That NZCPR article claiming that there was a 2021 Wellington City Council vote led by then-councillor Tamatha Paul that prioritised increased cycle lane funding over pipes not only took on its own life in social media, it was used by Nicola Willis to attack the Green Party in Parliament, then referenced in other articles including Bryce Edwards’ Democracy Project.
Even on face value, it was obvious – the capital expenditure (capex) budget is different to operational budget (opex) – the former funds water infrastructure, and the latter, expenditure such as cycle ways.
In a real demonstration of a shell game, Taxpayers Union leveraged Edwards’ post to ‘confirm’ that it was Wellington Council’s progressive Councillors at fault.
Naturally, Taxpayers Union, which led the assault on Labour’s 3 Waters, resulting in a now $9 billion higher cost Local Water Done Well bill, potentially contributing to critical delays in specialist 3 Waters expertise that could have evaluated Moa Point, would want eyes elsewhere.
Talk about “failing to treat the issue with the urgency it demanded when they had the chance!”
It’s no surprise surprise perhaps.
But to me, the story was genuinely incredulous because nothing about those claims made sense from the start.
Not only that, more significantly, his claims that there was a 2021 Wellington City Council vote led by then-councillor Tamatha Paul that prioritised increased cycle lane funding over pipes didn’t happen.
Wellington City councillor Diane Calvert, who posted on a Scoop.co.nz version of the blog confirming Peter Bassett’s story, said she had never heard of him before.
WCC Councillor Diane Calvert
[Calvert] subsequently confirmed that the vote never happened as “Bassett” claimed, although said the wider issue was being discussed at the time.
What the baloney?
They say that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can even touch it.
And that’s the play.
It is effective – the people who will hear the truth later frequently have become so emotionally ensconced within their first lie, that they are uninterested in facts.
The Green Party is no stranger to these hits – it’s not the first time it has happened to them and they are frequently subject to out of context mis-characterisations.
But Tamatha Paul didn’t deserve this.
No-one does, but least of all those that play it straight and narrow, and are doing their best to serve their constituents and country with integrity.
The question now is whether Scoop Wellingon, NZME’s Ryan Bridge, Democracy Project, Taxpayers Union & all those who fanned this around Tamatha Paul & the WCC will apologise?
All the concentration on possible responsibility of politicians and private versus public management may prove to be irrelevant. It is almost entirely possible to imagine simple, but admittedly unacceptable technical explanations which are apparent to me as a former civil engineer with relevant experience.
I believe that the problem at Moa Point arose during a period of extreme rainfall which caused a relatively sudden increase in sewage flow to Moa Point. What flows in must flow out or cause flooding in the sewage plant. Questions in my mind include: what provision is there for emergency automatic diversion of flow from the long outfall to the 5m outfall, and was the blockage in the 1800m outfall due to inadequate ventilation of air trapped in the pipe? One hopes that any investigation will give consideration to these and any other technical matters of relevance.
I have a lot of time for my local MP – Tamatha – I think she is a fantastic voice for youth in Parliament, and it makes me sick the way the right pick on young brown women.
No mention in your post of the private multi- million dollar global company Veolia, who is responsible for running the plant. There's stories to be told about them. Flint, Michigan, and the lead in their water, for starters.
And don't forget the underlying issue for the right in all this. Don't ever let a story about the private sector doing something really badly, especially with something the right want to privatise, like water, – don't ever let a story like that get legs.
I don't think Flint was Veolia's bad, the local smartarses in that part of the USA did it all themselves (without prejudice of course).
And while that term comes to mind I looked it up just to fix its meaning and now pass it on as well. We have been left unknowing about so much that we need to catch up – it's now or never. So:
What Does Without Prejudice Mean?
Without Prejudice | Guide for Employers | Peninsula NZ Employsure NZ | https://employsure.co.nz › other-employment-relations
7 Jun 2023 — 'Without prejudice' is a legal term used to describe written or verbal communications aimed at settling disputes which cannot later be referred to in court.
28 Jan 2026 — Statements and admissions marked as 'without prejudice' are provided with legal privilege. This means they are inadmissible as evidence in court proceedings.
6 May 2025 — 'Without Prejudice' (WP) communications protect genuine settlement negotiations from being used as evidence on the main issues in court, …
25 Jun 2019 — What is the point of the "without prejudice" rule? The WP rule is to encourage settlement discussions without parties weakening their position .
Then lo and behold, after the election the results of the 'inquiry' will come out.
Which will blame anybody but Veolia, the actual company in charge of the actual plant where things actually went wrong.
Pretty much all Wellingtonians had never heard of this company until a few weeks ago, and even now, probably only news junkies.
I think that it should always be the case that things are explained by pollies and office holders re financing and priorities as if they are being explained to a child. Too many of us are caught up in that 'things we know, and things we think we know blah', unaware of the divisions in an overall budget for particular types of projects.
As pointed out the cycleway was from one division and not from budgeted amounts for the other. The amounts budgeted in the first place may have been wrongly balanced; but that should have been made clear.
We need joined-up ideas, clear info now, as there is so much murkiness swirling around. I don't do much on social media – I need to put stuff into my head that seems correct and reliable not others' reckons or what they have always thought etc.
Here we are more than 10 years after 'Dirty Politics' and apparently it's still common to think "People I follow are reposting this so it must be true." Well, maybe those people you follow also thought "People I follow are reposting this so it must be true," and everyone's just peddling some dirty-politics operative's propaganda lie.
All the concentration on possible responsibility of politicians and private versus public management may prove to be irrelevant. It is almost entirely possible to imagine simple, but admittedly unacceptable technical explanations which are apparent to me as a former civil engineer with relevant experience.
I believe that the problem at Moa Point arose during a period of extreme rainfall which caused a relatively sudden increase in sewage flow to Moa Point. What flows in must flow out or cause flooding in the sewage plant. Questions in my mind include: what provision is there for emergency automatic diversion of flow from the long outfall to the 5m outfall, and was the blockage in the 1800m outfall due to inadequate ventilation of air trapped in the pipe? One hopes that any investigation will give consideration to these and any other technical matters of relevance.
Thank you, thank you for this MT.
I have a lot of time for my local MP – Tamatha – I think she is a fantastic voice for youth in Parliament, and it makes me sick the way the right pick on young brown women.
No mention in your post of the private multi- million dollar global company Veolia, who is responsible for running the plant. There's stories to be told about them. Flint, Michigan, and the lead in their water, for starters.
And don't forget the underlying issue for the right in all this. Don't ever let a story about the private sector doing something really badly, especially with something the right want to privatise, like water, – don't ever let a story like that get legs.
I don't think Flint was Veolia's bad, the local smartarses in that part of the USA did it all themselves (without prejudice of course).
And while that term comes to mind I looked it up just to fix its meaning and now pass it on as well. We have been left unknowing about so much that we need to catch up – it's now or never. So:
What Does Without Prejudice Mean?
Without Prejudice | Guide for Employers | Peninsula NZ Employsure NZ | https://employsure.co.nz › other-employment-relations
7 Jun 2023 — 'Without prejudice' is a legal term used to describe written or verbal communications aimed at settling disputes which cannot later be referred to in court.
LegalVision New Zealand https://legalvision.co.nz › disputes-and-litigation › what…
28 Jan 2026 — Statements and admissions marked as 'without prejudice' are provided with legal privilege. This means they are inadmissible as evidence in court proceedings.
CWG Law https://www.cwglaw.co.nz › blog › without-prejudice-o…
6 May 2025 — 'Without Prejudice' (WP) communications protect genuine settlement negotiations from being used as evidence on the main issues in court, …
Gowling WLG | https://gowlingwlg.com › insights-resources › articles
25 Jun 2019 — What is the point of the "without prejudice" rule? The WP rule is to encourage settlement discussions without parties weakening their position .
No surprise to see Ryan Bridge and TPU involved in the mis information campaign.
Seeing them aligned on an issue leaves an odour.
One that demands digging deeper to find the truth they're trying to distract everyone away from.
Methinks they are all hiding behind an 'inquiry'.
Then lo and behold, after the election the results of the 'inquiry' will come out.
Which will blame anybody but Veolia, the actual company in charge of the actual plant where things actually went wrong.
Pretty much all Wellingtonians had never heard of this company until a few weeks ago, and even now, probably only news junkies.
I think that it should always be the case that things are explained by pollies and office holders re financing and priorities as if they are being explained to a child. Too many of us are caught up in that 'things we know, and things we think we know blah', unaware of the divisions in an overall budget for particular types of projects.
As pointed out the cycleway was from one division and not from budgeted amounts for the other. The amounts budgeted in the first place may have been wrongly balanced; but that should have been made clear.
We need joined-up ideas, clear info now, as there is so much murkiness swirling around. I don't do much on social media – I need to put stuff into my head that seems correct and reliable not others' reckons or what they have always thought etc.
Here we are more than 10 years after 'Dirty Politics' and apparently it's still common to think "People I follow are reposting this so it must be true." Well, maybe those people you follow also thought "People I follow are reposting this so it must be true," and everyone's just peddling some dirty-politics operative's propaganda lie.