Last week former National Party leader Simon Bridges was appointed by the Government as the new chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA). You can read about the appointment in Thomas Coughlan’s article, Simon Bridges to become chair of NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi
I was appointed to Transit and Land Transport Boards by Annette King when I retired from my time as Mayor of Christchurch. Annette wanted a strong voice for Local Government on the Boards. I then served on the committee which established NZTA and then became its deputy Chair. In my time of the Board Annette King never once interfered in our decision making. She set us the Governmental guidelines and we met with her every few months to report on progress,
The only comment I would make about Brian Roche is that I have worked with better chairs.
When Stephen Joyce became Minister he established the Roads of National Significance program. I saw our role as board members to apply the same amount of rigor to any of these roads as we would any other. Does it comply with our B/C ratio's etc. I was particularly critical of Transmission Gully's B/C (my thought were shared by many of the staff) but my downfall came when the Minister interfered in a road up the Kapiti Coast. We visited the site. There were discussions with the local council. The local iwi agreed with the plan which was in front of us. There was an independent urban design panel and a staff recommendation which all sang from the same song sheet. However, when I moved that we accept the staff, and everybody else's recommendation, and it was seconded by Christine Caughey, the chair turned to me and said that I should "consider my options". When I questioned why he said, "The Minister doesn't want the road there". I replied that I thought as Board members we were independent and that we were there to form our own opinions based on the information presented to us and to apply our own judgement. I then asked if the Minister wanted to run the board, why have one.
The chair repeated the comment about considering my options. I went back to Local Government NZ Chair and asked if that was what they wanted me to do. I was told very clearly that I was on NZTA presenting a Local Government voice. I got a very clear message from other Mayors I also checked with that I was not sitting there to be a government lackie. So, I stayed. I was later sacked, as was Christine Caughey. The only ones removed.
I have always seen the role of Councils and Boards, especially regarding engineering projects, to be hyper critical of engineering recommendations. I always had private sector engineers, or engineers not involved with the project under consideration, that I ran projects past. I retained until I was sacked an independence as an elected rep and a Board member. I'm not convinced that right now we have a wise Minister. He's too young to have built up enough experience of the rough and tumble of large infrastructural projects which can blow out in costs if proper disciplines are not applied. I worry when a lobbyist is appointed to chair boards.
The key challenge in public life is for those involved to retain their integrity and ethics. Then confidence in public decisions and expenditure will be trusted by those who are the payers. Us.
Of course, we need qualified people but also people of common decency and integrity. Some years ago I worked under one of the "highly-qualified" people mentioned in Bryce Edwards' article. Unbelievable nastiness to anyone he/she disliked. The bullying from middle managers that I observed going on around me was horrendous and I know perfectly well who was behind it. I cannot remember one nice word from that individual.
Getting onto committees and becoming a CEO tells you about intellect (to some degree), ambition, politics and articulation. It says nothing about either common decency or integrity. New Zealand's public service has to clean up its act, both in relation to the competencies required for leadership, but also in terms of treatment of staff. David Alexander Lillis
If this can be called a conflict of interest then the appointment of
Professor Tony Blakely to Chair the New Zealand COVID Inquiry is tantamount to criminal.
He was appointed by the previous Government who ran the COVID Event here in New Zealand.
A cat amongst the pigeons or a wolf to mind the sheep? This article from 2020 describes his modus operandi clearly . If he was an honourable man he would have said "Many of our measures were wrong, not founded on science and now we know that mRNA Vaccines are very dangerous drugs that even though experimented for over thirty years on animals and now fully tested on people belong in dust bin."
NEW ZEALAND COVID-19.
Melbourne epidemiologist sounds warning to NZ over hotspot lockdowns
Dr Reynolds' experience is "a long history in very senior public service role". Surely that experience doesn't match that of a Minister of the Crown in chairing a government agency. Note we are not talking about a directorship on a building company, or Chancellor of a university, or Chair of NZPost. NZTA is one of myriads of government agencies, one which has been a significant underachiever in recent years, arguably due to political interference. A former politician is probably just what is needed.
Recent experience I would have thought should be enough to tell us that even a Prime Minister of the Crown can be hopelessly inexperienced.
Of particular concern are Bridge's directorship claims not being reflected in his CV. His performance as chair of the Covid committee was easily eclipsed by David Seymour.
Clearly he will have at least to resign from the road transport lobby positions, though this in itself is not enough. He is associated with their agendas and would have to step aside from any decision affecting their interests. . He could stay in the Auckland CEO post as it deals with all aspects of business life in that city region. But he would have to absent himself from decisions affecting Auckland. All up, he'll find it difficult to do much and should turn down the appointment. He may feel this is unfair but it's not.
None of the partners in the Big 4 accounting firms are independent. They are not part of the solution, they are a very real and major part of the problem. The consulting industry has all but run out of potential targets in the private sector. Their focus is on Government and how to get as much public money as they can. They have no interest in getting things done, they are interested in generating fees.
The public service and even the judiciary are now riddled with partisan appointments. Am doubtful that a democratic solution is a continuation of this trend in complementary colours.
I was appointed to Transit and Land Transport Boards by Annette King when I retired from my time as Mayor of Christchurch. Annette wanted a strong voice for Local Government on the Boards. I then served on the committee which established NZTA and then became its deputy Chair. In my time of the Board Annette King never once interfered in our decision making. She set us the Governmental guidelines and we met with her every few months to report on progress,
The only comment I would make about Brian Roche is that I have worked with better chairs.
When Stephen Joyce became Minister he established the Roads of National Significance program. I saw our role as board members to apply the same amount of rigor to any of these roads as we would any other. Does it comply with our B/C ratio's etc. I was particularly critical of Transmission Gully's B/C (my thought were shared by many of the staff) but my downfall came when the Minister interfered in a road up the Kapiti Coast. We visited the site. There were discussions with the local council. The local iwi agreed with the plan which was in front of us. There was an independent urban design panel and a staff recommendation which all sang from the same song sheet. However, when I moved that we accept the staff, and everybody else's recommendation, and it was seconded by Christine Caughey, the chair turned to me and said that I should "consider my options". When I questioned why he said, "The Minister doesn't want the road there". I replied that I thought as Board members we were independent and that we were there to form our own opinions based on the information presented to us and to apply our own judgement. I then asked if the Minister wanted to run the board, why have one.
The chair repeated the comment about considering my options. I went back to Local Government NZ Chair and asked if that was what they wanted me to do. I was told very clearly that I was on NZTA presenting a Local Government voice. I got a very clear message from other Mayors I also checked with that I was not sitting there to be a government lackie. So, I stayed. I was later sacked, as was Christine Caughey. The only ones removed.
I have always seen the role of Councils and Boards, especially regarding engineering projects, to be hyper critical of engineering recommendations. I always had private sector engineers, or engineers not involved with the project under consideration, that I ran projects past. I retained until I was sacked an independence as an elected rep and a Board member. I'm not convinced that right now we have a wise Minister. He's too young to have built up enough experience of the rough and tumble of large infrastructural projects which can blow out in costs if proper disciplines are not applied. I worry when a lobbyist is appointed to chair boards.
The key challenge in public life is for those involved to retain their integrity and ethics. Then confidence in public decisions and expenditure will be trusted by those who are the payers. Us.
Of course, we need qualified people but also people of common decency and integrity. Some years ago I worked under one of the "highly-qualified" people mentioned in Bryce Edwards' article. Unbelievable nastiness to anyone he/she disliked. The bullying from middle managers that I observed going on around me was horrendous and I know perfectly well who was behind it. I cannot remember one nice word from that individual.
Getting onto committees and becoming a CEO tells you about intellect (to some degree), ambition, politics and articulation. It says nothing about either common decency or integrity. New Zealand's public service has to clean up its act, both in relation to the competencies required for leadership, but also in terms of treatment of staff. David Alexander Lillis
If this can be called a conflict of interest then the appointment of
Professor Tony Blakely to Chair the New Zealand COVID Inquiry is tantamount to criminal.
He was appointed by the previous Government who ran the COVID Event here in New Zealand.
A cat amongst the pigeons or a wolf to mind the sheep? This article from 2020 describes his modus operandi clearly . If he was an honourable man he would have said "Many of our measures were wrong, not founded on science and now we know that mRNA Vaccines are very dangerous drugs that even though experimented for over thirty years on animals and now fully tested on people belong in dust bin."
NEW ZEALAND COVID-19.
Melbourne epidemiologist sounds warning to NZ over hotspot lockdowns
12:20 pm on 3 August 2020
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/422619/melbourne-epidemiologist-sounds-warning-to-nz-over-hotspot-lockdowns
Dr Reynolds' experience is "a long history in very senior public service role". Surely that experience doesn't match that of a Minister of the Crown in chairing a government agency. Note we are not talking about a directorship on a building company, or Chancellor of a university, or Chair of NZPost. NZTA is one of myriads of government agencies, one which has been a significant underachiever in recent years, arguably due to political interference. A former politician is probably just what is needed.
Recent experience I would have thought should be enough to tell us that even a Prime Minister of the Crown can be hopelessly inexperienced.
Of particular concern are Bridge's directorship claims not being reflected in his CV. His performance as chair of the Covid committee was easily eclipsed by David Seymour.
Clearly he will have at least to resign from the road transport lobby positions, though this in itself is not enough. He is associated with their agendas and would have to step aside from any decision affecting their interests. . He could stay in the Auckland CEO post as it deals with all aspects of business life in that city region. But he would have to absent himself from decisions affecting Auckland. All up, he'll find it difficult to do much and should turn down the appointment. He may feel this is unfair but it's not.
None of the partners in the Big 4 accounting firms are independent. They are not part of the solution, they are a very real and major part of the problem. The consulting industry has all but run out of potential targets in the private sector. Their focus is on Government and how to get as much public money as they can. They have no interest in getting things done, they are interested in generating fees.
The public service and even the judiciary are now riddled with partisan appointments. Am doubtful that a democratic solution is a continuation of this trend in complementary colours.