Have Your Say New Zealand

Weapons Of Mass Destruction

2011-01-28T15:38:00.000-08:00

This week, the government announced plans to sell off some of its (our) assets to avoid incurring further debt.

We weren't surprised. It's National. We were surprised, however, when PM John Key showed up to Campbell Live on Tuesday night to discuss it. Where were the cat stories we've come to know and love? The rust in the baked beans tins? But we listened. And, while attempting to separate the gist from the *hits top lip with index finger, making 'wibuwibu' noise*, heard JC ask JK if perhaps tax cuts should not have been implemented, and JK answer "They paid for themselves with the rise in GST".

And: scene. Thank you. After months of crying "All New Zealanders will be better off", Key finally admits that every time we all pay that extra 20c on the milk, we are paying for the likes of Mark 'Eat-me' Hotchins to stay one more night at a resort of which most of us will never get within spitting distance. And what are we going to do about it? Nothing. Why? Because we have a collective short-memory, and a crippling case of lethargy. How else was Bob Parker re-elected? When tax cuts and a GST increase were announced, we knew it was a reshuffling of finances by National to thank the top tax bracket for their support, and ensure that support continues. And now that has been confirmed, what can we do about it? It's done.

As for selling off assets that actually bring in revenue... Let's look at how well that worked for Auckland when we sold our bus company. Sure, Stagecoach pays its drivers so little they can barely support themselves, let alone their families. But we didn't have to cancel Christmas In The Park, and that would have been a real tragedy. And let's be honest, if we don't agree with it, it will happen, and come election time we'll have forgotten about it already. So really, who's to blame? The monkey with the gun, or the muppet who gave the gun to the monkey? Have your say. I dare you.

Tired From Sleeping

2011-01-18T21:51:00.000-08:00

On Monday, four sleeps before Big Day Out, headlining act The Black Keys cancelled their appearance, citing exhaustion. Now, I know playing music is tiring. Bruce Springsteen is known for his three hour sets, during which he plays several instruments, sings every song, runs up and down the stage, even knee-sliding and windmilling; and all of this in his sixties. Bob Dylan, who turns seventy this year, has been touring non-stop since 1988. During his Bat Out Of Hell tour, Meatloaf frequently passed out on stage from physical exertion. The Black Keys, on the other hand, are aged thirty and thirty-one, and they play the blues. Their tour began last year. And the slot they were scheduled to play was fifty minutes long.

There are so many things wrong with this picture. In the same week Mos Def "postpones" his show because a band member is unwell, NZ concert-goers can't help but feel we just aren't taken seriously as a market and, by extension, an audience. This is more true of the market to which these musicians appeal - Leonard Cohen treated his fans to an extended show last year which received rave reviews; Lily Allen, by contrast, played her Big Day Out set with a cigarette hanging from one hand, a drink in the other, and a glazed expression that suggested the minimum wage her young fans had saved up to see her had gone straight to the Headhunters' sales division.

By perpetuating a capitalist system where exchange-value far exceeds use-value, we have to accept some responsibility for rockstar behaviour, even when it goes against our 'harden up' natures. But as consumers, we have to assert the power of our dollars. We are paying substantial amounts to see artists play venues where we can't even take our own water, and when they let us down with lack-lustre performances or no-shows, what are we going to do about it? What can we do about it? Have your say.

Bully for Restraint

2011-01-12T23:03:00.000-08:00

Last weekend while conducting a tour of Auckland, I stopped by 56 Paritai Drive, better known to most as the rubble monument to greed and deceit formerly inhabited by Mark 'Leave my family out of it' Hotchin, and his [you-know-what]. The spectacle was shocking, but not nearly as much for its obscene enormity as, aside from the construction, the fact that everything remains intact. The stone wall, the letterbox; everything that could have been destroyed by anyone seeking some kind of revenge, or at least catharsis, is completely untouched.

Why? I struggled to decide. Would it be considered an exercise in futility? Is the address too intimidating? Do we all have that much faith in the legal system? In karma? Or, as one of my companions suggested, is it because the Ma and Pa type of investor who lost their money is more likely to retreat, embarrassed by their loss, and be more likely to take their own life than that of this unapologetic coward, who continues to walk around, living a life of excess and privilege?

And if that is the case, why aren't the rest of us doing anything? Are we all content to express our contempt over the dinner-table, or the TV3 feedback page? Where is our anger for these people? Is action, even symbolic action, a thing of the past? Has passionate action, like kicking in the letterbox of a man who has wantonly destroyed people's lives, become something we're too civilised to do? Do we even care? Have your say.

The Medium is the MassAge

2011-01-03T13:08:00.001-08:00

Living in a country where deregulation has long been the name of the game, we're no strangers to commercially driven news. Gone are the days of front pages consisting only of text; the days of thirty minutes of actual news, rather than an hour's worth of sensationalised headlines from around the world (the world of the UK and USA, of course), and a story about a South Canterbury farm-dog with ESP/HIV/[insert acronym here], read out by someone who can name every designer to show at Fashion Week but didn't know why Sarah Palin's pledge of support for North Korea was funny. The consequences of deregulation are, for the average kiwi, many and varied. We have to channel surf a lot, because of all the ads. If we actually want to know what's going on in the world, we have to be prepared to spend a lot of time trawling the internet, reading what's in the lines and what's between them. We have to accept that our state-owned TV network has abandoned the quaint idea that media should be the fourth estate, and considers us all to be a pack of cooking-show obsessed imbeciles.

We also have to accept that, being driven by money, media outlets will be completely irresponsible and unethical as long as someone will buy it. We saw it for years on TVNZ's conservative morning orgy, Breakfast, where Paul 'Mouthpiece of the Nation (while I make a hundred times what you do)' Henry was continually allowed to make offensive comments because Ken loves a good gay joke before going to work and sexually harrassing his secretary. Last month, the Herald published a column written by a contributor we'll call Hannibal, in which he argued that abortions carried out between 1974 and 2009 are largely to blame for the problems we face now with national superannuation. Putting aside for a moment the absolutely ludicrous nature of the claim, we have to ask: how was this published? If mass media is not going to fill its other functions as fourth estate, why is it allowed to provoke a debate for which it will never provide a fair forum? When will someone stand up and say publishing this kind of view is completely irresponsible, and an abuse of access? We all know that whenever a documentary about white supremacist groups is broadcast, membership increases. Maybe we are the moronic consumers we're presumed to be; but if we are, isn't there more responsibility to use mass media, well, responsibly? Have your say.

Class Dismissed

2010-12-29T14:38:00.000-08:00

This week's New Zealand Listener features a none-too-original article on happiness and how to have it; another dumbed-down take on what philosopher Alain de Botton wrote brilliantly about in his 2004 book Status Anxiety. Being in Christchurch at the time, I began to think about the way the city clings to its English heritage, and the implications of this in terms of the city's development, and the happiness of its people. Class, based on old money and the first four ships, is truly alive and well in Christchurch; meet anyone for the first time and they are bound to ask you where you went to school, and if it didn't have a sacred lawn... well, they know a little more about who you are than if they'd asked if you're an Elvis or The Beatles. Obviously this lends to feelings of inadequacy, frustration, and confusion; this is New Zealand, egalitarian dreamland, America of the Pacific... isn't it?

Other cities have their own criteria. While Auckland might have state-houses in expensive areas and be large enough that different socio-economic groups are not constantly and necessarily coming into contact with each other, our class system is based on something even more insidious; "personal" success, which nearly always ignores factors such as opportunity and background - look at old state-house John; if he can do it... This measure of worth is no better than Christchurch's; both are equally anti-egalitarian in their denial of the fact that what we are born into has nothing to do with us, yet what we do in life is largely determined by it.

It's one thing to know this, but quite another to believe it. So we go on comparing ourselves with our peer groups, congratulating ourselves on owning things they do, beating ourselves up when we don't; in one way or another, always trying to keep up with the Joneses, and keeping that class system in place.

In a few days it will be 2011, and I have some new year's resolutions for all of us. Let's stop comparing ourselves with each other. Let's stop measuring our worth by what we have and how we make money (not to mention how much), and start measuring it by what we do that actually means something; who truly loves us, whom we make laugh. Let's hang out with friends and not contacts. We're all doing the best we can in a race that was never going to be fair; let's stop pretending it was, and give ourselves a break.

Have your say.

The Etiquette of Rights

2010-12-26T17:16:00.000-08:00

Every Wednesday morning, three middle-aged to elderly men gather on a street corner in Auckland and exercise their right to freedom of speech. The street corner is Manukau Road and Greenlane East, just along from Greenlane Clinical Centre, and the three men stand there from about 8am to 11am, holding signs which read 'Abortion Kills Children' or depict full-term babies in utero, with bible verses underneath.

When I see these men, I grit my teeth and remind myself that one of the wonderful things about our country is that we are permitted to do this - to stand on corners or march up streets, and tell everyone what we believe. I maintain this, and acknowledge it as a crucial part of democracy, even when I vehemently disagree with what is being freely expressed. More and more, however, when the Paul Henrys and Michael Laws' of the country vomit out their views, and people leap to their defense crying "PC gone mad!", I wonder when the right to speak ones mind, on any issue however trivial, became more important than being kind? Just what it is that makes an old man's right to hold up a sign more important than the agony of a woman in a difficult situation driving to a doctor's appointment on a Wednesday morning? The fact that he could be bothered putting aside his empathy and getting out his paintbrush?

Freedom of speech; the right to express our views, is, like all rights, one that comes with responsibilities. I'm no Emily Post but I do believe common courtesy is always appropriate, even in politics, and that just because we can does not mean we always must or should. Free speech is vital but politeness is not a crime, as it seems to be when labelled "political correctness". And when we use a medium that is not easily responded to; a billboard for instance, or a television show to which few people have access, isn't it just a bit gutless to spit out what we want to say and claim free speech?

One morning, I had enough. I crossed the road and exercised my right to freedom of speech. It ended with me also exercising my right to freedom of offensive gesture, and doing something I'm glad my Mother (also no Emily Post) didn't see; telling an old man to [something people do when they love each other very much] off.

I maintain that, as the respondent, I was not primarily to blame; but I was by no means blameless. And I wonder, for both myself and the old man - was it worth it? I believe what I had to say was important; clearly so did he. We always do. But is free speech a reason to forget our manners? Is it always more important than being considerate? Have your say.

Can I Help You?

2010-12-22T10:24:00.000-08:00

Laugh all you might - but it really ain't easy being a shop girl.

After working behind various counters for much of my life, I have realised that there is a fine art to retail, especially if you care and you want to get it right. We're there to do a job - one that is as far from rocket science as it gets - but there's a science involved nonetheless. It's a science of people; reading and relating to people in a way that can either make their day or ruin it.

We've all had nightmare moments . The assistant who doesn't acknowledge you. The one who tells you their life story in the first five minutes. The one who takes too long, or the one who rushes through. The one who looks blank when you ask a question, or the one who answers you with a tiresome spiel of details that you don't need.

The fact is, it's not as easy as it looks. At this time of year, I meet all sorts - from people in a rush who need quickfire, no nonsense help, to those who are wandering without aim and who are grateful for all the help they can get. There are people who want to talk and explain and enquire, and people who simply want to point and pay and leave.

I love my job because I love people and I love beautiful things . You'd be amazed at the stories I hear and the friends I make through selling stuff . But it's Christmas - tensions are high, money is low, patience is fair to middling - so as you power through the final days and expect the world, spare a thought for those of us on the frontline. We have sore feet and hoarse voices and our faces hurt from smiling, but we will soldier on, for you. We will even gift-wrap.

What's your shopping pet hate ? Have you enjoyed great customer service over the Christmas period, or have you had a nightmare moment ? What do you wish shops would do, or stop doing, to make your visit more worthwhile ? What makes or breaks a good shopping experience ?

Have Your Say New Zealand !!

That's when good neighbours ...

2010-12-20T15:34:00.000-08:00

The ex-state house I rent sports an old Neighbourhood Watch sticker on the front window - you know the one; a perfect silhouette family, complete with helmeted cop figure, and the words " If I don't call the Police , my neighbours will." Lately I've wondered - would they really ?

I am lucky enough to be part of a community centred around child friendly activities, good schools and walking buses, so I think in my case I really could rely on those around me in times of crisis. Out of half a dozen homes that directly surround me I am on first name, sugar-borrowing basis with at least four, and in the adjoining streets there are many more families who I consider friends.

But is this the norm ? I've talked to some friends who have said they don't know their neighbours at all - furthermore, they don't want to. We live in a world very different to what it was when that sticker was proudly applied, and some might even say there is a danger in opening your life to local strangers ... after all, you never know, right ?

We have busy lives and sometimes don't keep in touch with those most dear , so why make an effort with potential weirdos in the street who otherwise you'd have nothing to do with ? Or are those potential weirdos the ones who should come first ? Is the idea of neighbourhood watch gone for good or is it alive and kicking in your community ? And if not, is it time for a resurgence?

In my web-trawling around the subject, I discovered http://www.i-neighbor.com/, an American site that connects residents of geograhic neighbourhoods. The goal of the site is to help individuals and their communities organize, share information and work together to address local problems. Launched in 2004, the site now serves thousands of neighbourhoods across the U.S and Canada.

Now we're talking. Neighbourhood Watch as a digital app, perhaps ? Neighbourhood Watch on Facebook ?

Or is the answer to simply stop reading this, go next door and introduce yourself?

Have Your Say New Zealand !

Is a gun ever an answer ?

2010-12-12T22:33:00.000-08:00

Next year, my eldest son will turn 14. A difficult, confusing and exciting age. The age I was when I won a speech competition at school. The age my little brother was when he began a part time job that would change his life. An age of possibilities. The same age as a kid down the line, who on Saturday, took to a cop with a machete and left him for dead.

Senior Constable Bruce Mellor was in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing, when he was attacked from behind during a relatively routine vehicle check outside of Taihape. He was unarmed and he was alone and in the days since, the uproar over the assault has been led by a call to arms - the prospect of all front line officers carrying firearms is being touted by some as the answer.

But are we asking the right questions ? Would such a policy ensure the safety of our police, or put them at potentially greater risk ? Should there not be further discussions around taser use ... and about why Mellor and many like him work alone ? Have we really gotten to a point where there is no other choice but to carry a gun ? A point where every officer is armed, as the Prime Minister warned, " will be a very different relationship between the police and the public " .... is this what we want?

A stuff.co.nz poll showed 71% of over 7,000 readers were indeed in favour of arming the force , but I for one am not convinced. We are looking at a veteran cop with 35 years on the job who had never been assaulted before, and a child with a weapon in a stolen car .... I think there is a lot more to talk about .

How about you ? Have Your Say, New Zealand.

Slacktivism

2010-12-05T15:08:00.001-08:00

This may be a sure fire way to lose friends and alienate people, but I'm going to talk about slacktivism.

The term relates to feel-good online activism that has zero political or social impact and although it's seen by some as a way to build wide consensus on an issue, it has been described by others as nothing more than a way for " stupid, apathetic people to con themselves into believing they are helping make the world a better place."

Here's the deal ; You're invited by someone, somewhere, to click a button and show your support for a cause. It's a social network thing and it's usually driven through Facebook and it doesn't take much effort to do what's required. This last week, the campaign du jour has involved changing your profile picture to the image of your favourite childhood cartoon character - everyone who takes part is, apparently, supporting a movement against violence toward children.

But hold on. The Los Angeles Times and others have run articles and discussions that reveal the campaign was started by "an anonymous volunteer" and that there is no connection with any charity. You won't find a way to donate money, or any information about the issue of violence against children, or any website to refer to, or petition to sign. Theoretically, you have done something . But it's a something that's not far from nothing.

Reactions to the LA Times piece have varied. One Canadian reader pointed out that a road-related law change occured in his hometown, largely due to a 4000 strong Facebook movement, and that therefore such ideas are worthwhile. It's been argued that because social and political change only occurs through mass awareness , such campaigns hold an authentic value.

Perhaps , if all you do is click the button, it's enough - you are having your say and contributing to, potentially, a global movement of change. On the other hand, perhaps it's a slacktion that means nothing unless it's accompanied by practical actions in support of a cause.

Is something always better than nothing ? Or if all you do is click, in the vague hope that a pig in a crate or a sick child or a rainforest somewhere will benefit but without knowing if they ever really do, before you check the staff Christmas party pics ..... what's the point ?

Have Your Say New Zealand !

LA Times article by David Sarno @ www.latimes.com

Acta est fabula, plaudite!

2010-12-01T20:56:00.000-08:00

This week John Key announced that although the government is unable to fund a National Art Gallery at present, "wealthy philanthropists" have shown interest and the gallery may still go ahead.

And, for the top tax bracket, the other shoe drops. Who's he talking about? Not the Caugheys again; god, Harry, you should have accepted that contra offer from that rapist when you had the chance... Maybe they'll think we're the anonymous patron in the Auckland Arts Festival booklet. How much were they worth? Clever little Johnny. As well as inviting comparisons to Roman rulers for more than just his Caesar-cut and love of steam-rooms, by allowing a Munerator to provide the public with a spectacle (albeit one without a fatal ending, unless you pay enough and use the Vivian Street tunnel exit), he shuts up the Labour voters who say National doesn't care about the arts as well as those who thought the rise in GST and changes in personal tax rates were more than mere coincidence, and, most democratically, provides sport for all while the status anxious squirm in their Ermenegildo Zegna shirts and Louis Vuitton corsets (as much as they, and this morning's botox, allow), wondering if it was whoever John and Bronagh were busy with last Thursday, and was it because they ordered Speights not Peroni on Monday (completely forgot we're all supporting the South Island this month).

The gallery has been on the table for nearly a decade now, the previous gallery having been swallowed up by Te Papa in 1998, at which time its collection was either relegated to Te Papa's fifth floor or unceremoniously banished to storage. While this exemplifies New Zealand's laidback nature and abhorrence of showing off, most agree that to have the goods where we can see them would be well; not as a touring collection, as has been proposed, but in a National Art Gallery worthy of our art - a poolroom to call our own. The proposed site is beside Te Papa; Wellington has a reputation as New Zealand's arts and culture capital that it has been building for five-plus years (or whenever it was that Aucklanders started listening to Fat Freddy's), besides which Auckland already has too much to offer, Christchurch's plates can't be relied on, and Jetstar doesn't fly direct from Australia to anywhere else in New Zealand. On top of this, Auckland's memo was lost in the confusion of the party central debate, so its own gallery is already undergoing an extension with a projected total cost of $121 million, $33.4 million of which will be raised by the Auckland Art Gallery Foundation with donations from community funding agencies, corporate bodies, and private donors, who can 'donate a seat for art' to the auditorium for $2500.

So it's back to the wealthy philanthropists. If philanthropists are what they really are; what are the implications of allowing private donors to fund a National Art Gallery? Is it a simple philanthropic act of a wealthy citizen that we should accept and enjoy? A modern-day equivalent of the sponsors of Roman Munera that we should accept and remember next election (excusing the unlikely gang presented to us as 'cabinet' on its basis)? Or is it Michael Corleone presenting a cheque to the university in his son's name at his first communion that we should accept or risk never again visiting our favourite brothels in peace? Have your say.

Brown beats Banks for Supercity Heavyweight title.

2010-11-22T13:45:00.000-08:00

Auckland had their say and it appears Len Brown is the man for the job!

Len Brown the Manukau Mayor is now the Auckland Mayor Elect after a significant lead ahead of John Banks. Both had strong support however I cannot help but think the creative geniuses in charge of the Banks campaign may have gone into this battle half cocked and delivered many half-baked strap lines which inspired less awe than a KFC drumstick.

At the point where around 95 percent of votes counted, Mr Brown had 221,167 while JB (and no this is not Justin Bobby to Hills fans) had a lack lustre 161,167. Somewhat surprisingly independent candidate Colin Craig was a not so distant third with a commendable 40,483.

Addressing his supporters, family and friends at Sorrento function centre in One Tree Hill (and yes he did keep the receipt for all those petty picker aparters!) he received the highly anticipated call notifying him that Yes! he had won the election. Can I get woop woop!

After a deep breath in, and a dramatic exhale he announced “I’m so proud to stand in front of you today and say that I am the mayor for all of Auckland,” He went on to kind of commend Banks for his battle saying "Do I not entertain you!"... no, wait... that was Russell Crowe in Gladiator.

He did say however “John and I gave it our best shot and have covered off all the concerns people could have about how we might and could go forward.” I can't help but think either way the result would've been a good one. Mr Banks, humble in defeat even called Mr Brown to offer his congratulations. What a good kiwi sport.

Mr Banks quote in the media was “I’ve applauded his campaign and his efforts and I’ve given him my assurance that he had my total support as he goes ahead in this very difficult challenge of uniting the greater Auckland and being the first leader... So well done to Mayor Len Brown.” And difficult it will be. I hope Mr Brown is eating his wheaties and staying in good health as that was one of his slightly unfair criticisms during the campaign.

Johnnie boy also went on to say the campaign had been a long hard road and that nothing had taken him by surprise. And although he wanted to win it wasn't meant to be... like a 15 year old boy who wants to date the bikini model. (I may have added that last bit? who knows??)

Top work from both but heartiest congratulations to Len Brown. Now how about those Auckland city website budgets?

A far cry from the debate... What do you think? Comment below...

Auckland Supercity... “A jolly good laugh!”

2010-09-22T21:58:00.001-07:00

Is anyone other than the dire calibre of wannabe Auckland mayoral candidates taking this Supercity race seriously? We have a self confessed drug using actor, a westie comedian constantly commentating now he has pulled out due to health problems and the NZ Herald releasing ‘the Idiots Guide to the Supercity’. Is this document targeting the candidates? And so it seems that with the first election set for October 9th and a logo that looks plainer than an Arnotts water cracker we are supposed to focus with laser precision on making the important choice of ‘least worst’. Many are saying vote for Banks but anyone with a slogan ‘Making Auckland Work. For You.’ needs to do a level 10 remedial english class to refresh the use of full stops. Don’t know about you but ‘Making Auckland Work’ sounds pretty much like a bunch more work?

On a side note and speaking of jokes, here is John Key on Letterman delivering the Top Ten Reasons why you should visit New Zealand! He copped a lot of hassles for this saying that he made New Zealand look stupid? I don't think he wrote it people? What are your thoughts? Comment below and have your say!

What is the Supercity?

2010-09-22T21:52:00.000-07:00

Len Brown Promises a 'New Look' Auckland Supercity by 2012.

What is the Super City? How is it structured? How will it work? Who holds the power? How do you vote?

What is the Super City?
On November 1 Auckland's eight councils will be melded into a single new entity called the Auckland Council.
The Auckland Council will have 20 councillors elected from 13 wards from Franklin the south to Rodney in the north, plus a mayor.
The Auckland Council will plan and implement issues affecting the whole region, and set rates.
Below the Auckland Council there will be 21 elected local boards responsible for issues specific to their communities.
The Government is planning to set up seven business units, known as council-controlled organisations, to run about 75 per cent of council services at arm's length from the Auckland Council. The council will give the unelected directors of the CCOs broad instructions and monitor their performance.
The first election for the Super City will be held on October 9. The Auckland Council and local boards will come into being on November 1.

How will the Super City be elected?
Nominations for the Auckland City council open on July 23 and close on August 20.
Each Aucklander on the electoral roll can vote for a mayor, ward councillors from their ward area, local board members, district health board members and, if applicable, a Licensing Trust member.
There will be two different methods of voting with the mayor, councillors and board members being elected by the first past the post (FPP) system and health board members elected under the single transferable vote system (STV).
Anyone on the electoral roll is entitled to vote and will receive a confirmation card in the post in July.
Election Day is October 9 with the official count beginning at noon and preliminary results available that night.

How will the Super City work?
The new Super City will consist of the Auckland Council of 20 councillors and a mayor, and 21 Local Boards.
The mayor and 20 councillors will focus on the "big picture" and make decisions that affect the Auckland region. The council will replace the current Rodney District Council, North Shore City Council, Waitakere City Council, Auckland City Council, Manukau City Council, Papakura District Council, Franklin District Council and Auckland Regional Council.
The local boards will represent communities at the local level but their powers are still unclear. Their roles and functions have not been defined in legislation. Instead, the Government has inserted in law the principal that "decisions are best made at the local level unless there is good reason not to".
The initial roles and functions of the local boards will be set out by the Auckland Transition Authority which is designing the Super City. The new Auckland Council will be able to review the local board's responsibilities after it comes into being on November 1.

How many representatives will each Ward have?
Rodney - One Ward Councillor - Local board made up of nine.
Albany - Two Ward Councillors - Hibiscus and Bays Local Board made up of eight. - Upper Harbour Local Board made up of six
North Shore Ward - Two Ward Councillors - Kaipatiki Local Board made up of eight - Devonport-Takapuna Local Board made up of six
Waitakere Ward - Two Ward Councillors - Henderson-Massey Local Board made up of eight - Waitakere Ranges Local Board made up of six
Waitemata and Gulf Ward - One Ward Councillor - Great Barrier Local Board made up of five - Waiheke Local Board made up of five - Waitemata Local Board made up of seven
Whau Ward - One Ward Councillor - Whau Local Board made up of seven
Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward - Two Ward Councillors - Albert Eden Local Board made up of eight - Puketapapa Local Board made up of six
Orakei Ward - One Ward Councillor - Orakei Local Board made up of seven - Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board made up of seven
Te Irirangi Ward - Two Ward Councillors - Te Irirangi Local Board made up of nine
Manukau Ward - Two Ward Councillors - Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board made up of seven - Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board made up of seven
Manurewa-Papakura Ward - Two Ward Councillors - Manurewa Local Board made up of eight - Papakura Local Board made up of six
Franklin Ward - One Ward Councillor - Franklin Local Board made up of nine

What powers will the mayor have
The mayor of the Super City will be elected by Aucklanders region-wide and have special executive powers not seen in New Zealand before.
The mayor will appoint a deputy mayor from the 20 councillors elected in the wards.
He or she will also establish council committees and appoint the chairs. The mayor can appoint him or herself to chair a committee and is automatically a member of every committee.
He or she will also have a budget of about $3 million - not less than 0.2 per cent of the council's total budgeted operating spend - to establish and maintain an appropriately staffed office. They will be be answerable to the mayor and not the council's chief executive.
The mayor is also responsible for engaging with local groups and driving the Long Term Council Community Plan.

What are the Council Controlled Organisations?
Seven Government appointed CCOs will control 75 per cent of Auckland's assets.
Water, waterfront development and transport will all be governed by CCOs, The Auckland Transport CCO will spend more than half the total rates take - or $650 million.
A further four CCOs are being established to run council investments; economic development; tourism and events; and major regional facilities and property holdings.
CCOs are designed to run like a corporation. They are led by directors who are appointed, not elected by ratepayers.