Manning interviews Lyin’ Len

Selwyn Manning interviewed Len Brown this week. There is plenty to pick apart from the sad little lying Mayor. Sorry to inflict this at breakfast but better to just lose breakfast rather than lunch as well:

The interview examines the first term vision of establishing an economic case for a modern rail network, establishing a 30 year plan for Auckland, and will notes how in August 2012 it was announced Auckland City is ranked number 10 in the Economist Index. At the time, the mayor tweeted: ?there is still lots of work to be done to be the most liveable city? and listed these points:

A world class integrated transport system,
A quality compact city,
An economic powerhouse providing jobs for all our people,
Protection for our built and natural environment.

The interview examines what can be achieved, at what cost, and for what gain.

Andrew Williams starts his campaign with a lie

It is bad enough that Andrew Williams even got elected last time around, he has been nothing short of a disaster for the North Shore making any news more about his incontinence and drinking and mad rantings whilst under the influence in the middle of the night. It has cost ratepayers dearly, literally millions,? having mayor drunk in charge of a city.

Now he wants another turn at the trough. He won’t get there in the mayoralty stakes so he has stood in Albany Ward in an attempt to have a safety net.

This is one of the reasons I have stood in Albany Ward, to make sure that the Clown of Campbells Bay will have someone to hold him to account at every candidates meeting, someone who isn’t afraid to call him on his bluster a, bullying and bullshit.

And it is bullshit that we now turn to. In registering for the elections he has filed on his candidate return that his “ticket” or affiliation is “Independent Progressive Leadership“. Under section 57 of the Local Electoral Act 2001;

Affiliation of candidate
(1)?If an electoral officer is in any doubt about a candidate’s eligibility to claim an affiliation, the electoral officer may require the candidate to produce evidence sufficient to satisfy the electoral officer of the candidate’s eligibility to claim that affiliation.
(2)?If an electoral officer considers that the candidate is not eligible to claim an affiliation or that the affiliation claimed might cause offence to a reasonable person or is likely to cause confusion to or mislead electors,?

(a)?the electoral officer must, after consultation with the candidate, allow the affiliation that the electoral officer and the candidate agree on to appear on voting documents in place of the affiliation specified in the notice of nomination; or (b)?if the consultation referred to in paragraph (a) does not result in agreement or is not reasonably practicable to undertake, the electoral officer must not allow any affiliation in respect of that candidate to appear on voting documents.

(3)?In this section, an affiliation is an endorsement by any organisation or group (whether incorporated or unincorporated).

Now I tried to have my affiliation as Whale oil Beef Hooked and this was rejected, I might add after a pleasant discussion with Dale Ofsoske the Returning Officer. His explanations to me was entirely reasonable and consistent with the law. Section 55 also covers affiliation:

Nomination of candidates
(1)?Any 2 electors who are qualified to nominate a candidate may nominate a person who is qualified to be a candidate as a candidate at an election?

(a)?in the prescribed manner; and

(b)?before 12?noon on nomination day (the close of nominations).

(2)?An electoral officer must not accept the nomination of a candidate unless?

(a)?the person nominated, by notice in writing, consents to nomination and certifies that he or she is qualified to be a candidate under section 25 and is not disqualified under section 58; and

(b)?the person nominated is qualified to be a candidate; and

(ba)?each of the persons who nominated the candidate are persons other than the candidate; and

(c)?the persons who nominated the candidate are qualified to nominate the candidate; and

(d)?the nomination complies with subsections (1) and (4); and

(e)?the electoral officer?

(i)?receives the deposit prescribed for the applicable class of elections; and

(ii)?receives that deposit before 12?noon on nomination day.

(3)?The consent and certification required by subsection (2)(a)?

(a)?need not be given at the time when the nomination paper is lodged but, if given separately from the nomination paper, must be given before the close of nominations; and

(b)?may be given in a manner other than in writing that is approved by the electoral officer, if the person concerned is outside New Zealand.

(4)?A nomination under subsection (1) must state?

(a)?the name under which the candidate is seeking election:

(b)?any organisation or group with which the candidate claims to be affiliated for the purposes of identifying that affiliation in the voting documents at the election:

(c)?whether or not a candidate who does not claim any affiliation referred to in paragraph (b) wishes to be identified in the voting documents at the election as an independent candidate.

(5)?Any person may inspect any nomination or consent without payment of any fee at any time during ordinary office hours at the office of the electoral officer.

As you can see from the legislation, an affiliation is defined as an endorsement by any organization or group (whether incorporated or unincorporated). Also, if a candidate does not wish to claim an affiliation he/she can be identified as an independent candidate (subsection 4).

Dale Ofsoske has responded to an elector via email complaining about the affiliation of a number of candidates, including that of Andrew Williams. His emails said:

Where a submitted affiliation did not meet the above legal requirements, the candidate was contacted and either asked to reconsider their affiliation or asked to provide evidence that the claimed affiliation represents a group or organisation. I have rejected quite a number of non-complying affiliations and sought a number of letters of authority to use an affiliation.

Turning now to your concerns. I will respond to the named examples:

  1. Independent Progressive Leadership (Andrew Williams). When this nomination was lodged (Friday morning) I spoke to the candidate about this affiliation and was advised that this represented a team. I took this on face value and did not seek a letter of authority.
  2. Christians Against Abortion (Phil O?Connor). This has been used for at least the last 3 triennial elections and my understanding this does represent a group.
  3. The Voice of our Community (Mike Padfield) has been accepted, but is borderline and probably should not have been.
  4. Proudly Independent (Julia Parfitt) is a group of two, but if this had been one individual, this would have been accepted as section 55(4)(c) does not require the word ?Independent? must be used, but the candidate can be identified as an independent – so I have allowed an adjective before the word ?Independent?..
  5. Putting People First (Wayne Walker) is a group (letter has been provided)
  6. East Coast Bays Independent (Heather Brown). As for 4 above.

Now this is interesting. You can see that the Returning Officer has been very studious in his deliberations but also that he has phoned Williams and been given an explanation that Independent Progressive Leadership represents a team. This is quite simply a lie. There are no other candidates in the whole of new Auckland boundaries standing anywhere, including within the former North Shore city boundaries with this affiliation. Not a one.

Auckland Council Mayoral Candidates (PDF 36k)

Auckland Council Local Board Candidates (PDF 35k)

Auckland Council Ward Councillor Candidates (PDF 17k)

District Health Board Candidates (PDF 14k)

Licensing Trust Candidates (PDF 16k)

If you look at The Clown’s website you will see that “Independent Progressive Leadership” is his slogan.? There is no society, registered or unregistered organization with that name, nor any other candidates. For him to say that this moniker represents a team when it is nothing more than a slogan shows the baseness that exists within Andrew Williams and his propensity to lie when confronted with cold hard reality. With over over 700 nominations for the Auckland Council, district health boards and licensing trusts Andrew Williams “team” is just him, unless of course he is including Messrs. Daniels, Beam and Walker.

I challenge Andrew Williams to show us this team, to show us his members and to show us the endorsement as required by law, or simply retire from the election being a proven liar.

He has simply lied to Dale Ofsoske about his affiliation. The man knows no shame, he needs to be tossed from office. This is why I am standing in Albany, to remove liars from office.

Vote Slater – Albany – Keeping the Buggers Honest

Vote Slater - Albany - Auckland - Keeping the Buggers Honest

When is a struggling Kiwi really a struggling Kiwi

Labour it seems have put their mis-leading GST brochure out around the country. I blogged on it in regard to Ruth Dyson advocating the complete removal of GST, it now looks like the whole of Labour are advocating that.

Worse though is one of their little stories about a struggling Kiwi family failing to make ends meet.

Lying Labour fails to disclose details

Lying Labour fails to disclose details

Do you think Labour knew that the hardworking everyday Pacific Island family featuring one Mote Pahulu… is the same Mote Pahulu standing for the Manurewa Action Team ticket, the same ticket that also features George Hawkins in the supercity elections. I wonder too if he is the same Mote Pahulu who is also on the Wiri Licensing Trust, presumably earning meeting fees for his work there.

Why don’t Labour declare fully affliations of people in their brochures. Mote Pahulu is not some random islander they picked off the street, he is a Labour activist reading rehearsed lines on command.

Citizen A – 7pm tonight

Citizen A

Citizen A – 7pm tonight Triangle TV, replayed 8pm Sunday Sky 89 & Freeview 21

Tune in to join Bomber and his revolving panel of bloggers as they offer an up-to-date half hour review of the political media issues of the current week from a very Auckland perspective.

THIS WEEK: Who will win the SuperCity, What would a Laws and Peters NZ First look like and wikileaks – what are we doing in Afghanistan again?

And me of course with Tim Selwyn….so I guess you could call it the beardy weirdy show.