
Golf Wars 2: The golf course strikes back
Auckland Council thought it could get rid of one of its 14 golf courses. It's learning a harsh lesson in the power of the putt.
Richard Hills seemed cautiously optimistic as he talked last month about the council's plans to pull off the hardest task in local government, and get rid of a single golf course. The North Shore councillor and Tom Mansell, the council's head of sustainable partnerships, made a robust case for change. They needed to transform much of the park occupied by Takapuna golf course into a wetland if we wanted to avoid a repeat of the Auckland Anniversary weekend floods, where two people died and homes and businesses were washed out in the adjacent Wairau Valley. Political support was swinging in behind their plan. Hills pointed to positive noises from local National MPs Dan Bidois and Simon Watts. Local boards seemed to be backing the idea too.
But there were flickers of doubt. Laughs that betrayed hints of nervousness. Small asides about Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act requests to respond to; letters being sent by golf advocates. Deep down they knew even a bipartisan effort to save lives, homes and businesses from nature's fury wasn't enough to overcome the intoxicating lure of drives, chips and, indeed, putts.
Over the last month, golf has mounted a fierce rearguard action against the council's flagrant efforts to protect the local community. Its campaign has been bolstered by local media, which has devoted several hundred words to the perspective of a woman who thinks her dog will immediately start mainlining duck droppings if the council creates a wetland on the golf course.
The golf course's operators have been pushing an alternative plan, which they claim will retain an 18-hole course while still providing enough drainage for 500 million litres of water. Officials have questions about that plan's buildability, but the course operators possess an ally in Wayne Walker, an Albany councillor who's made a career of opposing council proposals. He's attended several public meetings, where he's shockingly aligned himself with people saying no to the council's plans.
The list of people saying no keeps growing. It's not just Walker and the golf course. Golf NZ is saying no. Harbour Sport is saying no. The dog is saying no. It's got to the point where even people who used to be saying yes are starting to say no. Earlier this week, Bidois and Watts released a statement noting the 'considerable public opposition to the original proposal and the alternative plan put forward by the golf course'. The Kaipātiki Local Board, which covers the area where the course is located and was once seemingly onside with the council's flood mitigation efforts, now appears to be reconsidering its position.
On current trajectory, soon only Hills, Mansell and the ducks will be saying yes. If this sounds familiar, it's because it happens any time any council anywhere tries to remove a single fairway, green or, indeed, rough. There are 43 golf courses in Auckland. The council owns 13 of those. Most are big enough to fit a small town's worth of houses. Many are rented at peppercorn rates. But when the council even started looking funny at the Remuera Golf Course, the Ōrākei Local Board extended its lease until 2091. In 2019, the Albert-Eden Local Board tried to turn nine holes of Chamberlain Park into needed sports facilities. Half of the board members got voted out a few months later.
In a just world, things would be different this time. Taking away nine holes of Takapuna Golf Course wouldn't just give people a place to play cricket; it might actually save their lives. But the council is learning the hard way there's no power in local government stronger than a local retiree's will to spend eight hours haphazardly smacking small white balls in roughly the direction of a hole. Last time I gave the council's redevelopment plans a 50-50 chance of success. Those chances are now 25%, and dropping like a drive upon a perfectly manicured Takapuna green.
Hashtags

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


Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Revealed: Invercargill Consultant Bill Tops $7.3 Million
The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union can reveal under Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request that Invercargill City Council spent $7,334,394 on consultants and legal services in just three years. The spending includes fees for everything from strategy consultants and cultural engagement advisers to legal firms and planning experts. Taxpayers' Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, says: 'Ratepayers are forking out over $7 million to consultants while basic council services remain under pressure. When you need a consultant to tell you how to build a playground or put up signage, something has gone very wrong.' 'This is exactly the sort of out-of-control spending that's driving up rates and leaving residents worse off. Too often, councils hide this under the vague label of 'expert advice' but the rates bill ends up in the letterbox of every ratepayer.' 'Consultants don't come cheap but Invercargill ratepayers shouldn't be treated like an ATM every time council wants to outsource its thinking. The Council needs to be forced to focus on core services through rates capping now."


The Spinoff
3 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Are regional councils on the chopping block?
With new planning laws set to centralise environmental decision-making, ministers are openly debating whether regional councils still serve a purpose, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Are regional councils' days numbered? The future of New Zealand's 11 regional councils is under intense scrutiny, with senior government figures questioning whether they should exist at all, reports Adam Pearse at the Herald. Leading the charge is regional development minister Shane Jones, who last week asked bluntly: 'What is the point of regional government?' He has accused councils of stifling economic growth and claimed they were being co-opted into co-governance arrangements, describing the Waikato regional council as an 'iwi back office'. Prime minister Christopher Luxon didn't go that far, but said disestablishing regional councils was 'something we can explore' as part of the sweeping Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms, which aim to replace the existing legislation with two new laws intended to standardise planning decisions and reduce reliance on complex, locally issued resource consents. With key powers centralised, regional councils risk being sidelined altogether. Local government minister Simon Watts is keeping his cards close to the chest, only saying the future would 'look differently than what it is'. What regional councils do Regional councils were created in 1989 as part of a sweeping local government overhaul that replaced hundreds of small boards with 86 authorities, including 13 regional councils (now 11). Their purpose was to manage land, water and air resources under the then-new RMA. These days, their responsibilities include environmental monitoring, flood control, biodiversity, biosecurity, public transport and natural hazard planning. They also play a core role in building resilience to climate change, according to Local Government New Zealand. In some parts of the country – including Auckland, Gisborne and Nelson – these duties are handled by unitary authorities, which combine regional and territorial (ie city or district council) responsibilities. The post-RMA reckoning In a column on Scoop, former United Future leader Peter Dunne argues the government's plan to replace the RMA has reignited National's long-held discomfort with regional councils. After National took office in 1990, it 'wound back the powers' the Labour government had assigned to the councils, leaving them 'largely toothless', Dunne says. 'For the last 35 years they have therefore remained an awkward anomaly, with little public understanding of their purpose.' With the RMA now set to be replaced by new laws focused on national standards and streamlined consenting, the government appears to be questioning whether regional governance is still necessary, reports The Post's Anna Whyte (paywalled). Or, as David Seymour put it, 'maybe the next logical question is, do we need that extra layer of government?' If you're thinking about a new career as a regional councillor, maybe think again, advises Dunne. 'With the way things are currently swirling, those considering running for regional councils ought to be watching National's musings about the future of regional government very carefully.' Amalgamation enters the frame While most regional councillors are – unsurprisingly – against the idea of their roles being scrapped outright, many are open to the idea of amalgamation. In a column for The Post (paywalled), Greater Wellington Regional Council chair Daran Ponter suggests regional councils could be 'building blocks' for a streamlined system, but argues that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 'Environmental regulation is a part of any modern western democracy and essential to New Zealand trade,' he writes. 'If it's not your regional council doing this work, then it will be a government agency or your local council.' His call for amalgamation has won support in neighbouring Hutt City Council, which will vote today on whether to include a question on the topic in this year's election ballot papers. Further south, Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger is also open to combining functions into a unitary authority. But Environment Canterbury chair Craig Pauling tells David Hill at The Press (paywalled) that rushing into amalgamation isn't the answer. 'We agree the current structure and funding is unsustainable, but it is not simple and … just about scrapping regional councils and creating unitary authorities.'


NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Why US President Donald Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize
Matthew Hooton Matthew Hooton has more than 30 years' experience in political and corporate strategy, including the National and Act parties. KEY FACTS Fair's fair. United States President Donald Trump may remain a threat to his nation's democracy and the rule of law. His on-again, off-again tariff policy is undoubtedly stoking inflation and undermining economic growth. His reckless tax cuts risk adding another US$2.8 trillion to the US national debt. Nevertheless,