Occupy Auckland Get Trespass Notice


So at last the Auckland Council has told the tent people of Occupy Auckland to let the people have their public square back.

They have been handed a trespass notice.

But goodness know what will happen now if police continue their politically correct stand that the tent people’s human rights override anything else and they won’t help the Council enact the trespass order -as they refused in Dunedin.

And Auckland’s Mayor appears to be offering the squatters an “alternative venue” as long as they move.

The business community group Heart in the City has organised a Christmas market and buskers in Aotea Square during December to drum up Queen St Christmas shopping -and would want the square back for those activities and so the tent dwellers do  not scare people off.

Occupy Auckland tents share Aotea Square

The squatters have made public a letter they say they got from a Council official before the trespass order was delivered:

According to that , it says:

The Mayor requests the following:

• that Aotea Square be returned to all the people of Auckland for their use and enjoyment.
• that Occupy Auckland provide a date of departure from Aotea Square and for that date to be in the very near future i.e. within 2 weeks.
• that Occupy Auckland agree a small group of representative members with the authority to discuss and negotiate on behalf of the wider group and make decisions in response to those discussions and negotiations
• that Occupy Auckland consider these matters at the General Assembly meetings over the weekend and provide him with a response on Monday 28 November 2011.

The Mayor has heard the voice of the people of Occupy Auckland and the worldwide action the occupation movement has taken and has offered action from Auckland Council in support of the broad issues raised by the occupation.

The Mayor is prepared to consider an alternative location on at least the same terms as previously offered by Auckland Council for the occupation should Aotea Square be returned as requested.






  1. cnawan says:

    “scare people off”? Yes, that sounds like a “business community” response.
    Can’t everyone coexist in the same space? Can Occupy Auckland replace all signs with “Not scary”? Frankly I would be surprised & saddened if Occupy Auckland were anything less than welcoming to the greater community.
    Civil Disobedience should be civil, no?

  2. San Luca says:

    You say the police’s politically correct stand, but would you prefer the excessive violence that has occurred at Portland, UC Davis, Oakland and nyc?

  3. AKT says:

    @San Luca of course not. No one should get hurt over this. But it’s a two way conversation. If the Mayor is offering another site they need to consider it and move on. We are entitled to use the square as well.
    I understand the Occupy Wall Street people but have failed to see what the locals are on about it with their occupation and signs about Maori sovereignty and cannabis legislation. I would have been more impressed if they had pitched tent outside the High Court where the Bridgecorp fraud trial is going on or on Hotchin’s Paratei Drive mansion land!

  4. Geoff Houtman says:

    Councillor Cathy Casey is saying the Governing Body weren’t consulted and should have been.

    Doug McKay’s signature on the notice?

  5. AKT says:

    @Geoff the email being waved around by the tent people says its a council official. But I dont know whose name is on the trespass order.

  6. San Luca says:

    I take your point. You have to realise that not all people stand for the legalisation of cannabis, in fact they were originally requested not to participate. I don’t think people there would be opposed to protesting those things, God knows they protest everything else, but perhaps they are not organised enough.
    I’m not necessarily pro the protest but I do recognise that there is great inequality that is overlooked, even oppression of people. I’m glad some people are taking a stand, even if it is misguided, and its a matter of finding one’s right to protest with public space usage

  7. Matt L says:

    They may have a right to protest but what right do they have to burn ratepayer money like they are. The estimate I saw in the the herald today was that they had already cost the city something like $400k which included $15k to have to replace the turf and up to $60k to check that the membrane protecting the carpark below isn’t damaged etc.

  8. San Luca says:

    The same could be said about other things also. As someone who has worked for the parks department, I know the cost of these things but what about other things like council approving $1.5m for RWC under urgency close to the final.
    You do realise there is a gap in the equation of your figures don’t you?

  9. Matt L says:

    San Luca - They are quite different things, one is an event that the city decided to participate in. The other is a group of individuals who are forcing themselves upon the city. There are plenty of other things they could be doing to protest that didn’t involve wasting so much of the councils money, would probably be more effective and wouldn’t deprive the rest of the public of precious inner city green space.

    It is made worse by the fact they don’t actually have a clue about what they are protesting about, some of the overseas protests are probably quite valid due to what is going on in their financial and corporate systems but that isn’t relevant here.

  10. san luca says:

    I know many many people who were upset with that money that was spent for the world cup. Like as if there wasn’t enough money spent already. My friend who works for the parks department states that we have so many sports fields where that money could have desperately been used. And not the whole city approved of it as you seem to assume.

    Depriving space? There is so much space in the Aotea vicinity that gets wasted on any giving day.

    Just because you have no clue about what they are protesting about, doesn’t mean that they have no idea what they are protesting about. Like all over the world these protesters are form a wide variety of backgrounds so have a wide variety of biases. And to say it is not relevant here is just naive: blue chip failings, finance companies failings, government bailout of banks, economy collapsing. I think it’s every bit valid here

  11. Jon C says:

    I am amused that this post & one previously on the topic have produced the most vile vindicative and straight out nasty emails and attempted comments I have had so far!

    If these noisy supporters are any indication, I don’t want them to run my world thanks!

  12. Matt says:

    I get really furious when people say that obeying the law is “politically correct”. The Police aren’t enforcing the trespass notice because their legal advice is that a council bylaw is subordinate to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

    If observing legally-guaranteed human rights is considered to be politically correct, then perhaps it’s time for those who bandy the term about to reconsider what they think it means.

    I’ve already had a go at someone in the last few weeks who called it “politically correct” for people to advocate strongly against members of a highly-respected public service organisation engaging in an activity that is technically criminal fraud.

  13. tbird says:

    I warned you!


    Of course - they’re now saying he wasn’t part of their group - I assume he must be the 99%


Leave a Comment


XHTML: You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>