Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamling ...

Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamling) 

Amendment Bill 

Michael Gunson 

17b Jasmine Grove 

Maungaraki 

Lower Hutt 

Ph 04 5864226 

Documents tabled in support of Michael Gunson's submission 

IN3WNOUIAN3 GNV 

~N3WNH3AOD 1VOO1

Oral Submission to The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 

Good Morning, My name is Michael Gunson. 

In my initial submission I have already pointed out the unfortunate involvement of the Rt Hon Nick 

Smith, as then Minister of conservation in 1998 directing the Waikato conservancy to withdraw its 

appeal against the Whangamata marina. 

In 2006 Nick Smith used Whangamata as a platform to launch his Resource Management (Restricted 

Coastal Activities) amendment Bill. That bill was sponsored by the marina developers, and drawn up 

by lawyer Mai Chen who also conducted the appeal through the courts of Chris Carter's Veto, on 

behalf of the marina developers. The close cooperation is plainly obvious, and publicly admitted to. 

my concern for the proposed changes to the Resource management Act, stem directly from trying 

to protect an absolutely protected species habitat from destruction late last year at the marina site, 

primarily using an eco toxic weed spray, and also the deficiencies of the original Whangamata 

Marina application. 

My journey through the environment court ended up more like a sharp reflection of Alice's trip 

through Wonderland. 

Armed with strong evidence of cruel and deliberate extermination of this rare species, Oligosoma 

moco skink and habitat at that site, I first of all approached the Police, and the then ministers of the 

Environment and Conservation. Who then handed over the primary investigation to Environment 

Waikato. 

l received correspondence back from the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard stating that there appears to be 

some confusion at TCDC as to who sprayed what and where. 

During this time I had built up significantly more evidence, and more importantly, contact with Dr 

Keith Corbett M.B.E. who received his honours for his outstanding contribution to Herpetology 

(reptiles) I learnt from Dr Corbett that for over a year he had been requesting the Thames 

Coromandel District Council desist from target spraying the Pampas grass in the area, as although 

this is an introduced weed to New Zealand, It provided remarkable protection for the Moko skink in, 

and around the Wetland that has now been turned into a car park and high density housing area by 

the Whangamata Marina developers. 

My legal advice was to proceed under section 12(1)(e) of the RMA. To inquire whether or not a 

resource consent is required to destroy an absolutely protected species habitat. 

My case was presided over by Principle Environment Court Judge Bollard, who coincidently oversaw 

the Whangamata Marina variations to the regional coastal plan, and marina consents, which the Rt 

Hon Chris Carter deemed fit to Veto. 

It was only during my court action that EW provided an affidavit stating that the contractor had been 

identified and to quote " That the contractor had appeared to "Jump the gun,"", he has been read 

the rules and no further action is necessary.

! 

Just like the original Whangamata marina consents Judge Bollard has set another dangerous 

precedent now; "no consent is required to destroy an absolutely protected species habitat." 

The contractor who did the illegal spraying, Mr Bruce Connell, as it happens, is a preferred 

contractor to TCDC. Most of the machinery onsite belongs to his company, his family owns the 

house that is the registered offices of the Marina Society. Bruce Connell was paid $7,000 for his 

dirty work. For my court action in trying to save this rare species, I have been sued $50,000. 

Just like the burning of the mangroves in 2005 when the skink was first discovered in that vandalised 

area, Environment Waikato has again, declined again to prosecute. 

Both EW and TCDC give their backing to the marina. But TCDC with its strategic relationship with the 

marina society have painted themselves into a corner with many multiples of conflicts of interest, as 

I have pointed out in my tabled documents today. 

The document entitled "The Whangamata marina timeline" begs the question; 

"Where does conflict of interest end, and corruption begin?" 

Mid way through 2007 I had a chance encounter with the Rt Hon Chris Carter in Wellington and I 

brought up the subject of Whangarnata, Mr Carter relayed to me his frustration at the level of 

corruption in TCDC. 

This is perhaps the main thrust of my presentation, by devolving more responsibility to councils like 

TCDC, we are opening the floodgates to corrosive partnerships like that HOA between the marina 

developers and That council. 

Another example is that of The Wellington City Council, who entered into an arrangement with some 

developers who had set themselves up as a trust, in order to construct an aquarium and associated 

commercial activities on the south coast, they even acquired many hundreds of thousands of dollars 

from that council despite an impressive number of wellingtonians opposed to the project. The 

council even seriously considered funding the "Trust" many hundreds of thousands more through 

the appeal court, after losing at the Environment Court. This is another example of developers, like 

those in Whangamata, externalising there costs onto the wider community. 

In the April 2009 edition of North and South, it is reported that several coastal processes scientists 

are complaining that the Bar monitoring plan implemented to the satisfaction of EW will not display 

any adverse affects by the marina construction. This is because adequate monitoring would cost the 

developers upwards of $50,000 per year. The developers are successful at externalising or avoiding 

costs. 

Whangamata does represent a failure of the RMA, but completely opposite to that of the assertions 

put forward by the Rt Hon Nick Smith. The RMA failed to protect the wider community, and the 

unique biodiversity that was in the now deceased Whangamata wetland, and the whangamata 

estuary as a whole. The wetland was one of two crucial wetlands in that estuary that gave the entire 

estuary a rating of National significance. That rating is now invalid. 

Since writing the tabled documents the Auditor General's Office has just released a decision into 

corruption allegations against the Mayor of TCDC, The AOG has decided not to follow through with

charges because the penalties would be too punitive. The mayor is also linked to an internal 

investigation regarding conflict of interest regarding the marina development. 

This Bill would simply legalise the corrosive partnerships that have occurred between the likes of the 

Whangamata developers and councils. I request that this bill be rejected, and a government inquiry 

held into the many multiple conflicts of interest within the Thames Coromandel District Council 

Thank you





Maungaraki 

Lower Hutt 

Ph 04 5864226 

Official Information Act Request to Environment Waikato 

tabled in support of Michael Gunson's submission



Maungaraki 

Lower Hutt 

Ph 04 5864226 

05 05 09 

Ms Nuala Platts 

Resorce Use Group 

Environment Waikato 

Box 4010 Hamilton East 3247 

Hamilton 

Dear Ms Platts, 

Two Requests under the Official Information Act 

On the 17th of October 2008 You swore an affidavit in defence of your employer, 

Environment Waikato, in a court case where I was attempting to protect one of only three 

significant mainland populations of Oligosoma moco skink, namely that of in, and around, 

the wetland in Whangamata. (ref: Environment Court Decision 134 /2008) 

This wetland that was fed by natural springs, has now been turned into a car park and high 

density housing area as part of the Whangamata marina project. 

The Skink colony was discovered after the illegal burning of mangroves in 2005 by marina 

society members and supporters. The area cleared and burnt off was the mitigated area 

(adjoining salt marsh on the opposite side of the causeway)for the destruction of the wetland 

for the purposes of the marina .The now destroyed wetland was an Area of Significant 

Conservation Value. 

The discovery of the skink was not notified to Hauraki Maori until 14th May 2008, two days 

later the Marina Developers with the (faulty) consent of the Department Of Conservation (not 

Hauraki Maori) moved in and started confiscating a very small fraction of the skink, while 

exterminating the majority. I took photos of the area on Queens Birthday Weekend(1" of 

June 2008) after being told of the discovery. Again I took photo evidence on the 3rd and 4* of 

July, where a targeted spraying of the Skink habitat was apparent, and later confirmed to me 

by Dr. Keith Corbett M.B.E.. whom had been observing the habitat, and made repeated 

requests to TCDC to stop spraying. 

Dr Corbett had pointed out that while Pampas grass was an introduced flora, it had the 

upside of providing valuable, advantagous habitat for our rare Oligosoma moco Skink. 

One could perhaps perceive a loophole, a motive, here for anyone passionate about a 

multimillion dollar development, and taking matters into their own hands. 

l also have evidence that the Marina Society had known about this rare skink habitat as early 

as February 2007. Not Feb 2008 as proffered by the Marina Sesiety developer's president 

Mick Kelly.

Unlike the Wetland, the saltmarsh (mitigated Area) is not fed by a natural spring, though it 

does receive storm water runoff from a drain, courtesy of Whangamata's industrial area, 

At the conclusion of the investigation into salt marsh clearance, Your Council decided 

not to prosecute those responsible for the destruction, nor for the death of the skink 

that would have occurred from that burning. 

A local opponent of the Marina, and Green Ribbon Award winner for his efforts in trying to 

improve Whangamata's estuary water quality Paul Shanks, recently conveyed to me that 

whilst attending A Navigational and safety bylaws meeting late last year several community 

board members and Councillors (including your own Councillor Simon Friar) recounted to 

Paul that while illegally burning the mangroves, "hundreds of skink were running around 

underfoot." Apparently they were laughing as they recounted it to Paul. 

Kessels and associates produced a report for Environment Waikato to determine the 

destruction that stemmed from that illegal mangrove burning activity. − EWDOCS−#1042233− 

v1−Whangamata_Mangrove_clearance_and_saltmarsh. An excerpt from that report : 

Tables 1 and 2 assess the area with regard to the EWRegional Policy Statement Criteria for 

assessing ecological significance. In summary, Whangamata Harbour as an entire 

ecosystem can be ranked as of National Significance because of its relative intactness, 

and the diversity of intact estuarine communities it contains, which in tum provide habitat for 

a number of nationally threatened indigenous species, such as NZ dotterei. To this end the 

Waikato Regional Coastal Plan recognises the Upper Whangamata Harbour as an Area of 

Significant Conservation Value (E W, 2001). 

l also have DOC documents (some of which I have attached to this email) that refer to the 

wetland that has now been turned into a car park, as one of only two Areas of Significant 

Conservation Value (ASCV) in that estuary, and the problems of maintaining Dotterel habitat 

in the estuary once the wetland will be destroyed. 

Similarly, as stated in your affidavit, even though you identified the person 

responsible for the illegal spraying on the CAUSEWAY which killed Oligosoma moco 

skink (the photos I provided you illustrate quite adequately that the spraying was 

deliberate)Your employer, Environment Waikato, AGAIN, decided not to prosecute! 

To this letter, I have attached a compilation of photos displaying the targeted spraying of 

pampas grass in the wetland / car park area, where skinks were living. I have also attached 

emails from Dr Keith Corbett M.B.E. protesting to Thames Coromandel District Council over 

the previous year regarding the targeted spraying of skink habitat. 

Also included, an excerpt from the herpetological society newsletter of October 2008 

regarding the inappropriate manner in which the "rescue" of a fraction of this Skink colony 

was conducted. 

An excerpt from your affidavit:

Late on the 25 July 2008 Mr John Knappett sent an email to me 

stating that Bruce Conne!t had undertaken the spraying on the 

site. Mr Knappett stated that he would send through the rules to 

the contractor and that "the Whangamata Marina Society had 

indicated to Bruce that it would negotiate the mitigation 

programme with his company but certainly did not authorise any 

work in advance of all pre start consent conditions being 

satisfied" 

As I received your affidavit and many others at 4:30 pm on the Eve of my case against the 

Marina Society, Environment Waikato, and Thames Coromandel District Council, I had to 

accept legal advice at that time to drop TCDC as a respondent in my case. 

Up unto this time, the only correspondence i had received was that from Environment 

Minister Trevor Mallard, stating that there appears to be some confusion within TCDC as to 

whom was responsible for the spraying. 

Upon further investigation that evening however, I leamt that Bruce Connell is not only a 

preferred contractor to TCDC, but the majority of equipment on the marina site is his, and his 

family own the registered office of the Whangamata Marina Society. 

Ms Platts, a question, during your investigation, did you ever consider motive for the illegal 

spraying? 

Perhaps an investigation should have best been referred back to the Police, even though the 

police had referred it back to DOC, and washed their hands of it'? 

Another question; Do you not consider that Connell or the marina society / TCDC, had 

motive for exterminating the skink habitat along the causeway? Dr Keith Corbett persistently 

pointed out To TCDC that targeting the Pampas grass along the causeway was killing the 

skink, but to no avail. 

l also understand that Mr Connell has received approximately $7,000 for his dirty work on 

the causeway, I on the other hand have been sued approx $50,000 for trying to defend this 

colony from extermination in the face of a complete disregard from all crown agencies 

obigated with the skinks welfare. 

The DOC website lists the Moko Skink as: 

Moko Skink 

Taxon −Oligosoma moco 

Threat classification 

− 

6 Sparse 

Qualifier − Human induced

Also Does your council, like TCDC − the rnarina society, consider the skink as a rare 

endangered indigenous coastal reptile, or simply a nuisance? A pest? 

You may argue that it is only sparse, that classification is only because it exists artificially on 

several offshore Islands. 

Dr Keith Corbett M.B.E (who supported my case) informs me that this particular colony 

happened to be thriving, more so than the handful of other remaining mainland habitats and 

this colony's individuals appeared to be larger in size than those on offshore islands. 

! also note from your affidavit that you personally, only learnt of the skink habitat at 

Whangamata on the 30th of July last year, after learning of the illegal spraying complaint, 

how is this? And, does your council not note rare /sparse native species habitats, even when 

your own employee's /contractor discover them initially? 

During my court case E.W. contested repeatedly that no skink had been found below Mean 

High Water Springs. A great deal of time and cost was wasted on that issue despite Dr Keith 

Corbett M.B.E. arguing on my behalf that the skink fed below MHWS.I did point out one 

location with evidence provided by Bioresearches Ltd (working on behalf of the marina 

developers)of a skink found below MHWS. 

During the case The Hauraki Maori Trust Board repeatedly requested from DOC evidence of 

Skink recovery locations. The evidence was held back until well after my case was 

concluded by Principle Environment Court Judge Bollard, who also happened to oversee the 

original Whangamata marina case that was vetoed by the Rt Hon Chris Carter 

To my official information Requests: 

With regard to lllegal clearance of mangroves in 2005 1 request: 

AII documentation of that investigation relating to forming a conclusion that no 

charges should be laid, and in particular which council officers or councillors were 

involved in the input of that decision making process. 

With regard to illegal spraying of the Skink habitat along the causeway: 

Aft documentation of that investigation that concluded that no charges should be laid, 

and in particular which council officers or councillors were involved in the input of 

that decision making process. 

l wish to point out that I already have a copy of the Kessels and associates report of 2005 

into the illegal mangrove burning, and do not require another copy. I wish to point out that 

vegetation in the mitigated area, has not yet grown back, and the token planting of oi oi 

requested as mitigation for the wide range of biodiversity that existed in the original wetland 

that has now been destroyed by the rnarina developers, has failed. 

Question: When a consent applicant (the marina developers) fail to meet its obligations, 

namely that of not fulfilling its mitigation requirements, like the members of that society 

destroying the mitigated area, then that consent applicant being unable to recreate the 

wetland in the mitigated area, is it up to local Iwi and the wider community to seek

enforcement as conditions laid down by the Environment Court? Or does the council, as the 

consenting authority undertake observance and policing of said conditions? 

To date the only evidence I have seen is that your council has the luxury of discretion, and it 

seems, always in favour of this applicant. 

Are the marina society members above the law? The depth of the marina developer's 

corrosive influence within TCDC is widely known. What degree of influence do the marina 

developers have over your council? 

The last five years have shown a sudden deterioration in the Whangamata kaimoana 

beds (Walsh K, per com 28 March 2007). Under tikanga, any risks to the kaimoana beds 

are unacceptable, yet continue. The Assessment of Environmental Effects (lip service) 

commissioned by the marina developers perversely suggests dredging the shellfish beds, 

and placing them somewhere else in the Estuary. One can only assume that with 

construction of the marina, further degradation of Kai moana will continue. 

With regard to TCDC now wishing to give a 30 year extension for the sewage pond to 

continue leaking up to 30,000 liters per day into the estuary, despite an agreement being 

struck with Clean Water Whangamata to re − line the leaking pond through mediation via 

the Environment Court. Does your council not see any need to pressure this local council to 

conserve this Estuary of National Significance? 

Many of the decisions that have the greatest effect on people's everyday lives are made by 

local, not central government. To this end, one should expect greater transparency and 

impartiality towards the wider community; my experience has sadly found the opposite, in 

particular with regard to this marina "society Inc". 

With regard to the failing waste water system, a number of community groups opposed the 

TCDC's proposed abysmal waste water system upgrade (re: Paul Shanks Green Ribbon 

Award) and appealed to the Environment Court. Through mediation it was agreed that TCDC 

would re−line the leaking sewage settling pond, which leaks up to a milk tankers worth of 

sewage a day, about a kilometre directly up stream of the marina site and major shellfish 

beds. The Pond was constructed in 1986, three years later Bruce Scott (previous 

Whangamata community Board Member, TCDC Councillor and Deputy Mayor, currently 

Surfing New Zealand President) and ardent supporter of the marina, was made aware of the 

problem via numerous reports, but did nothing. 

Within months of the agreement, the TCDC gave a non notified consent for the pond to leak 

for a further 30 years. 

At the first Environment Court Hearing in 1999, TCDC Strategic Assets Manager Murray 

Lyngaurd was called back to give evidence to the court that the Whangamata Waste Water 

System can function inside consent requirements and can cope with the new Marina 

development (abridged) upon which he stated in the affirmative. This was a lie. 

Within two hours of giving this false testimony Mr Lyngaurd is sacked, and replaced by John 

Whittle, who in the future becomes the focus of at least one internal fraud investigation 

(concerning the marina) at TCDC.

TCDC has been riddled by many multiples of conflicts of interest or "incompetence" which 

landed in favour of these marina developers. 

With regard to the poisoning of the estuary, several detailed intertidal surveys of the main 

shellfish beds within the Auckland region are important, in relation to the understanding of 

health of Kia moana beds: 

AKl2002−01 Auckland intertidal shellfish surveys 

Fisheries Research Services 2002−2003 

AKl2000−01 Intertidal shellfish monitoring in the Auckland Fisheries Management area 

−Fisheries Research services 2000−2001 

AKl2001−01 ; Interti−d−al shellfish moni−toring− in− the Auckland Fisheries Management Area 

Fisheries Research Services 2001−2002 

AKl2003−01 Intertidal shellfish monitoring in the Auckland Fisheries Management Area 

Fisheries Research Service 2003−2004 

AKl2004/01 Intertidal shellfish monitoring in the Auckland Fisheries Management Area 


AKl2005/01 Intertidal shellfish monitoring in the Auckland Fisheries Management Area 


AK12006/01 Intertidal shellfish monitoring in the Auckland Fisheries Under 

Management Area Evaluation 

The last five years have shown a sudden deterioration in the Whangamata kaimoana bed 

(Walsh K, per com 28 March 2007). Under tikanga, any risks to the kaimoana bed are 

unacceptable. 

Is your council aware of this Kaimoana degradation? And does it propose to do anything 

about it? Or is Environment Waikato as ignorant of it as they were of the Oligosoma moco 

Skink colony? 

Does the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries have any concern over this? Or is it solely 

Environment Waikato's Domain? 

The Inadequate AEE provided by the marina developers (and readily accepted by the 

Environment Court and both councils) stated that perhaps the Shellfish beds could be 

dredged and placed somewhere else in the estuary.

Does your Council still accept this AEE as sound environmental science and reasonable 

environmental practice? 

l believe that the lenience awarded to this "incorporated society" demands further 

investigation. 

Dear Ms Platts, 

it is not my intention to hold you or your council solely responsible for all the transgressions 

that have occurred regarding this marina development and the extermination of the skink 

habitat. Some of the people I have added to the CC list may shed some light, or even accept 

some responsibility for this fiasco. 

My final question: 

Where does Conflict of interest end and corruption begin? 

l understand that you may not be able answer all the questions I have posed, or both Official 

Information Requests, so if you could pass this correspondence onto someone in your 

organisation that could, I would much appreciate it. 

Perhaps Simon Friar, Environment Waikato Councillor, Active Marina Society Member, and 

instigator of the illegal mangrove clearance would be best suited to respond? 

Kind Regards, 


C.C. Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamling) Amendment Bill Select 

Committee.

Ae~asne::) P~I uo~ulaaq~,aH

8ooZ aunt puepaM egetue~ueqM

Newsletter of the N.Z. Herpetological Society Inc. October 2008 

Moko Skink Rescue at Whangamata 

Doug Ashby 

Within weeks of being asked to hold the Coromandel gecko, we were again contacted by boC to 

once again care for lizards in transit. This time however, we were to get involved in the whole 

process of seeking out, capturing and holding Moko Skinks which needed to be trans−located 

from their existing habitat. 

The whole mission was in fact a bit of a fiasco, primarily caused by the RMA process failing to 

acknowledge this rare mainland colony of Moko Skinks and thus allowing for the development of 

a marina to proceed on the result of an incomplete environmental impact report. 

So it was with unacceptable haste that the skinks had to be removed from the area that was 

destined to be transformed from a pleasant parkland, located on Whangamata's inner harbour, 

to a completely artificial environment for boat mooring and car parking. The development of this 

Marina meant that the vegetation of the whole area had to be removed, and then it was to be 

bulldozed flat before any major work could commence. For Whangamata this had been a 

contentious issue but for Chris Wedding of BioResearch, this problem was a more practical one. 

Chris was given the job to locate as many skinks as possible in the time allowed, and remove 

them to a safe locality. This was the 12th May and the bulldozers were to move in the 1st of 

July. 

The first stage of this rescue was to set up as many pit fall traps as possible in the area, and to 

see what could be caught in this way. As this operation was taking place in May, skink activity 

proved to be minimal.......... not one animal was caught. So plan B was initiated, and this was to 

seek and findl This created another major problem; where do you find hiding, inactive skinks? 

After seeing the odd sunbathing skink, and hearing the rattle of dried leaves, the search was 

narrowed down to clumps of flax, and semi−dead mounds of pampas grass. From earlier 

exploratory searches it was decided to concentrate on the Pampas. 

Our first task was to clear a 500mm zone around the Pampas. This provided a working space and 

reduced the chances of the skinks slipping out and into the surrounding cover. With three, four 

and some times five of us taking positions around the clumps, it was then a case of dismantling 

the mound of Pampas, leaf by leaf. As we manually worked our way through the two metre high 

stack, the skinks were always one step ahead of us. Only on one occasion did we find a skink near 

the outside. In this case I grabbed a handful of dead leaves at about chest height, and as I 

parted and examined the handful of leaves, I saw a tail, and then this lovely fully grown Moka. 

We immediately latched onto it and stored it safely in a holding box. This catch was an 

exception to the rule, as most catches took place from deep in the centre of the grass. 

Some clumps gave us a dozen skinks, others only one but the one and a half to two and a half 

hour process of dismantling these clumps by hand, was no easier, irrespective of the catch, 

Team work was essential, as often one member would drive a skink to the opposite side of the 

reduced clump, where someone was working, and they would catch the retreating lizard. 

For the week I helped as a volunteer, it was mainly Chris, Manu and myself. On other days we 

had two DoC helpers, Rob and Wendy, plus Jane, so work progressed rapidly. Although it was 

physically hard work, the capturing of the skinks was rewarding. The other interesting aspect 

was the measuring, sexing and weighing of all the animals that were caught.

The caring for these precious animals then became our responsibility, and to house the initial 

thirty seven was a challenge. We had to set up cages without over− crowding, and so I had to dig 

deep into my reserve of old and new cages. Luckily I have a fetish for cage building, as we 

needed all I had! 

We were just about to return to the site for another week of search and rescue, when 

political mayhem erupted. On Tuesday the 17th June the local Whangamata Iwi Ngati Pu−Ki 

requested an immediate halt to all removal of the skinks, and within days of this stalemate, the 

area for the Marina was then occupied as a sit−in by the Iwi, stopping everything, from skink 

rescues to Marina construction. In a way, it was exactly what we conservationists wanted but it 

could only be a temporary reprieve 

This saga is still in progress and the outcome will be really interesting to see. I only hope the 

lizards aren't the losers but I certainly won't hold my breath on that one.

From: Bev Bremner 

To: the2corbett@xtra.co.nz 

Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 10:46 AM 

Subject: Whangamata Reserves Management Plan : Protected Moko Skink. 

Dr Corbett 

Thank you for your email, received by the Chief Executive. 

The Reserve Management Plan process was managed by Sam Marshall, Area Manager 

Whangamata, and your concerns have been forwarded to Sam who has been asked to respond 

to you directly. 

Should you have any further concerns in the meantime however, please feel free to contact Sam 

at Council's Whangamata office (865 0060 ) or by email − sam−marshali@tcdc.govt.nz. 

Bev Bremner 

Executive PA to Chief Executive and Mayor 

Thames−Coromandel District Council 

−−−Original Message−−− 

From: the2corbett [mailto:the2corbett@xtra.co.nz] 

Sent: Friday, 16 May 2008 10:28 

To: Steve Ruru 

Subject: Fw: Whangamata Reserves Management Plan : Protected Moko Skink. 

Dear Mr.Ruru, 

I am writing to you as Chief Executive to protest at the 

administrative behaviour of your staff. I say behaviour since I cannot 

judge whether this is due to incompetance, obstruction, lack of co− 

operation, or a mixture of some or all? 

This is now beyond any personal level of complaint since we are dealing 

with a failure to recognise or abide by national criminal law, namely the 

Wildlife Act − please note the content of the forwarded e−mail below, and 

not least its first sentence. 

As you can see, I wrote this by way of detailed submission almost 

eight months ago Having heard no response, not even the common 

courtesy of an acknowledgement, I contacted your Council on the 

4th March and was eventually rung back by an Alicia (Oye?) who 

assured me that "the Management Team would sort this out and 

would respond a.s.a.p." 

Another eleven weeks have elapsed and not even a postcard !! 

Whangamata is the second only population of the protected Moko Skink 

to have survived on mainland New Zealand and its killing and disturbance 

is legally forbidden. 

There is currently a belated and poorly resourced exercise underway to 

rescue Moko Skinks from habitat to be lost to the Marina development, 

but it has now been noted that their best known habitat at Whangamata 

− the causeway road bank − has just been heavily sprayed ! Presumably 

by or under contract to your Council? 

Returning to the submission content of my September e−mail, why was 

I not informed of or invited to the anticipated Hearing? 

I now await a full reply at your Council's earliest opportunity.

Yours sincerely, 

Dr.Keith Corbett, MBE., 

−−−−− Original Message −−−−− 

From: the2corbett 

To: customer.services@tcdc..govt.nz 

Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 2:46 PM 

Subject: Fw: Whangamata Reserves Management Plan : Protected Moko Skink. 

−−− Original Message −−.. 

From: the2corbett 

To: customer.services@tdc.qovt.nz 

Cc: JGaukrodger@doc..qovt.nz_ ; panderson@doc.govt.nz ; dtowns@doc.aovt.nz ; 

dcraddock@xtra.co.nz ; melinda@te−ngahere.co.nz 

Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:50 PM 

Subject: Whangamata Reserves Management Plan : Protected Moko Skink. 

Dear Sirs, 

I wish to bring to your notice the wildlife implications of 

your present consultation and for which your serious consideration 

is now sought. 

I apologise for missing your deadline (last Friday) but have hada 

deal of catching up to achieve before submitting, including a days 

site visit with herpetological colleagues once we had appreciated 

the timely significance of your current exercise. 

l strongly support your Objectives and Policies concerning 

Ecosystems & Biodiversity, and Flora & Fauna, but at the 

same time cannot see how this could be implemented for the 

Moko Skink without further targeted deliberations. Meanwhile, 

the effects of adverse management should be offset and 

minimised. 

Backg round. 

While this species (Oligosoma moco) is still 

found on those offshore islands comparitively lacking 

mammalian pests, its NZ mainland status has declined to 

near extinction. Recent urban development and inappropriate 

management has now caused the loss of 6 of its 8 such 

known localities. The 7th being recently discovered in my 

area, and the 8th being at Whangamata − here the Marina 

decision and the failure of its prior environmental assessment 

and mitigation to include reptiles is now exacerbating the situation 

This species is now officially listed as Threatened, and like all 

NZ lizards is fully protected under the provisions of the Wildlife 

Act. Thus killing or disturbance are arnongst disallowed actions 

and for which there is a 'mens rea' clause that effectively covers 

reckless cf. deliberate actions. In other words, actions and

activities which were likely to have had such effect even when 

not undertaken with that deliberate purpose. 

Our field research strongly points to the Moko's mainland 

survival being dependant on a sufficient ground vegetation to 

provide not only cover, prey, humidity, home range 'edges', etc., 

but also some protection and physical warning against the 

foraging of alien mammal predators such as the 2 species of 

rats and the 3 mustelids. Such essential refuge and habitat is 

nowadays not always provided by native vegetation, and indeed 

Kikuyu and Pampas are often key. 

With careful planning and particular attention to Moko populations, 

replacement native plantings should be established before their 

existing habitat(s) are mown down and/or sprayed. Recommended 

planting alternatives would include: 

Dienella; Gahnia; Arthropodium cirratum; Tenex cookianum; 

Muehlenbeckia complexa; Fulvida (Toe−toe). The latter isa 

useful and attractive replacement for Parnpas. Unfortunately, I 

am unable to recommend a skink friendly grass to replace 

Kikuyu, not least because of its fast growth and complex 

physical structure. The answer here is for relevant local stands 

to be high cut (c.15cms) and only ocasionally − see Hetherington 

Road below. 

Whanqamata Reserves. 

Although restorative/enhancement 

management would now appear urgent if the Whangamata 

Mokos are to be safeguarded for the future, Survey of actual 

and potential sites is crucial to guide your management options. 

The NZ.Herpetological Society may be able to provide some 

regional input and I am sure that DoC will also have useful 

contacts. Now, ie. Springtime, is the optimum period. 

HETHERINGTON ROAD*. 

Two habitat bands should be immediately restored along 

a) the north west, immediately and above the (illegally?) damaged 

salt marsh and Moana Anu Anu reserve; and b) the south west, 

parallel to and above the drainage ditch. 

In both cases, there should be at least a 5 metre strip wherein 

Kikuyu should be allowed to recover and enhancement plantings 

be initiated. 

Liaison should be set up with the adjoining industrial site wherein 

current earthworks and vegetation clearance are destroying the 

Moko and its habitat(s). The need for urgent co−operation over 

landscape planting is now obvious. 

BEACH ROAD*. 

Larger areas of potential habitat remained, especially Kikuyu 

including that covering concrete from foundations and/or tip. 

However, serious degradation was occurring via cutting and 

spraying; eg. of peripheral Kikuyu, and particularly of most

Pampas clumps. 

A compromise management regime is needed but it is noted 

that the aerial insert on P.23 actually omits much of the site 

and its habitat(s) ? If this is in fact an area to be converted 

to marina development (local talk is of an approved car park ?) 

then a prior rescue and relocation of Moko is required to avoid 

a serious breach of the Wildlife Act. ?? 

While we were only able to confirm the survival (just) of Moko 

at each of the above sites, a deterioration from survey/basking 

weather precluded other than a preliminary habitat assessment 

of two other reserve sites: 

ISLAND VIEW (SE.half) and OTAHU POINT. Both still support 

potential habitat and thus support a Moko survey to advise on 

their specific management needs. 

There appears to be lesser habitat potential along the OTAHU 

ESTUARY but it would be simple to include that area within the 

above survey. 

We were unable to assess other possible Moko sites from your 

proposed management plans: 

MOANA ANU ANU ESTUARY (both sides) as illustrated on your 

P.36.. what is the meaning of their cross hatched strips − perhaps 

tidallmangrove ? 

ONEMANA BEACH complex. 

But both sites merit Moko survey before you determine their 

management. 

Lastly, a word on the best known Moko site − the banks of HARRY 

WATT DRIVE − "The Causeway".* 

Its management presumably lies within the purvue of another T.D.C. 

roads associated department ? Whatever, its habitat management 

is haphazard and without consideration to Moko needs. Whether 

its population is self sustainable cf. dependant on the adjacent but 

now damaged Beach, Hetherington, and Casement Road habitats, 

even its rock faced refugia seem vulnerable to tidal surge and flood 

inundation. This site too should therefore be included in any 

consideration of Moko conservation at Whangamata. 

l have marked 3 sites/areas above with an asterisk* to suggest where 

DoC.might be in an equal or better position to become involved? 

Thanking you in advance for your co−operation. 

Yours sincerely, 

Keith Corbett. 

My Contact details : 

Dr.Keith Corbett, MBE 

48,Kensington Terrace, 

Gulf Harbour, 

WHANGAPARAOA,

Auckland, 0930. 

Tel. 09 424 8083. 

e−mail. The2Corbett@xtra.co. nz 

YES, I would be willing to speak in support of my submission.





Maungaraki 

Lower Hutt 

Ph 04 5864226 

Whangamata Marina Timeline 

tabled in support of Michael Gunson's submission

Whangamata Marina timeline 

(acronyms− TCDC Thames Coromande/ District Council, EWEnvironment Waikato or Waikato Regional Council, EC 

Environment Court) WCB Whangamata Community Board WMS Whangamata Marina Society 

Pre European History− "Te Matatuhi is the ancestral name of tangata whenua for the specific lands 

subject to the proposed marina, and on which moko skink have been found. Te Matatuhi is land of 

particular significance to Ngati Whanaunga. The name, including the same root word as the harbour − 

mata, refers to the black volcanic rock obsidian. Mata has long been a principle reason for my people 

residing in Whangamata, as the rock was widely sought after for its fine cutting edge. My aunties have 

told me that Te Matatuhi refers to a gathering place for the mata, and this has long been observed." 

"The wider significance of Whangamata and Whangamata harbour was expressed at the length bya 

large number of Hauraki kaumatua during both the initial hearings and Environment Court hearings for 

the Whangamata marina." 

The above being excerpts from paras 19 and 20 from Affidavit of Nathan Kennedy, Environmental 

unit of Ngati Whanaunga in support of Michael Gunson (applicant) vs The Waikato Regional 

Council, The Thames Coromandel Council, and The Whangamata Marina Society, Application for 

enforcement order, re: extermination of Oligosoma moco skink habitat.2008 

Whangamata was easily (and still is) accessible from Paeroa via customary tracks to the Harbour 

through the Wentworth valley. The Harbour was a plentiful food source (now much degraded due to 

forestry/farming sediment run off and mismanagement of the towns Waste water system) The harbour 

facilitated trade between Iwi of fish and game. Many battles have also been fought in the area, and Te 

Matatuhi is held in reverence by many Hauraki Maori, and the site is currently under claim in the land 

courts 

1948 − An 11 acre (5 hectare) block of land is given a Certificate of title, CT 918 263. This Title of 

land was carved out of a larger block CT 887 237. The block is irregular in shape as it follows an 

intertidal wetland. It seems that the land was at this time zoned for farming, 

1970s − Marina idea mooted on land owned by the Aickin Trust. The idea of a marina on this land is 

put forward (at the time) by local developer Jim Watt (responsible for the Moana Anu Anu causeway) 

and local architect Bruce Scott. Drawings are made of the proposal. It should be noted that related 

"Loss of" land sale documents are currently at the centre of an internal fraud investigation at 

TCDC. The causeway was built so Watt could build a subdivision, the engineer was Bob Tate, It 

was originally to be an open span bridge Bruce Scott was Jim Watts son in law, the first house 

built was Bruce Scott's. The idea to build a causeway was to facilitate a back wall for the 

envisaged marina 

1974 − Hetherington Rd Causeway built 

1976− Whangamata Community Board state that there is a problem with trailer boat parking at the 

local boat ramp and that the Council should see about purchasing the Aickin Block for overflow 

parking. (partly a current use). After being approached by an Auckland business man to buy the land 

for $100,000, Mrs Aickin approaches her Lawyer Mr Henry (later to go into Partnership as Harkness 

and Henry) 

1979− 15.06.79 TCDC PLACES CAVEAT ON AlCKIN LAND TO BE SOLD ONLY TO 

COUNCIL FOR RECREATIONAL RESERVE. (If land is purchased for a particular use by 

a

2 

crown agency in such a manor, then designated for another purpose, by law it must be offered back to 

original owner) 

1979 Council writes up a sales agreement with the Aickin Trust (represented by law firm and estate 

executors Harkness Henry &Co.) to buy the land for $25,000 in instalments of $5000 per year for5 

years as well as an arrangement regarding subdivision levies. Other land in the area was selling for 

over $100,000 for 1500m2 section. This land is a 5 Hectares coastal property in the middle of the 

Whangamata township. 

1985 Council owns the land. 

NB both parties to the sales agreement have "lost" the documents in the case of TCDC or "shredded" 

in the case of Harkness Henry & Co. HH&co shredded all the Aickin Trust documents without 

reference to the Trust. There is a firmly held belief that TCDC and the Aickin trust agreed that the land 

was being purchased for a community recreational reserve, (like its zoning suggested). The members 

of the Aickin Trust (it still exists) are sure it was never sold for the purpose of selling to marina 

developers. (Appendix 1: NZ Herald article) 

1986 − Construction of the reticulated waste water system, which consisted of a poorly constructed 

aeration pond(leaking raw sewage into the Moanaanuanu Estuary past the proposed marina site (+ 

wetland) and Kaimoana beds, and out across the Whangamata Bar), and spraying of under treated 

effluent into to the surrounding pine forest which drains into the Waikiki stream and then intothe 

Moana anu anu stream, past Te Matatuhi (the marina site)the pipi beds, and out over the bar.( this 

spray area size was misrepresented by TCDC in 1996 which stated the area 40 hectares when it was 

only 25.5 hectares). In 2008 TCDC is still ( consistently over estimating the spray feild area in legal 

proceedings with Clean Water Whangamata and the Surfbreak Protection Society ( non for profit 

community groups dedicated to improving the estuary's water quality) REFER 2002 

1986− 1995 and 1996−1998 Whangamata architect and future SNZ President Bruce Scott serves as 

Community Board member, TCDC Councillor, and Deputy Mayor. 

1986 Start of TCDC District Plan Review− Council begins to rezone the land from recreational 

reserve to marine activities and extra high density housing. New rules developed by TCDC in 

collaboration with planners and developers, with land not offered back to original owners as required 

by the 1977 Reserves Act, and without any community involvement. Plan becomes operative in 1992. 

1986 − Bruce Scott Architect and property developer, with John Whittle form Air Ice and Leisure Ltd. 

(Company dissolved in 2002 two weeks after approached by Paul Shanks and Grant McIntosh 

requesting to purchase shares in this fine enterprise with great potential). Four months later Estuary 

Developments started up by Ross Stewart Richard and Morgan Lusk share holders Phillip Marks 25% 

Grant Crook 25% Stewart (not Ross) 50%. B.S. and John Whittle. were also partners in Air, ice and 

Leisure 1999 Ltd. (a different commercial building) John Whittle to become area manager in 1988(for 

Whangamata, Tairua and Pauanui) for TCDC. And in 2000, service delivery manger. Their business 

was owning a commercial property which housed the engineer valuer, accountant, architect (B.S.) and 

surveyor, interesting to note that these professionals were the Marina society's, accountant, the 

surveyor is on the society's executive and the valuer is a berth holder. A great deal of TCDC's 

business passed through this building. 

1989 − DSIR report informs WCB, of which Bruce Scott is a member, and John Whittle (TCDC 

Area Services manager) that the Waste water system is failing, author Bill Vant (later to 

become chief water Quality scientist for Waikato Regional Council ) and Cooper. Vant states 

what the future will bring for the estuary if nothing is done to repair it e.g. explosion of algae

looms and uncontrollable plant growth. Nothing is done, and the deterioration of the estuary 

comes to pass. 

1991 − Bruce Wallace and Partners (principal at the time, is Bob Tate, elected to WCB in questionable 

by election1996) is contracted to investigate and Report with a plan necessary for the future growth of 

Whangamata waste water system through to end of consent 1996.(this plan never implemented) 

1991− Angela Plimmer (Maiden name Sheffield) completes baseline hydrological study of 

Whangamata Harbour. The study concludes that the now chosen site is unsuitable for a Marina, 

mainly due to flushing issues (Marina's not only cause their own pollution, but act as magnets for 

pollution from other sources. (Appendix 2: Angela Plimmers critique of Tonkin and Taylor study) In fact 

the site is the least desirable out of three in the harbour. Angela was overseas for the majority of the 

hearings and was called in, late in the hearings. Her conclusions have not been refuted by any other 

scientist. Some of her personal evidence was not admissible as matters had already been decided on. 

Please note, directly upstream from the Marina site is the sewerage pond which leaks up to 30,000 

litres of the raw stuff each day. In the future the Marina Society and TCDC will quietly shelve this 

study, but buy their own science (civil engineering, not hydrological) to further the project (Appendix 2: 

Critique of Tonkin and Taylor). Up until, and through the court process, the Marina Society had done 

no field work and use the raw data collected by Angela Sheffield, though their "modelling" gives them 

a different conclusion than Sheffield. The modelled results are what were accepted by the 

Environment Court. President of the Marina Society freely admits in a 2008 radio interview that "It was 

only ever a concept." 

1992 − District Plan becomes operative and the zoning of land changes 

frorn Recreational Reserve to Marine Activities and Extra High Density 

Housing. 

1992 − September 25th The Marina Society is formed and approaches the Council to buy the 

Aickin Trust land. Marina Society is represented by Harkness and Henry. who will remain the 

Societies legal advisers throughout the court process, 

1992 − DOC makes submissions to Whangamata Community Board on Whangamata harbour plans. 

They advise against a marina at the proposed site. (Appendix 3: DOC submission) 

1993 

− 

ENRON emblazoned helicopter sighted visiting Whangamata Farm. While Ngati Pu chiefly 

descendent David Rare is working with a historic places trust official on the Whangamata Farm, a 

helicopter with Enron insignia is seen on several occasions visiting the farm. 

1993 7th July 7th − Whangamata Farm Directors Michael George Kelly and Richard Michael Burke 

are listed as appointed directors of the Whangamata Farm on 07 07 '93. On the 3rd of August '93 both 

step down. On that day, Ira Herbert Hoell Jr of North Carolina USA, and David Kennedy Pritchard are 

appointed as Directors of Whangamata Farm Ltd. 

1993 − Forestry Research informs WCB that waste water spraying is having a negative impact on the 

forestry. Note − TCDC and its consultants systematically, and continuously, over estimate the size of 

the spray fields in the forest. 

1994 −April 4*. Heads of Agreement (HOA)between Marina Society and TCDC to sell Aitken land 

to the Marina Society. Approved by Whangamata Community Board in a motion put fonward by Bruce 

Scott and Brian Grant (WCB chair and also a Marina Society member). This original HOA was 

implemented by Marina society and TCDC officials, planners etc, WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC

CONSULTATION OR INPUT. (Appendix 4: Copy of TCDC publicly excluded meeting minutes5 

April 1994) 

4 

1994 − 1995 INSHAALAH INVESTMENTS LIMITED build Governor Heights subdivision. (west of 

the Moana anuanu point subdivision across causeway) Allowed to develop by both EW and TCDC, 

knowing that with the failing wastewater system and questionable potable water supply, more 

stresses were being laid on the towns infrastructure, and estuary. the principals of the 

INSHAALAH (Governor Heights) were Richard Mahoney, David Kennedy Pritchard, and Stuart 

Edward Pritchard. At the time EW Consent Officer for the area was Nath Pritchard. Costs of the 

subdivision were successfully EXTERNALISED for the developer in a number of ways, notably, 

was the cost of 4 water towers paid for by the rate payer at $65,000 each. Although 

Whangamata's waste water system is now in 2009, currently being upgraded, the diameter of 

the pipes coming from Moana anu anu and points west, are too narrow to cope, and must be 

replaced before further development occurs. The Marina will also be placing equivalent 

stresses on the system. No obligation has been made by the Whangamata Marina Society 

developers to "contribute" to upgrading the Waste water system, or the extra power 

transmission lines required. The Rate payers will shoulder this burden. 

The Whangamata farm previously owned by Mick Kelly is now part of a company Carolina 

Farms Ltd. Directors include David Pritchard, of the Pritchard Group, and two other directors, 

one from North Carolina in the U.S. the other director's address is given as the Channel Islands 

a U.K. tax haven. 

The Whangamata farm is one three properties listed as a company asset, making up an impressive 

block of coastal and rural land just south of Whangamata. David Pritchard has been central to many 

marina and associated property developments, Waikawa Marina (one of the country's biggest) and the 

controversial Matakana Island project. The Pritchard group emerged as victors from a breach of trust 

commercial deal between a developer Arklow Investments Ltd Vs. Far Financial Development Bank 

with the original proposal that ended up going all the way to the Privy Council. One local Maori leader 

opposed to development was Sonny Tawhiao, whose death in July 1999 was listed as suicide. 

Sonny's body had been burnt with petrol in his car, Police treated the death as suspicious, but 

were not looking for anyone else in connection with the death. This is despite numerous death 

threats against him and his family adamant that the death was not suicide. (Ref : 

http ://matakanamurder.bloqspot.com/) 

: 

The official police report suggests− Sonny took a can of petrol from the boot of his car, 

removed his green knitted top and both gumboots and set fire to them at the rear right wheel. 

Police suggest he lit the petrol first then threw the top and boots into those flames. He then 

poured petrol throughout the interior of the car and then poured petrol under the boot leading 

up to the left front door which was left slightly ajar. He then put the petrol can into his boot. 

Police say he then got into the car and lit the car on fire. Authors note: The reason for the 

inclusion of Sonny's death in this timeline is not intended to apportion blame to any party, it is 

included to demonstrate that unaccounted for motives, namely greed and influence, may have 

a part to play in undesirable outcomes. A number of people, whether by default or design, 

have profited from Sonny's demise. The purposeful extermination of the Moko skink habitat at 

the Whangamata marina site has been ignored or sanctioned by all crown agencies involved. 

The Marina society profited, the contractor that illegally sprayed was paid approx $7,000, by 

TCDC, the person who brought this to the attention of authorities (this report's author) has 

been sued nearly $50,000

5 

1995 1st May− Marina Society releases its Assessment of Environmental Effects. Forty pages 

five paragraphs dedicated to ecology. No mention of the natural springs in the wetland to be turned 

into a car park, AEE suggests that "material disposed of in the main disposal site (the wetland) will 

raise the ground above flood level and possible Greenhouse effects by a considerable margin." Pge19. 

The AEE also suggests "dredging the shellfish beds and relocating them elsewhere in the harbor." 

There is no mention of surfing, or its economic contribution to Whangamata. Apart from one or 

two genralised sentences, there is no detailed cost benefit analysis provided for the marina. Due to the 

superficial assessment of the wetland, and continued dismissal of it as a "swamp" or "unproductive 

land" the rich biodiversity including the rare Oligosoma moco skink was not accurately assessed or 

discovered by the Marina developers AEE. 

The AEE has been widely criticized for its deficiencies, by scientists and marina opponents alike. The 

AEE makes several references to the fact that the Wetland had been in filled by TCDC as part of the 

dredging of the harbor channel that took place 1986 to 1992 with the authorization of DOC. When Meg 

Graham of Forest and Bird found out about the dumping, she (Meg also has extensive contacts within 

DOC) alerted the appropriate authorities, and is adamant that DOC did not know of the dumping. The 

Authors own OIA request also finds no evidence that DOC knew of the dumping. Upon notification the 

dumping stopped immediately. The way it was portrayed in the AEE, lends weight to a notion 

consistently put forward by the Marina developers that it is nothing more than unimproved swamp 

land. A notion further advanced by WMS president Mick Kelly in a Close Up TV interview, 10* march 

2006. 

9.4 page 39 of AEE Enhancement of Existing Site Deposition of some of the dredged 

material on this land will result in better drainage to existing housing. 

Authors note: this wetland fed by natural springs and periodically inundated during phases of the lunar 

cycle "existed" prior to existing housing. Bruce Scott in his 1996 submission in support of the marina 

goes on to state on behalf of Breakers Motel (which received a special consent to build next to the 

wetland) that: 

My only concem with the site is storm water retention within the low lying areas 

surrounding the proposed development and more specifically, as agent for property 

owners Mr & Mrs D. Bunyan, whose sites are marked on the attached locality plan. 

The four sites are to be used for a motel development and their current low levels 

create concems as to storm water retention, particularly with the probability of the 

adjoining land being built up for the marina. 

Mr & Mrs Bunyan request that as supporters of the marina, a consent approval 

contains conditions which will ensure the above concern is addressed and would be 

satisfied with accepting dredged material on the site to produce a flood free 

development platform. 

The problems caused by building on aquifers are well known, heaving events are difficult to predict, 

and creating the platform may well lead to detrimental effects for surrounding properties. 

1995 − Bruce Scott retires from council, last position as Deputy Mayor, 

1995 − Local Body Elections. On Whangamata Community Board Kathryn Jury (environmentalist) 

and Bob Tate former principal of Bruce Wallace and partners are elected). Bruce Wallace and 

partners had recently completed a report citing the need to repair the failing wastewater system. 

Seven stood for six positions.The Board was dissolved straight away

1996 − THAMES COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL RUNS A SURPLUS OF APPROX 

$56,000,000 

1996 − Hearings into the Whangamata Marina Proposal held in Whangamata. 

1996 − Bruce Scott presents submissions to Waikato Regional Council on behalf of adjoining land 

and motel owners, in support of the Marina; as well as another submission on his own behalf, also 

in support (Appendix 5: Breakers Motel Submission as presented by agent Bruce Scott Architects) 

1996 − DOC (under National Party Minister Simon Upton) appoints Betty Williams to be 

a 

Commissioner on the hearing committee of the Whangamata Marina Proposal. On behalf of the 

Crown she turns the proposal down based on the relationship of Hauraki iwi to the Whangamata 

kaimoana bed. The other three commissioners are Waikato Regional Council councilors. They 

approve the marina proposal. Also, Stella Penny Waikato Conservator, strongly opposes the 

project, 

N.B. The Environment Court and the Minister for the Environment have put on a Bond, a Saltmarsh 

Plan and a Sandbar Plan as a requirement. The Bond to be valued by the WRC and the plans also to 

be approved by WRC. Even though the WRC originally gave consent without these requirements. 

1996 − DOC appeals the decision. 

1996 − December 12th. Controversial by−election. That was not a by−election. A standing committee 

election. Council Officer Farquhar announces the annulment of Jury and Tate's 1995 election, WITH 

WHOSE AUTHORITY? Questions to the legality of this procedure exist to this day. ten people stood 

for the two positions. Bruce Scott, Bob Tate elected as Community Board Members, to take the four 

members to six, some confusion introduced because of the automatic selection of councillors to 

Whangamata Community Board. under the The Local Govenment Act, this election is not allowed, but 

proceeds anyway, without full ratepayer electoral process. 

Environmentalist Kathryn Dury refuses to stand in the sham election, citing unfair democratic process. 

John Whittle as logistics coordinator nor Bruce Scott, register possible conflict of interest as business 

partners..Similar dual councillor board member relationships are not brought into question in the 

TCDC catchment. This is unique to Whangamata. During the time of Tate and Dury being stood down 

and Tate re−elected, wastewater consent was renewed with parts of the previous consent deleted with 

what the first consent could not comply with. Important to note, that without a legally working 

wastewater system a marina is not allowed to be constructed under the proposed coastal 

policy statement. 

1996 − Consent renewal granted for waste water system, although no improvements have been 

made or planned, Scott Whittle and Tate and previous WCB chairman Martin Weld are well aware of 

it's shortcomings. It should be noted at this stage Tate was not on the community Board, Tate was 

principle partner in Bruce Wallace and partners who had been aware of shortcomings of the waste 

water system. 

1996 −1997 Waste Management America and Montgomery Watson U.S.A take over the infrastructure 

and strategic asset management Of TCDC and most other NZ councils. 

1997 December 4th − from late Winter Dozens of Surfers had been complaining of serious ear 

nose, throat, chest and skin infections. thousands of crabs wash up on the shore in the 

harbour, scores dead seabirds wash up on the main beach, and the pipis were black.A 

strange Orange fungus sprouted up on moorings and other fixed structures. As a result, ata 

special meeting with Regional Council representatives, Mark Henry and Bill Vant, Thames

7 

Coromandel District Council Deputy Mayor Phil Surman, area manager John Whittle, and 

Murray Lyngaurd, strategic assets manager, attend. Also present was CEO of Health Waikato, 

Dr. Del Hood. Who stated that "this is not a health issue, it is an environmental issue." This 

was the direct result of the failing waste water system that had just been signed off six months 

previously by the contentious Whangamata Community Board of four. Coincides with dropping 

of retention pond levels, this done in order to facilitate the anticipated tourist volumes 

1997 − Department of Conservation (DOC) appeals at Waikato Regional Council hearings, and 

seeks that applications for resource consent for the Marina be declined. Also appealing are the 

Hauraki Maori Trust Board, Ngati Hako, Ngati Puu and the Whangamata Maori Committee. Over the 

years of the Court hearings Ngati Tamatera, Ngati Whanaunga also become involved. 

1998 − DOC now under National Party Minister Nick Smith, pulls out the DOC appeal. No written 

statement or reason ever given, but NZ Herald reports it was ordered to withdraw by a Ministerial 

Directive from Nick Smith. An internal memo from the DOC Conservator to the Regional General 

Manager on the 20th of Feb 1998 states that; "THE MINISTER VISITED THE SITE LATE LAST 

YEAR AND MET WITH MEMBERS OF THE MARINA SOCIETY. AFTER THAT MEETING HE 

ROVIDED THE CONSERVANCY WITH A CLEAR DIRECTION THAT A "SETTLEMENT" SHOULD 

tsE NEGOTIATED WITH THE MARINA SOCIETY AND THE APPEAL SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN." 

Despite several Official Information Requests, the actual directive from then Minister Smith, has not 

been located, although much correspondence at the time illustrates his displeasure regarding DOC 

appealing the marina. 

(Excerpt from NZ Herald: In 1998 then Conservation Minister Nick Smith instructed the 

department's Waikato conservator to withdraw as a submitter in opposition to the society's 

proposal and to negotiate an agreement on mitigation measures to protect the dotterel habitat. 

( Ruth Berry, NZ Herald 5 July 2006)) 

(Appendix 6: NZ Herald article) 

1998 − The DOC Conservator for Waikato writes a strong reply to Nick Smith explaining why Doc 

should stay in the appeals process. Nevertheless a settlement with DOC is signed by the Waikato 

Conservator by July 1998. The Conservator states that it is difficult to see this dotterel recovery project 

as true mitigation, as the construction of the marina may cause the dotterel to leave the area, or 

predators could kill them, thus relieving the society of any obligation to the recovery project. 

NB: When Nick Smith came to Whangamata (gold mining was a big issue then) and met with the 

Marina Society. Nick Smith, or TCDC for that matter, never met with any of the other parties, local Iwi 

or surfers, nationally or locally concerning Whangamata. 

1998 − Whangamata Community Board (motion put by Bruce Scott and Brian Grant) delegate's 

authority to TCDC Area Manager John Whittle to prepare and present submission on behalf of WCB 

to Environment Court. (Appendix 7: copy of WCB minutes 15 June 1998) John Whittle then hands 

delegation back to Bruce Scott in 1999 for that submission To the EC. At this time Bruce Scott is not a 

member of either the council or Whangamata Community Board, only the business partner of John 

Whittle in Air Ice and Leisure Ltd. 

1998 − Marina Society changes its Constitution − witnessed by JP Bruce Scott. These changes 

are to allow members of the Society to pay themselves.

8 

1998 −Steve Ruru appointed as CEO of TCDC in December, the job was advertised on a Friday Ruru 

was appointed on the Saturday by New Mayor Chris Lux, also principle of Richardson Real Estate 

rnember of Lobby group Resource users group Mr Ruru was educated in the USA 

1998 − 14th December Mark Henry ( Several Whangamata residents are under the impression 

that he is related to the Henry's of the lawfirm Harkness and Henry, yet to be validated) 

resource consent officer for Waikato Regional Council, admits in public meeting held at Whangamata 

service center to altering flow data sheets of sewage system to make it look like sewage system was 

working inside consent, present was elected MP Jeanette Fitzsimons, Coromandel's Waikato 

Regional council representative Evan Penny, Deputy Mayor Phil Surman, Area manager John Whittle, 

Mr Pipe Health Waikato, and 60 members of the public. Mark Henry went on to become a consent 

officer for Transpower, central North Island. 

1999 − 30th June _ 2nd Heads of Agreement between TCDC and Marina Society Strategic planning 

unit team leader recommends to Council that this revised document be approved. These documents 

include a 45 lot subdivision on the land, to be owned by the TCDC; the marina society would create 

the platform. Only the reference to this agreement as recorded in the June 1999 Order paper has 

been sighted. The Council declined to make these documents public until a request was made under 

the Official Information Act in 2007 John Whittle wrote that the council is not a developer and will the 

land to a preferred developer. Knowledgable people in Whangamata believe the developers to be 

developers of Governor Heights, who are now current committee members of the Marina Society. 

1999 − Surfing New Zealand (under President Wayne Brown) sends a submission to the 

Whangamata Community Board in opposition to Marina development. Chair of the WCB at the time 

Brian Grant, is a Marina Society member. The Board passes the submission on to the Marina Society 

without acting on it, although the letter was to the Public Authority. (Appendix 8: SNZ submission). 

1998− Local body elections, at one minute to closing for candidates' nomination for Whangamata 

Community Board, there was only four candidates. At thirty seconds before closing, Kevin Harris's 

name was put forward by Paul Shanks and Grant McIntosh. At five minutes after closing time, the 

council officer told them that there were no more candidates, and only five names were put forward for 

the six positions.(Friday 12 mid day ) in the following weeks Coastal News newspaper, it was 

announced that seven people were standing for the six positions, these two new people were not 

legitimate, as not put forward in the correct time frame..One of those persons was Russell Hunt, CEO 

of Whangamata Real Estate, and had recently registered a company called Whangamata Marine 

Brokers Ltd. Kevin Harris missed out by 54 votes 

1999− First Environment Court hearing. Jan Bartley gives evidence to E.C. as resident, but does not 

declare that he is a member of the Whangamata Marina Society. 

Jan Bartley becomes TCDC councillor by 200,makes decisions regarding sale or lease of land to 

marina society, and other points needing to be addressed under the Local Government Act. 

Bartley makes decisions regarding the marina without declaring his membership in the society. When 

it is pointed out to him, he resigns from the Marina Society, so that he can still vote. 

TCDC STRATEGIC ASSETS MANAGER MURRAY LYNGAURD CALLED BACK TO GIVE 

EVIDENCE TO THE COURT THAT THE WHANGAMATA WASTE WATER SYSTEM CAN 

FUNCTION INSIDE CONSENT REQUIREMENTS AND CAN COPE WITH THE NEW MARINA 

DEVELOPMENT(ABRIDGED) (WHICH HE DID) WITHIN TWO HOURS OF GIVING THIS FALSE 

TESTIMONY MR LYNGAURD IS SACKED, AND REPLACED BY JOHN WHITTLE WHO IN THE 

FUTURE BECOMES THE FOCUS OF AT LEAST ONE INTERNAL FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

(CONCERNING THE MARINA) AT TCDC.

At this time the Hydrologist Keith J. Caldwell for WMS is also called back to the court and admits that 

the tidal prism (reported at 0.6 in the AEE) was wrong and is actually 1.2 though even this figure was 

never peer reviewed. 

Evidence regarding this matter by Surfer Paul Shanks was considered by Judge Bollard as; 

"We were left with a clear impression that the fears raised by the witness were over−stated 

and not based on suitable reliable data," 

In following years Shanks goes on to expose illegal dumping of sewage in the Whangamata harbour 

and receives a Green Ribbon Award from Environment Minister David Benson−Pope for his work. 

1999 − Bruce Scott (future SNZ President) presents submission to Environment Court on behalf of the 

Whangamata Community Board in support of the Marina development, even though board authority 

was given to John Whittle and Scott was no longer on the Community Board. (Appendix 9: BS 

Submission) Bruce Scott and John Whittle are still business partners of Air Ice and Leisure Itd, owning 

an Office block accommodating the Accountant, valuer and surveyor for WMS. 

In neither of Scott's or Mick Kelly's submissions is any mention made of surfing or its high amenity 

value to the town 

2000 − Conclusion of Environment Court Hearings. 

2001 − Ultra Violet light system attached to waste water system, Clean Water Whangamata and 

surfers stated that the U.V. system was in wrong place at the beginning of retention pond, 

should have been placed at the exit of the pond, as the quality of effluent was way to turbid to 

deal with the "bug." This initial situation was promoted by Montgomery Watson, and peer 

reviewed and ticked by John Crawford of Opus. 

2001 − Judge Bollard of the Environment Court issues Interim Decision, declining the application 

because it does not meet the Proposed Regional Coastal Plan rules. Bollard dismissed surfers 

concerns (presented by Paul Shanks who appeared as a witness for lwi) stating that "fears raised by 

the appellants' witness were overstated and not based on suitable reliable dataL Bo||ard advises the 

Marina Society that it will need to change the rules of the Regional Coastal Plan for a consent to be 

granted. (Appendix 10: Copy of Paul Shanks submission). 

Society proceeds to do this with the Marinas Variation. No surfers' group (SNZ or other) submitted to 

the Variation. The hearings were held in Whangamata. 

2001 − Local Body Elections. Whangamata Community Board members Yvonne Walmsley and 

Brian Grant are elected TCDC Councillors. Yvonne and Brian Walmsley own the biggest Real Estate 

business in the district, Coromandel Peninsula Real Estate. (Harcourts). The votes for the 

Whangamata Community Board (candidates for Clean Water Whangamata were standing) are 

taken to be counted in Auckland by Ofsoski Electoral Services at a cost of $80.000 publishing 

the results take ten days, Why? (the results for Hauraki District Council were counted by 7pm 

on day one). the Clean team stood for WCB and TCDC posts. Wins 49.5% of total vote but only 

has one member, Dave Steele, elected to WCB. At the recount, Paul shanks and lost by 54 

votes exactly. Like Harris in previous election Shanks was standing against Brian Grant WMS 

community board Chair. 

The Whangamata water and wastewater services, previously under control of the Whangamata 

Community Board, are moved to the control of the District Council, TCDC. Whangamata Area 

manager John Whittle becomes TCDC Officer responsible for water services and also shifts to District 

Council. (takes control of storm, waste, and potable water).

10 

2002 Bruce Scott elected President of Surfing New Zealand. No further participation of SNZ in the 

submission process. 

2002 − Whangamata Community Plan adopted by TCDC. The Plan was commended by 

Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment Morgan Williams, who expressed concerns however 

over lack of implementation in his 2005 case study of the WCP. (Turning Hopes and Dreams into 

Action and Resu/ts 2005). The Plan opposed further high density subdivision and the putting of any 

more structures into the shallow Whangamata estuary. All structures built in the harbour and proposed 

to be built in the harbour have had and will have a detrimental effect on the harbour. 

2002− Regional Council delegates review of Navigational Bylaws to TCDC. Bylaws rewritten with 

input of John Whittle, legislating surfers out of the channel. By calling it a non anchorage area, which 

means no fishing diving or swimming, surfers categorised as swimmers on swimming aids. 

2002 − Change of consent for waste water, pressure from community forces council to undertake 

this change, because Clean Water Whangamata had proved that the existing plant had exceeded 

consent (over 2,000 breaches calculated from 1996 to 2002) residents were being told that aeration 

pond secure and safe. Councillor Yvonne Walmsley was reported to commerce commission as she 

was advertising properties and businesses for sale "in a town that swells to 55,000 over the summer 

period." But signed off the waste water consent that said that the peak summer population was 26,500 

She was reported to the commerce commission. A quote from the commerce commission; "although 

there may be a breach in the law, we will not taking this matter further at this stage." The size of the 

spray fields were intentionally misrepresented from 25 hectares up to 40 hectares. Refer docs from 

Montgomery Watson 1999 update on TCDC wastewater systems 

2002−Local body elections 

2004 − At the Environment Court hearings on the Marina's Variation in April 2004 the DOC lawyer (Ms 

Houghton), when asked by Judge Bollard if DOC were going to come back into the marina hearings, 

she replied that Consent was given by an earlier Minister (Mr Nick Smith). No written record of the 

directive has been found to date. 

2004 

− 

History of Fraud investigation In a casual conversation, with a Whangamata resident, Roger 

Harwood a Tairua/Pauaniu Community Board member was informed that John Anthony Whittle, 

former TCDC Area Manager for Whangamata (currently TCDC Service Delivery Manager) hasa 

financial interest in the Whangamata Marina. 

2005 Environment Court Interim Decision regarding the Marinas Variation. This time the coastal 

permit did not meet the Regional Policy Statement. The Court recommends that the Regional Council 

amends the Regional Policy Statement to suit the Marina. Marina legal teams convince the Court the 

application is within Regional Policy Statement requirements. 

2005 September− illegal clearance of mangroves, South side of causeway MITIGATION SITE 

ONE FOR THE RIGHT TO DESTROY THE WETLAND. To externalize their costs, members of the 

Whangamata marina society whipped members of the public into frenzy over the evils of the 

mangroves, they were encouraged and assisted by councilors Brian Jackson Noel Hewlett and local 

MP Sandra Goudie, members were Simon Friar(future EW councilor) Brian Grant (previous TCDC 

councilor)and Jack Wells(future WCB member) 

2005− November while Environment Court were sitting, and during the investigation of the 

illegal mangrover clearance. Rare species of indigenous coastal reptile found at site. 

Oligosoma moco skink and habitat had obviously been destroyed, Environment Waikato decline to

11 

prosecute. At the Navigation bylaws hearing 2008 Jack Wells informs Paul shanks that "when they 

were illegally clearing mangroves, they saw hundreds of them under their feet. 

" An excerpt from "Whangamata Mangrove Clearance & Saltmarsh Damage" by david Riddell of 

Kessels and associates (EWDOCS−#1042233−v1−Whangamata_Mangrove_clearance_and_salt) 

prepared for Environment Waikato): 

"2.2 Reptiles 

An apparently healthy population of Moko Skink (Oligosoma moco) is present on the 

causeway. Numerous individuals were sighted sun−basking along the causeway banks 

immediately above the cleared mangrove area. This species is confined to northern New 

Zealand and has mostly been recorded from offshore islands, with only a few known 

mainland populations in Northland, Auckland and the Bay of Plenty (Towns et al, 2002, Gill 

& Whitaker, 1996). This population had not previously been recorded (Leigh Marshall, pers, 

comm.) and must be regarded as highly significant. 

While this species was not recorded away from the causeway it has presumably been 

present in the area for a long time, pre−dating the mid−20th century construction of the 

causeway. It is therefore likely that it is more widely distributed, and at least occasionally 

makes use of surrounding vegetation areas. 

2005 Foreshore and Seabed Act passed. Part of the FSA states that all foreshore owned by Public 

Authorities reverts to the Crown. Part of the land, CT CT 918 263. is under mean high springs. As it 

is owned by TCDC, under the FSA, that area under MHS (needs to be surveyed) reverts to the Crown. 

Most of the area is required by the marina society for a carpark is that area under MHS, foreshore. It 

would seem they will now have to make a request to the Crown, DoC to occupy foreshore (or to 

purchase it, which is what they wish to do) 

2005 December− Two Environment court cases presided by Principle court Judge Bollard, one the 

marina variation on the regional coastal plan, the other grants coastal permit and land use consents to 

Marina Society. Both decisions released simultaneously. 

2006− Auckland Anniversary Weekend, Conservation Minister Rt Hon Chris Carter visits 

Whangamata, and meets all affected parties, Hauraki Maori Trust Board, Ngati Hako, Ngati Pu, 

Whangamata saltmarsh group, local surfers(12) and Whangamata Marina Society, In Nick Smiths 

1997 visit he only met th the marina society before giving DoC a clear direction to withdraw the 

departments appeal. 

2006 March 2nd Chris Carter responds to a question in the house: 

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Yes, I have a report from the Waikato Times dated 26 September 2005, 

stating that MP Sandra Goudie [National]was involved in an illegal action in clearing 

mangroves. The article states that she was not worried about possible legal action and she 

would do it again. I believe in following the law; it seems that that member does not. Authors note 

current EW Councilor Simon Friar also instigated this environmental terrorism 

March 2006− The Rt Hon Chris Carter gives his speech to the house defending his veto in that 

speech he goes on to say: "The value of this salt marsh to the area is heavily contested. Three experts 

before the Environment Court said it was valuable and one, the expert put up by the applicants, said it 

was not." Mr. Carter goes on:

"It is not I who is subverting proper process or committing a constitutional outrage, it is those like 

National MP Nick Smith who are now seeking to take the extraordinary step of retrospectively 

changing the law to allow this proposal to proceed. 

Just what is Nick Smith's interest in this matter? 

His own involvement in it in the 1990s as Minister of Conservation is very murky indeed. 

12 

He has made a great deal noise about the fact that the Department of Conservation did not take part 

in the Environment Court proceedings on the marina proposaL 

But what he has not told the people of New Zealand is that DOC was opposed to the marina because 

of its environmental impacts and lodged an appeal against the Waikato Regional Council's approval of 

it in 1997. 

it was only after pressure on DOC by its minister that the department withdrew its appeal and settled 

with the Marina Society. The minister at the time was of course none other than Nick Smith. 

l challenge him to make it clear to this House today why he pressured DOC to withdraw from the 

process, and exactly how he was fulfilling his responsibility to the public on whose property this marina 

was to be built." 

2006− (Fraud investigation history) in his capacity as an elected official of the Tairua/Pauanui 

Community Board Roger Hanuood was told on two separate occasions that Mr. Whittle hasa 

pecuniary interest in the Whangamata marina development. After hearing Mayor Barriball on local 

radio & national TV criticizing Conservation Minister Chris Carter's decision to halt the said Marina, 

while praising the proposed development. along with the fact that TCDC reserve adjacent ,has been 

sold to the Marina Society, leads mr Harwood to believe something suspect had been, & still is, going 

on. 

October 2006 − High Court overrules Chris Carter. Chris Carter passes decision to Benson Pope. 

December 2006− The Rt Hon David Benson Pope, Environment Minister overturns The RT Hon Chris 

Carter's Veto over marina project, but adds stringent conditions to the consents. including monitoring 

of the world famous Whangamata Bar. The minister still held the discretion to maintain the Veto, The 

Rt Hon Chris Carter along with many other Labour Party members, surprised at DBP's decision. 

2007 13th January−HiStory of fraud investigation. Roger Harwood emailed John Anthony Whittle,& 

the TCDC CEO Stephen Ruru,& her Worship The Mayor, Phillipa Barriball asking them directly if they 

,or any company or organization they may belong to have a pecuniary interest in the 

Whangamata Marina Development. 

2007 15th January−History of fraud investigation. TCDC CEO Steve Ruru replies to Mr Harwood's 

email with a "No." 

2007 17th January− History of fraud investigation. Whittle replies asking for specifics & the names 

of whom Mr Harwood had heard of it?

13 

2007 26th January− History of fraud investigation. after an email ping pong game Whittle claims " If 

I thought I was involved in something in which I had a pecuniary interest I would declare it to my 

employer (Ruru) at the appropriate time" He then goes on to ask Mr Harwood to reveal his sources. 

After two attempts, email & letter no answer forthcoming from Philippa Barriball, Although a letter from 

Ruru referring to Mr Harwood's emails, informing him of some of the process to follow is received. 

2007 February 21"− History of fraud investigation TCDC CEO Ruru informs Harwood by mail that 

due to his allegations he is instigating an internal Fraud investigation, thereby preventing Harwood 

discussing this matter with anyone but them. He also sends Harwood a copy of the TCDC fraud policy 

& the penalties for withholding Council information..Two days previous Harwood had emailed Ruru 

pressing for action. 

2007 4th March− History of fraud investigation still no denial of pecuniary interest, Harwood makes 

an Official information request. 

March 2007− Marina Society has broken three conditions of consent. They are: 

members and supporters of the marina society clear saltmarsh mitigation site in a manner 

totally against that agreed to in the Environment Court. 

Put a drilling probe on to the foreshore without going through the protocols outlined in the 

Decision of the Environment Court. 

The marina society had to give to Environment Waikato and lwi represeantives a Draft 

Management Plan and a Contaminant Contingency Plan by 18 March 2007. 

No consent requested of marina applicants under the RMA, section 12(1)(e) by consent 

administrating authority EW regarding the discovery of an absolutely protected species habitat, 

Oligosoma moco skink. The 

To date in all three cases, no known action has been taken by Environment Waikato, The Minister for 

the Environment said that these Conditions were stringent. Comment; They aren't if you do 

not have to abide by them. 

March 2007 − The Drilling probe, which had won its non notified consent within three working 

days, "discovers" an aquifer in the area to be dredged for the Marina. The aquifer originates in the salt 

marsh that is to be turned into a car park. The WMS decide not to continue geotech survey into the 

wetland, (the consent allowed for seven drill site locations, four of which are in the wetland) stating 

that they have all the information they need. 

The marina consent only allows for dry dredging, so as to contain the toxic sediments from polluting 

the rest of the estuary. 

The Marina Society have since stated that they will not be seeking new consents, or variations. During 

the Environment Court hearings, The Marina Society put forward an ecologist, Graham Don from Bio 

researches Ltd who stated "without human intervention the salt marsh will dry up of its own 

accord. " This assumption was readily accepted by the court. The Wetland is feed by two fresh water 

springs, and periodically (during the lunar cycle) inundated with salt water. this dynamic mix, has led to 

the rich biodiversity in this Area of Significant Conservation Value(ASC V) COMMENT; As yet no 

evidence of flow rates of this aquifer (under car park and marina basin area) have been 

released, especially under high rainfall periods. the report's author points this out as a 

shortcoming of the inadequate AEE readily accepted by the Environment Court.

14 

2007 12th March− History of fraud investigation CEO Ruru requests precise nature of allegations 

and wants Harwood to name sources. 

April 2nd 2007 A request is made under the Official Information Act for land sale purchase agreements 

between the Thames Coromandel District Council and the Whangamata Marina Society, particularly 

the 2nd heads of agreement, which to date had not been released to the public (documents were not 

forthcoming, and took the intervention of the Ombudsmen's office to obtain the majority of documents 

requested on 19 − 07−07) 

The original Heads of Agreement had lapsed, and the 2nd heads of agreement was never ratified. 

The Marina Society did not own or lease the public land it had won consents for up to David Benson 

Pope's decision. 

April 10th 2007 Marina Society President Mick Kelly writes letter to TCDC formally requesting to lease 

the proposed site. (it has been pointed out on many occasions that secret meetings between TCDC 

and WMS have occurred without minutes taken) A Council cannot remain impartial if it prioritizesa 

strategic relationship with a business sector over the community it serves. 

April 16th 2007 

− 

Surfbreak Protection society members and Brad Scarf, a coastal processes scientist 

hold first meeting with Environment Waikato to outline just what is needed to conduct a thorough Bar 

Monitoring program (you have to understand initial conditions before construction begins) Including 

variables such as peel angle of the wave, and breaking intensity 

May 1" 2007 reply to Mick Kelly from John Rich, Community services manager, stating that : because 

WMS are a "non profit" incorporated society, the rent under council lease policy will only be $350 per 

year(prices of these berths have been listed on trademe up to $249,000 and it is understood that 

some members are multiple[many} berth holders and the initial price for these berths were $36,000) 

History of fraud investigation− on this day Harwood phones Pam Howat (Group Manager Support 

Services) she confirms an investigation is being conducted..Harwood receives email from her that 

unless he supplies more proof or name names, (he has 7 days) they "will complete their investigation 

into this matter." 

May 4th 2007− History of fraud investigation. Again Hanuood asks the simple question; "Does he or 

doesn't he have pecuniary interest"? I quote TCDC's 2006 Fraud Policy " Members & staff need to 

be conscious of possible conflicts of interest and if required ,declare those interests so they can be 

addressed appropriately" 

June 3rd 2007 Whangamata Marina Society holds closed to the public AGM.(most societies AGM's 

are open to the public). Excuses for delays put forward, no mention of aquifer recorded. 

21 June 2007 History of fraud investigation. Investigation continues Ruru claims he needs more 

information from Harwood. 

June 2007− memorandum of understanding struck with TCDC regarding failing sewage system 

After years of conflict regarding Clean Water Whangamata, Surfbreak Protection Society opposing the 

inadequate proposed upgrade from TCDC, major gains by community with a MOU signed off through 

mediation at Environment Court. The concessions gained are: 

− Increasing the capacity of the primary treatment by more than 50% 

− Spray heads were moved further away from residential properties 

− Tightening the resource consent so that the council has to comply more stringently 

− A geo−technical investigation on the existing leaking pond with an obligation to remedy any problems

15 

− Increasing the frequency of stream monitoring in key times, allowing quicker identification of 

problems 

− Monitoring and upgrading the pump stations, which should reduce the frequency of sewage spills in 

town 

− Ensuring that tree health will be monitored, to reduce the risk of ratepayers having to pay 

compensation to the foresters 

− Ensuring that extra retention ponds and all denitrification beds are put in during the initial 

construction period, and not just some time in the future 

− Decreasing the rate of irrigation to forestry trees, changing the decision process of when to allow 

irrigation, and adding of riparian planting, which will all substantially reduce the chance of overland or 

underground flow and hence harbour contamination 

4 July 2007− History of fraud investigation. Harwood requests all information forwarded to the 

Office of the Auditor General by TCDC, as per Council policy "If any doubt occurs regarding Conflicts 

of Interest." 

19 July 2007− History of fraud investigation. Ruru informs Harwood the investigation team have 

concluded " No conflict Of interest or no serious wrongdoing has been committed" He confirms no 

correspondence on this matter between TCDC & the OAG. 

20th August 2007− attempt to externalize costs Marina Society president Mick Kelly writes to TCDC 

deputy CEO John Rich regarding a letter to Mick Kelly from TCDC Senior planner Peter Wishart. 

Wishart recommended Kelly writes to Rich requesting Council shoulders 60% of dredging costs. In 

another letter to Rich dated 3" of October 2007 Mick Kelly estimates the approximate the cost to the 

council to be about $72,000. As yet council intentions on dredging costs are unknown. 

September 2007−Surfing New Zealand AGM Attempt to hold SNZ executive accountable over poor 

governance issues under Bruce Scott by Surf Taranaki and other North Island clubs fails, because of 

illegal use of proxy voting (manipulation of South Island clubs. Although a judicial review finds in the 

favour of North Island clubs Scott maintains his hold at SNZ largely due to the ignorance, and 

pampering of the south island clubs. Surfing New Zealand holds little respect in the wider surfing 

community. The Incorporated society has in effect been hijacked by special interest business groups. 

September 2007− Leaking sewage pond. TCDC gain Non notified consent to allow leaking sewage 

pond a lease to do so for a further 35 years a complete backflip on the MOU signed in June with 

concerned community groups. Concerns raised that the inability to fund the much needed upgrades 

are linked to the misrepresentation of the towns ability to cope with the marina development as 

reported to the Environment court by previous TCDC CEO Murray Lyngard. 

September 2007− Firth concrete apply and receive a non notified consent to discharge 1,000 liters of 

sludge into the moanaanu anu estuary every day (up to 20,000 liters at any one time. Firth, a major 

supplier to the marina project. 

September 24th 2007 − attempt to breach the incorporated Societies 1908 posted on 

Trademe.co.nz 

Under the Act members are not allowed to profit from an incorporated society, after complaints to the 

Companies office the reply was that while a breach may have taken place, the fines involved (not 

updated since 1908) would not warrant the time taken to prosecute. 

Comments on this auction

So your asking $150,000 for a berth that you have paid $36,000 for ? postedby: ~auriem (146 

9:32 pm, Mon 24 Sep 

Yep & they've been selling for more than that too! ! 9:40 pm, Mon 24 Sep 

16 

28 September 2007− History of fraud investigation. Harwood receives a letter from the Privacy 

Commissioner, after a complaint from Whittle, requesting all relating information. Harwood replies in 

confidence to the commissioner on the 8th of October. 

October 11* 2007 After complaints about speculative nature of berth sites that do not exist (by 

members of a nonprofit incorporated society) yet. Trademe remove listings. 

6th November 2007− History of fraud investigation. Privacy Commissioner informs Harwood it 

more appropriate for them to contact TCDC for more information about this issue. 

November 8th 2007− Marina Society calls for Tenders in Coastal News. Gives as proposed start of 

Construction January 2008, without following proper procedure regarding consent process. 

3 December 2007− History of fraud investigation. Ruru "Strongly advises " Harwood to provide 

information sought by Whittle. 

12 December 2007− History of fraud investigation. Harwood phones The Privacy Commissioner( 

Dawn Swan ) Where he is informed names can remain in confidence. 

18 January 2008− History of fraud investigation. Letter received from Privacy Commissioner must 

supply all information requested less names. 

January 2008− History of fraud investigation. Harwood has phone conversation with local media 

representative who then phones Mick Kelly (Whangamata Marina Society Chairman) & asks if Whittle 

has a marina berth? He is told a definite no. The very next day the media rep. receives a call from 

Whittle asking where he received his information. 

Date − 2nd meeting of Surfbreak with EW? 

Date − Marina Society submits Landscape Plan to Affected Parties (lwi). The Plan is altered from 

original version submitted to EC, including an administration building that initially was only 50 square 

meters, now 1500 square meters, and also a proposed fuel station inside a residential area, 

which in times of flood is under water. 

26th of Jan 2008 − Karl Arsen and Brad Scarf, coastal processes scientists representing the Surfbreak 

Protection Society, meet with members of the Whangamata Marina Society to discuss what the 

Marina society believe is adequate hydrographic mapping of the world famous Whangamata bar. Karl 

and Brad believe that a more precautionary approach is needed, requiring a more detailed bathymetric 

baseline study, with an initial survey over several seasons. Brad and Karl will be reporting back to the 

Consent Administrators (Environment Waikato ) with their concerns. 

7* February 2008 − at the Whangamata Community Board (WBC), held a public meeting. One item 

concerned the lease of TCDC land (about 3 hectares of coastal land) to the Whangamata Marina

17 

Society (WMS) During the Public Forum of the WCB meeting some speakers spoke to this item and 

some tabled letters. A representative from Ngati Puu gave their perspective. Next Surfbreak Protection 

Incorporated, concerned of the effects on the Whangamata Bar. The Small Boat Association then 

spoke of concerns over the effects on the hard sand boat ramp and access channel. 

A user of the existing Water ski lane spoke to the meeting concerned over where would the lane be 

moved to, and do the community have input? (Again it should be noted the original Heads of 

Agreement was signed off between council, policy and planning officers and marina society 

supporters, without any public consultation) The ski lane user said that presently it was a safe 

place to take families and teach them to ski. The Whangamata Area Manager mentioned that he had 

received three emails on this subject from Iwi groups previous to the meeting. The Chief Executive of 

TCDC (there were no Marina Society members stating their case) gave a Powerpoint Presentation 

called "Whangamata Marina Land". Interjections were made stating bias by the council for the project. 

The granting of a lease now falls under the auspice of the Local Govemment Act, and is open to public 

input. More meetings and public consultation is now required. 

11 Feb 2008−. History of fraud investigation. Quote from Privacy commissioner "In the limited 

circumstances of this case, it appears that you have proper grounds to maintain the confidentiality of 

those individuals and withhold their identities from Mr. Whittle. However if your enquires were not to do 

with Mr. Whittle's suitability for employment, then section 29(1)(b) may not apply." This means Ruru& 

Whittle erred in their assertion that They were not accountable to Harwood unless he named his 

sources. This Issue has become a compelling Case for the High Court, Harwood states that If he had 

the time or money he would dearly like to pursue the matter. 

Direct quote "Our Coromandel & her People deserve far better." 

12th Feb 2008 − The Marina Society amend their construction plans, They now say they will now. n_ot 

build a rock lined canal from the marina basin to past the boat ramp. They still intend to build a canal 

through the kaimoana bed. They still reserve their "right" to build a complete canal. It is a large 

variance to Baseline Consent Documents. The reason given at the hearings for a rock lined wall canal 

was to keep the walls from falling in. 

13th Feb 2008 − Environment Waikato report that they will accept the Marina Society's Monitoring 

plan. 

12th May 2008 Without informing Hauraki Maori, BioReaserches Ltd (private science for hire firm 

under instruction from the Marina Society) and with tacit approval from DOC go in to the Wetland and 

recover (to translocate) Oligosama moco Skink in winter months, while the skink are burrowed deep 

in the root systems of plants The skink preferred the introduced Pampas grass. 

The Pampas grass had coincidently been undergoing a rigorous extermination program by the 

Thames Coromandel District Council in the area. This consisted of target spraying of the pampas 

grass in the wetland and along the causeway, despite the protests and pleadings of Dr Keith Corbett 

M.B.E. for over 12 months. 

DOC contacted several members of the New Zealand Herpetological Society in Hauraki to assist with 

the holding, and soon after the capture, and were then rapidly drawn to the process as volunteers to 

recover as many skink as they could before the bulldozers moved in. Winter is the worse time to do 

this, as most skink are hibernating deep underground. By destroying the Pampas grass and thereby 

exposing remaining skink to predators only a small fraction of the colony was salvaged. On The 

capture and translocation of skink, The Herpetological Society newsletter of October 2008 (available 

at most libraries, or joining the Herpetological Society ) refers to it as "a bit of a fiasco." And ; "Done 

with unacceptable haste."

A 

Di 

S 

be 

n~ 

d 

0 

P 

C 

e; 

rr 

s 

M 

O1 

f 

C 

t 

t~ 

t' 

t 

tt 

C 

C 

C 

t1 

l 

i 

I 

The Marina society state that they only new about the skink in February 2008 yet evidence 

suggests that they knew of them in Feb 2007 (aside of the reports of them running around 

underfoot during the illegal mangrove clearance of 2005. 

18 

16th May 2008 Hauraki Maori Trust board and Surfbeak Protection Society Representitives attending 

a 

meeting with DOC in Regard to lease or sale arrangements of Crown land to the Marina Society are 

informed in the closing moments of the presence of Mokomoko Skink in the Whangamata salt marsh, 

the relaying of this information has been reported as given almost as an afterthought. The Mokomoko 

Skink's threat classification is considered "sparse" and this is only one of three known VIABLE 

colonies on the mainland. 

It now transpires that in October 2005 DOC was informed of the Mokomoko discovery, while the 

Environment Court was still deliberating the Marina Society's Application. At this time, DOC were 

still operating under the previous Minister's (Nick Smith) clear direction that a settlement 

should be negotiated with the Marina Society, and the appeal withdrawn. 

The history of this discovery raises implications that are now being raised with DOC, EW, TCDC and 

.−~, the Marina Society's Ecologist, Graham Don, from Bio Researches Ltd. In 2001, Graham Don 

,L~ Wconvinced the Environment Court that without human intervention this salt marsh would probably dry 

up of it's own accord. This has now been shown to be false, as natural springs in the marsh sustain it, 

and with periodic inundation of saltwater through the lunar cycle, leads to a dynamic richness of 

biodiversity in this wetland. 

y 

1" of June Queens Birthday Weekend. After being informed of the rare discovery, a Wellington 

surfer (Michael Gunson) and associate travel to Whangamata and document the extent of the habitat. 

In the mid day heat sightings and sign of skink are evident, along the Hetherington Rd Causeway, and 

at the waters edge of the Wetland. Photos are taken,and concern of a slight browning of tips of 

vegetation is noticed at the skink habitat, a sign of recent weed spraying. 

1" of July 2008. Hauraki Iwi groups occupy "marina car park" site. The boundary of the wetland. For 

eighteen days until assurance is received from Environment Minister Trevor Mallard that he would 

review the consent process. (during this time Nanaia Mahuta member for Hauraki−Waikato, Labour 

Party visits site and appears genuinely concerned and reports back to Trevor Mallard ) Despite many 

drive bys by a dedicated clichē of Marina society supporters vocalizing abuse, the majority of 

Whangamata residents indicate support, and are warmly welcomed to the site to discuss concerns. 

Wellington surf riders club secretary Michael Gunson and associate retum for occupation and the 

extent of the weed spraying is obvious. Photo documentation undertaken. The spraying was done 

away from the roadside, targeting the indigenous coastal reptiles habitat down to the waterline.The 

spraying was not targeted, this time it is a blanket coverage. During the occupation contact is made 

with Dr Keith Corbett M.B.E.(expert in Herpetology) who had been studying the habitat for nearly 

twelve months and had made repeated requests to the Thames Coromandel District Council to STOP 

targeted spraying of the area, but to no avail. 

Mid July− Upon returning to Wellington research proves that spraying of habitat could not have been 

the usual mix of RoundupTM with a little dash of ContactTM or equivalent. 

It was obvious that a massive amount of Metsulfuron Methyl (what is found in ContactTM) used for 

killing gorse and other hardwoods had been used. Metsulfuron Methyl is eco−toxic, corrosive on skin, 

eyes and respiratory systems, at various doses is lethal to trout, ducks, and advised that cows should 

not graze for up to three days later. In the middle of winter, no other compound could have led to such 

a "ground zero impact" The Absolutely Protected Species, Oligosoma moco skink habitat had been 

purposefully targeted.

22 

Later that evening Gunson learns that The alleged sprayer turns out to own the majority of equipment 

on site, his family owns the registered office of the marina society and Connell is also a preferred 

contractor to TCDC." He was read the rules and will refrain from spraying in that manor in the future," 

The Court found in favour of the respondents, you do not need a consent to destroy an 

absolutely protected species habitat, nor do you need wildlife permits. 

Since the spraying, No skink have been seen on the south or north side of the causeway, the south 

side has been exposed to predators, as has the north side, the North side has has been cut off from 

coastal waters(food source) as has the wetland, which is now nearly fully converted into a car park, 

and readied for High density housing. 

29* January 2009 

− 

TCDC CEO STEVE RURU INITIATES ANOTHER INTERNAL FRAUD 

INVESTIGATION to see if Simon Berry, (Lawyer for TCDC) Peter Wishart, (planner for TCDC) 

Allan Matheson (consultant planner) were involved in a "loss" or cover up of the purchase of 

the Aickin block property file− PARTICULARLY IN RELATION TO SALES AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT INFORMATION THAT 

WOULD SHOW OUT OF WHICH COUNCIL BUDGET FUNDS HAD BEEN ALLOCATED FOR 

LAND PURCHASE. 

THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE CAVEAT PLACED ON THE LAND IN 1979 DESERVES FURTHER 

INVESTIGATION. 

February 2009− serious spinal injury on construction site, outside of OSH regulations, worker in tractor 

bucket. 

February 2009− Questions raised over council land used by adjacent councilors farm stock 

without a formal lease agreement, councilor Dirk Sieling attempts to pocket $40,000 for 2008 

New Years eve blues festival. Reported February 2008 on Kool fm. Many ratepayers demanding 

answers. 

April 2009 Kool FM reports TCDC receive a letter from the Whangamata Marina developers that 

"threatens" TCDC to pursue purchase of land with all the determination that the society used in their 

judicial review of Chris Carters Veto. The decision to lease rather than sell was made by council after 

the proactive actions of the local community wishing to retain the land within the community. The 

marina developers use the argument that the Heads Of Agreement was a legally binding document. It 

was originally conceived behind closed doors without public input, only agreed to by the marina 

developers and council officers, and of course, Mr Bruce Scott the current President of SNZ. 

The letter was written to TCDC CEO Steve Ruru the reply was from John Whittle "Yes you have 

agreed to a lease, but this does not negate you from pursuing purchase of the land. 

In 1996 TCDC ran a surplus of 56 million dollars. today it runs a deficit in excess of 120 million dollars 

and faces some of country's steepest rate rises. 7 percent a year increases since 1992

Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamling ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?