Concerns raised after Tūpuna Maunga Authority board members kept in dark over failed Supreme Court Appeal bid
This article includes a media release issued by the Respect Mt Richmond Ōtāhuhu maunga tree protection group. It is reprinted here with their permission.
Official information requests have revealed significant concerns raised by Tūpuna Maunga Authority members and Auckland Council's Chief Executive over unsanctioned legal actions taken by the Authority's Chairperson and a senior official.
This follows a High Court judicial review decision that set aside a non-notified resource consent to fell 278 non-native trees on Ōtāhuhu Mt Richmond - almost half the trees on the reserve. The judicial review was initiated by Ōtāhuhu resident Shirley Waru, who crowd-funded to pay for it.
Within days of receiving the decision, an appeal application was lodged to the Supreme Court without the other 11 TMA board members even being informed about the High Court's decision much less having any say in whether or not they supported appealing. There is a four-week appeal application deadline, which allowed plenty of time to advise the TMA board of the decision and seek their approval or otherwise regarding an appeal.
The Supreme Court subsequently refused the Authority's request for leave to appeal. However, an appeal application lodged with the Court of Appeal still stands.
Ms Waru says such cynical behaviour makes a mockery of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority co-governance arrangement: "This isn't co-governance; this is no governance."
Questions Honour the Maunga would like answers to
- Has the TMA Chairperson ever been formally delegated the authority to initiate significant and contentious legal action on TMA’s behalf (e.g. appeal to the Court of Appeal) without either informing or consulting with the other 11 TMA members? Are there documents / minutes confirming this delegated authority?
- Who is funding the judicial decision appeals – Auckland Council (=ratepayers) or TMA (=ratepayers)?
- Why are TMA members not insisting on voting on the decision to appeal to the Court of Appeal given that not insisting on a vote implies tacit approval of the move to appeal without any consultation with members?
- How is allowing this to happen an example of good governance - much less good co-governance?
- Published meeting minutes show TMA meetings are becoming increasingly poorly attended to the extent that the scheduled September hui lapsed for want of a quorum. Why is this?
"As has been seen with two judicial reviews, a months-long occupation of Ōwairaka, and overwhelming feedback during public consultations, Aucklanders have made it abundantly clear they do not want Tūpuna Maunga Authority to rid the maunga of non-native trees.
"The Authority has consistently ignored us and now one member and an official appear to be circumventing proper governance processes and ignoring the Authority's board too.
"It speaks volumes that the TMA and Auckland Councils' media teams were informed about the judicial decision and subsequent appeals when 11 of the TMA's 12 members were not," says Ms Waru.
"Such an approach significantly undermines the authority of the TMA's 11 other members. It begs the questions of what purpose they are actually serving and how can they do the right thing by those who they represent if they're not even being given a say in relation to a highly contentious legal appeal that is being paid for by ratepayers.
TIMELINE
Friday 31 May 2024: High Court decision is delivered, which sets aside the non-notified resource consent.
3-7 June: Auckland Council and Tūpuna Maunga Authority media liaison personnel are made aware of the High Court decision and discuss the matter.
7 June (only 5 working days after High Court judgment): TMA applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
21 June 2024: TMA applies for leave to Appeal to the High Court.
24 June: TMA Deputy Chair Toni Van Tonder emails senior TMA official expressing concern at the complete lack of information provided to board members, stating: "It has been nearly a month since [the judgment was delivered] and members are fielding public queries with no information." Several other TMA members also email similar concerns around this time.
25 June: Toni Van Tonder emails again, expressing concern that the appeal applications to both courts were filed without the Authority Members' knowledge or consent. She goes on to say she thinks this reflects poorly on the Authority's governance processes.
26 June: Auckland Council Chief Executive Phil Wilson emails Authority members and key officials and expresses significant concern about the process followed and the lack of consultation with Authority members. He requests that no further public funds be expended unless the matter is properly resolved by Authority members.
Late June / early July: Several TMA members request an urgent meeting to discuss the matter.
29 July (nearly two months after the judicial decision was delivered): The matter is discussed at a workshop, from which the public is excluded, but no vote is taken to authorise either of the appeals.
24 September 2024: The Supreme Court denies Tūpuna Maunga Authority leave to appeal the High Court decision and awards costs to Shirley Waru.
The Court of Appeal application still stands despite no vote having been taken.