The alternative flag stolen from the flagpole on Takitimu Drive on Sunday will not be returning after the city council received legal advice on Monday.
The city council sought advice from its lawyers after being challenged about the legality of flying the alternative flag from flagpole on the roundabout at Takitimu Drive.
The legal opinion is that the resource consent, when properly interpreted, is limited to the flying of the New Zealand national flag only, says council communications manager Aimee Driscoll.
'The consent does not authorise the Council to fly any other, including the alternative flag,” says Aimee.
The Flag Consideration Project requested that government buildings fly both referendum flags where possible. The Council's decision to fly the alternative flag at Elizabeth Street/Takitimu Drive came in response to a separate request from MP Todd Muller to fly both flags from the city flagpole on alternating days.
The decision vindicates Mount Maunganui resident Rob Paterson's ongoing opposition to the council decision to fly the alternative flag from the Takitimu flagpole. The resource consent for the flagpole was for only the New Zealand flag to be flown.
'They couldn't do anything else,” says Rob today. 'I don't think they could really read it any other way.”
It's not a question of how he feels about the alternative flag says Rob. If he was asked to pick one it would probably be the blue fern rather than the black fern
'It's a question of you are not allowed to fly anything else there.”
When the council went to the government to obtain permission to fly both flags from the same pole they didn't raise the issue about the flagpole having a resource consent, says Rob.
The Elizabeth Street/Takitimu Drive flagpole rigging and security lock were both damaged on the weekend. The New Zealand national flag will be put back up and remain there once the flagpole is back in full working order.
Mayor Stuart Crosby says the councillors asked for an external legal opinion because of the opposition raised about flying the alternative flag from the Takitimu Drive flagpole.
The custom made 3m by 6m alternative flag will be returned to its owner, Bay Venues Ltd chairman Peter Farmer, says Stuart.
The alternative flag continues to fly beside the New Zealand flag at Baycourt.
42 comments
Matter of Time
Posted on 07-03-2016 17:05 | By Gigilo
And it will be the legal flag, bring it on and give this country an identity that reflects who we are today.
Should be a flag inspector
Posted on 07-03-2016 17:30 | By BullShtAlert
Among all the bureaucrats in this city there is room for one more - a flag inspector. In a world with so many serious issues we have a man (some would call a nitpicker) who points out that some resource consent permits only the national flag. What silliness and that includes the resource consent.
Oh Dear!
Posted on 07-03-2016 18:09 | By astex
What happens now? Does the council fine itself? I guess an apology will be forthcoming for the error? NOT! Another question comes to mind. Is it illegal to take a flag that is being flown illegally?
Waste of Money
Posted on 07-03-2016 18:11 | By FunandGames
Council you should not have needed a legal opinion to work that out. Rob Paterson, find a new hobby please. It may not have been within the resource concent, but it was letting the general public evaluate the options. So thanks Rob you got your victory and the rate payers paid for it.
Prime example...
Posted on 07-03-2016 18:25 | By yikes61
of the mayor and the nodding lapdogs at council thought processes. Rob Paterson highlighted the fact that the Resource Consent only allowed the New Zealand flag, yet the mayor and said lapdogs thought themselves above the consent process. Arrogance at senior level, glad to hear Crosby wont be standing again for Mayor
There is
Posted on 07-03-2016 18:37 | By R1Squid
NO official alternative flag. The current flag is the only recognised Official Flag and there has never been an official alternative. It is highly unlikely that following the BINDING referendum that there will be an official New Zealand ALTERNATIVE flag.
Justice Prevails
Posted on 07-03-2016 18:37 | By The Sage
Many of us knew it was not legal to put anything on that flagpole other than the NZ National flag. I hope Todd Mueller has been informed to get his facts right before such requests and our Mayor and Council should have known better. Peter Farmer would be better to keep out of local politics.
And They
Posted on 07-03-2016 19:40 | By Merlin
And they are running our city god forbid.To much politics by the council me thinks
flag
Posted on 07-03-2016 19:53 | By dumbkof2
well well TCC finally seeing some sense. theres hope for them yet
oh dear!
Posted on 07-03-2016 20:40 | By dstewart
What is wrong with our present council that they leap in and think later? They are too quick to jump to a politician's whims without weighing the consequences. Elections are coming up and we need to get to know all candidates and their strengths.
And the winner is TCC
Posted on 07-03-2016 20:58 | By Papamoaner
Wally of the week award that is.
Well I never
Posted on 07-03-2016 21:26 | By surferboy
Complete and wilful ignorance by crosby and the pro key flag propaganda machine, lucky tcc is not having to defend a court case, at the rate payers expense, ha ha.
New flag
Posted on 07-03-2016 22:04 | By Omokoroa retiree
Great to hear council finally came to their senses and agreed not to put new flag up. This flag has not been chosen and it SHOULD NOT be allowed to be flown until it has won the ballot. Keep our old flag and at,wasting our money
so sad
Posted on 07-03-2016 22:35 | By Bop man
that this can be dictated by a single person. And I hope the person who took the flag down is caught and prosecuted as it was plan and simple vandalism. I thought the alternate flag looked rather good flying there.
Flag choice
Posted on 07-03-2016 23:36 | By Theodorus
What does our Queen Elisabeth think and have to say about intending to wipe our HISTORICAL FLAG??? Would it not have been better to wait for Australia to change theirs or incorporate the Silver Fern into the HISTORICAL ONE By;Theodor.
COUNCIL iDIOTS!
Posted on 08-03-2016 01:17 | By monty1212
This is yet another example of the idiotic Council incompetents who haven't got an ounce of common sense between them. Why do we continue to pay their wages?
To be fair
Posted on 08-03-2016 07:33 | By bubbles
As "vindicated" as he may be, Perhaps Rob Paterson should be made to contribute towards any repairs to the flagpole. His intentions were good, and his legal advice correct, but doesn't change the fact that the pole is damaged and needs to be repaired before the Official flag can be re-hoisted. Maybe the Council pay half and Rob pay half. An expensive and un-necessary exercise. Lets hope the Council have learned their lesson.
Please explain?
Posted on 08-03-2016 08:28 | By cssr
If the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish don't have the Union Jack on their country's flags why should we?
TCC fail again
Posted on 08-03-2016 09:27 | By Captain Sensible
You can't make a circus tent big enough for these bumbling clowns.
According to Crosby
Posted on 08-03-2016 09:40 | By Darren
Crosby's statements as reported in Sunlive: 18/2
Strange
Posted on 08-03-2016 09:46 | By Politically Incorrect
There's some strange opinions in the comments here. Pro or anti flag, someone pointed out a breach of resource consent. If your neighbour built a stage in their garden and had live bands every day until 3am, would you be so casual about that breach of resource consent? Just because something suits you, doesn't make it OK. Likewise, just because something doesn't suit you, doesn't give you the right to vandalise public property and steal something. If you want to have your say on the flag debate, use the legitimate path and vote in the referendum. Sadly, it's all a waste of time and money. Something that was of the intention to unite the country has only succeeded in dividing it. Now it's just a politicians last hurrah to go down in history. How many state homes did we have to sell to pay for this side show?
Old Flag Brigade
Posted on 08-03-2016 09:52 | By tgacentral
Wow this comment section really brings out the moaning, ill informed folks of our city. How are we expected to grow with a progressive Council with the 'old flag brigade' pushing their negative, backward thinking opinions on everyone. Please retire in peace and take your negativity with you
Consent Variation a simple option
Posted on 08-03-2016 10:03 | By Murray.Guy
TCC clearly have developed a mindset of total arrogance as clearly they have an obligation to ensure they 'err on the side of caution'. The opinion sought is just that BUT the fact that our self professed experts around the Council table and senior management team chose NOT to apply for a simple 'temporary consent variation' to ensure compliance, remove all doubt, beggars belief. Once again the ethics and accountability, integrity based democracy, of our City Council is eroded.
@ Politically Incorrect
Posted on 08-03-2016 10:19 | By BullShtAlert
I think the mere fact that a resource consent stipulates what flag can be shown illustrates the nonsense that is resource management. Of course it should control things like neighbours building a stage and playing loud music, but why stipulate what flag? What was some petty person actually thinking? But I guess while we have petty nitpickers about that sort of bureaucracy will flourish. I do agree with you about people voting though. It's amazing that some use threats and perhaps even suggestions of violence to stop the public having a choice.
Really, Murray Guy
Posted on 08-03-2016 11:46 | By Councillorwatch
A resource consent to change what flag flies on a flagpole. If I fly a flag at home does some bureaucratic minion get to tell me which flag I can fly? What a joke. Better that council concentrates on keeping the rates down and not spending rates money on flights of fancy that occurred when you were a councillor, like buying a Speedway business and spending huge money ($ 5 million?) on Baypark.
@bubbles
Posted on 08-03-2016 12:48 | By morepork
To punish Rob Paterson for pointing out something that the TCC should have realized if their Legal Department did due diligence, is like shooting the messenger. If anything, he deserves credit, not punishment.
@Cssr
Posted on 08-03-2016 12:55 | By morepork
We don't HAVE to include the Union flag in our flag if we don't want to; we CAN change it. However, it does represent our current membership in the British Commonwealth of nations and that may be no bad thing... Whatever the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Australians, or ANYBODY else does, should have no bearing on what WE do. We should do whatever we do because WE want to do it and the majority of us consider it a right course of action. It shouldn't be about last hurrahs and political favour...
@Politically Incorrect
Posted on 08-03-2016 12:57 | By morepork
Amen! Refreshing to see some sound common sense here at last...
@BullShtAlert
Posted on 08-03-2016 13:10 | By morepork
So you think resource consent is nonsense? Unless you happen to agree with the case in point, of course. If we DIDN'T have resource consent required and if the decisions were not legally binding, we would probably have a funicular railway running up Mauao to the Bar and Grill on the summit, could replace many of our parks with houses and car parks, and we could build a Brighton style pier out into the inner harbour so we could reclaim some of the space used by the Pacific Ocean. You can't "cherry pick" the Law. (You CAN appeal it.) 'Politically Correct' summed it up very well.
@tgacentral
Posted on 08-03-2016 13:35 | By morepork
I'm not "moaning", "backward", "ill-informed", "negative", or "backward thinking". I love Tauranga and it is my home. I just happen to like the current flag better than the proposed one, and I object to the way the whole process has been politically contrived in a completely undemocratic way.(nobody ever asked us if we WANTED to change the flag...) I don't mind if they have a referendum in 10 or 15 years and I might even vote for a new flag (maybe coinciding with us becoming a Republic, if that is the will of the majority). But, if we adopt the new flag on THIS occasion, there will be no chance to change it for a very long time. You are wrong to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a vision-impaired stick-in-the-mud. What you are seeing is people using their voice; it is a healthy process.
@Morepork
Posted on 08-03-2016 13:37 | By BullShtAlert
I couldn't care less what flag is chosen and believe in the public's right to observe and choose. The examples you use are sensible reasons for resource management. My argument is against the use of resource management to specify such minor details of everyday life as what kind of flag can be flown. I call that petty and ridiculous, but I also accept that some people love having every detail of their lives controlled and prescribed by big brother. I can't imagine what kind of bureaucrat decided to prescribe what flag could be flown on a flagpole in Tauranga.
Crikey
Posted on 08-03-2016 13:48 | By Kaimai
Glad nothing really important is happening in council...
@Cssr
Posted on 08-03-2016 14:20 | By astex
Traditionally a portion of a flag shows the history of the country in some way. In the case of England, Scotland, Wales the Union Jack (Britain) is not a part of their past history. In the case of Britain those countries ARE part of its history and this is shown by the union of their flags in its design. (The Union Flag or Jack)
Council thinks ...and council does!
Posted on 08-03-2016 15:33 | By babyG
The old boys club is at it again. Tauranga City Council have been caught with their pants down. Why is it that they always think they have the right to act as only they choose. Only when they are pushed to the legal wire, do they even stop to think about their actions, and if they are constitutional, legal or dare we say fair. Then its the standard reply of 'after further investigation...' This power play is rampant throughout many of the council funded organisations and prop up networks. You would think that being in charge of a large city, the authorities would know exactly what was and what was not permitted in terms of the flag consent fiasco - perhaps that is just the point! Let's see just how looooooooong it takes to get the New Zealand flag flying again?
VOTE FOR THE ORIGINAL FLAG
Posted on 08-03-2016 15:34 | By Common Sense Scott
When I first saw it flying I did think they surely can't do that. Pleased it's not legal, you get to change it if it wins... Which is won't
@ Kaimai
Posted on 08-03-2016 15:41 | By Crash test dummies
When there is then it is always held in a secret meeting and no one gets to know anything about it until ages after the money is all spent and wasted.
@BullShtAlert
Posted on 08-03-2016 15:58 | By Politically Incorrect
I think the resource consent in this instance was for the flag pole itself to be placed there, it just happened to specify that only the national flag should be flown from it, which is fair enough really as it's such a prominent position and large flag, it makes an official statement. It was probably intended to stop people running any old flag up there, such as corporate sponsors etc. At the time consent was granted, an alternative national flag was not on the radar, so I doubt the consent was ever really intended to prevent recent events.
@ Politically Incorrect
Posted on 08-03-2016 17:23 | By Crash test dummies
You make some good points but fail to end it with the obvious conclusion. That being that TCC had no right whatsoever to fly anything other than as specifically spelled out in the consent. There is no buts maybes or anything else, it is black and white.
@ babyG
Posted on 09-03-2016 01:10 | By Crash test dummies
Nice, but don't forget that Councilors only know what TCC staff have told them, that they wee lead up the garden path and some. The representation was made to Councilors that a 'legal opinion' had been obtained ... they approved of the flag then being flown. Apparently some wise individual asked, Question: "I want to see it ..." Answer: Oh it was verbal, Question: who from? Answer: backroom bureaucrat view ... Question: Who? Answer: name given. It was someone with no legal knowledge, no idea at all in fact. Seems like the fall person for this saga. Sadly then Councilors now have to reverse the decision and can the whole thing. Good thing to, just shame that the deception was not discovered at the start. Is this a typical mode of operation at Council? If so we should all be VERY scared of what they are doing ever day!
@BullShtAlert
Posted on 09-03-2016 12:36 | By morepork
I understand your point about minor trivial things but the line cannot be drawn...Your response prodded me to think some more about WHY there would be a Resource Consent clause limiting which flag can be flown. I don't believe anyone foresaw the current fiasco. But they may have done it to prevent any little local tub-thumper or vested interest from being able to use the public flagpole as a prestigious standard-bearer for the promotion of their own political agenda. The flagpole stands as a symbol (and a reminder) of the independence and freedom of our land and should only be used for THAT purpose. I can't condone the vandalism of tearing down the flag that was flying, but I CAN understand why it was done. I can imagine that somewhere far away, Hone Heke is smiling and saying: "Pai ki runga ki a koutou, he uri!" (Good on you, Mate!
@iknow
Posted on 09-03-2016 12:49 | By morepork
You ask a good question: "Is it illegal to take a flag that is being flown illegally?" The answer is that vandalism is a crime and two wrongs don't make a right. The flag pole was actually damaged during the process. It would also be illegal (Trespass) for any unauthorized person to take anything from the flagpole. The correct course of action would be to press the authority responsible, to remove whatever was flying illegally. (It is fair to say that is what has been done, but some person or persons unknown, was upset enough to lose patience with the process. Understandable, but still illegal.)
@ morepork
Posted on 09-03-2016 23:48 | By Crash test dummies
The reason that the flag options are limited is because that was what got decided by the commissioner and so the consent was then approved and the wording then was spelled out as specific. It is easy to see that the reason of the specifics was as a result of the public consultation process. Simply put, isn't it. Council then made up a reason, self justified and went ahead despite the consent and did exactly what they wanted to regardless. This issue again illustrates the utter arrogance of TCC and the mushrooms feasting within. There is plenty of the good stuff for them to feast on, make no bones about it, they are feed well on the only thing they eat. The results speak for themselves.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.