EVIDENCE of NICK WILLIAMSON for Waiuku Collective (#5147) Brookdale Ltd (#3599) BKB Family Trust (#5093) Paul Sands (#2941) Waiuku Collective (#FS1448)

BEFORE THE HEARINGS PANEL FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER of submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan by Waiuku Collective (#5147) Brookdale Ltd (#3599) BKB Family Trust (#5093) Paul Sands (#2941) Waiuku Collective (#FS1448)

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF NICK WILLIAMSON for Waiuku Collective (#5147) Brookdale Ltd (#3599) BKB Family Trust (#5093) Paul Sands (#2941) Waiuku Collective (#FS1448)

FIRST STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE TOPIC 017: Southern RUB

Dated 16 November 2015

Page | 1

INTRODUCTION AND EXPERIENCE

1. My name is Nicholas Eyre Williamson and I am a Planning Consultant at Melted Consulting, and a Geo- Designer at Spatial Fusion. I am an Associate Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute and a Former Member of the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors. I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree in Land Planning and Development and a Postgraduate Diploma of Science in Surveying, both from the University of Otago.

2. I have been employed in resource management positions in both local government and private practice since 1994. My experience in these positions has included strategy development and District Plan formulation, policy advice, and the preparation and administration of resource consents from both public and private perspectives. From 1997 until 2009 I worked extensively throughout the South Auckland region. While working for Manukau City Council (2000 - 2003) I was responsible for developing the Rural Southern Sector Agreement, which was to give effect to the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy. In 2004 – 2005 I prepared the s32 Report for Rural Plan Change 14 to the Franklin District Plan, and subsequently reported on the topics of Transferable Development Rights and Village Growth during the hearing phase of that Plan Change.

3. From February 2009 until May 2014, I held the position of Team Leader District Plan & Policy at Whangarei District Council, where I was responsible for overseeing all aspects of the plan making process. During my tenure, I led the development of the Rural Development Strategy for Whangarei District which included extensive consultation with all stakeholders in the rural sector.

4. I appear on behalf of the submitters Waiuku Collective (#5147) Brookdale Ltd (#3599) BKB Family Trust (#5093) Paul Sands (#2941) and Waiuku Collective (#FS1448) and have prepared this evidence in accordance with the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note and agree to comply with the Expert Witnesses Code of Conduct. I confirm that the evidence I present is within my area of expertise and I am not aware of any material facts which might alter or detract from the opinions I express in respect of the appropriateness of planning mechanisms proposed by the Council.

STRUCTURE OF EVIDENCE

5. The submitters have made submissions in relation to the provision for growth in Waiuku and the area served by the town. The areas of land to which the submissions relate are appended as Attachment 1. The submissions relate to both this Topic (RUB South) and Topic 081, being the site specific zoning requests. The Council’s evidence is limited to only the RUB at this stage, so this evidence has been structured to respond to the higher level matters raised. My evidence is split into three sections:

Page | 2

a) The Story of Waiuku and its surrounds

b) The proposed RUB extensions west of Waiuku

c) The proposed RUB in Glenbrook

STATEMENT OF POSITION

6. The submission by Waiuku Collective (#5147) sought the following relief:

a) Definition and location of a Waiuku RUB to include the additional sites identified in the submission

b) Removal of the mixed rural zone and replacement with mixed housing residential zone

c) Removal of the mixed rural zone and replacement with Future Urban

7. The submission by Brookdale Ltd (#3599) sought the following relief:

a) Removal of the proposed Rural Production zone on the property and replacement with a combination of Heavy and Light Industry Zoning

b) Identification of RUB around the proposed Business zoned land

8. The submission by BKB Family Trust (#5093) sought the following relief:

a) Expansion of the Waiuku RUB to include the sites shown in the submission

b) Removal of the Rural Coastal zone and replacement with residential zone

c) A precinct plan can be applied to the site with indicative site layout shown

9. The submission by Paul Sands (#2941) sought the following relief:

a) Extend the Waiuku Rural Urban Boundary to include Lot 1 DP 68455 as residential zoning

10. The submission by Waiuku Collective (#FS1448) sought the following relief:

a) Submission Number 5716 by Auckland Council is opposed in part

b) Submission Number 2215 by TV Short is supported

11. In addition to the above parties, I also act for submitters TV Short (#2215) and further submitters Tripp Andrews Surveyor's (#FS2880) and Whatihua Ltd (#FS2879) who all have an interest in the Waiuku area in relation to Topic 081.

Page | 3

THE WAIUKU STORY

12. Waiuku is located at the south western corner of the Auckland Council territorial area. Whilst entirely within the Auckland Council area, it also borders the Waikato District Council. Waiuku is approximately 20km west of Pukekohe, 28 kilometres from the Drury Southern Motorway interchange (SH1) and 60km from Auckland’s CBD.

13. Waiuku is one of the three main centres in the former Franklin District, and the township is a valued service centre for both the local rural community and the Glenbrook Steel Mill. In around the year 2000, the former Franklin District prepared a report entitled “Project Waiuku” as the first step in providing Waiuku a tangible ‘Future Development Plan’. However, since the amalgamation of the Auckland councils, the project has received no further attention from the Council in relation to residential growth. While the Council’s Planning Evidence states that Plan Change 23 provides for more “urbanisation in Waiuku”, that relatively recent plan change only provided for additional business land.

14. While the Auckland Plan recognises Waiuku as a location for growth in major business areas (including Glenbrook), it does not recognise the need for the corresponding residential growth to create live and work opportunities. In fact, there has been no new land rezoned for residential development in Waiuku for well over 30 years, and there is now a severe shortage. It is critical that additional residential supply is made available in Waiuku now, to avoid generating additional commuter traffic from local workers having to travel from further afield.

15. The Franklin District Growth Strategy predicted significant population, household and job growth over the next 30 years. Waiuku’s population is expected to increase from 7,433 in 2004 to 13,131 in 2051. Its number of households was set to increase by 2,746 and the number of jobs is predicted to increase by 2,286 over the same period.

16. Figure 1 below illustrates the extent of population change that was experienced in the Franklin area, and shows how the population in the Census Area Unit for Waiuku has increased by nearly 500 people over the 12 year period from 2001 – 2013.

17. The population increases over the last decade, and the absence of any additional land supply for housing being made available over the same period, has meant there is now a severe shortage of land that can be built on. The Branch Manager of Barfoot & Thompson in Waiuku has provided us with their sales statistics for bare land, which shows that only 42 sections have been sold since 2012. This is significantly down on the hundreds of sections that were sold during the period between 1998 and 2004. The pace of residential development has been described as ‘at a standstill’ due to the tight boundary limits of Waiuku.

Page | 4

Figure 1 - Population Change

18. The Auckland Plan also seeks to utilize the major industrial infrastructure capacity at Glenbrook, by providing for more Greenfield industrial land adjacent to the Glenbrook Steel Mill:

Figure 2 - Greenfield Areas Identified for Investigation in the Auckland Plan

Page | 5

19. To be able to service the industrial areas in the region, without unnecessarily increasing the number of commuters travelling into west Franklin from other parts of the region, further provision should be made within a close travelling distance. The new Special Housing Area at Kahawai Point, Glenbrook Beach has already factored in this spatial relationship. Further opportunities in Waiuku need to be made available as well, so that residential development can take place as the new industrial areas are developed.

20. We have included a letter of support from local Iwi with respect to the further residential and Industrial zoning for both Waiuku and adjacent to the Steel Mill in Glenbrook. Providing for further growth and employment opportunities in the Waiuku & Glenbrook area fits with the vision held by mana whenua for the area. Waiuku requires further residential development now, not in 5 or 10 years. The planning must be done now under the PAUP to enable sufficient time for any necessary infrastructure to be planned and provided for.

SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO THE COUNCIL REPORTS

21. The Joint Statement of Evidence by Michael Luong, Cindy Yin & Patrick Clearwater (Planning – Rural & Coastal Settlements – South) dated 16 October 2015 states:

Our evidence relates to the submissions and further submissions received by the Council on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) Hearing Topic 017 RUB South (Topic 017) specifically for

Page | 6

the following areas, all of which do not have a Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) identified around them in the PAUP:

 Beachlands and Maraetai  Patumahoe  Waiuku  Glenbrook  Glenbrook Beach  Karaka North Village  Bombay

22. The report states that these settlements are identified in the Auckland Plan as rural & coastal towns and serviced villages. At paragraph 1.3 the report notes (emphasis added):

1.3 The Auckland Plan identifies Waiuku and Beachlands as two of eight rural and coastal towns. The Auckland Plan development strategy indicates that rural and coastal towns are expected to grow subject to further investigation but as they are more independent from the main metropolitan area they are less of a focus for developing substantial employment or intensification. They are a lower priority relative to more accessible locations, where good transport and water infrastructure and services are more affordable, and where growth will complement existing infrastructure networks and services.

23. The report refers to the Joint Statement of Evidence of Peter Vari, Eryn Shields & Trevor Watson (Planning – Sub-Regional), and states that at the time the PAUP was notified the Stage 4 RUB investigations “had not been undertaken”1. The report then goes on to conclude that:

1.9 As a result of our review of submissions, we consider that there is insufficient scope provided through submissions on Topic 017 to comprehensively consider applying a RUB through the PAUP process around Beachlands and Maraetai, Patumahoe, Waiuku, Karaka North Village and Bombay. An assessment of where a RUB should be located around these towns and villages will occur as part of the future Stage 4 RUB investigation work.

24. Because the Waiuku and Glenbrook Areas do not have a RUB presently, and none is recommended by Council staff, the criteria in Policy 1 in Section B2.5 of the RPS has been used to assess the submissions, rather than the RUB criteria.2

25. The Council reporting considers that “there is insufficient scope provided through submissions on Topic 017 to comprehensively consider applying a RUB through the PAUP process”. I disagree with this conclusion. The scope to consider the addition of a RUB around Waiuku and Glenbrook is expressly provided for in the relief sought by the submitters. There is nothing preventing the Council from ‘comprehensively considering’ the RUB request, at it appears that the Council has made practically no effort to consider the request at all, despite the extent of spatial planning that had already been carried out by the former Franklin District Council during their previous planning initiatives for Waiuku.

1 Paragraph 1.8 Joint Statement of Evidence by Michael Luong, Cindy Yin & Patrick Clearwater (Planning – Rural & Coastal Settlements – South) dated 16 October 2015 2 Paragraph 1.10 Joint Statement of Evidence by Michael Luong, Cindy Yin & Patrick Clearwater (Planning – Rural & Coastal Settlements – South) dated 16 October 2015

Page | 7

26. The report then concludes that “in the absence of a RUB” retaining the current urban zones is the most appropriate method for achieving the RPS. What the Council seems to be saying is that because they had not got around to investigating the RUB (despite being a requirement of s32 prior to notification of the plan), the zone should not be changed.

27. In response to the submission by Brookdale Ltd, the Council acknowledges that the Glenbrook Steel Mill is serviced for water & wastewater, but because it is not a “town or serviced village”, it is not appropriate to apply a RUB to the area.

1.13 With respect to Glenbrook, a number of submissions seek that a RUB be placed around an area of land in the immediate vicinity of the Glenbrook Steel Mill. The Steel Mill, while serviced for water and wastewater, is not a town or serviced village, but an isolated site with a Heavy Industry zoning. Similarly the land in the immediate vicinity is not in close proximity to a serviced village or town. In light of the provisions of the PAUP RPS, in our view it is not appropriate to apply a RUB or assess submissions seeking to expand the current urban zoning against the criteria in B2.5 Policy 1 given that Glenbrook is not a town or a serviced village. Submissions seeking an expanded industrial area will be addressed in Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) (Topic 081).

28. While we are happy to make our detailed case for the rezoning of the Glenbrook site by Brookdale Ltd during Topic 081, we are mindful that the Council’s Planning Staff, and the staff at Watercare Services seem to be placing a differing level of significance on the RUB.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RUB

29. Much of the Council evidence on the relationship between rural zoning, urban zoning and the RUB contains conflicts and inconsistencies. In paragraph 6.2 of the Joint Statement of Evidence of Vari, Shields & Watson it is said:

6.2 Where an urban zone is sought in proximity to an existing RUB this would require the RUB to be moved because urban zones are confined in the PAUP to locations within the RUB.

30. The smaller standalone serviced settlements within the south as well as Waiuku are considered by the Council to generally comprise the southern Auckland rural and coastal hinterland and are not identified as providing for any significant amount of the region’s future growth, as set out within the Auckland Plan.

31. At 11.82 of the Councils statement of evidence it is acknowledged that these areas have a role to play in accommodating natural change and demographic growth within the settlements themselves and from their rural hinterland. Any scope to accommodate additional growth needs to be seen in the context of their size and role within the overall settlement hierarchy together with capacity and levels of infrastructure servicing. Yet their conclusion simply adopts the circular argument, that rural and coastal towns that do not have a RUB, do not meet the criteria for considering whether to apply one.

Page | 8

32. In the evidence of Chloe Trenouth (at paragraph 5.10), the Council highlights the key objectives that establish the purpose and role of the RUB in Chapter B of the RPS:

(a) a quality compact urban form with a clear defensible limit; (b) sufficient development capacity and land supply to accommodate projected population and business growth; (c) up to 70% of total new dwellings within the metropolitan area 2010; (d) up to 40% outside the metropolitan area 2010 by 2040; (e) development of land zoned future urban within the RUB occurs in a staged, timely and integrated manner aligned with the provision of infrastructure; and (f) growth in towns and serviced villages should be contained within a RUB.

33. Ms Trenouth’s report points out that the RUB is not the same as the previous Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) in the operative Auckland Regional Policy Statement, which sought to constrain growth to incentivise intensification targets. In contrast to the MUL, the RUB identifies approximately 11,000ha of land for future urban development, providing greater flexibility for Greenfield growth. It is argued that the PAUP does not seek to control growth through infrastructure, but enable growth by identifying a long term RUB to give certainty to infrastructure providers and landowners about where growth is going to occur to enable appropriate forward planning. Unfortunately, this argument does not seem to have been extended to Waiuku and Glenbrook.

34. To elaborate, I have included the evaluation criteria proposed by the reporting officer when considering where to establish the RUB. As outlined in the submission by the Waiuku Collective, the former Franklin District Council has already done a substantial body of work to develop a structure plan for the future growth of Waiuku. This work was referenced in the submissions, but no mention has been made of this work in the Council Planning Report. If the reporting officers had taken the time to consider this work, they would have found that all of the criteria would have been addressed in the work done by the legacy Councils:

Page | 9

35. The Council suggests that a future piece of work will be carried out to complete the definition of the RUB for all remaining towns and rural and coastal serviced villages with a plan change (or changes). In their joint statement of evidence, Watercare Services states in relation to West Franklin:

(e) South – West Franklin: Watercare has recently installed a new watermain from Pukekohe to service this area. Wastewater capacity is currently limited, but Watercare is planning to construct a new wastewater treatment plant to service this sub-region.

36. The proposed RUB provides clarity to Watercare, insofar as it informs a number of planning assumptions, which in turn underpins the organisation’s significant capital program. (See their Paragraph 6.2). The RUB defines the limit of Watercare’s investment in infrastructure. The Service Categories set out by Watercare state (at paragraph 8.1) that “Watercare will not provide service outside the Rural Urban Boundary”. This is significant, as it confirms that the Council will resist any proposal to service land outside of the RUB.

37. So on the one hand, the Council’s Reporting Planners seem to be happy to contemplate the rezoning of industrial (urban?) land outside of the RUB. On the other hand, Watercare Services seem to hold the view that no services will be provided to and land outside of the RUB. To avoid the prospect of a circular

Page | 10

argument, we propose that the area of land comprising the Brookdale property and Glenbrook Steel Mill site be included within the RUB.

THE WAIUKU RUB

38. The Council report notes that Waiuku is an established urban settlement within Franklin’s rural area, and with almost half the population size of Pukekohe, it functions as a service centre for the surrounding district. In the absence of a RUB, the Council states that the existing urban limit of Waiuku is defined by the current edge of the urban zones. Again, the staff report considers there to be ”insufficient scope” within the submissions to comprehensively consider a RUB around Waiuku because the submissions do not cover all the surrounding area. This is despite the Council having accepted that the existing urban limit of Waiuku is bounded by Waiuku River to the north, the eastern extent of Plan Change 23 to the east and the Countryside Living and Rural Production zoned land to the west and south.

39. A further reason given by the Council is that there is limited wastewater and water supply capacity beyond current allowance for the projected population of Waiuku based on its operative zonings. It is particularly curious that the Council has made a submission requesting that the Large Lot residential zone be rezoned to Single House zone. Figure 3 below illustrates the extent of the Large Lot Residential Zone in Waiuku. With the current minimum lot size of 4,000m2 per site, this zone has an estimated net yield of up to 153 sites:

Figure 3 - Existing Yield (Large Lot Residential)

Page | 11

40. In seems that the Auckland Council has recognised that there is a critical shortage of residential land in Waiuku. In its own submission (#5716) Auckland Council has proposed that the land in Waiuku Zoned Large Lot Residential should be rezoned to Single House Zone:

41. The consequence of the proposed zone change is to reduce the minimum lot size from 4,000m2 to 600m2. By modelling the existing development patterns in the zone, it can be calculated that the Council’s

Page | 12

proposal could generate up to 2,960 additional allotments – an increase of residential development capacity of around 2,800 dwellings:

42. The yield analysis done by the Waiuku Collective on the proposed RUB extensions to the west of Waiuku shows that the Greenfield scenario would generate 1,665 lots. That is 1,200 less sites than the Auckland Council is proposing in their submission. The Waiuku Collective and others have made a further submission in opposition to the Auckland Council’s up-zoning proposal in favour of the Greenfield scenario.

43. Auckland Transport on the other hand argue that Waiuku should not be expanded beyond the existing settlement due to the very limited public transport in the area. They are concerned that this will result in a “car-dependent dormitory suburb” which is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. How Waiuku can be described as a suburb of Auckland, is quite unfathomable. In fact, the spatial extent of the proposed RUB extensions to the west of Waiuku is quite similar to the extent of the Council’s proposed Single House Zone in relation to the central business area of Waiuku.

44. A further reason given for opposing the expansion of Waiuku is because the presence of prime soils on the land. It is said that urbanization of elite & prime soils should be avoided, and adequate separation be maintained between incompatible land uses. This is despite the fact that the Future Development Areas in the south Auckland area alone include more than 4,400 hectares of prime or elite soils.

45. The conclusion of the reporting officers in relation to the expansion of the RUB in Waiuku states:

Page | 13

9.13 I consider that retaining the edge of the urban zonings identified in the notified PAUP for Waiuku is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives as set out in the strategic overview evidence of Chloe Trenouth for the following reasons:

(a) There is currently existing capacity for growth in the area that was urbanised through the Plan Change 23 - Fernleigh Business Park Structure Plan process.

(b) There is very limited capacity in the wastewater system and water supply reticulations systems to accommodate future urban growth beyond that anticipated by the notified PAUP provisions.

46. It is our assessment on the other hand, that the proposed RUB extension promoted by the submitters will have significantly less impact on these matters than the up-zoning proposed by Auckland Council.

47. Due to the significant housing shortage presently being experienced in Waiuku, BKB Family Trust (#5093) seek to have their land zoned Large Lot Residential. This zone has been immensely popular with the people of Waiuku as it provides for a suitable degree of spaciousness for those who require additional land on which to park boats, recreational vehicles, and generally provide for a more relaxed lifestyle. The 4,000m2 lot size in this zone is sufficiently large to accommodate on-site servicing, so network infrastructure issues need not impact on these areas.

THE GLENBROOK RUB

48. There is no RUB around the Glenbrook Steel Mill, despite the site being serviced for water and wastewater. The Council officers describe the area as a scattered rural settlement with an isolated site of Heavy Industry zoning. In the Council’s view it is “not a serviced village or town”. Their interpretation of Objective 1 of B2.1 of the PAUP is that a RUB will be applied to the metropolitan area, towns and villages:

A RUB is therefore not anticipated by the RPS for sites such as the Glenbrook Steel Mill that are a single site of urban zoning in a rural area.

49. The submission by Brookdale Ltd sought the addition of further industrial land adjacent to the Steel Mill site. The Council acknowledges that Glenbrook is identified in the Auckland Plan as a Greenfield area for investigation, it was not prioritised for consideration before the PAUP was notified. Interestingly, the Council suggests that even if further industrial land was found to be necessary, it is “highly unlikely that Glenbrook will require a RUB” as “the PAUP does not require a RUB for isolated areas of zoning outside towns and villages”. The planning report then suggests that “it is not appropriate to apply a RUB or assesses submissions” that seek to expand the current urban business zoning against the criteria in B2.5 Policy 1 as “Glenbrook is not a town or a village”.

Page | 14

50. Council organisations such as Watercare and Auckland Transport have stated that they rely on the RUB for the planning and deployment of their services. Their level of service hierarchy makes it clear that they have no intention of providing services outside of the RUB. For this reason, we request that the area of land owned by the submitter Brookdale Ltd and Glenbrook Steel Mill be identified as being within the RUB. As I have stated earlier, a letter of support for this proposal from Ngati te Ata is appended to this evidence.

CONCLUSION

51. The Waiuku & Glenbrook areas have been identified by the Council as having the potential to accommodate additional growth, which in turn would achieve some of the economic development outcomes sought by the Council. The Council has acknowledged via its own submission that further residential land supply should be made available for Waiuku. Watercare has confirmed that it has been working closely with the Council’s Planning Team, and is satisfied that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate both the existing and proposed development potential of the area.

NE WILLIAMSON 16 November 2015

Page | 15

ATTACHMENT 1: Location of Submitters’ Properties

Brookdale Ltd (#3599)

BKB Family Trust (#5093)

Waiuku Collective (#5147)

Paul Sands (#2941)

Page | 16

Ngati te ata

Pouaka 271 Waiuku 2341

Regarding PAUP Re-Zoning Requests by Waiuku Collective for Land at Constable Road – Submission 5147 and FS1448

Ngāti Te Ata is an iwi whose traditional boundaries extend the breadth of Tamaki Makaurau with their base located throughout Waiuku and the Awhitu peninsula area. Ngāti te Ata is the only iwi in Tāmaki Makaurau that holds the Treaty Claim to the Manukau Harbour (WAI 8) and has long been an advocate for kaitiakitanga, with decades of lobbying for the protection and enhancement of the harbour environment and adjoining landmasses.

Ngāti Te Ata has customary interests that cover the Tamaki Mākaurau region. This is recognised by the accepted ‘area of interest’ map for Ngāti Te Ata’s Treaty claims and is recognised already by Auckland Council.

Making provision for further growth in Waiuku & Glenbrook will help to address the housing shortage and support the achievement of whānau ora within our rohe. Homelessness, employment, poor socio-economic opportunities and dilapidated living conditions are real issues for Ngati Te Ata whānau.

Waiuku is a small town centre strongly linked to the business and employment opportunities of the Glenbrook Steel Mill. Waiuku has more recently seen demand to provide for the housing and employment needs of its growing community and especially for Ngāti te Ata Iwi. This demand ranges from Social to market housing and is always getting worse as families struggling to secure housing in Manukau or Auckland look further south.

Ngāti Te Ata is ready to become part of the solution to these ever-growing socio and economic challenges surrounding employment, housing affordability, access and security, continuing their years of service and demonstrated commitment to a sustainable, productive Waiuku community.

Nganeko Minhinnick DNZM JP, Lic Int Ngati te ata

Ngati te ata

Pouaka 271 Waiuku 2341

Regarding PAUP Re-Zoning Requests by Brookdale Ltd and with reference to land at Brookside Road and Mission Bush Road - submission number 3599

Making provision for further growth by extending and expanding the Industrial area on Brookside Mission Bush Roads at Glenbrook, adjacent to the Steel Mill and the existing rail and road network, will help to address the work and employment shortage and support the achievement of whānau ora within our rohe. Homelessness, work opportunities and poor socio-economic opportunities and dilapidated living conditions are real issues for Ngati Te Ata whānau.

Ngāti Te Ata is ready to become part of the solution to these ever-growing socio and economic challenges surrounding housing affordability and employment, access and

security, continuing their years of service and demonstrated commitment to a sustainable, productive Waiuku and Glenbrook community.

Nganeko Minhinnick DNZM JP, Lic Int Ngati te ata