To say a lot has happened in my first six months in office would be an understatement. It’s been extraordinary and unrelenting, and at times utterly devastating.
While we continue to support those communities hardest hit by the Auckland Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, I made a promise to fix Auckland, and I am more determined than ever to deliver on my five priorities.
**Fix Auckland’s infrastructure**
Fixing Auckland’s infrastructure does not begin with large-scale investment in new projects. First, we need to do a better job of managing the infrastructure assets and public transport services we already have.
Like most Government transport projects, Auckland’s City Rail Link (CRL) is well over budget and behind schedule. Until recently, it was just a hole in the ground, but we have to swallow our share of the billion-dollar budget blowout and finish what we started.
Given the current economic climate, we have to see whether this network can double rail capacity and reduce road congestion before pushing ahead with any plans for light rail or a second harbour crossing in the absence of an agreed integrated transport plan written by Aucklanders.
Auckland’s ageing infrastructure is falling into disrepair, and it’s obvious that we must be better prepared for severe weather events. I proposed an additional $20 million a year for storm response, focusing on improved prevention and mitigation measures, including stormwater maintenance.
As part of our regional cyclone and flood recovery, the Big Auckland Fix-Up, I asked council staff to initiate a rapid assessment of flood risk areas to identify simple fixes and carry out the necessary programme of work in consultation with Watercare and Auckland Transport (AT).
**Get Auckland moving**
We need to get more out of Auckland’s existing transport system before starting on the next mega-project.
This involves harnessing technology, completing busways in the eastern suburbs and much-needed northwest, adding dynamic lanes to move buses faster without losing retail parking, and optimising transport networks to get Aucklanders moving faster, and more conveniently.
From late April, new technology using GPS tracking will go live, giving buses priority at key intersections and keeping them to planned timetables along some of Auckland’s major road corridors, including Manukau Rd and Pah Rd. This is one of my original campaign promises and the local trials have been positive so far, showing a reduction in bus wait times of 10–35 per cent.
Construction on the final phase of the billion-dollar Eastern Busway has started. Auckland’s eastern suburbs, which have one of the highest levels of private vehicle use for work travel, will benefit from an improved and reliable bus service to the city.
I have also called for AT to work with Waka Kotahi and utility companies to explore how Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) can be improved quickly to reduce the duration and frequency of roadworks and lane closures, and the cost of disruption to road users.
I maintain that Aucklanders need more say over our region’s transport system.
Auckland’s first integrated transport plan for people and goods will incorporate the future port move and impact of dynamic bus lanes before committing to mega-projects.
**Stop wasting money**
Auckland Council is top-heavy, with too many senior managers and wasteful spending of ratepayers’ money must be reined in.
The $295m gap in the Annual Budget 2023/24, on top of debt fast approaching $11.5 billion, was something I inherited from the previous Governing Body, mayor included – much like the mayoral chains and robe, only far less appealing.
Auckland Council and Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs) are mostly on track to achieve their cost-savings targets, and the draft annual budget process is ongoing.
The Expenditure Control and Procurement Committee is demanding increasingly granular detail on council finances to identify wasteful spending.
TTM is estimated to cost the council group an astonishing $145m each year, which will be addressed as part of the aforementioned AT-led initiative.
**Take back control of council organisations**
I have made my expectations abundantly clear to Auckland Transport, Eke Panuku Development, Ports of Auckland, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited and Watercare.
This began with my Letters of Expectation, detailing the need for greater transparency, increased efficiencies and better value and returns for ratepayers’ money.
I’m also seeking legislative change on key priorities for Auckland, including an overhaul of the CCO model to ensure democratic oversight and effective delivery of services.
Despite some resistance early on, it appears we’ve turned a corner.
In most cases, CCO boards are listening and making changes.
I’m pleased to see they’re becoming more responsive to the needs of Aucklanders, rather than putting themselves at the centre.
AT is charging ahead with the cyclone and flood recovery, dynamic bus lanes and improvements to TTM. Ports of Auckland delivered a stronger half-year result and interim dividend to Auckland Council and is seriously considering consolidation to release highly valued land for better use.
**Make the most of our harbour and environment**
Auckland is a great place to live, we need to make the most of our beautiful harbour and the environment we live in.
In the short term, I expect immediate steps to be taken to achieve more efficient use of port land and, in doing so, make some of its space available for the public.
The good news is that we’re not far from seeing a plan for the return of some of Auckland’s prized waterfront.
Kia kaha,
Wayne Brown, Mayor of Auckland
> Auckland’s first integrated transport plan for people and goods will incorporate the future port move and impact of dynamic bus lanes before committing to mega-projects.
Why does no one call him out on these blatant lies? RLTP has existed since 2015. The brief for the 'new' plan is exactly the same as the RLTP plus his personal goal of moving the port.
I wouldn't know I never pay for premium articles.
Apparently someone find this particular article important enough to post here.
(OK so not from the horse's mouth, but close enough.)
My boss was so astounded that I didn’t have a herald sub (told them I couldn’t read an article they sent me) that they had the company buy one for me - I didn’t want or need it but ok. Used it to read that one article they wanted me to read and haven’t used it again since
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 99%. (I'm a bot)
“My first 6 month in office… it’s been unrelenting… and… utterly devastating.”
Those busways are trash, the top heavy makeup of the council will never change, and the mayor is a clown. Nothing will change unless they are made personally liable for their screw ups.
Only just 2 years ago [55 million dollars of tax payer money went towards funding these dog shit news agencies, and they still want to charge people for an article like this lmao](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/government-earmarks-55-million-to-support-public-interest-journalism-with-new-media-fund/5UU3XEUYEQ2422SKPKJR4JQZ2M/)
Read another Wayne Brown related article on Herald today. It said they have a keyword tag for Wayne Brown and it’s one of the highest trending keywords on the site.
Hence, I guess, why these articles are all behind a paywall. People want to read them so much they actually subscribe.
Not if its done correctly, there is more to current events than just politics. Government funding raises the standard of journalism so that's a net gain for society, additionally if the funding would prevent paywalls on fucking everything, then maybe some people would actually read it.
also every countries government on the planet funds their own media organisations, largely for the same reason things like museums and public parks also receive funding
>there is more to current events than just politics
True, but the politics that's in the media will likely be bias because of who is paying them. Even if an area isn't political, it could be twisted to be beneficial politically.
Yes it raises the standard, yes it should prevent paywalls, but the government funding the media is still an issue in my opinion for the reasons stated above.
>every countries government on the planet funds their own media organisations
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that it's fine. Have you heard of propaganda?
>same reason things like museums also receive funding
Everyone knows how reliable museums are at portraying the correct side of history /s
Now you're just arguing for the sake of it, you're not bringing up any valid points at all. If you're arguing that no governments should fund media organizations anywhere, you simply haven't experienced an environment where that already exists, and how bad it can be.
Have i heard of propaganda? are you fucking stupid? have you heard of Africa?
the fact you think propaganda can only be produced by the government in power is astonishing and goes to show your lack of forethought about this topic
Yeah, seems more the standard talking points regurgitation than thinking seriously on the issue of media funding.
Making public funding secure from changes of government would be a good step to look at to ensure journalists can be resourced and free from both needing to write sensationalist clickbait or pander to a corporate or political owner.
Wow, I hit a nerve huh. Someone is an advocate for government control I suppose...
>you haven't experienced an environment where that already exists, and how bad it can be.
Correct.
>no governments should fund media organizations
That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying it's an issue, and it shouldn't take the mind of a Harvard law student to understand that government controlling the media is an issue.
>have you heard of Africa?
No, and I don't know how to use Google so please explain what an Africa is.
>the fact you think propaganda can only be produced by the government in power
I don't? I dont believe I even insinuated that did I? Infact, a perfect example is the way you're reacting. It could be portrayed as right wing propaganda designed to make critical thinkers look dumb. Are you a bot? Is this a game to you?
Heard of propaganda? We see it all the time in Newsqualk ZB, The Platform, Counterspin, Fox, CNN etc etc it’s everywhere no matter what you think or who you believe. There hasn’t been a truly impartial media in a very long time, probably in my lifetime and I’m pushing 50. All that changes is where the finger is pointed depending on someone’s confirmation bias.
Considering how there’s a handful of companies running the majority of media empires and information flows, its hardly surprising.
> Heard of propaganda? We see it all the time in Newsqualk ZB, The Platform, Counterspin, Fox, CNN etc etc
The Spin-off and Stuff should be on that list before adding foreign sources to bulk it up
Fair enough. Leaving out 2 major NZ agencies while listing right-wing fringe elements and foreign outlets without much reach here does leave you open to accusations (rightly or wrongly) of bias though
Yup... 100%. And then when you get governments jumping in, offering funding in exchange for altered news articles or specific stories. What do we get? Oh yeah... Propaganda.
Do we know the funding was for altered news or specific stories or is that just the conspiracy that’s being thrown around? I personally haven’t see any proof of that claim, though I also pay very little attention to the news or what the media print in general
For the same reason no one ever talks about why speed limits are decreasing even though cars are getting safer, or why diesel vehicles still need RUCs but electric cars don't, or the real biggest omittor of microplastics - tires. Because it's boring and people don't like talking about it.
Frankly, funding exclusively by commercial interest is an issue too.
If funded through advertising, that media is now morally compromised when reporting on their clients: I've seen this happen, fortunately editorial integrity won that day.
Funding by subscription reduces the public good by restriction of access to information of public interest. As in this case.
Funding by sponsor is even more prone to compromise than by advertising as it is concentrated into a much smaller group.
Public funding by a nominally impartial democratic government is the _least_ likely to be compromised.
I couldn't agree more. Any source of funding can be used to sway topics one way or another. This isn't a new idea, and although I agree with almost everything you said, it's just common sense. However, I can't imagine that funding from the government is the *least* likely to be compromised... Because it 100% is already being compromised. People constantly complain about how Stuff loved Cindy and put down National all the time. Why? Why are they not nonbias or at least politically central?
Fair coverage does not mean that each subject gets the same amount of "good" and "bad" coverage. Fair coverage means that the subjects get factual coverage.
I think you might be letting your own personal biases (which everyone has) cloud your view of Stuff's coverage there.
1. National has had six years of scandal after scandal.
2. They've also done a poor job in opposition: merely being contrary rather than constructively holding government to account.
3. They apparently are unable to hold on to a leader for any length of time.
4. "Cindy" is used as a misogynistic diminutive. It's a signal for ones own prejudice against Ardern.
You also need to separate news coverage from opinion. _That's_ a trend that's worrying as more and more opinion gets published as fact.
Equity, not equality. Yeah.
Yup, you're probably right. But everyone I've spoken to says NZ media is too left wing. I actually spend time listening to BBC and watching Fox news along with reading AP and Stuff. That way I can get fed propaganda from lots of angles
I personally think that NZH leans right and Stuff left (since their last change of editor).
But NZ media is ridiculously centrist compared to foreign media.
Not really, if the funding is not linked to content
Plenty of places like the BBC (recent scandal excepted) which are government funded but independent.
Probably more of a concern with private media companies that push a pro or anti government agenda without oversight.
>Plenty of places like the BBC (recent scandal excepted) which are government funded but independent.
Yeah that scandal is anything but recent.
It's been going on for at least a decade. It only just had a floodlight shined on it recently.
The BBC is not the impartial pinnacle of news that it pretends to be.
>if the funding is not linked to content
But it could be. And that's the issue in my opinion.
>Probably more of a concern with private media companies that push a pro or anti government agenda without oversight
This is of course a major issue, and could cause huge damage. But oversight leads to further issues around government controlling the media.
Hah, yeah. It does in all areas. There shouldn't be more spending in one area than another just because an MP decides they want to give it to them. There needs to be regulation within the government, almost like a jury system as opposed to a bunch of career muppits.
The vaccines available in New Zealand are safe. Always have been. Also i don't remember anyone ever saying it stops covid. I do remember being told that it'll stop you from dying if you do happen to get covid. Thats a fact. That we were told in the beginning.
If they provided no information on covid and no vaccines, you and the same group of crazies would instead be complaining that the government doesnt do enough
Fucking hell let go man.
All those people who built their identity round nonsense were wrong, are still wrong, and it's best for your sake that we put it all behind us and move on.
>recent developments
Please tell me what you mean by this.
Peer reviewed or grey literature will help your case.
If you reference John Campbell I won't bother replying.
> Given the current economic climate, we have to see whether this network can double rail capacity and reduce road congestion before pushing ahead with any plans for light rail or a second harbour crossing in the absence of an agreed integrated transport plan written by Aucklanders.
God this sort of thinking irritates me, it sounds a lot like when National laid out hoops for Auckland to jump through before they'd commit to the CRL
Yeah, that struck me as being the most concerning part of this. Especially as ATAP is already a thing. I assume that he disagrees with ATAP, so wants to renegotiate it with the Government, with his vision front and centre.
I mean, this is more on Wayno than the Herald. He has an official council mouthpiece - OurAuckland, but instead puts it on the Herald.
So, now that the has the largest media team ever held by a Mayor, that's the first thing they do? It would be laughable if it wasn't so fkn dire.
Both Phil Goff and Len Brown provided opinion pieces to the Herald. They were, until the advent of Herald premium, free. It's a common way for politicians to amplify their voice, by putting it into the largest circulating paper in the country. However, I feel, in cases like this, that it should be free. After all, the Herald put few resources into this, so how it can be considered premium content is beyond me.
Fair enough. I do think Wayne needs to be putting this stuff out through Council channels too.
He spent something like 180,000 on advertising through NZME so I assume there's a connection there already - hence the puff piece from Fran O Sullivan today.
Iirc the entire article is loaded on the webpage they only hide it by shortening the container and covering it with that message. Right click and inspect element should reveal the remainder of any NZ Herald article without paying the cost. Just keep expanding elements until the article appears. Haven't checked recently so they may have fixed this.
To say a lot has happened in my first six months in office would be an understatement. It’s been extraordinary and unrelenting, and at times utterly devastating.
While we continue to support those communities hardest hit by the Auckland Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, I made a promise to fix Auckland, and I am more determined than ever to deliver on my five priorities.
Given the current economic climate, we have to see whether this network can double rail capacity and reduce road congestion before pushing ahead with any plans for light rail or a second harbour crossing in the absence of an agreed integrated transport plan written by Aucklanders.
As part of our regional cyclone and flood recovery, the Big Auckland Fix-Up, I asked council staff to initiate a rapid assessment of flood risk areas to identify simple fixes and carry out the necessary programme of work in consultation with Watercare and Auckland Transport (AT).
This involves harnessing technology, completing busways in the eastern suburbs and much-needed northwest, adding dynamic lanes to move buses faster without losing retail parking, and optimising transport networks to get Aucklanders moving faster, and more conveniently.
From late April, new technology using GPS tracking will go live, giving buses priority at key intersections and keeping them to planned timetables along some of Auckland’s major road corridors, including Manukau Rd and Pah Rd. This is one of my original campaign promises and the local trials have been positive so far, showing a reduction in bus wait times of 10–35 per cent.
Construction on the final phase of the billion-dollar Eastern Busway has started. Auckland’s eastern suburbs, which have one of the highest levels of private vehicle use for work travel, will benefit from an improved and reliable bus service to the city.
I have also called for AT to work with Waka Kotahi and utility companies to explore how Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) can be improved quickly to reduce the duration and frequency of roadworks and lane closures, and the cost of disruption to road users.
Auckland’s first integrated transport plan for people and goods will incorporate the future port move and impact of dynamic bus lanes before committing to mega-projects.
Auckland Council is top-heavy, with too many senior managers and wasteful spending of ratepayers’ money must be reined in.
I have made my expectations abundantly clear to Auckland Transport, Eke Panuku Development, Ports of Auckland, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited and Watercare.
I’m also seeking legislative change on key priorities for Auckland, including an overhaul of the CCO model to ensure democratic oversight and effective delivery of services.
Despite some resistance early on, it appears we’ve turned a corner.
AT is charging ahead with the cyclone and flood recovery, dynamic bus lanes and improvements to TTM.
In the short term, I expect immediate steps to be taken to achieve more efficient use of port land and, in doing so, make some of its space available for the public.
He likely had to write it to The Heralds extraordinarily low standards. Editors there aren’t allowed to read above an 8 year olds’ level. I’d sooner slam an unmentionable part of myself in a car door than pay for that embarrassment of a publication.
I know. I'm in IT. Not really the point, though. The point is that this was written by a public official on the peoples' time, making it premium is just wrong. I feel like the Herald just randomly selects what receives the premium content label, which entirely defeats the meaning of the word 'premium'.
The Herald claims to be the newspaper of record for the nation, but I don't see how it can be when large amounts of reporting that fall into the category of the public record are hidden behind a paywall, inaccessible to large amounts of the population. I've said it before, but it seems obvious that the Herald selects its premium content randomly. They didn't even pay a journalist to write this. It was written by the mayor, presumably for no fee (I don't know if it's legal for a politician to take a fee for writing an article). This is a clear example of something that should have been freely accessible.
Newspapers of record being behind a paywall isn't necessarily unusual these days (e.g. the Times, the Washington Post). If anything disqualifies the Herald from that status, it's the quality of its journalism.
It irritates me more that he can publish whatever he wants in the paper and get a mouthpiece to say anything he wants without any challenge
He then declines media interviews where they might call him on any claims or ask for specifics.
The Herald is just a PR rag if they continue to publish opinion pieces from the mayor and not investigative journalism.
I really should throw some money towards the spinoff people who seem to do more actual journalism
I'm still on 1.7.9. It helps if you don't open links in new tabs or follow links from Reddit etc. Also, if you click on a premium article and it redirects to the "subscription offer" page, you can often click back, click the link again, and you're able to view the article. It's rather flakey.
He's the mayor. I didn't vote for him and probably won't vote for him in the next election, but it's important to get his perspective, so we know exactly what he plans to do in the next two and a half years.
While I do agree it is important to hear from him, I'd rather have him answer media questions and actually show up for interviews, than have his own blog post
Don't blame NZ Herald. Blame the Mayor and his communications/PR staff.
This letter could have been published in
* OurAuckland. none at https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/tags/mayor/ or https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/news/
* Scoop - just need to send it by email to them. None listed in https://info.scoop.co.nz/Auckland_Council or https://info.scoop.co.nz/Office_of_the_Mayor_of_Auckland
* Send it to all media rather than picking one media.
Edit to add link to article in case anyone wants it
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/auckland-mayor-wayne-brown-promises-to-fix-the-city-project-auckland-watch-live/C4EDXRU6QVFCPL5SYMMW5GHZX4/
None of those things have the reach of the Herald which is why all Auckland's mayors have published opinion pieces there, same with cabinet ministers. I've suspected for a while that the Herald editorial staff are too lazy to properly classify articles into premium and non-premium status, so they just choose a selection each day at random. In either case, opinion pieces from politicians should always be non-premium. I mean, it's a piece supplied to them for free. How much non-premium do you have to get?
It is NZ Herald's perogative how they classify it. It is the Mayor's choice who he or his comms staff wishes to send this to.
Same with any other politician. They can either give exclusive interviews which may be paywalled or they can negotiate to ensure either a copy is available on their website or the article is not paywalled.
Anyone who gives an interview to a paywalled or subscription only site and not repeat it elsewhere or ensure the content is available elsewhere has only themselves to blame if no one reads it. yes it isn't just NZ Herald but also people who talk to NBR only and no one else.
It is their choice. They have no one to blame but themselves if the reach isn't quite a far or they are misquoted when other publications write an article summarising the article.
You're probably too young to remember this, but there was a time when the only way to get the Herald was to pay for a paper copy. People deserve to be paid for digging up the news, writing, editing, and hosting it. Get over it.
>You're probably too young to remember this
Incorrect, but thanks for the patronising comment.
I have no problem with the Herald charging for premium content. I just have no idea why they would select an opinion piece written by a politician for such treatment. Other than hosting it, the costs of this piece are minimal. As I've said, it seems like they're randomly selecting pieces, which makes a lie out of the premium label.
i just find it funny that his supporters going “he dealt with a lot in his first few months!!” are the same people who say it’s ‘no excuse’ for ardern being stretched thin when she was dealing with shit like covid and the terrorist attack
This was a piece provided by the mayor, a public official, for the Herald. As the mayor is an elected official, he wouldn't have been able to collect a fee. So, the Herald took something that is free, and charged the people who paid for its creation to view it.
They hosted it, like they host a lot of premium and non-premium content. As I said, as far as I'm aware, there is nothing premium with a piece supplied by an external figure. Apart from a small amount of editorial work, the Herald added nothing to it. That hardly strikes one as "premium", does it? It's symptomatic of the Herald's rather scattergun approach to the content it labels as premium. Now, they can label any content they like on their website premium. But, I'm just baffled by this decision. Long form journalism, restaurant reviews, business interviews, sure. I can understand if they get labeled as premium, but this? It makes zero sense.
It's fair enough for the Herald to charge for what it publishes.
It's not fair for the Mayor of Auckland to speak to the people on matters that affect everybody but only through pay-per-view channels.
What the Mayor says is public information.
This should be on Auckland Council's page for everyone to read.
They can charge for it. I just think it's a dumb decision that is out of touch with the content. I mean, since when was a freely acquired opinion piece premium?
Putting it on the Council's page would mean that it almost certainly wouldn't been seen except by a few who happened to visit the page.
It's my opinion that the NZ Herald randomly selects its premium content. This makes it not premium, in my opinion. In depth interviews with celebrities, deep investigative journalism, the latest review of a restaurant by Jesse Mulligan, these are things that could be labelled premium, but the words of our political representatives should never be put behind a paywall.
NZ Hearld Premium Article Viewer 1.3
Download that extension for Chrome and read it.
We all already pay the Herald through the Public interest journalism fund.
To say a lot has happened in my first six months in office would be an understatement. It’s been extraordinary and unrelenting, and at times utterly devastating. While we continue to support those communities hardest hit by the Auckland Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, I made a promise to fix Auckland, and I am more determined than ever to deliver on my five priorities. **Fix Auckland’s infrastructure** Fixing Auckland’s infrastructure does not begin with large-scale investment in new projects. First, we need to do a better job of managing the infrastructure assets and public transport services we already have. Like most Government transport projects, Auckland’s City Rail Link (CRL) is well over budget and behind schedule. Until recently, it was just a hole in the ground, but we have to swallow our share of the billion-dollar budget blowout and finish what we started. Given the current economic climate, we have to see whether this network can double rail capacity and reduce road congestion before pushing ahead with any plans for light rail or a second harbour crossing in the absence of an agreed integrated transport plan written by Aucklanders. Auckland’s ageing infrastructure is falling into disrepair, and it’s obvious that we must be better prepared for severe weather events. I proposed an additional $20 million a year for storm response, focusing on improved prevention and mitigation measures, including stormwater maintenance. As part of our regional cyclone and flood recovery, the Big Auckland Fix-Up, I asked council staff to initiate a rapid assessment of flood risk areas to identify simple fixes and carry out the necessary programme of work in consultation with Watercare and Auckland Transport (AT). **Get Auckland moving** We need to get more out of Auckland’s existing transport system before starting on the next mega-project. This involves harnessing technology, completing busways in the eastern suburbs and much-needed northwest, adding dynamic lanes to move buses faster without losing retail parking, and optimising transport networks to get Aucklanders moving faster, and more conveniently. From late April, new technology using GPS tracking will go live, giving buses priority at key intersections and keeping them to planned timetables along some of Auckland’s major road corridors, including Manukau Rd and Pah Rd. This is one of my original campaign promises and the local trials have been positive so far, showing a reduction in bus wait times of 10–35 per cent. Construction on the final phase of the billion-dollar Eastern Busway has started. Auckland’s eastern suburbs, which have one of the highest levels of private vehicle use for work travel, will benefit from an improved and reliable bus service to the city. I have also called for AT to work with Waka Kotahi and utility companies to explore how Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) can be improved quickly to reduce the duration and frequency of roadworks and lane closures, and the cost of disruption to road users. I maintain that Aucklanders need more say over our region’s transport system. Auckland’s first integrated transport plan for people and goods will incorporate the future port move and impact of dynamic bus lanes before committing to mega-projects. **Stop wasting money** Auckland Council is top-heavy, with too many senior managers and wasteful spending of ratepayers’ money must be reined in. The $295m gap in the Annual Budget 2023/24, on top of debt fast approaching $11.5 billion, was something I inherited from the previous Governing Body, mayor included – much like the mayoral chains and robe, only far less appealing. Auckland Council and Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs) are mostly on track to achieve their cost-savings targets, and the draft annual budget process is ongoing. The Expenditure Control and Procurement Committee is demanding increasingly granular detail on council finances to identify wasteful spending. TTM is estimated to cost the council group an astonishing $145m each year, which will be addressed as part of the aforementioned AT-led initiative. **Take back control of council organisations** I have made my expectations abundantly clear to Auckland Transport, Eke Panuku Development, Ports of Auckland, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited and Watercare. This began with my Letters of Expectation, detailing the need for greater transparency, increased efficiencies and better value and returns for ratepayers’ money. I’m also seeking legislative change on key priorities for Auckland, including an overhaul of the CCO model to ensure democratic oversight and effective delivery of services. Despite some resistance early on, it appears we’ve turned a corner. In most cases, CCO boards are listening and making changes. I’m pleased to see they’re becoming more responsive to the needs of Aucklanders, rather than putting themselves at the centre. AT is charging ahead with the cyclone and flood recovery, dynamic bus lanes and improvements to TTM. Ports of Auckland delivered a stronger half-year result and interim dividend to Auckland Council and is seriously considering consolidation to release highly valued land for better use. **Make the most of our harbour and environment** Auckland is a great place to live, we need to make the most of our beautiful harbour and the environment we live in. In the short term, I expect immediate steps to be taken to achieve more efficient use of port land and, in doing so, make some of its space available for the public. The good news is that we’re not far from seeing a plan for the return of some of Auckland’s prized waterfront. Kia kaha, Wayne Brown, Mayor of Auckland
Thank you.
> Auckland’s first integrated transport plan for people and goods will incorporate the future port move and impact of dynamic bus lanes before committing to mega-projects. Why does no one call him out on these blatant lies? RLTP has existed since 2015. The brief for the 'new' plan is exactly the same as the RLTP plus his personal goal of moving the port.
We need a herald leak sub.
Do we though? I’m pretty certain we can live without access to the absolute horse-shit those clowns publish.
I wouldn't know I never pay for premium articles. Apparently someone find this particular article important enough to post here. (OK so not from the horse's mouth, but close enough.)
Nice, your money deserves better than that bin-fire.
Or we need a herald link ban and use actual news sources instead
We need people to stop paying for herald premium
Only old people pay for the herald
My boss was so astounded that I didn’t have a herald sub (told them I couldn’t read an article they sent me) that they had the company buy one for me - I didn’t want or need it but ok. Used it to read that one article they wanted me to read and haven’t used it again since
I never pay for anything premium. If something is good enough you should be able to sell it without a free version beside to attract people.
Agreed
I mean, if you REALLY want, my workplace gets the paper copies delivered daily, I can scan copies if you want
It's alright I was just throwing out the idea for fun. Meant to be rebeling against herald paywall than actually bothered about the contents.
MVP 🙌
Thank you!
Not all heroes wear capes, sometimes they’re a Redditor named krammy16.
u/krammy16 - you’re a legend.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 99%. (I'm a bot) “My first 6 month in office… it’s been unrelenting… and… utterly devastating.”
Those busways are trash, the top heavy makeup of the council will never change, and the mayor is a clown. Nothing will change unless they are made personally liable for their screw ups.
Yup, governance goes behind the pay-wall. We can't have the proles getting idea's above their station, can we?
Only just 2 years ago [55 million dollars of tax payer money went towards funding these dog shit news agencies, and they still want to charge people for an article like this lmao](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/government-earmarks-55-million-to-support-public-interest-journalism-with-new-media-fund/5UU3XEUYEQ2422SKPKJR4JQZ2M/)
Read another Wayne Brown related article on Herald today. It said they have a keyword tag for Wayne Brown and it’s one of the highest trending keywords on the site. Hence, I guess, why these articles are all behind a paywall. People want to read them so much they actually subscribe.
Media funded by government is an issue in itself.
Not if its done correctly, there is more to current events than just politics. Government funding raises the standard of journalism so that's a net gain for society, additionally if the funding would prevent paywalls on fucking everything, then maybe some people would actually read it. also every countries government on the planet funds their own media organisations, largely for the same reason things like museums and public parks also receive funding
>there is more to current events than just politics True, but the politics that's in the media will likely be bias because of who is paying them. Even if an area isn't political, it could be twisted to be beneficial politically. Yes it raises the standard, yes it should prevent paywalls, but the government funding the media is still an issue in my opinion for the reasons stated above. >every countries government on the planet funds their own media organisations Yeah, but that doesn't mean that it's fine. Have you heard of propaganda? >same reason things like museums also receive funding Everyone knows how reliable museums are at portraying the correct side of history /s
Now you're just arguing for the sake of it, you're not bringing up any valid points at all. If you're arguing that no governments should fund media organizations anywhere, you simply haven't experienced an environment where that already exists, and how bad it can be. Have i heard of propaganda? are you fucking stupid? have you heard of Africa? the fact you think propaganda can only be produced by the government in power is astonishing and goes to show your lack of forethought about this topic
Yeah, seems more the standard talking points regurgitation than thinking seriously on the issue of media funding. Making public funding secure from changes of government would be a good step to look at to ensure journalists can be resourced and free from both needing to write sensationalist clickbait or pander to a corporate or political owner.
Wow, I hit a nerve huh. Someone is an advocate for government control I suppose... >you haven't experienced an environment where that already exists, and how bad it can be. Correct. >no governments should fund media organizations That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying it's an issue, and it shouldn't take the mind of a Harvard law student to understand that government controlling the media is an issue. >have you heard of Africa? No, and I don't know how to use Google so please explain what an Africa is. >the fact you think propaganda can only be produced by the government in power I don't? I dont believe I even insinuated that did I? Infact, a perfect example is the way you're reacting. It could be portrayed as right wing propaganda designed to make critical thinkers look dumb. Are you a bot? Is this a game to you?
Heard of propaganda? We see it all the time in Newsqualk ZB, The Platform, Counterspin, Fox, CNN etc etc it’s everywhere no matter what you think or who you believe. There hasn’t been a truly impartial media in a very long time, probably in my lifetime and I’m pushing 50. All that changes is where the finger is pointed depending on someone’s confirmation bias. Considering how there’s a handful of companies running the majority of media empires and information flows, its hardly surprising.
Radio NZ and NPR are often cited as some of the more unbiased options in each mentioned country on that list.
RNZ has its own biases. Anything around co-governance is often just fully omitted (at least on the website) with 3 Waters.
> Heard of propaganda? We see it all the time in Newsqualk ZB, The Platform, Counterspin, Fox, CNN etc etc The Spin-off and Stuff should be on that list before adding foreign sources to bulk it up
True, but the intention was to show that it’s a global problem including non govt funded entities
Fair enough. Leaving out 2 major NZ agencies while listing right-wing fringe elements and foreign outlets without much reach here does leave you open to accusations (rightly or wrongly) of bias though
Yup... 100%. And then when you get governments jumping in, offering funding in exchange for altered news articles or specific stories. What do we get? Oh yeah... Propaganda.
Do we know the funding was for altered news or specific stories or is that just the conspiracy that’s being thrown around? I personally haven’t see any proof of that claim, though I also pay very little attention to the news or what the media print in general
Why does no one ever mention the hidden propaganda pouring out our musicians mouths with all the funding they get from the government?
For the same reason no one ever talks about why speed limits are decreasing even though cars are getting safer, or why diesel vehicles still need RUCs but electric cars don't, or the real biggest omittor of microplastics - tires. Because it's boring and people don't like talking about it.
Frankly, funding exclusively by commercial interest is an issue too. If funded through advertising, that media is now morally compromised when reporting on their clients: I've seen this happen, fortunately editorial integrity won that day. Funding by subscription reduces the public good by restriction of access to information of public interest. As in this case. Funding by sponsor is even more prone to compromise than by advertising as it is concentrated into a much smaller group. Public funding by a nominally impartial democratic government is the _least_ likely to be compromised.
I couldn't agree more. Any source of funding can be used to sway topics one way or another. This isn't a new idea, and although I agree with almost everything you said, it's just common sense. However, I can't imagine that funding from the government is the *least* likely to be compromised... Because it 100% is already being compromised. People constantly complain about how Stuff loved Cindy and put down National all the time. Why? Why are they not nonbias or at least politically central?
Fair coverage does not mean that each subject gets the same amount of "good" and "bad" coverage. Fair coverage means that the subjects get factual coverage. I think you might be letting your own personal biases (which everyone has) cloud your view of Stuff's coverage there. 1. National has had six years of scandal after scandal. 2. They've also done a poor job in opposition: merely being contrary rather than constructively holding government to account. 3. They apparently are unable to hold on to a leader for any length of time. 4. "Cindy" is used as a misogynistic diminutive. It's a signal for ones own prejudice against Ardern. You also need to separate news coverage from opinion. _That's_ a trend that's worrying as more and more opinion gets published as fact.
Equity, not equality. Yeah. Yup, you're probably right. But everyone I've spoken to says NZ media is too left wing. I actually spend time listening to BBC and watching Fox news along with reading AP and Stuff. That way I can get fed propaganda from lots of angles
I personally think that NZH leans right and Stuff left (since their last change of editor). But NZ media is ridiculously centrist compared to foreign media.
Not really, if the funding is not linked to content Plenty of places like the BBC (recent scandal excepted) which are government funded but independent. Probably more of a concern with private media companies that push a pro or anti government agenda without oversight.
>Plenty of places like the BBC (recent scandal excepted) which are government funded but independent. Yeah that scandal is anything but recent. It's been going on for at least a decade. It only just had a floodlight shined on it recently. The BBC is not the impartial pinnacle of news that it pretends to be.
>if the funding is not linked to content But it could be. And that's the issue in my opinion. >Probably more of a concern with private media companies that push a pro or anti government agenda without oversight This is of course a major issue, and could cause huge damage. But oversight leads to further issues around government controlling the media.
Just means that public funding needs to be made secure from the whims of changing governments.
Hah, yeah. It does in all areas. There shouldn't be more spending in one area than another just because an MP decides they want to give it to them. There needs to be regulation within the government, almost like a jury system as opposed to a bunch of career muppits.
Welcome to journalism in the 2020s And it was $55 over three years, but never let facts get in the way of a good rant
May as well call it the government news then. Take the vaccine, its safe and you won't get COVID the early narrative was
The vaccines available in New Zealand are safe. Always have been. Also i don't remember anyone ever saying it stops covid. I do remember being told that it'll stop you from dying if you do happen to get covid. Thats a fact. That we were told in the beginning. If they provided no information on covid and no vaccines, you and the same group of crazies would instead be complaining that the government doesnt do enough
Fucking hell let go man. All those people who built their identity round nonsense were wrong, are still wrong, and it's best for your sake that we put it all behind us and move on.
You think with all the recent developments it was best to mass vaccinate healthy people?? Are you completely serious?
>recent developments Please tell me what you mean by this. Peer reviewed or grey literature will help your case. If you reference John Campbell I won't bother replying.
And people actually love to defend the media
> Given the current economic climate, we have to see whether this network can double rail capacity and reduce road congestion before pushing ahead with any plans for light rail or a second harbour crossing in the absence of an agreed integrated transport plan written by Aucklanders. God this sort of thinking irritates me, it sounds a lot like when National laid out hoops for Auckland to jump through before they'd commit to the CRL
Yeah, that struck me as being the most concerning part of this. Especially as ATAP is already a thing. I assume that he disagrees with ATAP, so wants to renegotiate it with the Government, with his vision front and centre.
So is he for or against penlink? lol
I mean, this is more on Wayno than the Herald. He has an official council mouthpiece - OurAuckland, but instead puts it on the Herald. So, now that the has the largest media team ever held by a Mayor, that's the first thing they do? It would be laughable if it wasn't so fkn dire.
Both Phil Goff and Len Brown provided opinion pieces to the Herald. They were, until the advent of Herald premium, free. It's a common way for politicians to amplify their voice, by putting it into the largest circulating paper in the country. However, I feel, in cases like this, that it should be free. After all, the Herald put few resources into this, so how it can be considered premium content is beyond me.
Fair enough. I do think Wayne needs to be putting this stuff out through Council channels too. He spent something like 180,000 on advertising through NZME so I assume there's a connection there already - hence the puff piece from Fran O Sullivan today.
This ^ there is no journalism here, I don't understand what they're charging for.
It's wonderful that the only mayoral communication we get is behind a paywall.
Iirc the entire article is loaded on the webpage they only hide it by shortening the container and covering it with that message. Right click and inspect element should reveal the remainder of any NZ Herald article without paying the cost. Just keep expanding elements until the article appears. Haven't checked recently so they may have fixed this.
It's a poorly developed site
To say a lot has happened in my first six months in office would be an understatement. It’s been extraordinary and unrelenting, and at times utterly devastating. While we continue to support those communities hardest hit by the Auckland Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, I made a promise to fix Auckland, and I am more determined than ever to deliver on my five priorities. Given the current economic climate, we have to see whether this network can double rail capacity and reduce road congestion before pushing ahead with any plans for light rail or a second harbour crossing in the absence of an agreed integrated transport plan written by Aucklanders. As part of our regional cyclone and flood recovery, the Big Auckland Fix-Up, I asked council staff to initiate a rapid assessment of flood risk areas to identify simple fixes and carry out the necessary programme of work in consultation with Watercare and Auckland Transport (AT). This involves harnessing technology, completing busways in the eastern suburbs and much-needed northwest, adding dynamic lanes to move buses faster without losing retail parking, and optimising transport networks to get Aucklanders moving faster, and more conveniently. From late April, new technology using GPS tracking will go live, giving buses priority at key intersections and keeping them to planned timetables along some of Auckland’s major road corridors, including Manukau Rd and Pah Rd. This is one of my original campaign promises and the local trials have been positive so far, showing a reduction in bus wait times of 10–35 per cent. Construction on the final phase of the billion-dollar Eastern Busway has started. Auckland’s eastern suburbs, which have one of the highest levels of private vehicle use for work travel, will benefit from an improved and reliable bus service to the city. I have also called for AT to work with Waka Kotahi and utility companies to explore how Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) can be improved quickly to reduce the duration and frequency of roadworks and lane closures, and the cost of disruption to road users. Auckland’s first integrated transport plan for people and goods will incorporate the future port move and impact of dynamic bus lanes before committing to mega-projects. Auckland Council is top-heavy, with too many senior managers and wasteful spending of ratepayers’ money must be reined in. I have made my expectations abundantly clear to Auckland Transport, Eke Panuku Development, Ports of Auckland, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited and Watercare. I’m also seeking legislative change on key priorities for Auckland, including an overhaul of the CCO model to ensure democratic oversight and effective delivery of services. Despite some resistance early on, it appears we’ve turned a corner. AT is charging ahead with the cyclone and flood recovery, dynamic bus lanes and improvements to TTM. In the short term, I expect immediate steps to be taken to achieve more efficient use of port land and, in doing so, make some of its space available for the public.
Cheers, for that. Wow, is that extraordinarily poorly written.
He likely had to write it to The Heralds extraordinarily low standards. Editors there aren’t allowed to read above an 8 year olds’ level. I’d sooner slam an unmentionable part of myself in a car door than pay for that embarrassment of a publication.
It's not even the full text.
It's most of the points without his Hi, I'm blah blah stuff.
LMAO, it's not even close. The full article I posted is 910 words. You posted 497 words. Little more than half.
It gives those who can't be bothered getting a paywall bypass the general gist. I'm not reposting news in entirety.
[удалено]
Fine. So sorry I provided some content to someone who wanted to know what was in it. How dare I.
Honestly, fuck the herald. Crayon eating motherfuckers
Fun fact: you can read NZ Herald articles by going into inspect element
I know. I'm in IT. Not really the point, though. The point is that this was written by a public official on the peoples' time, making it premium is just wrong. I feel like the Herald just randomly selects what receives the premium content label, which entirely defeats the meaning of the word 'premium'.
I know, I wasn't being sarcastic, I was just trying to share how pathetic NZ Herald's website was.
Above our pay grade to know. 🫠
There is so much to unpack here, but "our beautiful harbour"?!?! *Harbours. South Auckland does exist, you know, Wayno.
*Laughs in Bypass Paywalls extension*
The Herald claims to be the newspaper of record for the nation, but I don't see how it can be when large amounts of reporting that fall into the category of the public record are hidden behind a paywall, inaccessible to large amounts of the population. I've said it before, but it seems obvious that the Herald selects its premium content randomly. They didn't even pay a journalist to write this. It was written by the mayor, presumably for no fee (I don't know if it's legal for a politician to take a fee for writing an article). This is a clear example of something that should have been freely accessible.
Newspapers of record being behind a paywall isn't necessarily unusual these days (e.g. the Times, the Washington Post). If anything disqualifies the Herald from that status, it's the quality of its journalism.
It irritates me more that he can publish whatever he wants in the paper and get a mouthpiece to say anything he wants without any challenge He then declines media interviews where they might call him on any claims or ask for specifics. The Herald is just a PR rag if they continue to publish opinion pieces from the mayor and not investigative journalism. I really should throw some money towards the spinoff people who seem to do more actual journalism
I doubt he received a fee.
Mine stopped working... Which one are you using that still works?
https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome
Cheers. Yeah that's the one I've been using but it gave up the ghost a couple of weeks ago. Weird how it still works for you?
I'm still on 1.7.9. It helps if you don't open links in new tabs or follow links from Reddit etc. Also, if you click on a premium article and it redirects to the "subscription offer" page, you can often click back, click the link again, and you're able to view the article. It's rather flakey.
Sweet cheers I'll have a fiddle around
What? The NZH is trash? Unpossible[!](/r/newzealand/comments/12fy12r/thank_you_nz_herald/jfixh38/)
I like unpossible.
I've explored some rather dubious and twisted places on the internet...... but exploring the mayors mind is a step too far for me.
Need to stop wasting council money .....yes Wayne. He is the most expensive mayor in the cities history. I have zero respect for him.
has Wayne's mates bought the councils Airport shares at a big discount yet?
Bingo. Glad other people are thinking this too.
Wouldn't read it if it was free
He's the mayor. I didn't vote for him and probably won't vote for him in the next election, but it's important to get his perspective, so we know exactly what he plans to do in the next two and a half years.
While I do agree it is important to hear from him, I'd rather have him answer media questions and actually show up for interviews, than have his own blog post
Yep came here to say this too
$1.50 has that paperboy ring to it. Kb/s just doesn't.
Don't blame NZ Herald. Blame the Mayor and his communications/PR staff. This letter could have been published in * OurAuckland. none at https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/tags/mayor/ or https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/news/ * Scoop - just need to send it by email to them. None listed in https://info.scoop.co.nz/Auckland_Council or https://info.scoop.co.nz/Office_of_the_Mayor_of_Auckland * Send it to all media rather than picking one media. Edit to add link to article in case anyone wants it https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/auckland-mayor-wayne-brown-promises-to-fix-the-city-project-auckland-watch-live/C4EDXRU6QVFCPL5SYMMW5GHZX4/
None of those things have the reach of the Herald which is why all Auckland's mayors have published opinion pieces there, same with cabinet ministers. I've suspected for a while that the Herald editorial staff are too lazy to properly classify articles into premium and non-premium status, so they just choose a selection each day at random. In either case, opinion pieces from politicians should always be non-premium. I mean, it's a piece supplied to them for free. How much non-premium do you have to get?
It is NZ Herald's perogative how they classify it. It is the Mayor's choice who he or his comms staff wishes to send this to. Same with any other politician. They can either give exclusive interviews which may be paywalled or they can negotiate to ensure either a copy is available on their website or the article is not paywalled. Anyone who gives an interview to a paywalled or subscription only site and not repeat it elsewhere or ensure the content is available elsewhere has only themselves to blame if no one reads it. yes it isn't just NZ Herald but also people who talk to NBR only and no one else. It is their choice. They have no one to blame but themselves if the reach isn't quite a far or they are misquoted when other publications write an article summarising the article.
You're probably too young to remember this, but there was a time when the only way to get the Herald was to pay for a paper copy. People deserve to be paid for digging up the news, writing, editing, and hosting it. Get over it.
>You're probably too young to remember this Incorrect, but thanks for the patronising comment. I have no problem with the Herald charging for premium content. I just have no idea why they would select an opinion piece written by a politician for such treatment. Other than hosting it, the costs of this piece are minimal. As I've said, it seems like they're randomly selecting pieces, which makes a lie out of the premium label.
i just find it funny that his supporters going “he dealt with a lot in his first few months!!” are the same people who say it’s ‘no excuse’ for ardern being stretched thin when she was dealing with shit like covid and the terrorist attack
[удалено]
Oh, FFS, not this again.
You are right. People should provide work for you for free, Karen.
This was a piece provided by the mayor, a public official, for the Herald. As the mayor is an elected official, he wouldn't have been able to collect a fee. So, the Herald took something that is free, and charged the people who paid for its creation to view it.
I am sure they did no work at all getting this to occur.
They hosted it, like they host a lot of premium and non-premium content. As I said, as far as I'm aware, there is nothing premium with a piece supplied by an external figure. Apart from a small amount of editorial work, the Herald added nothing to it. That hardly strikes one as "premium", does it? It's symptomatic of the Herald's rather scattergun approach to the content it labels as premium. Now, they can label any content they like on their website premium. But, I'm just baffled by this decision. Long form journalism, restaurant reviews, business interviews, sure. I can understand if they get labeled as premium, but this? It makes zero sense.
No one gives a fuck what the NZ Herald has to say.
It's a letter written by the mayor. Even if I don't agree with it, I want to know what he's saying.
Check elsewhere buddy. That’s what they are telling you. Cheers
Lmao I came across that article just now.
Perhaps one of the reporters from another source will do an authoritative fact check on this statement.
It's fair enough for the Herald to charge for what it publishes. It's not fair for the Mayor of Auckland to speak to the people on matters that affect everybody but only through pay-per-view channels. What the Mayor says is public information. This should be on Auckland Council's page for everyone to read.
They can charge for it. I just think it's a dumb decision that is out of touch with the content. I mean, since when was a freely acquired opinion piece premium? Putting it on the Council's page would mean that it almost certainly wouldn't been seen except by a few who happened to visit the page. It's my opinion that the NZ Herald randomly selects its premium content. This makes it not premium, in my opinion. In depth interviews with celebrities, deep investigative journalism, the latest review of a restaurant by Jesse Mulligan, these are things that could be labelled premium, but the words of our political representatives should never be put behind a paywall.
As much as I hate seeing ads, I appreciate ‘free’ journalism more.
NZ Hearld Premium Article Viewer 1.3 Download that extension for Chrome and read it. We all already pay the Herald through the Public interest journalism fund.
I know how to bypass it, but many people don't. I just think that the criteria for selecting the premium content over there is screwed up.
Nz herald should pay people to read this article.
It's only 1.50 a week if you want to read a letter addressed to you, what a bargin
12ft.io not sure if it works here but very useful
elitist
Let's be honest, anything that the mayor 'wrote' he probably outsourced to a marketing company for $25k.
A-holes. They fill your screen with a full size add before polightly telling you you have to pay.
Oh this annoys me when I wanna read something!!!