Is this the end of Nelson's Richard Nixon statue?
By
Max Frethy
, Local Democracy reporter
One of only two statues of US president Richard Nixon in the world could soon be removed from its Tasman home.
Photo:
LDR / Max Frethey
A small Tasman town faces an important question: keep the infamous statue of Richard Nixon or build a community hub instead?
The life-size bronze statue of the disgraced US president has bemused residents of Wakefield, about 20km south of Nelson, for more than a decade.
The statue, holding Nixon's double peace sign pose, stands on the notorious 52 Edward Street site known as Fort Haldeman - reportedly the former office of the locally defunct publishing company Haldeman LLC, that had been partly owned by controversial businessman Tony Katavich.
According to a list on Wikipedia, the statue is only one of two Nixon statues in the world.
But Nixon's days, as well as those of the White House-inspired building he welcomes visitors to, could be numbered.
Tasman District Council is currently progressing plans for a new community hub for Wakefield to replace the ageing and earthquake-prone village hall.
The hub had earlier been assumed to be built on the Wakefield Recreation Reserve, but the current owners of Fort Haldeman approached the council in early 2025 about the possibility of building the hub on their site instead.
The current Wakefield hall.
Photo:
LDR / Max Frethey
Peter Verstappen, a Waimea South Community Facility trustee, said the opportunity "came out left of field a little bit".
"Until six months ago, this wasn't even a question. We were always heading to the reserve," he said.
"In a way, it kind of complicated the process going forward, because suddenly we've got this other whole dimension that we now have to think about."
The council is now consulting the community on its preference between the two locations.
Waimea South Community Facility trustees Peter Verstappen and Jenny Lines urge residents to get informed and have their say.
Photo:
LDR / Max Frethey
There are pros and cons to each site, with the reserve offering more space for future expansion but higher costs for infrastructure and utilities, while the Fort Haldeman site is closer to the centre of the village but has fewer future expansion opportunities.
Verstappen said, "in all honesty", he doesn't have a site preference.
"From what I've seen, I'm reasonably confident we can build the facility that we want, that answers most of the needs of the community, on either site."
The council and trust held two community meetings last Tuesday for residents to learn more about the two options.
Martin Brown, the council's project manager for the hub, told around 20 attendees of the afternoon session at Wakefield School that it was "very early days" for the Fort Haldeman site.
"We're having conversations with the vendors currently. It may or may not progress, but that's part of the process we're having."
The Fort Haldeman site.
Photo:
LDR / Max Frethey
A representative for the company that now owns Fort Haldeman declined to comment due to commercial sensitivities.
The final decision on the location rests with the council and is expected to be made in August, with detailed design work and community fundraising to occur afterwards.
Elected members will be presented with site information as well as community feedback ahead of their decision.
While the full range of feedback might differ, comments from attendees of the Tuesday afternoon meeting indicated widespread support for the original Wakefield Recreation Reserve site due to its development potential, possibly saving Nixon from removal.
"We're building this for not just the present, or even the present decade; we're building it for 50 years, and we need expansion space," one woman said.
Councillor Christeen Mackenzie says the council is right to consider the use of Fort Haldeman instead of the Recreation Reserve.
Photo:
LDR / Max Frethey
Moutere-Waimea Ward councillor Christeen Mackenzie has been pushing the project since she was first elected six years ago.
She said trying to plan for 50 years' time was like trying to look into a "crystal ball".
"Do you have one big shooting box for absolutely everything in one location? That is not necessarily what you might need into the future. Introducing the idea of Site 2 [Fort Haldeman], I think it's giving the community an opportunity to think about that," she said.
"If someone comes to the council with a proposal, you've got to do your due diligence and think about it."
Two locations are being debated: the Wakefield Recreation Reserve and Fort Haldeman, at 52 Edward Street.
Photo:
Supplied / Waimea South Community Facility Charitable Trust
The Wakefield Community Hub has a budget of around $11 million with $6.4m coming from developers, $2.5m from community fundraising, and $2.1m coming from a loan that will be repaid over time from an existing community facility pot that was funded through rates.
Residents can have their say
here
.
The Wakefield hub used to be part of a collective community facility project for Waimea South, including the town of Brightwater.
But the two town's projects have since been split apart, and Brightwater's public hall will be upgraded at a cost of about $2.5m.
Local Democracy Reporting is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Rangatahi with parents in prison are 'silent victims'
Rangitahi whose parent, or parents, have been locked away in prison say more needs to be done to ensure they're not punished for the crimes of their mothers or fathers. They've formed a youth advisory panel which today met with Children's Minister Karen Chhour on the steps of Parliament. They handed her an open letter calling for the establishment of a whanau navigator role in criminal district courts to help those left behind when someone's sent to jail. Louise Ternouth reports. Tags: To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka asks for urgent advice after 'electioneering' concerns
Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka has asked his officials for urgent advice around "electioneering" concerns related to a Whānau Ora advertisement encouraging Māori to sign up for the Māori roll was released this week. The half-hour ad was rolled out by the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency this week, featuring artist and activist Tama Iti (Ngāi Tūhoe). The agency's chair Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, a former Te Pāti Māori candidate, has defended the ad as being part of her mission to advance Māori wellbeing, but senior ministers on Wednesday raised alarm. Speaking to reporters at Parliament, Potaka said he had written to Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) - which administers funding for Whānau Ora - for an assurance that public funding had not been used for "electioneering". "In the event that public funding that has been set up to help whānau in need, if that has been used for electioneering or any improper purposes that is inappropriate," he said. "I've asked TPK to look into the matter." Potaka said the potential misuse of public fund would be "unacceptable" and he expected to get advice on the matter "ASAP". Labour MP and former Whānau Ora Minister Peeni Henare said he supported Potaka's query to TPK. "It was clear that there were questions after the last election with respect to some of the expenditure by groups looking towards trying to get votes," Henare said. Acting Prime Minister David Seymour told reporters a government department should never engage in such politics. "The point of elections is the New Zealand people should be able to elect someone to control the government departments. The government departments shouldn't be trying to control the process that's supposed to control them, which is the election," Seymour said. Asked what the difference between the Electoral Commission promoting getting enrolled and the agency's advertisement, Seymour said the Electoral Commission had a clear mandate. "The Electoral Commission does not encourage people to vote one way or another. It does not encourage people to register on the roll. It simply gives information about when people can enrol and how they can enrol," Seymour said. "Government departments do not have a mandate to participate in politics. They're supposed to be apolitical, whatever their message may be." New Zealand First leader Winston Peters told reporters: "If something's unfair going on, we'll stop it." In a statement, Te Puni Kōkiri Deputy Secretary for Regions, Grace Smit, said the agency holds two contracts with TPK for Whānau Ora services, one of which expires on Monday. "Te Puni Kōkiri can confirm that we have today written to Te Pou Matakana asking for an explanation to these serious concerns regarding funding use, political neutrality and conflicts of interest." TPK would not comment further until they received a response, Smit said. The Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency has been asked for fresh comment. Speaking earlier on Morning Report , Raukawa-Tait was unapologetic and compared the ad to the Electoral Commission's campaign to encourage people to enrol. "Get involved, get yourself on the roll, and we're saying it's the Māori roll. And obviously when we trying to encourage young people, they're not going to go on the general roll, so let's be clear about that," Raukawa-Tait said. "If you're going to go on the general roll... you're going into basically the mainstream parties. Māori issues never come to the fore in the mainstream parties... so this is why it is necessary." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Abuse in care survivors to be paid less than a third of government's $774m package
Photo: 123RF *This story's headline and first paragraph have been updated. Less than a third of the government's $774 million abuse in care redress and reform package will end up in the pockets of survivors. Figures obtained by RNZ revealed only $205m was earmarked for paying new claims with $52m to go towards topping up previously closed claims. In defence of the figures, Erica Stanford, the Minister leading the government's abuse in care response, said redress payments were not the most important thing for some survivors and some of the $774m in this year's Budget was going towards changing the care system and providing other supports. However, $92m was for the civil servants who administered the redress funds and another $37m would pay for operating costs like premises and IT. For every two dollars going to survivors, more than a dollar would be spent on administration. Cooper Legal principal partner Sonja Cooper, whose firm had acted for hundreds of abuse survivors and victims, said it was a disgrace. Sonja Cooper Photo: RNZ / Aaron Smale "We were really disappointed with the announcement in any event," Cooper said. "I think now when you break it down, it actually just gets worse. The more information that is received, the more cynical and disappointing what's been offered to survivors is. "I've been reflecting on this because obviously we've seen what other Commonwealth countries have done. We've seen what Australia has done, we've seen what Canada has done, we've seen what Ireland has done and we really are letting everyone down. This must be the worst redress scheme put in place by a government for survivors of abuse in care across the Commonwealth. "I just think that's a disgrace. New Zealand has no excuse for that." The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care had called for a new, independent and survivor-centric redress system. In announcing the $774m Budget package last month, the government also quashed any hope of establishing a new system, saying it would be costly and cause delays . But Cooper said the revelation so much of the government's package would be spent on administration had demonstrated why government officials should not have been trusted with the redress system in the first place. Officials were "taking so much away from the pockets of survivors, who deserve better than this", she said. "It's again, the system looking after itself. It's again, the system taking for itself and giving as little as it can to survivors, while the government continues to crow and pat itself on the back. "This is not a success. This is a failure, and it is a failure in so many ways. All of those who've been advocating for survivors, I've been doing it for 30 years now, I feel like we are back at the start. "This is not going to make survivors go away. It is a temporary fix and all I can hope is that at some stage we have another government that will actually do the right thing for survivors, because this is not." The Royal Commission investigated the cost of abuse in care and estimated it totalled between $96 billion and $217 billion - the vast majority of that was borne by survivors. The government's $289m of funding for financial redress and targeted supported represented just over 1.5 cents for every dollar of harm borne by survivors. In May following the announcement, Stanford called the $774m an investment into redress. "The announcement on Friday was significant," she told the House. "Let's start with that. More than three-quarters of a billion dollars - $774 million, as a pre-budget announcement; the single largest investment into redress in this country's history." Erica Stanford Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi Stanford was not available for an interview on Tuesday, but in a statement emphasised the funding was not only about redress. "To be clear, the $774 million investment in Budget 2025 was made to improve the redress system and [emphasis added by the Minister's office] improving the safety of children and vulnerable adults in care today. Many survivors have shared that their highest priority is for the system to change so what happened to them is prevented in the future," the statement said. "This includes important investments in initiatives like improving care workforce capability, improvements to safeguarding to reduce abuse and harm to children and young people in care, upgrades to mental health units to improve safety and dignity, more funding for oversight of compulsory mental health and addiction care, funding through the social investment model to fund effective initiatives that prevent entry into care, and upgrading systems to triage and respond to complaints. "It's important to note, that redress is about more than just monetary payments. The $485.5 million redress investment encompasses not only payments, but targeted supports, accessing records, being listened to and apologised to, funding for legal representation, and implementing improvements so that survivors have access to equitable redress regardless of which agency is administering it. That is what survivors have told us is important to them. While there are survivors who may be only interested in receiving financial redress, there are many others for who other aspects are just as important to them as a payment, if not more." The changes announced in this year's Budget would result in the average abuse in care claim payment rising from about $20,000 to about $30,000 - just over one month's salary for Minister Stanford. Keith Wiffin, a survivor who entered state care at 10 years old and sat on the Redress Design Group which provided a report to the government in late 2023, said survivors were grateful for the redress they received but it fell short of the promises the government had made. "Once again it's just not the investment required to bring about resolution and solution," he said. "Obviously, a lot of that money is not going to where it was originally indicated it would go to. It's just not going to bring about resolution - the investment required is more than that. "And I don't want to seem ungrateful because it's taxpayers' money and I am grateful for anything they put in. But it's just a small top up to an existing system which has fundamentally failed in the past." He was also outraged by how much of the funding would be spent on administration of redress. "It just highlights how unjust the whole thing is and how much how much of a misleading presentation by Erica Stanford and co, when they've clearly indicated that that money is to go to survivors," Wiffin said. "It's always the case with state sector redress programmes. There's so much of it gets sucked up by administration costs and various other associated costs and it's just another unjust thing for survivors to have to carry." Wiffin was also still waiting for an explanation as to why the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry were dismissed, he said. "It was fairly blunt in terms of dismissing the independent process, just dismissing it," Wiffin said. "I've had no reason why they have done that and I think we are owed that. So that it feels very disrespectful not to offer that explanation. Others may have had some indication, but certainly I haven't."
