Green perspectives on the Point England land appropriation

Written By: - Date published: 11:59 am, June 13th, 2017 - 64 comments
Categories: Conservation, Environment, greens, Maori Issues - Tags: , , ,

An edited version of this article was first published in the Green Party newsletter Te Awa. Reposted here with the authors’ permission. Point England is a suburb on the east side of Auckland, the reserve borders the Tamaki Estuary. 

______________________________________________________________________________________

Modern Day Land Grab or Treaty Settlement?

Point England Reserve Development Enabling Bill.

As is often the case it takes a lone voice to raise awareness and alert a local community to a situation or issue with potentially negative impacts. In this particular instance Shaun Lee, a local Point England resident, long-time community volunteer and environmentalist is that person. Shaun garnered the support of local community members and helped to form savepe.org.nz .

This dedicated group has been instrumental in alerting the public, community boards, council as well as central Government politicians to their concerns with regard to the proposed re-zoning of 11.9 hectares of Point England Reserve. This bill would create a separate area of land within the reserve and re-zone it as residential. Why and how this is happening is a complex battle between different parties with different vested interests.

This bill is currently opposed by the Auckland Council, Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board, Labour, New Zealand First, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society as well as significant numbers of the local community. The Green Party has abstained.

Within the vicinity of the reserve, Tamaki Regeneration Company (TRC), which is owned by Auckland Council and Central Government, are building 7500 new homes over the next 15 years. Bordered both by state houses and million dollar homes this reserve looks out over the Tamaki Estuary. Greater intensification to cater for the anticipated population increase of 20,000 is necessary but this reserve land should not be utilised – despite the million dollar views.

Now another complication. This bill will allow for the sale of this land to Ngāti Paoa. What we have is a commercial transaction in which the Government intends to sell to Ngāti Paoa re-zoned reserve land for a housing development and dedicated space for a Marae as part of a treaty settlement. However should Ngāti Paoa or another iwi choose not to purchase the land the bill provides an opportunity for the purchase of the land by the private sector. It is important for Ngāti Paoa to be compensated, we are not in opposition to their right to economic redress but not at the expense of protected reserve land and the environment.

Because the environment and wildlife species will suffer. Numerous submissions in opposition to this bill have made this abundantly clear.  One such concern is that this reserve is the roosting habitat of between 50-90% of the remaining wild shore birds in the Tamaki Estuary and covers 50% of the nesting ground for the endangered NZ Dotterel. In addition statutory requirements under the Resource Management Act (1991) including consultation, public engagement and environmental assessment are removed. If this precedent-setting,  fast-tracking bill is passed into legislation what is to prevent this happening to other reserves?

The Green Party’s reasons for abstaining were outlined in an April blogpost Point England: An almighty mess in the making by Eugenie Sage and Marama Davidson.

What is clear is that the values of the Green Party and the Green Party Charter of ecological wisdom, social responsibility and appropriate decision-making are contravened by this bill. However the party’s over-arching commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi means any opposition in response to these concerns are re-framed within the context of an irregular attempt at a treaty settlement.

Alternative options have been proposed but, and we quote from the report issued by the select committee in response to submissions, “any new proposal involving other development land or any adjustment to the current proposal would  require renegotiation with all parties that could potentially be affected.” So why not take the time to do this? The bill as it presently stands pits the community in opposition to Ngāti Paoa, local government against central government, the environment against development and Green Party members against Green Party members.

Meanwhile Shaun Lee can see that the process initiated by Nick Smith, the Minister for Building and Construction and ironically the Minister for the Environment means this precious reserve land could well be lost and his hopes for the birdlife dashed. In response he and others have now launched a new protest platform called SaveOurReserves.org.nz. He does not want what is happening in Pt England to be repeated anywhere else in New Zealand.

– Maureen Titchener and Dorthe Siggaard are Auckland-based Greens.

______________________________________________________________________________________

The Point England Reserve Development Enabling Bill has passed its 2nd reading and is at committee stage before the whole house.

Voting on 2nd Reading:

Ayes 62: New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 43: New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12.

Abstentions 14: Green Party 14.

Next up would be 3rd reading and then it would be passed into law with royal assent.

64 comments on “Green perspectives on the Point England land appropriation ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Robert Guyton 1
    13 June 2017 at 12:54 pm

    An almighty mess in the making, indeed!
    Issues such as this with significantly complicating contributing factors test all concerned and require large amounts of genuine listening and understanding in order to resolve. Even then, it’s likely that any resolution will still carry the stamp of contrasting views and may not satisfy. Have we some skilled un-ravellers of tangled skeins involved, with the issue and with the discussion here at TS?

  2. esoteric pineapples 2
    13 June 2017 at 1:02 pm

    Whichever way you slice it, another example of humans put themselves before the survival of other species.

  3. weka 3
    13 June 2017 at 1:09 pm

    One of the things for me (apart from the almighty mess) is that in cities you will never get that green space back again short of something like a massive earthquake. Which takes us straight to population and overshoot. I’m guessing that part of the reason for not handling this better is the housing pressures in Auckland. I don’t see too many people talking about what the population growth means in ecological terms. Land is there to be used, right? so let’s have a fight about who gets it, and then everything is ok. It’s just so short-sighted.

    • Robert Guyton 3.1
      13 June 2017 at 1:29 pm

      As with so many other issue, weka, the short-term focus wins out. It’s understandable and the arguments in support are comprehensive, inside of the “paradigm” that allows for short-term gains over the long. How to disable that factor is the challenge. It’ll take a change of culture and what that means is an on-going debate. In the meantime, things degrade and the chances of system collapse increase at pace.

      • weka 3.1.1
        13 June 2017 at 6:14 pm

        I’m up for a debate that leads to change of culture 🙂

        I also think we are so inured against talking about population growth because everyone has the right to have babies, end of discussion.

        • Robert Guyton 3.1.1.1
          13 June 2017 at 6:59 pm

          I’d love to approach this topic also, weka, and recognise how touch-paper the issue of population can be. Have you thoughts on a way forward? It’ll attract feisty discussion, I expect, but may throw up a gem – after all, necessity is the mother.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.2
      13 June 2017 at 2:12 pm

      +111

      Well said.

  4. dukeofurl 4
    13 June 2017 at 2:00 pm

    national has a population problem with its Tamaki electorate to the north of this area. Its an older demographic and not increasing much, meanwhile the census means the Auckland electorates are getting more population and those slow growing ones are getting larger.
    The only place to Tamaki to expand is through this traditional state housing area, who would vote labour. remove the low incomes and you maintain the healthy numbers for a traditional national electorate.

  5. Bill 5
    13 June 2017 at 2:40 pm

    Really!? The idea is to build thousands of houses on low lying coastal land? Ooookaaay.

    • heman 5.1
      13 June 2017 at 2:59 pm

      just to be clear, if it’s not clear from the article.

      7,500 homes will be built in the area neighbouring the reserve, replacing the 2800 state houses already there(anticipated population increase of 20,000).
      In addition to this, ~300 homes will go on the proposed re-zoning of 11.9 hectares of Point England Reserve.

    • weka 5.2
      13 June 2017 at 4:37 pm

      It might not be that low lying. These maps aren’t ultra fine tuned, but it gives general idea and Pt England doesn’t seem hugely affected until you get up to 3 or 4m. I’m sure that doesn’t account for rainfall meeting watertable though,

      http://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-crisis/sea-level-rise/

      http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/

      But point taken, and it would be interesting to know if sea level rise was a factor at all.

      • dukeofurl 5.2.1
        13 June 2017 at 7:45 pm

        from Council GIS maps most of the housing area is between 5 and 10 m above their datum
        The 5m line follows the beach edge or streams closely so forms a bit of escarpment.

      • Bill 5.2.2
        13 June 2017 at 8:12 pm

        I merely pretended that google was my friend and brought up images of Point England that showed grass more or less falling away from unprotected beach-front. That allied with talk of an estuary… Anyway.

        • weka 5.2.2.1
          13 June 2017 at 8:44 pm

          yeah but it’s an estuary not straight into open ocean and surf.

          They probably should be building relocatables though.

          • weka 5.2.2.1.1
            13 June 2017 at 8:45 pm

            if you push one of those maps far enough the first big bits of inundation in the middle, not the edge, so I’m guessing the water table isn’t that far away and there is a bit of a slope up to the estuary side. .

  6. left_forward 6
    13 June 2017 at 2:52 pm

    I am very concerned about the Greens not voting against such a short-sighted bill.

  7. esoteric pineapples 7
    13 June 2017 at 3:12 pm

    I see they are even going to put sports fields in what remains of the reserve. It’s basically a big FU to the species that use the reserve. At what point does the word “evil” become appropriate. Forgetting using that word to describe someone else, simply the fact that species extermination is acceptable is an “evil” that will have negative consequences for humans for as long as they inhabit this planet. I think that is about as evil as anything can be. Humans are creating a hellish destiny for themselves, trapped on a planet, with only the more unpleasant creatures as company. Making a hell for humans to live in for eternity.

  8. Ad 8
    13 June 2017 at 4:35 pm

    What is the point of all those Green MPs earning $160,000 a year of taxpayer money if all they can do is come up with “on the one hand, but on the other hand”?

    Sure, it’s hard. Let’s hear it for nuance.
    But this is another failure to show that they can’t consistently be in either government or opposition.

    You are put in parliament to make judgements and to vote.

    • weka 8.1
      13 June 2017 at 4:39 pm

      I think if they were in government they would be working for a better solution than this legislation. That’s their forte.

      • Ad 8.1.1
        13 June 2017 at 4:58 pm

        And what would that be?

        I don’t have much sympathy for this government.
        But unless the Greens HTFU pretty damn fast, they will not be ready for government in 12 weeks.

        But it’s not like you can’t have a chunk of public land and satisfy everyone.

        Take Hobsonville. Previously NZDF land.
        Went through the full Public Works Act offer-back procedures, including TOW.
        Started new life as yacht-building.
        But now essentially a town the size of Blenheim, masterplanned with Police, high school, primary school, healthcare, social services.
        And as sustainable as you could possibly wish for.
        Lots of parks. Public transport straight into town. Cycling galore.
        Boardwalks all around the wetlands.
        Brought to you by the state.

        Or take Te Atatu’s Harbourview Park.
        Was going to be a major port, back in the day.
        Big chunks of it sold off and developed by Council property arm.
        Massive park still there.
        Public transport upgraded in New Network, motorway upgraded, big cycling destination.
        Huge wetlands for birds.
        Brought to you by local government.

        There’s plenty more examples.

        All it takes is the Public Works Act, and some determination by Ministers and officials.

        The Greens need to get with the programme of sustainable development: it really means developing stuff.

        Which involves them making decisions.
        Not sitting back and complaining about the nuances of things.,

        • adam 8.1.1.1
          13 June 2017 at 5:12 pm

          And as Ad says, working within the frameworks we have, can and should happen.

          We don’t need to run off an reinvent the wheel.

          What we need to do is offer solutions with a small state socialism in mind. We have the history, we have the way to do it, the greens and the rest of us need to put that into action.

          Solutions, solutions, solutions that is what people want to hear.

        • weka 8.1.1.2
          13 June 2017 at 6:38 pm

          So what’s your solution to the Pt England situation?

          • Ad 8.1.1.2.1
            13 June 2017 at 8:08 pm

            As a political party, vote against the bill.

            As a Minister, masterplan the site, go through the Reserves revocation process, protect as much of the environment as you can, write iwi a cheque, and build truckloads of houses.

            And since I can figure that out after dinner in 5 minutes in front of a fire for free, any decent damn Green MP could as well for $160,00 per year.

    • bwaghorn 8.2
      13 June 2017 at 6:36 pm

      it pays not to piss the nats off to much , you know just incase at some point in the future ….??

      • BM 8.2.1
        13 June 2017 at 6:42 pm

        The smarter individual always has a plan B, the really smart ones have a plan C.

        • bwaghorn 8.2.1.1
          13 June 2017 at 7:01 pm

          the problem with sitting on fences is it can hurt if you fall off and can get real lonely if you get left there all alone

          • BM 8.2.1.1.1
            13 June 2017 at 7:06 pm

            It’s not about sitting on fences, it’s about having options, no one has a crystal ball so nothing can ever be as clear-cut as it may seem.

            That fuckwit Napolean Hill did so much damage with his burn your bridges approach to “success”.

      • Ad 8.2.2
        13 June 2017 at 8:05 pm

        That’s how it looks.
        Another vote that tells National that the Greens could stay on the cross-benches and as a result let National have another term.

        • BM 8.2.2.1
          13 June 2017 at 8:08 pm

          It’s a good strategy, the greens aren’t there just to do Labours bidding.

          Unless they’re completely fucking dense, it’s looking like they’re going to be shunted aside for NZ First. Greens need a backup plan to stop Labour playing around and keep them in line.

          Funny thing is I don’t think the Greens actually realise how much power they have, need to get rid of Turei though that woman is a huge anchor.

          • Ad 8.2.2.1.1
            13 June 2017 at 8:10 pm

            Not so much ‘on the fence’ and ‘impaled’.

            Makes great sense until their members and supporters get wind of it.
            After that, it’s polling freefall.

            • BM 8.2.2.1.1.1
              13 June 2017 at 8:14 pm

              Members mean shit, a bit like Labour.

              What is it with Labour 5k membership? well over half a million votes, membership consists of about 1% of Labours vote.

              Margin of error stuff.

              • Ad …
                13 June 2017 at 8:17 pm

                Oh you remember how the Greens’ vote was tracking at the last election, until they intimated they could possibly go into coalition with National?
                Shaved 2% off their vote no problem.

                If you don’t think party members mean anything at an election, then you’ve never been anywhere a political party at election time.

        • weka 8.2.2.2
          13 June 2017 at 8:40 pm

          “That’s how it looks.
          Another vote that tells National that the Greens could stay on the cross-benches and as a result let National have another term.”

          That’s daft. The Greens have committed to changing the govt and to doing that with Labour where possible.

          • Ad 8.2.2.2.1
            13 June 2017 at 9:18 pm

            If they want to change that perception, then they need to figure out which side they are on, and vote for it. Consistently.

            • weka 8.2.2.2.1.1
              13 June 2017 at 9:25 pm

              they already know which side they’re on. It’s not the left/right one you are framing as the only validity. This is why their voting record is consistent with their kaupapa. They want change and they vote for the change that best matches their values in the situation they are in.

              Their voting record is better than Labour’s btw.

              • Ad …
                13 June 2017 at 9:45 pm

                Really?
                The article above shows them abstaining.
                About housing.
                In a housing crisis.
                Which side is that again?

                No one will know what they wanted, since they voted for nothing.

  9. Gosman 9
    13 June 2017 at 5:07 pm

    This just goes to show the idea that The Greens would be able to build thousands of new homes is a joke. Unless you change land usage you won’t be able to build more than a tiny percentage of what they want to build.

    • adam 9.1
      13 June 2017 at 5:12 pm

      Yawn, attack politics.

    • Muttonbird 9.2
      13 June 2017 at 6:50 pm

      Yes. Let’s pave paradise.

    • David C 9.3
      14 June 2017 at 2:22 pm

      Gosman.
      Labour wants to build 100,000 new houses with Greens as partners.
      100,000 new houses is 4,000 Ha of land and that is without the shops, schools, parks hospitals etc etc

      and yet they cant just decide for or against this one little bit.

  10. marty mars 10
    13 June 2017 at 5:16 pm

    The tension between indigenous rights or redress and conservation is often difficult. I’m not sure what the answer is but I am feeling like some Māori voices are being talked over in this – I hope I’m wrong.

  11. Karen 11
    13 June 2017 at 5:29 pm

    “If this precedent-setting, fast-tracking bill is passed into legislation what is to prevent this happening to other reserves?”

    This is the issue, I think, and I really wish that the Green Party had voted against this bill. Abstaining allows it to pass and it really problematic on many levels.

    Ngāti Paoa need redress, but this could have been (and still could be) done by giving them a section of the reserve for a marae, making them kaitiaki of the whole reserve and giving them a share of the adjacent Tāmaki housing development.

    It should also be remembered that there is a dispute within Ngāti Paoa as whether those signing up for this deal have the the authority to do so.

    • weka 11.1
      13 June 2017 at 6:11 pm

      Thanks, I was wondering what the deal was with Ngāto Paoa. Do you know what the history of the land is?

      Going off the 2nd reading vote, National has the votes to pass irrespective of what GP did. Or am I missing something?

    • marty mars 11.2
      13 June 2017 at 6:48 pm

      Yes there may be disputed opinions with the iwi and that doesn’t diminish the views expressed just because they dont align with other views. For instance the kermadec issue has conservation supposedly against some Māori.

      • BM 11.2.1
        13 June 2017 at 6:50 pm

        Maori issues rate above environmental issues for you mm?

        • marty mars 11.2.1.1
          13 June 2017 at 6:52 pm

          They don’t rate below that’s for sure

          • BM 11.2.1.1.1
            13 June 2017 at 7:03 pm

            So for instance, you believe the aspirations of this iwi far outweigh any environmental damage or having land removed from the public domain?

            The iwi should get whatever they want and people should accept that because they are tangata whenua?

            Btw I’m not trying to pass judgment, your views and beliefs are just as valid as anyone else here.

            • marty mars 11.2.1.1.1.1
              13 June 2017 at 7:19 pm

              No I think the issue as you put it is incorrectly framed.

              But let me ask you this – are we saving the environment because the environment wants it or we do.

              • BM …
                13 June 2017 at 8:05 pm

                But let me ask you this – are we saving the environment because the environment wants it or we do.

                The environment isn’t really a thinking rational thing/being so I don’t think it has an opinion on this particular matter.

                The way I look at it is, NZ has been pretty much denuded since people arrived, what we have left is just a minicircle representation of what existed half a century ago.

                I think what remains needs to be conserved and if that trumps the rights of Maori, so be it.

            • dukeofurl 11.2.1.1.1.2
              13 June 2017 at 7:29 pm

              What iwi is that BM ?

        • Robert Guyton 11.2.1.2
          13 June 2017 at 7:03 pm

          Environmental issues rate above Maori issues for you mm, BM?

          • marty mars 11.2.1.2.1
            13 June 2017 at 7:28 pm

            I don’t rate below that is for sure – and again it is hubris. It isn’t one or the other. We ain’t saving the environment for the trees – for our children and our children’s children – they are people.

            Edit. Plus why are some people given higher consideration – we’d rather have people in cars than houses. We blame the Wii – sacrifice yourself for our green space please.

            This environment verses people is everything that is wrong with our treatment of the earth imo.

      • Karen 11.2.2
        13 June 2017 at 7:08 pm

        I think the problem here is within Ngāti Paoa there are many who feel the decision to accept this deal is not going to be in their interests long term and it is being forced through in spite of strong opposition within the iwi. I think these issues need to be resolved.

        One good thing is that the dispute between Ngāti Paoa and Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei has been resolved now.
        http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1701/S00130/ngati-whatua-orakei-and-ngati-paoa-renew-peace-pact.htm

  12. exkiwiforces 12
    13 June 2017 at 8:56 pm

    I personally would’ve like to have seen this bit of land protected and replanted in native bush to incourage native birds back to the area and protect the ones that are already there. You need green spaces and any way if these muppets think they are going to put affordable homes there ” they’re got to be dreaming”

  13. Penny Bright 13
    14 June 2017 at 7:18 am

    There is NO SuCH COMPANY as ‘Tamaki Regeneration Company’!

    PLEASE carefully check the following FACTS and EVIDENCE?
    EXPOSING THE ($1.6 BILLION)
    TAMAKI ‘REGENERATION’
    GENTRIFICATION $CAM!

    Transcript of Anti-corruption campaigner Penny Bright’s address to the Board of Auckland Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) Panuku Development, 31 May 2017:

    “All right – for those of you who don’t know me, my name is Penny Bright.

    I am an anti-privatisation /anti-corruption ‘Public Watchdog / Private Ombudsman’ (as it were) and I choose to work on a self-funded basis and have done that for the last 17 years.

    I have attended 6 International Anti-Corruption Conferences, and although I am a time-served Tradesperson, with Advanced Trade in Sheetmetal Engineering, New Zealand’s first ticketed woman Welding Inspector, and a welding tutor for 9 years at Manukau Tech, I have never been to University, never had a days formal legal training in my life, but have actually been invited to The Hague, as one of New Zealand’s experts for the World Justice Project International Rule of Law Forum, which will be happening in mid-July.

    https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/engagement/events/world-justice-forum

    So – why am I here?

    I’m here to tell you as the Board of Panuku I’m deeply concerned about what has been happening in Tamaki.

    I believe that the facts prove that the Tamaki ‘Regeneration’ project has actually been a Tamaki GENTRIFICATION project and I believe that MPs, Councillors, public and the tenants have been misled over what’s been happening.

    I believe it’s effectively been a State-sponsored land grab for property developers.

    The role of Panuku, as I understand it, was to represent the 41% shareholding that Auckland Council has in the Tamaki Redevelopment Company Limited, this new Crown /Council hybrid.

    The facts are that the public were told via the Local Government and Environment Select Committee Report on the Tamaki Redevelopment Company Limited (TRC) that the Tamaki Redevelopment Company Limited (TRC) was established in 2012 as an urban redevelopment company:

    https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/51DBSCH_SCR68578_1/244291aaab825db7d3685cce7e3ccd49a2a7589e

    “It is a Crown entity with joint shareholdings by the Crown 59% and Auckland Council 41%.

    The company aims to achieve social, economic and housing objectives in the Auckland area of Tamaki during the next 20 – 25 years.

    …

    Transfer of housing stock from Housing NZ Corporation on the 31st of March 2016, the company will take over ownership of about 2,800 properties in the Tamaki area.”

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    As it happens, the Tamaki Redevelopment Company Limited did not get one house.

    What ended up happening was that 2,704 former Housing NZ properties were transferred to a new company – Tamaki Regeneration Limited.

    Although the original 100 shares in Tamaki Regeneration Limited were 100% owned by the Tamaki Redevelopment Company Limited, on 15 April 2016, suddenly 1.6 billion shares were created, which meant the 100 shares in which Auckland Council had the 41% shareholding – basically vanished into oblivion.

    https://www.companiesoffice.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/5840214/shareholdings

    Now – so how did this happen – and I know that there was one member of the Board (of Panuku Development) that is also a Board member of the Tamaki Redevelopment Company Limited and

    Tamaki Regeneration Limited, because the Directors are the same.

    So, I believe that there has been massive misleadership here of what has actually happened.

    Now, I have spent 2 weeks of my own time going around 2,704 addresses, (with the help of drivers) and have checked 2,704 addresses to see whether these houses appear to be occupied, empty or bare sections, and what I discovered is:

    76 bare sections where Housing NZ properties used to be, and are now grass with big fences around, and also about 70 empty (former) Housing NZ properties.

    So – I’m deeply concerned that given that the public were told that there were going to be another 7,500 houses built in Tamaki – where the hell are they, and why do we have all these empty sections and empty houses?

    https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/51SCLGE_ADV_00DBSCH_ANR_67870_1_A474440/ab00c41388e91d4ec98005b3c231a5cbde53fbb3

    What I believe is that it is a land grab of prime real estate, and the purpose of this Tamaki ‘Regeneration’ project was actually to get rid of poor people off prime real estate.

    If you actually drive around there, as I have, you can see that’s really obviously what’s happening.

    I’m also deeply concerned about what’s happening with the Point England Development Enabling Bill, because again the public are being misled.

    The name Tamaki Redevelopment Company Limited is what MPs are told are the ones who own the assets.

    They don’t.

    The key question is that Tamaki Regeneration Limited as the owner of the assets – they are the ones who decide how much money the Tamaki Redevelopment Company Limited is going to get.

    So – let’s see it shall we?

    How much money has been spent on ‘regeneration’ projects in tamaki?

    Who exactly has organised these projects?

    Where’s the money gone?

    Where are the results?

    We had all the fine words about what was going to happen to these poorer communities in Glen Innes, Panmure and Point England – the results don’t seem to match the talk.

    What I also want to include – I did an Official Information Act (OIA) request to John Holyoake, who is the CEO of Tamaki Regeneration Limited and asked some very, very hard questions.

    That OIA request has now been acknowledged – it’s in the ‘sausage machine’ and I want it to be attached, formally, to these Board Minutes.

    Also – an OIA reply I had from Stephen Joyce, who is one of two Crown shareholding Ministers, and he explained how it was that Tamaki Regeneration Limited was set up.

    It was pushed basically by the Board of Directors – which – as i say are the same for both Tamaki Redevelopment Company Limited and Tamaki Regeneration Limited, plus Treasury.

    So – other concerns I have that I wish to raise with the Board of Panuku as an anti-corruption campaigner:

    I’m very keen to see a very clear ‘Register of Interests’ of any interests that any of you Board members have with property development companies.

    I think that should be made available for the public to see.

    I’m deeply concerned that the role of Panuku appears to be to facilitate the turning of public land over to private property developers, particularly public reserve land.

    According to research that I did, I got a Social Services Select Committee inquiry into why was it that everyone appeared to be saying that there was going to be an extra million people coming to Auckland by 2040, when Auckland Transport and Watercare Services, two key infrastructure providers were working to the ‘medium’ population growth projection of an extra 700,000 people coming to Auckland.

    I was successful in getting a Select Committee inquiry and basically, it boiled down to two people pushing for an extra million people coming to Auckland – the former Mayor Len Brown and former Auckland Council Chief Planning Officer, Dr Roger Blakeley.

    https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/50DBSCH_SCR5953_1/9f8a825ae96c25bddf7d0c8bddb58511039a4d16

    https://www.parliament.nz/resource/mi-nz/50SCSS_EVI_50DBHOH_PET3157_1_A338307/c0545be9171849399f2468c6567ae9303ce418ce

    Now – how is it that when you go around the corner to Britomart – you see an Auckland Transport sign that says there are going to be an extra 700,000 people coming to Auckland by 2040, which is why these transport changes are happening?

    How can you be 300,000 people ‘out’?

    Because that extra 300,000 people helped to push the Special Housing Areas legislation.

    So – if population growth is such a major ‘driver’ – wouldn’t you expect infrastructure providers, and Council and Government to all ‘be on the same page’?

    Because they’re not.

    In the Unitary Plan for example, it does not include the apparently 33,000 empty private sector houses that were uncovered in the (2013) census.

    I hadn’t actually realised, as someone who opposed the ‘Supercity’ from day one, (and understood the bigger contracts for fewer but bigger private contractors) how the ‘One Plan’ for Auckland, was to ‘uncomplicate’ things – not for citizens and ratepayers – but for property developers.

    Because yes – it does get complicated when you’ve got 3 District Council Plans, 4 City Council Plans and one Auckland Regional Council Plan – much easier to have one plan – but I can tell you right now that people, ordinary people of Auckland had a hell of a lot more say over what was happening in their street and their area – back in those ‘bad old days’.

    I’ll leave it there – thank you.”

    #StopNikisEviction
    #SaveOurStateHouseHomes
    #StopCorruption

    (Authorised by Penny Bright
    2017 Independent candidate for Tamaki, 86A School Rd,
    Kingsland, Auckland 1021).

  14. Penny Bright 14
    14 June 2017 at 7:24 am

    I look forward to the Green Party reconsidering their position and voting AGAINST the Point England Development Enabling Bill.

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-privatisation / anti-corruption campaigner’.

    2017 Independent candidate
    Tamaki.

    Exposing the $1.6 billion Tamaki
    ‘Regeneration/ GENTRIFICATION $CAM.

  15. Takere 15
    14 June 2017 at 10:45 am

    Look, the above group of Greenies are misleading the public in regards to the iwi perspective as they dont know and have not spoken to anyone from Ngati Paoa. Secondly the Greens have sold out their membership by “spinning” their reasons why theyre basically supporting Nick Smith & the National partys Developers Bill.
    Marama wants to be a player in maori development by risking an iwi’s settlement in a dodgy housing market to get a buy-in into the “Game”.
    There is a growing number of iwi members opposed to this “Commercial Transaction” between a private iwi trust & developers which the wider iwi dont know anything about! There are 3 boards, 4 deeds and over 20 board members which the Minister, Finlayson likes to pick & choose on any day, who’ll he’ll deal with as he see’s fit to meet his objective(s).
    This bullshit the clowns who wrote this piece of shit have no understanding of what is going on within the iwi and are only regurgitating what Green HQ are telling them! I’ve met with them all to take them through the issues but they choose to ignore the matters put before them for their own political gain in this election.
    This made up fake group “Save Our Org/Arse” is another scam organisation that have run petitions to harvest people details by running these campaigns! People were lead to believe they were getting a political party to oppose the Bill! But they ended up with the Greens! FFS! We’ll sit on the fence and spin BS!

    So, if anyone want to know any “fact(s)” about this matter less the BS & Spin & Politics, I’m happy to talk.
    You can FB me; Denny Thompson on fb.

  16. saveNZ 16
    14 June 2017 at 12:06 pm

    So sad. Turning our country into a shit hole for short term profits for a few. Whoever benefits from this sale will be bringing bad Karma onto themselves.

    I’m also disappointed in the Green party. They can’t put a foot on both sides and be pro development and pro environment – because they start standing for nothing.

    Soon Auckland and the rest of NZ won’t have any lakes and reserves left, all chewed up by expensive housing that most local’s can’t afford anymore on their dwindling low wage economy wages, so that the Natz can mimic a functioning economy with out being shown to be the yokel fraudsters that they are.

    Yep, National would love to blame Maori too, for setting this precedent that they can use down the line.

    Just like they hid behind ACT for the supercity. Wake up Greens, you are being manipulated again, just like red peak!