OPINION
Wayne Brown pulled out of a Herald mayoral debate last week, saying he would not accept me as the moderator. When Viv Beck withdrew from the race altogether, we cancelled the event.
But the invitation to Brown remains open and here, for the record, are some of the questions I want to ask him.
When Brown has "fixed" public agencies, he's done so with the support of government.
But when he was appointed in 2018 to lead a review of the future of the Auckland port, he did not have that support. The review was an NZ First initiative, agreed to with little enthusiasm from Labour.
That made it a test of his political skills: Brown had to change the Government's mind. He failed spectacularly.
He didn't know how to get meetings he needed with Cabinet ministers or officials. He treated the Auckland mayor with disdain. In presentations to Auckland business and community leaders, he publicly insulted senior ministers and the mayor.
He's still doing it: "I took out all the big words but they still didn't understand it," he said in a candidates' meeting this month.
Cabinet responded by commissioning another report designed to bury Brown's work in such a dark hole it would never be found.
As it happens, I think his report is far-sighted and very largely right. But it's pointless being right if all you do is alienate people and then blame them for being stupid.
I've asked Brown several times what he learned from the experience and he always says he didn't do anything wrong.
When Brown was mayor of the Far North (2007-2013) he was investigated by the auditor-general, Lyn Provost. She found he had used his executive assistant to query staff about company rates he was paying and had "written formally to the chief executive about the rating issues using mayoral letterhead".
Provost called this "unwise" and warned him to "ensure that council staff do not feel under any pressure to treat him and his businesses in a different way because he is the current mayor".
We have rules for these things to avoid corruption in public office. Provost did not say he had been corrupt, but in the restrained language of such reports, she was clearly concerned at his approach to the rules.
Asked about this in August, he said it was a long time ago and he had been cleared. That isn't true.
Brown frequently complains about the secrecy surrounding cost overruns and delays on the City Rail Link (CRL).
CRL chief executive Sean Sweeney puts those problems down to the supply chain and staffing disruptions caused by Covid. He says they've begun negotiations with the contractor to decide who will be liable to pay which extra costs.
Undoubtedly, Sweeney and the council know more than they are telling us. But if they made the financial details public now, it would expose them in the negotiations and that would cost ratepayers and taxpayers money.
Does Brown understand that? Confidentiality in such situations is normal business practice.
This raises another question. How can we know that as mayor he could be trusted with confidential information?
Brown is proud of his "straight talking" way with people he thinks aren't up to the job.
One Far North councillor said that Brown "would have me in tears, honestly. He would give me such a dressing down, I was just a sobbing mess."
Brown has never said he was wrong to behave like that. But is there a single organisation in the country where it's acceptable?
He's particularly critical of CRL management and yet, when they invited him to a mayoral candidates' briefing, he refused to go. He said he wanted a serious engineering discussion but wasn't interested in a PR exercise.
He's right that his construction expertise is beyond that of a general briefing. But the invitation was a goodwill gesture and a chance to discuss the reasons for the confidentiality. Brown turned his back on senior staff offering to build a working relationship.
What does he think will happen if good senior staff leave and good replacements can't be found?
Although transport is the city's biggest problem, Brown hasn't announced a transport strategy. Instead, he will "get rid of the road cones" and "make sure all the existing projects are finished before new ones are started".
That would bring the city's construction programme to a halt. Auckland would once more build up a backlog of urgently needed projects, the investment pipeline would dry up and we would lose construction expertise to projects overseas.
Why would anyone who understands the construction industry or the needs of a growing city want to do that? A city without road cones is a city that is dying.
Brown often says he's an expert with "the numbers" and he shocks audiences by saying the council is "losing $1 billion a year". The implication is incompetence. But it isn't true.
Brown seems to have misunderstood what happened in 2020 when Covid robbed the council of $900 million in revenue. The council dealt with it by slashing spending and adopting a new "emergency budget". Spending isn't out of control. They balanced the books.
In fact, in the past three years, the council has saved $2.4 billion in spending and grown its asset base to $70.4 billion. Debt sits at 257 per cent of revenue, which is below the 270 per cent ceiling they operated under before Covid.
Brown has accused his rival Efeso Collins of wanting to raise rates by up to 50 per cent. But Collins says that is not true and has committed to a 3.5 per cent rise for the next financial year.
Brown himself has repeatedly refused to make any commitment about rates. Why not? He will only say he "thinks" they will rise by less than the current 5.6 per cent.
Even that amount is based on an assumption he will be able to "demand the port returns $400 million per year", immediately.
That would mean the port finding higher-value uses for the land and paying commercial rates on it.
But it's not possible for those things to happen quickly. And if they are to happen, shouldn't they be part of the political decision-making about the port's future?
Brown has said he would not be "travelling to the opening of an envelope or cutting many ribbons". But that's just a disparaging way of talking about community events, which mayors are expected to attend. It helps them stay in touch with us, and we with them.
Former mayor Len Brown also used to hold "mayor in the chair" sessions in shopping malls, when anyone who wanted could come and talk to him, and took a daily walk downtown to talk to people. How will Wayne Brown stay in touch?
With his focus on "fixing Auckland", Brown has defined the mayoralty as engineering project management.
But what about the rest of the mayor's job? Does he have any larger goals for the social, environmental and economic fabric of the city? Does he do any long-term thinking? He doesn't talk about these things.
CRL tunnelling is almost finished. So is Queen St. All over the city, motorway extensions, busways, housing developments and stormwater and wastewater projects are well underway. Brown has not explained what material difference he might make to any of them.
From the CRL to council costs, road cones to rates, his complaints seem bombastic rather than insightful.
The 20th century is over. The climate crisis, the pandemic, global economic instability and war have changed the world and continue to threaten us all.
We know we have to change the way we live but we also know that society-wide change is exceptionally hard. That makes political leadership especially important, in cities just as much as in countries.
Over the past 12 years, Auckland Council has created the Auckland Plan, Unitary Plan, City Centre Masterplan, many local area plans, a Climate Plan and a Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway.
Together, they form a programme to make Tāmaki Makaurau a more prosperous, inclusive and climate-resilient city. They require some tough decisions, but councillors adopted all of them either unanimously or with large majorities.
Brown, however, says that if he's mayor, "it's not my job to lead a change of peoples' behaviour".
That is no longer true. We should debate what changes we need and how to make them. We should insist on financial efficiency and good consultation. But how is it responsible for any politician in 2022 to say we don't need to talk about change at all?
As noted above, the invitation to discuss all this remains open.
Lobby group calls out new Police Commissioner over arming his officers.