
Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams' helipad bid, the Rolls Royce, and the Westmere rumour
'This is untrue and extremely hurtful,' the neighbour who was allegedly offered the car said during a hearing to decide Mowbray and Williams' resource consent application for their helipad.
The woman was one of about 70 people arguing for and against the bid before independent commissioners this week. Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams' home is on a headland in Westmere. Photo / Alex Burton
The local at the heart of the rumour told the Herald she was walking her dog three years ago and ran into another resident who said: 'I believe you were offered a Rolls Royce for your consent for the helipad.'
'I don't know what you are talking about,' is her recollection of her reply.
'I was mortified to think I could be bought off, and that is all it would take to get our consent. It is just awful…Anna and Ali have not bought anyone off,' said the resident, who drives an Audi.
The episode was one of the more controversial moments at the helipad hearing.
Proceedings got underway on Monday with the rich-listers' lawyer Chris Simmons and a team of six experts presenting their case at the old council chambers in the Auckland Town Hall.
Simmons said the application is for no more than two take-off and landing flights a day, up to 10 flights per month, occurring within a two-hour window on either side of low tide when birds are out feeding. There would be no physical works because helicopters would land on the lawn, he said.
It was Simmons' view that the concerns of the 1300 submitters opposed to the helipad were overstated or misunderstood, and community groups were not representative of the entire community.
Ecologist Graham Don said the proposed flight rules would not affect roosting birds, and the effects on feeding and resting birds at low tide would be minor and transitory.
Acoustic consultant Rhys Hegley said the helicopter planned to be used is an Airbus H130, which takes 60 seconds to descend 150m, idles for up to a minute while loading, and takes 20 seconds to reach 150m.
He considered the predicted helicopter noise level to be reasonable to neighbours and considered the effects on the environment to be minor.
The first layperson to give evidence was Steve Owen, who the Herald's Society Insider Ricardo Simich said this month was one of New Zealand's wealthiest property moguls and behind a $56 million property swop - selling his Mission Bay home and buying a Rawene Ave mansion designed and built by rich listers Tenby Powell and Sharon Hunter. Property mogul and Rawne Ave resident Steve Owen was the first layperson to speak in favour of the helipad.
Owen said the investment Mowbray and Williams had put into their property and the wider community should be applauded, saying allowing them to have a helicopter leave from their peninsula is far less intrusive than neighbours mowing their lawns and jet skis using the upper harbour.
There seems to be a 'trial by media' and the application feels like a case of tall poppy syndrome, he said.
Williams and Mowbray did not attend the four-day hearing, but the sportsman's mother, Helen Williams, did.
'I am very proud to be the mother and mother-in-law of the applicants. I am proud because they want to spend their lives being constructive.'
They cared deeply about being part of the community and had modified their plans to respond to concerns, she told the hearing.
Helen Williams hoped the panel would make a decision based on the evidence without 'catastrophic outcome on human life and property' and 'decimation of the ecology and wildlife', a reference to opposing views.
Opposition to the helipad has been led by Quiet Sky Waitematā - a group set up to oppose private helicopters in residential Auckland.
Secretary Elena Keith is the public face of the fledgling group, with 17 members and 200 donors who have given well over $100,000 to fight the applicants. Elena Keith at the hearing for the proposed helipad.
Elena and Gideon Keith submitted on their own on Tuesday, talking about how they have lived on Rawene Ave for the tranquillity and natural beauty of the area, raising a family using the foreshore as an extension of their backyard.
'There is no place for a helicopter here…it's a gross inequity,' she said.
Elena said Williams and Mowbray wanted the helipad at their mansion to avoid a 15-minute drive to a public heliport at Albany.
'That's their problem. They shouldn't make it everyone else's problem, she said.
Just two doors away from Williams and Mowbray's home, Julie Cato spoke about the big shock she received after moving into the 'peaceful and quiet street' last November.
She wanted the resource consent application rejected 'in its entirety', outlining a long list of downsides, including the impact on frequent stays from young grandchildren, working from home in sight of choppers, the rotors throwing up dust and debris into the swimming pool and spa pool and water sports on the foreshore.
'I'm dismayed to think that our neighbourhood will be subject to such a disturbance,' Cato said.
Quiet Sky's lawyer, Gill Chappell, submitted that the community group was deeply and genuinely concerned about the broad effects of helicopter activity on the environment. Sea birds on the headland where Ali Williams and Anna Mowbray have thier home.
The effects on the birds, trees, and amenity were more than minor, and the application must be declined, she said.
Dr Matthew Baber, an ecologist providing expert evidence for Quiet Sky, believed there would be at least moderate effects on the coastal birds foraging or resting during the two hours on either side of low tide.
The group's noise expert, Peter Abbotson, said the 50 decibel noise level had the potential to comply, but this wasn't certain. The favoured northwest departure route would exceed 50 decibels, he said.
Urban Auckland, a group of architects and other professionals dedicated to a better built and natural environment for the past 25 years, opposed the application.
Chair Julie Stout said helipads in residential areas were not considered when the Auckland Unitary Plan was drawn up, and it was a developing trend that needed to be taken seriously.
She said Waiheke Island provided a lesson where 64 helipads had been granted in relatively low-density residential areas, causing a cumulative effect of prolonged noise, destroying the quiet for everyone else.
Sydney and Melbourne did not allow private landing pads in residential areas,' the architect said.
St Marys Bay resident Helen Geary, whose family endures helicopter traffic up and down the harbour, said Auckland Council had assessed the resource consent application as non-complying and it should be declined.
'Setting a precedent is the elephant in the room here,' she said.
Several of the 100 or so submitters in favour of the helipad spoke at the hearing. The hearing is being heard by commissioenrs(from left), Dr Hilke Giles, chairman Kitt Littlejohn and David Hill.
The opponents had a common theme - Williams and Mowbray were community-minded, obtained expert advice, listened to concerns and had made changes. They also took potshots at the opponents.
'Let's begin with the core truth: this application is about enabling efficient, responsible transport for New Zealanders - Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams - who contribute significantly to our country's business, culture, and global reputation,' said Pt Chevalier resident Sally Chudzynski.
'Let's stop pretending this opposition is about saving birds or peace and quiet. It's about fear of change and tall poppy thinking,' she said.
Andrew Haslett said: 'Every concern has been addressed, every environmental safeguard has been put in place, and the applicants have gone above and beyond to mitigate every potential impact.'
One supporter to amply address the evidence, businesswoman Rochelle Moffitt, said the proposed consent conditions included independent noise monitoring from an ecologist who found that flying within two hours of low tide, roosting birds would be left undisturbed, and any effects on feeding birds would be minor and temporary.
'And it doesn't stop there. Monitoring the bird population is built into the consent, quarterly for two years with council oversight and the ability to review conditions,' she said.
Things erupted on the last day of the hearing this week when the chair of the panel hearing the application, Kitt Littlejohn, threatened to 'get rid' of the Tree Council's Dr Mels Barton.
Barton started her submission with photos alleging illegal removal, pruning, and thinning of protected trees on the couple's headland property when Littlejohn interjected, saying that was not relevant.
He said she could give a relevant submission, but if she was going to argue, 'I will just get rid of you'. Tree Council spokesperson Dr Mels Barton.
'We have no evidence in front of us that there is any wrongdoing here. Even if it was, it is not relevant to the resource consent application. You don't refuse resource consent applications because people have done something historically,' Littlejohn said.
When the row settled down, Barton said helicopters would have a significant impact on tree health and stability.
Rotor downwash would lead to winds of up to severe gale force through the crowns of trees, lifting and twisting branches, likely damaging canopies, and shortening the trees' lives. New plantings would not survive, she said.
Speaking to the Herald after the incident, Barton said Littlejohn should not prejudge how submitters tell their story.
'I have never been threatened with being thrown out before. That was an unnecessary and over-the-top reaction,' said Barton, who has been making submissions for 25 years.
The hearing, being heard before three commissioners, Littlejohn, David Hill and Dr Hilke Giles, has been adjourned until May 29.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Rolls-Royce wins UK small nuclear reactor deal
By Sarah Young , Reuters UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Photo: STEPHANIE LECOCQ / AFP Britain has selected Rolls-Royce SMR to build the country's first small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) as part of its plan to speed up the decarbonisation of the power network from the mid-2030s. The government on Tuesday (UK time) pledged £2.5 billion (NZ$5.6 billion) for the SMR programme over the next four years, aiming to kickstart one of Europe's first small-scale nuclear industries. SMRs are typically the size of two football pitches, with parts that can be built in a factory, making them quicker and cheaper than traditional plants, which take more than a decade to construct and face planning delays in the UK. The government also said it would invest £14.2 billion (NZ$31 billion) to build a large scale nuclear plant, Sizewell C, in eastern England, as part of "the biggest nuclear rollout for a generation". Rolls-Royce SMR, majority owned by FTSE 100 engineer Rolls-Royce which makes the power systems for Britain's nuclear submarines, said it would build three units. "Doing lots of them gives you that opportunity to bring down the cost, that's the big prospect," Energy Minister Ed Miliband told Sky News. "It's huge for energy security, but it's also a huge opportunity for Britain." Dozens of countries across the world, including the United States, Canada, Romania and Czech Republic, are looking at SMRs, opening up a big market if the British project is successful. Rolls-Royce CEO Tufan Erginbilgic said he expected Rolls-Royce SMR to grow "materially". Britain's state-owned energy company, Great British Energy - Nuclear, will aim to sign a contract with Rolls-Royce SMR and pick a site later this year, subject to regulatory approval. The SMRs could support 3000 jobs and power about three million homes once they are connected to the grid in the mid-2030s, the statement added. Rolls-Royce SMR was chosen over Westinghouse, Holtec Britain and GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy - an alliance between General Electric Co and Japan's Hitachi Ltd - in a two-year competition for the SMR contract. - Reuters


Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
Aotearoa's Billionaire Class Thrives As Everyone Else Struggles
In a moment of deepening crisis for most working people in Aotearoa, the capitalist class has something to celebrate. According to the National Business Review's latest Rich List, New Zealand's wealthiest individuals now command a combined fortune of over $102 billion. Let that sink in. While people queue outside foodbanks, live in motels, or work three jobs to make rent, the ruling elite quietly consolidate their grip on the nation's resources. In a country founded on colonisation and class exploitation, this is not an aberration—it is the inevitable outcome of a system designed to enrich the few at the expense of the many. This article isn't just about the numbers, obscene as they are. It's about what they reveal: the brutal logic of capitalist accumulation, the complicity of the state, and the need for radical alternatives. It's about a system that must be dismantled—not reformed. Aotearoa needs more than tinkering tax reforms or charitable crumbs. It needs a revolution in who controls the wealth, the land, and the means of life itself. Billionaire Boom in the Age of Misery The Rich List paints a picture of staggering inequality. From the Mowbray siblings, whose empire in toys and consumer products has inflated their wealth to over $20 billion each, to the increasing ranks of tech entrepreneurs and investment magnates, the ultra-rich in Aotearoa are thriving. In fact, the number of billionaires on the list has jumped, with a total of 18 now sitting atop a mountain of wealth that dwarfs our public health and education budgets combined. What's striking is not just the scale of their riches but the context in which it is growing. These gains have been made not despite 'tough times,' but because of them. As inflation, housing costs, and food prices surged, the wealthy were positioned to profit. They owned the assets—property, shares, companies—that inflated in value. While the average family scraped to cover the rising cost of groceries or power, the elite cashed in. Capitalism doesn't just weather crises—it feeds on them. What we are witnessing is not some neutral or unfortunate side effect of market dynamics. It is systemic. The rich get richer because the economic system is built to transfer wealth upward, from workers to owners, from renters to landlords, from the public to the private. If you're shocked that the rich are thriving while the rest suffer, you're finally seeing the system as it really is. Meritocracy Is a Myth We are often told that such wealth is the reward of hard work, innovation, or risk-taking. But let's be clear: billionaires are not the by-product of personal genius—they are the outcome of systemic theft. Their fortunes are built on labour they did not perform, land they did not rightfully inherit, and political conditions they did not create alone but which favour capital at every turn. Take the Mowbrays. Their wealth has grown exponentially on the back of global manufacturing networks, cheap overseas labour, and intellectual property laws that allow the few to monopolise ideas. Or consider tech millionaires who capitalise on data extraction and financialisation rather than producing tangible value for communities. This is not innovation—it is extraction. The accumulation of billions requires not just success but a system rigged in your favour: a state that subsidises capital, tax loopholes that reward speculation, and a legal order that protects private property at all costs. The billionaire class does not represent the best of us; they represent the worst: hoarding, opportunism, and a parasitic relationship with the rest of society. There is no moral justification for anyone to own that much in a world where others go without. The Role of the State: Partner in Crime You might think the government would look at this growing inequality with alarm. After all, wealth hoarding undermines social cohesion, corrodes democracy, and fuels resentment. But the opposite has occurred. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, a former Air New Zealand CEO and multi-millionaire himself, openly praised the increase in billionaires, calling it something to 'celebrate.' This is the same government that talks of 'tightening belts' when it comes to funding mental health services or schools. It is the same state that introduces punitive welfare rules, cuts public services, and lectures beneficiaries about personal responsibility. Yet when the rich hoard billions, they are met with applause. When they evade taxes through loopholes, trusts, and clever accounting, they are called 'astute.' When they dominate the housing market, they are described as 'investors.' The state is not a neutral body. It is the executive committee of the ruling class, managing the affairs of capital while selling us stories of democracy and fairness. The legal system protects private property over human need. The police are deployed to evict the homeless, not the landlords. The state's primary allegiance is not to the people but to profit. Tokenism and the Women's Rich List One of the more perverse developments this year is the fanfare around the new 'Women's Rich List.' Heralded as a sign of progress, this list celebrates the rising fortunes of a handful of ultra-wealthy women. Anna Mowbray and Lucy Liu have joined the boys' club of billionaires, and media outlets are hailing this as a feminist achievement. This is not feminism—it is neoliberal tokenism. The presence of women among the elite changes nothing about the structure of class exploitation. Whether it is men or women accumulating billions, the system remains violent, hierarchical, and unjust. True liberation does not come from seeing more women at the top of a pyramid built on the suffering of others. It comes from flattening the pyramid entirely. The 'diverse billionaire' trope is a clever PR move. It suggests that capitalism can be made kinder, more inclusive, more ethical. But this is a fantasy. A woman exploiting labour is still an exploiter. A person of colour accumulating wealth through gentrification or property speculation is still contributing to the dispossession of others. Representation without redistribution is a trap. Who Pays the Price? While the rich celebrate, ordinary people are being crushed. The cost of living crisis continues unabated. Housing remains unaffordable in most parts of the country. Wages stagnate while landlords and banks raise rents and mortgages. The mental health system is in tatters. Food insecurity is rising, especially among children. And Māori, Pacific peoples, migrants, and working-class Pākehā bear the brunt. This is not a shared crisis. It is a class war. And one side is winning decisively. We are told there is no money for free dental care, no budget for proper public transport, no funds to end homelessness. Yet there are billions in private wealth sitting idle in trusts, investments, and offshore accounts. The issue is not scarcity—it is control. The problem is not mismanagement—it is ownership. Until we confront who owns what and why, we will continue to treat symptoms instead of causes. A System Beyond Reform Some will argue that we just need better taxes. And yes, taxing the rich is essential. But tax reforms alone will not end class society. They may slow the bleeding, but they won't heal the wound. We must go further. The very idea of a billionaire is incompatible with a just society. No one should control that much wealth when others lack the basics. Redistribution cannot be voluntary. It must be structural. It must involve the collective reclaiming of land, housing, and resources from private hands and their return to common stewardship. This is not a utopian dream. It is a necessity. Climate breakdown, economic instability, and social fragmentation are symptoms of a system that has reached its limits. Capitalism cannot be made sustainable or fair—it is built on exploitation. The choice is not between capitalism and socialism. It is between capitalism and collapse. Toward Anarcho-Communism: Reclaiming the Commons What would a different Aotearoa look like? It would begin with decolonisation, returning land to tangata whenua, not as symbolic redress but as real power. It would mean abolishing private landlords and replacing them with community-controlled housing. It would mean transforming workplaces into cooperatives, where workers control the means of production and profits are shared or reinvested, not hoarded. It would mean the end of the wage system as we know it. Instead of selling our lives to survive, we would organise around need and mutual aid. Health, education, transport, and food would be guaranteed—not because they are profitable but because they are essential. And it would mean dismantling the state as a tool of elite domination. We do not need new politicians. We need new ways of making decisions: directly, collectively, and without hierarchy. Anarcho-communism is not chaos. It is the self-organisation of communities based on equality, autonomy, and cooperation. It is the abolition of all forms of domination—class, colonial, gendered—and the building of a society in which everyone has what they need and no one has too much. No More Billionaires The Rich List is not a celebration. It is an indictment. It is evidence of a system in which the few feast while the many suffer. It is a monument to theft, protected by law and myth. But it need not continue. We can dismantle the structures that make billionaires possible. We can reclaim our commons, redistribute wealth, and rebuild society on principles of cooperation, not competition. We owe the rich nothing. They owe us everything. Let's collect.


NZ Herald
6 days ago
- NZ Herald
Refixing the mortgage? Should you float or fix – and for how long?
Last week's Official Cash Rate (OCR) cut sparked another cycle of banks dropping mortgage rates. But for homeowners due to refix soon, is now a good time to grab those fixed rates? Cameron Marcroft, senior adviser and director at Loan Market, told the Herald it felt like we were nearing