The WCC vote on cycleways and water infrastructure

Liam Hehir writes:

The debate over whether Tamatha Paul bears meaningful responsibility for Wellington’s sewage crisis has gathered pace and heat in equal measure. At the centre of it sits a blog post attributed to a writer named Peter Bassett, which has been widely circulated and confidently asserted as fact.

The claim is stark. In May 2021, faced with a choice between major wastewater renewals and expanded cycleways, Paul chose cyclists. The argument is simple, morally charged and politically explosive.

It is also worth noting that Peter Bassett may be an alias. There appears to be no person of the name on the Wellington electoral rolls.

Hehir sets out that while it is true Paul moved an amendment to adopt a more expensive option for cycleways, there was no actual vote in wastewater funding.

But as far as I can see, the minutes contain no reference whatsoever to wastewater infrastructure, other than a section concerning bulk water charging methodology between councils. There is no option presented for wastewater renewal spending. There is no discussion recorded of sewage treatment investment. 

There is no figure resembling the $391 million wastewater programme that sits at the centre of the case against Paul. There is no moment where the committee considered and declined to invest in underground pipe infrastructure of any kind.

It looks like while there was an option in the papers about wastewater investment, it was never considered or voted on by council.

The issue here is that the case against Paul makes much about a choice between two presented options. The minutes do not show that choice being made. They show cycleway acceleration being voted on. They show no corresponding wastewater option being voted down.

This is important. There was only one vote, not two. You can make the case that WCC has under invested in water infrastructure and has been fixated on cycleways (both true) but there was no simple vote at this meeting.

Tamatha Paul moved a cycleways amendment. That is documented. The claim that she did so by directly turning down a wastewater option placed before her is not.

What would be interesting would be to ask the Greens and Ms Paul whether she thinks in hindsight she thinks water infrastructure should have been a higher priority than cycleways.

The post The WCC vote on cycleways and water infrastructure first appeared on Kiwiblog.