DOCSLIB.ORG

Unitary Plan Appeal Decision No. 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2016-404-2336 [2016] NZHC 138 BETWEEN ALBANY NORTH LANDOWNERS Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant [Continued over page] Hearing: 28 November - 2 December 2016 Counsel: M Baker-Galloway for Albany North Landowers T Mullins for Auckland Memorial Park Ltd S Ryan for Franco Belgiorno-Nettis R Brabant and R Enright for Character Coalition Inc & Anor M Savage for Howick Ratepayers and Residents Assoc Inc & Anor R Enright for The Straits Protection Society Inc and South Epsom Planning Group Inc & Anor A A Arthur-Young and S H Pilkington for Strand Holdings Ltd R E Bartlett QC for Summerset Group Holdings Ltd A A Arthur-Young and D J Minhinnick for Valerie Close Residents Group H Atkins for Village New Zealand Ltd R Brabant for Wallace Group Ltd M Casey QC and M Williams for Man OʼWar Farm Ltd R J Somerville QC, K Anderson and W G Wakefield for Auckland Council C Kirman and A Devine for Housing Corporation New Zealand and Minister for the Enironment S F Quinn and A F Buchanan for Ting Holdings Ltd S J Simons and R M Steller for Property Council of New Zealand R M Devine for Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Ltd Judgment: 13 February 2017 JUDGMENT OF WHATA J ALBANY NORTH LANDOWNERS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 138 [13 February 2017] This judgment was delivered by me on 13 February 2017 at 11.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules. Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………… CIV-2016-404-2298 BETWEEN AUCKLAND MEMORIAL PARK LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2323 BETWEEN AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2333 BETWEEN FRANCO BELGIORNO-NETTIS Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2335 BETWEEN FRANCO BELGIORNO-NETTIS Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2351 BETWEEN BUNNINGS LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2326 BETWEEN CHARACTER COALITION INC LTD & ANOR Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2327 BETWEEN CHARACTER COALITION INC LTD & ANOR Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2322 BETWEEN STEPHEN HOLLANDER Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2321 BETWEEN HOWICK RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED & ANOR Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2320 BETWEEN JPR ENTERPRISES & ORS Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2324 BETWEEN NORTH EASTERN INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ANOR Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2325 BETWEEN NORTH EASTERN INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ANOR Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2349 BETWEEN THE STRAITS PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2350 BETWEEN STRAND HOLDINGS LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2344 BETWEEN SUMMERSET GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2305 BETWEEN VALERIE CLOSE RESIDENTS GROUP Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2341 BETWEEN VILLAGE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2316 BETWEEN WALLACE GROUP LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2331 BETWEEN MAN O’WAR FARM LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2302 BETWEEN SOUTH EPSOM PLANNING GROUP INCORPORATED & ANOR Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction [1] A guide [3] PART A: THE PARTIES [5] Acknowledgment [9] PART B: BACKGROUND AND FRAME Establishment of Auckland Council, adoption of Auckland Plan [10] New legislation for development of the AUP [13] Notification of the draft PAUP [15] Section 32 Report [16] Notification of the PAUP [28] The IHP: Role, Function [31] The issue of scope emerges [34] The hearings on zoning and precincts [47] IHP Recommendations [52] Topic 013 – Urban Growth [59] Topic 016, 017 Rural Urban Boundary, 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) and 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographic Areas) [65] Topic 059-063 – Residential Zones [73] Appeal and review rights [84] Thresholds for appeal and review [90] PART C: THE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS Did the IHP interpret its statutory duties contained in Part 4 of the [92] Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (the Act) Lawfully, when deciding whether its recommendations to the Council Were within the scope of submissions made in respect of the first Auckland Combined Plan? The legislative frame [93] The IHP approach to scope [96] Argument (in brief) [99] Assessment [101] The statutory criteria [104] Policy of public participation [110] The scheme of Part 4 and the RMA [113] Orthodoxy [115] The Clearwater two step test [119] Summary [135] Did the IHP have a duty to: [137] (a) Identify specific submissions seeking relief on an area by area basis with specific reference to suburbs, neighbourhoods or streets (b) Identify when it was exercising its powers to make consequential alterations arising from submissions? Assessment [139] Was it lawful for the IHP to: [145] (a) Determine the scope of submissions by reference to another submission? (b) Determine the proper scope of a submission by reference to the recommended Regional Policy Statement? Assessment [148] To what extent are principles (regarding the question of scope) established Under the Resource Management Act 1991 case law relevant, when addressing scope under the Act [154] Did the IHP correctly apply the legal framework in the test cases? The test cases [155] Identification of relevant submissions [159] The Maps [161] Overview of test cases on residential zoning [162] The submissions on residential intensification [164] A helicopter view [165] Accessibility of Council website [171] The Council’s change of position [177] Mt Albert [180] Argument [187] Assessment [189] Glendowie [191] Argument [201] Assessment [203] Blockhouse Bay [210] Assessment [214] Judges Bay [217] Assessment [221] Wallingford St, Grey Lynn [224] Assessment [228] Howick [231] Assessment [233] The Viewshaft on the Strand [241] SHL’s claim [246] Argument [250] Assessment [252] 55 Takanini School Rd [257] Submissions identified by IHP [264] Preliminary issue [265] Assessment [268] The Albany North Landowners’ Group site [270] Argument [274] Assessment [276] Man O’War Farm [279] Argument [286] Assessment [288] Are the appellants/applicants’ allegations against the Council concerning the IHP’s determination on issues of scope appealable pursuant to the Act and/or reviewable? [291] Assessment [294] What relief can the High Court grant the appellants/applicants if the IHP and/or the Council acted unlawfully in respect of the IHP’s determination on an issue of scope under the Act? [300] Outcome [302] Effect of Judgment/Relief [303] Costs [305] APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C Introduction [1] The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) is a combined 30 year plan, incorporating for the first time a regional policy statement, a regional plan and a district plan for Auckland in one document. It represents the culmination of a mammoth undertaking by the Auckland Council (the Council) and an Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) over the span of several years. The scale of this task reflects the significance of the AUP to the people and communities of Auckland and beyond. [2] This Court’s relatively discrete involvement has been triggered by 51 appeals and judicial review applications. A central issue for 20 of those proceedings is whether the recommendations made by the IHP on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (the PAUP) were within scope of the submissions. If they were not in scope, then affected persons have the right to appeal on the merits of the decisions of the Council based on those recommendations to the Environment Court. A guide [3] This judgment answers the following preliminary questions agreed by the parties: (a) Did the IHP interpret its statutory duties contained in Part 4 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (the Act) lawfully, when deciding whether its recommendations to the Council were within the scope of submissions made in respect of the first Auckland Combined Plan? (b) Did the IHP have a duty to: (i) Identify specific submissions seeking relief on an area by area basis with specific reference to suburbs, neighbourhoods or streets? (ii) Identify when it was exercising its powers to make consequential alterations arising from submissions? (c) Was it lawful for the IHP to: (i) Determine the scope of submissions by reference to another submission? (ii) Determine the proper scope of a submission by reference to the recommended Regional Policy Statement? (d) To what extent are principles (regarding the question of scope) established under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) case law relevant, when addressing scope under the Act? (e) Did the IHP correctly apply the legal framework in the specified test cases? (f) Are the appellants’/applicants’ allegations against the Council concerning the IHP’s determination on issues of scope appealable pursuant to the Act and/or reviewable? (g) What relief can the High Court grant the appellants/applicants if the IHP and/or the Council acted unlawfully in respect of the IHP’s determination on an issue of scope under the Act? (The Preliminary Questions) [4] In order to properly understand the decisions made by the IHP and the Council, it is necessary to consider the full context within which they were made. Consequently, the judgment is divided into three key parts. It commences by describing the various parties to the proceeding and the characteristics of each of their particular claims – [5]- [9]. Part B provides the background to the current proceeding, tracing through both the legislative and factual context to the development of the AUP– [10]-[91]. With that background in mind, in Part C I address the Preliminary Questions in the order they are given above – [92]-[302]. PART A: THE PARTIES [5] The appellant/applicant parties actively involved in the preliminary question proceeding on scope are: (a) Albany North Landowners Group (ANLG).
Recommended publications
  • A Diachronic Study of Unparliamentary Language in the New Zealand Parliament, 1890-1950

    A Diachronic Study of Unparliamentary Language in the New Zealand Parliament, 1890-1950

    WITHDRAW AND APOLOGISE: A DIACHRONIC STUDY OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE IN THE NEW ZEALAND PARLIAMENT, 1890-1950 BY RUTH GRAHAM A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Linguistics Victoria University of Wellington 2016 ii “Parliament, after all, is not a Sunday school; it is a talking-shop; a place of debate”. (Barnard, 1943) iii Abstract This study presents a diachronic analysis of the language ruled to be unparliamentary in the New Zealand Parliament from 1890 to 1950. While unparliamentary language is sometimes referred to as ‘parliamentary insults’ (Ilie, 2001), this study has a wider definition: the language used in a legislative chamber is unparliamentary when it is ruled or signalled by the Speaker as out of order or likely to cause disorder. The user is required to articulate a statement of withdrawal and apology or risk further censure. The analysis uses the Communities of Practice theoretical framework, developed by Wenger (1998) and enhanced with linguistic impoliteness, as defined by Mills (2005) in order to contextualise the use of unparliamentary language within a highly regulated institutional setting. The study identifies and categorises the lexis of unparliamentary language, including a focus on examples that use New Zealand English or te reo Māori. Approximately 2600 examples of unparliamentary language, along with bibliographic, lexical, descriptive and contextual information, were entered into a custom designed relational database. The examples were categorised into three: ‘core concepts’, ‘personal reflections’ and the ‘political environment’, with a number of sub-categories. This revealed a previously unknown category of ‘situation dependent’ unparliamentary language and a creative use of ‘animal reflections’.
  • Secondary Schools of New Zealand

    Secondary Schools of New Zealand

    All Secondary Schools of New Zealand Code School Address ( Street / Postal ) Phone Fax / Email Aoraki ASHB Ashburton College Walnut Avenue PO Box 204 03-308 4193 03-308 2104 Ashburton Ashburton [email protected] 7740 CRAI Craighead Diocesan School 3 Wrights Avenue Wrights Avenue 03-688 6074 03 6842250 Timaru Timaru [email protected] GERA Geraldine High School McKenzie Street 93 McKenzie Street 03-693 0017 03-693 0020 Geraldine 7930 Geraldine 7930 [email protected] MACK Mackenzie College Kirke Street Kirke Street 03-685 8603 03 685 8296 Fairlie Fairlie [email protected] Sth Canterbury Sth Canterbury MTHT Mount Hutt College Main Road PO Box 58 03-302 8437 03-302 8328 Methven 7730 Methven 7745 [email protected] MTVW Mountainview High School Pages Road Private Bag 907 03-684 7039 03-684 7037 Timaru Timaru [email protected] OPHI Opihi College Richard Pearse Dr Richard Pearse Dr 03-615 7442 03-615 9987 Temuka Temuka [email protected] RONC Roncalli College Wellington Street PO Box 138 03-688 6003 Timaru Timaru [email protected] STKV St Kevin's College 57 Taward Street PO Box 444 03-437 1665 03-437 2469 Redcastle Oamaru [email protected] Oamaru TIMB Timaru Boys' High School 211 North Street Private Bag 903 03-687 7560 03-688 8219 Timaru Timaru [email protected] TIMG Timaru Girls' High School Cain Street PO Box 558 03-688 1122 03-688 4254 Timaru Timaru [email protected] TWIZ Twizel Area School Mt Cook Street Mt Cook Street
  • REFERENCE LIST: 10 (4) Legat, Nicola

    REFERENCE LIST: 10 (4) Legat, Nicola

    REFERENCE LIST: 10 (4) Legat, Nicola. "South - the Endurance of the Old, the Shock of the New." Auckland Metro 5, no. 52 (1985): 60-75. Roger, W. "Six Months in Another Town." Auckland Metro 40 (1984): 155-70. ———. "West - in Struggle Country, Battlers Still Triumph." Auckland Metro 5, no. 52 (1985): 88-99. Young, C. "Newmarket." Auckland Metro 38 (1984): 118-27. 1 General works (21) "Auckland in the 80s." Metro 100 (1989): 106-211. "City of the Commonwealth: Auckland." New Commonwealth 46 (1968): 117-19. "In Suburbia: Objectively Speaking - and Subjectively - the Best Suburbs in Auckland - the Verdict." Metro 81 (1988): 60-75. "Joshua Thorp's Impressions of the Town of Auckland in 1857." Journal of the Auckland Historical Society 35 (1979): 1-8. "Photogeography: The Growth of a City: Auckland 1840-1950." New Zealand Geographer 6, no. 2 (1950): 190-97. "What’s Really Going On." Metro 79 (1988): 61-95. Armstrong, Richard Warwick. "Auckland in 1896: An Urban Geography." M.A. thesis (Geography), Auckland University College, 1958. Elphick, J. "Culture in a Colonial Setting: Auckland in the Early 1870s." New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 10 (1974): 1-14. Elphick, Judith Mary. "Auckland, 1870-74: A Social Portrait." M.A. thesis (History), University of Auckland, 1974. Fowlds, George M. "Historical Oddments." Journal of the Auckland Historical Society 4 (1964): 35. Halstead, E.H. "Greater Auckland." M.A. thesis (Geography), Auckland University College, 1934. Le Roy, A.E. "A Little Boy's Memory of Auckland, 1895 to Early 1900." Auckland-Waikato Historical Journal 51 (1987): 1-6. Morton, Harry.
  • From Urban Sprawl to Compact City – an Analysis of Urban Growth Management in Auckland

    From Urban Sprawl to Compact City – an Analysis of Urban Growth Management in Auckland

    From Urban Sprawl to Compact City – An analysis of urban growth management in Auckland Joshua Arbury For my daughter Amalia - 1 - Acknowledgements: I would like to thank everyone who participated in the questionnaires and interviews, my supervisor Ward Friesen for providing useful insights and helpful suggestions, and particularly my mother, Jacquelyn Arbury, for her priceless help with proof-reading and editing. - 2 - Contents Title 1 Acknowledgements 2 Contents 3 List of Figures 5 Chapter One – Introduction 7 Chapter Two – Urban Sprawl versus the Compact City 14 2.1 Introduction 15 2.2 The rise of Urban Sprawl 18 2.3 Sustainability and Sprawl 29 2.4 The Compact City 44 2.5 Critiques of the Compact City 54 2.6 New Approaches and a Focus on Urban Design 58 2.7 Conclusions 63 Chapter Three – The Auckland Region: Problems and Responses 66 3.1 Introduction 67 3.2 A History of Auckland’s Growth 69 3.3 The Auckland Regional Growth Strategy 74 3.4 Implementing the Strategy 89 3.5 Critiquing the Regional Growth Strategy 96 3.6 Conclusions 101 Chapter Four – Implementing the Regional Growth Strategy in Auckland City: creating ‘Transit-Oriented Developments’ 104 4.1 Introduction 105 4.2 A ‘Growth Management Strategy’ for Auckland City 107 4.3 Transit-Oriented Developments 118 4.4 Conclusions 125 Chapter Five – Avondale’s Future 127 5.1 Introduction 128 - 3 - 5.2 A Brief History of Avondale 129 5.3 A ‘Liveable Community Plan’ for ‘Avondale’s Future’ 135 5.4 Visual Interpretation of Avondale’s Capacity for Growth 143 5.5 Questionnaire and Interview Results 149 5.6 Conclusions 157 Chapter Six – Conclusions 159 References 165 - 4 - List of Figures Figure 2.1: The effect of evolving transportation technologies on city form Figure 2.2: The evolving distance of a one hour commute Photo 2.1: The spatially extensive and automobile dependent urban sprawl Table 3.1: Desired regional outcomes to be achieved in a Regional Growth Strategy Table 3.2: Principles that will need to be applied to achieve desired outcomes Photo 3.1: An example of Residential 8b zone.
  • Consultation on Te Whau Pathway Your Feedback

    Consultation on Te Whau Pathway Your Feedback

    Consultation on Te Whau Pathway Your feedback Contents Summary ................................................................................................................... 2 Key themes in feedback ................................................................................................... 2 Next steps ........................................................................................................................ 4 Background .............................................................................................................. 5 Project information............................................................................................................ 5 Consultation ............................................................................................................. 6 Consultation activities ....................................................................................................... 6 Feedback form ................................................................................................................. 7 Feedback ................................................................................................................... 8 Analysis of your feedback ................................................................................................. 8 What you like about the pathway ......................................................................... 8 What you would change about the pathway, and issues you foresee................ 12 Comments and suggestions .............................................................................
  • THE HISTORY of the WHAU Estalished in Queen Mary Avenue in 1893

    THE HISTORY of the WHAU Estalished in Queen Mary Avenue in 1893

    In the Beginning: Pre-1800s Early Maori Settlement The 1800s: First European Settlement & Beginning of Industry The Early 1900s The late 1980s Today Future Infill Houding The Original Subdivision of Avondale Into Allotments Laurie’s brickyard, 1900 Glendene, 1938; the end of Hepburn Road, cen- tre. Span Farm to the left. Major Transport Route for Maori More And More Industries Near The River The Scow “Rahiri” Typical early brickyard with barges on the Whau, Today’s River circa 1912 The Great North Road, 1870 Te Whau Point 1880s Te Whau Point 1890s Picnic Spot Friends of the Whau Inc. 1999 In 1890, there were only 29 buildings in the New Lynn Borough and most of the surrounding area was farmland. By 1996, the census records n 1845 the Great North Road was laid out in 64,000 people living in the catchment, in almost response to the threat of attack on Auckland by Along the riverbank and harbour coastlines, Maori cultivated food and 22,000 households. Since 1996, people have northland Maori. Initially following New North gathered kai moana, the many shell middens found there today a In the early 1840’s the whole of the Auckland continued to move into the area. To meet the In earlier times, Maori used the Whau for travel between the Waitemata Harbour For most of last century, New Lynn was famous Road as far as Rocky Nook, it then continued reminder of that time. Their scared places (waahi tapu) and pa sites area was declared to be the country of Eden. By the early 1900’s most Avondale and New Lynn population growth, more houses have been built (on the Pacific east coast) and the Manukau Harbour (on the Tasman west for making bricks using the heavy soils as the along Western Springs Road to the present Great also left an imprint on the land, including the pa site at the headland in Pakeha also discovered the joys of this This country was divided into a number of brickyards were situated closed to the railway line.
  • Appendix 3A Schedule of Archaeological Features

    Appendix 3A Schedule of Archaeological Features

    APPENDIX 3A SCHEDULE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES . CITY OF AUCKLAND - DISTRICT PLAN ISTHMUS SECTION - OPERATIVE 1999 Page 1 reprinted 04/07/03 APPENDIX 3A CITY OF AUCKLAND - DISTRICT PLAN Page 2 ISTHMUS SECTION - OPERATIVE 1999 reprinted 04/07/03 APPENDIX 3A SCHEDULE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES Note: A = Archaeological Feature H = Historic/Cultural Value A/G = Archaeological and Geological Feature S = Scientific/Educational Value V = Visual Amenity Value For an explanation of the criteria for scheduling and the rules refer Part 5C.7.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES NOTE: This schedule is not the same as the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Register for Auckland. It is a separate but parallel protection process. Since an archaeological feature may appear in either or both lists care should be taken to ascertain and fulfil any obligations deriving from the feature being included in either or both lists. THIS SCHEDULE DOES NOT INCLUDE PROTECTED ITEMS IN THE CENTRAL AREA OR HAURAKI GULF ISLANDS ADDRESS FEATURE PRINCIPAL FEATURE MAP CRITERIA FOR TYPE REFERENCE SCHEDULING Achilles Point to Karaka Bay cliffline Pa and associated Maori H, S, V A/G B15-06 Cliff Road, Waitara Road, Riddell Road habitation sites. Waitemata vicinity. series sandstone cliffs showing folded strata and Parnell Grit at Karaka Point. Also fallen blocks from the tuff ring of Glover Park. Crater containing pieces of greywacke, sandstone and schist brought up from depth Auckland Domain Pa and associated Maori H, S, V A/G C09-23 Stanley Street, Titoki Street, Carlton Gore habitation sites, early European Road, Park Road, Auckland Hospital, sites, explosion crater, scoria Grafton Road.
  • The Impact of John A. Lee's Expulsion Upon the Labour Party

    The Impact of John A. Lee's Expulsion Upon the Labour Party

    The Impact of John A. Lee's Expulsion upon the Labour Party IN MARCH 1940 the Labour Party expelled John A. Lee. Lee's dynamism and flair, the length and drama of the battle, not to mention Lee's skill as a publicist, have focussed considerable attention upon his expulsion. Almost all historians of New Zealand have mentioned it, and most have portrayed it as a defeat for extremism, radicalism, dissent or a policy of industrialization.1 According to one political scientist, although Labour did not quite blow out its metaphorical brains in expelling Lee, his expulsion heralded the victory of the administrators and consolidators.2 While few of those who have attributed a significance to Lee's expulsion have hazarded a guess at its effect .upon the Labour Party's membership or the party itself, Bruce Brown, who gave the better part of two chapters to the disputes associated with Lee's name, pointed out that 'hundreds of the most enthusiastic branch members' followed Lee 'out of the main stream of political life.'3 Brown recognized that such an exodus undoubtedly weakened the Labour Party although, largely because he ended his history in 1940, he made no attempt to estimate the exact numbers involved or the significance of their departure. This essay is designed to suggested tentative answers to both questions. Immediately after his expulsion Lee believed that radicals, socialists and even five or six members of parliament would join him. The first 1 For instance, W.H. Oliver, The Story of New Zealand, London, 1960, pp.198-99; W.B.
  • Oia-1156529-SMS-Systems.Pdf

    Oia-1156529-SMS-Systems.Pdf

    School Number School Name SMSInfo 3700 Abbotsford School MUSAC edge 1680 Aberdeen School eTAP 2330 Aberfeldy School Assembly SMS 847 Academy for Gifted Education eTAP 3271 Addington Te Kura Taumatua Assembly SMS 1195 Adventure School MUSAC edge 1000 Ahipara School eTAP 1200 Ahuroa School eTAP 82 Aidanfield Christian School KAMAR 1201 Aka Aka School MUSAC edge 350 Akaroa Area School KAMAR 6948 Albany Junior High School KAMAR ACT 1202 Albany School eTAP 563 Albany Senior High School KAMAR 3273 Albury School MUSAC edge 3701 Alexandra School LINC-ED 2801 Alfredton School MUSAC edge 6929 Alfriston College KAMAR 1203 Alfriston School eTAP 1681 Allandale School eTAP 3274 Allenton School Assembly SMS 3275 Allenvale Special School and Res Centre eTAP 544 Al-Madinah School MUSAC edge 3276 Amberley School MUSAC edge 614 Amesbury School eTAP 1682 Amisfield School MUSAC edge 308 Amuri Area School INFORMATIONMUSAC edge 1204 Anchorage Park School eTAP 3703 Andersons Bay School Assembly SMS 683 Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Discovery KAMAR 2332 Aokautere School eTAP 3442 Aoraki Mount Cook School MUSAC edge 1683 Aorangi School (Rotorua) MUSAC edge 96 Aorere College KAMAR 253 Aotea College KAMAR 1684 Apanui School eTAP 409 AparimaOFFICIAL College KAMAR 2333 Apiti School MUSAC edge 3180 Appleby School eTAP 482 Aquinas College KAMAR 1206 THEArahoe School MUSAC edge 2334 Arahunga School eTAP 2802 Arakura School eTAP 1001 Aranga School eTAP 2336 Aranui School (Wanganui) eTAP 1002 Arapohue School eTAP 1207 Ararimu School MUSAC edge 1686 Arataki School MUSAC edge 3704
  • The Mixed Member Proportional Representation System and Minority Representation

    The Mixed Member Proportional Representation System and Minority Representation

    The Mixed Member Proportional Representation System and Minority Representation: A Case Study of Women and Māori in New Zealand (1996-2011) by Tracy-Ann Johnson-Myers MSc. Government (University of the West Indies) 2008 B.A. History and Political Science (University of the West Indies) 2006 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Interdisciplinary Studies In the Graduate Academic Unit of the School of Graduate Studies Supervisor: Joanna Everitt, PhD, Dept. of History and Politics Examining Board: Emery Hyslop-Margison, PhD, Faculty of Education, Chair Paul Howe, PhD, Dept. of Political Science Lee Chalmers, PhD, Dept. of Sociology External Examiner: Karen Bird, PhD, Dept. of Political Science McMaster University This dissertation is accepted by the Dean of Graduate Studies THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK April, 2013 © Tracy-Ann Johnson-Myers, 2013 ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the relationship between women and Māori descriptive and substantive representation in New Zealand’s House of Representatives as a result of the Mixed Member Proportional electoral system. The Mixed Member Proportional electoral system was adopted in New Zealand in 1996 to change the homogenous nature of the New Zealand legislative assembly. As a proportional representation system, MMP ensures that voters’ preferences are proportionally reflected in the party composition of Parliament. Since 1996, women and Māori (and other minority and underrepresented groups) have been experiencing significant increases in their numbers in parliament. Despite these increases, there remains the question of whether or not representatives who ‘stand for’ these two groups due to shared characteristics will subsequently ‘act for’ them through their political behaviour and attitudes.
  • HOW to USE THIS MAP W R E E L R V T T in Ra R Hillsborough H N V Park M R St Lynfield Plc E U P Katavich E Rth

    HOW to USE THIS MAP W R E E L R V T T in Ra R Hillsborough H N V Park M R St Lynfield Plc E U P Katavich E Rth

    t n S ra ur cm m C t n S ra m ur cm m KEY C KEY Shared path m t Shared path S Protected cycle lane n a r Westhaven r Protected cycle lane u t On-road cycle lane C S n a LEGEND r Westhaven On-road cycle lane Pointr Traffic-calmed streets u LEGEND ErinC Hamer St Art gallery Brigham St Te AraTraffic-calmed I Whiti - Lightpath streets Park Point Art gallery Erin Hamer St Te Ara I Whiti - Lightpath Park Brigham St Beach Waitemata Harbour Curran St Beach Je Wairangi St ll Viaduct Curran St St Marys Bay ic oe S Bike fix-it station Waitemata Harbour Sarsfield St R t Basin i n g Je Wairangi St T Wynyard ll Viaduct W St Marys Bay ic Bike fix-it station C Emmet St d c oe e R e St u R Cremorne St Sarsfield St s M Basin i t ad r n ha t de Bike park Herne Bay Hamilton Rd r g n v Quarter S S ch a e t H T n Wynyard a D y Stack St n C d c W r Viaduct Emmet St a e d Sentinel Rd e u R c l Cremorne St Beaumont St M S Downtown Ferry Terminal Bike park k s a ed Be t a d t Lawrence St r we S Percival Pde e h t d t T t a e Herne Bay Hamilton Rd r t D n y v Quarter S S S Wallace St ch t a l e tHarbour l H n a S D y Drinking water Stack St n r y Viaduct e t a P Argyle St ak d e Sentinel Rd c Beaumonte St l S h Downtown Ferry Terminal k nh s ed Be aa m l t Lawrence St we S S Percival Pde e t T Q t London St D S Drinking water y t t a S u Wallace St Stl Maryst W HarbourW ay l S H t S Westwood Tce y c t e t P S l Argyle St H ak e s Tyler St h a en P Ferry terminal Vine St rb h s m Britomart o am l t S Du u o Q Bay nedin SLtondon St r S t e Tooley St t
  • New Zealand Gazette

    New Zealand Gazette

    No. 101 2845 THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE Published by Authority WELLINGTON: THURSDAY, 2 SEPTEMBER 1982 Members of the Distribution Committees Under Section 96 The Auckland Harbour B0a~1kau Harbour Foreshore 11 -4- of th'e Gaming and Lotteries Act 1977 and Harbourbed. Co~"'mir Order 1982 lr-1 fW' DAYID BEATIIE, overnor-General )~I '· (j I~ &l. DAYID BEATTIE, Governor-General ORDER IN C UNCIL ',Cl I 19 [ t~ ORDER IN COUNCIL At the Government House at this 23rd day of August At Government House at Wellington this 23rd day of August 1982 Presen : Present: HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERN R-GENERAL IN COUNCIL HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL IN COUNCIL PURSUANT to sect;on 165 of th Harbours Act 1950, His Excellency the Governor-Genera , acting by and with the PURSUANT to section 96 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1977, advice and consent of the Executi Council, hereby makes the His Excellency the Governor-General, acting by and with the following order. advice and consent of the Executive Council, hereby appoints the following persons to be members of the Distribution R Committees named for a term of 3 years commencing on the 23rd day of August 1982. 1. Title and commencement-( ) This order may be cited as the Auckland Harbour Boa Manukau Harbour Fore- 1. Distribution Committee for the Provision of Social Ameni- shore and Harbourbed Control rder 1982. ties and the Promotion of Social Welfare (2) This order shall come i o force on the 1st day of Miss P. Avery Jack of Wellington, Chairman. September 1982. Mr Q.