LETTERS & EMAILS
HOW TO MAKE PONSONBY ROAD MORE PEDESTRIANFRIENDLY
There’s one at the intersection of Queen Street and Victoria Street. There’s another where Karangahape Road meets Pitt Street. There’s even one in Ponsonby, at the top of Franklin Road. What am I talking about? A ‘Barnes Dance’, or as described by Auckland Transport, an ‘exclusive pedestrian crossing’. It’s where all vehicles in all directions get a red light, allowing pedestrians to cross the intersection any way they want, including diagonally. As traffic has returned to pre-Covid levels, I’ve really started to notice just how much more relaxing it is to cross Ponsonby Road at the top of Franklin Road, than it is at the top of Richmond Road. It’s so nice knowing there are no vehicles moving anywhere near you, especially not left-turning ones, slowly rolling forward, pushing you to hurry up and clear the crossing. This may seem like a small thing to many, but ask any person with reduced mobility, or a parent wrangling young children, and they’ll almost certainly tell you they prefer a Barnes Dance too. So why aren’t these pedestrian-friendly intersections everywhere? Well, they were many years ago, but that was before traffic engineers decided that prioritising cars over people was the way of the future. Auckland has been car-dominated for too long. Let’s imagine being able to cross diagonally at Ponsonby Road and Richmond Road, or Ponsonby Road and Williamson Avenue. Or both! Not only is it quicker, it’s safer, and simply a more pleasant way for locals and visitors to enjoy our neighbourhood. If you agree, please write to (email address at AT) expressing your desire to have these traffic signals changed. Jake Morrison
BUS DRIVING BLUES…
I took the bus from Westmere to Parnell yesterday evening, and had a very thought provoking discussion with the bus driver. He stopped the bus by the Art Gallery and told me that we would stop there for 20 minutes. I asked if I should get off and try for another bus. “I don't care,” he said. “I don't know.” I asked what was up. He said, “this is my break, I have 20 minutes, I don't want to talk, just rest.” I asked him how things were going in the job. His immediate response was that he had worked for NZ bus for seven years. He said that Auckland Council tendered routes to private bus companies. Richies would tender with drivers wages at hourly minimum wage. At his company entry driver salaries are $38k and he has been there seven years and is still in the low $40's. Many of his colleagues have got jobs at council as traffic wardens and earn $60-$70k. When his union seeks fair pay and challenges the council, the council simply says that they award routes based on tenders and are not responsible for driver wages.
CODE OF CONDUCT DECISION
Last month’s Ponsonby News referred to the code of conduct complaint made against me by Cr Pippa Coom. This complaint related to comments I’d made in a facebook post stating which way publicly elected representatives voted on the Hauraki Gulf Forum’s controversial decision to take a proposal to government ministers requesting a new Hauraki Gulf ‘Authority.’ Additionally I made the point that no attempt had been made to consult with the public or any meeting held within Auckland Council to discuss this proposal, despite its potentially significant repercussions for both Hauraki Gulf and Regional Parks (where yet another proposal was being simultaneously advanced to formally include 21 of 28 Auckland’s regional parks into the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park). As co-chair of the Forum, Cr Coom had been one of the main proponents in advancing these unmandated changes. She accused me of having “…knowingly posted misinformation… (thereby enabling) baseless attacks on forum members and the forum…” In reality my brief facebook post was simply a series of statements of fact, not really open to challenge, the accusations of Cr Coom largely vexatious in my view. The complaint should have been nipped in the bud and dismissed without further ado. It wasn’t and instead the accusations ‘investigated’ over a period of six weeks and even referred to the conduct commissioner, a University of Auckland law professor (with all the consequential costs associated with this process). Professor Paterson recently released his findings. They were: “…the complaint should be dismissed… this is consistent with the right to freedom of expression… I can see no evidence that Councillor Watson has crossed a line and made derogatory or abusive social media comments about other elected members. Elected members are free to publicly name and criticise colleagues for the way they have voted on a contentious proposal… The Code should not be used to silence members who express strongly held opinions on matters of public interest and criticise political opponents in the media (including social media)...I recommend that the investigator dismiss the complaint…” The last finding is a very important one, for at Auckland Council this code of conduct process has been used to stifle debate and criticism. I have been threatened with code of conduct proceedings on three separate occasions now. Each occasion followed me speaking out on a controversial issue that impacted the communities I represent and which further required me to highlight the council's own somewhat dubious behaviour in these specific instances. On each occasion the resulting code of conduct threat or complaint came from Goff-aligned councillors from the largely Labour-City Vision block that controls this council. Silencing the critic is always their goal and the ‘process’ followed, little more than institutionalised bullying.
Right now routes are being cancelled daily as the depot at Wynyard quarter is up to 50 drivers short - they are unlikely to find new drivers at the salaries on offer and his final retort was that council never listens to the drivers about fair pay and conditions, and that the executives at Auckland Transport are even worse. And with that he continued his rest break, sitting on his driver’s seat.
The weaponising of this code of conduct process therefore has been orchestrated and it has been used quite deliberately to harass, intimidate and discredit those of differing views. Professor Paterson’s findings make it clear there can be no justification for such undemocratic behaviour. Future elected members, whatever their political persuasion, deserve better than this, as indeed do the people of Auckland who they are there to represent.
Puneet Dhall, Freeman’s Bay
John Watson, Auckland councillor CONTINUED P12
Opinions expressed in Ponsonby News are not always the opinion of Alchemy Media Limited & Ponsonby News.
8 PONSONBY NEWS+ July 2022
PUBLISHED FIRST FRIDAY EACH MONTH (except January)
