New Urban Liaison Officers Boost Safety In Wellington CBD
'The deployment of our new Urban Liaison Officers reflects our proactive approach to community safety. This team will be an asset to our city, working with hospitality, assisting people experiencing homelessness, and being a friendly face for anyone requiring assistance in our CBD,' says Mayor Tory Whanau.
'A dedicated Safety Hub, which will serve as a central point for collaboration and support, will be operational very soon to further bolster our efforts to make our streets safer and more welcoming,' adds Mayor Whanau.
Councillor Teri O'Neill, Chair of Wellington City Council's Kōrau Mātinitini Social, Cultural & Economic Committee, says: 'Whether it's a student heading home after a late shift, a business owner dealing with antisocial behaviour, or someone sleeping rough that needs support – this team is here to help.
'This is about meeting people where they're at, not waiting for things to go wrong. A true boots-on-the-ground response, built with the people of Pōneke.'
A fresh initiative from the City Safety and Wellbeing Plan, Urban Liaison Officers will work with businesses, police, social services and other organisations and the wider City Safety team on initiatives to reduce harm where possible.
The team will be out and about in our city from today and, starting in July, they will provide support from Thursday to Saturday evenings as well.
The Council's City Safety and Wellbeing Senior Responsible Officer, Sehai Orgad, says the team is just one of a raft of initiatives stemming from the City Safety and Wellbeing Plan. 'They'll be trained in first-aid and emergency management procedures, and they'll be proactive and engaged with our community and businesses.
'The team will be out on the streets every day to support the community, keep a close eye on what's happening, and step in when needed. Whether it's assisting the public, working alongside Police at night, or checking in with retailers and hospitality staff, they're here to help keep the city safe and welcoming. They regularly assess risks in real-time with CCTV teams, report hazards or graffiti, and coordinate with social services and other partners to look after the wellbeing of everyone in our city.'
The new Safety Hub will be in the Te Pokapū Hapori site at 105 Manners Street, which has been a community centre run by the Y since 2022.
Sehai says the Y has done an excellent job running the centre, and the Council is grateful for the mahi they've done.
From 1 July work will begin developing it into the Safety Hub, which will provide a space for City Safety teams like Urban Liaison Officers, and other groups like the police beat team, and community patrols. It will also be a space for safety training for initiatives like Safer Venues training, and the Eyes On initiative.
The Hub will be open at times that support the City Safety team, and to support different initiatives operating on the ground.
The City Safety and Wellbeing Plan outlines collaborative, adaptable actions designed to address the evolving needs of the city, and enhance the experience of everyone who lives, works, and plays in Pōneke. It focuses on targeted interventions that deliver meaningful results and is dynamic and designed to adapt to the changing needs of our city.
The plan is built on strong existing partnerships between the Council, Police, local businesses, community organisations, and residents in our inner-city neighbourhood.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
a day ago
- The Spinoff
Windbag: The waterfront fences debate isn't really about fences
Wellington City Council rejected a proposal to build these fences on the waterfront. What looks like a fight about safety, cost and aesthetics is really about something bigger. Windbag is The Spinoff's Wellington issues column, written by Wellington editor Joel MacManus. Subscribe to the Windbag newsletter to receive columns early. Roger Calkin, whose son Sandy drowned on the Wellington waterfront in 2021, stood up in front of Wellington City councillors on Thursday last week and told them they had a moral responsibility to stop further unnecessary deaths. 'It is our perspective as a family, having sat through five days of full coronial inquest and listened to evidence given by various experts from all sides, that these social and moral responsibilities have never been met,' he said. It set up the awkward position in which councillors found themselves. Seven people have drowned on the waterfront since 2006. A grieving family is begging for change. A coronial inquest told the council it needed more edge protection. On the other hand, the general public absolutely hates the idea of fencing the waterfront. It's united left and right, young and old. The fiscally minded hate the cost, and the design-minded hate the aesthetics. In Thursday's meeting, councillors voted on a paper that proposed spending $7 million on fencing around Kumutoto and Queens Wharf. The mayor's office had previously made it clear they wanted a public consultation with multiple options. But that's not what council officers presented. They recommended a direct council decision, with no consultation. The proposed design, released just one day before the meeting, was a heavy steel monstrosity that cost more than $3,000 per metre. Council officers have a conservative instinct. They want to put up the safest fences possible. Cost and popularity are not their top priorities. If officers had provided councillors with a middle ground – say, a cheaper and prettier chain-link fence – they might have got the council's support. But they sent a signal that the council needed to act now, and this was the only option. The proposed fences around Queens Wharf. With Calkin in the room, councillors voted the paper down emphatically, 13-4. The vote sent a clear message: councillors are not happy with council staff. The 13 votes against included mayor Tory Whanau and all the committee chairs bar Laurie Foon. That's notable. Whanau and her chairs have generally put a lot of trust in officer advice and rarely push back (Rebecca Matthews being an occasional exception), but there's a growing frustration that officers are attempting to steer councillors by forcing rushed decisions, withholding information, or giving all-or-nothing options. The worst example this term was the town hall cost blowout. I remember sitting in the meeting where a team of staff told councillors they needed to cough up another $130m, taking a project initially budgeted at $30m to $330m. Councillors reacted with shock at having this info sprung on them with little warning. They frantically asked questions. Could they pause construction? Mothball it? Would getting the heritage listing removed help? Could they have some time to deliberate and assess what's happening here? The answer from the staff was, basically, no. They told councillors that any delays would just increase the cost of the rebuild. There was no time to think. They needed to write a cheque right this minute. Even in the eyes of an untrained outsider, the whole thing looked sus. There was a similar spat over the airport sale, where councillors complained that staff wouldn't let them see relevant legal advice. The Reading Cinema sale, too, was a case of officers promoting an idea. They managed to get Whanau and several other councillors on board, but it was a political miscalculation. Temporary fencing around the Wellington waterfront. Officers and councillors each have important roles within the council. Usually, officers know more than councillors do; they're subject matter experts, while councillors spread their focus across a broad range of topics. But there's a reason unelected bureaucrats aren't responsible for the final decisions: they don't have to think about public opinion. Good politicians need to know how to use the expertise of the public service without being led around by the nose. Being too trusting of advice is a classic pitfall of left-wing politicians, who see public servants as their natural allies, while the right is typically more suspicious of bureaucrats. This is one area where a former minister like Andrew Little has an advantage over other would-be mayors; he knows how to deal with the public service, and when to give them a firm smack-down. So what's going to happen with the waterfront fences? It's not entirely clear. Councillor Ray Chung had planned to bring an amendment calling for public consultation, which would have been only the second amendment he proposed during his entire term. But Chung instead used his time to give a rambling speech, completely forgetting about his amendment. By the time he remembered a few minutes later, the deadline for new amendments had passed. With no formal direction from the council, staff will be scrambling. It's still possible they could come back to the table with a new paper offering a broader range of fencing options and a proper public consultation. Or, they could punt it to the next council and hope they can convince a new batch of inexperienced councillors to make a rash decision.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Predatory Moneylenders Allegedly Targeting Regional Residents
Allegations have surfaced of a predatory moneylending scheme in Fiji that is allegedly targeting regional workers and students from other Pacific Island countries, exploiting their financial vulnerabilities while charging interest rates far above the legal limit. In a particularly concerning case registered with the Consumer Council of Fiji, a regional worker living in Fiji reported seeking a loan late last year and borrowing approximately $5,000 from a husband-and-wife lending team. As a condition for the loan, the lender confiscated the borrower's bank card in October 2024, a practice strictly prohibited by law, and did not return it until the Council intervened. Between January and June 2025, the lender withdrew a total of $17,490 from the borrower's account. When the Council requested records to justify these deductions, it was discovered that the moneylender was not keeping any proper documentation of loans or repayments, in breach of mandatory record-keeping requirements. During its investigation, the Council also found that while the wife held a valid licence under the Moneylenders Act, her husband was not authorised to conduct lending. Despite this, he was allegedly posing as a registered moneylender, distributing his own business cards, and dealing directly with clients. Further inquiries revealed that borrowers in such cases were being charged 40% interest per month, despite the law capping the maximum rate at 12.5% per annum. The alleged targeting of regional workers and students appears calculated, with the lenders exploiting situations where individuals face delayed remittances from home or other financial setbacks, later demanding excessive repayments once those funds arrive. Consumer Council of Fiji Chief Executive Officer Seema Shandil strongly condemned the alleged practices. She said this case was a stark reminder of how opportunistic and exploitative some operators can be, particularly towards those who have come to Fiji in search of education or employment. 'Many of these individuals are far from home, with limited support networks, making them easy prey for illegal and unethical moneylending. The Council will not stand by while vulnerable consumers are trapped in cycles of debt by those who deliberately flout the law. We will continue to expose and refer such cases for enforcement action, and we urge anyone affected to come forward,' she said. The Council's investigation is ongoing, and the matter will be referred to the relevant agencies for further action, if required. Consumers are reminded to exercise caution when borrowing numbers to anyone. Awareness of the legal interest rate limits is crucial in avoiding exploitation. The Council encourages all consumers who feel that they may have been exploited or are struggling to repay after engaging with a moneylender, to lodge a formal complaint. The Council can assist in seeking redress, or a debt restructure, and ensuring that your rights as a consumer are protected. The Council can be reached via its toll-free National Consumer Helpline 155, or through Complaints@
RNZ News
5 days ago
- RNZ News
Councillor says safety not prioritised as Wellington waterfront fence voted down
Iona Pannett. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone A Wellington City Councillor is disappointed the council voted against a $7 million proposal to urgently put fences up around Wellington's waterfront. The proposal came after a coroner's report into the death of Sandy Calkin in 2021. The 30-year-old fell off Queens Wharf and drowned on his way home from drinks with friends. The coroner called for immediate action in "high-risk" areas of the waterfront. Councillors wanted more time to assess the effectiveness of the safety measures that had already been put in place, such as extra lighting. Councillor Iona Pannett, who voted in favour of the fences, told Morning Report public safety should have been prioritised. "I think the families who have lost loved ones needed a bit more from the council particularly given the coroner had identified some failings in the way we had dealt with safety on the waterfront," she said. Pannett believed councillors who voted against the proposal had some concerns around the cost and the impact of people's relationship to the environment by putting fences in. "It was $7 million for the Kumutoto and Queens Wharf part, there had been some estimates of up to $20 million for the rest of it but that work hadn't actually been done so really the focus was on $7 million. NZTA values a life at $12.5 million so I think the cost benefit was good in this case," she said. Graphics show how the Wellington waterfront would appear with balustrades. Photo: Supplied / Wellington City Council Council officers recommended installing the balustrades on Kumutoto and Queens Wharf without community consultation to give urgency to the coroner's recommendations. Chief operating officer James Roberts told the meeting balustrading was the only practical option for those areas, which were narrow in parts and busy, with a high concentration of bars and restaurants. "Our advice is that, given the limited options available, which is either balustrade or do nothing, you are able to make that decision today, enabling officers to get on and address this outstanding public safety issue without delay. "For the rest of the waterfront, there are multiple practicable options and public consultation can help guide your decision-making." He acknowledged council had improved safety already with measures like extra lighting, but said the risk of an accidental fall was not fully removed. "If council wants to improve public safety here, there really is no other way of doing it." Councillor Ben McNulty said, while he voted against the spend, he still wanted improved waterfront safety. "I'll be voting against the paper, so that we can have some time given to monitor the effectiveness of the improvements that have already been made or are underway. "Targeted safety improvements could be presented to a future council, if required." Councillors Pannett, Sarah Free, Laurie Foon and Nureddin Abdurahman voted for, with the remaining 13 councillors voting against. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
