Related Posts and Comments:
5.6.14 DCC Transport Strategy and Riccarton Road
24.4.14 DCC promotes Riccarton Rd as sole heavy traffic bypass
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Sat, 28 May 2016 at 5:47 p.m.
YES YES YES !!!
(if it helps STOP all the rot at DCC, Dunedin *takenoteDavidCull)
### The Daily Telegraph (UK) 27 May 2016 • 7:04pm
Donald Trump vows to cancel Paris agreement and stop all payments to UN climate change fund
By Associated Press
Presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump unveiled an “America first” energy plan he said would unleash unfettered production of oil, coal, natural gas and other energy sources to push the United States toward energy independence. Mr Trump promised on Thursday to cancel the Paris climate agreement and stop all payments of US tax money to a United Nations fund to mitigate effects of climate change worldwide. But the speech, delivered at the annual Williston Basin Petroleum Conference in Bismarck, North Dakota, went far beyond energy, as Mr Trump laid out, in his most detail to date, a populist general election pitch against likely rival Hillary Clinton.
AT A GLANCE : Paris climate change agreement
1. A long-term goal to limit global warming to ‘well below’ 2C, or 1.5C if possible
2. National pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the 2020s
3. A plan to make countries pledge deeper emissions cuts in future, improving their plans every five years
4. Rich nations to provide funding to poorer ones – ‘mobilising’ $100bn a year until 2025, and more thereafter
5. A plan to monitor progress and hold countries to account
[…] Mr Trump delivered the policy address just hours after The Associated Press determined he had won the number of delegates needed to clinch the Republican presidential nomination. […] He is among many Republicans who reject mainstream climate science. He has called climate change a “con job” and a “hoax” and suggested it is a Chinese plot “to make US manufacturing non-competitive.” He accused President Barack Obama of doing “everything he can to get in the way of American energy”.
*He took it even further in 2015, saying: “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING b******* has got to stop. Our planet is freezing.”
–The Week (UK), 5 May 2016
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Election Year —this post is offered in the public interest.
Received from Bev Butler
Fri, 27 May 2016 at 6:46 p.m.
Message: Finally received attached letter from Ombudsman today.
Feel free to put on What if?
From: info @ombudsman.parliament.nz
To: Bev Butler
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:09:25 +1200
Subject: Letter from Office of the Ombudsman. Our Ref: 408380
Dear Ms Butler,
Please see attached letter from Professor Ron Paterson, Ombudsman.
Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata
[click to enlarge]
Related Post and Comments:
27.6.15 Ratepayer boxes #saga
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
### NZ Herald Online 3:58 PM Thursday May 26, 2016
Liam Dann: This is the broccoli budget
OPINION This is the broccoli budget. It’s the one you have to eat before you get the treats. Bill English has got his surplus back and if we buy in to his vision of fiscal prudence we’ll have $6.7 billion in the tank by 2020.
That’s more than enough for John Key to dangle $3 billion in tax cuts in front of us before the election next year, although that does render the $6 billion figure a little redundant. The $700m surplus this year represents a huge swing from the $400m deficit which was forecast as recently as December. But economists will point out that is still margin of error stuff in a Budget spend of $77.4 billion. In some ways the extent of the turn around since December just proves that.
“This is a Budget that invests in a growing economy.” –Bill English
Thu, 26 May 2016
ODT: Health, education big Budget winners
Health, education and social services are the winners in a Budget which contains few surprises but also few contentious moves. Auckland housing also features prominently in the National-led Government’s eighth Budget, released this afternoon. There is no rescue package for first-home buyers but funding will help free up land for housing developments in Auckland and open up more social housing places for the most desperate families. […] In the next year, an extra $568 million will be spent on health – just short of the $600 million which is required to keep pace with population growth and other pressures on the health system.
Home page for Budget 2016 for the Government of New Zealand. Hon Bill English is Minister of Finance.
The Budget website at www.budget.govt.nz is optimised for mobile and tablet devices and provides access to the current Budget documents and interactive charts and features such as My Tax Dollars.
Parliament TV – 2016 Budget Day
Today (Thursday 26 May) after 2pm, the Minister of Finance Hon Bill English delivered the 2016 Budget to the House of Representatives. The Budget is an annual event that sets out the Government’s economic policies and plans for spending public money in the 2016-17 financial year. All Government spending must be scrutinised and approved by Parliament, and Parliament gives this approval by passing a special law, called an Appropriation Bill. The Budget is effectively the start of this ‘appropriation’ process. Link
█ Watch and listen to Budget Day 2016
You can watch the delivery of the Budget statement and the following debate on Parliament TV, by webcast or on-demand
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Received from Gurglars
23/05/2016 4:13 am (GMT+12:00)
Subject: Banks Theft
I have sent this letter to my bank.
This type of arrogant theft by banks must be exposed and stopped! The stock exchange has recently shortened settlement days from 3 to 2 for this very reason! In some cases over the weekend banks can make 50% on overnight money markets, so they use YOUR and MY money to make huge profits whilst charging us interest on outstanding debts that could be amortised.
A sum of $***** was deposited to my account Saturday. At the latest it should be in my account Monday morning! Given the nature of internet transactions, the keeping of MY money for two days is in fact an act of theft. The monies have left the sender’s account and not been lodged in my account and therefore the bank has claimed some ownership of the money for two days when the bank is trading. This “theft” which could be presumed legal when banks had to have time to clear funds is no longer a “legal” action!
My quick reply:
Excellent point. Yes they reap at our cost, bare-faced. Some banks over others have difficulty moving to processing 24/7…. more ‘instantaneously’. From discussion with colleagues, it appears ANZ has recently moved to “next morning” (including paying in on Saturdays) for deposits made after 10pm on Friday nights —which previously had a dogged (clip-ticket) wait until “after 10pm Monday” for transaction. Some shift has occurred(?).
Consumers need to stack on the pressure.
The Banking Ombudsman needs to investigate – the public should send letters their way.
New Zealand’s Banking Ombudsman Scheme
The Banking Ombudsman Scheme investigates and resolves disputes between customers and their banks. We are independent of scheme participants, customers, and government. Our service is free of charge and easy to use.
### radionz.co.nz Tue 24 May 2016 7:00 am today
Morning Report with Guyon Espiner & Susie Ferguson
Reserve Bank keeping an eye on digital disruption on banking
The Reserve Bank is monitoring the impact of digital disruption on the banking sector, as a rapidly increasing number of unregulated players have the potential to undermine the existing financial system.
Audio | Download: Ogg MP3 (2′07″)
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Received from Jeff Dickie
23/05/2016 2:31 pm (GMT+12:00)
Subject: DCC DRAINAGE FAILS AGAIN
This is what flooding looked like at 3 Malvern St, Woodhaugh at 9.00am today. Residents were unable to access the property or easily vacate it for that matter. As with June 3 1915, flooding in this area was caused by a blocked mudtank. However, the mudtank itself is so far below specification that even when cleared it is not able to cope.
This was hardly a one in a 100-year rain event! This has consistently caused property damage and huge inconvenience.
The DCC has continually failed to attend to core business such as this. The mayor and council have been distracted with trivia, such as frivolous trips overseas, failed expensive projects such as cycleways and financially disastrous failed Delta property ventures.
The complete failure of such a basic core service as drainage is symptomatic of an administration and a mayoralty [not coping…] to the core!
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Sat, 4 Jun 2016 at 4:11 p.m.
● 30 Nov 2015 (McElhone)
Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event | Meeting Video
● 20 Apr 2016 (Media Release)
Report on South Dunedin infrastructure performance during June 2015 flood released
● 26 Apr 2016 Agenda (and reports) Infrastructure Services Committee
Item 5 (Stokes, pp 6-27) South Dunedin Public Infrastructure Performance during June 2015 Flood Event Follow up | Meeting Video
The following content from consulting engineer Neil Johnstone is provided for your information and convenience. However, the site owner cannot accept any liability for its accuracy or content. Visitors who rely on this information do so at their own risk.
Received: 18 May 2016 [full text]
An Independent Review of DCC Report : ‘South Dunedin Public Infrastructure Performance during June 2015 Flood Event Follow up’
By N. P. Johnstone, MIPENZ
1. This review complements my peer review of DCC’s first flood report, published in November 2015. This review assesses the content of the second report (described henceforth as “the report”) published in late April 2016, and contextual statements made elsewhere by DCC staff and elected members. The author of the report is Ms R. Stokes. The technical qualifications and relevant experience of the report’s author are not stated.
2. I consider that there is a need for such a review for reasons of historical accuracy and context, the identification of solutions (which can only be achieved be if the problem is understood and acknowledged) and – most importantly – to provide a considered assessment of what South Dunedin’s current flood risk really is, noting that two events (of which only the recent one caused major inundation) in five decades does not suggest a current flood risk much different from that existing in many other established New Zealand communities, despite some landuse changes. It is emphasised that the flood had nothing to do with climate change, nor therefore does this review. The failure to understand the issues may lead to inaction or to inappropriate and expensive actions.
3. This review may be criticised for being repetitive on some issues, but the repetition is at least partly driven by the number of times challengeable information on the flood event and its causes has been circulated by DCC. In many respects, the report under review could be seen as a concentration of such challengeable information. The report is solely based on my research, knowledge and experience; any errors are therefore mine, but hopefully, few.
4. This review has led to the following conclusions:
4.1 Council’s continued insistence that the June 2015 rainfall event was the largest since 1923 remains erroneous;
4.2 Pre-existing groundwater levels were unexceptional, and had no impact on the flooding, contrary to claims made in the report, previously and subsequently;
4.3 South Dunedin does not have a significant imminent exposure to stormwater flooding. This finding is based on the original design parameters, historical performance, an absence of groundwater issues, and provided existing infrastructure is properly maintained, monitored and operated;
4.4 Problems at the Portobello Road Pumping Station caused elevated flood levels and prolonged the period of inundation, but the report acknowledges only the latter;
4.5 Similarly, the now-admitted failures to ensure that mudtanks were properly maintained impacted adversely on flood levels attained in some locations at least, and prolonged the period of inundation in many areas;
4.6 Comparisons with the 1968 flood event can be instructive in assessing the impact of Council failures in 2015 in terms of water level, disruption and cost. The report fails to make such assessments.
5. My review of the first report, written by Ms L. McElhone, was driven by DCC claims that the prime causes of the flood were high sea and ground water levels, a 150-year, then a 100-year, then a 63-year (and incidentally and extraordinarily now again a 100-year*) rainfall event, and confirmed that Portobello Road pumping station issues added not less than 200mm to peak flood levels. That review also demonstrated that the rainfall event of March 1968 was demonstrably larger than that of June 2015, but caused much less damage, and that land use changes added up to 150mm to flood levels (based on DCC’s unconfirmed data on impermeable areas). Any consented landuse changes should, in my opinion, have been compensated for in past years with additional infrastructure to maintain drainage standards and South Dunedin’s protection standards.
(*Ms Stokes to John Campbell on Checkpoint, 21 April 2016).
6. Exaggerated assessments of both the historical significance of the 2015 rainfalls and groundwater levels, and the absence of mudtank information originally helped DCC promote its position of zero liability. The mudtank maintenance failures are at last largely revealed in the new report; significant mudtank maintenance issues were previously reported by Cr Lee Vandervis as early as 2014, but were seemingly largely ignored by DCC. Paragraph 37 of the report which reads: “Mudtank maintenance and performance in general has been the subject of focus for a number of years”, appears vague, and therefore requires elaboration. The statement, if accurate makes the failures more disturbing. There is still some unfortunate reliance on the groundwater myth (paragraphs 2 & 32), and to the underestimation of the 1968 event (paragraph 20). There appear to be newly-entrenched positions at DCC that the existing stormwater system is inadequate, presumably based on the report’s paragraphs 23-27, and reinforced in recent public statements from Ms Stokes and Mayor Cull, that the flood would have occurred (or that a serious flood would have occurred) even if the current system including the mudtanks had operated at optimum. This review strongly disputes such claims, and uses the well-documented event of March 1968 as a very useful “model” for key comparisons between a contained flood (1968) and a disaster (2015).
7. The general understanding was that DCC’s second review was to concentrate in detail on the performance of mudtanks, and was to be peer reviewed. Detailed reporting and peer review processes were understood to be the reason for the extraordinary delays in publication. In reality, only paragraphs 33-61 deal with mudtanks issues and no peer review is included. It is noted that Mayor Cull confirmed to John Campbell on Radio NZ’s Checkpoint programme (22 April 2016) that peer reviews of the report had been produced. The peer review(s) could usefully have been attached to the report; failing that, the report’s author should have explained their absence. Continue reading