Tauranga Housing Advocacy Trust lawyers Michael Sharp (left) and Shard Loibl are pleased the council have revoked the begging bans. Photo / George Novak
Tauranga Housing Advocacy Trust lawyers Michael Sharp (left) and Shard Loibl are pleased the council have revoked the begging bans. Photo / George Novak
A prominent Tauranga lawyer who led a judicial review against the city council's controversial begging ban says the review has "served its purpose".
However, Mount Maunganui barrister Michael Sharp said it was "unfortunate" the Tauranga Housing Advocacy Trust's judicial review needed to be done in the first place.
Sharp saidthe trust was "disappointed" that it took the threat of legal proceedings before the council took action.
"We made submissions before [the clauses] were put in place that they were likely to be illegal," he said.
The controversial clauses, 20.2 and 20.3 of the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw, were overturned late last month after the council voted six to four to revoke them.
The clauses banned begging and rough sleeping within 5m of the entrances to retail and hospitality premises in mainstreet areas of Tauranga's CBD, Mount Maunganui and Greerton, and had been in place since April 2019.
Sharp would not count the council backing down as a victory only for the trust.
"It's a victory for the community, or those who want the council to pass bylaws that meet all legal requirements," he said.
Sharp said the main reason behind the trust's decision to request a judicial review was because the clauses were inconsistent with New Zealand's human rights legislation.
"Under the Local Government Act, any bylaws passed [by] a local council have to be consistent with the Bill of Rights," he said.
"There was inconsistency with freedom of expression, there was inconsistency with freedom of movement, and there was issues with whether it was the most appropriate form of bylaw in any case."
Sharp said while the topic of homelessness in Tauranga was a complicated issue, the source of both was a lack of housing, in particular a lack of social housing.
"It is difficult for the council to deal with begging and homelessness," he said.
"It's not the council's responsibility to provide social housing, it's central government's ... what the council can do is work with local community organisations and central government in providing some sort of temporary relief."
Tauranga Housing Advocacy Trust lawyers Michael Sharp (left) and Shard Loibl are pleased the council have revoked the begging bans. Photo / George Novak
This "temporary relief" could include transitional housing and other forms of support, Sharp said.
"It's all down to the extreme lack of social housing."
Sharp said the trust had indicated to the High Court that they would no longer require a hearing, and would settle the case over "the next couple of weeks".
"This exercise has really shown the value of community groups getting together with lawyers who are prepared to provide their services without charge," he said.
"It was really a group effort."
Tauranga City Council told the Bay of Plenty Times they had spent $102,709, including GST, on relevant external legal advice since the bans were first proposed in November 2017.
Christine Jones, Tauranga City Council's general manager for strategy and growth, said legal advice was required "to ensure council could make fully informed decisions on this area of law which is largely untested", and specialist advice was sought.
The perceived problem, as outlined in the report, was "the nuisance and other negative impacts" of begging and rough sleeping in public places, Jones said.
"The council at its 27 February meeting determined a bylaw was not the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem."
The council chose to instead include funding in the draft 2020/21 Annual Plan, Jones said.
"The begging and rough sleeping provisions being inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act ... was highlighted to council at the time the bylaw was made in November 2018," she said.
It was also one of the considerations for the council when it revoked the bylaw, she said.
Councillor Steve Morris. Photo / File
Councillor Steve Morris, who voted for the begging ban to be revoked, said the council spending that amount was "a waste of money" which could have been used elsewhere.
"It wasn't something that council could enforce," he said.
"Our officers are not cops - they're not police .... they were toothless."
The whole bylaw process gave a "false promise" to retailers affected by intimidation, he said.
Morris agreed that pressure should be on central government to help solve the issue.
He said central government needed to "reinforce our police properly", and that "instead of lobbying our local MPs for extra resource for our police, it just became this distraction" ,for the council.
