mean, it's you know, it's pretty simple.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
It's going to come straight out and no.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
No, But I don't look, I don't agree that it's
I don't think it's central government's role to impose of
algamation and I don't think that to be fair.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
He did say that he would if the people wanted.
Speaker 4 (08:51):
It exactly, so I think what had they? I think
a lot of people have realized that forcing a algamation
on the Auckland t las and the regional council up
there was not a good move for Auckland there were
better solutions for Auckland, and particularly getting rid of the
regional Council and then letting the TA l as sought
out things between themselves would have been a better outcome
than what has happened now. And all of the centralization
(09:12):
of benefits that have occurred in the center of Auckland
and all of the peripheral parts of Auckland kind of
losing out, and the massive increase in overhead and all
the rest of it that's gone with what's happening at Auckland.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
But we just have to learn from those mistakes.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
So I know, but that is Simon, what is the
perfect scenario. You've been on council. You've done two terms
on council or three two.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
This is my second non region three previous.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Three city council, so you've had, you know, a fair
swag at times around those tables. I mean, what's the
perfect scenario for our region?
Speaker 3 (09:40):
I think I totally agree with Tim a separate transport authority.
I do believe that we need to at least share
services with some key services with our regional tas. I
think that we shouldn't dilute what goes on in the environment,
(10:00):
and I hope that the ministers actually understand the work
that Greater Willington does. It does some absolutely fantastic.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Well that surely could be done, and I've got to
take a break. I'm going to come back. Too many,
too many layers. Surely it could be done with one CEO,
one you know, one chief financial officer, one mayor. You
won a lot of parks, yeah, yeah, one of the
parks and reserves.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Yeah right.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Friday face off with Tim Brown and Simon Wolf. Tim,
give me your perfect scenario for Wellington City Council amalgamation
and regional council, because if anybody's got thought sitting around
that table last year, you would have said, I can
sort this out by doing a B, C and D
what is it.
Speaker 4 (10:43):
I would follow some of the Auckland process, which is
to say, I would look at distributing the regional council
activities across the TLAs in particular. Obviously, the transport's the
easy solution because you created a Wellington Transport that then
amalgamates the TLA and regional transport decisions into one entity,
as they've got at Auckland with Auckland Transport. And I
totally agree with Simon that the efficiencies that came out
(11:05):
of that that was standing the current mayors, you know,
dislike of Auckland Transport. The current efficiencies were very palpable.
I would say also in terms of things like regional parks,
the water regulation and the other areas of which the
Regional Council does, they can also be distributed across the
t l as, so that I would like to see
(11:25):
the Regional Council effectively broken up and its activities distributed
across the t l as.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
Terms, can you explain to someone what a t a
t l A is, just as.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
The territorial local authorities.
Speaker 4 (11:36):
So in this particular case, we are talking you know,
Wellington Potter or Lowered Upperhart and I think Southway and
a couple of wire apple ones.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
You see, I wouldn't have I wouldn't. Once you get
near that hill, I would just cut that. I'd cut
that dry.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
I would No, it's the two huts Wellington City and
and nothing else. And Carpety could choose between going to
Horrofin or sticking with us.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
Well, they would go to Horror they would go that way, wouldn't.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Yeah, but I think that that don't go north. That's
a choice. It might be a fine thing with them
as well, believe.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
It, but I think those I think that decision of
whether Wellington, I mean, there's been a lot of talk
about Wellington and Poro are getting together for a time
of memorial but I feel that that choice should be
definitely left in the hands of the people of Wellington.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
So referendum has already done one hutsity as well.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Yeah, and the numbers, I mean everyone told me, I
think it might have been, including you, Tom, someone actually
that looked like you told me that you didn't think
the vote would go as strongly towards the amalgamation from
the smaller cities, and it did.
Speaker 4 (12:36):
Well because I think when people in a generalized sense
of yes, we would like to actually, you know, get
rid of our council, or you know, it's a it's
a protest vote, isn't there. It's a bit like you know,
the change the flag thing. Everybody wants to change the
flag until they see you know, the laser kiwi. And
so I think that if there was a proper referendum
around this issue and people were actually presented with what
it actually meant and they were like okay, so I
(12:59):
could retain my local council or I've still got a council,
because it's not getting rid of a council, it's just
making a big one. It would be interesting to see
people would vote. But that's the that's the choice that
should be made option by the people totally agree.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
It's got to be by the people to totally agree.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
But I think you know, a phased amalgamation, not like
Auckland like we we are willing to say, amalgamate with
with poor and the two huts, amalgamate and we bring
things together over a period of years, not long years,
and we amalgamate the whole lot.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Why couldn't we do it as one go? I mean,
I don't understand.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
If there's the the wherewithal to do it in one go,
all the better.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Just why couldn't we simplify? Tell me if I've got
where where I've got this completely wrong? Why couldn't we
simplify it? The next election there's a referendum, you know,
with the four in a city.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
That have already agreed, right, repeat well.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
But but a binding referendum. It says do we get
the numbers? And then the following year, with the following.
Speaker 4 (13:57):
There's there's certainly nothing to stop that actually occurring. My
personal view would be you'd be better off to do
the restructuring of the region or council first and then
wait a cycle and actually have a referendum at the
following election, so people could then decide whether they want
to amalgamate or a lot. Because it's something which I
feel it's a very irrevocable decision and it will have
(14:20):
important consequences, and so what in the down consequence it
does worry mean loss of loss of voice in communities?
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Why, I mean, why couldn't you just simplify it once
again to you've got twenty thousands, I'm just simplifying listeners.
Don't give me upset here, twenty thousand people in Lahhart
that equates to four seats in Lahart twenty one five
hundred upper heart that means five seats and upper heart
you know what I mean? That a million people and
one intern that means twelve seats. Couldn't you simplify it
(14:49):
like that?
Speaker 3 (14:50):
That voting that came out in the draft paper, it
was ridiculous, But both the options that they put on
the table there, Yeah, you're quite right in it. There
has to be a fair and reasonable and equitable way
of handling the voting and handling.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
On that with the regional council thing, haven't they Well,
that just got root of the whole thing, saying that
the Wellington's going to Wellington's got three votes you know
upper heart.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Oh you're talking about the.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Regional of the vote.
Speaker 4 (15:19):
Yeah, but no, but the water. The way they've set
up the water thing is to make sure that nobody
can actually have a defining say so you know, like
you need sixty six percent of the votes, which means
effectively it's very very hard for edy well and no
one council or even two councils could actually influence one.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Let's talk about the water because I've got a couple
of minutes before before the news, So let's let's start
on the water.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
I mean July. The first I think is when when.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
The bills start coming out.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
Yeah, and that will be interesting because your rates bill
should be lower.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Yeah, I won't know.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
I don't think that's a anyma.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
A guy that looked a little bit like what you
said to me at New World. I don't know whether
you remember the conversation you just come out of meeting
somewhere and you're as pale as it goes. So you said,
I could promise you one thing, Nick, that water is
going to cost one hell of a lot moater and
you get moored, You're going to get a fright coming up.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
You're right, yeah, So I mean to give you the
idea of the numbers. At the moment of the average
household rate for three waters is about twenty three hundred
dollars a well eaten. So if you to go through
your rate spell, if you've got a million dollar house,
you go through your rate spill, you're fine. You're paying
about twenty three hundred bucks for three waters. Now that
has forecast rise to almost six thousand dollars by twenty
(16:35):
thirty five. So it's going to rise at the rate
of about five hundred dollars a year for the next
eight years. That's the water service delivery plan. Now, if
you go through these documents, affordability and the consequences on
the community of that sort of cost is not part
of the matrix. Everybody's talking about fixing the leaks rather
(16:55):
than about the affordability and the desirability of some of
the work being done. So, you know, I think there's
the for me. The consumer voice, the people who are
going to be paid are very absent from this conversation
at the moment. Your three waters cost so Wellington Wellington
Cities three waters cost doubled in the space of five years.
(17:18):
So five years ago it cost the council's been one
hundred million.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Can I just ask you just because I think you're
confusing some of our little I'm thinking you might be
confusing the three waters you mean waste you know, Sarah
to rather than the Labour's plan of three waters.
Speaker 4 (17:31):
Oh yeah, sorry, I'm talking about the three y three services.
So we've already doubled out the spend or the cost
to consumers, I mean ratepayers, but it's been visible. But
at some point it probably will be quite a couple couple.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
Of years away.
Speaker 4 (17:47):
You will get a meter, you will get a bill.
That bill will start out at probably by that stage
about three thousand dollars a year, so you'll start seeing it.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
That's June next year. No.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
No, no, they won't because there's no meters, so that's
going to take a couple of years.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
How they're going to separate.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
It, No, because what they'll do initially is that there
will just be an allocation. The councils will continue you
to do the right thing and they will just have
the money to the enterprise until until they're at a
position to basically replace. But remember, already people in Wellington
are paying twice as much as Watercare is charging people
at Auckland, so already the charges in Wellington are double
(18:22):
those of Auckland. At Auckland, the Auckland Council went to
the government and said, Government, we don't like this reform
because it means that Watercare is going to have too
much power to actually set pricing. We want price control
and they got it. So Watercare is price controlled. Everybody
else's open slava.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
Well, yeah, I agree with totally agree with him, and
I also agree that we'll need to have water metering
because you know that will be a fairer and more
reasonable way of having things happen.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Got to take a short short break and gets Maxiny
to do some high news headlines, but fascinating conversation. I
don't know whether I've quite finished with water yet. I
might go back to it if I'm allowed to. Grace
allows me to Wellington City councilor Tim Brown and former
lots and lots of things much more than it's got
much should have much more on your CV than A
former city councilor and regional counselor and former Wellington City
(19:18):
Councilor and one of New Zealand's finest photographers, Simon Wolfe
joins us on Friday Facebook. We want to move on
from water. Let's talk Wellington City Council CEO. Now I've
been really critical on him because he hasn't come on
the show, hasn't talked. I know Tim's going to say
it's not his place to talk. I know what you know,
(19:39):
But we finally got together. We got on like a
house on fire. I really like him, Tim. What do
you think of him as the CEO? Have you had
anything to do with them? Have you have you talked
to him? What?
Speaker 3 (19:49):
Because you he employed him?
Speaker 2 (19:51):
You know the numbers you're a numbers guy.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
Yeah, I mean, I mean I think Matt Prosser was
he siddly, you know, interviewed very well and I don't
think anyone.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Did he meet him in person or was it on
a zoom?
Speaker 4 (20:03):
I had no where met him in person?
Speaker 2 (20:05):
So you flew him out here for the interview A.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Yeah, that's right. Yeah, so you know, so we were
very impressed. And the thing is, with any chief executive,
it's always going to be proof of the pudding. And
I think at the moment Matt has very wisely kept
his powder dry and also kept his cards very close
to his chest. So you know, clearly there is a
mood a foot within the council and certainly within the
(20:30):
community to have Wellington City Council review the efficiency of
its operations and how it goes about things and make
sure that it's doing its job at the lest possible
cost to ratepayers. And I think I think Matt is
very wise in the way he's signaled his interest in
making sure that counsel is as efficient as possible.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Well, get into Deloitte's reports. I mean that's pretty smart.
I mean any ceo worth his weight soult would say,
I need to I need to get all that. It's
a billion dollar company. No ceo can sort it all
out himself. I think if he goes to Deloitte and
said have a look at it, spend a bit of
money and come back and tell me what.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
So I agree with Tim Matters very wise And you know,
like he waited seven months to come on the show
and then when he came on the show yesterday, he
was impressive, wasn't he? He was here and I think,
you know, the stars are actually aligning in Wellington. I
think we're going to go through a really good, good spell.
We're on the up. You know, we're dealing with the
hots and notts later. Well, you know, the duo of
(21:30):
Andrew Little and Matt Prosser could be the absolute catalyst
for bringing the city forward once again.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
I'm going back to you as a numbers guy, you know.
I mean because I was blown away pre you going
on councilor you came on the show and you went, bah,
bah bah, this is wrong. That's wrong. This is a
dead debt and I'm looking at going I don't think
anyone else in the city knows those figures. He said, Well,
you said I went and got them.
Speaker 4 (21:56):
Yeah, I mean, just coming back to DeLute's reporters. As
you know my views about that. I felt it was
very superficial and for me, it was a catamunst Jin's
type episodes. So there's a to me, there's an element
of eta about something like that. I mean, I'm always
skeptical of reports where I don't know who wrote them,
and it felt to me like it was a sort
(22:17):
of a pressure button and something came off the word
press processor.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Do you really think that?
Speaker 4 (22:23):
Yeah, I do think that. And and the thing for
me was, I don't doubt that there are there are
certain elements of inefficiency around the council, and and so
I'm sure that council could actually be leaned than it
is today. I've no doubt, absolutely, But I also like
to just I happen to go through the numbers, and
so so I'm glad you've given me credit for being
(22:44):
the numbers go. And you know, one of the things
which they talk there is about the number of employees
which they think the council is over endowed with relative
to the number of people a Wellington. The figures are
actually completely wrong.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
What are so I mean?
Speaker 4 (22:59):
For instance, you know then these are really important figures
because that's that's sort of justifying over staffing on the
basis that they say the average number of employees per
thousand people or per per per thousand households or rate
payers around New Zealand is seventeen for TLAs, so they
say Wellington's got twenty three. Actually I went ahead a
(23:20):
look at the numbers and the actual number is nineteen
point eight. So these are very important numbers to get right.
So they haven't used FDS. I don't know what they used.
And you know, if you've got part timers and full timeers,
it makes a big difference as to what you're using.
I think also Wellington is a really unusual city because
half of its rates come from commercial and half comes
from residential, so it's got a different type rating mix,
(23:43):
and so you do need to actually adjust for that.
And just saying across all of the TLAs, you know,
Hoker Tech are in Auckland and Wellington are not going
to be in the same sort of.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
Field.
Speaker 4 (23:54):
So I feel that if when you do go for
the numbers, the numbers better be right. And my observations
of this report the numbers are wrong.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
So that I'll come back to you on that because
I mean that Scarce and Living Daylights have you. Because
I trusted you, I would take your view.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
It should be pretty deloitte, should be pretty robust.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
But do you I mean you've been on that council.
I've always said I think if I was CEO, I
could get two hundred. I've said it.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
You wouldn't ascertain a number until until you reviewed what
was going on. And I actually think Matt's doing that,
and I think that there'll be a fair and reasonable process.
I think that the council City Council has been inefficient
and has duplicated certain processes for quite some time, and
(24:47):
that there are various different business units within the council
that have ring fenced themselves for one reason or another.
And I think that you know, having a good review
and having a really good look is really really important.
So long as that comes from you.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
Know, it's more even more important. I've got to go
to another break, but you know it's even more important
for me is actually doing something about them, because it's
all very well getting this report. If you get these
reports now, now let's see some action. Absolutely right, we're
back on. We have robust conversations in the studio during
face off, especially with Tim Brown and his figures. I mean,
he's just been baffling me and confusing me and making
(25:26):
me more anxious than I was already. Tom, you just
want to quickly say something about the governance of the
of that those figures. What were you saying? You said,
I want to have an opportunity to know.
Speaker 4 (25:36):
So what I was saying is when I read the
first part of the Deloitte's report, and it went through
all of the areas of council function, you know, a
consenting management, you know, contract management, you name it. It went
through everything, you know, parks and reserves, and it had
some very good observations about areas where improvements could occur.
So I don't have any doubt there are areas of
improvement across all of the councils four hundred areas of activity.
(25:59):
But I think the area that I felt that the
Deloitte's report really missed out was saying, how do you
make the council laws more of effective at a governance level,
Because one of the critical things is is that Council's obviously,
you know, set the spending patterns, they set the strategies
of the council, but then they should be holding the
council officers to account in terms of that spending activity.
(26:21):
So when you for that, you need really high quality
information showing to give you an particular illustration, how is
the sludge motimization plant going? You know, how is the
bill going relative to the budget? You signed off a
budget of four hundred and twenty eight million. Is it
on time? Is it on budget? Are we you know,
as been going okay, do we have to make any change?
We got no information.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
We spoke about this earlier. And you know, the cultures
between the two organizations, Greater Wellington and Wellington City are
so different. You know, we get really robust information in
a timely fashion.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
Surely everyone should get that information.
Speaker 3 (26:56):
Do you to that?
Speaker 2 (26:58):
And I'm sure scaring our listeners. I don't think you've
got the quality of people around the table that could understand.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
Going no, no, no, that's not fair because the point
is is that representative of the community and they But
what that means that the officers have got to do
is recognize who are the people in the room and
provide information that's appropriate to those people.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
Okay, I get that.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
I can't fault the culture at Greater Wellington.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Really, you're God promote accountcil region.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Some of those people.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
I hate to tell you, I hate to be the
bearer of bad news on my happy Friday that I'm
trying to be positive. But you're fired. Thanks, you're fired,
You're God' You're to reside. You're getting fired. Same deal.
But you might have a couple of years.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
Well, I hope I have some ability to provide and
put my feedback to the what's going on?
Speaker 2 (27:45):
Can I quickly go to police? Have I got time
to quickly go to police? I mean new targets for
trust and police Now, I know, you know Andrew Chalmers
has coming with a very difficult situation, and I think
probably trust at the highest level of police in my
lifetimes at the last has ever been Simon, what are
you thinking? How do they get trust back in? And
it's not we know it's not the police on the street.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
Yeah. I think the new commissioner we talked about culture
will change the culture within that top echelon of the police.
We're also seeing it, particularly with Jill Rodgers and two
Shapenny and those assistant or Deputy Commissioner Roles. I have
complete and total confidence that the police will move forward
from this, learn from it, and and that will be
(28:31):
will be really well served.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Tim, you look a bit more serious on this or
what do you think? I mean, how do we retain that?
Speaker 4 (28:37):
I mean, look, at first, I'd like to say I
totally disagree with your observation about this is the lowest EBB.
I mean, I remember the red Sky era in the
Louise Nichols era. I mean back of the day, they.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Were difference between this Louise Nichols come and be fair,
what's so different? But we just haven't seen the woman
yet that's had all these problems.
Speaker 4 (28:54):
Well no, no, but I think I think that the
back in the day, the police were way more. You know,
there was this sort of famous poster about your New
Zealand's largest street gang. I think they I still think. No,
I think they've moved on a long way, and I
think that I think, you know, obviously there's been a
few problems. You know, this latest thing issue is but
I mean, let's face it, the spotlight has gone on
to the most minute level and you know a level. Yeah,
(29:17):
I think that, you know, people have been you know,
like the fact they're all happy to actually disclose their
Internet activities and all the rest of it. People that
I think some of the crimes are not some of
the crimes are more like crimes of a mission. I mean,
clearly there's been some bad stuff happened.
Speaker 3 (29:32):
There's one guy.
Speaker 4 (29:33):
Who's clearly was a bit of a prick and some
of the other people kind of rallied around to defend.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
Maybe not even rallied around. I think he.
Speaker 5 (29:40):
O.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
God, it's almost a generation gap between the side of
the studio and that side of the studio. If you
don't think there's issues at the highest.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Have been, have been and they're being addressed. But I
think you know, you look at Wellington and what's happened
with the front line in particular, and we've got police
on on down Courty Place.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
And no one has ever doubted the police on the street.
Speaker 4 (30:01):
But higher I don't think that while Louise Nichols probably
down the police of the street, I mean I thought they.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Were high up. They were, they were detective.
Speaker 4 (30:11):
It's a complete difference now between the sort of accountability
of the police and I think Richard Chambers is.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
I'm not arguing about that, but I think that we're
in a we're in a we're in the hole that
has to be cleaned out.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
To agree with you of a scheme right without, Let's
take a favor.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
Let's take a break. It's Friday, it's casual Friday. It's
been great. Let's take a little break and come back
with your hots and knots and you can bring up
anything you want and your hots and not.
Speaker 5 (30:35):
The okay, really really quickly, come on, Simon my my hots,
Andrew Little and Matt prosterit along with our voluntary sector
in Wellington.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
We couldn't do without them. My Knights are a bistion,
Simon Watts for the handling of the local government.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
Nobody likes anybody that's fired the.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
Draft proposal, so poor people could go on my Facebook
and you have a little bit of a read. I'm
getting put that on our Facebook. Lots of comment, but
I think what I've written is fair and reasonable.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
Okay, Tim Brown, WA's your Hot's not the sort of
package deal.
Speaker 4 (31:13):
Basically the Online Gambling Bill which has been going through
Parliament and is going to transit. You know, it's basically
allowing offshore gambling to be solved to New Zealanders through online.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
It's atrocious and no one's doing anything about it.
Speaker 4 (31:25):
And in the last I mean I actually got the
silly way Brown to usk in a question in Parliament
and the figures that came back was in the last
six months, at an annualized rates, New Zealander has lost
six hundred million dollars in online gambling. Now they the
IRD gets a slice of that because it is taxed,
but that's effectively there's something of the vicility of four
hundred million dollars of profit which is going to these
(31:48):
offshore providing platforms, and I would be saying, why aren't they,
Why don't we insist that all of the online gambling
is done locally and the profits have to be recycled
to the community in exactly the same way to do
with Popon's tap and lotto.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
So it really dugs me.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
Hundred I wanted to do an hour abo I haven't
had answer, but I actually totally agree with you the
absolute sports Well done. Thank you both so much for
joining us. Great to talk to you both, Great to
see you both, and.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
Tomorrow Christmas to everybody. Yeah we can say that now
you can now you're differentely hope everybody has a good
fist of seasons.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Simon Wolfson and Tim Brown, thank you. Have a great weekend.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live
to news Talks It'd be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.