Auckland councillors agree on desired helicopter saga outcome - but not how to get there
Photo:
RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
A
motion to block helicopters from Auckland's residential areas
has become ensnared in a web of bureaucracy.
Councillors gathered on Thursday to discuss Waitematā and Gulf Ward councillor Mike Lee's two motions of notice
calling for the prohibition of private helicopters
in residential neighbourhoods.
It comes after Auckland rich-listers Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams were
approved to build a helipad at their Westmere home
, a decision now being
challenged in the Environment Court
.
Councillor Lee's first motion urged the council to change the city's Unitary Plan to make private helipads in residential areas a prohibited activity city-wide.
The second motion called for the same change, but only for the Hauraki Gulf Islands section of the council's District Plan.
The
second motion was passed
by the council, though it would still need to be approved by the central government.
However, the motion to change Auckland's Unitary Plan proved to be much more complicated.
Council advisory staff said a city-wide ban would be too difficult to implement.
It would require the council to seek permission from the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform Chris Bishop, a request many councillors believed he would decline.
Councillor Richard Hills, chairing the meeting, instead proposed an amendment to Lee's motion requesting the council seek a declaration from the Environment Court to strengthen its case before approaching the Minister.
"What I'm trying to do here is give us a chance," he told councillors.
"You can bet when we have to go and beg to the minister to put through a plan change ... If we said we don't have staff backing and we don't think we have experts, there is no way the minister would say yes to that."
Councillor Richard Hills proposed an amendment to one of the motions.
Photo:
Alexia Russell
Councillor Lee described the amendment as an ambush.
"There have been ample breaks in this meeting today and this obviously didn't fall out of the air, I would have appreciated the courtesy of some consultation," Lee said.
"This outcome-by-ambush approach with no forewarning whatsoever is not going to help the reputation of the council."
Speaking after the meeting, Hills said he felt proceeding without the amendment would have only led to disappointment.
"We would be giving false hope to people if we went ahead, against advice, over a two year period and spent millions of dollars for an outcome that everything points to we wouldn't have had," he said.
"It might make us feel good in the moment, but actually we have to try and get the best, clearest, strongest [outcome] as quick as possible."
Councillor Shane Henderson said he voted in favour of the amendment because it was more likely to be approved by the minister.
"We were kind of worried it would fail at the end of the day and we would be in a very difficult position," he said.
"So we wanted to get something that was more practical and workable over the line."
Lee disagreed with the others councillors' assertion that the minister would block the change.
"The minister's intention is to stop councils spending a fortune on 10-year reviews of their district and regional plans, I don't think the minister would attempt to block plan changes which correct or modify the existing plan."
He believed prohibiting helipads in residential areas was an obvious move and would bring Auckland more in line with its international counterparts.
"Internationally, Auckland is an outlier. Just about all the major international cities strictly control or prohibit private use of helipads in residential areas."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily 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
34 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Voting reforms, prisoner bans and enrolment changes - What you need to know about the Electoral Amendment Bill
A proposed bill would make several changes to how elections are run before the 2026 election. Photo: RNZ / File Explainer - The Electoral Amendment Bill faces its first reading today in Parliament. But what does it actually say? The government has announced sweeping plans to change electoral processes before the 2026 election. In announcing the bill last week , Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the government was "overhauling outdated and unsustainable electoral laws". However there's been pushback at the proposed changes, especially the elimination of Election Day enrolment. The bill is set to face its first reading in Parliament on Tuesday afternoon. Here's a breakdown of what the bill proposes and the reaction to it. The Electoral Amendment Bill claims it "makes a range of systems improvements to support the timeliness, efficiency, integrity, and resilience of the electoral system". It makes a suite of changes including ending same-day voter enrolment, banning prisoner voting, changes to treating on Election Day and expanding anonymous political donation limits. Here's the main points. Same-day enrolment will be a thing of the past if the bill passes. "Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system," Goldsmith said. "The final vote count used to take two weeks, last election it took three. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." Voters had been able to show up during the advance voting period and enrol at the same time, as well as on Election Day, with their vote being counted as a special vote. The government wants to close enrolment before advance voting begins, with people needing to enrol or update their details by midnight on the Sunday before advance voting starts on the Monday morning (in other words, 13 days before election day). The legislation sets a requirement of 12 days advance voting at each election. The changes could mean special vote processing could get underway sooner. Speaking to Morning Report this week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "we want enrolment to happen before early voting starts". "The experience last time was by virtue of having on the day enrolment we ended up in a situation where it took us three weeks to count the vote, which was the longest it had ever taken us as well. "We want everyone to participate, you've got plenty of time to do so. "They can participate in the voting, they just need to do it and get themselves organised earlier, that's all." University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said the change might affect future election results and how they lean politically. "As a whole, since 1999 special votes have favoured the parties of the left - resulting in their picking up one or two more seats in the House at the expense of parties on the right. Restricting same day enrolment and voting can thus be predicted to reduce the number of votes cast by groups that support left-of-centre parties." However, he said that impact could be offset by voters enrolling earlier. "However, the groups most affected here - younger voters, those who are transient, and minority populations - are the hardest to reach through education campaigns and the like. That means we can predict that there will still be a substantial number of people not properly enrolled when voting commences, who will as a result lose the right to have their vote counted." The changes won't actually stop people from casting a ballot on election day, he said. Special votes must still be processed. "It's just that they won't be included in the final vote count once it is determined that the person has not enrolled to vote by the required time," Geddis said. "As such, the effectiveness of this change in reducing the burden on electoral officials is open to question." The bill would also introduce automatic enrolment updates so the Electoral Commission can update people's enrolment details using data from other government agencies, and remove postal requirements for enrolment. Special votes on Election Day take longer to process. Photo: RNZ / Nick Monro Special votes are anyone who isn't on the electoral roll or unpublished roll, lives overseas or vote away from a polling place because they can't get to one. The number of special votes have been growing which has resulted in seats swinging in the final count compared to election night. In 2023, nearly 21 percent, or 603,257 of all votes cast, were special votes . Only 78,030 of those were from overseas voters. Processing them takes more time than regular votes. Goldsmith said late enrolments placed too much strain on the system. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." The bill disqualifies all prisoners convicted and sentenced from enrolling and voting while in prison. It doesn't apply to persons who have committed a crime but are detained in a hospital or secure facility. In 2020, the Labour government amended the law so that only people serving a term of three or more years were disqualified. The National-led coalition government had earlier signalled the change back . "Everyone understands that if you violate the rights of others, you surrender certain rights of your own," ACT justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said. "Reinstating the ban on prisoner voters makes the consequences for crime clearer." Attorney-General Judith Collins. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER Some have said the new bill will disenfranchise voters, while others are applauding it. "This is a significant, but necessary change," Goldsmith said. "The Electoral Commission will have plenty of time to run an education campaign to ensure people understand the new requirements." In a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared earlier this year , the Ministry of Justice did not support closing enrolment earlier. "Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant," officials said. And the government's Attorney-General, Judith Collins, has also said the legislation could breach the Bill of Rights. In a report , Collins concluded that the bill appeared inconsistent with the right to vote, to freedom of expression and the rights of prisoners in certain circumstances regarding changing penalties. She pointed to section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 , which states that every New Zealand Citizen who is of or over the age of 18 has the right to vote. "The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy," the report states. "A compelling justification is required to limit that right." Geddis said that Collins' report was not surprising. "We know that banning all prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Court has declared this to be so. And in relation to removing same-day enrolment and voting for the entire voting period, the fact that there are other ways to address the problem of a slow vote count without taking away people's right to vote means it is not a justified limit. As such, the Attorney-General's conclusions are to be expected." Green Party spokesperson for Democracy and Electoral Reform Celia Wade Brown said: "These changes represent a dark day for our democracy. "Requiring enrolments before voting starts will see even more people miss out from expressing their democratic right. In the last General Election, over 200,000 people enrolled to vote or updated their details in the last 12 days. These changes would see all of these people miss out on having their say." ACT's Stephenson disagreed, calling late enrollees "lazy". "Democracy works best when voters are informed, engaged, and take the process seriously. It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away." ACT leader David Seymour. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii ACT leader David Seymour also weighed in for the change, saying "frankly, I'm a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law." Those comments were later called "unhelpful" by Justice Minister Goldsmith. "I disagree with that language ... It's not language I would use," Luxon told Morning Report . Geddis said it was worrying to see an "apparent dismissiveness" by the government of concerns. "They are being warned that their proposed legislation will remove a fundamental right from thousands of New Zealanders without good enough reason. "Their response then seems to be that this is a trifling matter which can be overlooked because it is easier and more administratively convenient to simply stop allowing same day enrolment and voting. "Or, even worse, that the people whose rights are being limited are just 'dropkicks' who do not deserve any respect." The government has also announced that it will slightly increase the threshold for anonymous political donations. "The donation threshold for reporting the names of party donors is also being adjusted from $5000 to $6000, to account for inflation," Goldsmith said. The Greens' Wade Brown criticised that. "While the government has taken away votes from people in prison and made it harder to vote in general, it has made it easier for wealthy people to donate to political parties from the shadows by raising the disclosure threshold to $6000," she said. Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It's already an offence, but the bill aims to make it clearer what exactly isn't allowed . The bill creates a new offence that prohibits the provision of free food, drink or entertainment within 100 metres of a voting place while voting is taking place. It will be punishable by a fine of up to $10,000. "There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating," Goldsmith said. "This will make the rules crystal clear." Election advertising or campaigning is not permitted within 10 metres of a voting place during advanced voting, and not at all on election day itself. In a Regulatory Impact Statement, Ministry of Justice officials said controlled areas around voting places would make it more straightforward to identify and prosecute offending and was more readily enforceable than the status quo. "The offence will not require that a person intends to corruptly influence an elector. Instead it will only require that they knowingly provided food, drink and entertainment within the controlled area," they said. But it was not their preferred option. "A key drawback of this option is that it is a blunt tool which does not exclusively capture harmful or corrupt behaviour. It draws a superficial line around voting places which may be arbitrary if the influencing behaviour occurs just outside the controlled area." Complaints about possible breaching of treating by providing food at a polling booth at Manurewa Marae were investigated after the 2023 election. It found those did not meet the test for treating. The bill will now go before Parliament in a first reading. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith The first reading today will determine the path forward for the bill. If it passes a first reading, it's referred on to a Select Committee for further development, then will be further considered by Parliament. Geddis said these reforms were left to a simple majority of votes in Parliament like any other piece of legislation. "Because the government has a majority in Parliament, if it wants to do this, it can. It's just a question of whether it's the right thing to do," he told RNZ's Checkpoint . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Cabinet Ministers defend hiking board fees by 80%
By Craig McCulloch of RNZ Cabinet ministers are defending a move to hike board fees for Crown bodies by up to 80 percent, insisting those in the roles are overseeing billions of dollars - not just "beer and skittles." Labour says the decision proves the government is out-of-touch with the cost-of-living crisis and has accused it of trying to sneak the news by the public. A Cabinet document, quietly uploaded online on Monday, shows ministers agreed to lift the maximum annual fee for chairs of governance boards from $90,000 to about $162,000. The "Cabinet Fees Framework" is not binding but provides guidance to ministers when deciding compensation for those on a range of bodies, such as royal commissions and ministerial inquiries. Speaking on Tuesday, Luxon said public sector fees had become completely "out of whack" with private sector rates and needed a reset. "We need to make that a little bit more competitive, so that we can actually attract good talent," he said. Luxon said paying more to ensure "really good governance teams" could save billions in the long run. Finance Minister Nicola Willis echoed the point, stressing that New Zealanders deserved value for money. "This isn't beer and skittles. This is billions of dollars of public money. We need the very best people making governance decisions about it." Public Service Minister Judith Collins told reporters that the updated fees still fell short of private sector rates - around 80 percent of the going rate. "A lot of people who are experienced directors don't want to do these jobs in the public sector because they know they're going to lose money," she said. Collins said she did not think the public would be worried by the news. "One of the problems is that we've had an underperforming public service that's taken a hell of a lot of taxpayers' money, and so it is very important that we have the right people in charge of that." Hipkins accuses government of 'twisted priorities' Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the decision revealed the government's "twisted priorities" at a time when households were doing it tough. "They're saying that board members can get up to 80 percent increases in their pay, whilst nurses and teachers are being told to settle for 1 pecent or less," he said. "They've said everyone needs to tighten their belts - apparently except for the people who they hand-picked to put on public sector boards." Hipkins rejected the idea that higher fees were necessary to attract quality candidates, calling it "absolute nonsense." He said many public appointees had altruistic motivations and were already sitting on "very well paid directorships" in the private sector as well. "They're not doing it for the money," Hipkins said. Hipkins accused the government of trying to "slip this [announcement] out quietly" without scrutiny. But Luxon denied any secrecy: "It's normal practice... how it's been communicated."
Otago Daily Times
7 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Controversial tobacco tax cut extended
NZ First's Casey Costello is the minister responsible for tobacco policy. Photo: RNZ The tax break for Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs) made by Phillip Morris has been extended for an extra two years. In July 2024, the government cut the tax on HTPs in half, in what it said would be a one-year trial subject to an evaluation. But NZ First Associate Health Minister Casey Costello told RNZ the evaluation would now be done in July 2027 and the reduced tax rate would apply to HTPs at least until then. Labour's health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall said the extension of the tax cut was striking, given the strain on the health system. "This government has the wrong priorities. It is giving tax breaks to tobacco companies now valued at over $300 million and the evaluation they promised, to check that it was helpful, is a total sham." Costello cut the HTP tax rate by 50 percent last year, with the aim that cheaper prices may encourage people to switch from cigarettes to HTPs. The cut was made despite health officials telling Costello there was no evidence HTPs worked to stop people smoking or were significantly safer than cigarettes. Costello told Cabinet she had her own "independent advice" which, when she released it later, turned out to be five articles that were either about different products, outdated, or offered only weak support for her view. Treasury said Philip Morris had a monopoly in the HTP market in New Zealand and would be the main beneficiary of the move. Costello's office told RNZ the tax cut trial would be extended because Philip Morris had to pull its IQOS device from sale last year, as it did not comply with requirements for vaping devices to have a removable battery. Last week, Costello ditched the requirement for removable batteries, saying Cabinet was advised this was the best way to resolve legal action from Mason Corporation, which owns the Shosha vape store chain. A spokesman for the Minister said with HTPs off the market for months last year, the original plan for an evaluation after one year did not make sense. "There wasn't an evaluation because of the withdrawal of HTPs from the market. Any report back would be meaningless as the cheaper HTPs were only available for two months," the spokesman said. "Cabinet agreed to extending the HTP review to July 2027 as there will be more market data available." The spokesman said the evaluation would then be able to show whether "a sustained price reduction encouraged uptake by smokers" and if it had helped reduce smoking. The assessment would also look at whether HTP use "encouraged smokers away from vapes" and the extent of "unintended uptake by young people". A March 2025 Ministry of Health (MOH) briefing to Costello, focused on how to evaluate the HTP tax cut, said Philip Morris had not initially passed on the excise reduction to consumers. "There was no price change passed through to customers for the first month, though this is an observation of value in and of itself," the MOH said. The briefing, obtained by RNZ under the Official Information Act, said Philip Morris had to pull its IQOS device just three months into the tax cut trial. "All HTP devices were removed from the market in New Zealand due to not meeting new safety regulations. This has meant there have been no HTP devices available for purchase for at least 5 months of the 12-month trial period." Costello has said that HTPs "have a similar risk profile to vapes", but officials from Treasury and Ministry of Health advised her they were much more harmful than vaping. In its March briefing, the MOH told Costello it would be difficult to assess whether people using HTPs had decreased their harm or not. "While we will be able to assess whether the percentage of current or recent smokers who use HTPs increases, we will not be able to track whether those same people were previously using, or likely to use vapes, for example, whether they moved from a safer alternate product to a more harmful one." Verrall said the onus should be on Philip Morris to prove its product was safe. "There is no reason why the government should be running a study for Philip Morris to help get its products used," she said. "This product is not a health product. It is a harmful product." Verrall said the latest update from the Treasury showed the HTP tax cut was forecast to cost up to $293 million if continued until 2029. "It's deeply worrying when our health system is underfunded that the government is giving away $300 million to the benefit of a single company with links to one of the coalition partners," Verrall said. The extension of the tax break for the Philip Morris products comes after RNZ published documents alleging a close relationship between NZ First and the tobacco giant. The documents, released in litigation against US vaping company JUUL, allege Philip Morris pitched draft legislation to NZ First as part of a lobbying campaign for its HTPs. The documents claim Philip Morris corporate affairs staff "reached out to NZ First to try and secure regulation to advantage IQOS". A lobbying firm advising JUUL claimed that NZ First leader Winston Peters had a relationship with Philip Morris and also that "any regulation he champions is likely to be very industry friendly and highly geared towards commercial interests in the sector". Peters did not address the allegations that NZ First received material from Philip Morris, but said RNZ's story was a "tissue of baseless accusations" and that engagement with the tobacco industry was legitimate. "Multiple government departments have themselves proactively reached out to, and met with, 'big tobacco' for direct feedback and advice on tobacco legislation," he said, in a post on X. Health Coalition Aotearoa and Vape-Free Kids want Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to strip NZ First of the tobacco and vaping portfolio but he says Costello is doing a great job.
