Post by Kiwi Frontline on Apr 28, 2016 18:32:20 GMT 12
THINGS MAORI (TCC DRAFT AMENDMENT RECOGNITION OF MAORI INTERESTS AND ASPIRATIONS POLICY)
Tribes want ‘right of first refusal’ on land sales (not only surplus) Tauranga City Council, reported in the Bay Times (Page.6) Tuesday 12th April 2016.
These are try ons with serious implications, as no doubt tribes elsewhere have the same aspirations as their Tauranga cousins and to put it mildly it is just another rort.
As usual Maori interests got the media headlines while the two submitters below who made robust written submissions got very little mention, which is par for the course.
A decision is due on 9th May 2016.
~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~
Draft Amendment to Council Land: Recognition of Tangata Whenua Interests and Aspirations Policys
My name is Richard Prince and I am a ratepayer from Welcome Bay.
I am surprised that something that went through an extensive submission process little more than one year ago is now being reconsidered.
What surprises me even more is how these amendments are being presented.
Both the public notice and the Statement of Policy say-
“The policy amendments seek to clarify”
Clarify – Now I wouldn't want to use the word sophism but euphemism is certainly appropriate.
I have always thought of a clarification as being just a notch up from a typo, but what we have here is effectively a rewrite of the policy. The Council has misled the community and ratepayers by endeavouring to pass this re-write off as clarification.
Under Policy Objectives – the words “disposing of land no longer required” is proposed to be removed.
Under Principles “no longer required by Council” is proposed to be removed.
These amendments are fundamental changes and change what was Iwi/Hapu interests in surplus land to all land.
5.1 This amendment appears prima facie to make it easier for Iwi/hapu to make claims for Council land.
Land Transfer Exceptions - “Where land is subject to a statutory process such as an offer back to a previous owner” is to be removed. Does these then mean the Council is prepared to flout the requirements of say the Public Works Act to satisfy Iwi/Hapu interests?
Time frames – Time frames are vital so that decisions can be made and outcomes achieved and not, as proposed, subject to some sort of negotiation.
I want now to go back to the top of page 2
“Note that Tauranga Moana Tangata Whenua have been through the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process which addressed historical claims. This Council policy and associated potential land transfers does not apply to land grievances under Treaty of Waitangi processes”.
Under Waitangi settlement processes Iwi receive additional compensation to cover privately owned land that is not available under the settlement process. This is to give them the ability to buy land they may be interested in the marketplace.
To quote Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson on the settlement “It will enable the Iwi to enjoy the benefits of settlement and look forward to a stronger future. These settlements will allow the Iwi to build a strong base for their for their people and allow them to participate fully in the economic, social and cultural life of their regions”.
Council land is in essence privately owned and Council is entrusted with the care of these assets on behalf of all of the community.
* It is not for the Council to usurp the role of the Crown.
* It is not for the Council to add to the settlement quantum by gifting community owned assets or selling them at a discount to the disadvantage of ratepayers.
First right of refusal always has the whiff of sweet-heart deals.
This is particularly true where income streams are involved such as the claims for Mauao Recreational Reserve and the Mobil site on Chapel St. Secrecy over negotiations and an endeavour to keep the lease values secret so making it difficult for the community to assess the values does nothing for the Council's cause. Reference to the Commercial Property sections of any newspaper will show that advertisements of where commercial property is offered for sale will give full lease details. The only reason I can see for this information to be confidential is if some sort of sweet-heart deal is being considered. Think of the current hoo-ha over the secret Panamanian Trusts.
Sale by public auction is fully transparent and allows all interested parties to be involved in the sale process.
It is important that the views and aspirations of Iwi/Hapu are listened to and I expect nothing less than, that Council will take these into consideration. Where I have a difficulty is when satisfying these aspirations it is at the expense of the rest of the community and ratepayers.
No-one should be disadvantaged because of their ethnicity and no-one should be advantaged for exactly the same reason.
I request that these amendments be rejected in their entirety.
Richard Prince
11th April 2016
~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~
My name is Rob Paterson, I reside at Mount Maunganui and I am a submitter herein.
Madam Chairperson and Councillors, thank you for the opportunity to address you on this Draft Policy.
I have read the submissions made by Tony Fellingham, Richard Prince and Chris Lee and I support what they have to say.
I refer to my current submission of 10th March 2016(page 116). In 2014, I made 3 submissions to the current policy on 22nd April 2014, 15th August 2014 and finally on 16th September 2014. Copies of these are attached and I would just like to take you through these to remind Councillors about what I said at that time which is still relevant and pertinent today. I fully endorse what I stated in those submissions.
I also attach copy of October 2014 Bay Times media release by Councillor Steve Morris, and wish to comment on the Chapel Street Mobil Service Station site in particular which is presumably reclaimed land see 1930s circa photograph which is self explanatory.
In this regard my understanding is that it is alleged by maori interests that their forebears walked over this land via a track to the sea to collect pipis. Well frankly it is hard to see this has much validity and I ask what investigations Council staff make about these types of claims and are claimants asked to produce evidence which is then scrutinised or is it just taken as gospel. On the face of it the claim looks nebulous and tenuous.
The Mount Recreation reserve is on the short list too and if the public mood is anything to go by then Council should proceed with great caution with regard to this. The current draft policy proposals have by the looks of things been discussed and formulated via TCC Maori Committee Meetings (formal&informal) from early 2015, well out of the general public’s gaze.
In particular I refer you to the informal forum held on 10 December 2015.
Observations
1. Maori interests have had compensation already included in their Treaty of Waitangi settlements for any private land issues and that is the category Council land falls into namely private land.
2. Originally the 2014 policy was implemented primarily to apply to only surplus Council land that was up for sale. Now under the current proposal it looks like any land owned by Council that takes maori interests’ fancy is fair game.
3. These types of deals usually have confidential factors like wishing to keep details private and confidential, i.e. consideration paid (if any) terms lease payments etc. away from public scrutiny.
4. New Policy para 5.1 doesn’t make much sense to me. Can someone please explain how it is relevant in the context of the draft policy anyway.
I ask how do these initiatives arise in the first place and who starts off the process maori interests or Council staff. From submissions made by some members of the maori committee I see references are made to rights of first refusal, the Treaty, litigation and so forth. Well in my view these don’t and can’t apply here and rattling the sabre has no place in this forum. The talk of creating full land lists of likely land available in anticipation is equally fatuous and the costs unwarranted -when the land (if any) becomes available for sale then that is the time to address the details.
Summary
What purports here to go under the guise of amendments to the existing Policy being made for clarification purposes is nothing more than a total rewrite of the Policy adopted on 14th October 2014, especially when only slightly over a year has elapsed since then and that looks like indecent haste and kneejerking. Current policy seems to work fine, I haven’t heard any complaints and if no approaches have been made under this policy to date, that reinforces this and my assertion it is working. As they say, ‘silence is golden’. I stress Councils duty is to all its ratepayers/citizens and race based policies have no place in the equation.
Council Decision Requested on Draft Policy
That Council reject the Draft Policy in its entirety and retain the status quo (2014 policy) which is clear precise, straightforward, fair, equitable to all ratepayers/citizens and workable.
Even under the existing policy any sale must be at full market value with no gifting sanctioned and nothing must change in that regard.
Rob Paterson
11th April 2016
Tribes want ‘right of first refusal’ on land sales (not only surplus) Tauranga City Council, reported in the Bay Times (Page.6) Tuesday 12th April 2016.
These are try ons with serious implications, as no doubt tribes elsewhere have the same aspirations as their Tauranga cousins and to put it mildly it is just another rort.
As usual Maori interests got the media headlines while the two submitters below who made robust written submissions got very little mention, which is par for the course.
A decision is due on 9th May 2016.
~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~
Draft Amendment to Council Land: Recognition of Tangata Whenua Interests and Aspirations Policys
My name is Richard Prince and I am a ratepayer from Welcome Bay.
I am surprised that something that went through an extensive submission process little more than one year ago is now being reconsidered.
What surprises me even more is how these amendments are being presented.
Both the public notice and the Statement of Policy say-
“The policy amendments seek to clarify”
Clarify – Now I wouldn't want to use the word sophism but euphemism is certainly appropriate.
I have always thought of a clarification as being just a notch up from a typo, but what we have here is effectively a rewrite of the policy. The Council has misled the community and ratepayers by endeavouring to pass this re-write off as clarification.
Under Policy Objectives – the words “disposing of land no longer required” is proposed to be removed.
Under Principles “no longer required by Council” is proposed to be removed.
These amendments are fundamental changes and change what was Iwi/Hapu interests in surplus land to all land.
5.1 This amendment appears prima facie to make it easier for Iwi/hapu to make claims for Council land.
Land Transfer Exceptions - “Where land is subject to a statutory process such as an offer back to a previous owner” is to be removed. Does these then mean the Council is prepared to flout the requirements of say the Public Works Act to satisfy Iwi/Hapu interests?
Time frames – Time frames are vital so that decisions can be made and outcomes achieved and not, as proposed, subject to some sort of negotiation.
I want now to go back to the top of page 2
“Note that Tauranga Moana Tangata Whenua have been through the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process which addressed historical claims. This Council policy and associated potential land transfers does not apply to land grievances under Treaty of Waitangi processes”.
Under Waitangi settlement processes Iwi receive additional compensation to cover privately owned land that is not available under the settlement process. This is to give them the ability to buy land they may be interested in the marketplace.
To quote Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson on the settlement “It will enable the Iwi to enjoy the benefits of settlement and look forward to a stronger future. These settlements will allow the Iwi to build a strong base for their for their people and allow them to participate fully in the economic, social and cultural life of their regions”.
Council land is in essence privately owned and Council is entrusted with the care of these assets on behalf of all of the community.
* It is not for the Council to usurp the role of the Crown.
* It is not for the Council to add to the settlement quantum by gifting community owned assets or selling them at a discount to the disadvantage of ratepayers.
First right of refusal always has the whiff of sweet-heart deals.
This is particularly true where income streams are involved such as the claims for Mauao Recreational Reserve and the Mobil site on Chapel St. Secrecy over negotiations and an endeavour to keep the lease values secret so making it difficult for the community to assess the values does nothing for the Council's cause. Reference to the Commercial Property sections of any newspaper will show that advertisements of where commercial property is offered for sale will give full lease details. The only reason I can see for this information to be confidential is if some sort of sweet-heart deal is being considered. Think of the current hoo-ha over the secret Panamanian Trusts.
Sale by public auction is fully transparent and allows all interested parties to be involved in the sale process.
It is important that the views and aspirations of Iwi/Hapu are listened to and I expect nothing less than, that Council will take these into consideration. Where I have a difficulty is when satisfying these aspirations it is at the expense of the rest of the community and ratepayers.
No-one should be disadvantaged because of their ethnicity and no-one should be advantaged for exactly the same reason.
I request that these amendments be rejected in their entirety.
Richard Prince
11th April 2016
~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~
SUBMISSIONS ON DRAFT AMENDMENT
RECOGNITION OF MAORI INTERESTS
and ASPIRATIONS POLICY
DC 62 . Pages 98--128
RECOGNITION OF MAORI INTERESTS
and ASPIRATIONS POLICY
DC 62 . Pages 98--128
My name is Rob Paterson, I reside at Mount Maunganui and I am a submitter herein.
Madam Chairperson and Councillors, thank you for the opportunity to address you on this Draft Policy.
I have read the submissions made by Tony Fellingham, Richard Prince and Chris Lee and I support what they have to say.
I refer to my current submission of 10th March 2016(page 116). In 2014, I made 3 submissions to the current policy on 22nd April 2014, 15th August 2014 and finally on 16th September 2014. Copies of these are attached and I would just like to take you through these to remind Councillors about what I said at that time which is still relevant and pertinent today. I fully endorse what I stated in those submissions.
I also attach copy of October 2014 Bay Times media release by Councillor Steve Morris, and wish to comment on the Chapel Street Mobil Service Station site in particular which is presumably reclaimed land see 1930s circa photograph which is self explanatory.
In this regard my understanding is that it is alleged by maori interests that their forebears walked over this land via a track to the sea to collect pipis. Well frankly it is hard to see this has much validity and I ask what investigations Council staff make about these types of claims and are claimants asked to produce evidence which is then scrutinised or is it just taken as gospel. On the face of it the claim looks nebulous and tenuous.
The Mount Recreation reserve is on the short list too and if the public mood is anything to go by then Council should proceed with great caution with regard to this. The current draft policy proposals have by the looks of things been discussed and formulated via TCC Maori Committee Meetings (formal&informal) from early 2015, well out of the general public’s gaze.
In particular I refer you to the informal forum held on 10 December 2015.
Observations
1. Maori interests have had compensation already included in their Treaty of Waitangi settlements for any private land issues and that is the category Council land falls into namely private land.
2. Originally the 2014 policy was implemented primarily to apply to only surplus Council land that was up for sale. Now under the current proposal it looks like any land owned by Council that takes maori interests’ fancy is fair game.
3. These types of deals usually have confidential factors like wishing to keep details private and confidential, i.e. consideration paid (if any) terms lease payments etc. away from public scrutiny.
4. New Policy para 5.1 doesn’t make much sense to me. Can someone please explain how it is relevant in the context of the draft policy anyway.
I ask how do these initiatives arise in the first place and who starts off the process maori interests or Council staff. From submissions made by some members of the maori committee I see references are made to rights of first refusal, the Treaty, litigation and so forth. Well in my view these don’t and can’t apply here and rattling the sabre has no place in this forum. The talk of creating full land lists of likely land available in anticipation is equally fatuous and the costs unwarranted -when the land (if any) becomes available for sale then that is the time to address the details.
Summary
What purports here to go under the guise of amendments to the existing Policy being made for clarification purposes is nothing more than a total rewrite of the Policy adopted on 14th October 2014, especially when only slightly over a year has elapsed since then and that looks like indecent haste and kneejerking. Current policy seems to work fine, I haven’t heard any complaints and if no approaches have been made under this policy to date, that reinforces this and my assertion it is working. As they say, ‘silence is golden’. I stress Councils duty is to all its ratepayers/citizens and race based policies have no place in the equation.
Council Decision Requested on Draft Policy
That Council reject the Draft Policy in its entirety and retain the status quo (2014 policy) which is clear precise, straightforward, fair, equitable to all ratepayers/citizens and workable.
Even under the existing policy any sale must be at full market value with no gifting sanctioned and nothing must change in that regard.
Rob Paterson
11th April 2016