28 May 2024
Media: Rotorua Daily Post
Topic: Budget 2024
Enquiry
I was just wanting to ask for a comment about the local tourism industry from the mayor please.
I am working on the Budget articles this year and wanted to ask these questions:
- What support would Rotorua Lakes Council like to see from the budget in terms of tourism, hospitality, and nightlife in Rotorua?
- How has the local hospitality /Eat Street scene been affected by the current recession?
- How well has the local hospitality industry bounced back after Covid?
Response
From Rotorua Mayor, Tania Tapsell:
There are strong messages from the Government that like us they’re seeking to reduce the spend. But Rotorua is deserving of smart investment into worthy projects and we really need Government’s support to recover from the reputational damage of emergency housing.
We want funding into our regions, not just towards bigger cities, so we can continue to grow jobs, meet our housing demands for workers, and restore our status as a top tourism destination.
Despite a recession and increasing costs for everything, we see many local businesses continue to invest in new products and initiatives because we’re hopeful for our future.
Tourism has been returning to Rotorua and last year we were named in Booking.com’s top ten trending destinations. However international tourism has not returned to the same levels as before the border closures so we need dedicated investment into promotion of our country and city of Rotorua.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Radio NZ (Waikato)
Topic: Mayor's place of residence
Enquiry
Can you please let me know if your mayor lives within your district boundaries. Can you also confirm whether or not the mayor lived within your district boundaries when they stood for council. Please note, I am surveying all districts and cities as part of this story which is not specifically about your council or mayor.
Response
The following information was provided:
Confirming that Mayor Tania Tapsell does live in the Rotorua district and also lived here when she stood for Mayor.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Local Democracy Reporter
Topic: Injunction application relating to Tarawera sewerage scheme works
Enquiry
After receiving [from RLC] a link to the RLC website news item regarding the injunction application to enable works to continue on the Tarawera sewerage scheme, the reporter sent the following:
[I] had some comment for response and a couple questions please regarding the public notification of the application for injunction.
Board co-chairman Peter Moke organised the January protest at the lake’s edge.
He said while the council believed it was someone from the group protesting, it was not.
“We don’t know who the hell it was . . . some little dumb shit did something.”
The board had asked the council for evidence but he said it did not have any.
“They couldn’t even give us a photo.”
In his view, the protest was peaceful and prompted no complaints and no arrests.
If the injunction was granted he believed the group would not be able to protest without repercussions.
He said the board still held concerns over how any potential break in the being-built pipe would have on the tapu lake, and how any pollution would be cleared.
The board would hold a hui in the coming days to discuss its response to the application, he said.
As well as response to the above can I please ask:
When is a decision on the application expected?
What specifically happened between January 29 and February 1 to prompt the application?
Why does the council believe similar would happen in the future?
Does the council believe either the board of control or the January protesters were responsible or involved and why?
Who would enforce the order?
How would it be determined what obstruction or interference was? For instance, if someone was protesting on private land but within 1m of the works, would they be breaching the order?
Response
From General Manager Infrastructure and Environment, Stavros Michael:
Board co-chairman Peter Moke organised the January protest at the lake’s edge.
He said while the council believed it was someone from the group protesting, it was not.
“We don’t know who the hell it was . . . some little >>EXPLETIVE<< did something.”
The board had asked the council for evidence but he said it did not have any.
“They couldn’t even give us a photo.
Council and the contractor do not know who was involved (and do not wish to apportion responsibility) but have provided information to the Court with video and photos. The application does not name anyone or any group.
In his view, the protest was peaceful and prompted no complaints and no arrests.
If the injunction was granted he believed the group would not be able to protest without repercussions.
He said the board still held concerns over how any potential break in the being-built pipe would have on the tapu lake, and how any pollution would be cleared.
The application for an injunction does not seek to constrain people from expressing their views as long those views do not impact on the safety of the works and/or Council’s ability to undertake its legitimate works. The scheme has been the result of extensive community consideration over many years, including discussion with and input from, iwi and hapū. Arriving at the preferred option followed careful consideration of all technical, cultural, financial and planning factors. The scheme network, once operational will be guided by appropriate maintenance and response procedures as required for all such networks.
The board would hold a hui in the coming days to discuss its response to the application, he said.
When is a decision on the application expected?
That will be determined by the Court. Now that all public notification requirements have been completed the Court will allow a period for any opposition (as explained in the summary) before proceeding to consider and determine the application for an injunction.
What specifically happened between January 29 and February 1 to prompt the application?
See paragraph 2 (d) of the Application. “Between 29 January and 1 February 2024 unknown respondents negligently, wilfully or maliciously stopped, obstructed or interfered with the works in contravention of section 232 of the Local Government Act 2002.”Council’s contractor considered that the continuing protest action was affecting their ability to complete the works safely and a decision was made to pause the work.
Why does the council believe similar would happen in the future?
We are taking this pre-emptive step to ensure that no action can be taken that could create a safety risk to on-site workers and/or cause damage to public assets and that protesters and contractors are all aware of the boundaries. This action also aims to ensure unimpeded ability to complete the works and minimise the potential costs to Tarawera ratepayers and the wider district ratepayers. The community and Iwi all agree that we want to avoid delays that would result in untreated human wastewater continuing to leach through groundwater into Lake Tarawera.
Does the council believe either the board of control or the January protesters were responsible or involved and why?
We do not wish to apportion responsibility. The application does not name anyone or any group; it aims to ensure that the Council and its authorised contractors and staff can operate safely and effectively.
Who would enforce the order?
The police or the Courts.
How would it be determined what obstruction or interference was? For instance, if someone was protesting on private land but within 1m of the works, would they be breaching the order?
The final form of any order would be determined by the Court. The order seeks to restrict access to the “work zone” (which includes a 1m buffer zone) without authorisation and to prevent any action that has the effect of stopping, obstructing or interfering with the works.The issue is not protesting, but rather physical interference and actions that put workers and public assets at risk. The injunction application aims to eliminate these behaviours.
