• Icon Head
  • Icon Phone
  • Icon Pin
  • Icon Head
  • Icon Phone
  • Icon Pin
 

About

 

About Greenwood Roche

Two pivotal areas define the way we’ve shaped our firm to deliver more to our clients:
  • Clearly defined specialist areas, each with a significant depth of focused, legal expertise.
  • The acknowledgement of a trusted place at a client’s table, where we deliver the high levels of care, rigour and performance our clients expect of themselves.

We don’t stand apart. When briefed by a client we become an embedded part of the team. We engage our depth of knowledge and commercial acumen to swiftly identify what’s required from the outset – and set about delivering it. It’s not a revelatory approach, but it is refreshing, competitive and deeply efficient – and enjoyable.

It has earned us a market reputation as a leader in our areas of expertise where we have established:
  • A prominent position on the “All of Government” external legal services panel.

  • A substantial public and private sector client base.

  • Regular appointments to nationally significant projects.

They operate with a level of charisma in the room – certainly not order takers. They sense the gaps then find the solutions.
National coverage

To ensure our specialists are always where they’re needed, we operate as one firm with hubs in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. We advise on a range of public and private sector projects.


Specialist expertise

Recent Projects
New Zealand Rural Land Company Limited – Restructure and sale of property portfolio

Recent Projects

New Zealand Rural Land Company Limited – Restructure and sale of property portfolio

New Zealand Rural Land Company Limited – Restructure and sale of property portfolio

Greenwood Roche recently acted for New Zealand Rural Land Company Limited (NZRLC) in relation to a restructure of its property portfolio.


The project involved transferring 14,487 hectares of rural land, predominantly dairy and forestry, and all interests and property rights held in relation to those properties, from NZRLC’s subsidiary, NZRLC Dairy Holdings Limited, to a new limited partnership, New Zealand Rural Land Investments Limited Partnership.

The transfer to New Zealand Rural Land Investments Limited Partnership was to facilitate NZRLC selling a 25% equity interest in its land portfolio to Roc Partners (an Australian specialist private markets investment manager) for NZ$44.2m.  Greenwood Roche also successfully acted for NZRLC on the property and finance aspects of the sale to Roc Partners.

The Greenwood Roche team was led by Jeannie Warnock (Partner), Anthony Staples (Partner), Kurt McRedmond (Senior Associate), Tom Petersen (Lawyer) and Georgie Pay (Lawyer) with specialist input from other lawyers within the firm.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
New Dunedin Hospital – Stage 3 Inpatient Building – Fast Track Consent Granted

Recent Projects

New Dunedin Hospital – Stage 3 Inpatient Building – Fast Track Consent Granted

New Dunedin Hospital – Stage 3 Inpatient Building – Fast Track Consent Granted

On 24 November 2023 resource consent was granted under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 for the above-ground construction works and subsequent operation of the new Inpatient building at Dunedin Hospital.  


Resource consent was granted for the stage 1 foundation works on 23 December 2021 and for the stage 2 Outpatient building on 17 August 2022. The granting of this subsequent consent will enable the establishment of the new Inpatient building, the largest of the clinical buildings comprising the new Dunedin Hospital.

As the primary tertiary healthcare facility for the Southern region, the new Inpatient building will house a range of consultation and treatment spaces, including an intensive care unit, a dedicated primary birthing unit and an expanded emergency department.  In addition to the dedicated clinical facilities, the Inpatient building site will also accommodate generous areas of landscaping and public realm extending primarily along the Cumberland Street frontage of the site. Works on the Inpatient building are anticipated to commence in Q1 2024.

A team from Greenwood Roche, led by Julian Smith, Monique Thomas and Rachel Murdoch, are advising Te Whatu Ora on all consenting and property matters relating to the New Dunedin Hospital.  


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Faringdon Oval – Fast-track Consent Granted

Recent Projects

Faringdon Oval – Fast-track Consent Granted

Faringdon Oval – Fast-track Consent Granted

On 26 July 2023 an expert consenting panel granted Hughes Developments Limited’s Faringdon Oval application under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020.


Faringdon Oval is a 69.3ha extension of the existing, well established Faringdon community in Rolleston, which has developed over the last decade under the Operative Selwyn District Plan, the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013, and more recently, the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast Track Consenting) Act 2020. 

The Fast Track consent for Faringdon Oval authorises the subdivision, land use and associated activities needed to facilitate the addition of 684 residential units to the Rolleston housing supply with an additional 462 residential units to be enabled through super lots with minimum density requirements. The development will support a range of residential housing types and densities, high quality landscaping, open space reserves, a neighbourhood centre and a network of transport links to existing residential areas and the Rolleston town centre.

Greenwood Roche is delighted to have assisted HDL in delivering a development that will contribute significant housing supply in such a strategic location for the wider Canterbury region.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
New Dunedin Hospital – Stage 1 Enabling Works – Variation Granted

Recent Projects

New Dunedin Hospital – Stage 1 Enabling Works – Variation Granted

New Dunedin Hospital – Stage 1 Enabling Works – Variation Granted

On 28 July 2023 the Dunedin City Council granted a variation to the conditions of the previously consented enabling works for the New Dunedin Hospital. 


The variation provides for changes in the location and footprint of the proposed Inpatient Building which will be housed on the old Cadbury factory site. The variation also accommodates a new plant building between the Inpatient Building and the southern site boundary, and technical construction related changes such as updated pile designs and driving methodology for the Inpatient Building and its two link bridges.

Enabling works for the Outpatient Building are complete and above-ground construction has begun with a target ‘go-live’ date of 2025. Enabling works are underway for the significantly larger Inpatient Building which is scheduled to ‘go-live’ in 2029.  The resource consent application to authorise the above-ground construction and operation of the Inpatient Building has now been lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority for referral to an expert consenting panel under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020.  Subject to securing all necessary approvals, construction of that Building is scheduled to begin in Q1 2024.

The Greenwood Roche team has been advising Te Whatu Ora on the resource management and property aspects of the New Dunedin Hospital project since 2017. 


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
PC 59 (Private) – Albany 10 Precinct

Recent Projects

PC 59 (Private) – Albany 10 Precinct

PC 59 (Private) – Albany 10 Precinct

Greenwood Roche recently acted for Bei Group Limited on Plan Change 59: Albany 10 Precinct to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), securing appropriate zoning and plan provisions to develop a comprehensive residential development, which will enable 1,800 dwellings in buildings up to ten storeys on part of the old Massey Campus, near the Albany town centre.  


We advised Bei Group through the initial application, including notification and hearing phases and, following approval of the plan change, an appeal by Kristin School to the Environment Court largely in respect of transport matters.  Concurrently, Greenwood Roche provided advice on conflicts between Auckland Council’s Plan Change 78 (Intensification Planning Instruments required by the National Policy Statement Urban Development) and proposed Variation 3 to the Auckland Unitary Plan.  Ultimately Variation 3 was withdrawn by the Council and the appeal was resolved.  On 9 December 2022, Auckland Council’s planning committee approved the operative status of the Plan Change, with formal notification to follow in early 2023.

Bei Group Limited can now progress its vision for its 13.7ha site at 473 Albany Highway - to create a vibrant, diverse and high-quality residential neighbourhood, with a range of housing typologies that will be supported by a new internal street network, quality public open space and a commercial hub to service resident demand.  Greenwood Roche is delighted with this outcome and is looking forward to watching this exemplar development come to life. 


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Consent granted for 76-lot residential subdivision in Kamo, Northland

Recent Projects

Consent granted for 76-lot residential subdivision in Kamo, Northland

Consent granted for 76-lot residential subdivision in Kamo, Northland

Greenwood Roche has advised Hurupaki Holdings Limited through a Council hearing process, and an Environment Court appeal, to successfully obtain resource consent for a non-complying subdivision creating 76 residential allotments (including associated infrastructure and earthworks), a local café, a recreational reserve and playground, located on the fringe of Kamo in Northland.  


As part of its masterplan the applicant proposed a suite of positive benefits that would reduce effects of the subdivision on the environment and improve overall amenity for the wider community.  This included extensive replanting, restoration and enhancement of two natural areas - the Hurupaki Cone – which holds particular significance as an Outstanding Natural Feature and an Outstanding Natural Landform – and the Waitaua Stream.

The reporting team on behalf of Whangārei District Council recommended that the application be declined as it did not achieve a “net environmental benefit” as required by the relevant objectives and policies of the operative plan.  The application was nevertheless granted by an Independent Commissioner who concluded that overall effects are likely to be minor and that, if consent was refused, then less acceptable outcomes would likely eventuate.  An appeal to the Environment Court was made in respect of conditions; however these were ultimately resolved by agreement, with the Court’s final consent determination recently issued under urgency.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Recent news & insights
Overseas Investment (Build-to-Rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill (Bill) – streamlined Build-To-Rent housing pathway

News & Insights


Overseas Investment (Build-to-Rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill (Bill) – streamlined Build-To-Rent housing pathway

On 7 March 2024, the Government announced proposed amendments to the Overseas Investment Act 2005 (Act) to create a new streamlined approval pathway for build-to-rent (BTR) housing developments, and on 11 June 2024, the amendment Bill was introduced.


Build to Rent Developments

BTR developments are a form of privately-owned rental housing comprising 20 or more dwellings, which are ordinarily owned and professionally managed long-term by an institutional investment entity such as a pension fund. The rentals are typically for longer term tenancies, giving tenants increased housing certainty, reliable property maintenance services and access to shared development amenities such as cafes, gyms, media rooms and co-working spaces.

BTR developments are increasingly popular in Australia and the United Kingdom. While it is a newer housing model in New Zealand with only 22 registered developments so far, it is believed there is high potential for growth in the sector.

Industry groups such as the Property Council have been advocating for changes to the Act in order to increase affordable rental stock in New Zealand, and reduce investment barriers for New Zealand and overseas developers and institutional investor owners. BTR developments are currently viewed as a risky investment as a potentially stranded or illiquid asset class. There is little incentive to build or buy a BTR development considering the risk that developers may be stranded with the asset if New Zealand investors have insufficient capital to acquire it, and overseas investors face strict hurdles to entry under the Act. It is hoped that streamlining the test will increase both overseas and New Zealand investor confidence in BTR developments, with greater certainty that investors can exit and on-sell to a larger pool of purchasers.

Current Position

Currently, under the Act, applications for the creation of new BTR developments, or the acquisition of existing BTR developments, must proceed under either:

  • the increased housing test - for increased housing on residential but not otherwise sensitive land (section 16(1)(b)(i)(B));
  • the more onerous benefit to New Zealand test - for land which is otherwise sensitive (section 16(1)(c)(ii)), or for the acquisition of existing developments where the existing housing stock is not increasing (section 16(1)(b)(ii)); or
  • the significant business asset test (section 18) – for the acquisition of qualifying securities in a BTR owning or developing entity.

The Amendment Bill

The much anticipated Bill was released on 11 June 2024, setting out the proposed new streamlined pathway, called the “large rental development test”.

The large rental development test is for residential but not otherwise sensitive land being acquired as an existing large rental development (provided investor requirements are met). It will allow the acquisition of existing developments that are not increasing the housing supply, to proceed under the large rental development pathway, rather than the benefit to New Zealand test. This is intended to reduce the illiquidity risk of developers being unable to on-sell BTR developments where an investor would have to otherwise increase the housing supply to qualify for the streamlined increased housing test.

Land which is otherwise sensitive, will still need to proceed under the benefit to New Zealand test. The existing streamlined pathway under the increased housing test will continue to apply for new or expanding BTR developments which are increasing the housing supply.

The new test is also intended to enable other types of large rental developments that are functionally the same as BTR but may not be the same housing type, such as worker accommodation.

The large rental development test streamlines the consent process where:

  • an overseas investor acquires an interest in residential land (a single site, or adjacent sites separated by infrastructure such as a road);
  • there are 1 or more buildings with 20 or more dwellings across them, suitable for, or for conversion for, residential dwellings;
  • at least 20 of the dwellings will be made available for a residential tenancy to occupiers within a satisfactory time frame; and
  • the non-occupation outcome will be met.

Consent will be conditional on investors continuing to make at least 20 of the dwellings available for residential tenancy, otherwise the owner must divest their interest in the asset. Owners no longer need to be “in the business of providing residential dwellings” in the rent-to-buy or shared equity space, as they did previously.

There will be an opportunity to provide feedback on the Bill at the Select Committee stage.

Associate Minister of Finance Hon David Seymour’s Ministerial Directive Letter to the OIO on 6 June 2024 (Directive Letter)) which was a prelude to the Bill, together with the explanatory note in the Bill, emphatically encourages BTR housing developments as a means of addressing the housing crisis and attracting overseas investment. In anticipation of the Bill being passed later in the year, the Minister has directed the OIO to consider investment in housing supply and the operation of existing large scale housing developments as a benefit under the benefit to New Zealand test. The Minister considers that the benefits that flow from addressing the risk of stranded assets and from the continued operation of an existing large scale housing development may be sufficient to satisfy the benefit to New Zealand test even if no other benefits will result from the investment.

The Directive Letter and the introduction of the Bill are a clear pronouncement to overseas investors of the Government’s support of BTR developments, indicating the doors are opening for increased investment in this space.

If you have any questions on the Bill, or are an overseas investor considering investing in BTR developments or land to develop in New Zealand, please contact Brigid McArthur, Ranui Calman, Annabel Crawford or Anna Hickmott from our Overseas Investment team.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Fast-track Approvals Bill introduced

News & Insights


Fast-track Approvals Bill introduced

The Fast-track Approvals Bill (FTA Bill) - Government’s key legislative mechanism for accelerating the delivery of nationally or regionally significant infrastructure and development projects - was introduced to Parliament last week and is now open for public submissions until Friday 19 April.


The “bones” of the new approval process as set out in the FTA Bill are broadly similar to the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 (COVID Act), which was responsible for the consenting of some 66+ projects generating nearly 60,000 full time equivalent jobs across New Zealand over its four-year life-span.  The COVID Act process also provided the template for the fast-track process within the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023, which has survived repeal of that Act, albeit only for the time being. 

Given the similarities between the processes, in this update we have focused on some notable departures from the COVID Act process (as currently drafted, but subject to the Select Committee submission process still to come) below:

1.  Pathways (or “tracks”) – As with the COVID Act, projects must first be recognised or approved as qualifying projects in order to access the fast-track consenting process.  The ultimate decision-making authority for that qualifying stage lies with the “joint Ministers”, generally being the Ministers for Infrastructure, Transport, and Regional Development. 

A project can qualify for referral to the fast-track process via the following pathways:

(a)   The “open” pathway.  Anyone may apply to the joint Ministers for a project to be referred, subject to a number of criteria that a project must meet to be considered for referral (discussed further below).

(b)   The “listed” pathway.  This pathway (which is actually two pathways) is intended to create what Minister Bishop has described as a “pipeline of projects” whereby the fast-track process is made available projects which “may not be economic right now”, but will realise significant national or regional benefits if and when they become viable for delivery. 

        The “pipeline” is divided into two categories:

        (i)    “Schedule 2, Part A listed projects”.  These projects do not need an application for referral.  The relevant “authorised                   person” (to be noted within Schedule 2, Part A) may simply issue a request to the EPA that all or part of those projects                 are referred for fast-track consenting.  The EPA cannot decline that request. 

        (ii)   “Schedule 2, Part B listed referred projects”.  These projects are considered to have “nationally or regionally significant                 benefits” and may be referred directly to the fast-track process by joint Ministers in accordance with the process set                     out in the FTA Bill. 

        These Schedules will be populated prior to enactment of the Bill and will be selected by Cabinet on the recommendation of            a Fast Track Advisory Group.  There will be an opportunity to apply to the Group for admission of a project to that                        Schedule, subject to meeting certain criteria which will be published in the coming weeks.

2.  Decision-makers – The FTA Bill significantly expands the decision-making power of Ministers.  Of particular note, expert consenting panels will no longer have the final say over the grant of consent for referred projects; that responsibility now sits with the joint Ministers, with expert consenting panels reduced to a recommending role on the application for the approval (including any conditions).  Importantly, unlike the timeframes in place for expert consenting panel decisions, there are no statutory timeframes for Ministerial decisions, which (in our experience of the referral phase of the COVID Act) can lead to a bottleneck in the process.  There is, of course, a broader question as to the appropriateness (or otherwise) of Ministers having the final say on consenting decisions, even if the scope for “deviating” from an expert panel’s recommendations is limited.  We expect that question will be the subject of detailed submissions during the Select Committee process.

3.  Decision-making framework – The purpose of the FTA Bill is significantly more expansive, and pro-development, than prior fast-track regimes.  The intent is to deliver a fast-track process to “facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant national or regional benefits”. 

Considerations relevant to determining what constitutes “significant national or regional benefits” include whether the project:

(a)     has been identified as a priority project in a central or local government or sector plan or strategy;
(b)     will deliver regionally or nationally significant infrastructure or whether it will increase the supply of housing, address                  housing needs, or contribute to a well-functioning urban environment;
(c)     will support primary industries or the development of natural resources, including minerals and petroleum;
(d)     will support climate change mitigation or adaptation, resilience and recovery from natural hazards; and/or
(e)     will address significant environmental issues.

Unlike the COVID Act, the FTA Bill establishes a clear hierarchy of decision-making criteria, starting with the purpose of the FTA Bill.  That is followed by sections 5 – 7 of the RMA (with section 8, which requires decision-makers to have regard to the principles of Te Tiriti, notably absent), followed in turn by the RMA’s hierarchy of planning documents.  The requirement to separately consider those matters is somewhat at odds with the now well-established approach of effectively relying on the way in which those documents have implemented Part 2, unless there is some suggestion that the documents have not appropriately incorporated Part 2 outcomes. 

One of the most controversial aspects of the FTA Bill is the absence of any reference to the principles of Te Tiriti.  This is a significant departure from the approach taken in environmental legislation for the past 30 years, and is a major step change from the COVID Act and the now-repealed Natural and Built Environment Act 2023. Again, we anticipate this will be the subject of extensive submissions (both in support and opposition) during the Select Committee process.

4.  Removing RMA constraints – Section 104D of the RMA (commonly referred to as the “gateway test”) will not apply to the assessment of resource consents under the FTA Bill.  Notably – unlike the COVID Act – a project will not be ineligible for utilising the fast-track process on the basis that it includes an activity that is prohibited under the RMA and resource consent may be granted under the FTA Bill for prohibited activities or activities which are inconsistent with national directions.  This represents a strong commitment from Central Government to substantially reduce perceived planning constraints on development and infrastructure projects of scale.

5.  Approvals – Like the COVID Act, resource consent applications and notices of requirement may both be considered under the FTA Bill. (Plan changes are not available for fast-tracking.)  Changes in conditions to consents granted under the FTA Bill will still need to processed under the RMA – somewhat incongruously to the “pipeline of projects” notion.  The FTA Bill has, however, extended the type of approvals which may be sought through the fast-track process to include approvals, licences, permissions, clearances and other authorities under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, the Crown Minerals Act 1991, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012, the Conservation Act 1987, the Reserves Act 1977, the Fisheries Act 1996 and the Wildlife Act 1953.

No changes have been made to the land acquisition process under the Public Works Act 1981, except to allow (but not require) the Environment Court, when hearing an objection to a proposal to take land, to accept a determination made under the fast-track process relating to the adequacy of consideration given to “alternative sites, routes, or methods of undertaking the work”.  This is a relatively insignificant change and, for various reasons, may have limited benefit.  We understand, from public statements made by Ministers, that more changes to the Public Works Act 1981 may be coming.

If you would like to know more about the Bill or require assistance in lodging a submission, please contact Francelle Lupis or Rachel Murdoch from our Resource Management team. 


Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Retentions Regime 2023 changes

News & Insights


Retentions Regime 2023 changes

The Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Act 2023 came into force on 5 October 2023, impacting the way retentions must be held.  This FAQ answers the main queries we have been receiving from clients about complying with the new regime.  Please click the link below for information on the changes.



Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Important changes for Incorporated Societies

News & Insights

Important changes for Incorporated Societies

Important changes for Incorporated Societies

What is an Incorporated Society?

An incorporated society is a membership-based not-for-profit legal entity that was, up until 5 October 2023, required to be registered pursuant to the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 (Existing Act).

There are over 24,000 incorporated societies operating in Aotearoa New Zealand, many of which are sports clubs and associations.


New Act and Regulations

The Incorporated Societies Act 2022 (New Act) and its associated regulations (New Regulations) came into force on 5 October 2023.  The New Act:

  • provides for the repeal of the Existing Act; and
  • replaces the Existing Act with a more modern legal, governance and accountability framework for incorporated societies to operate in New Zealand.

From 5 October 2023, all existing incorporated societies are required to re-register under the New Act, and they have until 5 April 2026 to do so (this is referred to as the “Transitional Period” under the new Act).  The provisions of the New Act will not apply to an incorporated society until it has re-registered under the New Act (the provisions of the Existing Act will continue to apply to that society in the meantime).   Any society which fails to re-register by 5 April 2026 will cease to exist after that date. 

Any new society wanting to incorporate as an incorporated society must now register under the New Act. 

Key changes

The following is a summary of the key changes introduced by the New Act:

  • Members / consent. An incorporated society must, as a pre-requisite to being registered, have no fewer than 10 members (under the Existing Act, the requirement is for at least 15 members).  Each member must consent to become a member of the society.
  • Committee. An incorporated society must have a governing body (or committee) made up of no fewer than 3 members (called “Officers”).  Importantly, a majority of Officers on the committee must be members.   Under the existing Act there is no requirement for a committee.  The Act also sets out certain qualifying criteria for Officers.
  • Constitution. An incorporated society must have a constitution which complies with certain requirements of the New Act, including a dispute resolution procedure to govern any internal disputes in a way that is consistent with natural justice.  The constitution replaces the “rules” under the Existing Act.  It is incumbent upon the society to ensure that its constitution is compliant with the New Act - the Registrar of Incorporated Societies does not review these, like they did the rules under the Existing Act.
  • Officers duties.  Officers (which include the committee members, general manager/CEO, treasurers etc.) now have certain broadly expressed duties to the society which have been modelled on the directors’ duties in the Companies Act 1993.  These include to:

             o       act in good faith and the best interests of the society;
             o       exercise powers for proper purposes only;
             o       comply with the New Act and the society’s constitution;
             o       exercise reasonable care and diligence;
             o       not create a substantial risk of serious loss to creditors; and
             o       not incur an obligation the officer does not reasonably believe the society can perform.

     Officers are directly and personally liable to the incorporated society, whose members may apply
     to the Court to enforce them.  The New Act allows societies to keep and maintain insurance for
     Officers in respect of such liability.

  • Contact person.  An incorporated society must have a dedicated contact person whose details are provided to the Registrar of Incorporated Societies (and will otherwise not be publicly available).  The contact person need not be a member – but could be an accountant, lawyer or other business advisor.
  • Financial and other reporting.  Incorporated societies must now use XRB accounting standards in the preparation of financial statements (this requirement does not apply to “small societies” – being societies which are not registered charities and have total operating payments of less than $50,000 and total current assets of less than $50,000, for the last two financial years).  An incorporated society is required to file financial statements and annual returns within 6 months of its balance date in every year.
  • Language.  the documents and records of an incorporated society, such as the constitution, bylaws and financial records can be written in either English or te reo Maori.  Similarly, the name of the society must have a name that ends with either or both of “Incorporated”, “Inc” or “Manatopu”.
  • Amalgamation. The New Act prescribes a process for amalgamation of two or more societies (such process being a similar to the process for amalgamation of companies under the Companies Act 1993).
  • Criminal acts.  The New Act makes it a criminal offence to:

             o       make a false statement;
             o       fraudulently use or destroy property;
             o       falsify documents;
             o       defraud creditors;
             o       dishonestly operate under a name for which the word “Incorporated”, “Inc” or
                     “Manatopu” is the last word, when that organisation represented has not been
                      incorporated under the New Act or any other act allowing for the use of those words;
                      and
             o       breach a banning order (which is a court order disqualifying a person from being
                      an Officer of a society due to criminal or reckless conduct or incompetence etc.).

Comments

The changes introduced by the New Act are, in the main, likely to improve the way that sports clubs, associations and other not-for-profit organisations are governed in Aotearoa New Zealand. 

The requirements of the New Act may not, for some of the larger and more sophisticated organisations, have a significant impact on governance practices.  For smaller organisations (or those largely run by volunteers), the changes may be considerable and, in some cases, onerous: some may struggle to recruit and retain Officers particularly if there is little to no funding allowance for liability insurance.  Others may struggle to meet the cost of compliance.

Societies should use the Transitional Period to ensure that they are in a position to be compliant with the New Act at the time of re-registration.  This may include:

  • reviewing their existing rules in order to assess what changes are needed in order to have a compliant constitution under the New Act;
  • reviewing existing member application processes to identify the changes needed to ensure the consent of every new member is obtained (and in respect of all existing members, collecting their consent);
  • formation of a committee and/or revising the composition of an existing committee in order to ensure the committee has a majority of members (as opposed to independent Officers);
  • considering whether the existing/new Officers will meet the officer qualifying criteria under the New Act;
  • considering who the Registrar’s contact person will be; and
  • identifying which tier of the XRB accounting standards applies to the particular society and considering the potential outsourcing of certain tasks to a professional consultant, such as preparation of financial statements.

Societies should also consider the extent to which they wish to keep and maintain insurance for the liability of their Officers – it may otherwise be practically difficult to attract Officers to those roles, given the additional liability created by the new duties.

Please contact Kelly Johnson (or your usual contact at Greenwood Roche) if you have any queries in relation to the New Act and how it may affect your incorporated society.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Living Pā Project

News & Insights


Living Pā Project

Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington has pulled together principles of te ao Māori and the Living Building Challenge (LBC) in an exciting marae precinct redevelopment on Kelburn Parade. Greenwood Roche are proud to have been involved in the pre-construction phase of this transformative construction project. 


With construction well underway, 42 to 50 Kelburn Parade will soon be home to ‘The Living Pā’, a revolutionary marae precinct redevelopment and the latest addition to the University’s Kelburn campus.  The 3000 sqm project will serve as an ‘incubator for innovation’ and a sustainability beacon that redefines our understanding of, and interaction with, the built environment.

The project is one of few striving for full ‘Living’ building certification in the Southern Hemisphere, the first mass timber building to do so, and the first amongst an urban environment.  The LBC framework requires the pā to be net positive in carbon, water, energy and waste and demonstrably giving back to the local community and surrounding ecology.

The LBC requirements reflect te ao Māori principles such as kaitiakitanga (guardianship), whanaungatanga (kinship) and whakapapa (lineage).  With Papaptūānuku under pressure, these principles have and will continue to have a profound influence on the project as it seeks the gold standard in sustainable building.  The Living Pā intends to create a positive impact on the natural and human systems that interact with it, continuing long after construction is completed.  Once completed, the pā aims to set the benchmark for future regenerative building projects.

Greenwood Roche assisted throughout the procurement process for this project, including to provide strategic procurement advice, draft and negotiate the early contractor involvement agreement and construction contract, and finalise the construction documents.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Climate Change Challenges: Relocating from at-risk Areas

News & Insights


Climate Change Challenges: Relocating from at-risk Areas

On Tuesday 28 November, Greenwood Roche hosted our first climate change focussed panel event: ‘Relocating from At-Risk Areas’, which centred around planned relocation.  We are grateful to the panellists for taking time out to bring their expertise to the event and to all audience members for their thoughts and questions.

Our article gives an insight into some of the important conversations that were covered on the night.  Keep an eye out for more events in the future!


Our very own John Greenwood opened the evening with a summary of the Report of the Expert Working Group on Managed Retreat – A Proposed System for Te Hekenga Rauora/Planned Relocation and its recommendations, before our panel opened its discussion.  The evening closed with an informal Q & A session, where audience members had the opportunity to weigh in and quiz our panel members.

Over the course of the evening, a diverse range perspectives and concerns were aired and the discussion was educational and thought-provoking.  Key discussion points included:

  • the ‘game of chicken’ between banks, insurers and Government, where no one wants to be the one to tell people they can’t live in their homes any more.  As a result of this, at-risk communities aren’t even aware of the scale of risk.
  • the need to consult with communities.  Firstly, if a planned relocation system relies on using legislative powers as a primary tool to relocate communities then ‘the battle is already lost’.  Secondly, New Zealanders have deep connections to the whenua, and should only be made to leave if it is essential.  Thirdly, it is crucial that a Tiriti-based approach to planned relocation is taken.
  • How do we plan for the scale of relocation required?  Researchers have estimated that over 282,000 houses, with an estimated replacement value of over $213 billion, are in flood hazard areas across Aotearoa New Zealand.  Further, around 80% of the marae in the country are located on or near the coast or near flood-prone rivers.
  • the limited current powers of local authorities in this area.  For example, local authorities can approve the building or strengthening of seawalls, but are not empowered in relation to many other mitigation or adaptation activities, so naturally, people lobby for building or strengthening seawalls, irrespective of how effective it will be.

 We look forward to continuing the conversation going forward and hosting more events of this type as part of our commitment to improving broader outcomes under our new GreenPrint initiative.

 Finally, a special thank you to all our panellists: Rawiri Faulkner (Environment and Culture at Ngāti Toa), Alison Howard (Manager for Climate Change Response at Wellington City Council), and Peter Nunns (Director of Economics at Te Waihanga / the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission).


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Return to top