Archive for October, 2016

Copied from verbatim:

PMH – new Community Hospital. Lets Start the conversation…**UPDATE**

Lee Sampson from Cashmere

At the request of many local residents we recently wrote to the CDHB as a follow up to the public meeting (at the Cashmere Club). In summary we have requested the following information (the full letter is also attached).
1. Provision of supporting evidence to show beyond doubt that the current structures do not offer an economic repair option (or have any residual value). PMH would cost circa $300-400m to build (in today’s’ monetary terms). This community and our tax payers deserve to have full confidence in the CDHB’s current position. We believe many of the structures could be re-purposed.
2. Residents continue to struggle with transport and overall connectivity to our public healthcare services. We request urgent consideration for a dedicated hospital bus Service, from the southern suburbs (i.e. PMH) that would go directly to Central and then Burwood Hospitals (effectively linking them all up). We request that CDHB take a principle role in leading such improvements. Many passengers find 2-3 connections both confusing and overly time consuming (especially when you have early appointments).
3. Finally we believe that the future services CEO David Meates suggested at the meeting (an Integrated Health Facility at PMH) , should be part of the Public health system. The Services should specifically reflect the needs of this community and include some satellite Older Persons Health Services to address many of the day-to-day needs of this community (i.e. non clinical services such as Pre-assessments, Rehabilitation services, memory clinics and the like). We’ve asked for an update here.

We’d like to take this opportunity to thank this community for all the support and fantastic feedback received to date.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO KEEP SHARING THE PETITION TO ENSURE WE PASS THE 2,000 MARK! Find the online version at… we’ll be formally handing this over to the Minister and Health and the CDHB in November.


Rik Tindall Neighbourly Lead from Cashmere

Has Karleen Edwards authorised your campaign Lee? As in, your boss.

Jan Hegarty from Somerfield

Hi Rik, just checking re your comment. If Lee is doing this on his own time surely he doesn’t have to have it authorised by his Boss.

Lee Sampson from Cashmere

Hi Rik, not quite sure what this has to do with CCC in all honesty? I will always work hard for this community and bring the positive energy, focus and balance that this community deserves as I have always done in all my volunteer roles…. whether that’s youth mentoring, supporting the food resilience network (FRN) or through my service as a very proud Rotarian..

Rik Tindall Neighbourly Lead from Cashmere

Hi Jan, Lee – in your public campaigning we see declaration of your employment – “senior project manager” – but never who your employer is: the Christchurch City Council. So in seeking local public election you are seeking two bites of the cherry: in the formulation of public policy when you will also be employed to carry that policy out. This looks like a clear conflict of interest, especially if any daytime community meetings you’d attend in an elected role occur in your already paid council time. Are you proposing to be paid twice in these cases, or will you resign your council employment, or will you simply be unable to attend weekday community meetings, unless on leave? Thanks.

Rik Tindall Neighbourly Lead from Cashmere

Who is paying Lee to communicate on Neighbourly right now, e.g.? Well, it’s his lunchbreak, so that much is ok. Public service matters.

Lee Sampson from Cashmere

Hi Rik, is it me personally you are taking exception too our is it the work that save PMH are doing with this campaign?
I believe you have advocated for high density housing on the PMH site, so the creation of circa 600-800 new houses…this would be very problematic for congestion, I’d ask you to reconsider this position..

Rik Tindall Neighbourly Lead from Cashmere

Lee, “high density housing on the PMH site”, in the current buildings to preserve their heritage values, would meet many needs as one. Nothing about new houses. That might be a choice of any next site owners. But include upgraded health facility for the area to the maximum possible extent, agreed. I’d ask you to get out of the community engagement sphere, if you are going to stay on in paid council planning capacity – remain neutral.

Helen Baker from Somerfield

I tend to agree with Rik from what you have both talked about, you should not be doing both roles Lee as i see it. I think we should keep the PMH buildings, due to their heritage value, it is such a grand building and i would hate to see it go, my thoughts on having it continue as a health centre only doesn’t make sense economically as it isn’t purpose built and it would take an awful lot of services to be viable, unless there were many other non health care uses as well as a health centre, which could include apartments of all types including those on low incomes [a mix of residential uses and incomes perhaps], including transport to o.p appointments and hospital visiting to other sites, i would hate to see it turned into another facility for the well off, the CDHB would probably not want any involvement in  any ideas for this building.

Lee Sampson from Cashmere

Hi Helen, I really appreciate your comments. I’m passionate about helping our community and have been assisting our most vulnerable residents in repairing and rebuilding social housing units.
I’m actually very proud of my work there and furthermore how we’ve managed to build in efficiency in process and create new warm truely sustainable homes. Should I be elected (fingers crossed!) I will take your comments into consideration.
I also agree that PMH has heritage value and our petition has always given room for a number of solutions in delivering the community hub we so strongly advocate for plus the retention of other structures for repurposing, as its doubtful CDHB’s corporate support functions and or other services would return (preferring to lease offices in the central city)
I’m very happy to further discuss with you. Kind regards Lee 021772929

Rik Tindall Neighbourly Lead from Cashmere

Lee, it’s your expertise in public-private partnership development of social housing that is the problem here, that has gained you important post-EQ CCC work – why not stick with that? Where that may be a necessary and successful method of improving social housing for the conditions today, it seems to have blurred in your mind the essential division of governance – between employer (rate-payers) and employee (council staff). Is this corporate creep, for you to want a rate-payer public representative role as well as the council staff role? Where does the public get to speak for itself in this picture? It does not wash and is especially problematic now we’re seeing the significance of PMH in possible future housing. This looks too much like a council public-private housing initiative (since we have to guess) for you to have been involved here. Talking with health professionals, many of whom live locally and have family elder-care needs too, they do not find ‘Save PMH’ credible, knowing the PMH earthquake story. Having come to Christchurch via Auckland, looking for opportunity in public-private housing development post-EQ, this 2016 publicity campaign isn’t looking like a practical position for you to maintain. Thanks

Silvia Purdie from Cashmere

Good for you Lee, sounds clear and helpful. Well done!

Rik Tindall Neighbourly Lead from Cashmere

Now that Lee has been elected to council’s community board on the back of this publicity stunt, new questions avail:
1. What will the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board now be doing about the PMH situation, exactly, with Lee a new part of this? Please do inform us.
2. What day-time community events and meetings will Lee be able to attend since he was already in full-time paid council employment? Or has he now left this?
3. Sometimes the Board meetings run overtime, into late morning, or afternoons when as a seminar. At day-time community events and meetings will new community board member Lee be on leave from his full-time paid council employment, absent, double-dipping or what?
4. At any meetings where Lee does get paid twice for his time by the council, why would rate-payers not then believe government to be a synonym for fraudulent criminality?
5. Who is right? – “Health board boss says Princess Margaret Hospital campaign ‘misleading’ residents” –

The Princess Margaret Hospital, south-west building, 2016

The Princess Margaret Hospital, south-west building, 2016

Earlier posts:



The New Zealand Labour Party just showed voting is not about democracy but their bureaucratic privilege, not about principle but only corporate power.

The 2016 local elections confirmed Labour corruption as the greatest non-natural hazard to New Zealand communities – the adjunct reflection of Tory corruption, bogus presentation of empty alternative. This truth makes them unelectable, ever again, and explains declining voter turnout and resident disengagement: Labour deviously monopolises community politics for any and all available wins to their spirit-crushing machine.

Communities will not find ways forward – out of increasing corporate control, unaffordable housing, loss of natural environment and growing natural hazards – except through electorally smashing the NZLP then starting over again in communities’ interests instead. 2017 is almost soon enough for this essential project.

Various fake lefts tell you otherwise, to try choosing Labour again to displace National, but let us look at facts.

The Christchurch public has only quietly been informed that their new Papanui ward councillor is actually the returning mayor’s son-in-law.[1] So you have to ask whether proper prior knowledge of this would have affected the outcome: Mike “Davidson said he did not believe his family relationship with Dalziel would change how he operated as a councillor”[2] – yeah, right? Davidson is now part of a highly dominant, dynastic centrist bloc.
Hasty Press update 16-Oct-2016

Labour-rort government only gets worse the harder you look at it.

Another example here, where a campaigning Karolin Potter, Spreydon-Heathcote Community Board chair, demonstrates dishonest hypocrisy for People’s Choice at a Keep New Zealand Beautiful local clean-up event:

Addington Times October 2016 p1

Addington Times October 2016 p1, Karolin Potter in bottom left picture in blue

Potter’s Labour-dominated board had withdrawn all support for KNZB in 2015, to spitefully and corruptly prevent one Board member from ever working with it. This officially appointed SHCB KNZB rep had to pay their own way to the national KNZB conference in Christchurch that year, with zero Board support. By comparison, Potter claimed an all-expenses, disability-enabled long weekend hotel trip to Waitangi, Bay of Islands, for the LGNZ conference in 2014 – a privilege of high office with Labour. The SHCB KNZB rep was the only SHCB member who attended every one of the SHCB 2013-2016 term meetings, working diligently.

The corrupt ouster and takeover of all SHCB seats in 2016, using paid council staff to reinforce Labour local power, is already part-documented here: An update is here.

So to the Environment Canterbury (ECan) part-election of 2016.

The first things people need to know are:
a) How much ECan money has Working Waters Trust ever received – by date and amount?
b) What ECan staff are or have been a part of Working Waters Trust?

If there are material answers to these questions then electoral fraud has just been conducted by the NZ Labour Party. Because the director of Working Waters Trust, Lan Pham, has just been elected to ECan councillor on Labour’s behalf – perhaps using rate-payer resource. We need to know. Is this council staff or contractors determining public representation?! A shocking corporate turn of events.

Pham’s fraud is well-documented in “the People’s Choice” campaign statements, where ‘defending democracy’ was the last of their core policy trio: clean water, better public transport, “a democratic ECan”. Having had the opportunity to choose solidarity against National’s unwarranted deposing of the 2007-elected ECan council, to support one representative of that council in running again, Pham chose not to. Instead Pham took personal advantage of National’s coup. But not only that, Pham directed voters AWAY from solidarity with the elected ECan council representative, in crooked Labour team- and self-serving manner:

Lan Pham Facebook campaign 170816

Lan Pham Facebook campaign screenshot 170816

ECan candidate handbook, electoral offences, extract p.31

ECan candidate handbook, electoral offences, extract p.31

ECan candidate handbook, electoral offences, extract p.31

Pham’s call here, over which four ECan candidates voters should choose – to NOT support representation from the deposed ECan council – advantaged her Labour-backed team by splitting the vote such that all three People’s Choice candidates then gained election. And, it was highly illegal to have influenced voters in this way.

Pham’s electoral offence is described at left here, from ECan candidate handbook p.31.

Graphic extract source:

Lan Pham is therefore a false democrat, undeserving of an elected public role, at the least for this published prejudice. Pham’s campaign action, on behalf of ‘the firm’, shows precisely why Environment Canterbury is so disliked and so distrusted by so many people. e.g. “Cattle in Christchurch river were on Canterbury regional council’s land”, 12 October 2016 – – The many false democrats who have ‘liked’ this electoral offence is equally revealing.

Labour’s dirty tactics, in replacing community reps with council staff or contractors, is to achieve one thing only: corporate monopoly at local political level. Never to listen and share or to innovate, never to allow a community voice. Always to dictate. In the ECan case it is to dishonestly claim back leadership in clean-water activism where they had lost it, quite rightly, in 2007. Labour is fully responsible for irrigation and intensive farming development in Canterbury and its polluting effects. And they know it. Rotten fouls like this, like Lan Pham’s here, are futile attempts to recover the Labour reputation and to overtly cover their highly polluting tracks.

So how did the Labour ECan campaign appearances roll? Lan Pham never appeared, except by remote video, at any candidate forum: she wasn’t in the South Island until Ocober 1st. A swathe of scientific helpers, likers and supporters pushed Pham to online/media victory. This dragged the rest of her team forward, regardless of what little they knew or had to say. Cynthia Roberts decried the Canterbury Water Management Strategy work (of the previous elected council). Steve Lowndes repeated John Key’s lie, that the previous elected council was ‘quagmired with 7:7 drawn votes’ (there was only one 7:7 vote during the 2007-2010 ECan term and that was still a decision, for the status quo). Lowndes extended Labour’s election fraud by campaigning with the ECan corporate logo very prominently on his website (unless the ECan logo design copyright belongs to him?) …

Steve Lowndes ECan campaign screenshot Oct-2016

Steve Lowndes ECan campaign screenshot, June to October 2016

ECan candidate handbook, electoral offences, extract p.17

ECan candidate handbook, electoral offences, extract p.17

Lowndes’ electoral offence is described at left here, from ECan candidate handbook p.17.

Confirming that Labour now conveniently sings from the Tory songbook, in its criticism of the 2007-2010 elected council that echoes National’s lies, Rod Cullinane, for Fish & Game (the farmers of the rivers and lakes) claims “the internal disarray was untenable” at ECan in this interview:

The Press had picked the four 2016 ECan winners at the very outset of campaigning. Using a two-day ultimatum for comment to publish, here they cemented their gatekeeper choice in. The Press is yet to be honest and add what was sent to them on the third day:

From this identified basis of bias, misrepresentation and outright lying, we can understand exactly what the minority local vote of 2016 represents. No one else, with an honest brain, believes in the local governance. Myth-makers rule. 38.29% of eligible voters had a say on ECan and 38.34% on the Christchurch City candidates.

Thus, having understood the Christchurch 2016 vote in detail – what it represents and what largely drove it – we know precisely what governs our day-to-day lives. We, the people, strongly need local ethical upgrade and the ability to contribute, for moving forward.’s-local-government-success-a-springboard-for-2017 – clearly Not. is Labour local hegemony.