by Geoffrey Churchman

The leaflets that had been circulated in the District by concerned people, and maybe our post, about this Council-appointed panel’s notions on ‘Managed Retreat’ had the effect of achieving a big turnout at the Raumati Beach Bowling Club on Saturday 29 July.

Although the previous CAP public meetings have achieved very little consultation with affected property owners — for example, there were 30 people for Waikanae and Paraparaumu combined at the Otaihanga Boating Club — the percentage will have improved somewhat with this. The official capacity of the hall is 200 and it must have been close to that.

This is the video of the comments made by both panel members and the public as recorded by Karl Webber:

Here is the absurdity being pushed by Leftists/Globalists:

Tide gauges measure relative sea level, which is the height of the water relative to the height of the land. 

A spokesperson for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has said that sea levels have risen by between about 68 mm and 105 mm in Sydney Harbour between 1914 and 2007. “Global rates of change range from 1.4 mm/yr (between 1901 and 1990) to 3.2 mm/yr (between 1970 and 2015), while estimates of sea level rise within Sydney Harbour range from 0.73 – 1.13 mm/year (between 1914 and 2007), slightly less than the global average,” the spokesperson said.

We don’t have data for Kapiti but there is data for Wellington Harbour nearby.

This chart comes from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level website and gives figures in mm from the mid 1940s to the present. It can be seen that average sea level has risen a little in that time, but not by anything close to justifying the fear-mongering that the Climate Cult indulge in. Basically the rise overall, inclusive of dips from time to time has been about 100 mm (4 inches) over 75 years or an average of 1.3 mm a year.

It’s obviously nothing to worry about.

https://psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/221.php

But… Mr Bolger thinks it is; why?

These are points that can be made in answer to that question:

• if you use Al Gore-style alarmist predictions you will get extreme results and CAP does. It shows CAP’s commitment to ‘managed retreat’ — why else use the scenario that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have deemed “implausible”
• this has also resulted in CAP creating an adaptation area that includes thousands and thousands of homes and businesses that are being affected by this extremism
• you have to ask yourself — why use that science if you were not committed to a predetermined outcome?
• this is reflected in CAP’s community engagement in Raumati — when CAP was questioned, Mr Bolger accused the 200 people of ‘reading conspiracy theories’
• the entire workshop was set up with questions that were geared to get the outcome of ‘managed retreat’
• this shows a total disconnect between CAP and the community
• the process is flawed and CAP and Council are very aware of it — this is presently KCDC’s flagship project, yet if the Raumati meeting is anything to go by its very clear that there is very little confidence in the process
• to further this frustration, Mr Bolger’s behaviour in that meeting of bullying and intimidating members of the public (see Bede Laracy’s e-mail to the Mayor below) — also demonstrates that the Chair of CAP has no interest in a genuine discussion regarding CAP’s process, decision-making: he already knows what he wants, managed retreat
• the Mayor has received several complaints about Mr Bolger’s behaviour and attitude. The previous Mayor personally chose Mr Bolger for the job and his then deputy continues to support Mr Bolger.
• does this indicate that the current Mayor sits easy with Mr Bolger’s intimidation and bullying of her constituents?
• the current Mayor’s pro-forma response to those individuals that have registered their concerns regarding Mr Bolger’s behaviour contains the line: “We have met with the Chair [Jim Bolger] and have reminded him ogf the need to be neutral.”

The e-mail from Raumati Community Board chair Bede Laracy to the Mayor:

From: Community Board Member Bede Laracy <Bede.Laracy@kapiticoast.govt.nz>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 5:01 PM
To: Mayor Janet Holborow <Janet.Holborow@kapiticoast.govt.nz>; Darren Edwards <Darren.Edwards@kapiticoast.govt.nz>; Kris Pervan <Kris.Pervan@kapiticoast.govt.nz>
Cc: Councillor Sophie Handford <Sophie.Handford@kapiticoast.govt.nz>; Community Board Member Jonny Best <Jonny.Best@kapiticoast.govt.nz>; Community Board Member Tarn Sheerin <Tarn.Sheerin@kapiticoast.govt.nz>; Community Board Member Tim Sutton <Tim.Sutton@kapiticoast.govt.nz>

Subject: Re: Takutai Kapiti in Raumati

Hi Janet, Darren, and Kris,By now you will no doubt have been briefed on the Takutai Kapiti meeting in Raumati on Saturday.

We had around 200 people attend, and a good robust dialogue throughout.

Staff did a great job of assisting with the facilitation of the meeting and as a Board we were happy with the way things went.

However, I wish to raise a complaint regarding the conduct of the Chair, Jim Bolger.

We view this matter as serious and we wish to see an outcome or resolution to our complaint.

The purpose of this meeting was for the Panel to listen, not to inform, and people were encouraged to share their views.

It’s fair to say that we have a range of views on issues within the Raumati community, and there is no shortage of people willing to share those views.

The meeting on Saturday was no exception, and we heard very strong views including anti-climate change views, a total distrust of the Takutai process, and a call for the removal of the Chair.

These views are well outside the current orthodox.

Nevertheless, they are people’s genuinely held views, and they have a right to hold them and a right to express them.

And it was entirely within the scope of the process for people to voice even their most extreme views at Saturday’s meeting.

However, Jim Bolger clearly did not take the same view.

A speaker shared a view that suggested managed retreat was the default for the process.

Mr Bolger took the microphone to try and assure people that was not the case.

A number of us agree that his approach did more harm than good as it changed the tone of the meeting.

A woman on the next table then took the microphone, and she had strong views against the entire motivation for the process.

Mr Bolger started to move toward the speaker, and people became very concerned.

As I was standing close by I approached Mr Bolger, put my hand out, and asked him not to approach the speaker.

I then backed away and the speaker herself addressed his conduct.

Mr Bolger then moved to the side of the table, and he had interactions with others who were seated.

One of them then called me over and asked that I stop him from standing over participants. By that time Mr Bolger had moved away.

My concerns about Mr Bolger’s conduct are shared by the Raumati Community Board members, as well as others I have spoken to since the meeting.

Where people have been invited into a process and asked to provide their views, the job of the panel is to listen to them.

Moving in on a person speaking an unfavourable view was a direct act of intimidation, and it was intended to ensure that the views were not aired.

We do not accept that such an action was justifiable.

We view the action as bullying, we do not condone the action at any level, and we wish to raise a formal complaint on that basis.

Going forward we have concerns about Mr Bolger’s involvement in this process.

We understand that he is a man with vast experience in politics and he would generally have much to offer.

However, his experience works against him in this situation as someone with his experience should know better.

The fact that he chose to act as he did suggests that either he is so used to bullying people that he has normalised it, or he has reached the point whereby he can no longer uphold the standard of conduct that should reasonably be expected of a man of his stature and experience.

Either way, it is hard to have confidence that our people will be safe in any future process where he is present.

Speaking on my own conduct, having seen a video recording of the meeting, I am disappointed in my own response as it was not sufficiently firm given the situation.

We would like a clear response to this complaint.

We understand there is already a move from some sectors to remove Mr Bolger.

We have no part in that, and we raise this complaint purely on its own merits.

If we are to support the Takutai Kapiti process as a Board, we need to have trust and confidence in the safety of the people we were elected to represent.

We therefore leave it to KCDC and Takutai Kapiti to assure us that we can do so.

Regards, Bede

Bede Laracy, Chair, Raumati Community Board — 0274473779

Bede has not advised of a direct response from the Mayor but here is the stock response from the Mayor and Chief Executive to members of the public who complained:

One important point that results from this is the legal consideration of pre-determination. Stating that “we have met with the Chair and reminded him of the need to remain neutral” effectively says that the panel has pre-determined the outcome and a judge would certainly agree. Inhouse lawyer Mr Power should have made this clear to panel members at the outset — did he?