Vision for Wellington - disorganised, disingenuous, discredited, and a dead duck
An AI-generated image of a dishevelled duck wearing a Vision for Wellington t-shirt.
I’ve been involved in my fair share of advocacy campaigns over the years and watched many others come and go, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one with so many supposedly high-powered individuals seemingly blunder every move it makes like Vision for Wellington has.
First of all, the group got ahead of itself and botched its launch, with a website riddled with ideologically driven talking points and a laundry list of politically linked members. Despite the repeated claims of those involved that it was apolitical and bipartisan, the excuses really didn’t wash. If you look at who’s involved, many have still been overtly involved in pushing various ideological barrows, while others are various much active away from the public eye.
Things didn’t get much better when Stuff owner Sinead Boucher tried to defend the group’s make up, manifesto, and actions to Mediawatch. The Post’s coverage of the group’s launch had already been called into question, with the perception that it was blurring the line between editorial independence and the owner’s views even if in practice it wasn’t the case… which brings us to today…
That’s because The Post has reported on an Official Information Act response that shows members of Vision for Wellington actively engaging with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Minister for Local Government Simeon Brown. It has former Wellington mayor Dame Kerry Prendergast volunteering her services to Simeon Brown to assist with Wellington City Council’s governance issues two weeks prior to the group’s launch and 11 days prior to Brown announcing his intention to appoint a Crown Observer to Wellington City Council. This was followed up by business leader Dame Therese Walsh contacting both Simeon Brown and Christopher Luxon to give them both a heads up about the group. Amusingly, when asked whether she had contacted people on the left of the political spectrum, her response to The Post indicates that she did not.
It gets better though, despite having very clearly offered herself up to Simeon Brown to help with Wellington City Council’s perceived governance issues, Prendergast claims in the story that the group is “not trying to undermine the council or Wellington.”
To put it bluntly - pull the other one!
Stuff owner Boucher is still trying to claim the group is apolitical on the basis that the group is “not there to support or endorse political candidates” but she seems to miss the point that if members of the group are actively undermining the incumbents, it doesn’t really matter if they endorse anyone or not. You can protest as much as you want that the group is meant to be apolitical, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.
In this case, it’s a disorganised, disingenuous, and discredited duck.
At this point it’s doing more harm than good. The purpose of the group has become so muddied by the apparent motives of those involved that those dancing on a head of a pin to try and defend the indefensible is amusing at best, and downright deceitful at worse.
If Vision for Wellington wanted to truly be apolitical it needed to do things a lot differently.
When I launched my campaign to advocate for a Royal Commission on Local Government, I sent my call across Parliament as I recognised the need for bipartisan consensus to make local government reform stick. Likewise with my recent call for the Ombudsman to chase up laggard councils over their refusal to open up closed door workshops and briefings, I looped in my letter to the Ombudsman to both Simeon Brown and Labour’s Local Government spokesperson Kieran McAnulty.
There’s no issue with having people with political backgrounds involved. You basically have to because they’re inevitably going to be the folks who care most about this stuff anyway. Ideally you should have a demonstrable spread across the political spectrum, but beggars can’t be choosers.
Ultimately it’s how your members and you handle your approaches to councils and central government, and how you present your group publicly that matters. If you can’t demonstrate that your campaign is living the apolitical values it claims to adhere to, then your assurances aren’t worth the pixels they’re displayed on.
And look, we’ve all made mistakes in this regard, myself included! But the calibre and extensive background of those involved in Vision for Wellington means they should be experienced enough to not be making amateur hour stuff ups like they repeatedly have. It’s the type of naivety you’d expect from those who are stepping foot in the political realm for the first time, not the seasoned operators who have attached their names to this floundering folly.
For the benefit Wellington City, and to salvage the reputations of those involved, I hope Vision for Wellington soon becomes a dead duck.
Update 11 December 2024
The Post, owned by Vision for Wellington founding member Sinead Boucher, has exposed even more lobbying of Local Government Minister Simeon Brown about Wellington City Council by members of the group - this time from local businessman Myles Gazley and Greater Wellington regional councillor Simon Woolf.
Given numerous members of Vision for Wellington have served on Wellington City Council at various points over the past three decades and share some responsibility for failing to address the historical issues the city now faces, to quote Marx: history repeats itself, first as a tragedy, second as a farce.
Knowing the size of some of the egos involved in Vision for Wellington, I appreciate that they might not want to publicly admit the group is now compromised beyond recourse and it needs to be put out of its misery. Instead, may I humbly suggest they say the group is reassessing its options going forward, and then just let Vision for Wellington quietly fade to black over the summer holidays so that in a year’s time we all forget this embarrassing little episode ever happened.
