From:
Tom Hunt
To:
DL: Councillors
Subject:
A couple of questions
Date:
Monday, 27 May 2024 7:57:42 am
Attachments:
OIA 616 Robinson followup response re Thorndon Quay pipes (1).pdf
Apologies if you are getting this twice but I seem to be having some email issues.
But two questions please:
* Does anyone want to comment (briefly) on the attached LGOIMA, showing that even with increased spending
on pipes, the backlog of pipes needing replacement (under current planned funding) in the next 10 years will
grow by 154km from 406km to 560km.
Do you believe these figures are accurate and does this mean Wellington's pipe issues will
actually be worse in 10 years time?
ACT 1987
* Can I please check with each of you whether you (personally or via trusts etc) have any
business interests/shareholdings in any company that stands to gain from the airport share
sale?
If so, can I get details?
Cheers
AND MEETINGS
--
Tom Hunt
Senior reporter
s7(2)(a)
INFORMATION
10 Brandon Street,
Wellington 6011
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have
received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Stuff does not guarantee
the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore
Stuff does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
RELEASED UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL
From:
Tom Hunt
To:
Pearl Little; Mayor Tory Whanau; Deputy Mayor Laurie Foon; Councillor Nureddin Abdurahman; Councillor
John Apanowicz; Councillor Tim Brown; Councillor Diane Calvert; Councillor Ray Chung; Councillor Sarah
Free; Councillor Rebecca Matthews; Councillor Ben McNulty; Councillor Teri O"Neill; Councillor Iona Pannett;
Councillor Tony Randle; Councillor Geordie Rogers; Councillor Nīkau Wi Neera; Councillor Nicola Young
Subject:
airport shares
Date:
Wednesday, 29 May 2024 7:38:21 am
Hi all,
I sent this on Sunday but am still awaiting answers from many of you - are you able to get back to me by
midday today? Cheers
1987
Can I please check with each of you whether you (personally or via trusts etc) have any business
ACT
interests/shareholdings in any company that stands to gain from the airport share sale?
If so, can I get details?
--
Tom Hunt
MEETINGS
Senior reporter
s7(2)(a)
AND
10 Brandon Street,
Wellington 6011
INFORMATION
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have
received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Stuff does not guarantee
the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore
Stuff does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
From:
Tom Hunt
To:
Councillor Ray Chung
Subject:
Re: Ryman Karori state secondary school
Date:
Wednesday, 29 May 2024 7:06:53 am
Cheers Ray - sorry, this came too late for the story but aiming to do a follow-up today.
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 9:33 PM Councillor Ray Chung <[email address]>
wrote:
1987
Hi Tom
ACT
From the feedback I’ve received from Karori residents, they’d really like to have a
school on the Rymans site so I’d support that. There were comments though that many
MEETINGS
parents in Karori like the “name” schools and think it might be difficult for them to try a
new school and would prefer to send their kids to the schools that they attended?
AND I have
a meeting in Karori next week so I’ll ask them what they think?
I think the crux point will be, does the Ministry of Education have any money to build a
new school?
INFORMATION
Cheers, Ray
OFFICIAL
From: Tom Hunt <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 3:16 PM
To: Councillor Diane Calvert <[email address]
GOVERNMENT
>
Cc: Councillor Rebecca Matthews <[email address]>; Councillor Ray
Chung <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Ryman Karori state secondary school
LOCAL
THE
I'm trying to figure out what is more newsworthy: A potential new school of Diane
Calvert and Rebecca Matthews agreeing on something!
UNDER
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 3:12 PM Councillor Diane Calvert
<[email address]
RELEASED
> wrote:
Déjà vu. I called for this back in 2017!
Diane
Councillor Diane Calvert
Wellington City Council | Wharangi/Onslow-Western Ward
1987
P s7(2)(f)(ii) | E [email address] | W Wellington.govt.nz | F dianecalvertnz | T dianecalvertnz | W
dianecalvert.nz
ACT
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its
contents.
If received in error, you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is
MEETINGS
appreciated.
AND
From: Tom Hunt <[email address]>
INFORMATION
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 2:27 PM
To: Councillor Rebecca Matthews <[email address]>; Councillor
Diane Calvert <[email address]>; Councillor Ray Chung
<[email address]>
OFFICIAL
Subject: Ryman Karori state secondary school
Hi all
The Karori rResidents Association, backed by Tamatha Paul, is calling for the Ryman
GOVERNMENT
Karori land to be a new co-ed state secondary school. Just wondering, as local
councillors, if you want to weigh in?
LOCAL
Cheers THE
--
UNDER
Tom Hunt
Senior reporter
s7(2)(a)
10 Brandon Street,
RELEASED Wellington 6011
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail
is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner.
If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Stuff
does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications
are not secure, therefore Stuff does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have
received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Stuff does not
guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not
secure, therefore Stuff does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
1987
ACT
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have
received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Stuff does not guarantee
the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore
Stuff does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
MEETINGS
AND
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
From:
Councillor Ray Chung
To:
Tom Hunt
Subject:
Re: 5.20pm media and social media update - shareholding elected members; infrastructure; lamp posts;
protest hikoi; Doctor Who; Carter fountain; skatepark excitement
Date:
Monday, 3 June 2024 7:45:59 am
Attachments:
image001.png
Morning Tom
Yes, I asked Tim directly but he didn’t give a direct answer either.
1987
Cheers Ray
ACT
Ray Chung
Councillor Onslow-Western
Wellington City Council
MEETINGS
From: Tom Hunt <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 6:49:56 AM
AND
To: Councillor Ray Chung <[email address]>
Subject: Re: FW: 5.20pm media and social media update - shareholding elected members;
infrastructure; lamp posts; protest hikoi; Doctor Who; Carter fountain; skatepark excitement
Hi Ray - I couldn't get a straight answer from Tim but may go down the LGOIMA route.
Cheers
INFORMATION
On Sun, Jun 2, 2024 at 4:25 PM Councillor Ray Chung <[email address]>
wrote:
OFFICIAL
Hi Tom
Did you get that list of EM’s with Infrstil Shares? I’m told Tim Brown has a million and
John Apanowicz has some too but I’m never asked them? Someone put an OIA in
GOVERNMENT
asking Barbara McKerrow if Tim has a Conflict of Interest and if he’s declared it?
LOCAL
Cheers, RayTHE
UNDER
From: Richard MacLean <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 5:21 PM
Subject: 5.20pm media and social media update - shareholding elected members;
infrastructure; lamp posts; protest hikoi; Doctor Who; Carter fountain; skatepark
RELEASED excitement
Issues of interest to news media and social media today:
News media:
Shares and pecuniary interests – The Post (Tom Hunt) was looking
for a list of elected members with shares in Infratil, and their other
pecuniary interests, ahead of tomorrow’s vote on the sale of airport
shares.
Infrastructure budgets – The Press (Tina Law) wants to know how
much councils are planning to spend on infrastructure over the next
1987
10 years.
ACT
Bowen Street lamp posts – The Post (Tom) wants to know what’s
happening re allegedly-leaning timber poles outside a new Building
in the street.
Toitū Te Tiriti hikoi – The Post (Justin Wong) was looking for details on
MEETINGS
tomorrow’s protest.
AND
Social media:
Our Doctor Who giveaway was definitely hotter than a Dalek's ray
gun! Our giveaway ended today and we received a whopping 733
INFORMATION
comment entries within 24 hours!
Our post about the history of the Carter Fountain continues to be
popular on Facebook with 331 likes, 36 comments and 27 shares!
OFFICIAL
Wellingtonians are excited for the draft concept design of the new
destination skatepark in Kilbirnie! We shared a post asking for
feedback on the design which has received 157 likes, 68 comments
and 6 shares so far.
GOVERNMENT
⭐ Social media comment of the day ⭐
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have
received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Stuff does not guarantee
the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore
RELEASED
Stuff does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
From:
Councillor Ray Chung
To:
Councillor Diane Calvert; Tom Hunt
Subject:
RE: Correspondence from Wellington City Council - Ref IRC-6031
Date:
Sunday, 9 June 2024 6:00:00 pm
Hi Folks
Just found this mail! Was this about the complaints against us by council staff?
1987
Cheers, Ray
ACT
From: Councillor Diane Calvert <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 2:20 PM
To: Tom Hunt <[email address]>; Councillor Ray Chung <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Correspondence from Wellington City Council - Ref IRC-6031
MEETINGS
I’d forgotten all about this.
AND
What did she about me?
Diane
INFORMATION
From: Tom Hunt <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 11:03 AM
To: Councillor Ray Chung <[email address]>; Councillor Diane Calvert
<[email address]>
OFFICIAL
Subject: Fwd: Correspondence from Wellington City Council - Ref IRC-6031
Hi both,
I see that Rebecca Matthews has sign-off on Tory's quotes. Given they were most about
you Ray (and to a lesser extent you, Diane), were you also asked for sign-off?
GOVERNMENT
Cheers
---------- Forwarded message ---------
LOCAL
From:
BUS: Assurance <[email address]>
THE
Date: Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:57 AM
Subject: Correspondence from Wellington City Council - Ref IRC-6031
To: [email address] <[email address]>
UNDER
Tēnā koe Mr Hunt
Please find attached correspondence from Te Kaunihera o P
RELEASED
ōneke | Wellington City Council.
Nga mihi
Danika Morris-Brown
Senior Advisor Official Information
Ara Whaimana
| Strategy and Governance
Te Kaunihera o Pōneke
| Wellington City Council
E [email address]
| W wellington.govt.nz
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have
received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Stuff does not guarantee
the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore
Stuff does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
1987
ACT
MEETINGS
AND
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
From:
Tom Hunt
To:
Councillor Ray Chung
Subject:
Re: FW: WCC reputational issues and LTP
Date:
Monday, 24 June 2024 3 59:46 pm
I do - cheers Ray
FYI, the story has had to hold till tomorrow but a goodie!
On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 3:48 PM Councillor Ray Chung <Ray Chung@wcc govt nz> wrote:
Hi Tom
You have this don’t you?
“Rubber stamping?” What a crock! Any responsible councillor should understand that this statement is further from the truth that we’d hope that the mayor would understand but obviously not!
Cheers, Ray
From: Mayor Tory Whanau <Tory Whanau@wcc govt nz>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 7:23 AM
To: Councillor Ray Chung <Ray Chung@wcc govt nz>; Holden Hohaia <Holden Hohaia@wcc govt nz>; Councillor John Apanowicz <John Apanowicz@wcc govt nz>; Councillor Diane Calvert <Diane Calvert@wcc govt nz>; DL: Councillors <councillors@wcc govt nz>
Subject: RE: WCC reputational issues and LTP
1987
Kia ora Ray
ACT
May I point you to our agreement with mana whenua and our obligations when it comes to Te Tiriti
Tākai Here partnership - Wellington City Council
Our Pouiwi have already voted in support of our LTP While discussions will be happening about how we manage committee and council this week, the vote on Thursday is intended as a rubber stamping exercise
Can I please remind everyone, following on from Laurie’s message last week, that we speak to each other and staff with respect
MEETINGS
Nga mihi
Tory Whanau
Mayor of Wellington | Wellington City Council
AND
From: Councillor Ray Chung <Ray Chung@wcc govt nz>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 9:21 PM
To: Holden Hohaia <Holden Hohaia@wcc govt nz>; Councillor John Apanowicz <John Apanowicz@wcc govt nz>; Councillor Diane Calvert <Diane Calvert@wcc govt nz>; Mayor Tory Whanau <Tory Whanau@wcc govt nz>; DL: Councillors <councillors@wcc govt nz>
Subject: RE: WCC reputational issues and LTP
Thank goodness you’re ineligible to vote then Holden! I consider this LTP to be the height of irresponsibility for the majority of Wellingtonians and the huge rate increases are making it unaffordable to live in Wellington!
Cheers, Ray
INFORMATION
From: Holden Hohaia <Holden Hohaia@wcc govt nz>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 9:38 AM
To: Councillor John Apanowicz <John Apanowicz@wcc govt nz>; Councillor Diane Calvert <diane calvert@wcc govt nz>; Mayor Tory Whanau <Tory Whanau@wcc govt nz>; DL: Councillors <councillors@wcc govt nz>
Subject: Re: WCC reputational issues and LTP
Tautoko e Hone The LTP has been through a long and rigorous process To vote against it at this point would be irresponsible and, in my view, and with the utmost respect, a dereliction of your duty as Councillors If I was able vote to adopt the LTP at full Council, I would certainly do so Ngā mihi,
Holden
OFFICIAL
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Councillor John Apanowicz <John Apanowicz@wcc govt nz>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 9:21:57 AM
To: Councillor Diane Calvert <diane calvert@wcc govt nz>; Mayor Tory Whanau <Tory Whanau@wcc govt nz>; DL: Councillors <councillors@wcc govt nz>
Subject: Re: WCC reputational issues and LTP
Diane,
We have been working on the LTP for 10 months
Your continued attempts to undermine the process and decision making are at the least unhelpful
GOVERNMENT
Regards,
John Apanowicz
Get Outlook for iOS
LOCAL
From: Councillor Diane Calvert <diane calvert@wcc govt nz>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 9:03:31 AM
To: Mayor Tory Whanau <Tory Whanau@wcc govt nz>; DL: Councillors <councillors@wcc govt nz>
Subject: WCC reputational issues and LTPTHE
Morena Tory and colleagues
Today’s paper has four (negative) articles on its first five pages about WCC I have never seen this before over the past eight years Two of those articles identify that senior staff on separate occasions have intentionally and significantly misinformed us Is this the tip of the iceberg?
Barry and Ponter’s contrived letter re the airport shares served no purpose other than to make even more councils look stupid
In the meantime we have the LTP decisions next week I am very concerned that despite attempts by some of us to reach a compromise and have a Plan B, just in case (prudent risk management), that any conversations have stalled Tory- you were to come back to us on Wednesday, then Thursday
UNDER
and now its Monday Hardly helpful to see if we can find a constructive way forward to try and find a consensus amongst 75% of us After all it is the LTP- the city’s budget for the next 10 years
Whether the LTP passes or not – there will be a massive fallout from any decision The least we could is help minimise it (and any action does not mean meekly rolling over)
Happy to meet today or over the weekend Democracy should not be only Mon-Fri 9-5
Diane
RELEASED
1987
ACT
MEETINGS
AND
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
1987
ACT
MEETINGS
AND
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
1987
ACT
MEETINGS
AND
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
From:
Tom Hunt
To:
DL: Councillors
Date:
Tuesday, 25 June 2024 7:20:32 pm
FYI all- we are going to have video/photographer at tomorrow’s meeting if people want to
make themselves presentable… not to suggest you wouldn’t otherwise
Tom Hunt
Senior reporter
1987
s7(2)(a)
10 Brandon Street,
ACT
Wellington 6011
MEETINGS
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
AND
copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have
received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Stuff does not guarantee
the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore
Stuff does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
From:
Councillor Ray Chung
To:
Tom Hunt
Subject:
RE: Bike counters
Date:
Tuesday, 9 July 2024 9:27:00 pm
Hi Tom
Tim is hardly being unbiased about his assumptions and only picking the numbers from the Basin
that suit his rhetoric!
1987
Cheers, Ray
ACT
From: Councillor Tim Brown <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 5:21 PM
To: Tom Hunt <[email address]>; Richard MacLean <[email address]>;
MEETINGS
Victoria Barton-Chapple <[email address]>; DL: Councillors
<[email address]>
AND
Subject: Re: Bike counters
Tom
I'd be skeptical about drawing any quick conclusions from the data
INFORMATION
Cobham Drive up 4% YoY in both May and June
Evans bay shared path up 4% in May and down 12% in June
OFFICIAL
Oriental Bay up 6% in May and down 16% in June
Basin up 8% in May and up 18% in June
Tasman Street down 15% in May and down 27% in June
GOVERNMENT
Its not sending a very clear message about overall ridership. The only figures that
completely accord with anecdotal evidence are the Basin numbers
LOCAL
Elsewhere the May numbers look plausible, the June ones dont
Tim
THE
From: Tom Hunt <
UNDER [email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 12:47 PM
To: Richard MacLean <[email address]>; Victoria Barton-Chapple <victoria.barton-
[email address]>; DL: Councillors <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Bike counters
RELEASED
If anyone else was going to respond, stand down as I have enough!
Would still be good to have council comment Richard and Vic.
Cheers
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 8:39 AM Tom Hunt <[email address]> wrote:
Hi all,
I see that across virtually al bike counters in the city, cycle trips are dropping compared
to last year:
https://www.transportprojects.org.nz/cycle-
data/#showdata/electronic/100041856/2023-06-01
Does the council want to comment on why this is?
And if any councillors want to comment, please do (briefly!)
1987
--
ACT
Tom Hunt
Senior reporter
MEETINGS
s7(2)(a)
AND
10 Brandon Street,
Wellington 6011
INFORMATION
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
OFFICIAL
any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have
received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Stuff does not guarantee
the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore
Stuff does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
From:
Councillor Ray Chung
To:
Tom Hunt
Subject:
RE: Road cones
Date:
Monday, 22 July 2024 1:39:00 pm
Hi Tom
I might just squeeze this in before your deadline!
1987
This report for Auckland is excellent and I agree with this. We go overboard with traffic
management under the excuse that Health and Safety requirements demand it! I’m not
ACT
convinced that this is the case and know of cases where traffic management has double the
budget of actually doing the job! This is ludicrous and is increasing the cost of doing anything!
I’ve suggested that we could instigate a business case for taking this traffic management in-
house and comparing the cost benefit ratio. We should also stop installing speed humps that
MEETINGS
have not been justified but simply because we use these as a “cure-all” solution!
AND
I agree with these findings and the four recommended steps for Auckland as being pertinent for
Wellington.
Cheers, Ray
INFORMATION
From: Tom Hunt <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 9:30 AM
To: Pearl Little <[email address]>; Richard MacLean <[email address]>;
Victoria Barton-Chapple <[email address]>; DL: Councillors
OFFICIAL
<[email address]>
Subject: Road cones
Hi all,
Attached is an EY report on traffic management in Auckland, but many of the findings
GOVERNMENT
appear to be NZ-wide:
* The current system is "defined by risk aversion",
* there is little consideration on the impacts on businesses and homes,
LOCAL
* TTM contractors have little incentive to work cheaper and faster,
THE
* There is a TTM "overkill" across NZ
Does WCC and Tory accept these same findings could be applied to Wellington?
UNDER
There are also four immediate steps recommended for Auckland - it would be good to
know if WCC would consider the same:
* The council taking
RELEASED
leadership of coordinating traffic management,
* setting up a disruption assessment tool,
* use 'super weekends' to get a lot of work done in a short time,
* Investigate compensation for businesses/ houses (which ties in with my questions from
yesterday).
1987
ACT
MEETINGS
AND
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
From:
Councillor Ray Chung
To:
Tom Hunt
Subject:
RE: Parking at Green Party office
Date:
Wednesday, 24 July 2024 2:14:00 pm
I asked Diane and she doesn’t know?
From: Tom Hunt <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 2:12 PM
1987
To: Councillor Ray Chung <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Parking at Green Party office
ACT
Thanks Ray - you don't happen to know who this person who tweeted is?
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 1:35 PM Councillor Ray Chung <[email address]> wrote:
MEETINGS
AND
Ray Chung
Councillor Onslow-Western
Wellington City Council
INFORMATION
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have
received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Stuff does not guarantee
OFFICIAL
the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore
Stuff does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
From:
Tom Hunt
To:
Councillor Ray Chung
Subject:
Re: FW: cycle way
Date:
Thursday, 25 July 2024 7:45:40 am
Thanks - very keen on this story so let me know how you go!
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 4:41 PM Councillor Ray Chung <[email address]>
wrote:
1987
Hi Tom
ACT
Haven’t had a chance to speak with s7(2)(a) yet but will do!
MEETINGS
Cheers, Ray
AND
INFORMATION
From: s7(2)(a)
<s7(2)(a)
>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 4:39 PM
To: Councillor Ray Chung <[email address]>
OFFICIAL
Subject: cycle way
Hi Ray
GOVERNMENT
For your information:
LOCAL
THE
s7(2)(a)
We
called the ambulance and as in an emergency the fire brigade came followed by a
paramedic and two ambulances. Even though the fire brigade is at the corner of Karori
UNDER
Road and Chaytor Sreet it took some time for it to get to Collier Ave. We could hear it
coming down the road. In talking to a fireman he expressed his concern in the
developments proposed along Karori Road. They are already struggling with the humps
in the road and are really concerned that if the road is narrowed by a cycle way even
more time will be taken to get to emergencies. I see from an email I got today that he
RELEASED ‘protected’ cycle way will be installed in September.
After today I despair for those who need an ambulance in an emergency when these
cycle lanes go down Karori Road.
Regards
s7(2)(a)
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
1987
copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have
received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Stuff does not guarantee
the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore
Stuff does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
ACT
MEETINGS
AND
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
From:
Councillor Ray Chung
To:
Tom Hunt
Subject:
RE:
Date:
Tuesday, 6 August 2024 4:29:00 pm
Hi Tom
I don’t support balustrades.
1987
Cheers, Ray
ACT
From: Tom Hunt <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 12:22 PM
To: DL: Councillors <[email address]>
Subject:
MEETINGS
Hi all,
AND
In the Sandy Calkin inquest today it turned out that the $6m for edge lighting and fencing
will likely blow out to $10m-plus. As lighting is already well-progressed, it looks likely to be
the balustrade work that will need more money.
Shane Bonney says the decision to proceed with balustrades will likely come down to a
council vote (ie, if we put balustrades there at all, but possibly also the extra funding).
INFORMATION
Is it possible to get a yes/no/undecided from each of you about whether you would
support balustrades?
You are welcome to send some commentary but it is unlikely to make the story!
OFFICIAL
Cheers
--
Tom Hunt
Senior reporter
GOVERNMENT
s7(2)(a)
10 Brandon Street,
Wellington 6011
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have
RELEASED
received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Stuff does not guarantee
the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore
Stuff does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
From:
Tom Hunt
To:
DL: Councillors
Date:
Monday, 27 May 2024 9:25:42 am
Attachments:
OIA 616 Robinson followup response re Thorndon Quay pipes.pdf
[email address] appears similar to someone who previously sent you email, but may
not be that person. Learn why this could be a risk
HI,
Does anyone want to comment (briefly) on the attached LGOIMA, showing that even with increased spending
on pipes, the backlog of pipes needing replacement (under current planned funding) in the next 10 years will
1987
grow by 154km from 406km to 560km.
Do you believe these figures are accurate and does this mean Wellington's pipe issues will actually be worse in ACT
10 years time?
Cheers
MEETINGS
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have
received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Stuff does not guarantee
AND
the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore
Stuff does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
1987
ACT
MEETINGS
AND
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
Appendix
Request 1
The draft memo was received by LGWM. It is therefore a communication and is covered by the OIA.
The fact that it has “draft” written on it does not exempt it from the provisions of the OIA. Do you
accept that WW has breached the Act by attempting (albeit unsuccessfully) to withhold it on the
1987
basis that it is “out of scope”? – Yes or No?. If yes, what are you going to do about it?
ACT
Response:
When a request for information is made, our starting point is that we make the information available
unless there is good reason to withhold it (based on what’s set out in the Act). Reasons to withhold
information under the Act include things like free and frank advice, confidentiality, legal privilege,
MEETINGS
and to protect privacy. WWL’s interpretation of the Act is that some documents that are in draft and
AND
not finalised can be withheld on the grounds of free and frank advice.
This document was meant to be withheld because it was a draft document which had not been
finalised. The reason why this was not finalised is that it was contingent on a particular part of the
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme progressing, which it has not.
INFORMATION
When we balanced whether or not this was in the public’s interest to disclose this information to
you, we decided that this didn’t meet the public interest test. This is because the advice and
assessment in the memo were developed in 2022 (two years ago) and the figures are out of date and
would need further assessment and updating. OFFICIAL
However, now that you have received the redacted memo and there has been media interest on this
matter, we have taken the decision to proactively publish your received LGOIMA response (ref OIA
IRO-616) on our website: https://www.wel ingtonwater.co.nz/about-us/official-requests/official-
information-act-responses/ GOVERNMENT
Request 2
There have clearly been meetings
LOCAL
/ decisions made fol owing the date of the draft memo. Where are
the records of those decisions?
THE
Response:
The draft memo
UNDER was sent to Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM) and their consultant engineers.
We have conducted an electronic search of email records of the named people in the memo. There
were no records found. WWL can confirm that there were no fol ow-up meetings, communications
and discussions between WWL and LGWM in regards the Thorndon Quay work following the memo.
RELEASED
Request 3
This request relates to questions sent prior to this request to Nick Leggett, Chair of the Board of
WWL.
Hi Nick
I am forwarding you an email trail (sent in error) by your officers to Tom Hunt from Stuff.
I am concerned that my requests to WCC and WW for information concerning the condition of water
1987
infrastructure along Thorndon have been responded to with less than the utmost probity. Certainly,
the email trail below indicates a serious breach of the OI Act.
ACT
1. WCC:-Following my OIA request WCC (and LGWM) have advised that WCC hold no condition
reports or correspondence relating to Thorndon Quay water infrastructure. . At a meeting at
WCC last Thursday, an officer confirmed that his name was one of those redacted in the
attached document. Clearly WCC have misinformed me. I cannot believe that they would not
have information on the condition of these pipes prior to committing to a $60m roading
MEETINGS
contract.
2. WW- The email trail below speaks for itself. How on earth could the attached do
AND
cument be
regarded as “out of scope”? What other potentially useful information has been excluded
because it is “out of scope”?. There must be a communication trail that fol ows this draft
memo. If not, why not?
Response:
INFORMATION
The answer to the above question is encompassed by the response to request 2.
Request 4
OFFICIAL
Would you please ask your CEO and her team to provide you “chapter and verse” information
on all internal communications, communications with WCC and external advisors relating to
this issue. I want to know if there will be any need, recommendation, or plan to replace or do
major repairs to any pipework along Thorndon Quay within, say, the next 10 years. As the
information you provide will be business related, there should not be any need to redact any
names – there is no personal privacy interest.
GOVERNMENT
Response:
WWL has undertaken an electronic search of its internal communications, communications with
LOCAL
Wellington City Council (“WCC”) and external advisors regarding the pipework along Thorndon Quay.
The result of the sear
THE ch reveals a significant amount of responses over 7,000 in number. This does
not include email and documents. This is significant amount of information and would require a
large amount of people resource and time to undertake a comprehensive review. Section 17(f) of
the LGOIMA allo
UNDER ws for a request to be refused under substantial col ation and research. One option
is to narrow the scope of your request, so a more targeted response could be undertaken. We have
already contacted you to do this.
RELEASED
Request 5
Why are there no plans to replace these pipes? We all know these pipes are shot, as the photos
attest. (The December 8th explosion wasn’t even recorded on your incident register that you
released). I have talked to Downer’s site foreman yesterday and asked him what they had found
from the excavations they had carried out in the current segment of work. His reply was that
from what they had seen the pipes looked to be in poor condition. Are you telling us that we
have to put up with another 10 years of leaks?
1987
Response:
ACT
The sections of pipe along Thorndon Quay have been identified as being in poor condition based on
a preliminary assessment and have been tagged as assets that need further, more detailed
investigation. Further investigation, such as a physical inspection of the pipe, would provide a
fulsome picture of the state of the pipe and potential work needed.
MEETINGS
While this work is important, it is not unique. WCC are dealing with a significant backlog of pipes in
AND
the city that are in need of renewing (replacing). WWL looks after around 2,700km of pipe assets on
behalf of WCC.
Many of which are also in poor condition and need renewing. Currently, WCC has a backlog of
406km of pipe that need to be renewed. Every year the network ages and more pipes come closer to
the end of the operational lives, meaning the backlog of work wil continue to gr
INFORMATION ow. This is a
significant amount of work, and we recognise WCC needs to balance this with a wide range of other
priorities across the city.
In the current draft Long-Term Plan (2024-34), WCC is propos
OFFICIAL ing to invest in renewing approximately
330kms of pipe over a 10-year period. We estimate that by the end of the 10-year period, the
backlog of pipes that need to be renewed wil have grown to around 560kms.
To prioritise this work, we must focus on the most critical assets first (these are ones that if they
break or fail would result in significant and widespread impact to the public / community). As part of
GOVERNMENT
our work to support WCC’s Long-Term Plan, we reviewed al the work that needs to be done across
the city. When compared to other more critical assets or assets that are in need of urgent work, no
renewals in the Thorndon Quay and Hutt Road area were identified as in need of prioritisation for
LOCAL
the current draft Long-Term Plan.
THE
This means that pipes along Thorndon Quay, like many others across the city, wil need to be
programmed in at a later date for further investigation when funding and resources al ow. We
continue to mon
UNDER itor the condition of pipes and assets across the city as part of our ongoing
programme of condition assessments. We also formally review the city’s water asset renewals
programme every three years as part of each Long-Term Plan period. We’ll use this information and
evidence as a basis for our advice to WCC who set our budgets and decide what work they can fund.
RELEASED
Request 6
I cannot understand how the recommendations contained in the draft memo (which seem to be
consistent with my layman’s reading of the actual condition reports) could transform from
“must do” or “should do” to – “ we have no plans to do anything in the next 10 years” – It does
not make sense. It does not reconcile with the knowledge and experience that local property
owners have of the condition of this network. It does not reconcile with the December 8th
explosion that destroyed a car (see attached photo). It does not reconcile with todays all too
familiar leak (see attached photo).
1987
Response:
ACT
Please refer to the answer above.
Request 7
MEETINGS
I want to know if there wil be any need, recommendation, or plan to replace or do major repairs to
any pipework along Thorndon Quay within, say, the next 10 years.
AND
Response:
There are no plans to renew the pipework along Thorndon Quay in the next 10 years based on
WCC’s draft 2024-34 Long Term Plan. However, it is not possible to predict if repairs will be required
due to breakages etc.
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
From:
Councillor Ray Chung
To:
Tom Hunt
Subject:
RE: Thorndon Quay pipes
Date:
Friday, 21 June 2024 12:51:00 pm
Hi Tom
Sorry, have been frantically busy and just read this mail and read your article in today’s paper!
1987
Cheers, Ray
ACT
From: Tom Hunt <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 8:18 AM
To: Councillor Nicola Young <[email address]>; Councillor Iona Pannett
<[email address]>; Councillor Diane Calvert <[email address]>; Councillor
MEETINGS
Ray Chung <[email address]>; Pearl Little <[email address]>; Councillor Geordie
Rogers <[email address]>; Richard MacLean <[email address]>
AND
Subject: Re: Thorndon Quay pipes
Hi all,
Just to clarify (and I am checking I have this correct) but it appears WCC was sent this
memo twice: Once when it was sent to people at WCC when it was first sent out, then
INFORMATION
again to a single person at WCC by an engineer.
WW sent through a clarification to a line in the LGOIMA response: "We also understand that the
draft memo was sent to a Wellington Water Consultant Engineer overseeing LGWM work who
also forwarded it to several people at Aurecon Group and a person at WCC."
OFFICIAL
Either way, WCC was sent it once but it appears it was sent twice.
I would wait for WW to clarify but we all know that that could take a while!
GOVERNMENT
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 7:52 AM Tom Hunt <[email address]> wrote:
Hi,
LOCAL
Does anyone want to comment on the below?
THE
By 1pm please.
Cheers
UNDER
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From:
Tom Hunt <[email address]>
Date: Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 6:35 AM
Subject: Thorndon Quay pipes
RELEASED To: Richard MacLean <[email address]>, Victoria Barton-Chapple
<[email address]>
Hi,
Attached is a LGOIMA showing WCC was copied into the draft memo showing the $5.2m
of must-do work under Thorndon Quay. WW has since clarified it went to one person at
WCC.
This is the opposite of Siobhan Procter's statement on RNZ, where she said a few times
that WCC didn't get any advice from WW on this. (First time about 9.50, again at about
13.10, then 13.59)
Paul Robinson at the Woolstore says he also has info from WCC saying it didn't get the
advice.
I think I, somewhere in my emails, have something similar.
1987
Can I find out, by midday, if WCC now accepts it did get this draft memo?
Thanks
ACT
--
Tom Hunt
MEETINGS
Senior reporter
s7(2)(a)
AND
10 Brandon Street,
Wellington 6011
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have
received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Stuff does not guarantee
the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore
Stuff does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
