Auckland Council ended its meeting yesterday without a decision on the annual budget.

The long-debated budget will attempt to close a $325 million deficit, exacerbated by a further $40 million in storm-related costs.

Councillors arrived in good cheer, cracking jokes about the lengthy session ahead of them, which included a debate over the council’s sale of its 18 percent stake in Auckland International Airport Ltd.

• READ MORE: Other Auckland Council budget reports

The mayor said the meeting would take as long as it needed to.

“This is a difficult process. It may take more time than expected, that’s fine,” Mayor Wayne Brown said. “We may have to come back next week, we’re not rushing this process.”

Three councillors declared a stake in the airport — in this city with the Pacific’s largest Polynesian population — ahead of the meeting.

Airport shares declared
Just a few hours before, Albany Ward councillor Wayne Walker admitted to owning $3 million in shares through a trust. His neighbour at the table, Maurice Williamson, poked fun at Walker on his way into the chamber.

Chris Darby and Julie Fairey also declared airport shares in the days leading up to the meeting, prompting questions of whether they could vote on the sale.

All three said they had received advice from the auditor-general.

“In their view, my situation does not represent a conflict of interest,” Fairey said.

“Their advice was that I do not have a financial interest in the share sale,” Darby said.

“Same advice, and so I can participate in today’s decisions,” Walker said.

Backdown from the mayor
The mayor’s original budget proposal called for a full sale of the council’s 18 percent share in Auckland Airport. But during the meeting, he compromised.

Just three councillors — Andy Baker, Maurice Williamson and Desley Simpson — unambiguously declared their support for a full sale.

After hearing the positions of his fellow councillors, Brown offered a partial sale of 8 percent, meaning the council would hold onto a 10 percent stake.

“I’m now proposing that we sell 8.09 percent of our 18.09 percent shareholding,” Brown said as councillors returned from their lunch breaks.

“This means that we have to find another $32 million in operating savings or rates to balance the budget. I’m proposing we fill this gap with a general rates increase of 7.7 percent.”

The issue of selling the shares was contentious, leaving councillors divided. Manukau Ward’s Lotu Fuli opposed the sale, declaring the shares had value.

“This is a high-performing asset, it is an asset that we ought to keep,” she said. “And yes, we should consider our underperforming assets, but that’s a discussion to have at the long-term plan.”

Council would regret sale
Fuli said the council would regret letting go of the shares.

“Let’s not be rash, let’s not sell off these shares, $2.3 billion worth of shares, in order to plug a $325 million hole,” she said. “Let’s not make the mistake that past councils have made.”

Waitematā and Gulf Ward councillor Mike Lee agreed the shares had value.

“This is a real asset, folks,” he said. “This is an earning asset, just like the Ports of Auckland. Not only does it earn us money, but it earns us capital gains on our balance sheet. Any decent accountant will tell you that.”

North Shore Councillor Richard Hills said the months of debate around the budget had soured its culture.

“This has been the hardest six months of my career, it hasn’t been nice,” he said.

“It hasn’t just been about things you’ve said, mayor, there’s been a lot of other discussions around this table that I’ve been appalled at around staff, each other. It isn’t a nice place at the moment and I think the city knows that.”

He said the council needed to be careful about repeating the same mistakes next year.

“I want to work with the majority here, because we will break our staff and our city if we make them do this again next year,” he said. “I think we need to be really clear about that — we’ll do that again if we don’t make a hard decision today.”

Few in support
Albany Ward councillor Wayne Walker said the council needed to adjust its spending habits if it wanted to fix the issue.

“We’re not addressing the underlying financial issues, and that is that we are spending beyond our means. We’ve been doing it for successive years, and that has to stop,” he said.

“Fortunately, we have a mayor that’s committed to turning that around.”

He said there was time enough to make large decisions like selling the shares.

“We have a very, very good situation to go forward and not have to make decisions immediately in this long term plan that may be counter-productive.”

Some councillors, like Maurice Williamson, strongly favoured a full sale. He said the assets were not making enough money.

“I’m very much in favour of selling any asset that’s costing us more to keep than it’s returning to us. There’s a good old Tremeloes song, ‘Even The Bad Times Are Good’ — well, even the good times are bad.”

Williamson warned other councillors against accepting more debt.

“There’s so much more coming down the pipe at us,” he said. “The CRL, god knows what’s coming, I’ve been told the final figure is going to be $7.25 [billion], we’re going to have to borrow debt to fund that, and that debt ratio is already near the ceiling.

“So please, please look at trying to bring that back down.”

Auckland Mayor’s revised proposals:

• Mayor Wayne Brown is now pushing for the sale of 8 percent of the council’s shareholding in Auckland Airport, instead of the full 18 percent of shares
• Brown has also proposed $4 million of reductions to local board funding, and $5 million of unallocated to chief executive, Jim Stabback
• An average general rates increase of 11 percent has been proposed, with adjustments that will result in an overall rates increase of 7.7 percent for average households
• Plans to establish a political working group on the council’s investments has been set out, which aims to oversee assets like the remaining council shares in Auckland airport, and make recommendations to the governing body on long-term investment in other funds

Even Brown’s deputy, Desley Simpson, cautioned members. She said the final form of the budget needed to be balanced.

“We’ve talked this through so much, and it’s going to be a hard task to balance a budget that is fair for Aucklanders and meets the needs and desires of all those around the table.”

Brown’s new proposal included the establishment of a working group to oversee council investments, as well as a $4 million reduction to local board funding.

Questions about the updated proposal brought the meeting to a close at 5pm, with no time left to debate or cast votes.

Mayor Brown said the council would reconvene at 10am today.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Samoa’s deepening political crisis has taken yet another turn today after the Attorney-General’s office launched an astounding attack on the country’s judiciary.

The Supreme Court hearing over whether the swearing in of the FAST party outside Parliament was legitimate has been adjourned to next week after the Attorney-General’s office called for the withdrawal of all local judges, citing potential conflicts of interest.

In a media statement, the Attorney-General’s office said the actions of the judiciary was “concerning” after the Chief Justice had tried to open the locked doors of Parliament on Monday.

• READ MORE:  Fiame calls for Tuila’epa to end Samoa’s ‘enormous assault’
• Despite a veneer of democracy, Samoa is sliding into autocracy
  
• Samoan democracy hangs in the balance as a constitutional arm wrestle plays out
• Samoa’s stunning election result: on the verge of a new ruling party for the first time in 40 years
• Samoa incumbent leader needs to ‘get a grip’, says PM-elect Fiame
• FAST heading back to court to try and resolve political impasse in Samoa
• Other Samoan political crisis reports on Asia Pacific Report
• RNZ’s live updates
• The Pacific Newsroom’s updates
• What you need to know about the Samoa crisis
• The Samoa Observer editorial – Swearing-in strengthens nation’s foundation

Hearing adjourned in Samoa over whether FAST Party’s ad hoc swearing in was constitutional. Video: TVNZ News

This came after the Supreme Court had ruled Parliament must sit on Monday but that was ignored by the Speaker of Parliament and incumbent Prime Minister Tuila’epa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi who ordered Parliament closed.

The Attorney-General’s office alleged Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese may be in contempt of Parliament and “as the Chief Justice, the caretaker Speaker and staff are not subject to court jurisdiction as per the law”.

Another case which was to be heard by the Court of Appeal over the extra creation of a seat to meet the minimum 10 percent requirement of women in Parliament is also on hold until next week.

Again the Attorney-General’s office said local judges had a “potential conflict of interest and potential favouritism” as all four cases between the FAST party and HRPP had been ruled against HRPP.

In court today, the Chief Justice asked on what authority the Attorney-General’s office had to dictate the work of the judiciary.

He said the Supreme Court would rule next week over whether there was any merit to the recusal or withdrawal of judges.

Republished with the author’s permission.

In the past month, we have made a new pen pal: the Attorney-General of Samoa, no less, Savalenoa Mareva Betham-Annandale.

The arrival of her latest piece of correspondence – which always takes the form of an open letter – is always the cause of much excitement in our office.

That being said, we have to ask how much of this soap opera could have been avoided.

• READ MORE: Samoa: Attorney-General attacks Samoa Observer

Here is a condensed version of the story that led to these exchanges and which has been repeated several times in these pages. The Office of the Attorney-General had engaged a firm, Betham & Annandale Law, formerly Savalenoa’s, now solely her husband’s, on two ongoing projects.

Because we are journalists we asked questions about this arrangement. Specifically, we wanted to know what was the Attorney-General Office’s process for handling matters which could raise a perceived conflict of interest.

Asking questions is what journalists do. And officials in a democratic society answer them.

Our first story, on February 27 (“A.G. silent on husband’s firm”) was a good story but not a great story; it ran on page 3.

It would have almost certainly been further back if it weren’t for the utter contempt shown for this newspaper and its readers by both the Attorney-General and her husband, Lauki Jason Annandale. Both declined to answer our simple questions; the latter simply hung up the phone.

And so began the saga of our correspondence with the nation’s principal legal officer. The letters are full of mystery, outrage, spite, and self-sabotage (the Samoa Observer also wrote some rather boring questions along the way).

Something that never seems to have been apprehended by Savalenoa is that the public has a right to know what is going inside its own government.

EDITORIAL: On “hacking”: the Samoa Observer has been reporting on this nation for 43 years. The Attorney-General was appointed last July. We will stake our reputation against hers any day of the week. https://t.co/XHMIOzsVZU

— Samoa Observer (@samoaobserver) March 15, 2021

Savalenoa consistently refused to reply, except in the form of press releases written in response to our stories, written in the tone of someone who evidently does not see themselves as a public servant.

Crucially, while frequently insulting our journalists at no stage did she ever see fit to answer the question we had asked from the outset.

Perhaps Savalenoa found some sport in these exchanges – who knows? Providing a simple reply weeks ago could have ended a matter that has now blown into calls for a police investigation.

But the story kept going and growing. And not just because we refuse to let not answering questions put a stop to our work.

Our questions began after we received a 12-page draft retainer document showing her husband’s firm had been contracted to represent the government in a matter involving the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment.

We then discovered that Savalenoa’s former firm had been paid to review the government’s plans to upend this country’s legal system and amend its constitution by creating an autonomous Land and Titles Court (LTC).

When asked in September last year if her former firm had been appointed to conduct this external $100,000 review of the laws she point-blank denied it to one of our reporters.

The story became curious and curiouser.

Information continued to roll in, including a variation to the review signed by the Assistant Attorney-General in November last year – well after her July appointment.

The Samoa Observer, as newspapers have done for centuries, reported on the information because it is in the interest of the Samoan people, the Attorney-General’s ultimate employers.

After we suggested to Savalenoa on our editorial page last week that the public deserved an answer to our question, our pen pal buckled.

Or perhaps erupted is a better word.

In a statement released by the Attorney-General’s Office on Saturday, we received a response to the question which we had been asking for three weeks.

The Assistant Attorney-General advised they had taken charge of all processes relating to Betham & Annandale Law engagements and the Attorney-General was removed from the discussion of all work relating to the matter.

There we had it. Simple stuff, really. But then we got a whole lot more than we had asked for.

Not for the first time, the Office commented on the “concerning” nature of our journalism.

But it was never material printed in this newspaper to which the Office of the Attorney-General raised objections.

“It is baffling then that there is an assumption the legal retainer should have been tendered,” the statement said.

We think it’s more baffling that the Samoa Observer has never once printed a suggestion that the contracts in question should have been put out to tender.

The statement continued.

“The fact that the Attorney General did not respond, that in itself [was] taken as confirmation that the Attorney General did not adhere to the [Public Service Commission] Guidelines on Managing Conflicts of Evaluation Panels,” it read.

Well, no.

If you’ll recall what was printed on these pages last week, we said precisely the opposite:

“Let us make this clear: we make no allegations of impropriety against Savalenoa Mareva Betham-Annandale since her elevation to the position of Attorney-General last July.

“We believe her explanation entirely. We have never made any suggestions, inferences, or imputations to the contrary that a conflict of interest may have influenced the awarding of these contracts.”

Our issue was a question of principle, not impropriety: we believed the Attorney-General, like all public servants, should be transparent.

It strains our credulity that an office staffed with lawyers could have somehow misinterpreted the above as accusations.

But Savalenoa has previously batted away accusations that have not been made against her. She has repeatedly stated that her husband’s firm was engaged before she was made Attorney-General in July last year. This is something this newspaper has said from its very first article.

The Attorney-General’s Office went on to make an accusation of its own: that the documents we obtained for our story were the result of illegal “hacking”.

“Initial internal assessment suggests that the said documents could only have been obtained by hacking our email systems,” the statement said.

This newspaper does not nor has it ever engaged in “hacking” nor have we ever written stories based on “hacking”. This is not Fleet Street and we are not owned by Rupert Murdoch.

The very implication is not only defamatory but it provides an insight into how far the Attorney-General’s understanding of the world is separate from reality.

People have, for decades, been providing the Samoa Observer with internal Government material because they want to address a lack of transparency or believe the public should know something. Sources are people with noble motives who take risks for the sake of their moral beliefs. Material being sent to a newspaper is not a new phenomenon, nor is it a sign of a grand conspiracy; for a judicious leader it is a signal to pause to reflect.

But on the question of “hacking”, the Samoa Observer has been reporting on this nation for 43 years. The Attorney-General was appointed last July. We will stake our reputation against hers on any day of the week and let our readers decide.

The Attorney-General’s Office further called for a full-blown police investigation into the release of confidential government documents to the Samoa Observer.

This newspaper has reported on a rash of resignations from the Attorney-General’s Office during her tenure there, something she partly attributed to staff “attitude problems”.

The public relies on the Office of the Attorney-General to pursue justice in the name of the people of Samoa; having a functional office, then, is essential to Samoa’s judicial system.

Our humble advice to our pen-pal is to remember a, slightly adapted, old adage. If you run into an unpleasant person one morning then you have our sympathies. But if you find yourself running into unpleasant people all day then perhaps it might be time to reflect on your own behaviour.

Rather than pointing fingers, Savalenoa, it’s time to look in the mirror.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) expresses solidarity with journalists at the Samoa Observer who are under pressure by the Samoan government’s attempts to silence press freedoms and threats to journalists. Asia Pacific Report also expresses solidarity.

By Andy Rowell of Oil Change International

Corporate Accountability International (CAI) released a report exposing the “filthy” track record of some of the corporations sponsoring the Paris climate change summit COP21 on ther just a week before the talks.

The report, Fueling the Fire: The corporate sponsors bankrolling COP21, uncovers “the green veil of four of the meeting’s dirtiest sponsors,” including fossil fuel conglomerates Engie (formerly GDF Suez), Suez Environment, BNP Paribas and French utility Électricité de France (EDF).

The organisation argues that there is an inherent conflict of interest between the stated aims of the UN climate process and many of COP21’s corporate sponsors given their roles as global carbon polluters.

Together, these four corporate sponsors represent direct ownership of and/or investments in more than 46 coal-fired power plants, exploration of tar sands in Canada, fracking in the UK and India and more than 200 megatons of CO2-equivalent emissions.

CAI argues that “by detailing the corporations’ abuses to the environment and aggressive lobbying to undermine environmental policy, the report lays bare the conflict of interest inherent in allowing such sponsorship to exist.”

“Inviting some of the world’s biggest polluters to pay for the COP is akin to hiring a fox to guard a hen house. We must eliminate this conflict of interest before the COP become corporate trade shows for false market-based solutions,” CAI executive director Patti Lynn said.

The report details how the four sponsors have long track records of “policy interference that contradict the green public relations” they advance. While energy giant EDF claims to be “committed to a decarbonised world,” it is an active member—alongside ExxonMobil and Shell—of the European business lobby group, BusinessEurope.

Opposition history
Indeed, BusinessEurope has a long history of being opposed to climate action. In 2010, it came second in the EU’s Worst Lobby Awards. It was nominated “for its aggressive lobbying to block effective climate action in the EU while claiming to support action to protect the climate.” On behalf of its members, BusinessEurope openly opposes the “market deployment of energy produced from renewable sources.”

The report also outlines the greenwashing covering pollution. CAI reveals that Engie “is a polluter with few rivals,” responsible for more than 131 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This is the equivalent to pollution emitted from driving around the globe 12 million times.

“Despite recent announcements to stop new coal projects, Engie still owns 30 dirty coal power plants worldwide,” argues Célia Gautier, policy adviser at Climate Action Network France.

“The French state is directly responsible for Engie’s greenwashing activities as it owns 33 percent of its shares and accepted to put them in their list of COP21 sponsors.”

BNP Paribas is one of the largest coal financiers in France. Between 2005 and 2014 the corporation provided half of the total financial support (€15.5 billion) from French banks to the coal industry.

The momentum was growing to have large polluting companies excluded from the talks. In May, more than 60 organisations launched a global campaign to kick big polluters out of climate policy.

Using the UN legal precedent, Article 5.3 of the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, they say the same should happen with Big Oil and COP21.