Fury after Wellington public meeting to discuss Civic Square

Friday, 8 November 2024

Anger continues to simmer after council officers were accused of shutting down questions and applying a “two strikes” rule at a public meeting called to discuss the future of Wellington’s Civic Square.

The plan for redevelopment of the entire Te Ngākau Civic Square includes options for the City to Sea Bridge, Michael Fowler Centre, Jack Ilott Green, City Gallery, and the landscaping of the square itself and adjoining areas.

Ahead of consultation closing on November 13, Wednesday night’s meeting was set down for 90 minutes, with a panel discussion to be followed by a question and answer session.

The audience had been invited to submit questions either in writing or via a QR code. MC Anna Calver, the council’s engagement officer said if there were too many, they would be published and answered on the council’s Let’s Talk web page.

However, after more than an hour of what one person likened to “platitudinous speeches from the throne” attendees had obviously had enough.

Former urban designer Stuart Niven was the first to interject, rising to his feet to suggest it was time the audience were given the floor.

“We started with almost an hour where we had to sit quietly and listen to a repetitive series of descriptions about something that I would guess a majority of people in the room already knew quite a lot. There were certainly a significant number of Wellington architects, planners, engineers and some well-known Wellington developers and entrepreneurs in the room who wouldn't have appreciated being treated like idiots,” Niven said.

“People were kind of chomping at the bit to ask their questions. I thought it wouldn't hurt to ask if we could just ask those questions, vocally from the floor, in a respectful and ordered way ‒ and I raised my hand to be noticed ‒ but after some minutes it was pretty obvious I was going to be studiously ignored.“

After a to-and-fro about each side showing respect, the panel answered several questions, but not from Niven. He tried again, and was asked to leave, at which five others in the audience also walked out.

The move has been called out by others who witnessed it, including Wellington College student Y Bjors, who is spearheading a youth campaign to try and stop a new commercial building being built on the site.

Bjors,17, said the lack of time dedicated to questions was “shocking”.

“Personally, I submitted several and none were addressed. What this crowd should have received was a podium and a mic on the floor, so they could stand in line orderly line, to make their views properly heard.

“What we, the owners of the square, instead received was [someone] being escorted out for simply trying to make their views heard.”

Helene Ritchie, a former deputy mayor and chair of the Wellington Civic Trust, was incensed. “Council speakers took up nearly all of the time – telling us what we already knew.

“The meeting had been called by the council, as part of consultation. But the public had come to the meeting expecting to have their say … most were denied the right to speak or ask questions.“

Ray Chung was among a handful of councillors who attended and believed that many, if not most, of those at the meeting had questions they wanted to ask, so were “less interested in listening to our staff …”

He has since written to chief executive Barbara McKerrow registering his discomfort at the way things were handled.

“I thought his [Niven’s] questions were pertinent and relevant although I admit, somewhat insistent,” he wrote. “But to have him ejected from the meeting was a step too far and gave fuel to the thinking of many of those in the audience that we were deliberately trying to silence him and that we had something to hide.”

Another attendee, Rhonda Fitzpatrick, said it was disgraceful that an “old guy” ‒ Niven ‒ had been ejected from the meeting. “What was his crime? He wasn’t some nutty activist and he wasn’t rude. He knows the history of the [City to Sea] bridge and the architectural features. He was asking questions we all wanted answered.”

A council spokesperson said its consultation process relied on an environment that was inclusive, respectful and allowed for diverse views and different approaches to engaging on projects.

“Some attendees present on Wednesday evening wanted a Town Hall style event, where they could make statements and shout out questions. We haven’t run town hall meetings as part of our engagement practices for many years … because they’re often not a comfortable environment for staff and many of the attendees, and the format is not inclusive to hearing a variety of perspectives.

“Prior to the hui we briefed venue security that we wanted to run a respectful meeting. The staff said they would implement a ‘two-strikes’ rule, as is common, in that any individual who was being disruptive would be asked respectively to leave if they were disruptive more than twice. This was why the gentleman in question was asked to leave the third time he spoke out while the panellists were speaking.“

A staff member had checked in with him after the hui and offered to meet for a coffee.

The additional questions submitted to the panel were being responded to and would be uploaded to Let’s Talk when that process is finished.

Submissions on the draft plan close on Wednesday. The council meets to decide on what should remain in its long-term plan the following week.