On Thursday, Mayor Wayne Brown will ask the council’s Transport and Infrastructure committee to push for a legislative change in the way transport strategy is delivered in Auckland by giving Auckland Council itself a bigger say. The Mayor also wants Auckland to have the ability to make other key regulatory decisions around transport, such as the ability to set its own parking fines.

The Issue

Mayor Brown says that the Council’s current levers for influencing transport outcomes “are not working” because we have “an overly complex transport ecosystem, where Auckland has multiple sets of published transport priorities that do not align and lack democratic oversight“.

He notes that:

Auckland Council is the only council in New Zealand that does not have a direct formal role in preparing and approving the strategic direction for transport and the allocation of funding in support of that direction.

And adds:

Under the current set of governance arrangements, crucial decisions that shape the transport system reside in the Regional Land Transport Plan process, which council has limited input into or oversight of. Council does not make decisions on:

  • The allocation of large programmes (such as safety, renewals, network optimisation) to more specific investments
  • project sequencing – investments planned for delivery in the first three years of the RLTP have a higher degree of certainty than those included in years four and beyond
  • the development and application of the process by which potential investments are prioritised against each other and the way in which some projects (especially larger projects) are designed and planned for delivery – both of these matters are crucial to determining the extent to which the outcomes council seeks are delivered upon in a cost effective manner.

Getting the transport strategy function out of Auckland Transport would be a good outcome. Currently, some of the biggest blockers to progress in Auckland reside in this part of AT – and without major changes in this area, either by AT via an internal restructure and/or by a more significant change such as the mayor is proposing here, then AT will continue to significantly underperform in delivering transport for the region.

The Mayor also notes that there’s been limited success from other (non-legislative) approaches to improve the council’s influence over the strategic direction for transport. This includes the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP), established in 2015, which was designed to align local and central government priorities for transport in Auckland within a 30-year timeframe.

The issue with ATAP is that it has no statutory basis, and no links to the RLTP or council’s own Long-term Plan. Also of concern: despite council and government agreeing on funding, Waka Kotahi relitigate this through their business case process, meaning that even though the government may have agreed to certain levels of funding, Auckland doesn’t actually get that.

In other words – although the Mayor doesn’t spell it out quite this bluntly – the transport agencies tend to just ignore what ATAP says and do what they want anyway.

As for how we got into this situation, the Mayor’s discussion paper says:

In 2013, the government reformed the Land Transport Management Act 2003. It combined the Regional Land Transport Strategy, which was Auckland Council’s responsibility, with the Regional Land Transport Programme (which was Auckland Transport’s responsibility) into one Regional Land Transport Plan.

Developing and approving this new plan became the sole responsibility of Auckland Transport. This had the effect of removing the Auckland Council’s role in setting transport strategy and weakened the links between regional transport strategy and other council plans and strategic outcomes. The Council’s role, compared to other unitary authorities is significantly diminished. Community frustration is often directed at elected members who have limited democratic oversight of the processes.

About this, he also notes:

In their 2020 report, the CCO Review panel was critical of the amendments to the Land Transport Management Act, concluding that they were “wrong in principle and at odds with the intent of Auckland’s local government reforms”.

The Mayor’s Proposal

The Mayor instead wants a two-tier governance structure:

  • at the top, a Joint Transport Committee, chaired by the Mayor and the Minister of Transport, which would develop a joint Regional Long-term Transport Plan, and
  • a Regional Transport Committee – similar to those in all other parts of the country – which would do the the work of developing the RLTP and approving funding, and would also set parking regulations and fines.

Auckland Transport and its board would then be left to purely focus on the delivery of the strategy and plans received from these committees.

The big sticking point for this proposal is likely to be the Joint Transport Committee, about which the Mayor says:

However, it is likely that the establishment of the Joint Transport Committee would require central and local government agencies to cede some of their current responsibilities in the interests of a more integrated approach to transport planning in Auckland.

It’s hard to see central government giving up its existing power and responsibilities for this.

In order to progress his plan, the Mayor is says that either the government needs to lead the changes, or that Auckland would look to introduce a local bill.

The mayor wants to advance both options, as he believes this will have more chance of success “as these efforts should reinforce each other”. Therefore, this is what Thursday’s meeting is being asked to decide on:

That the Transport and Infrastructure Committee:

  1. whakaae / agree to support legislative change that, at a high level, provides for:
    1. joint decision-making between Auckland Council and the Crown on a long-term integrated transport plan for Auckland, and on the funding and implementation of that plan
    2. Auckland Council to have the lead role in preparing and approving the Regional Land Transport Plan, which sets the strategic direction for transport and the allocation of funding in support of that direction
    3. Auckland Council to be able to make other key regulatory decisions about the Auckland transport system, including setting parking fines
  2. tono / request the Mayor to advocate for legislative change giving effect to the principles above to be a priority for the incoming Government
  3. tono / request staff to draft a local bill consistent with clause a) above and to engage with the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel Office on the possibility of Auckland Council proceeding with the promotion of the local bill, and to report back to the Governing Body with a draft local bill and further advice on next steps in September.
Share this


  1. He’s not wrong – it is indeed dysfunctional. But I doubt that the best way to fix the problem is to implement two new Committees, and then require AT to do what the committees say.

    Surely just one body, with the head being part of the body, is the only answer. Many headed Hydra will always just cause arguments and disagreement.

  2. Interesting times. “some of the biggest blockers to progress in Auckland reside in this part of AT” … Yes, it became true in Auckland that “why we can’t have nice things” was no longer “the computer” but these blockers – who have laid out their misconceptions and inexperience of quality transport planning so clearly that they should’ve been stripped of decision-making power well before now. Perhaps this clear steer will lead to that, at last, regardless of Thursday’s decision and Government’s agreement?

    It seems that Council and Government should have been working together to hold the AT Board accountable effectively before now, and to change the governance arrangements if they couldn’t.

    However, the reality is that we need action now, and planning is stuck in about 1970, with 2023 challenges – so, if the Council can pull this off, it would jumpstart some much-needed progress.

  3. It’s not true that Auckland Council doesn’t have the ability to set priorities for AT’s transport spend. In the past, AT has supplied AC with a prioritised list of projects with a red line across the list at the point where the indicative funding runs out. AT would ask AC, as the funder, to either approve the list or to reorganise it.

    The problem is that it becomes clear very quickly that if you move projects up the list, then other projects fall below the red line and won’t get done. Basically, the Councillors chickened out because they could see that parochial politics would come into play, and that Councillor would be set against Councillor defending projects in their own patch. It was easier to approve the list as-is and let AT take the blame.

    This kind of parish pump politics on transport issues was, of course, one of the rationales given for setting up AT in the first place as a politically “neutral” body. Oh what short memories we have!

  4. I feel like I’m the only one with any political memory on this blog sometimes.

    Does everyone really not remember *why*, 15 years ago, we used to dream of having something like AT – an apolitical authority governing all transport, free from the meddling of Right-wing politicians, the John Bankses and Cameron Brewers who wanted to cancel all PT and build roads roads roads everywhere?

    I am beginning to worry that GA writers are being very gullible about the random noises coming out of our nasty, abusive Mayor who was elected on a very Right-wing platform. “Just hand ME all the power and I’ll put a stop to AT bureaucracy!” Fine. AT is dysfunctional and needs a good purge. But I can’t understand why anyone would believe that handing things over to the current Mayor – the kind of person who viciously and publicly shamed Cllr Jo Bartley – would make things *better*.

    I fear we’ve forgotten what Auckland transport was like when councillors ran everything. And I also fear that a lot of urbanists – despairing of being able to actually win elections with good policies – have settled for a strategy of flattering the ignorant, nasty populists who get elected in the hope they’ll do “good things”. This reminds me of the brain geniuses in US politics who thought they could talk Trump into free healthcare and forgiving student loans.

    That is NOT Wayne Brown’s power base. This is NOT how he got elected. He remembers who he really answers to and it’s not the like of us. Some of you seem to have gotten confused about how he’s cut off Mike Lee, but Mike Lee is an easily-manipulated egotist and a clown. I have to put it on the record: this strategy of trying to “manipulate the mad king more effectively than our adversaries” will kill the urbanist movement, because it is an admission that we can’t get “good” politicians elected so we will stop trying to reach out to broader communities.

    1. Yes, and as above, that’s why AT was set up in the first place. What Brown is proposing is a “back to the future” where all the old problems will become manifest and there will be calls (again) for a “new” AT to be set up to solve the problems.

      1. To work, two things were needed:
        1. AT needed to be governed well. Instead, the AT Board has not done its due diligence, and has been taken in at each stage by regressive staff.
        2. AT needed to be giving quality transport advice on all matters affecting transport in Auckland, which would have better equipped both Council and Government. (This was needed for project direction – the policy direction was already good.)

        So, what was needed to make those things happen?

    2. Do you think AT have done a better job than the former councils did? I know Auckland City Council had big plans for Dominion Road before AT took over, had that been built a decade ago it could have transformed the area I live in much more than 13 years of dreaming has. Likewise I am sure the Waitakere Council would have made better progress on PT to the North West than AT have. Maybe the regional council needed more power to get regional projects done, but that would have been a fairly simple tweak. Instead we have a behemoth spending billions on a few gold plated projects with no accountability when projects don’t get completed on time or at all.

      1. You don’t remember what the former councils were like. We had years of stasis on the railway bridge across the Whau because it was on the border between Auckland and Waitakere cities. Meanwhile, the Regional Council (led by Mike Lee when he was still some kind of Leftie) was always at loggerheads with the various cities and districts. We dreamed of a unified transport authority for the whole region.

        1. So? We don’t have that unity now. We have AT and Council and Govt. That’s not very unified.

          All we got was some geographic unity. And nobody is proposing to undue that, and give the power to the local boards or whatnot.

      2. > Auckland City Council had big plans for Dominion Road before AT took over, had that been built a decade ago it could have transformed the area I live in much more than 13 years of dreaming has

        So true. Instead the area has stagnated and in some ways got worse with more traffic, footpaths crumbling, run-down and abandoned buildings, etc.

      3. i believe the council already has too much of a say and they have already implmented. Too many fines and parking rules. I think they need to put their efforts in working for the people and not against them. so much the council has done the public fought against. and just like the government the council fuses to listen. The council have already destroyed Auckland city andDsre now destroying the NZ roads with overloading them with unecesasary bumps yellow line everywhere. Takes away most parking for residents who have no where to park. The council have wasted huge amounts of money on bike lanes which only get used not even 10 % of the time. They actually do not get used. The people who own bikes dont pay road taxes and dont have any warrant or rego to pay
        The roads are almost un usable foe any car and no longer are enjoyable. The council are ruining and destroying the roads of Auckland.

        1. Most of what you talking about is under AT. Cycleways are being used well if you look at the counts. This should improve as the separated sections everywhere are fully connected. You know, like roads.

        2. “so much the council has done the public fought against”

          You mean the kind of things that always get 50+ percent support in submissions or public perception surveys, but are opposed by a rabid minority which considers that “council have already destroyed Auckland city”?

          Yeah, we know. Claim something a thousand times on social media and talk radio, and it becomes “true”.

        3. Most people (adults) who own a bike also own a car and pay rego. They also pay rates and taxes.

          Most developed countries got over their childish hatred of cyclists and cycleways long ago. Not NZ. Not Auckland.

    3. The issue is that instead of politicians playing politics with transport, we now have bureaucrats doing what they want.

      Politicians doing politics – even if we don’t like their politics – is kinda what we elect them for! And transport is a key key key thing for local politics. The fact that even our most important elected members (mayor and councillor) have to, in effect, beg for their decisions to happen is bizarre, and anti-democratic.

      I am sure I will loathe some decisions taken by various politicians. But at least they need to get elected first.

      1. And if our local bodies were actually democratic – rather than elected by the richest, most conservative 30-40% of the population – then the argument from democracy would mean something.

        Compare Auckland 2007 to Auckland today, I beg of you. Things have improved. Not nearly enough, but I beg you to consider whether if John Banks, Cameron Brewer, George Wood etc. were still in charge of transport, we would have the CRL or unified ticketing.

        1. I don’t think you’re wrong about the risks and pitfalls of this.

          Pointing out this though: a child in Auckland in 2023 has a worse transport environment than a child in 2007 did, and while AT isn’t the only cause of the deterioration, had they performed their role as transport expert, we wouldn’t be where we are today.

        2. “then the argument from democracy would mean something.”

          This is not an “argument from democracy” or any logical or rhetorical move.

          It is a basic requirement of representative democracy that key decisions need to be made by elected politicians. Which we currently do not have – decisions are made by bureaucrats with appointments at so many removes from the politicians nominally in charge that in my view it is simply not acceptable.

          And if these bureaucrats screw up, politicians have a ready-made excuse too. It is simply poisonous both ways.

      2. The only reason that AT appears to do what it wants and is “unaccountable” is that Council does not use the levers it already has (re funding).
        Council can right now actively set AT’s priorities by
        (1) actively using the Letter of Expectation process, and
        (2) using the annual funding process

        Through these two mechanisms AC could have a whole lot more control than it currently chooses to exercise. Remember, a few years ago, Goff and his Council sent back the AT Statement of Intent and demanded it more closely reflect Council priorities. This should be happening every year if the Statement of Intent does not match the expectations set out in the Mayor’s Letter if Expectation (which is debated and amended as necessary by Council).

        And re funding: AC holds the whip hand, already. If they decide not to fund a project on the AT list, it ain’t getting done.

        AT has many inadequacies, but rather than seeking to reinvent the wheel, Council would be much better to use the powers it already has. Why don’t they?

        And all the talk of how “unaccountable” AT is: it’s purely and simply because AC does not hold them to account. I don’t blame AT, I blame AC.

        1. Maybe it’s just kind of a post decision making & extreme measure to withhold funding that’s it’s not really been used.

    4. So what you wanted was a non-democratic organisation that did exactly what you wanted and what you got was a non-democratic organisation that did what you don’t want. Why do I find that funny?

      1. It’s just a pity – and a sign of dysfunction in NZ – that we seem further away than ever from understanding when to use political and expert-led decision-making in transport, and how the interaction between them should occur.

        Methods once considered “the best available” are now understood to be biased and undemocratic, so it’s unethical to continue using them, but we do. Better democratic methods are available, but are imperfect, and have to be chosen well for the different levels and stages of decision-making.

        Improving the wellbeing of future generations and less-advantaged people should be determined by less frequent, deeper, more expert-led, robust processes. It is democratic to structure things to allow these longer-term, more fundamental values not to be overturned by parochial or populist politicians or politician-like bureaucrats, nor by the more frequent, lighter-touch processes involved in implementing each project in turn.

        AT as a delivery arm could work, with strategy determined by well-structured political oversight of bureaucrats situated in either Council or in AT.

        Although we don’t have a functioning AT, AT Board, wider transport sector, nor a Council in which the “narrative” used to “bring the public along” is usually implemented in actual strategy, we can set this up.

        History shows that societies have remade themselves over and over again. It’s time to pull some things apart and rebuild, and to start trusting in our abilities as a society to do good. Most people care.

        1. We wouldn’t get “well structured political oversight” we would get petty decisions based mostly on politicians chasing the votes they need to get re-elected. Pushing for things that mostly benefit the car driving boomers who vote in local government elections.
          Much better to have the structure we have and push AT to live up to the expectations set for it – to do the best things for transport even if they aren’t vote winners

        2. You could be right.

          The point is, though, that either avenue requires better accountability and better governance. Why believe the existing situation is the better one for establishing those improvements? Just because it’s easier to ‘tweak’…? Maybe. But then, there’s a lot to tweak.

        3. Because politicians with short term incentives to remain popular and gain votes is the major problem if you want transport solutions to be delivered that are not aligned with the majority voting public. You seem to typically blame the agencies and their mgmt. I am convinced that AT and WK would deliver to strategy if they were not accountable to politicians or political and public backlash. What would become clear very quickly is how misaligned the strategic direction is with the voting majority view and how a politician who supports high level direction does not support the implementation of those things in reality. And if strategy were being implemented in practice you might all of a sudden find that the strategy becomes much more watered down because politicians will no longer have that safety net, much like how TERP is softened any time it matters. Somehow there needs to be a non-politically driven strategy and allocation of funding. For example say AT set the strategy with experts and evidence and without political alignment. Imagine the outcry! But that is the structure that I reckon would likely the best long term transport future.

        4. It comes down to AT management understanding that transport experts have a responsibility to be change agents. Currently they don’t seem to understand the importance of demonstration in assisting the civic discussion.

  5. Wayne Brown may just get my vote at the next council election. The cogs are starting to turn, sometimes they turn the wrong way but at least its clearing out the rust. Hopefully he rips up every one of those planning documents and goes full dictator style, I’d rather see some spades in the ground than just plans and policies on paper. He has by far the most sensible response to the harbour crossing.

    1. … wow. I wonder whether this is an example of Poe’s Law – a parody so on-the-nose that it’s indistinguishable from the real thing. “Let’s let a Right-wing dictator rip everything up because we’re tied of the bureaucrats” – because that worked so well in the US, 2016-2020.

      Nothing good has ever come from such sentiments, and I am worried that this blog has turned to encouraging such sentiments. Maybe we need a new Urbanist movement in Auckland, one which says “neither NIMBYs nor dictatorships”.

      1. Wayne Brown is no Trump, he is surprising me with a level of sensibility at times. Do you think its OK for Labour to dictate multi billion dollar projects that we don’t need because they are left wing? We need someone to have spine, sensibility, and to get things done, we don’t need more consultation, planning and excuses, most of the solutions are obvious. If the only option is the right wing because the left is too useless, then so be it I say.

  6. The final SOI is there as well for approval or non-approval by Council: https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2023/08/20230817_TICCC_ATT_11401.HTM#PDF3_Attachment_93828_1

    It still has a section using an electioneering slogan “Getting the Basics Right” that wasn’t in the Letter of Expectation, and indicates what the SOI Is really responding to. The “basics” also do not include

    The Council feedback was very strong on the need to implement TERP. Does the SOI reflect that? Well, it’s been provided in an unsearchable format – thanks for nothing – and it’s probably not worth the time to scrutinise it closely… but what I can see is:

    Council’s concerns about implementing the TERP are supposedly addressed on pages 13 and 20. Page 13 is a continuation of AT’s Can’t-Do-And-Don’t-Understand-How. Page 20 lists the following:

    Work towards the TERP by:
    – Completing, in collaboration with Council and key partners, a Vehicle Kilometres Reduction Plan to define specific interventions and progress implementation where funding is available.
    – Completing AT’s Sustainability Strategy and setting organisational operational and embedded emissions targets relative to TERP targets to focus effort and transport system intervention design
    – Embedding consideration of carbon emission reduction and adaptation measures and targets into AT organisational systems and processes.

    This is hopeless. I hope the Council decline to approve it. There’s nothing indicating a shift in direction with quick delivery of road reallocation, LTNs and all the easiest safety stuff. There’s no indication AT will follow the specific direction given in the TERP on changing **how AT approaches transport planning**.

    1. Why is the Council staff recommendation to approve this, when it is so weak?

      AT have lowered the cycle counts baseline and reset the annual increase to 2.5%, to reflect budget reductions. The Council Transport Strategy Team will know that a lot of the needed increase in cycling doesn’t even require budget – just better decision-making – and that the budget can be easily diverted for better outcomes.

      Council shouldn’t accept this – the Council staff shouldn’t be recommending that Councillors do approve it.

      The Council staff even put in the recommendations: “Auckland Transport will continue to monitor estimated greenhouse gas emissions and this will be reported regularly to council.” Whereas all I see is that they will be measuring: “Reduction in operational emissions”.

      If this is all that the AC comment about continuing to monitor estimated ghg emissions is based on, then Councillors are being incorrectly advised.

  7. Im not sure about the proposed structure but as it stands AT and Waka Kotahi/NZTA regularly oppose Auckland Council over NORs, employing consultant planners, lawyers and technical specialists to fight the council, including over matters that are trivial or should be settled by caucusing. Council staff charge their time back to the applicants. Having represented AC on these I sometimes get the impression that the consultants are leading the process, and acting in self interest, rather than the applicants. This is a ridiculous situation. On points of significant disagreement yes it may need to be settled by commissioners but having a consultant planner arguing (incorrectly) in evidence over a macron on a Maori place-name (which I experienced once) is just madness

  8. There is no reason why Auckland should not just be the same as all other Unitary Councils.
    Everywhere else it is the Regional Council who is responsible for Transport Planning and they then work with their respective local councils.
    In the 6 Unitary Councils in NZ (regional and local combined like Auckland) it is still the Councils who do Transport Planning and not their transport delivery arm – some of which is contracted out.

    A simple amendment to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 would be the easiest and fastest and align with what the norm is across NZ.
    That leaves transport planning decisions with Councils and the Mayor has just one vote, plus the casting vote.

    1. That’s exactly what we have in Wellington, and LGWM is their vehicle for getting action underway. Certainly nothing is moving down here. We’ve been stymied for years! The only answer is to have ONE organisation, not several. It may not give you the answers that you want, but at least something will be done.

    2. I agree strongly with CCRG and have been saying this since the Super City structure was imposed on us by central government. Why should Auckland have a lesser standard of control over transport planning than any other region? Prior to 2010 every region had a Regional Land Transport Plan (revised every 3 years) which was drawn up and approved by its Regional Land Transport Committee (which included a representatives of the constituent local bodies and a few relevant sector groups such as PT operators, active modes (walking, cycling), freight operators, etc) after a period of public consultation. Aucklanders should have the same right to political and community accountability as every other citizen. There will never be a perfect system but the current ‘behind the scenes’ approach is not working. But the Mayor’s suggestion of putting him in charge would be even worse. A simple law change to have the RLTC system apply in all regions would be a good start

    3. Yes. I agree. Transport planning is always political exercise and it should be overseen by elected people. Mark Ford didn’t agree, he felt he ran water better with very limited oversight so he set up AT to be similar. The ‘something must be done” lunatics don’t like politicians being in charge but even doing nothing is better that doing the wrong thing really well. AT was a massive mistake, the sooner they are gone the better.

        1. If the goal is to ram things through. But if the goal is to figure out what is needed then Transit NZ was a failure. These were the people who built bridges with footpaths on one side to save money and claimed kids could cross the road twice. More often they would build a road with no footpath at all.

        2. Miffy, you can’t seriously think that WK are better at figuring out what is needed than Transit????

          I didn’t want to devolve to examples, but whatever.
          Waka Kotahi are steaming ahead with Otaki to North of Levin. Spending significantly more than Transits entire yearly budget, 1.5 billion, on one of the most expensive (per km) flatland highways in the world. 0.2ish BCR including WEBs.

          Even if you ignore the vast opportunity cost of the lives you could save with that kind of cash by upgrading existing highways all over the country, it’s still a disgraceful net economic looser for the country.

          RONS were mostly losers, Labours continuation is even worse, RONS 2.0 are truly laughable (if I didn’t inevitably have to pay for it and basically never use it, I’m crying actually). Waka Kotahi officially are the ones selecting all these projects.

        3. The Rons are because successive governments wanted them. The Clark government gave up on economic analysis and skewed project selection, the next governments carried on down that path. Transit NZ was always the old National Roads Board let off the chain. They had a policy of not building footpaths on state highways, they were extremely cheap on safety and they continued the national tradition of focusing they money of getting piggy to market for the farmers. Worst they used to claim they were ‘claiming back the arterials’ which meant making sure access was impossible on roads they had taken from local communities. No one should miss those rat-bags.

  9. As I was walking home yesterday I was daydreaming about the political biographies I’d write if I wasn’t interminably lazy. The four relevant ones were:

    * Bridges to Disaster
    * Public Enemy: the Phil Twyford story
    * Share and Share Alike: the unauthorised biography of Michael Wood
    * Chris and Anti-Chris

    AT might be a disaster class itself but it’s offences against Auckland pale into insignificance in comparison to the calibre of transport/urban policy of our politicians.

    By all means, burn AT to the ground and start over… though frankly I’m not sure AT is quite as bad as Waka Kotahi, which definitely has got to go… but putting the strategy into the hands of the megaproject mad, kneejerk carbrained politicians is not a good idea. You don’t need a political memory longer than a month to see that.

    1. Very funny 🙂

      I think AT do a much better job than Waka Kotahi, who seem to do whatever they want and not be accountable to anyone.

      Whatever happened to Patrick Reynolds? I thought he was going to sort out WK? Seems like Phil and Julie Anne wasted a nice dinner on someone that never walked the walk.

    2. Whirlsler, how about another couple of titles to add to your series:
      – ReJoyce, we have MoreRONS!
      – No rails in Brownlee’s Brownfields

  10. AT was created by Rodney Hide, a former ACT party politician. Wayne Brown, a famously disliked former mayor of the Far North, is considerably less young than the aforementioned retired ACT party politician.

    I believe that Rodney Hide still chuckles about the mess he created in our Queen City, and given that Mayor Brown’s campaign was based on FIX, a monosyllabic word that babies probably learn third after mum, dad, and before DIY in our DNA, I don’t believe he is anything other than an ageing misogynist.

    So, objectively, two men are historically and presently responsible for the current situation with Auckland Transport.

    Mike Lee was also rather unhelpful at AT Board Meetings, so another man, historically and presently responsible for the mess at Auckland Transport.

    We now have a King somewhere in the British Isles, the leaders of all of our political parties are men (a couple have Hine co-leaders at least); and the mayor of the biggest town in the motu is older than the average grandpa. How is this teaching any young person about democracy?

    Pale stale males have never done anything except write their names on stone plaques at the entrances to stone buildings.

    Would it be possible for a woman to review the Auckland Transport situation, as their departing board member Izzy did at one of their recent Board Meetings? Because her perspective was incredibly accurate.

    I am just a man but are we not beyond man-splaining yet?

    1. Pale stale mayors? Former mayor Len Brown did much for Auckland City by persuading a notoriously anti-rail government (the John Key National government), to support and part-fund the City Rail Link. He may have had his faults (pale and stale not being among them), but he certainly helped set Auckland on a modern trajectory. A shout out to Len Brown!

  11. Mayor and Minister of Transport Joint transport committee

    Wayne and Simeon Brown driving Aucklands Transport Future.


  12. Have to agree with the Mayor from the point of view that – Integrated Land Use / Transport Planning is much better achieved under a single organization.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *