Category: Public Media

Source: Radio New Zealand

Just minutes after unifying around a new vision statement, a rift on the New Plymouth District Council was laid bare over the appointment of an acting chief executive.

At an extraordinary meeting, councillor Dinnie Moeahu expressed his dismay that the public was to be excluded from debate about the appointment.

“The significance of this matter should involve the community and when we have to make a decision, a significant decision, why wouldn’t we have the community involved?”

Moeahu also took umbrage at senior council staff leaving the chamber at the instruction of outgoing chief executive Gareth Green.

“Why are our executive leaders leaving when they should be right here?

“We are about to make a decision and I have some questions on this matter that I would like addressed before our council executives leave this room.

“And I’m not sure that when we remove the public, why are they leaving? Can someone tell me – through the CE – why are our executive leaders leaving this room?”

Green was happy to oblige.

“Through the chair, because I’ve asked them to. It’s not appropriate for our staff to be privy to the conversation that you’re going to have.

“That would be inappropriate for both the individuals you will be discussing and for them [the staff]. It would be highly unusual for them to be here.”

Moeahu hit back during debate on the motion to exclude even though not a single member of the public had turned up to the meeting.

“I thought this term was going to be the term of transparency. We will be open. We will be honest. We will have our community know what we are doing.

“So, what are we going to do? Exclude our executive team, exclude the public from this decision.

“I will not support the recommendation and I would encourage others to stand up for the community in the realm of transparency because we have the option of including the public.”

Councillors voted 10 to 4 to exclude the public, with one councillor abstaining.

The chief executive was the single member of council staff employed directly by the councillors.

Following the meeting, New Plymouth mayor Max Brough said it was standard practice to exclude the public when employment matters were being discussed.

“You never, ever, ever, in a public space, talk about employment issues when going through the process of choosing a new CE ever.

“Never. No council does that. It’s nonsense. “

Brough accused Moeahu of political point scoring.

Ditching Sustainable Lifestyle Capital vision

Earlier, the two men had been on the same page as council took the first steps towards ditching its “Sustainable Lifestyle Capital” vision statement.

Councillors unanimously supported adopting “Thriving Today, Resilient Tomorrow” as its new vision.

Brough said the slogan – suggested by first-term councillor Gina Blackburn – signalled a change in direction for council towards a more economic focus.

“One of the problems with the Sustainable Lifestyle Capital is there’s all sorts of interpretations sustainable and we all think it’s great to have a lifestyle, but we’ve sort of drifted away from creating an income and generating wealth.”

Moeahu thanked his colleagues for the two days of work on the new strategic framework.

“We worked really hard to try and move forwards together as a cohesive unit and I really appreciated that there was a lot of honesty, and some challenges, but what we have landed on here should be commended.”

Blackburn said the vision statement was about looking forward.

“I think this signals a new direction for us as a council focused on our people, on our place and creating a district that everyone wants to be in, everyone wants to thrive in.

“And where everyone knows and can feel secure that our council is making decisions in the best interests of the future.”

The vision statement would be outlined in next year’s Annual Plan and inform its Mission, Goals and the Strategic Framework of the Long-Term Plan 2027-2037.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

A think tank says New Zealanders can see and feel rising inequality.

Wellbeing Economy Alliance Aotearoa released polling suggesting most people agree billionaires should pay more tax.

Carried out by Talbot Mills, 68 percent of respondents agreed with the ultra wealthy being taxed more to support public goods like healthcare, housing and climate action.

Thirteen percent disagreed in the poll from 11-26 February of 1033 people.

Half of people surveyed – 50 percent – agreed there should be no billionaires while people struggle affording the basics like housing, food and healthcare.

Think tank director Gareth Hughes told Midday Report there is deep unease about how the economy is handling challenges like housing and the cost of living.

“Kiwis know that our tax system isn’t fair, it’s putting too much of the responsibility on workers, on things like GST, which are incredibly regressive,” he said.

“Yes, they would like those ultra-wealthy to be contributing more for our health and education system.

“That’s two-thirds agree that billionaires should be paying more to fund these public services.”

The numbers were closer together in another question in the poll – whether there should be a “billion-dollar wealth cap” or maximum amount of wealth a person can have.

Among the respondents, 37 percent agreed, while 34 percent disagreed.

“Oh, personally, I would be comfortable with that,” Hughes said.

“I think once you had a billion dollars you could get a certificate saying you’ve won capitalism and you could contribute to society.”

Hughes said he was part of a global network working to try to redesign the economic system “to deliver wellbeing for people and nature”.

He said it was a topic being raised overseas, and Wellbeing Economy Alliance Aotearoa wanted to test the idea in New Zealand.

“I acknowledge it’s a pretty new idea for New Zealanders, the idea of wealth caps,” he said.

“But remember, once upon a time we had very high marginal tax rates for the super wealthy in this country to contribute towards society.”

The National Business Review‘s annual rich list reported last year that New Zealand had 18 billionaires, up from 16 the year before.

“I think the big message though is that billionaires around the world and through corporate influence in New Zealand has seen a system which advantages them,” said Hughes.

“It’s very hard for people to pull themselves by their bootstraps today, you can almost say the ladder’s being pulled up behind the super-wealthy.”

Hughes said it was up to political leaders to put their solutions to the public.

On the question of billionaires paying more tax, 71 percent of people under 30 were supportive, and also 71 percent of people 30-44.

Sixty-eight percent of people 45-59 agreed and 64 percent of people polled over 60.

Eighty percent of Labour and Green voters agreed, 69% percent of Te Pāti Māori voters, 67 percent of the poll’s New Zealand First supporters, 58 percent of National and 44 percent Act.

The poll responses:

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following:

• The economic system in New Zealand is not set up to effectively address the big issues like housing, healthcare, and climate change. 66% total agree. 10% total disagree.
• No one should be a billionaire while so many people struggle to afford basic necessities like housing, food, and healthcare. 50% total agree, 24% total disagree.

How strongly do you support or oppose the following in NZ:

• Billionaires paying more tax to fund public goods like healthcare, housing, and climate action. 68% total agree. 13% total disagree.
• Introducing a billion-dollar wealth cap – a maximum amount of wealth any person can legally hold. 37% total agree. 34% total disagree.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Just minutes after unifying around a new vision statement, a rift on the New Plymouth District Council was laid bare over the appointment of an acting chief executive.

At an extraordinary meeting, councillor Dinnie Moeahu expressed his dismay that the public was to be excluded from debate about the appointment.

“The significance of this matter should involve the community and when we have to make a decision, a significant decision, why wouldn’t we have the community involved?”

Moeahu also took umbrage at senior council staff leaving the chamber at the instruction of outgoing chief executive Gareth Green.

“Why are our executive leaders leaving when they should be right here?

“We are about to make a decision and I have some questions on this matter that I would like addressed before our council executives leave this room.

“And I’m not sure that when we remove the public, why are they leaving? Can someone tell me – through the CE – why are our executive leaders leaving this room?”

Green was happy to oblige.

“Through the chair, because I’ve asked them to. It’s not appropriate for our staff to be privy to the conversation that you’re going to have.

“That would be inappropriate for both the individuals you will be discussing and for them [the staff]. It would be highly unusual for them to be here.”

Moeahu hit back during debate on the motion to exclude even though not a single member of the public had turned up to the meeting.

“I thought this term was going to be the term of transparency. We will be open. We will be honest. We will have our community know what we are doing.

“So, what are we going to do? Exclude our executive team, exclude the public from this decision.

“I will not support the recommendation and I would encourage others to stand up for the community in the realm of transparency because we have the option of including the public.”

Councillors voted 10 to 4 to exclude the public, with one councillor abstaining.

The chief executive was the single member of council staff employed directly by the councillors.

Following the meeting, New Plymouth mayor Max Brough said it was standard practice to exclude the public when employment matters were being discussed.

“You never, ever, ever, in a public space, talk about employment issues when going through the process of choosing a new CE ever.

“Never. No council does that. It’s nonsense. “

Brough accused Moeahu of political point scoring.

Ditching Sustainable Lifestyle Capital vision

Earlier, the two men had been on the same page as council took the first steps towards ditching its “Sustainable Lifestyle Capital” vision statement.

Councillors unanimously supported adopting “Thriving Today, Resilient Tomorrow” as its new vision.

Brough said the slogan – suggested by first-term councillor Gina Blackburn – signalled a change in direction for council towards a more economic focus.

“One of the problems with the Sustainable Lifestyle Capital is there’s all sorts of interpretations sustainable and we all think it’s great to have a lifestyle, but we’ve sort of drifted away from creating an income and generating wealth.”

Moeahu thanked his colleagues for the two days of work on the new strategic framework.

“We worked really hard to try and move forwards together as a cohesive unit and I really appreciated that there was a lot of honesty, and some challenges, but what we have landed on here should be commended.”

Blackburn said the vision statement was about looking forward.

“I think this signals a new direction for us as a council focused on our people, on our place and creating a district that everyone wants to be in, everyone wants to thrive in.

“And where everyone knows and can feel secure that our council is making decisions in the best interests of the future.”

The vision statement would be outlined in next year’s Annual Plan and inform its Mission, Goals and the Strategic Framework of the Long-Term Plan 2027-2037.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

A Christchurch couple who found more than $200,000 in the ceiling will be allowed to $40,000 of it.

The couple, whose names are suppressed, found the mystery money sealed in plastic bricks tucked in insulation at their property in 2021.

They reported the $232,440 to the police who said the money should be forfeited because it was the proceeds of crime, probably from drug dealing.

A hearing took place this month in the Christchurch High Court.

In a judgment released on Wednesday, Justice Robert Osborne decided the couple could keep $40,000 of the cash, with the rest given to the Crown.

Both parties had reached a proposed settlement in the hearing, suggesting the couple be paid that amount from the cash.

In agreeing to the settlement, Justice Osborne said he had to consider a number of factors, including the strength of the police and couples’ arguments, and the aims of the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act, which is designed to deter crime, eliminate criminals’ profit-making, and reduce their ability to expand their activities.

He said the case was “highly unusual”, in that the people who found the cash were “wholly innocent citizens” who discovered it and handed it to the police.

There were “strong public policy” reasons for agreeing to the settlement.

Others might be discouraged from reporting similar findings if they weren’t able to keep any of the money, he said.

“If this court were to strip from innocent finders of cash such as these interested parties any prospect of some cash recognition for handing the cash to the authorities, dishonesty could be unintentionally promoted.”

The police had accepted the couple had done the right thing by telling them about the cash, that they were caused stress by finding it and by the risk the true owner might return for it, and that they incurred the cost of alterations to their home after discovering it in the ceiling.

Justice Osborne said his decision wasn’t a finding that people should always be paid 20 percent of found cash when they stumble on it.

He said his responsibility was to determine the settlement had been reached fairly, and was consistent with the purposes of the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

A retailer in Rotorua faces a fine of up to $500,000 or a maximum term of two year’s in jail for selling nitrous oxide, also known as nangs, for recreational use.

“Our beat team had engaged with the retailer several times, yet he refused to heed our warnings,” District Commander Superintendent Will Loughrin said.

“So now he will face the consequences, which is a criminal charge of selling or supplying a non-approved psychoactive product which carries a fine of up to $500,000 or a maximum term of two year’s imprisonment.”

More than 300 canisters have been taken out of circulation, he said.

Assistant Commissioner Tusha Penny said the man showed “complete disregard for the law and has persisted in selling this substance for recreational use”.

He was charged under the Psychoactive Substances Act and is the first prosecution of a retailer in the district.

The man will appear in the Rotorua District Court on Thursday.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Christchurch City Council has voted against a controversial proposal to investigate banning protests in some parts of the city.

The notice of motion, brought by councillor Aaron Keown, was narrowly lost – eight votes to seven – at a council meeting on Wednesday.

Keown and councillor David Cartwright proposed having staff investigate and advise the council on using an existing bylaw to declare protesting off limits in some public places.

The notice of motion referenced “sensitive sites”, such as the Bridge of Remembrance, the earthquake memorial, places of worship and cemeteries.

Keown told his colleagues the motion was not about stopping people from protesting, but protecting places he felt should be off limits.

Keown said he was happy for staff to explore other sites that could become designated protest zones.

Protests were held in Cathedral Square for many years but the square was now “a little bit derelict” and that had led to the centre of town shifting closer to the Bridge of Remembrance, Keown said.

Cartwright, who seconded the motion, said protests had left the community feeling vulnerable.

Although the definition of sensitive sites was yet to be decided, Cartwright said it would not affect some traditional protest sites.

“If nurses wanted to continue to protest outside the hospital or school children outside the council chambers here around climate emergencies or the wharfies having a picket line in Lyttelton, it does not stop them,” he said.

Mayor Phil Mauger and deputy mayor Victoria Henstock were among those who supported the motion.

Councillor Pauline Cotter said she could not believe some of her colleagues were even considering supporting the motion, which she branded a breach of human rights.

Councillor Andrei Moore noted the proposal itself could spark protests.

Earlier in the meeting, veteran protester John Minto addressed councillors and urged Keown to withdraw the motion.

He told the council the proposal would breach the Bill of Rights Act.

The Bridge of Remembrance commemorated New Zealand soldiers including those who fought to liberate Palestine from the Ottoman Turks in World War One and was the most appropriate site in the city for protests supporting Palestine, Minto said.

Councillors Melanie Coker, Cotter, Celeste Donovan, Tyrone Fields, Tyla Harrison-Hunt, Nathaniel Herz Jardine, Yani Johanson and Andrei Moore voted against the motion, while Mauger, Henstock, Kelly Barber, Cartwright, Keown, Sam MacDonald and Mark Peters voted for it.

Tim Scandrett abstained and Jake McLellan was absent.

Amnesty International criticised the proposal on Tuesday with director of advocacy and movement building Lisa Woods saying it was deeply concerning.

The right to protest was fundamental and while some limitations could be put in place, they were limited and should always be a last resort, Woods said.

“Protest is by its nature disruptive – that’s the point. It might cause some disruption to society’s daily functioning but only serious disruption can justify restrictions,” she told RNZ.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand