New Zealand prides itself on integrity and fairness. We often see ourselves as a democracy where decisions are made transparently, and all citizens have equal access to government. But beneath that reputation, the reality is far less reassuring. Unlike most developed countries, New Zealand has no dedicated rules governing lobbying. That gap leaves our democracy exposed to hidden influence, conflicts of interest, and a culture where insiders can buy access while ordinary people are shut out.


When secrecy breeds corruption.
International watchdogs warn that unregulated lobbying is a major corruption risk. The OECD found that countries without clear rules are most vulnerable to abuses like “revolving door” appointments and secret influence. Transparency International reports that only seven of 19 European countries assessed had strong lobbying laws. New Zealand sits firmly at the unregulated end of the spectrum.

Here, lobbyists do not need to register their clients or disclose who they meet. There is no stand-down period to prevent ministers from moving directly into lobbying firms. A Ministry of Justice paper obtained by RNZ bluntly warned that this revolving door risks misuse of privileged information, undermines trust, and could “affect social cohesion.” One meeting attendee even reported a law firm charging $250,000 to lobby for a law change. When influence is opaque, who benefits? I can tell you this, its not the public.

A history of missed opportunities
The first real chance to fix this came in 2012, when the Lobbying Disclosure Bill proposed a register of lobbyists, mandatory disclosure of lobbying activity, and a code of conduct. Its purpose was to shine a light on hidden influence and restore trust. Instead, the bill was quietly killed after MPs argued it might capture ordinary citizens. What we got instead were weak non-legislative “guidelines" and this is where I believe the real issues started to get worse. 

Since then, revolving-door appointments have multiplied. Ministers have stepped straight from Cabinet to lobbying firms (often called Consulting Firms/PR Agencies and Government Relations). Successive governments,  across all parties, have looked the other way.

In 2023, the issue briefly resurfaced after RNZ revealed the scale of unregulated lobbying. The Government announced interim measures like removing swipe-card access for lobbyists and encouraging a voluntary code of conduct. But as experts warned, this risks being a “fox guarding the chicken coop.” Voluntary codes are not serious regulation. It's nothing more than window dressing, a symbolic gesture, not a structural fix. The System remains wide open to hidden influence, while leaving the real problems untouched.

Why voluntary codes won’t cut it
A voluntary code asks lobbyists to be honest and disclose conflicts – but it has no teeth. No one is compelled to register, and there are no penalties for secrecy. Meanwhile, the draft code circulated in 2024 sidesteps the core issue, the revolving door. OECD countries impose stand-down periods for ex-ministers. Australia requires 18 months. Canada mandates five years. New Zealand’s draft code requires nothing.

Without real rules, the public will continue to suspect favouritism and corruption. And suspicion alone corrodes trust in democracy.

What needs to change
Healthy advocacy is not the problem. Secret lobbying is. New Zealand urgently needs:
1. A public register of lobbyists with mandatory disclosure of clients, issues, and meetings with ministers or anyone in a position of influence. Including the CEO's and Executive Teams. 
2. Stand down periods for ministers, advisers and senior officials before they can lobby. 
3. Proactive publication of ministerial diaries, regulator impact statements and policy papers so citizens can see who is influencing these decisions being made both a local and central level. 
4. An (real) independent oversight body. One with teeth, dedicated to investigating lobbying and influence. At present, responsibility is blurred... the Auditor General points to the Ombudsman, who in turn points elsewhere. The result is a circular game where no agency takes ownership. New Zealand needs a clear, empowered watchdog for lobbying...not a merry-go-round of buck passing.

New Zealand’s reputation cannot rest on assumptions of integrity while influence stays hidden. When lobbying happens in the shadows, it favours the wealthy and the well-connected and locks out ordinary people. That is not democracy.

It is time for Parliament to legislate real transparency, not leave lobbyists to police themselves and to assume that those elected or appointed into positions of power are always playing by the rules. 

Yesterday I saw people stealing from an honesty box. Times are changing. People are changing. We must push for things to change.  

​Thank you for reading. 
​Erika Harvey

LGNZ: Funded by the People, But Not Always for the People
Recent events in the Bay of Plenty show exactly why local government needs a bottom-up rethink. Tauranga’s new mayor, Mahé Drysdale, has been in office for less than a year and he's already pushing a dramatic change, amalgamating the region’s councils into one super-council. His argument is that having “seven councils around the table means seven times the overhead.” He claims a merger would deliver efficiencies and improve service delivery.

But the way this proposal dropped says everything.
There was no campaign. No community conversation. No clear evidence that a forced merger would even work. Just a media announcement and a remit submitted to LGNZ.

Local leaders didn’t take long to respond. The mayors of Whakatāne, Ōpōtiki, and Kawerau came out swinging, warning that amalgamation would swallow smaller communities into Tauranga’s shadow, silencing local voices and stripping away the accountability that smaller councils provide.

Whakatāne Mayor Victor Luca pointed to the core problem, there’s no evidence this will save money or improve services. A 2022 Infrastructure Commission report (Does Size Matter?) found little to no efficiency gains from larger councils. A 2024 economic study backed that up, showing that unless services are actively cut, simply merging organisations doesn’t magically reduce costs. Bigger doesn’t mean better (or cheaper).
And Drysdale didn’t offer any local evidence to back his proposal either. As Mayor Luca put it, “The real evidence is there and he completely ignores it.”

A Community Left Out of the Conversation
What’s even more concerning is how this was rolled out.
Drysdale went public with the plan before engaging with the communities it would affect. No workshops. No briefings. No mandate. Just a surprise announcement from a first-term mayor who, so far, has shown little regard for meaningful community input across a number of key decisions.
Ōpōtiki Mayor David Moore rightly stated, “The first thing you learn in local government is you need to talk to your community first.” That didn’t happen here.
Drysdale has since tried to walk it back, saying he just wanted to “start a conversation.” But by then, trust was already damaged. The way this was delivered felt less like an invitation and more like a direction from above. The remit was already drafted. The media lines were ready. It looked like a rollout, not a dialogue.
This is exactly the kind of move that breeds public cynicism where bold changes are floated from behind closed doors, with little community buy-in and no clear path to opt out. It's a familiar playbook and one that puts political positioning above public process.

Does LGNZ advocate for communities or lobby for Itself?
Drysdale’s amalgamation remit gained traction in part because Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) [the national association of councils] appeared to back it. LGNZ is supposed to be the collective voice of our local authorities. But we have to ask, whose voice is it really? And who is actually being heard?

Here’s the issue we see. LGNZ is funded by councils, which means it’s paid for by (you guess it) the ratepayers. Yet it doesn’t directly speak for the public or represent community interests; instead it seems to speak for councils as institutions. Increasingly, elected members and watchdog groups are raising concerns about this arrangement. In interviews we’ve done around the country, councillors who know their communities well are saying the same thing, LGNZ doesn’t always help. In fact, sometimes it works against what the community actually wants.

Take the 2025 LGNZ Annual General Meeting. Member councils voted, by an 82% majority, to launch a campaign, funded with ratepayer money, to oppose a Government proposal to cap rate increases. Think about that. LGNZ chose to spend public money to lobby against cost-of-living relief for the public. The Taxpayers’ Union called it “gaslighting ratepayers.” Provocative language aside, the core issue stands, whose side is LGNZ really on?

It increasingly feels like LGNZ behaves less like a neutral bridge between communities and power, and more like a defensive lobbyist for council bureaucracies. They appear quick to close ranks and protect the status quo, even if that means sidelining the very people who pay the bills.

And unlike elected councils, LGNZ isn’t directly accountable to voters. Its meetings and decisions often happen out of public view. Earlier this year, a leaked memo revealed LGNZ was holding private meetings with councils to plan a PR campaign against the rates cap, all paid for by ratepayers.

Let’s not forget that LGNZ also struck an approx. $2 million deal with central government to support the controversial Three Waters reforms under Labour, on the condition they wouldn’t publicly criticise the policy. That deal blindsided many member councils and left communities wondering who LGNZ really works for.
Margaret Murray-Benge, a long-serving Western Bay of Plenty councillor, didn’t mince words. She called LGNZ an “expensive layer of democracy that cannot be trusted.” Since then, major councils like Auckland and Christchurch have also left LGNZ, citing similar concerns about politicisation and poor value.

So again we are asking, who is LGNZ listening to? When they back remits like Drysdale’s, whose agenda is being advanced? The public’s, or a policy club of insiders?

These questions aren’t rhetorical, but they do go to the heart of whether public funds are being used in the public’s interest, or against it.

Communities Across New Zealand Are Being Shut Out
What’s happening in the Bay isn’t a one-off. From Northland to Southland, we’re seeing the same pattern repeat, big-ticket decisions being made without proper consultation, while community feedback is watered down or ignored entirely.

We’ve heard it directly from elected members. They’re frustrated. Staff reports are becoming the final word. Consultation is increasingly treated as a procedural formality. Public forums are held, but real decisions have already been made. Some councillors are quietly saying they feel more like passengers than representatives.

And it’s not just elected officials feeling it. A 2020 national survey found only 30% of New Zealanders trust their council’s decision-making. Just 31% believed they had any real influence. That means nearly 70% of people feel left out of decisions being made in their name, and with their money.

The results are that communities feel disconnected. Councils feel embattled. And organisations like LGNZ seem to step in as de facto powerbrokers, but without the transparency or accountability that public decision-making demands.

This is not how local democracy is meant to work. It’s time to flip the board and put people back at the centre.

We’re not just here to point out what’s broken. We’re here to name what needs to change.
Here’s what a real bottom-up rebuild could look like:
1. Transparent Lobbying Rules: New Zealand still has no lobbying register. No cooling-off periods. No public visibility into who’s influencing what behind closed doors. That needs to change. If LGNZ or any group is using public money to influence policy, it should be logged, declared, and open to scrutiny.
2. Ban Ratepayer-Funded Political Campaigning: Ratepayer money should not be used to fund lobbying efforts that communities haven’t agreed to. Councils should be required to consult their communities before spending public funds on campaigns, especially those run by external associations.
3. Real Community Consultation Requirements: Not just a tick-box form. We need binding rules that ensure early, inclusive, and transparent consultation on major decisions, including asset sales, amalgamations, and large-scale development plans.
4. Citizen Oversight Panels: For every council, there should be a standing public committee that can review major decisions, challenge process breaches, and request independent audits where transparency fails.
5. Stronger Local Government Ombudsman Role: We need a strengthened, independent body that can investigate local government conduct, including misuse of public funds, flawed consultation processes, or conflicts of interest.
6. Open LGNZ Meetings and Funding Disclosure: If LGNZ wants public trust, it needs to open its meetings, release its voting records, and publish full accounts of where its funding comes from and how it’s spent.
Local democracy should be the most accountable tier of government. But right now, it’s one of the hardest to scrutinise. That’s not just a flaw, it’s a systemic vulnerability.
​
Let’s fix that.  
Tell us your thoughts on ways we can flip the system in the comments. 

“This isn’t team-building. It’s a power grab.”Western Bay of Plenty District Councillors are speaking out against the creation of a new SmartGrowth Subcommittee in the Bay of Plenty, established without any formal vote or approval from elected members across all three affected councils.
The subcommittee includes just six people:

• The Mayor of Tauranga
• The Mayor of Western Bay of Plenty
• The Chair of Bay of Plenty Regional Council
• The Chair of the Combined Tangata Whenua Committee
• A rotating Mana Whenua representative
• Any co-opted members chosen by the mayors and chairs

So, what’s missing? Any mandate. Any scrutiny. And nearly every other elected councillor.
Councillors Raise Red FlagsWestern Bay councillors voiced strong opposition, raising the following issues on record:

• The subcommittee was formed without councillor approval
• Councils were not consulted on the Terms of Reference
• The Terms are vague and lack clear limits on decision-making
• There is no defined reporting structure back to councils
• The subcommittee consolidates power into a "small tight group"
• This approach is “pulling power away from democracy,” in the words of several councillors

Rodney Joyce, current councillor and candidate for Western Bay Mayor, put it bluntly:
“This is not how democracy works.”
Don Thwaites, another mayoral contender, warned:
“If the Mayor of Tauranga is negotiating capital gains tax or congestion charging with central government, I don’t want to see it happening in a secret little group.”
Statement from Erika Harvey, Lobby for Good“This isn’t efficiency, it’s exclusion. We’re seeing the same pattern across the country with insiders shaping decisions behind closed doors, then presenting them as done deals.
When elected councillors are cut out of the process entirely, it doesn’t matter what the policy is, it’s a democratic failure. This SmartGrowth subcommittee was formed without a single vote from elected members. That should alarm anyone who believes in local representation.”
Lobby for Good is now calling for urgent clarity from SmartGrowth and the three councils involved. Specifically:

1. Who authorised the creation of this subcommittee without councillor approval?
2. What decisions is this unelected subcommittee empowered to make?
3. Why were the Terms of Reference not put to elected members for debate or amendment?
4. Will any minutes, agendas, or decisions be made public?
5. How will this structure affect public accountability, transparency, and democratic representation?
6. Does this reflect a broader pattern of decision-making being centralised into insider groups, as we’ve seen with the Water Done Well process?

A Familiar Pattern: Public Excluded, Power ConcentratedThis move closely mirrors concerns raised in other areas of local governance that we are hearing from across the country, where decisions are increasingly being shaped behind closed doors, then handed down to councillors and the public with limited time or transparency.
Footage of the full exchange can be viewed here (7:00–30:00):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKreEZOPXt0

The contract for the sale of Tauranga's Marine Precinct has now been settled, the local council has confirmed.
The $13.98 million sale of the precinct to a Christchurch developer was due to settle in November but was halted by a last-minute High Court interim injunction.
Tauranga City Council chief executive Marty Grenfell said a recent High Court judgement dismissed an application for an interim injunction to prevent the completion of the Marine Precinct sale process.
"Justice J Andrew's findings were unambiguous. Based on further legal advice, Council has now met its legal and contractual obligations with regard to the sale of the precinct," he said.
Grenfell said the council will continue engaging with all marine industry stakeholders, including many who bitterly opposed the sale.
"This sale commits the purchaser to design, construct and complete development of the precinct so that it meets its strategic objectives and establishes a purpose-built marine service facility, for the wider benefit of the industry and the community," he said.
Tumblehome Bay developer Sam Rofe, who purchased the marine precinct, said it is with joy that the company can begin development of the area into a superyacht refit destination.
"Tumblehome Bay can begin the transformation works first envisaged by the city of Tauranga in 2014 - take up the baton, and deliver for the benefit of all, a world class marine precinct - entirely fit for purpose to provide employment and opportunities for the provision of specialist marine services to both larger pleasure craft and local commercial vessels, and now also, to a growing base of international clientele who hold in high esteem our skilled Kiwi marine professionals," said Rofe.
Lobby for Good director Erika Harvey - an outspoken opponent of the sale - said she was surprised to hear the sale had gone ahead.
"I've been advised to say nothing further at this time," she said.

Article: ​https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/559529/tauranga-s-marine-precinct-sale-contract-settled-council

By Libby Kirkby-McLeod of RNZ
Tauranga Mayor Mahe Drysdale has called the sale of marine precinct land a “s*** deal”, but residents say he is not taking the opportunity to cancel the deal.
Council commissioners announced in May the Marine Precinct at Sulphur Point had been sold, with purchaser Sam Rofe set to develop it into a superyacht destination.
Commercial boat operators who based their businesses in the precinct were dismayed by the news.
After council elections in July, marine precinct users organised a meeting to discuss the issue with the newly elected mayor and councillors.

Drysdale was strong in his criticism of the deal in that October meeting.
“It’s a shit deal, you know... we’ve inherited it.”
He told users the new council did not want the deal to go ahead.
​
“If we could get out of this deal … we would get out of this deal,” he told Lobby for Good director Erika Harvey, an outspoken opponent of the sale.
She pointed RNZ to a clause in the sale contract that said the council could cancel the sale. 
It states: “If at any time before the settlement date, an injunction proceeding is issued or any court granted preventing the sale and/or registration of a transfer in pursuance of this agreement, the vendor will be entitled, by notice in writing to immediately cancel this agreement”.
Harvey said she did not understand why the council had not now stopped the sale, especially given the assurances from Drysdale at the October meeting.
“It did seem to everyone in that room that they wished that there was a way out. So, when we gave them one, and they didn’t take it, it came as a shock to all of us.” 
The “way out” is the High Court interim injunction, which prevented the sale from being completed and was issued after precinct-based business Pacific7 filed judicial review proceedings.
Roger Rawlinson was at the October meeting and said the mayor made them feel he was on their side.

“We assumed moving forward that if there was any wiggle room or any way to get out of it, he would go out of his way to do that.”
He now felt that the mayor may not have been honest at the start.
“Because if he was consistent, he would just be what he was in that first meeting... but it appears either something has changed his mind, or he wasn’t honest to begin with.”
Drysdale told RNZ he stood by what he said in the October meeting and reiterated the current deal would not have been approved under his council.
Last week, the interim injunction stopping the sale was heard in the High Court at Tauranga, with the purchaser arguing it should be thrown out and the sale go ahead.
Drysdale said council was at the hearing, but was not fighting the injunction.
“As Tauranga City Council, we are a party and, obviously, provided information that was required to that, but we weren’t actually a party to the strike-out of that injunction,” he said.
The council was working productively with all parties to find the best possible outcome, he said.
“We have looked at every option available to us.”
The council was following legal advice but could not disclose that advice. 
RNZ asked the council whether it has considered enacting the cancellation clause, or if it had taken any votes on the matter.
Spokeswoman Christine Jones said the council had sought legal advice and had legal representation in respect of the injunction and the agreement.

However, as the matter was subject to legal proceedings, it would not be making any comment.
The High Court reserved its decision after the hearing last week, and an interim order pausing the sale remains in place.

​

Union crusader Mahé Drysdale is no stranger to fighting for fairness. 

Just last year, he and the Athlete’s Co-operative - formed in mid-2022 - took High Performance Sport NZ (HPSNZ) to the Employment Relations Authority, challenging how athletes were classified to deny them proper rights and protections. He stood up against backroom decisions, lack of consultation, and the exploitation of power structures. He demanded transparency, accountability, and a fair process.
​
As far back as 2016 - following his final Olympic appearance in the black singlet - Drysdale has been rallying rowers and cyclists together in a bid for a bigger slice of the funding/decision-making pie.

“We want a better environment for athletes, we want to be respected and we want to be a part of designing the system that delivers results in New Zealand and unfortunately at the moment that is not the case,” he said.

“We are told what, how and why we are doing things and so this is our opportunity to try and negotiate co-designing a system that we’re all happy with.”
He cautioned against rocking the boat when livelihoods were on the line. 

“If you’re against what they want you’re always liable of having that funding cut.”
The fact Drysdale only began to properly organise the athletes once he’d hung up his oars - including the $60,000 performance enhancement grant (PEGs) afforded Olympic gold medalists - is neither here nor there.

“Right now, I’ve got nothing to lose. I’m out of the sport,” he said. 

The athletes’ union’s litigation surged out to an early lead in the landmark employment case in early-2024 when authority member Rowan Anderson found the government agency was obligated to engage in good-faith collective bargaining with the cooperative representing around 60 elite cyclists and rowers. Government-funded HPSNZ struck back in January of this year, when the agency scored a key victory in overturning that decision in the Employment Court.

All signs point to Drysdale and his comrades not backing down, with strong indications the union he represents is keen to draw out the costly legal process even further with a subsequent challenge in the Court of Appeal. 

But now, as Tauranga’s mayor, he seems to have forgotten those principles.

The Marine Precinct sale, a multi-million dollar public asset handover, was pushed through without proper consultation, without an open bidding process, and at a price far below its real value. Local marine businesses, who have been the backbone of this industry, were effectively shut out of the decision-making process​.

Sound familiar?
When it was about Drysdale and his fellow athletes, he fought against this kind of treatment. He called out the system for sidelining the very people it was meant to support. Yet, under his leadership, Tauranga City Council (TCC) is doing the exact same thing, but this time, it’s small business owners and ratepayers who are being left in the dark.

Now Drysdale is singing a very different tune - in Facebook comment sections no less. Responding to a Tauranga ratepayer he advocated for making the best of a bad deal in lieu of backing out of a sale he and the council had every right to get out of once an injunction was granted by the High Court.

“We have so far taken the best course action for the interests of the city. If you are a Ratepayer how much of Ratepayers money would you be prepared to risk in cancelling the deal? 

“We will continue to make the best of it. From your comments you clearly don’t understand the full situation.”

A Bad Deal for Tauranga, A Great Deal for a Private Investor
Let’s be clear about what’s happening here:

• A $33 million public asset was sold for just $14 million, behind closed doors​
• The buyer didn’t have to go through an open market bidding process, meaning the community never got to see if there were better offers.
• Ratepayers are now footing the bill for an additional $30 million in infrastructure upgrades in the form of Pontoon structures that will benefit a private company, while local marine businesses are pushed out​
• The new owner can charge 35% in management fees and take 40% of the remaining revenue, while Tauranga carries all the financial risk​
• If the buyer flips the land later? They profit, while the community is left with nothing.

Would Drysdale have accepted this kind of deal if it were about athletes’ rights? Would he have allowed HPSNZ to hand-pick who succeeded and who got cut out? The answer is a resounding no; he took them to court (very likely repeatedly) instead.

So why, as mayor, is he actively defending a process that shuts out local businesses, locks the public out of decision-making, and leaves Tauranga residents paying the bill?
Fairness Can’t Be Selective
This is a defining moment for Mayor Drysdale.
If he truly believes in transparency, fair process, and protecting people from being shut out by powerful interests, then he should apply those same principles here. That means:

1. Supporting an independent investigation into the Marine Precinct sale to uncover how this deal was made and why better options were ignored​
2. Explaining why small business owners were excluded from a GENUINE consultation process, despite years of working within the precinct​
3. Committing to policy reforms that ensure public assets aren’t handed off in closed-door deals ever again.

Tauranga ratepayers, small business owners, and the marine industry deserve a mayor who applies the same fairness he fought for once his own athletic career was no longer on the line.

Drysdale is standing up for transparency for athletes. Will he do the same for Tauranga?

If not, the public has every right to ask: Was his fight about principles, or just about himself?
​
More to the point, based on his leadership and public comments, is it he who clearly doesn’t understand the full situation?

- Erika Harvey is an advocate for transparency and fairness. This Op-Ed reflects her views on the importance of holding leaders accountable.

The sale of Tauranga’s marine precinct could cause “irreversible harm” and drive some businesses out of town, a court has been told.
Tauranga City Council’s $13.98 million sale of the precinct to Christchurch developer Sam Rofe was due to settle in November 2024, but was halted by a last-minute High Court interim injunction.
The injunction was filed by Sean Kelly, managing director of marine service company Pacific7, who owns land at the precinct.
Kelly also applied for a judicial review of the council’s processes relating to the transaction.

Justice Peter Andrew heard arguments in the case in the High Court at Tauranga on Tuesday before a packed public gallery in the main courtroom and an overflow courtroom.
The basis for Pacific7’s injunction was the displacement of the working boats that use the precinct and a lack of consultation with precinct users.
Pacific7’s lawyer Matthew King said fishing boats had a long history in Tauranga and had been using the area that became the precinct for decades.

A proposal for the fishing boats to instead work from Fisherman’s Wharf near Tauranga’s CBD was “not a feasible alternative” as some could not fit under the Tauranga Harbour Bridge, King said.
Evidence from some businesses was they would have to leave the area if they did not have access to a wharf north of the bridge.
This would mean a loss of jobs and loss of significant revenue for the city, King said.
“Commercial marine business is the fabric of our culture and this deal puts it at risk.”
Under the sale and purchase agreement, there was no guarantee for berthing for working boats at the precinct, King said.
King said he was currently not looking for a full judicial review of the sale but for the interim injunction to continue while the sale was examined.

Tauranga City Council’s lawyer Sally McKechnie said the key context was the marine precinct was a “non-core council” activity.
She said King’s submission was about commitments to the marine industry but much of this was focused on fishing.
“There is no statutory requirement for the council to provide a marine precinct at all or for particular users or in a particular form.
“It’s not a strategic asset of the council’s and it never has been.”
The council did not have to provide fishing or working boat facilities, McKechnie said.
There were no ongoing contractual commitments to the users or potential users of the current wharf, she said.
The council had acknowledged that the sale would impact on some current users, McKechnie said.
For the interim orders to continue, the council submitted Pacific7’s challenge did not have the merit to further delay the development of the precinct, she said.
There would be “further costs on the council to maintain an asset which is underperforming and not achieving the economic aspirations of the city”, McKechnie said.

The issue of whether the precinct users were consulted about the sale was discussed at length.
Lawyers for the purchaser argued numerous meetings were held with marine users and, over the years, the option to sell was openly discussed.
Lawyer Jeremy Johnson said: “The issue of the future of the [marine precinct] was much discussed in this community for years.”
Rofe approached the council in late 2023 with a proposal to buy the precinct with a vision of it becoming a “premier superyacht refit destination”.
King said when the decision was made to sell the precinct to Rofe, users were not made aware of it.
Kelly was overseas when the sale was announced publicly in May 2024 and did not find out until September when he returned, he said.
When the sale was entered into in May the council was run by a government-appointed commission. It was due to settle in November after the July election.
The newly elected council first discussed the sale at a meeting in October where users aired their frustrations with the sale and being forced to leave the precinct.
Justice Andrew reserved his decision and said the interim orders remained in the meantime.
- LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
​
Original Article: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/taurangas-marine-precinct-sale-could-cause-irreversible-harm-court-told/PRWZZUNDZBFCLK2F243F3O45YM/ 

It was an overflowing courtroom in the High Court at Tauranga on Tuesday as locals were told the sale of the Tauranga marine precinct should not have come as a surprise to residents who "were widely consulted".
Last year, Tauranga City Council sold the precinct to Christchurch developer Sam Rofe.
However, the sale was paused at the eleventh hour after an interim injunction was granted by the High Court.
Justice Andrew was hearing arguments on an application for a judicial review of the sale.
Lawyers for the purchaser argued that numerous meetings were held with marine users and over the years the option to sell was openly discussed.
Lawyer Shane Campbell said what the applicant, marine precinct user Pacific 7, really wanted to achieve was to pressure the council into cancelling the contract with their client.
"This proceeding has been brought on an admitted basis for trying to bring overt pressure to bear on elected officials to exercise what they say are cancellation rights," Campbell said.
Justice Andrews pushed back on this and asked whether the applicant was simply asking to hold Tauranga City Council to account.
"That's entirely legitimate isn't it, in a democracy?" the justice asked.
Outside the court, locals disagreed that there had been wide consultation and said they wanted justice for ratepayers.
"We haven't been included, there has been no consultation," said one.
Another said that it felt like a very small group of people were playing monopoly with the city.
Justice Andrew is expected to reserve his decision.

Tauranga's controversial marine precinct sale heads to the High Court today, where opponents of the sale are expected to pack out the courtroom.
Tauranga City Council (TCC) sold the precinct at Sulphur Point for $13.987m to Christchurch developer Sam Rofe last year. But the sale was paused at the eleventh hour after the High Court granted an interim injunction.
The court today is expected to hear arguments on whether to continue the interim injunction stopping the sale, which has been in place since November 2024.
RNZ understands it will also be argued by some parties that the judicial review proceedings raising concerns about TCC processes relating to the transaction should be thrown out.
Erika Harvey is a marine precinct user and director of public affairs for Lobby for Good. She said she was not against the selling of the marine precinct as such, but against the private sale process under which it was sold to Rofe for lower than valuation.
"It should be sold with public consultation, for the right amount of money - this deal is just a bad deal," she said.
She called for locals to meet at the High Court at Tauranga to 'be there. Be seen. Watch history unfold'.
Asked what she was hoped to achieve by organising a crowd, Harvey said she wanted people to be aware of the decisions being made in their town which affected them.
She believed the best outcome would be for the sale in its current form to not go through.
RNZ approached the purchaser's lawyers for comment, who replied that their client had none to make at this stage.
Local Tauranga MP Sam Uffindel said he was planning to attend the beginning of court proceedings today because the sale was of strong public interest.
"(It's) one I've been vocal on, and one that I'm determined to see TCC held accountable for."
Tauranga City Council spokesperson Christine Jones said the council will be represented by their lawyers in court on Tuesday.

Article: ​https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/542871/tauranga-s-marine-precinct-sale-goes-to-the-high-court