New triennial for Tasman District Council 2025-2028

We sent the following email to all candidates and newly elected members in the 2025 local election for the Tasman District Council.

======

Dear candidates and newly elected members,

We would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your successful candidature for the local elections 2025. We wish you well. We would like to encourage the newly elected ones as you begin your learning journey and hope your time on Council is valuable.

We would also like to take the opportunity to thank those among you who were not successful, but who were ready to contribute by standing for a public office. Without you, there would have been less choice and less valuable contribution. Many thanks for putting up your hands and becoming a public figure with all its up- and downsides. We wish you well and hope you will remain active in local politics as a resident of this beautiful district.

We are a group of local residents who came together in early 2024 with a passion for local democracy aiming to make a positive contribution. Our focus is following local politics via attending and speaking at meetings, reading agendas, submitting in consultations and writing letters to Council on points of concern to us.

Over the last term of Council, we have made a number of observations which we would like to share with you, hoping that some of those observations are thought provoking and resonate with you. We are well aware that anyone newly elected to the Council or community boards has merely inherited those issues. However, they are now on the table and hopefully finding recognition and maybe even a way to resolve them going forward.

Shortly after being elected and sworn in, there are a number of important early decisions to be made. Here are some thoughts on them.

Standing orders

One thing we found helpful is an overview of definitions used. We would like to recommend reading the Wellington Standing Orders and have a chat to TDC staff to confirm the meaning of those words match the local understanding and maybe even have them included in our local standing orders for this coming term.

https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-council/meetings/files/standing-orders.pdf

The standing orders also set out the rules for what is to be recorded in minutes. Unfortunately, we have seen that some elected members who wish something to be recorded in the minutes may find themselves overruled by the Chair of the meeting. We do not think that this is appropriate. Instead, provision should be made that an elected representative should be free to have something recorded in the minutes without interference. Currently, objections to any words used must be recorded in the minutes. This is a provision elected members should use when needed.

The standing orders are silent on what happens if the standing orders weren’t adhered to. Just very recently, the Acting CEO has signed off the minutes of two Council meetings when there is mere authority to sign off the last meeting in a term. How can this issue be solved, especially given the fact that the meeting concerned contained serious issues raised by an elected member which the Chair refused to record in the minutes. We recommend obtaining independent legal advice on solving procedural matters or setting out a procedure to address, record and resolve legal issues raised in the course of a meeting. That extends to publicly available information on how the Council has done that (e.g. incorporate public reporting and recording requirement for such issues).

Secondly, some minutes in the past were quite detailed (We remember a minute from Full Council just after the 2019 elections discussing important details for making available agendas, etc.,which is of huge benefit as it shows how old topics are and what was of importance to elected members in the past. We consider it relevant that Council agrees to add to the standing orders that deliberations at least should be recorded in minutes. In a recent High Court case we noted that not a single deliberation comment/argument was noted in the minutes and therefore was not provided to the Local Government Commission for their consideration of the issue. We consider this to be a lack which should not be continued in the future. The draft minutes should be attached to publicly available agendas and preferably as early as 5 days prior to a meeting to give enough time for careful consideration. This is not a new topic but was discussed in earlier terms.

Committee structures and their terms of reference (TOR)

We highly recommend to reconsider the current TOR of the CEO Review Subcommittee. Firstly, why is this committee confined to three members when it is of such importance? Secondly, it appears as though Council had resolved to allow those three members to set remuneration of the CEO and provide their decision in a report to the remainder of the elected Council. Given the importance of such decision and the repeated concerns from the public about Council management related issues, we consider it negligent to limit this delegation to only certain elected members.

Our suggestion is to check out other Councils’ arrangements. In addition, please raise the question with staff in the meeting and what exactly a certain delegation mean. Judging from previous meetings, staff will usually take their report as read without necessarily expanding on what items mean. Elected members are usually from all walks of life and cannot be expected to have extensive understanding of legal matters. Therefore, it is appropriate and reasonable to ask when unsure.

In addition, there used to be more consistent reporting and a different committee structure, for example a Corporate Services Committee. We suggest consider reinstating that committee and reporting as part of public session as this is not currently the case (approx. since mid last term).

We consider the reporting structure put in place by Motueka Community Board Chair Terina Graham worth considering, especially, a well-maintained action list, attachment of speaking notes to public forum presentations, a habit of directly responding to those presenting in public forum via email, space at the end of meeting business to address matters raised in public forum, making relevant items as part of the board report. Simply check out an agenda and minutes from a meeting in 2025 of the Motueka Community Board and have a look.

We consider it valuable information to be kept informed about staff recruitment: what positions are currently not filled, filled, resignations etc. to be regular part of the CEO report to Full Council. The recent Newsline contained an appointment but without any particular explanation as to why. Having those incorporated as part of Council agenda would make it clear and relevant for both elected members and the public.

There is currently a restriction on members of the public when they speak in public forum. Chairs can stop a member of the public at any time when they criticise staff. We note that standing orders cannot be contrary to any enactment, however we cannot see that members of the public can be restricted in that way as they are not employers of staff unlike the Council. They should be able to rely on their freedom of expression so long as their conduct remains reasonable. Staff reports regularly criticise members of the public. We reconsider independent legal advice to be appropriate for forming a balanced view so that standing orders reflect current NZ law.

Delegations register

We are currently at version 4.31 of the Delegations Register (starting with 4.00 in mid 2021). However, no previous versions of this public document is made available on Council's website. Requests for individual versions are considered vexatious. We consider all versions should be made available online, just as past publications of Newsline are all available.

Further, the CEO was provided with a minor edit delegation to the Delegations Register. This was last used in September 2025 for a minor grammatical error. However, if one compares version 4.29 and 4.30, we cannot see that this change was a minor grammatical error in any shape or form. We consider it reasonable to revoke the minor edit delegation.

Triennial statement

We consider the minor edit relevant for the triennial statement (currently the case) with amendments being reported back to Council. However, those changes did not happen last term when there was public interest to update some of the information in the document (including inserting a date which sets out when change took effect). Changes related to resignation of David Armstrong from the Motueka Community Board, the Board’s decision not to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term, the various bylaws which were reviewed (the schedule contained in the document set out dates which were inconsistent with actual review), adoption of code of conduct by Motueka Community Board in April 2024. These are some examples for information worth making available in that document but which did not happen.

Code of Conduct

It used to be Council practice to present a code of conduct to the inaugural meeting for the councillors to adopt (or change and then adopt, resolve to adopt a code of their choice) after being given legislative advice on codes of conduct for elected members by staff. In a nutshell, there are certain laws which have to be adhered to by any elected member (regardless of any code of conduct) and then there is a legal requirement for every council (not community board) to adopt a code of conduct. The provisions governing codes of conduct for a council are to be found in the Local Government Act 2002 (schedule 7 Clause 15) for those of you who would like to read up on what is required and what is not.

In our view, of the most important issues is to make sure that your oath, the code of conduct as well as the standing orders complement one another and not hinder or contradict as you are bound by all of them. Any concerns you might have around any conflict between those three should be addressed and resolved before any issues may arise later. In that case you will have a better understanding of what is required of you. To give you additional insight, please consider reading a submission by Wellington law firm Franks Ogilvie who specialise on Public Law to understand current legal arrangements and realities for elected members (their submission to Parliament is attached to this email).

There are a number of issues with the current code of conduct which was adopted by Council in 2023, but these are the most concerning in our view. The panel of independent investigators is compiled solely by the CEO. We consider elected members should be involved. Further, we consider that a lawyer would be a good independent investigator, because of the statutory framework they operate under (Lawyers and Conveyancers Act) which provides additional scrutiny compared to security licensed personnel.

The code sets out that legal fees can be met by Council for those who make the allegations, but remains silent on whether the same is afforded to those affected by an investigation. This should be clarified and inserted into the code of conduct policy. The current investigation policy sets out that the ruling of an independent investigator is binding on Council. This is concerning as this still remains a Council decision. We recommend independent legal advice whether this is legally feasible and strongly recommend to restrict an investigator’s role to investigation, not to decide on repercussions.

Further, it appears current practice to inform Council about an outcome in a public excluded session and secondly, not to allow the affected member to be present during that session, let alone allow a right of reply. We recommend amending the code to allow access to the session as well as allow public access should there be not good reasons for otherwise. Especially given the fact that Council tends to share an outcome with media but fails to provide a public statement on the matter. This may affect a member’s reputation. Accuracy and transparency are required to assure no abuse occurred. The code provides a staff to assist but remains silent on how this assistance looks like. E.g. procedural issues may be raised. Who is going to resolve those how? Could independent legal advice be obtained?

Another issue is that elected members, CEO and Council staff are usually protected from any civil and criminal liability so long as their actions can be shown to have happened in good faith. However, the Code of Conduct is silent on the procedure that will be followed in the case the immunity is to be removed. This gap should be closed by setting out the process one can expect the Council to follow in such instances.

Council staff can gain access to elected members’ communications. This is not part of the code or any publicly available documents despite being the case. There should be a note in the code as to why (legal framework allowing staff to access elected members’ communications) this can be done and when this is done. This should equally be reflected in the triennial statement so that the public is also aware that potentially confidential information shared with elected members may be read and shared by Council staff.

The code or any other publicly available document are silent on whether the Council (e.g. via staff) can gain access to elected members’ private correspondence, like Facebook, email and mobile communication data. If so, what legal framework allows that?

There is also freedom of expression. Have elected members the right to express their views on private social media accounts so long as they are not representing the Council (like via a councillor’s business page)? The expression in the code which acknowledges this usually reads “there is a big difference between speaking about council and speaking on behalf of council”.

The Code of Conduct applies automatically for elected members on council, but not for community board members. Most importantly, all elected members have the opportunity to request to change the code of conduct. Community board members have discretion not to adopt any code at all.

Further topics

We also received a judgment from the High Court in respect of the current representation arrangements in the district. An article on our website contains relevant information for those who wish to learn more. We hope the Council carefully considers the observations and recommendations made by Justice Gendall and the Local Government Commission.

https://tasman.org.nz/news/high-court-judgement-on-tasman-district-councils-representation-review

It has been asked for quite some time that the Council please provide a PDF file which contains all current policies. This is what the Selwyn District Council does and it includes the responsible staff, the next review date, tracked changes of past versions (incl. reference of the relevant Council resolution). Via LGOIMA, the Selwyn District Council confirmed this to be a useful tool for staff, elected members and members of the public alike. They also confirmed that providing and maintaining this document does not incur any noticeable costs. However, the Tasman District Council appears somewhat uninterested to provide this level of service (via John Ridd). Given the $20mio. spent for the digital innovation program (which extends to a service which alerts staff when policy reviews are due) we think it is absolutely appropriate and reasonable to rethink the Council’s position. It would also be a great document complementing the triennial statement.

Many thanks for your consideration and we hope you found this information helpful.

Kind regards

Tasman Democracy Inc.

High Court judgment on Tasman District Council’s representation review

The local elections are over. And so is the case in the Wellington High Court which reviewed the Local Government Commission’s Determination for the representation arrangements in the Tasman district. Like any other local authority, the Tasman District Council is required to review their representation arrangements for local elections every six years and was due for this year’s election. 

The Council made its final decision in October 2024. Because some wards being out of line with the statutory limits and because of appeals to the Council’s proposal, the final decision was required to be made by the Local Government Commission. They released their determination in March 2025.

Despite a clear dissatisfaction with the work that was prepared by the Council, the Commission did still pass the Council’s proposal (apart from a reasonable, but minor boundary change) because it needs to see more evidence that change is what’s best for the district. The deliberation notes make it clear that the Local Government Commission was concerned about pursuing change when none of those possible options were actually prior consulted on by the Council. The Commission noted in its determination that the Council had a strong mandate to consider the options presented by the two appellants for their next review in six year’s time.

Tasman Democracy Inc. appealed against this determination to the High Court. A hearing was held in August and the judgment was released in September 2025. We raised five grounds of appeal and the High Court agreed with one of them. The Court “has found an error of law has occurred”. The High Court directed the Local Government Commission to reconsider their determination, by addressing the number of councillors per ward.

Justice Gendall equally made comments for the Tasman District Council:

“I emphasise that it may be necessary for the Council to revisit these arrangements before the next review is required by statute given the combined observations of the Commission and this Court.”

It must be said that all parties involved - us, the Commission as well as the Court - were working within statutory timeframes and tried to find way how the outcome of this High Court appeal could be binding for this year’s election. However, it became quickly clear that this was in no way possible. Given the circumstances, we are very grateful that Justice Gendall found before the elections took place.

What were the key issues we raised?

In summary, we were very unhappy that the Local Government Commission, despite acknowledging a compelling case for change, decided to keep the status quo when even in their own words not enough evidence was provided by the Council to demonstrate that no change would be required.

We did not see that the legislative framework provided for a barrier of “sufficient evidence of community views” in order to truly consider an option for change. We highlighted that a consultation process, contrary to a referendum, is a qualitative process relying on a voluntary contribution of people. Those who contribute can only put their best case forward. Their evidence does not become better or worse by the fact that only few others or maybe even nobody else contributed.

The problem is further that basically deferring a valid argument to a later point in time, because of a failure on the part of Council to consult on it, would risk that representation arrangements can remain not satisfactory for another six years and therefore detrimentally affect the voters of a district for two more elections. In addition, councils that do not discharge their duties properly by consulting in a meaningful way, will not be held to account and have effectively a way to bypass voices they don’t want to hear for whatever reason. There were a number of other issues but this was really the core of the matter.

What was the key take away from the judgment?

The High Court did not agree that the Local Government Commission who was tasked to make the determination instead of Council can do so without consultation as this is an overarching principle in current local government legislation.

However, the High Court agreed that the Commission did not give reasons as to why it concluded on a total of 14 councillors. The High Court found this to be an error of law and directed the Commission to consider this matter anew.

The current legislative framework appears to be limited in achieving accountability of local authorities who do not provide a good array of evidence for their representation arrangements or worse, who do not seem to be much interested in taking the procedure all too seriously.

Justice Gendall noted:

“it is regrettable that ‘consultation fatigue’ as Mr Smith put it, or ‘engagement pressures’ as the Commission termed it, resulted in a relative vacuum of information upon which the Commission had to find a path forward, within a tight statutory timeframe.

Justice Gendall further noted in his judgment:

"TDI's intention was that the appeal would be heard prior to the Local Government elections due to take place on 11 October 2025. However, Gwyn J concluded it was ‘plain that the timeframe could not be met’ and ‘any order that the matter be heard urgently would be ineffective.’ Regardless, TDI has continued with its appeal, as it is entitled to and as is logical, given the arrangements for representation may well continue to the 2028 local government elections."

We consider these observation very relevant for Parliament to have a look at.

It is clear that the Commission was well aware of the shortcomings of Council’s proposal for which they did not carry any responsibility and yet it was the Commission who had to appear in Court (as non-partisan assistance to the Court). The Tasman District Council decided simply stay out and not to comment on their own decision. Yet, the people in the district are dependent on whether or not the Council listens to the recommendations from the Court and the Commission, or if they simply ignore it.

Learnings from the Court proceedings

1. Council was not interested in becoming party to the proceedings

When appealing a determination made by the Commission, the appellant becomes party to the proceedings. The Council can also decide to become party to the proceedings. In our case, the Council did not show any interest in participating in those proceedings and defended its proposal. However, the Commission as the decision-maker has got a very different role. It appeared in the proceedings merely to assist the Court in respect of the legal framework and had to maintain a non-partisan approach, which is a very difficult thing to do when there is no “real” respondent to the appeal (e.g. the Council).

It would have been of massive benefit to all parties involved, had the Council decided to join so that the Commission did not have to take on that very difficult role. It was unfortunate that the Council elected not to respond to the Notice of Appeal and that it was only through a formal report in a Council meeting that we learnt it was not intending to join. The Local Government Commission tried to engage with the Council for a statement which was finally received despite being past the deadline (the memorandum to the Court was due on the previous day).

2. The record of proceedings - what it contained and what it did no contain

As part of taking a matter to court, each party gets access to relevant documents. Unfortunately, reading the complete record of documents, we had to realise that none of the deliberations from Council meetings were part of what was before the Commission because the Council did not provide this information. Further, the minutes (presented to the Commission) of the two public meetings were different from those available on Council’s website. One document was also omitting our public forum presentation on the matter. Once we noticed these differences we approached the Commission who replied promptly and professionally confirming those changes were not made by them, but the documents received in exactly that state from the Council. In general, we were very happy with the way we could interact with the counsel for the Local Government Commission who was very polite, professional and responsive.

Quite interestingly and concerningly at the same time, the record of documents contained staff notes from confidential workshops. Notes that were never presented or adopted by elected members. Those notes make it clear that elected members weren’t even informed about the content of the early feedback received by the Council - in more specific terms than to say that some people were happy with how things are whereas others suggested change.

We consider this relevant as the early feedback should inform Council when drafting possible options for representation arrangements. It turns out that Council only ever modelled their one proposal and roughly sketched a few other options which in our opinion were mere lazy options, like combining the Golden Bay ward and the Motueka ward. Anyone even remotely connected to this district would surely not even come to the idea of changing anything to the Motueka ward towards Golden Bay as opposed to looking further into the Motueka Valley or the Moutere.

3. Council staff, contractor and Commission’s Senior Advisor during the Council’s representation process

It needs to be said that the record of documents reveals that the Council had two of his high level staff oversee the representation review as it was carried out. It also contracted an external person for more than $20,000 to assist with the representation review. The Council’s newly appointed legal counsel was involved in parts and the Local Government Commission provided one of their Senior Advisor for assistance to the Council. Both the external contractor and the Commission’s Senior Adviser were both very knowledgeable about the legislation and explaining the process in much detail, providing detailed and consistent assistance to the Council. In addition, the Local Government Commission issued a total of 13 Panui papers which were intended to provide relevant and timely information to councils in order to assist them in conducting their representation reviews.

Just to illustrate the level of detail: the Council was putting together their schedule for the representation review and the Local Government Commission would provide assistance as to whether the schedule was consistent with the statutory requirements. It was also the case that the Senior Advisor read through the staff reports for the public council meetings, gave advice (before the meeting) and even watched the meeting recordings.

We saw the level of detail contained in the presentations of the contractor assisting elected members during those confidential workshops and he was clearly pointing out what was required.

However, it is concerning that despite all of that skilled assistance no sensible work was done by the Council. What did they spend the money for? Why did they even bother spending all that money? Why were the questions presented to the Council not followed up with responses? Who oversaw the process as a whole? Who carries responsibility for such a serious lack of meaningful engagement with the issue and the public?

What the Council could learn from this representation review

It is worth noting that many submitters to the Council’s proposal made their views known about Maori wards, which was not part of the consultation. It is unfortunate and telling that for some reason so many people were misguided and therefore missing the point. We consider this would provide a good starting point for the Council to assess what could be done differently in future consultations so that people who take the time are actually made well aware of what the scope of the proposal is and what it is not.

In addition, we consider it worth adding that the consultation was only one out of five running basically at the same time (the other 4 were bylaws). If one were to accuse someone of consultation fatigue, then we would add that there is only so much someone who is not being paid by Council can reasonably be expected to read within 4 weeks. It must not be forgotten that people are by default excluded from Council workshops and it would appear somewhat nonsensical that any ordinary resident could easily make up their minds and come up with an informed opinion based on staff reports presented as part of public meetings. Also, it should not be forgotten that the public has significantly lost trust in the Council and in how their feedback is being dealt with.

Quite often we hear from the Council that they are very unhappy because much of what they do is dictated by Wellington. Here, where a council has been given a lot of discretion for local decisions, we have seen just how negligent and apathetic the process was run. We would even dare say with a focus on avoiding any change as much as possible. We do not wonder in that context that Parliament is restricting local authorities’ discretion as sometimes that discretion is abused.

We agree 100% with the observations and recommendations by both Commission the and the High Court and can only hope that the Council considers those with an open mind and makes a decision in best public interest.

We suggest that no further $20,000 are necessary to be spent on an external advisor as this information remains relevant and current and is held by Council. We would wish to see the Community Associations actually being fully engaged and getting a good overview of the topic ideally via workshops that are open to the public. We are very certain that meaningful engagement would end up in a very good solution for this district going forward.

What Parliament could learn from this representation review

With the local government reforms in 2001, local authorities were given more powers and theoretically more accountability. One of those mechanisms is for a member of the public to challenge a local authority’s decision. This is exactly what happened in this case. We were not happy with what the Tasman District Council did in order to arrive at its final proposal. Unfortunately, every upside has got a downside.

Much information provided to the Local Government Commission was from confidential workshops - information which cannot be scrutinised. Given the importance of such a process, we highly recommend reconsidering legislation around confidential workshops.

We hope that Parliament equally takes notice of the limitations of appropriate and timely remedy under the current legal framework and the realistic constraints faced by the Local Government Commission when it is tasked to make determinations as opposed to a local authority. It provides food for thought on how a local authority should minute their public meetings and how it can be made sure that it forwards the accurate documents to the Local Government Commission when required.

Parliament enacted that decision by the Local Government Commission can be appealed to the High Court. However as seen in this case, such an appeal cannot provide a sufficient remedy for an error of law, because of fixed timelines the outcome had no effect on the election. This High Court judgment is a clear call to Parliament to make a change. It must be possible that the outcome of a successful appeal is binding on and useful for the issue under appeal.

Despite it being a rather niche topic going unnoticed by many, we think it was worth appealing because the issue lies at the heart of local democracy. We are convinced that this recent judgment has value for Parliament, the Commission, the Council and the community as a whole.

Background information

2025 Tasman District Council representation review

It all started with an early engagement consultation over Christmas 2023. Unfortunately, there were in total three different deadlines provided for members of the public to give feedback. This early feedback generated 16 responses one of which came from Tasman Democracy Inc. In the previous review from six years ago, merely the same number of submissions were received as part of the formal consultation process on Council’s proposal.

Following from that were a number of confidential workshops which ended up in the Council presenting their initial proposal in July which invited submissions from the public. The initial proposal did not at all factor in what was suggested by us or any other person who provided early feedback to the Council. Therefore, we appeared in public forum and raised our concern about a lack of Council’s engagement with early feedback it received.

Everyone who presents in public forum will be well aware that all you get for speaking in public is silence and so it was for us as well. The meeting resolved to consult on this initial proposal and again, we were part of those around 100 who took the time and submitted. We also appeared in person to speak to our submission in October 2024. That meeting included the Councillor’s deliberations and resolved that the initial proposal would equally be the final proposal.

However, two appeals to the Council’s final proposal were received. Because of this and because of the fact that three wards were outside the 10% margin for fair representation, the Council had to forward their proposal to the Local Government Commission to make a determination.

The Local Government Commission’s determination process

The Commission decided that a hearing was required because more information was needed. It held a hearing and invited the Council and the two appellants to speak on their appeals and to answer to some specific questions.

The Local Government Commission as some point during the hearing addressed Mayor Tim King and noted that one was going around in circles and that a bit more than just “hearsay” was required for that process. Both the Mayor and Christeen McKenzie were explaining how they had informally engaged with various communities but non of which was recorded in any shape or form. It also became clear that the Mayor wasn’t a big fan of the whole process and expressed his compassion towards the Commission who would have the joy of dealing with numbers to which the Commissioners rather dryly responded that they are tasked to deal with statutory requirements.

The Council’s lack of meaningful engagement did not go unnoticed by the Local Government Commission who used very clear and explicit language in their deliberations following the hearing (“Apart from appellants felt entire thing was apathetic”) and in their determination. The determination highlighted that the appellants showed an understanding of the process which would be equally expected of Councils and provided good examples and a compelling case. They also noted a lack of analysis of available information on the part of Council, such as travel patterns, settlement patterns, council facility use, etc., which would be able to assist drafting suitable representation options especially when community feedback was low.

What are representation reviews?

The representation arrangements are a fundamental issue for electoral purposes and therefore right at the centre of democracy. Local Government especially has been struggling with low voter turnouts for a long time - one of the key issues the local government reforms from 2001 wanted to address. The Local Electoral Act 2001 is the main legal framework for the representation review process, but cannot be considered in isolation from the Local Government Act 2002.

The idea behind it is to think about who would be suited most to understand the specifics of an area, lifestyle, certain needs of communities to advocate for those around the council table. This does not in any shape or form influence each councillor’s duty to represent all people in a district fairly in accordance with the office of office. It merely provides voter with an extra layer of confidence that particular candidates have a good understanding of various local needs which may differ between let’s say Tapawera, Pohara or Mapua.

The process is distinct from a district choosing its election method - Tasman uses the First past the Post (FPP) method and e.g. Nelson elected to use the single transferable vote method (STV). However, it may be worth considering a referendum on the voting method before conducting a representation review.

Representation reviews are fundamentally a matter of public interest. They are also a matter which does not end up with huge financial private gains for a party who is unhappy with a finding.

The remedy for parties who are unhappy with a finding is that the determination is quashed and a new determination is made which satisfies the fair and effective representation as was envisaged by Parliament for the voters of a district. This may have contributed to the fact that there was only one decision prior to this one under the current legal framework. An important decision from 2005, called the “Ford” decision. It raised significant point and contributed to more clarity around the legal framework and is well reflected in the Local Government Commission’s Guidelines on representation review.

One could ask why those arrangement are to be reviewed every six years. That is because populations change across time and decrease or increases may not be evenly distributed across a district.

The idea of representation reviews is to divide the district in such a way that all people and communities receive fair and effective representation in local body elections. In a nutshell, a division of a district into wards is intended to reflect existing communities of interest, that are groups which share distinctive features and interests with one another and less with others in the district and how those can be best represented by individual elected officials. Relevant for that division is what is called the political, functional and perceptional dimensions. Those look into geographical features, where people live, work and have strong connections with, where they spend their money and time. In short: where do people most likely wish to have influence via their vote in a local election?

Once a district is divided into wards, a council is required to think about how many councillors to elect across the district and then, how many councillors are to be representing each ward. The Local Electoral Act sets out a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 29 councillors who can be elected per district. The decision on how many councillors per ward is largely dependent on the population of each ward in relation to the overall population of the district.

Further to fair representation, there is a requirement to achieve effective representation. Having community boards or local boards can be considered under this umbrella. How would or would not such arrangement assist local communities’ representation?

There are many moving parts and much discretion in legislation as to how a local authority could arrive at a solution which works for a particular district. The legislation is clear that it is intended to allow for local diversity.

What that also means is that there are many different options possible for Tasman alone.

Do we favour wards? Or a district without wards? Do we favour community boards? In all wards or only in some? In none? Where are our rural areas? Where do people send their children to school, join clubs, spend time and money? Where do they live? Or work? What is the age or our residents? The overall interest? Or needs for certain facilities? Or access to Council facilities? Do we need more playgrounds or more parks and reserves? Wider or narrower streets? Cycle ways? The list and questions goes on… However, what is required is that Council effectively engages honestly and with an open mind with the people in the district. On the other hand, in order to get a good outcome, a council needs to understand how its district actually works and thrives. Ideally, its people would respond with many meaningful submissions which could form the basis for council to make good decisions.

For example, the commission contemplated possible scenarios for the Moutere-Waimea ward after the hearing it conducted:

“Each other ward has service centre, but this doesn’t. Has 8 community associations, tend to cluster into 2 halves, tend to align with school boundaries. Lack of high school generally go either way, suggest would be a way to create 2 new wards that would be somewhat future proofed, suggest could have larger urban centre with rural hinterland, could look at options for community boards for rural hinterland etc, and want this to be looked at next time, robust community engagement issues that provide evidence and confidence that have adequately sought the views of their communities.”

The current situation in the Tasman District

The Tasman District is currently divided into five wards which are largely based on borough structures from before the local government amalgamation in 1989. Those are the Richmond, Moutere-Waimea, Motueka, Golden Bay and Lakes Murchison wards.

Here in Tasman, Richmond and the Moutere-Waimea wards take most of the population growth. Both wards have moved outside of the limit for fair representation (+/- 10% rule). Moutere-Waimea has been out for the last three reviews worsening each time (currently +19%). As we see with areas like the Golden Bay, certain geographical realities may justify a deviation from strict numeric rules. Legislation acknowledges this. Golden Bay is either over- or underrepresented by having one or two councillors. However, the effect of overrepresentation in Golden Bay is twice as significant compared to the underrepresentation from only having one councillor. The Lakes-Murchison ward is now overrepresented as well due to the Local Government Commission shifting ward boundaries. To illustrate the issue: one Councillor in the Moutere-Waimea ward represents more than 5,200 people as opposed to a Golden Bay Councillor representing around 2,800 people.

Mayoral candidates for the 2025 local election

All voters are asked to make a tick for the Mayor of the District. This is the most contested vacancy. Five candidates are competing for one spot. Only the Lakes-Murchison ward with three candidates for one vacancy comes somewhat close. The candidates were certainly busy with meetings, for the most part in the Moutere-Waimea ward. We went to all of these meetings and were admittedly tired from going there, listening and asking a question. But having a speed-dating like get-together with the same people and often very similar questions must have been a challenge for the candidates. We commend all the candidates - only Tim King missed two of the total of three Tasman Community Group meetings due to other commitments. If we counted right, there were two meetings for Lakes-Murchison, a further two in Richmond, two in Motueka, two in Golden Bay and seven in the Moutere-Waimea ward which adds up to 15 in total. All in about one and a half months.

We were certainly well versed in some of the speeches, statements or quotes and we guess the candidates would know their contestants’ words nearly as well as their own by the end of the meet the candidates events. The interesting thing about all these events (and someone else who chose to come to nearly all of them agreed) was to really get to see the various communities of the district and their different characteristics. And also: candidates would have noticed that the majority in the audience were older folk. We wonder whether politics has become a thing of the past? Or is the young generation getting their information mainly via other channels?

What is the Mayoralty about?

It certainly requires different skills as are required from Councillors. Yes, a Mayor is just as much required to read, understand, make up his mind and vote accordingly. But in addition to that, he has this very difficult task to steer the ship. That is within the council, within the community and in front of others, e.g. central government. This requires a range of skills - having the ability to speak to a variety of people but also being able to defend why decisions were made which may come to the expense of others. It requires advocacy skills for matters of the district. A people pleaser so to say. But how do you please people and make good and honest decisions at the same time?

The New Zealand curriculum uses both English and Maori descriptions for their subjects. The English translation of the Maori term for technology reads: “Don’t paddle out of unison or we will never reach the shore”. This is really what leadership requires: harnessing each individual’s strength so that a common goal or vision can be pursued and achieved. Without quashing one along the way. And this vision must be clear and well understood by all so that it can be aimed for.

Whilst it is great to refer to the amazing natural beauty and diversity of this district as enjoyable which attracts new residents and visitors alike, it is also a duty to preserve it and set the political scene in such a way that the people here can thrive and continue to have time and resources to actually enjoy this place.

Currently, this district is the worst affordable one in the whole of the country and it is not a particularly wealthy district as a whole. The medium income is below $40k a year. We struggle with an ageing population which will cause issues in the future when not enough income is generated from within. We also struggle with other causes of low income and see quite a divide between those who earn a lot (or had in the past) and those who somewhat hardly manage to stay on top. Will this district look out for its less wealthy and more vulnerable population in the years to come or are we more interested in attracting more wealth from other areas to come and live here instead?

We have certainly seen quite a few leaving this district because it was no longer affordable for them. We think we are in an extremely dire situation at the moment which won’t leave us anytime soon and we do need strong leadership with a plan and discipline to get us back on track to avoid commissioners taking over as we have seen in Christchurch or Tauranga. We think that requires drastic change of course.

As a summary, there were a few questions which we would like to mention. One person in Richmond asked what the council is planning to retain skilled young people in the district. Given the significant recently announced business losses certainly a valid question to ask and something to think about. Given the financial pressures, would you rather tighten the belt significantly and reduce maintenance of infrastructure and keep the current population, or keep up with maintenance but lose more of the current population who can no longer afford the rates? What is the benefit of the dam for the whole district? Is there an issue with council culture and if so, how to solve it?

Let’s look at our take on the candidates.

Richard Osmaston is the candidate who must have had the most training in making his presentation after about 15 years of standing for both local and national elections in various electorates on the exact same philosophy. He is advocating for a system which operates solely on a voluntary basis and without money. He has also written a book on it which we have read. We can certainly see his passion and dedication but also that there are a few steps missing in between an idea/utopia and reality. We understand that there are many positives but there are also many simplifications of matters which we consider are more complex. We agree that the current system has got a due date and is clearly not sustainable the way it currently operates. However, we have got strong reservations towards focusing much on theories which have caused much grief in the past and not proven to be feasible or free of violence. Marx would appear to fall into that category.

Maxwell Andrew Clark also tries to stand on multiple feet in the south island. There were a number of times where his candidature for Invercargill was brought up and his answers were not really convincing in our view. Apart from that, he is clearly not in favour of current council culture or spending.

Tim King is the man with the most experience on council. Experience comes with a track record and we are not convinced that his words in regards to the positive council culture or simple mistakes which have led to the massive dam blowout actually match reality. Just a few weeks back, he and the two others councillors on the CEO review panel attested to the high performance of the current CEO. The remainder of the council were simply provided with the report and no decision rights. When it was pointed out that the terms of reference of that committee suggest they merely recommend to council but not make decisions, he was confident that this was not the case. But the new council could have a look at it. An interesting way of dealing with potential irregularities of that significance.

Yes, there is always a pressure on councils and yes, there is always someone who does worse, but is this the standard we are aiming for? He is also confident that his experience allows him to treat the Mayoralty as a part-time job and pursue other work commitments such as farming. There surely was a reason for putting a large sum of money aside for his remuneration - namely that this office is to be treated as a full-time job we dare say.

We also don’t think that experience alone testifies that someone is suitable for the job. We failed to see any genuine honest self-assessment of clear vision for the future other than to say that it’s basically all central government. Admittedly, there is much legislation that must be followed and there is much change in central government legislation. But there is also discretion and regional diversity. The rules on tiny homes are part of those. Despite major issues around the topic at least since 2019, we do not see anything apart from waiting it out and taking people to court in the meantime about a rule that the Council is unclear about themselves (but our rule in the TRMP is not central government based; it is our own rule based on our own decisions).

We are not impressed with the style of leadership that we have been witnessing - especially towards councillors who ask questions. Tim King is certainly used to speaking in public and mostly knows how to best address a certain audience and his years of experience make him less prone to procedural faux-pas in candidate meetings.

Richard Johns is the man from Riwaka who comes with a clear mission to turn things around. His style is very Kiwi. A genuine number 8 wire mentality. He comes from earthmoving and construction, having also worked overseas. His happy place is blacksmithing and it is quite obvious that he loves problem-solving. He is really upset with how things are at the moment. From staff to debt, he is not happy. He has been dealing with the Council for many years and is involved in many issues which have clearly given him an idea about how big the issue is.

He is the candidate who will appeal to those who are looking for clear words and the human aspect in local government. Common sense is how he words it. He is clearly empathetic and concerned. Whilst he can be heated at times, he is happy to set things straight and be humorous. He does not shy away from saying what he thinks. He will need support to get up to speed with council procedure and has indicated a readiness for that. Absolutely approachable and easy to talk with.

Timo Neubauer clearly has things in common with the previous candidate. He is not happy with how things are at the moment and he is very approachable. He comes with a clear focus on urban design and a strong passion and clear vision for this district in terms of brownfield as opposed to greenfield developments. He clearly has concerns around council culture and staff costs, but his absolute centre of attention is the long-term planning of how development should take place in this district.

In his approach he is more tame and professional and is used to advocate to council. He can be seen anywhere - on signs, in person and online. He is friendly, has worked overseas and has some reservations to engage in unconventional thinking. He clearly is analytical and passionate about seeing the district thrive which in his view would be the case when his urban design vision was reflected in Tasman’s planning. We heard that some people have clear reservations - be it that his approach would mean increased short-term costs or that Kiwis prefer their current lifestyle. A classic case of how to find a compromise.

In summary, we agree with a statement from Councillor Mark Greening that among the mayoral candidates there are 2 good reasons for change.

Richmond ward in 2025 local election

The Richmond ward has a population of 19,350 people and gets to vote four councillors. That means each councillors represents 4,838 people. It is the the most populated ward which also accommodates the majority of the district’s growth. For the first time this ward is slightly off the mark in terms of fair representation and the Local Government Commission strongly suggests to the Council to look at different options for this ward in future representation reviews. Obviously this ward will continue to grow.

Of note in Richmond is that all current councillors are seeking re-election and find competition by two new candidates, Timo Neubauer and Daniel Shirley.

The candidates have only very few lines to make themselves known in the information booklet which comes together with the voting papers. In addition, community groups organised meetings where the candidates appeared in a speed dating like scenario with all other candidates and are asked to perform well under pressure and express themselves well. They are first invited to speak about themselves for a number of minutes and then be faced with either questions aimed at a particular candidate or at all candidates.

Some have never worked in local politics and may only be known to some through various other activities - do these tell people enough about whether or not a candidate will bring the required skills to the table where the job is to make political decisions? Others who have political experience - have they proven to possess the skills the are needed for a role of an elected representative in local politics?

The new councillors will have to have consideration to the needs and wants of the ward he or she represents whilst at the same time having to fairly balance these against overall priorities of the whole district. This is a huge balancing act each councillor is facing when tasked with making good political decisions. It does require good judgement and communication skills.

Given the dire financial situation of this particular council it will be a tough decision between further rate hikes to keep up with infrastructure costs (maintenance and newly built) and losing more current ratepayers to other districts (because they can no longer afford the increased rates), or less infrastructure and upkeep with less demographic change in respect of the current population. What is the direction for the district preferred by the the majority of the district for this coming term?

For this election, there were a total of three meetings for the Richmond ward. One organised by the Tasman Community Group and a further two by the Richmond Rotary Club, moderated by ex Nelson councillor Judene Edgars (one for ward and one for mayoral candidates). This article focuses on the ward candidates. A summary of the mayoral candidates will be published separately.

The candidates

The Richmond ward has got four councillor vacancies to be filled, with all incumbent councillor seeking re-election: First-term councillors Glen Daikee and Jo Ellis and long-term councillors Kit Making and Mark Greening. The new ward councillor candidates are Timo Neubauer (who is also running for the mayoralty) and Daniel Shirley. This is what the council candidates say about themselves: https://www.tasman.govt.nz/my-council/about-us/your-mayor-and-councillors/local-elections/nominations-received/richmond-ward

In summary, the voters will ask themselves whether their current Councillors are doing well around the council table and therefore deserve their votes again or whether the two new candidates (or one of them) get their trust to represent their views.

This is a summary on the Richmond meet the candidates evenings. The formats of both meetings were quite different. The Tasman Community Group took on board a suggestion by Councillor Mark Greening and started with each candidate presenting themselves, followed by questions from the floor and then everyone was given the opportunity to sit down with individual candidates around tables in the foyer for a chat or further private questions. There were about 30 people in the audience.

The Rotary meeting was characterised by a number of preset questions (to all and to individual candidates) with some time towards the end for questions from the floor. The questions were according to the meeting chair AI-generated following the candidates’ own profiles. Around 40 people came to listen.

Of note were two questions which we think were a bit unfortunate. One was a procedural question aimed at new candidate Daniel Shirley and one was to the incumbent Mayor regarding getting the public out of the floods .

Mark Greening is a lawyer by trade who is currently in his 4th term on council. He is the one who calls for division on important votes and is often the one who does not only ask relevant questions during meetings but who also votes in accordance with the issues he raises and the values he stands for. He also maintains a Facebook page and a blog where he keeps the community informed about his work and his thoughts on current local politics issues. We absolutely stand behind his commitment to transparency and affordability. Councillor Greening shows commonsense voting despite the rough treatment he is often exposed to around the council table. We witnessed him being extremely responsive and approachable and he opted to continue to receive our communication when the CEO banned us from contacting council staff and elected representatives. His intellect is definitely appreciated and much needed in our view. Those who follow council decisions will certainly appreciate his diligence.

Jo Ellis is a first-term councillor seeking re-election. She also opted for continuing to receive communication from Tasman Democracy which is much appreciated. Her campaign or presentation in meetings was centred around her own personal struggles she previously had with council which encouraged her initially to stand. She is confident the culture has changed since and that things like robust debates are happening. She has started coming to the Motueka Community Board meetings a few months ago. We haven’t heard much of her during public meetings but some more towards the end of this triennium and her voting was mostly uncritical. She was not confident that rates could realistically be capped.

Glen Daikee is equally a first-term Councillor and has rarely spoken and usually votes in favour of what is recommended by staff without asking questions. His presentation was much about how well the current council is working as a team and that there are debates. We were not convinced that this candidate has developed a deep understanding of local politics in his term on council. He certainly did elect not to receive correspondence from Tasman Democracy.

Daniel Shirley is the youngest ward candidate and clearly concerned about the current inefficiencies and financial pressures on ratepayers resulting from Council decision-making. He is standing with Act local and has no prior experience in politics. He can speak well and does not make the impression to be overly shy. Does not come with many promises but with a valid passion for getting the spending under control. He admits there is much to learn which is a valid and fair starting point. Let’s hope he can benefit from the support he is getting from those experienced in the political world.

Timo Neubauer is probably one of the new candidates who need the least introduction because he makes sure people are well aware of him and his stances, in person and online. He is also standing for Mayor and comes with a professional background in and passion for urban design. He has presented his views on certain council projects openly over quite some time. The most famous one was his opposition to the Plan Change 81. Like with all people who have a clear view, there are people in favour and those clearly not in favour. Timo favours urban design which is characterised by intensification of existing developments rather than further greenfield developments. When asked whether he would advocate for rural lifestyles that were off-grid (no water and waster water service connection to council services which would mean no infrastructure costs now and in the future for those services - apart from roads and no increased rates on those services) he made the point that commuting to urban areas whilst living rurally would be what he did not support as being sustainable. His main focus is to reduce and better manage core infrastructure costs and reducing staff costs is rather a “drop in the bucket” compared to those. He surely knows local topics and urban design falls squarely within what governance does.

Kit Maling is a long-term Councillor and there is not much that can be said other than he would surely appeal to those who are in favour of how the council is currently operating and not to those who are seeking change. He became famous for his quote on delivering the dam on time and on budget. He did elect not to receive Tasman Democracy communication and intends not to change that because we are not part of his ward and two of our members challenged the council in court. When asked by a member of the public during one meet the candidates nights whether he would use social media for communicating to the community about his work on council, he was very clear that he wouldn’t because he experienced online bullying and he prefers to engage with groups directly, such as schools or sports groups. With all due respect, but it is our view that schools and sports groups are places where politics should not play a role. We have no issue that he elects not to use social media though.

The ward councillors and current council business

All ward councillors are still involved in current decision-making. The last few weeks and days were interesting and many things happened. There was a confidential meeting on progressing Plan Change 81 - Kit Making was chairing the Policy and Strategy Meeting and his colleague Mark Greening was challenging that item on the agenda. Or better -he tried. He raised his hand before the motion was put through to move into committee and Kit Mailing as the Chair noted that he did not notice Mark Greening’s raised hand. He made a comment about Mark Greening not physically being in the room. When Mark remarked that there is no differentiation between those attending online and attending in person, the Zoom suddenly stopped and only way later the meeting resumed without further explanation.

The CEO review subcommittee decided that the current CEO had a high performance and presented their report from this confidential committee to a recent confidential Full Council session. Afterwards, Councillors confirmed that the Full Council was merely presented with an information only report from this Subcommittee (King, Bryant, Mackenzie). The remaining Councillors were not entitled to vote on the report. After checking the terms of reference of that committee it would seem that is can only recommend to Full Council but not make a decision on behalf of Council. Mark Greening brought it up again at last Thursday’s Full Council meeting, but Tim King ruled that he was confident that everything was OK and the new council could look into the matter.

The last Full Council meeting will be on Thursday 2nd October. It will deal with whether or not the CEO will receive a 600% increase in financial delegation - from the current 1 million to 6 millions (initially proposed were 10 millions). Peculiar detail: no draft minutes of last Thursday’s meeting are being proposed to be adopted. As minutes work as prima facie evidence, they are important. Even more so when important issues are being raised. And as this coming meeting will be the last before the elections, who will then get to see and sign of he draft minutes ? The chair/Mayor and CEO.

The role of an elected councillor

Councillors are governance not part of management. Logically, their achievements will be measured through the political decisions they make around the council table in Richmond and some of those decisions will reflect on each ratepayers’ invoice, their fees and charges, speed limits, core and community infrastructure and rules coming from bylaws. As plan changes are currently being put on hold by central government, there may be less on this front for now.

Decisions on bylaws, policies, rates, debt, development contributions, unbudgeted expenditures, decisions to move into a confidential session, decisions to agree or disagree to information in a staff report. Those decisions require a strong commitment for reading a lot in a very short period of time. It requires the mental and intellectual capacity to read the small print and to ask in public when something is unclear, to speak up when needed and to stand up for what is right even though some may not agree. It also requires someone who is willing to understand the legal implications of the decisions lying on the table as well as their practical value and the financial implications of those decisions. The speed limit changes are a recent political decisions the whole district is now faced with.

It does not stop with reading, but understanding matters quickly, making up their minds, preparing relevant questions, taking questions coming from the community in respect of those items on the agenda into account, debating in public and finally voting on those matters whilst at the same time adopting past meetings’ minutes which means attesting that they present an accurate record of those. The required skill extends to understanding the applicable legal framework and whether the proposal sits well within it. To be fair, staff assistance is provided. In CEO Leonie Rae’s words in the pre-election report: “Staff will support all Elected Members with the information and training needed to make sound, informed decisions.” In addition, elected members have the opportunity to seek independent advice from LGNZ or maybe even further afield. Whether or how any additional external support can be financed from existing budget, we don’t know. We haven’t seen consistent and high-quality staff input across departments in the last term unfortunately and are concerned that councillors and community board members may not be getting the support they deserve.

The pre-election report does also state important issues for the upcoming years. Given the recently announced stop on council plan reviews and changes up to 2027, it looks as though this incoming Council will be stuck with current rules for a while without much flexibility and room for making new rules for the district. The upside may be that there might be potential for less packed agendas going forward but there could be a potential for focusing on potential changes in central government when those haven’t been implemented yet and which may not persist after yet another central government election next year. So really, a difficult task for all councillors to stay focused on the relevant political decisions in accordance with the current legislative framework.

The Richmond ward sits between Stoke and Brightwater and its residents have to deal with serious congestion issues on a daily basis. Even though not a local government topic, it is a very real topic for many including those simply travelling through Richmond. It would seem it has the usual conflicts of urban areas - cycle lanes or parking spots? Making sure the town centre stays alive and attractive. Many people on a small piece of land. From the outside, it is hard to make out the different identity between Stoke and Richmond and why one is better served by the Nelson City Council and the other by the Tasman District Council. Equally, Hope, Brightwater and Wakefield appear close. Why Hope is close to Richmond and the others aren't allowed to vote there, we are not so sure. It does somehow feel as though this ward gives us a taste of a possible amalgamation.

It is certainly a ward with jobs. It was in Richmond where a concerned resident was asking the candidates what they are intending to do to keep skilled young people in the region. Someone else was pretty upset about the current council communication with residents. She found it hard as someone who works full-time to stay informed about council business. One person asked to please consider asking council staff to walk, cycle or use the public transport for appointments within this ward. This was rejected as being unrealistic and not practical. That is probably the exact reason as to why only very few people are seen on the buses which also seem to be prone to needing repair. Other residents noticed the damage the buses are causing to the roundabouts and the roads in general.

Moutere-Waimea ward in 2025 local election

The Moutere-Waimea ward has a population of 15,650 people and gets to vote three councillors. That means each councillors represents 5,217 people of this ward making it the ward in the district with the worst representation. For comparison the Maori ward councillor will be representing 2540, the Lakes Murchison 3700, one Richmond Councillor 4837, one in Golden Bay 2795 and one Motueka representative 4167 people. Only one of the three current councillors is seeking re-election and there are a further three candidates standing.

The candidates have only very few lines to make themselves known in the information booklet which comes together with the voting papers. In addition, community groups organised meetings where the candidates appear in a speed dating like scenario with all other candidates and are asked to perform well under pressure and express themselves well. They are first invited to speak about themselves for a number of minutes and will then be faced with either questions aimed at a particular candidate or at all candidates.

Some have never worked in local politics and may only be known to some through various other activities - do these tell people enough about whether or not a candidate will bring the required skills to the table where the job is to make political decisions? Others who have political experience - have they proven to possess the skills the are needed for a role of an elected representative in local politics? The new councillors will have to have have consideration to the needs and wants of the ward he or she will be representing whilst at the same time having to fairly balance these against overall priorities of the whole district. This is a huge balancing act each councillor is facing when tasked with making good political decisions. It does require good judgement and communication skills.

Given the dire financial situation of this particular council it will be a tough decision between further rate hikes to keep up with infrastructure costs (maintenance and newly built) and losing more current ratepayers to other districts (because they can no longer afford the increased rates) or less infrastructure and upkeep with less demographic change in respect of the current population. What is the direction for the district preferred by the the majority of the district for this coming term?

For this election, interestingly, this ward has a large number of community associations and was blessed with the most opportunities for meeting the candidates, both mayoral and for the ward. There were two meetings in Upper Moutere, one in Ngatimoti, Redwood Valley, Wakefield, Mapua and Brightwater. That is seven meetings for one ward - quite impressive! The meetings were usually attended by around 30 people. This article focuses on the ward candidates. A summary of the mayor candidates will be published separately.

The candidates

The Moutere-Waimea ward has got three councillor vacancies to be filled, with one incumbent councillor seeking re-election, first-term councillor Mike Kininmonth. The further three ward councillor candidates are ex-councillor of two terms Dean McNamara, Dave Woods and Julian Eggers. This is what the council candidates say about themselves: https://www.tasman.govt.nz/my-council/about-us/your-mayor-and-councillors/local-elections/nominations-received/moutere-waimea-ward

Having seen the candidates over a large number of meetings should have helped to gain an understanding of what they are standing for. The upside: all candidates said they were happy to open up workshops to the public.

Mike Kininmonth has had one term on Council and usually started his presentations with comments on the community hall in which the particular meeting was held. It would appear that he is and was willing to engage with people on topics like community halls and the maintenance thereof. The words he used to describe himself match pretty much what the crux of his presentation was during those meetings: “I offer experience in local body politics, am more than capable in representing you, with enthusiasm and willingness. I'm keen to see that todays decisions make our region a better place to live in the future.” He seems in good company with other incumbent councillors e.g. Glen Daikee, Jo Ellis or Kit Mailing from Richmond who promote a similar view. There were a number of faux-pas when asked questions about particular political topics like the dam where we were not convinced that the experience on council resulted in knowledge. Probably someone who is happy to engage on topics like rubbish on the road where he seems happy to help concerned residents out. Anything which requires speaking up would seem somewhat difficult for him. He was asked a long time ago why he elected not to receive communications from people who were banned from contacting council staff or certain elected representatives (like Tasman Democracy Inc members) and he admitted that he did not know about this. Time has passed and nothing has changed - our communications do still not find their way directly into his mailbox without prior check-ups from someone or a certain team of council staff. We do not think that this is very helpful for maintaining a meaningful and workable relationship with an elected representative. He looks to Tim King often for guidance.

Dean McNamara is a man of no road side signs who keeps his comments short and sharp during meet the candidates nights. To illustrate him in a sentence: asked in Brightwater about the benefits of having the Waimea dam - “I think the only benefit of the dam was that you weren’t flooded recently because it held the water back. So that’s a bonus.” He is very knowledgeable and comes with two terms of experience in making political decisions for the district. He has been writing a blog for some time and does seem to be on target when he opens his mouth. He does not hold back his opinion, votes accordingly and seems more than capable of dealing with the aftermath of speaking up against a majority (he has accumulated some code of conducts over the years). His focus is and was clearly on ethics and prudent spending of public money. His statements on his website, on policy.nz and his voting records show consistency.

Julian Eggers promotes himself to be bringing the perspective of the youth around the table. Had the same speech that he read out each time. One of the contents of his presentation is that he closely follows council meetings to stay informed. Unfortunately, however, he found it difficult to understand or respond to certain questions and did not convince us that he had in fact solid knowledge around council topics.

Dave Woods is a man who is new to politics but clearly fed up with rate hikes. He puts the focus of his campaign onto representing the ratepayers around the table. He has got a solid business background and does not seem airy fairy in his views. He does not pretend to know everything and showed to be approachable and genuinely interested in listening and learning about current issues. He did not know much about the representation issues of this ward right at the beginning of those candidates evenings but could assure later that he had read up on the issue. There is not much more that can be expected from a candidate. Let’s hope that he can stay as committed to reading up on issues if elected before making a decision like everyone else as that is often a real risk.

The ward and its current representation

Two of the three councillors are no longer standing, one of whom was just voting on attesting high performance of the CEO as part of her function on the CEO review subcommittee. The other first-term councillor did stay very calm throughout this term and was absent for a number of important decisions. Both were absent for the latest confidential session on the Plan Change 81. Both councillors did elect not to receive communication from Tasman Democracy and some of its members when the CEO put in place communication restrictions for staff wellbeing reasons.

The Moutere-Waimea ward combines a number of settlements ranging from Upper Moutere, Mapua, Tasman across to the Redwood Valley, Brightwater and Wakefield. The Mayor has repeatedly stated that various settlements like Wakefield and Brightwater had unrecognisably changed over time but are still awesome places to live. The Council does not seem quite sure whether these are now considered “urban” (their documents) or “rural” settlements (their stance towards the Local Government Commission during the representation review). Mapua also has a very distinct character and identity and it will be interesting to see how the next representation review approaches this ward in particular - will there be some identity overlap recognised with Motueka (Moutere part) or Richmond (Waimea part) or how else could this ward be structured so that people receive a fairer representation in the future? Or will the Council’s view be confirmed again and changing anything to this ward would split communities of interest? We will see.

Interesting in any case is that there seem to be many little communities which look after their residents (or special interests) as we can see in the significant number of community associations.

The Eves Valley Sawmill closure will most likely affect a number of residents. People were affected by the recent floods. There are large farms, lifestyles, small business owners and producers as well as those with sea views who live close to restaurants and shops.

This ward as well as Motueka is most affected by the tiny home issue. The new speed limits are clearly affecting this ward and each driver should have their watches available when driving past schools as all of them seem to have different rules at different times. It would seem in result the Moutere Highway gets used less but the Coastal Highway more. With way more Police present to monitor speed.

The role of an elected councillor

Councillors are governance not part of management. Logically, their achievements will be measured through the political decisions they make around the council table in Richmond and some of those decisions will reflect on each ratepayers’ invoice, their fees and charges, speed limits, core and community infrastructure and rules coming from bylaws. As plan changes are currently being put on hold by central government, there may be less on this front for now. Decisions on bylaws, policies, rates, debt, development contributions, unbudgeted expenditures, decisions to move into a confidential session, decisions to agree or disagree to information in a staff report. Those decisions require a strong commitment for reading a lot in a very short period of time. It requires the mental and intellectual capacity to read the small print and to ask in public when something is unclear, to speak up when needed and to stand up for what is right even though some may not agree. It also requires someone who is willing to understand the legal implications of the decisions lying on the table as well as their practical value and the financial implications of those decisions. The speed limit changes are a recent political decisions the whole district is now faced with.

It does not stop with reading, but understanding matters quickly, making up their minds, preparing relevant questions, taking questions coming from the community in respect of those items on the agenda into account, debating in public and finally voting on those matters whilst at the same time adopting past meetings’ minutes which means attesting that they present an accurate record of those. The required skill extends to understanding the applicable legal framework and whether the proposal sits well within it. To be fair, staff assistance is provided. In CEO Leonie Rae’s words in the pre-election report: “Staff will support all Elected Members with the information and training needed to make sound, informed decisions.” In addition, elected members have the opportunity to seek independent advice from LGNZ or maybe even further afield. Whether or how any additional external support can be financed from existing budget, we don’t know. We haven’t seen consistent and high-quality staff input across departments in the last term unfortunately and are concerned that councillors and community board members may not be getting the support they deserve.

The pre-election report does also state important issues for the upcoming years. Given the recently announced stop on council plan reviews and changes up to 2027, it looks as though this incoming Council will be stuck with current rules for a while without much flexibility and room for making new rules for the district. The upside may be that there might be potential for less packed agendas going forward but there could be a potential for focusing on potential changes in central government when those haven’t been implemented yet and which may not persist after yet another central government election in the next year. So really, a difficult task for all councillors to stay focused on the relevant political decisions in accordance with the current legislative framework.

Motueka ward in 2025 local election

The Motueka ward has a population of 12,500 people and gets to vote three councillors. That means each councillors represents 4,167 people of this ward making it the only ward in the district which sits currently within the 10% range of what is considered a fair representation. Two of the three current councillors are seeking re-election. Like in Golden Bay, the voters in Motueka also get to choose an additional four elected representatives for their Community Board. Only one current member is seeking re-election.

The candidates have only very few lines to make themselves known in the information booklet which comes together with the voting papers. In addition, community groups organised meetings where the candidates appear in a speed dating like scenario with all other candidates and are asked to perform well under pressure and express themselves well. They are first invited to speak about themselves for a number of minutes and will then be faced with either questions aimed at a particular candidate or at all candidates.

Some have never worked in local politics and may only be known to some through various other activities - do these tell people enough about whether or not a candidate will bring the required skills to the table where the job is to make political decisions? Others do have political experience - have they proven to have the skills that are needed for a role of an elected representative in local politics?

The new councillors will have to have consideration to the needs and wants of the ward he or she will represent whilst at the same time having to fairly balance these against overall priorities of the whole district. This is a huge balancing act each councillor is facing when tasked with making good political decisions. It does require good judgement and communication skills.

Given the dire financial situation of this particular council it will be a tough decision between further rate hikes to keep up with infrastructure costs (maintenance and newly built) and losing more current ratepayers to other districts (because they can no longer afford the increased rates), or less infrastructure and upkeep with less demographic change in respect of the current population. What is the direction for the district preferred by the majority of the district for this coming term?

For this election, there were a total of three meet the candidates events for the Motueka ward - two in person and one online. The two meetings for the Motueka ward councillor and mayoral candidates were each attended by around 50 people. The Tasman Community Group, who decided last minute due to expression of interest by the public and candidates to also host a meet the candidates for the Community Board candidates, managed to attract around 30 attendees for that event. This article focuses on the ward and its community board. A summary of the mayor candidates will be published separately.

The candidates

The Motueka ward has got three councillor vacancies to be filled, with two incumbent councillors seeking re-election: Brent Maru and Trindi Walker. The further two ward councillor candidates are Dave Ross and Kerryn Ferneyhough.

The new ward councillors will be aided by their four colleagues on the Community Board to efficiently and effectively gather views on local government matters across the Motueka ward which will hopefully assist them in making good decisions around the council table. This is what the council candidates say about themselves: https://www.tasman.govt.nz/my-council/about-us/your-mayor-and-councillors/local-elections/nominations-received/motueka-ward

In summary, the voters will ask themselves whether their current councillors are doing well around the council table and therefore deserve their votes again and whether the two new candidates (or one of them) get their trust to represent their views going forward.

Trindi Walker is a returning councillor who is clearly well-known in her ward by people of many walks of life and is a very approachable person. She made her stance around tiny homes and social issues very clear which was also what many of the attendees of the meet the candidates events were interested in. She speaks up in meetings, both for the community board and around the council table and is able to point out irregularities in e.g. financial reports in public. She is seen often and attends many meetings outside of council business. Used to read a lot in very short period of time and is well aware of how difficult this can be at times. She has shown to stand up for her community and to use her voting at times to make that clear at the council table.

Brent Maru is equally well-known and even ran for Mayor in the past. He also holds other offices and knows council business equally well as Trindi. He is approachable but somewhat reluctant to stand up too loudly and usually votes on council decisions like everyone else . On the other hand he was very supportive of the recommendation the Motueka Community Board was preparing to Council in regards to the tiny home provisions and called it openly a “silly rule”.

Dave Ross does not live in the Motueka ward (in Mahana) but worked in Motueka for a long time as a pharmacist. He was very credible in the way he assured that he is well aware of pressing issues for both the district and Motueka. He appears someone who is ready to speak up, used to reading fine print and dares to take on responsibility. He does not seem to seek a career but has got genuine issues he wants to address. He is affiliated with Act local and we hope his procedural knowledge will benefit from that support.

Kerryn Ferneyhough is relatively new to the ward and works as a teacher which she would stop doing should she be elected. Her presentation seemed very much focused on community resilience and the floods and we could not find one particular area of local government passion or expertise where she was able to make a stand. She was endorsed by David Armstrong who also appears in her campaign video and who was very critical of the current community board’s work. Armstrong left the community board one year early and was equally critical of relaxing the tiny home rules, but is much in favour of the current Mayor. It would seem Kerryn’s partner is part of a local group just recently featured in the local free press to educate voters. We are not convinced that this candidate has shown much appetite for change and suspect that this candidate would appeal to those who are happy with the current council.

The Motueka ward voters will be able to choose four Community Board members from a total of five candidates, one of those seeking re-election, Claire Hutt.

Claire Hutt had already three terms on either council or community board and has clearly established a network and is aware of what is happening within the community. We have seen her asking more questions during the last term on the community board.

David Ogilvie is not really a new candidate but someone with lots of experience around Motueka and the Council as ex-councillor. He started coming regularly to meetings of the current community board since the beginning of this year, speaking in public forum on relevant matters with valid points. When he was a councillor a few years ago, he voted first against the Waimea Dam, but 2 weeks later he changed his mind and voted in favour of the dam. When asked at the meeting about the dam, he still has the view that it was the right decision to build the dam.

Ray Hellyer is a very dedicated local with a long-standing passion for local politics and the Motueka Community Board and can be seen at most of their meetings, either contributing to public forum or sitting in the audience. He has been very outspoken on topics close to his heart.

John Katene appears to be a well-respected local who has made his points of interest very clear which are all valid local politics matters.

Laura Lusk stands out as she does seem to bring a different perspective to the table with her professional background and her being a mother of teenagers.

This is what they say about themselves https://www.tasman.govt.nz/my-council/about-us/your-mayor-and-councillors/local-elections/nominations-received/motueka-community-board-2

The ward and its current representation

The Motueka ward is quite interesting and diverse. We have got the Motueka township, parts of the Motueka valley, Lower Moutere, Riwaka, Marahau and Kaiteriteri who all make up the 12,500 people of this ward. It was just announced that Motueka is going to lose its famous Hop federation brewery which may have some bitter taste going forward. Motueka has been advocating and fundraising for their public pool for maybe around 20 years now and given the serious financial situation of this council, will they have to wait even longer?

Motueka is dealing with wharf issues, channel issues, freedom camping, youth, tourism, local interest groups, dog on beaches issues and anything in between. After the recent weather events flood protection and gravel extraction became a big topic in Motueka. The town of Motueka isn’t much of a tourism spot, but certainly the Abel Tasman, Marahau and Kaiteriri are which adds to the mix and challenges in this ward. There are also challenges around various housing developments. The community is very affected by the current regulations around tiny homes and this appears to be a topic going forward. The Motueka wastewater plant is another issue which will need advocacy and money which in turn will cause tension in respect of other projects to go ahead.

It was certainly a term with many challenges especially for the Community Board who had a total of three chairs and a large number of ever-changing council support staff. There were many discussions around issues on financial reports and items on their actions list. Many discussions around the tiny home issues and presentations of people that went under one’s skin. They have made a real effort to make their reporting as transparent as possible and their Board’s reports have become very informative and consistent. We hope this format will survive the change of membership. Another main focus of their work was to write a suitable code of conduct which will most likely be superseded soon by a centralised one which is currently in draft. The Community Board has made an effort to be visible within the community and to run surveys. Yet, there are many limitations on a Community Board which restricts their ability to get things underway. We remember discussions around having to ask the Council for the smallest amount of money which does not seem very efficient whilst being somewhat stuck around significant reserve funds which appear hard to be utilised.

The role of an elected councillor

Councillors are governance not part of management. Logically, their achievements will be measured through the political decisions they make around the council table in Richmond and some of those decisions will be reflecting on each ratepayers’ invoice, their fees and charges, speed limits, core and community infrastructure and rules coming from bylaws. As plan changes are currently being put on hold by central government, there may be less on this front for now.

Decisions on bylaws, policies, rates, debt, development contributions, unbudgeted expenditures, decisions to move into a confidential session, decisions to agree or disagree to information in a staff report. Those decisions require a strong commitment for reading a lot in a very short period of time. It requires the mental and intellectual capacity to read the small print and to ask in public when something is unclear, to speak up when needed and to stand up for what is right even though some may not agree. It also requires someone who is willing to understand the legal implications of the decisions lying on the table as well as their practical value and the financial implications of those decisions. The speed limit changes are a recent political decisions the whole district is now faced with.

It does not stop with reading, but understanding matters quickly, making up their minds, preparing relevant questions, taking questions coming from the community in respect of those items on the agenda into account, debating in public and finally voting on those matters whilst at the same time adopting past meetings’ minutes which means attesting that they present an accurate record of those. The required skill extends to understanding the applicable legal framework and whether the proposal sits well within it. To be fair, staff assistance is provided. In CEO Leonie Rae’s words in the pre-election report: “Staff will support all Elected Members with the information and training needed to make sound, informed decisions.” In addition, elected members have the opportunity to seek independent advice from LGNZ or maybe even further afield. Whether or how any additional external support can be financed from existing budget, we don’t know. We haven’t seen consistent and high-quality staff input across departments in the last term unfortunately and are concerned that councillors and community board members may not be getting the support they deserve.

The pre-election report does also state important issues for the upcoming years. Given the recently announced stop on council plan reviews and changes up to 2027, it looks as though this incoming Council will be stuck with current rules for a while without much flexibility and room for making new rules for the district. The upside may be that there might be potential for less packed agendas going forward but there could be a potential for focusing on potential changes in central government when those haven’t been implemented yet and which may not persist after yet another central government election in the next year. So really, a difficult task for all councillors to stay focused on the relevant political decisions in accordance with the current legislative framework.

Summary of the meet the candidates events

There were a total of three meet the candidates - with one dedicated to community board candidates and two for the ward and mayoral candidates. Two meetings were organised by the Tasman Community Group and one by Love Motueka which was chaired by ex-councillor Peter Canton. About half the audience left during the break of the Love Motueka meeting which was also characterised by preset questions and only little room for questions from the floor.

Kerryn Ferneyhough had the answers to the questions prepared beforehand and could read off her notes. All other candidates responded freely.

The Tasman Community Group meetings were organised in such way that ward candidates could present themselves first and then it was open for questions to individual candidates and then the same for the mayoral candidates (unfortunately there were only two mayoral candidates present that night - Timo Neubauer and Richard Johns). There was also a lady present who spoke about Maori wards.

Nick Hughes, current Motueka Community Board Member, stood up at some point to make a very clear stand in regard to his observations from being on the board for the last three years. He voiced his concerns around enforcement and management staff, around the tiny home issue in the ward and his concerns around not getting the staff support required to get the job done.

Brent Maru was the first to present his statement on why is standing and what he is standing for. He mentioned that there were a number of council decisions he did not fully support but still voted for them. He was then asked what if more councillors were in a similar position, namely having concerns and still voting in favor. He opted to make a stance of why he chose to vote in favour. We from Tasman Democracy believe the concerns are best documented in voting behaviour or other procedural means aimed at resolving concerns prior to voting.

Trindi Walker was convincing in what she said - her stance on prosperity being wider than only financially, her continued community commitment and many of the things she stands for. One of the candidate who needs the least extra words as she is really self-explanatory, known and consistent.

Dave Ross did really well presenting himself despite his issues with the microphone and given the fact that he does not have a political background. He did not pretend knowing everything but seemed genuinely passionate about the issues around spending and voiced a strong commitment to keep the rates down, but “I have to read the books”. Does not to be shy and is seen during other meet the candidates events in the audience or during Community Board meetings. He is affiliated with Act local, and transparency is appreciated.

Kerryn Ferneyhough did not impress but made a mention about introducing a tourism tax which apparently was done in the past but with only limited success given the administrative costs of it. She was asked about her affiliation with David Armstrong, a former community board member and unfortunately she didn’t take that well but became rather defensive. The question was that David Armstrong believes she has the skills to bring the Board back on track - what are your skills and where do you think they went off track? We could not find an answer as she said she was not going to talk dirty about people who aren’t in the room.

Trindi Walker and Brent Maru raised during the meeting that they were not happy that the CEO Review Subcommittee (only Mayor King, Deputy Mayor Bryant and Cllr Meckenzie) attested high performance of the current CEO Leonie Rae and adjusted her salary without a formal approval by all councillors. Councillors only received a report afterwards but had no influence over the decision. The problem is that the current terms of reference of that subcommittee appear to limit this subcommittee to only make recommendations, and not make final decisions. This is a really big issue right before the election especially given the continuous concerns around council culture and various issues around council’s management.

Tasman Democracy Inc would like to highlight that Trindi Walker and Brent Maru did choose to receive communications from our organisation as well as from some of our members who in their private capacity were deemed a wellbeing risk to staff according to the CEO Leonie Rae. We appreciate their stance on fulfilling their oath and listening to everyone in the district.

After the election one of the four ward councillor candidates will become Chair of the Motueka Aerodrome Advisory Group. Each of the four candidates was asked whether they would open these meetings to the public again as they are currently held confidentially. All of them answered Yes.

There were many questions from the floor and the tiny home issue was very much alive for many. As well as general issues around council management and enforcement. Let’s see who is going to represent Motueka this coming term. There are surely challenging times ahead for local topics and the overall financial health of the whole district.

Lakes-Murchison ward in 2025 local election

There are three candidates standing for election all of whom live in this ward: John Gully, Richard Osmaston and Nicola Allan. This is what they say about themselves: https://www.tasman.govt.nz/my-council/about-us/your-mayor-and-councillors/local-elections/nominations-received/lakes-murchison-ward

There were two in-person meetings held, in Tapawera and Murchison. (John Gully made the fair point he did not want to risk an accusation of a conflict of interest for organising a meeting over in St Arnaud because of his involvement with the Rotoiti District Community Council.)

The meetings invited both mayoral and ward candidates. There are a number of events remaining for the mayoral candidates and a separate article on these candidates will follow once those meetings have concluded.

The ward and its current representation

This ward is very particular given the huge geographical area it covers. It was served by Stewart Bryant for decades who even stood unopposed in a number of elections and is now retiring. He was not only a ward councillor but also the Deputy Mayor and on a number of committees, one of which was the CEO Review Subcommittee which only consists of three elected members (Tim King, Stewart Bryant and Christeen MacKenzie). It was only during the confidential session of the last week’s Full Council meeting that the confidential CEO performance report from this confidential committee was provided to Full Council for information only. The three members decided to attest high level achievement of the current CEO Leonie Rae.

For the Lakes-Murchison ward, there are a number of well-established community groups. Those groups are used to their meetings being regularly attended by their elected representative and communicated quite clearly that this is the expectation for the newly elected councillor representing this ward. Long time ago there used to be two councillors but due to the low population compared to the other wards in the district this is no longer the case.

I dare say that even though we are talking about an overall remote rural community throughout the ward, there is still significant variation between communities within that ward. Look at St Arnaud who are in a particular situation with the winter tourism. What most people in the ward share is a significant geographical distance to the Council chambers in Richmond. The ward is serviced by one service centre in Murchison So, in effect, the new ward councillor will be expected to stay up to date with the needs and wants of the communities between Tapawera, Murchison and St Arnaud.

The role of an elected councillor

Councillors are governance not part of management. Logically, their achievements will be measured through the political decisions they make around the council table in Richmond and some of those decisions will be reflected on each ratepayers’ invoice, their fees and charges, speed limits, core and community infrastructure and rules coming from bylaws. As plan changes are currently being put on hold by central government, there may be less on this front for now.

The new councillor will have to have consideration to the needs and wants of the ward he or she will represent whilst at the same time having to fairly balance these against overall priorities of the whole district. This is a huge balancing act each councillor is faced with when tasked with making good political decisions. It is very much pronounced in this ward because it covers a massive geographical area, remote rural communities and a rather small population compared to the rest of the district and because the councillor is only one voice around the table.

It will require not only good observation and listening skills but clearly very good skills around being persuasive, firm and well-spoken as any lack will impact more on those communities compared to let’s say a Richmond Councillor who may not meet the diverse needs of his/her communities. There might be other three councillors in this ward to make up for one person’s lack.

Further, given the realistic workload for each councillor coming to meetings (whether Full Council or the various committee meetings) a huge requirement for each new councillor will be to read a lot - one of the current councillors stated in a meet the candidates event that they have to read approximately 2,500 pages of documents per week.

It does not stop with reading, but understanding matters quickly, making up their minds, preparing relevant questions, taking questions coming from the community in respect of those items on the agenda into account, debating in public and finally voting on those matters whilst at the same time adopting past meetings’ minutes which means attesting that they present an accurate record of those. The required skill extends to understanding the applicable legal framework and whether the proposal sits well within it. To be fair, staff assistance is provided. In CEO Leonie Rae’s words in the pre-election report: “Staff will support all Elected Members with the information and training needed to make sound, informed decisions.” In addition, elected members have the opportunity to seek independent advice from LGNZ or maybe even further afield. Whether or how any additional external support can be financed from an existing budget, we don’t know.

The pre-election report does also state important issues for the upcoming years. Given the recently announced stop on council plan reviews and changes up to 2027, it looks as though this incoming Council will be stuck with current rules for a while without much flexibility and room for making new rules for the district. The upside may be that there might be potential for less packed agendas going forward but there could be a potential for focusing on potential changes in central government when those haven’t been implemented yet and which may not persist after yet another central government election in the next year. So really, a difficult task for all councillors to stay focused on the relevant political decisions in accordance with the current legislative framework.

Summary of the meet the candidates events

For this election, there were a total of three meet the candidates events - two in person and one online. Tapawera was probably the coldest community hall I have been to. The second event was in the Recreation Centre in Murchison which had quite a significantly different feel to it. Warm and bright and up to standard. The third one was held online and organised by a climate group which I did not attend but wanted to watch online. However, I could not find a recording of it.

Both in-person events were attended by around 30 people. The people in Murchison asked more questions than those who attended the Tapawera meeting. There were also people from St Arnaud attending. The Tapawera meeting was early in the meet the candidates events list and therefore the presentations of candidates weren’t quite as practised compared to the later one in Murchison.

People in Murchison wanted to know whether the candidates were aware of the priority issues for people in Murchison. John Gully mentioned the waste collection issue which may deserve consideration in the future.

A Tapawera resident was concerned that ratepayer properties may be serving as collateral for council debt. The incumbent mayor refuted that. In Tapawera the candidates were asked whether they feel confident without confidential workshops going forward and all of them said yes.

The candidates were also asked how they feel about reading lots of documents, as this is what reality looks like when being a councillor. Richard Osmaston was confident in terms of reading as his background required much of that anyways, adding that there are ever changing rules and regulations in aviation. Both John Gully and Nicola Allan acknowledged the amount of reading to be a challenge, but one they would be prepared to face.

Candidates were asked about whether they thought the ever increasing population of those less privileged (meaning those not able to afford home ownership and downwards) would be entitled to their representation and if so, how would they do that? My apologies, but I simply don’t recall Richard Osmaston’s answer but I know he did answer. Nicola definitely yes and added that she was well aware of those views and needs from her work in the Motueka Community House. John Gully said representation yes, but social issues are mainly for central government, not local government matters.

Questions ranged from Maori wards, the dam and its benefits to the ward, flood damage, climate changes, to gravel extraction and people need to feel heard, but were mostly directed to mayoral candidates.

In a nutshell - all candidates live in this ward and are pretty involved in the community, be it through their jobs or their voluntary engagement. John Gully and Richard Osmaston made their networks known. Their aspiration for financial prudence (apart from Richard Osmaston who is leading the money free party) is probably what unites them. It will come down to who the majority of voters think is the person for the job weighing up carefully what can and will realistically be expected of their representative. Farmers and hospitality workers, retailers and anyone in between will have to do that.

Golden Bay ward in 2025 local election

There are a number of candidates standing for election all of whom live in this ward. The candidates have only very few lines to make themselves known in the information booklet which comes together with the voting papers. Then they appear in a speed dating like scenario with all other candidates and are asked to perform well under pressure and express themselves well.

Some have never worked in local politics and may only be known to some through various other activities - do these tell people enough about whether or not a candidate will bring the required skills to the table where the job is to make political decisions? Others do have political experience - have they shown to possess the skills which are needed for a role of an elected representative in local politics?

The new councillors will have to have consideration to the needs and wants of the ward he or she will be representing whilst at the same time having to fairly balance these against overall priorities of the whole district. This is a huge balancing act each councillor is facing when tasked with making good political decisions. It does require good judgement and communication skills.

Given the dire financial situation of this particular council it will be a tough decision between further rate hikes to keep up with infrastructure costs (maintenance and newly built) and losing more current ratepayers to other districts, or less infrastructure and upkeep with less demographic change in respect of the current population. What is the direction for the district preferred by the majority of the district for this coming term?

For this election, there were a total of three meet the candidates events - two in person and one online. Both Collingwood and Takaka were clearly the most attended meetings across the district with well over 100 people attending in both locations. As like really everywhere else, attendees were mostly older folk, not in their twenties, thirties or forties. As though politics was a thing of the past.

Because of inviting major, ward and community board candidates, there was quite a crowd on stage, namely 17 in total - 5 for the mayoralty, 5 for the two ward councillors and 7 for the four community board vacancies. This article focuses on the Golden Bay ward and community board. A summary of the mayoral candidates will be published separately.

The candidates

The Golden Bay ward has got two councillor vacancies to be filled, with one incumbent councillor seeking re-election: Celia Butler. The further four ward councillor candidates are Rodney Barker, Axel Downard-Wilke, Julian Hall and Mark Hume.

The new ward councillors will be aided by their four colleagues on the Community Board to efficiently and effectively collect views on local government matters in the bay which will hopefully assist them in making good decisions around the council table.

This is what the councillor candidates say about themselves: https://www.tasman.govt.nz/my-council/about-us/your-mayor-and-councillors/local-elections/nominations-received/golden-bay-ward

In summary, there are candidates with strong ecological focus in their campaigns, namely Rodney Barker, Celia Butler and Axel Downard-Wilke. Candidates Mark Hume and Julian Hall appear to focus on addressing current inefficiencies in terms of spending and red tape.

Tasman Democracy Inc. would like to highlight that Celia Butler, who is seeking re-election, did choose to receive communications from our organisation as well as from some of our members who in their private capacity were deemed a wellbeing risk to staff according to the CEO Leonie Rae. We appreciate her stance on fulfilling her oath and listening to everyone in the district. Generally speaking, Celia Butler is a rather quiet councillor around the table with rarely an opinion which differs from the majority of council staff. When written to personally, she responds with politeness. She did not express confidence that rates could remain low.

Mark Hume appears to be a well-respected member of the Golden Bay community and appears grounded. He does seem passionate about common sense, but is definitely someone who would benefit from some procedural guidance and is probably not the biggest fan of speaking in front of a large crowd.

Axel Downard-Wilke is relatively new to the bay, but has got a background of working for and with councils for a long time as a consultant. He advocates for less work being done via consultants, but instead more in-house to save costs for ratepayers. He has a focus on transport choices like cycle ways and advised that he would be prepared to agree to strategic alliances around the table to get the required votes. Certainly a man who is well aware of how the current decision-making works. Tasman Democracy Inc. would like to see more debate around the merits of projects as opposed to decisions based on strategic alliances.

Julian Hall seems very grounded and well-versed, connected with the bay. He also has a business background and sound environmental knowledge with a strong focus on cutting down on current council spending. He seems well aware of many issues that concern the public and is happy to listen. He shows a genuine passion for the bay and the whole district.

Rodney Barker seems very strong on environmental matters but we could hardly see any other focus which we think is insufficient given the broad spectrum of local decision-making.

Golden Bay Community Board

The Golden Bay voters will be able to choose their four Community Board members from a total of seven candidates seeking votes, two of those seeking re-election: Henry Dixon and Grant Knowles.

Henry Dixon’s aspiration is “to build on the work we have carried out so far.“ We haven’t seen much of him over the last three years and his presentation did not convince us of his passion for politics.

Grant Knowles: “The community board can provide a sensible voice in the wider district ensuring sustainability and a strong identity while making the most of opportunities.” We see Grant regularly attending Motueka Community Board meetings and being very involved in the Golden Bay Community wearing many hats. We have no doubt that Grant Knowles knows how to make the most of opportunities, but we missed his strong voice for example when the Motueka Community Board was advocating for relaxing the rules around tiny homes.

Sunshine Appleby said that she can no longer afford her rates and “We need a community board that is transparent and welcome of community participation.” We feel this lady has a lot of commitment and passion for local matters and are really concerned that a lady at 82 feels the need to run for a political position.

Clarissa Bruning is in her forties and is “standing to ensure the voices of families, volunteers, and youth continue to be heard in local decision-making.” We were not convinced that she had a strong vision for the district apart from being a younger person bringing a younger perspective. Her contribution did not convince us that she is currently much aware of what political decision-making looks like and she looked out for much guidance from Grant Knowles. In our view, a community board would benefit much from strong individual voices.

Axel Downard-Wilke: is a retired consultant and critical of the dam, strongly advocating for a local trail and against Sam’s Creek. There is no doubt that he would know whom to contact to get things done. Whether the people in the bay consider him as one of them?

Mark Raffills is well-known in Golden Bay (and beyond) with a background in communication and poetry “Representing individual people and local organisations as we pursue local community projects and concerns would be my goal if elected to the Golden Bay Community Board.” Clearly a well-respected member of the Golden Bay community with lots of council experience and being in the public sphere. Clearly well-spoken and educated with an artistic touch. Very much Golden Bay in our view.

Rodney Ward who once served on the community board states: “I'm passionate to represent those who feel they have no say or are drowned out by vocal interest groups and I have the knowledge to assess and question decisions being made with the strength to speak honestly to these.” Interesting perspective with focus on local people and local jobs as well as common sense. Made a lot of sense and had no issue with being critical in a respectful way, also towards himself (his younger self was on the board once but he didn’t think he was doing a great job then). We think the ability to reflect on your past actions is crucial and we were impressed with his honesty.

This is what they say about themselves: https://www.tasman.govt.nz/my-council/about-us/your-mayor-and-councillors/local-elections/nominations-received/golden-bay-community-board

The ward and its current representation

This Golden Bay ward is very particular given its specific location with the only transport access over the Takaka Hill. Unsurprisingly, there is a clear and strong Golden Bay identity. Very strong values around its unique environment. The ward has one Service Centre and a library.

Because of councillors and Community Board the voters get access to a total of six elected members to represent them in local politics. In contrast, the 3,700 voters in the Lakes-Murchison ward get to contact only one elected representative. Even though the community board members aren’t counted for fair representation purposes in a numeric sense, Golden Bay has still a strong over-representation for the 5,590 voters in the ward (one councillor per 2,795 as opposed to one councillor per 5,217 in the Moutere-Waimea ward). Because of the distance and the Takaka Hill, there is a very strong feeling of being remote from Richmond and susceptible to isolation in event of flood etc.

Seasonal tourism is a topic for the bay, from self-contained vans to high end holiday-makers, and concern was raised as to how to proceed with the information centre. The diverse lifestyles including transient lifestyles and more colourful or less conventional or simply more economical and eco-friendly small dwellings are a distinctive part of Golden Bay and it will be interesting to see how strong their voices are. So far, the Golden Bay population remained relatively shielded from tiny home enforcement. The ward is currently represented around the Council table by Chris Hill and Celia Butler with Chris Hill chairing the Environment and Regulatory Committee. She and Mr Kim Drummond, who resigned from his position effective 12 September 2025, decided to initiate the recent Environment Court proceedings for an enforcement order against a tiny home parked on an Upper Moutere property. Mr Drummond’s resignation will surely affect the Golden Bay community board as it was assisted by him as one member of the executive leadership team this term.

In the past, there was an attempt for more decision-making power for Golden Bay by trying to create a Local Board. This was a long process and unsuccessful in the end. Other matters of interest at the moment: dog leashes and dog access to beaches, the info centre and its future, cycle ways. Even though it's not a local politics matter, the Sam’s Creek mine.

The role of an elected councillor

Councillors are governance, not part of management. Logically, their achievements will be measured through the political decisions they make around the council table in Richmond and some of those decisions will be reflected on each ratepayers’ rates invoice, their fees and charges, speed limits, core and community infrastructure and rules coming from bylaws. As plan changes are currently being put on hold by the central government, there may be less on this front for now.

Decisions on bylaws, policies, rates, debt, development contributions, unbudgeted expenditures, decisions to move into a confidential session, decisions to agree or disagree to information in a staff report. Those decisions require a strong commitment for reading a lot in a very short period of time. It requires the mental and intellectual capacity to read the small print and to ask in public when something is unclear, to speak up when needed and to stand up for what is right even though some may not agree. It also requires someone who is willing to understand the legal implications of the decisions lying on the table as well as their practical value and the financial implications of those decisions. The speed limit changes are recent political decisions the whole district is now faced with.

Further, given the realistic workload for each councillor coming to meetings (whether Full Council or the various committee meetings), a huge requirement for each new councillor will be to read a lot - one of the current councillors stated in a meet the candidates meeting that they have to read through approximately 2,500 pages of documents per week. It does not stop with reading, but understanding matters quickly, making up their minds, preparing relevant questions, taking questions coming from the community in respect of those items on the agenda into account, debating in public and finally voting on those matters whilst at the same time adopting past meetings’ minutes which means attesting that they present an accurate record of those.

The required skill extends to understanding the applicable legal framework and whether the proposal sits well within it. To be fair, staff assistance is provided. In CEO Leonie Rae’s words in the pre-election report: “Staff will support all Elected Members with the information and training needed to make sound, informed decisions.” In addition, elected members have the opportunity to seek independent advice from LGNZ or maybe even further afield. Whether or how any additional external support can be financed from the existing budget, we don’t know. We haven’t seen consistent and high-quality staff input across departments in the last term unfortunately and are concerned that councillors and community board members may not be getting the support they deserve and need.

The pre-election report does also state important issues for the upcoming years. Given the recently announced stop on council plan reviews and changes up to 2027, it looks as though this incoming Council will be stuck with current rules for a while without much flexibility and room for making new rules for the district. The upside may be that there might be potential for less packed agendas going forward but there could be a potential for focusing on potential changes in central government when those haven’t been implemented yet and which may not persist after yet another central government election in the next year. So really, a difficult task for all councillors to stay focused on the relevant political decisions in accordance with the current legislative framework.

Summary of the meet the candidates events

The Golden Bay Weekly has written a detailed article about matters raised at both meetings and published it in their 12 September 2025 edition: https://files.elfsightcdn.com/eafe4a4d-3436-495d-b748-5bdce62d911d/81a80e50-03a9-40b2-9945-9d571621ae3f/2025_September12GBWeekly.pdf

Taking this into account, we will keep our descriptions relatively short.

Like in other parts of the district, people seem to have an interest on individual candidates’ views on the Maori ward. It was pointed out that regardless of individual views, the referendum will provide a decision and regardless of the outcome of the referendum, there will be a Maori ward for the next triennium. In addition, there was much concern around the Sam Creek Mine and candidates were asked on their views and whether they would be strongly advocating to the central government on this matter as outside of the local government sphere.

Rates cap was clearly favoured by new candidate Julian Hall, not incumbent Celia Butler. Questions ranged from Maori wards, flood damage, climate change, to gravel extraction, tourism, jobs and Sam’ Creek, cycle ways, red tape, housing and the info centre.

In Takaka the questions were left on a piece of paper on a desk by the entrance and the lady would then choose which of the questions to ask. Time keeping made sense given the sheer amount of people both on stage and in the audience.

However, it would have been nice if people would have been allowed to ask their questions without these being filtered through someone by the entrance door. Effectively, we could not know if these were the most pressing of issues amongst the people or whether these were simply the questions the most suitable to ask for those organising the meeting.

The candidates for the community board and the ward councillors reflect the diversity of Golden Bay lifestyle and it will be interesting to see what the prevailing one is. Will people be more swayed by candidates’ personal view on Maori wards, their stance on Sam Creek, their environmental stance, their stance on addressing current council inefficiencies? What do Golden Bay voters consider relevant and necessary for someone they elect to represent their communities around the council table? What, according to the Golden Bay voters, does a councillor or community board member need to bring to make good political decisions or advocacy work? Whom do they trust the most for making good political decisions on their behalf?

We will see.

Local Election 2025 for Tasman District Council

Local elections have already started and voting finishes at midday 11 October 2025. There were a good number of meet the candidates events held throughout the district and we made an effort to see them all. Candidates appeared in a speed dating like scenario with all other candidates and were asked to perform well under pressure. Some meetings had preset questions and most allowed questions from the floor.

Tasman Democracy Inc. has a focus on democratic decision-making at council level in accordance with statutes. We are member-based and make up our mind. We try to be as fair as possible but also honest. Just as some groups promote their views on topics like Maori wards, we are happy to share our thoughts on the candidates and what we expect from politicians.

Key features

What we consider relevant is what we can see in public meetings or in public records. We are happy for elected officials to also use social media or other information channels like blogs to inform constituents about current topics and their work around the council table in addition to that. We consider it irrelevant if a councillor tells us that there are robust discussions when those are behind closed doors. We also consider it irrelevant if councillors tell us that there is a lot happening. We believe that nothing happens unless it’s public. Otherwise, it’s gossip and cannot be relied upon.

We consider it extremely important that candidates have the ability to face various people of various backgrounds, as long as those interactions remain civil. We consider it irrelevant whether or not a councillor has other paid work or a further residence so long as he or she performs well for the public office of a councillor.

We consider it a full-time job to be a Mayor for one council. We consider it unusual to stand for several Mayoralties across New Zealand and have some reservations as to the suitability of such a candidate as there might be a lack of commitment. We have also strong reservations towards the incumbent mayoral candidate (regardless of his experience in this office) who considers his office is half-time only because of various other commitments including farming. We do not think that further work commitments contribute positively to the full-time role as a Mayor of a district.

For new candidates without prior council experience, we consider it a nice-to-have if candidates have procedural knowledge about council processes. But we consider it a must-have for candidates to be approachable and open for questions from the public during the pre-election period in order to understand what their thoughts are and whether they are open to listen to input and concerns from the public. They must have a fundamental understanding of what local political decision-making actually means as they will make decisions which affect everyone in the district - financial, socially, environmentally and economically.

We consider it relevant to disclose whether there is a political affiliation with any party. We believe it is not a problem to learn from those with experience in the political world, especially around procedural knowledge, but the candidate must be seen to stand up for his or her own views. In short: disclosure yes, reason for caution no.

We consider it a must-have that candidates seeking re-election are well-versed around procedures and topics in local government and that they are able to defend their previous decisions or at least explain why they decided how they did. We consider it very important that current councillors were seen to be prepared during that last term and happy to speak up. We consider it very important that new candidates show awareness that reading a lot is a fundamental requirement for the office and that critical thinking is equally required of them. And they should be able to clearly articulate why they decided to stand.

We have noticed that candidates are often asked to share their stance on Maori wards. We think that this is a personal decision at this point as the council has already decided back in 2023 to retain the Maori ward to which the current government responded that a referendum is required. This will determine the way forward for the term from 2028 regardless of any personal view of any candiate on the topic.

So outstanding that it deserves mentioning here: Kit Maling (current councillor for the Richmond ward seeking re-election) was asked whether he would consider receiving communications from us (members of Tasman Democracy Inc.) who are currently banned from contacting him and some other councillors. This decision was made by the CEO Leonie Rae because she had concerns for staff wellbeing following some of our communication via email, which usually ends with “thank you very much” and “kind regards”. However Mr Kit Maling responded that he is not going to receive communication from us as we aren’t part of his ward and because we took the Council to court over a tiny home.

Firstly, the oath requires all councillors to represent the whole district, no matter of the wards structure, and secondly, it was the Council who took two of our members (in their private capacity) to court over a tiny home parked on their property without even issuing an abatement notice first. It is deeply concerning that an association with a community group is enough for certain councillors to not engage with certain constituents. Besides, even if it was the case that a constituent initiates proceedings against a council, this constituent or group thereof does not lose the right to get access to elected representatives. We strongly disagree that a candidate with such a mindset would be suitable for a public office requiring an oath to represent everyone equally.

There is information for voters coming from many angles, perspectives and sources. The information booklet that comes with your voting papers where candidates are given limited space to make themselves known, some media articles (again with limited space and preset questions), through various social media channels and through personal experience and interactions. There is also a webpage policy.nz which compiled information on candidates who want to share information there. Some candidates seeking re-election may have already used that platform in the previous election which may assist voters to compare those statements with what happened during this current term and whether the candidate has lived up to his or her promises.

A relatively new group was recently featured in local free press. Unfortunately, the article did not disclose that Benjamin, one of the three residents working on educating voters on the candidates, is actually the partner of Kerryn Ferneyhough, a candidate standing for the Motueka ward. Such a close relationship does in our view require disclosure. We have also noticed some content about Mark Greening where the group was distributing a summary of his work through the eyes of incumbent Mayor Tim King which we think is not what voter education is about in our view.

Of note is that there are only very few candidates signs out around the district - especially compared to the neighbours in Nelson and Marlborough where candidates advocate way more than those standing in the Tasman district.

Also, quite a large number of councillors do not seek re-election: one from Golden Bay, the Deputy Mayor and councillor of 30 years from Lakes Murchison Stewart Bryant, two councillors for the Moutere-Waimea ward and long-term Councillor for Motueka, Barry Dowler. Only two out of four Golden Bay Community Board members are seeking re-election and only one from the current Motueka Community Board. In addition, David Armstrong had retired one year early. Inevitably, there will be change.

Some candidates have never worked in local politics and may only be known to some through various other activities - do these tell people enough about whether or not a candidate will bring the required skills to the table where the job is to make political decisions? Others who have political experience - have they proven to possess the skills the are needed for a role of an elected representative in local politics?

All councillors will have to have consideration to the needs and wants of the ward he or she will be representing whilst at the same time having to fairly balance these against overall priorities of the whole district. This is a huge balancing act each councillor is facing when tasked with making good political decisions. It does require good judgement and communication skills.

Community board members will also have to have a good understanding of what their role is and what it is not. As we have seen with the Motueka Community Board who has worked relentlessly on making a recommendation to Council on the district’s tiny home rules this term - their recommendation didn’t even make it to Council table despite four workshops behind closed doors. We are still waiting on an official statement from Council as to why that happened. Unofficially, there appears to be an issue with them not having the delegation to make such recommendation.

Given the dire financial situation of this particular council it will be a tough decision between further rate hikes to keep up with infrastructure costs (maintenance and newly built) and losing more current ratepayers to other districts, or less infrastructure and upkeep with less demographic change in respect of the current population. What is the direction for the district preferred by the majority of the district for this coming term? This is really the crux for this upcoming term.

We want to put together useful summaries for voters in this district to make up their minds. This summary here is to give an overall impression about the meetings and the reoccurring topics. There will be specific summaries for each ward and one for the mayoral candidates.

Meet the candidates

What was noticeable in the in-person meetings was that people who attended were mostly older folk, not many in their early 20s, 30s, 40s. It is a shame that those meetings therefore were unable to represent the whole demographics. Maybe younger people get their information elsewhere? Maybe politics is a thing of the past? But, there were also some young folk spotted who sparked some hope! Otherwise, overall audience across the district between approximately 30-50 people per meeting. Interesting mix of communities and questions. Most meetings were around two hours long.

The top of the list in terms of numbers of community group organised meetings were for the Moutere-Waimea ward: Two meetings in Upper Moutere and further meetings in Redwood Valley, Wakefield, Brightwater, Motueka Valley, Mapua.

Least attendance was for the Upper Moutere community association meeting which was also combined with a regular meeting of this association and was held the day after the first meet the candidates was organised at the same location by a different community group. Hard to know how many of the around 20 people were there for the candidates and how many for the AGM. The chairing was unusual with a school-like character which we perceived not quite appropriate for a local politics meeting.

Wakefield was very much the strongest with focus on its village, like a new community hall. It felt like a good advertising for one of the candidates.

The Brightwater meeting chair was outstanding as he kept the meeting well in order by reminding both audience and candidates to stay on track with questions and answers. The chair stood out as he was able to do so with respect and the right dose of being firm but not authoritarian. He was also knowledgeable on some topics like the Waimea Dam and could set answers straight when needed, which helped the public to understand. He also had a great skill of paraphrasing a question where appropriate which helped some candidates to get the gist.

The Redwood Valley chair was making the point to the candidates that his community was after precise answers not just broad promises. That was a good expectational frame to set and helped some candidates to stay on track and not waste people’s time.

Some meetings were very structured and on time, like Mapua, others more open with no specifically prepared questions like TCG in Upper Moutere who were logically more challenged to stay on time and provide equal time to all.

The Motueka Valley meeting must have forgotten to invite all candidates and therefore a number of them did not come which was very unfortunate.

Golden Bay: Takaka and Collingwood, held on the same day, but one in the afternoon, the other one in the evening. Those two meetings were by far the most attended ones with over 100 people in the audience each! Interesting feature in Takaka: questions had to be written onto a piece of paper and were then selected by a person who was probably part of the organisers. Unfortunately, we are therefore unsure if the questions were the most pressing for the Golden Bay population or simply the most interesting or convenient for the organisers.

Lakes Murchison: Tapawera and Murchison. Tapawera had only few questions to their ward candidates and candidates were asked a few prepared questions by the chair. Murchison was distinct in the sense that there was a strong apparent rural identity and strong, honest character of those asking a question or making a comment. No cotton wool.

Richmond had two meetings for their ward candidates and one for the mayoral candidates. One was structured following a suggestion by Councillor Mark Greening which provided for general time to present themselves, answer questions but then to sit down with a voter and have a chat in a separate room. The other meeting was organised by the Richmond Rotary Club branch which appeared very tailored and was chaired by a former Nelson City councillor who also admitted to have used AI for wording the questions. We are unsure as to why wording a simple question requires a former elected member to use AI assistance. We think it was also somewhat misplaced to ask procedural questions to candidates new to local politics and to make flood recovery achievements a scoring opportunity for the incumbent mayor.

The Motueka Ward had a total of three meetings but they were only organised relatively late. There were two for all mayor and ward candidates, and one specifically for community board candidates It was the ward which had the second biggest audience after Golden Bay with around 50/60 people attending each ward/mayor candidates meeting and around 30 for the community board candidates. People had lots of questions.

The community group who organised the most meetings across the district was Tasman Community Group (TCG) who advised that costs were met exclusively from their members which is something we find outstanding and shows a real commitment to make candidates visible for voters. They organised one meeting in Upper Moutere, one in Richmond and two in Motueka.

Forest and Bird also organised various online events but attending them didn’t work for us due to some technical issue and so we only decided to watch parts of the Motueka recording. Due to a very limited scope of interest of that group we did not look too much into them.

The mayoral candidates had without a doubt the busiest schedule of all candidates and were invited to nearly all meetings across the district. Quite understandably though as this leadership office it the most important of all the elected representatives.

In terms of the topics which were presented to the candidates we noticed clear and reoccurring concerns around current council spending (including overspending like for the dam). The benefits of the Waimea Dam for the whole district was of interest as the whole district is asked to pay for the debt incurred from its construction. The general debt and the increased rates were a concern which was voiced in a number of meetings. Strategic visions was of interest - where are we going to go as a district for the coming term? Criticism around the current council culture and council communication was presented to the candidates. It became clear from various questions and answers that there is need for consensus around what is a necessary project versus vanity issues going forward. Those projects spanned from various community halls, the Motueka pool to cycle ways. Some candidates were quite clear that the financial situation was very dire requiring significant tightening the belt whereas others (mainly incumbent seeking re-election) were more of the view that rates will increase further, current spending is however carefully balanced. Another topic of interest was the current level of transparency, or the lack thereof, with many confidential workshops. It was promising to see that many candidates were clearly supportive of opening up the confidential workshops to the public going forward.

Current Council Business

The period leading to the election is considered to require a caretaker approach from the outgoing council. It means that decisions with high significance which may be controversial, should be left to the newly elected council.

Council also acknowledges that the period leading to the election is usually characterised by heightened scrutiny by the public - the Audit and Risk Committee learnt as early as June this year that this heightened public scrutiny is considered “a risk” by council staff. Not a joke. Just read the agenda of that meeting.

However, there was a confidential session to progress the disputed Plan Change 81. Councillor Mark Greening was raising an issue (or tried to) and was told his raised hand wasn’t seen in time by the Chair Kit Maling and will not be considered. When contested, the online session suddenly stopped and the meeting was only resumed quite some time later without any comment as to what happened.

Also of interest is that the current members of the CEO Review Subcommittee (Mayor Tim King, Deputy Mayor Stewart Bryant and Cllr Meckenzie) attested high performance of the current CEO Leonie Rae and presented their decision as part of a confidential session to the full council. The problem is that the current terms of reference of that subcommittee appear to limit this subcommittee to only make recommendations, and not make final decisions. Councillor Mark Greening raised the issue, but we haven’t seen a decision yet. But this is a really big issue right before the election especially given the continuous concerns around council culture and various issues around council’s management.

On 1 October the Audit and Risk Committee is being asked to approve further financial delegations to the current CEO from 1 million to 6 million. This is a 600% increase in trust. Quite exceptional and we are concerned that this is a bit too exceptional to be approved just before an election.

New Council Business

Right after being elected the new Council will have to approve the annual report of the last financial year by 31 October 2025. That decision was made in March this year by this current council which considered it more feasible for the new council to resolve on political decisions made by others for the financial year. Each council has 4 months each year to adopt their annual report, latest by end of October. Some councils choose to do so in July, August, September or early October. But not the Tasman District Council - only after the new councillors will have taken their oath of office which will be around 25 October - will this decision be made.

Another important early decision will be around the committee structure for the next term and each committee’s terms of reference. A very important decision which will set the scene for how council is run over the next three years. Currently, we have a number of committees with very limited delegations like the Operations Committee. We also have seen significant reporting going confidential in this term, like health and safety reporting or corporate service reporting. We used to have a corporate services committee at some point in the past and way more consistent reporting coming to council. It would be good to have some of the past consistency back.

We wish every candidate well and hope many in the district will spare some time for making their voices heard.

Motueka Community Board meeting on 15 April 2025

Public Forum

1) Geoff Rowling spoke about Plan Change 81 and also was concerned about that Councillors and Community Board members appeared in an advertisement on a proposed property development.

2) Dr Robert Mitchell also spoke about Plan Change 81. He was quite critical of how it was presented and mentioned there was no indication on any upgrading of infrastructure to cater for the

expansion.

3) Mr Williamson spoke about various topics including the Motueka bridge and amphetamine usage (Motueka having the forth highest usage nationwide).

Funds and Budgets

A Council employee spoke about the Board funds, that there was a deficit of $34,000 and that there will be an increase in the future. It was very concerning to see just how much confusion there is around funds and budgets and that staff was not able to comment clearly on the questions raised by Councillors and Board members. In particular, Councillor Walker noted different figures - one in digital and one in printed material of the same document and expressed concerns and clearly requested tidying up. She noted that some material was prepared in haste, and that the staff who took questions on the report wasn't the author of the report. There were issues with sickness and vacancy but that the Board still needs correct information to make decisions in the best interest of the community.

Deputy Chair Hutt was concerned that the funding for 4 projects is not forthcoming. She was also wondering why surplus funds can not be allocated by the Board so that it can deliver projects that the community had asked for. This question was repeatedly asked with clearly some frustration, but the answer wasn't anywhere near. A workshop was proposed for May and Councillor Walker was very clear that in that workshop she wanted to be informed about 'how did we get here’. The board generated a huge surplus over the years, but is unable to spend without having to go back to Council each time for approval.

Bylaw reviews

Chair Graham asked the present staff about the statutory review times for bylaws and there was merely silence on that question which was awkward. Councillor Maru suggested there was no schedule for bylaws to be reviewed. A quick look at the Council’s Governance Statement, which is a compulsory document for each triennium, reveals that there is of course such a schedule. One can find it on pages 36 of the document.

You will notice that this Council does not care much about the timeframes it provided to its community after the elections. The reviews of the Bylaws happen whenever it suits the Council. The next Bylaw under review is the Freedom Camping Bylaw. A workshop will be held in May, and of course with the public excluded behind closed doors.

Affordable Housing

Board member Hughes repeated a few of his well known concerns about homelessness, tiny homes and Council’s infamous 8-week-rule. No update was provided, but the Board was merely informed that the Council was not asked to review anything (via a report). Well, the thing is that the Chair of a meeting can clearly table items, such as we constantly see with issues which are discretionary - cat bylaw, trading in public places bylaw, a further review of the development contribution fees policy, now the freedom camping bylaw (review due 2027) or the alcohol in public places bylaw (review only due in 2028). Somehow the 8-week-rule cannot be tabled in a Council meeting, but surely there will be yet another workshop with no outcome.

Decrease in Council services

The meeting discussed the Council's latest decision to reduce service levels like emptying rubbish bins or cleaning toilets which come to not much savings to the Council but to quite a cost to

the general public. It appeared the cost savings are only for this financial year but they could continue into the next financial year - seems there is some uncertainty over the entire process and what the community can expect in the future. However to the contrary, the latest 17A review of the Tasman District Council provides the public with "increased levels of service" in the field of compliance in regards to regulatory services. That results higher costs compared to the current arrangement. The Council is moving compliance staff in-house and does not renew the contract with externals providers, but does not provide any information where the money for this change would come from. Councillor Greening had asked in the last Council meeting, but an answer was not provided. It was simply accepted by Council and now there will be huge increases of costs to the ratepayers. The increase of costs in that area is more than the cost savings from cuts in services (empty rubbish bins, cleaning public toilets). It is hard not to come to the conclusion that the public is being mocked by staff.

In summary, the meeting did show that the Community Board is suffering from a lack of trust. There was an argument of whether the board is allowed to buy wreaths. The short list of delegations to Board seems like a joke. It is actually really sad to see that the Board is being kept on a tight lead.

It is also sad to see that the Board was trying to put forward to the Council a recommendation to triage their complaints - even a resolution was made at the end of last year. Instead of properly advising the Board on the process, Council staff decided not to put the resolution onto the table in a Council meeting. The Board was dealt with like a naughty child - that's beyond your mandate as Chair Graham summarised last night. It has become really obvious that those who are trying to effect change are being obstructed with no consequences to those who obstruct.

The public continues to be fooled by making it look as though that's just the way bureaucracy works. It works that way because we allow it to work that way, not because the rules are that way.

Wasteful spending of public money on unnecessary policy review?

Today, we have sent the following email to the Mayor, Chief Executive and all Councillors of the Tasman District Council.

Subject: Notice regards council resolution on report RCN25-03-1

Dear Council,

This is to put the Council formally on notice of the high likeliness of statutory breaches in regards to the resolution passed on 20 March 2025 during the public part of the Full Council meeting in respect of report RCN25-03-1. Tasman Democracy Inc. requests this notice to be given honest consideration by the Council under urgency as the consultation period is set to start on 24 March 2025 following the resolution from 20 March 2025.

We respectfully invite the Council to consider the recent Court of Appeal decision THORNDON QUAY COLLECTIVE INC V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2024] NZCA 316 in your objective assessment of this notice. This Court of Appeal decision deals comprehensively with a council's obligations in respect of making decisions, particularly referring to sections 75-81 Local Government Act 2002.

With the above-mentioned resolution in place, the Council risks to be legally challenged of breaching its statutory duties regarding prudent spending of public money. Instead, undertaking an unnecessary consultation process could be considered reckless wasteful spending.

Report RCN25-03-1 makes it clear that the proposed policy review is not necessary, because the policy was already reviewed last year and the Council concluded that the existing policy was fit for purpose. No information was provided in the report that this understanding has changed. In conclusion, the existing policy still needs to be considered fit for purpose not necessitating a review at this point. The report lacks significant information to enable elected members to make an informed decision why there should be spending of public money on a consultation process for an unnecessary policy review.

Elected members were not made aware by staff of Council of the estimated costs of the proposed consultation process and where the funding for this process comes from, including if it would be a budgeted or unbudgeted expense. The report outlines a proposed policy change that would result in reduced revenue for the Council. However, no estimate is provided of how much this reduced revenue would be.

This needs to be seen in the light of report RFNAU25-03-1 presented to the Audit and Risk Committee on 20 March 2025, in which staff “highlights that the financial strategic risk has escalated from High to Very High”. Further, just a few days prior to that, S&P Global Ratings has downgraded the credit rating of the Tasman District Council. Further, in the last Motueka Community Board meeting 18 March 2025 reduced services were announced due to financial pressures.

The report further mentions two aspects that suggest it would be reasonable to have no policy review at this point in time.

a) The anticipated Plan Change 81 of the Tasman Resource Management Plan would make it necessary to review the policy once this plan change is legally effective.

b) On 28 February 2025 the Government announced that development contributions will be replaced by a new development levy system, making the policy obsolete.

In conclusion, there is no reasonable costs and benefit analysis provided that would satisfy section 82(4)(e) Local Government Act 2002 in respect of the proposed consultation process and consequently no financially prudent and fully informed decision could have been made by elected members. Any possible information provided to elected members in confidential workshops has no relevance for the resolution as those workshops are not considered meetings for the purpose of LGOIMA.

We conclude that the resolution based on the above-mentioned report needs to be revoked immediately. The delegation provided to staff, namely to disclose all relevant facts to elected members so that the Council can make an informed decision, was not properly discharged. As a consequence the governing body may have been misled to make a decision contrary to when all relevant information would have been made available by staff, risking unjustified, wasteful spending in a council which is already under significant financial pressure.

We request from the Council to consider this notice under urgency to avoid wasteful spending for this project due to what Tasman Democracy considers to be clear and incurable defects in respect of the current resolution. We consider it prudent and reasonable to immediately stop the project, revoke the resolution, delay a further policy review so that it sits within a statutory timeframe for “necessity”, review and amend the report so that it meets the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 for making decisions.

Please be advised that failure to consider this notice and failure to provide a timely response and continuing the proposes consultation process will be considered reckless conduct.

Kind regards

Small scale living in the Tasman District

The Tasman District Council is by now known for their controversial approach to people living in mobile homes, caravans, trailers, house busses or other vehicles. One of the earliest stories is that of an intentional community in the Motueka Valley which ended up in the Environment Court and later in the District Court.

Later, around 2018, a young Moslem family made the news as they were enquiring with the Council about the legality of putting a tiny home up on a piece of land in the district. Everything seemed easy first, but became difficult over time. Apparently the advice from the Tasman District Council to the couple changed over time and now they have left the country and recently tried to sell the tiny home. Unfortunately, even when trying to sell the tiny home, one of the Council’s staff for some reason got involved and asked on a social media post whether or not the tiny home had a building consent. Some could think that the Council may be prepared to sour a private sale. Others may be grateful for the Council’s diligence in even monitoring sales in the district. However, a Community Board member commented on the social media platform that no such consent was required as the tiny home was clearly mobile and was then publicly challenged by the Council staff to a “bare knuckle fight” as he called it. Quite interesting methods by a public authority who needs to act for the well-being of their community.

In contrast, this Community Board member received a code of conduct complaint and the council spent $40,000 on the investigation in 2024. The same Community Board member was also one who had issues with the Council in regards to his tiny house in the past. They first wanted it to have a building consent and then, when the Alan Dall case came through court and concluded no such permit was needed under the Building Act, the Resource Management Act (RMA) came in and with it the definition of “structure”. The person then asked the Council what they mean by “fixed to land” which is part of the definition of structure which then is part of the district’s definition of building and dwelling. Instead of responding as promised with a legally robust response, nothing happened, no response provided. The tiny home got sold.

A further case was our case which started back in 2022 when the council claimed to have received an anonymous complaint about an unconsented dwelling that needs to be investigated. This ended up in Court after search warrant and detention and was centered around the same issue, namely “what is fixed to land” and does this extend to vehicles?

We stated as early as March 2022 that what the Council called a structure is in fact a vehicle. The council clearly understood that we did not think to fall under any rule relating to structures, buildings or dwellings. Instead of responding to us or releasing any evidence about why they think it’s fixed to land, they alleged we were refusing to comply with the rules and even recently in the High Court reiterated they had tried to engage with us without success. I don’t know what they meant by that other than to force us into “do as you are told”, which is not quite what democracy is about. At this point in time, we will have to wait what the High Court Judge will find on the question.

Interestingly, the Tasman District Council submitted to the previous Government, weeks before they initiated Court proceedings against us that they don’t know what “fixed to land” means and that the government could please advise the council as they get a lot of enquiries on that topic. That was signed by the Mayor Tim King in February 2023 and retrospectively approved by the Council at the end of March 2023. At the beginning of April, Court proceedings were initiated against us.

What we did not know, but thanks to a recent newspaper article learnt, is that those “enquiries” may well be the 104 “complaints” about unconsented dwellings that the Council was dealing with over a three year period. This is a huge number. This is most likely also quite interesting in terms of money that people have paid to the Council in order to not go through what we went through.

Another recent case is yet another communal living arrangement in the district, again based on an anonymous complaint. The people there made it clear to the council that they are happy to engage when the council provides the neccessary paperwork. This means the warrants their officers are carrying with them as well as the validity of the anonymous complaint. The case is at a standstill since the beginning of the year. Multiple requests to the Council have not resulted in any updates or way forward.

In Motueka, there is a property who has been working with the Council for quite some time in trying to get their tiny homes approved. They were told that the tiny homes were not in need of a resource consent because they were not structures. However, they were not able to connect them to the town sewerage system because it was at capacity. Personal enquiries about the sewerage capacity have revealed quite a different picture. They finally got served with an abatement notice. They filed another resource consent application. What is happening there for their people apart from waiting, we don’t know. But the landowner made it very clear to the Council that if the Council wanted to get rid of those residents, then the Council would have to do it, the landowner is not making these people homeless. And clearly, all this has cost a lot of money.

A case that was becoming known only very recently was that of yet another property in the Moutere where the owners wanted to build a granny flat for the ageing mother-in law and they also allowed their daughter to stay with them on their land in a tiny home. They did engage with the Council right from the start, lost more than $80.000, the elderly lady does not live in the granny flat that was built for her and the daughter has since sold the tiny home, lost lots of money on that, bought a bus and left the district.

Well, there are all those stories in between, from properties which had tiny homes but gave up after they were financially exhausted, people that are afraid and don’t want to speak up and have to live in fear and hiding. The red thread through all these stories is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to live in a tiny home in Tasman without coming to a financial and emotional breaking point. Some people get exemption consents for tiny homes because of only minor discharge and no resource consent is required for the tiny home, others are being targeted for the exact same setup. One standard for some, another for someone else. There is an absolute lack of transparency when it comes to anticipated costs for such projects. For some it feels like the Council is trying to extract money out of them from every available angle, no matter how nonsensical it may be.

It is a density of issues in the Moutere, Motueka and in the Motueka Valley. Not in Golden Bay, for example as Golden Bay Community Board member Grant Knowles confirmed just recently. Two of the enforcement staff live in the Moutere and these two are often involved in these cases. An unredacted complaint was provided to the Court and showed that the last name of the complaint is the same as the the officer who performed the investigation into the complaint. The same officer also instructed NZ Police to detain us.

We have highlighted significant issues with the warrants held by these officers. However, the Council does not want to take notice or self-investigate or even offer an apology. It ignores the fact that there is a concerning involvement of their staff in “anonymous” complaints. They are happy to make plan changes for various suburban developments, but can’t even think of changing their District Plan for more clarity around tiny homes. Is the Council afraid that going through the public process would invite strong submissions? It is clearly ignorant of the fact that the Council’s District Plan is stricter than the Building Act and the Resource Management Act. It chose to include definitions that were not made by Parliament. That was their choice.

Now, we have a Mayor saying that they will wait for the Government to make the rules and even went so far as to ask the Government to include tiny homes in their Granny Flat proposal, when this is a completely seperate topic, promoting it as liberal. The enormous advantage of people in buses, tiny homes and the like is that even though these people don’t own land, at least they own their homes. Making these subject to be registered on another person’s title, takes that small freedom away from them. It is not a liberal approach, it is an approach of pure greed and disrespect for those that try to help themselves in a market that is not accessible to them.

The Council however, is happy to promote the idea that there are people feeding off others not wanting to contribute to community by paying for consents. Well, that’s convenient to divide people, but couldn’t be further away from the truth. One main question should be openly discussed by the Council: Do we have authority to make people homeless? If so, what are those environmental effects that offset a person’s right to shelter?

Representation review hearing for Tasman District Council

The Tasman District Council has just recently had their hearing with the Local Government Commission in respect of their representation review proposal. A representation review is mandatory for councils every six years. Councils are required to assess whether their current representation is fair and effective. This relates primarily to how the council is organised in terms of its ward boundaries, whether these wards respect current communities of interest, how many councillors are to be standing for each ward and whether or not to have community boards.

There was an early consultation held at the end of 2023, in which members of the public could let the council know what they consider the council should pay attention to for their upcoming representation review. This was published in the Council’s Newsline from 17 November 2023 unfortunately with not a lot of details and with a different timeframe (15 November - 15 December, but consultation was open until 13 January 2024). Unsurprisingly, a very low number of responses was received, namely 16, not only because of the conflicting timeframes, but also because it was Christmas and holiday season.

Interestingly though, prior to that the Council held 3 workshops (one in September and two in October to confidentially talk about the upcoming representation review).

Following the early engagement the Council prepared their initial proposal. This started with another confidential workshop in February and another one in April 2024. It needs to be said as it was also reiterated before the Local Government Commission that the Council formed the view that as there was so little feedback the Council elected and told elected representatives that the feedback which was received would not be considered. The Council also provided the Local Government Commission with slides as to what was part of the workshops and quite consistently with the Council’s stance, the views of those providing early feedback weren’t.

Thanks to those slides one can see that certain arrangements were not favoured. By whom? By staff presenting to the Councillors? By Councillors? What did they actually hear? A workshop is not a meeting substitute, but this is clearly the case in Tasman where we have all those discussions behind closed doors, nobody gets to see what is being presented to the Councillors and what then functions as their foundation for making decisions. Sad, but real. The public cannot be part of the process, not even as a passive listener or observer.

On 17 July 2024 the initial proposal appeared on the Council’s agenda and was voted on by Councillors. The Council has put in their proposal at the same time when the community was asked to put in their submissions on the Public Water Supply Bylaw, the Dog Bylaw, the Navigation Safety Bylaw, the Cat Bylaw and the Public Places Bylaw. These were a busy few weeks for Tasman residents and maybe the Representation Review proposal got a bit overlooked by the public struggling to get through all these Bylaw consultations happening at the same time.

Public feedback was possible and 93 responses were received. Submitters commented on Maori Wards which was no longer part of the review process. Some voiced opinions on the existing community boards, others on how many councillors should represent Golden Bay and some on the proposed boundaries. Nine submitters made comments that the existing boundaries for the Moutere-Waimea ward are of concern and should be changed. Following that, there was a submission hearing held at the Council chambers where submitters could speak to their submissions.

After the hearing the Council made a resolution to retain their initial proposal on 2 October 2024, which subsequently became their final proposal. Three Councillors voted against, namely Councillors Walker, Dowler and Greening. Any submitter who is of the view that their points contained in submissions were not reflected in the Council’s final proposal had the right to appeal against the Council’s final proposal decision.

Then there was the hearing with the Local Government Commission on 19 February 2025, in which the Council was asked to justify their proposal and two objections to that proposal were heard. A final decision will be made by the Local Government Commission latest at the beginning of April. A recording of the Local Government Hearing can be watched below.

There is a very specific situation in the Tasman District which makes it compulsory for the Council to be heard by the Local Government Commission for each representation review. This is because of the geography of the Golden Bay ward. Due to its location, it is either significantly overrepresented (by having two councillors) or significantly underrepresented (by only having one councillor). The Council’s proposal was to retain two Councillors for this ward and also to retain the Community Board with another four Board members.

Further, there is the Lakes-Murchison ward which covers a huge geographical area, but has a very low population and is therefore only represented by one councillor and does also not have a community board. The representation of this ward with one councillor is within the acceptable legal bounds. Equally, the Motueka ward, which is represented by three councillors and another four community board members is within the limits.

However, not so the rapidly growing Richmond and Moutere-Waimea wards. Richmond is just coming out of balance, but the Moutere-Waimea ward has been for some time, even during the last review six years ago. The imbalance is becoming more pronounced. 71% of the district’s population is not fairly represented with the Council’s proposal. This was unfortunately not communicated to the public, but addressed to the Local Government Commission by us, Tasman Democracy.

The Council was confident that it had via its elected officials properly informed the people in various community group meetings and sensed no appetite by those to make any changes. No response received means everyone is happy. A low number of responses means they don’t need to be taken into account. Is that in accordance with the law? Not so clear. It is clear however that such a hearing is a quasi-judicial proceeding and strictly bound by rules.

The Commissioner thanked Tasman Democracy for their compelling case and it was also interesting to see that a former council staff, who was also invited to speak to her appeal, came to a very similar view as Tasman Democracy Inc. The lady focussed on the communities of interest and how someone from the Moutere-Waimea ward is currently unable to be fairly represented when one has many connections of necessity to Motueka, but no voice in Motueka, as opposed to being a tourist in parts of one’s own ward rather than being necessarily a community of interest when it comes to schools or other connections of interest.

We are waiting with excitement what the finding of the commission based on the evidence before it will mean for our district. For more information, one could read our full appeal document, explaining the issues with the Moutere-Waimea in much detail.

Discussion about closed workshops during Motueka Community Board meeting

During the last Motueka Community Board meeting there was a discussion about workshops and that they are held behind closed doors. Board member Hutt shared the view that she “felt more comfortable if it [a workshop] was held in a private settings”. Because in workshops behind closed doors she could speak freely.

Hearing these kind of statements is frustrating, because having workshops open to the public or behind closed, is in our opinion not a decision for elected members or Council staff to take, instead it is an interpretation of statutes, in this case Section 17 of the Local Government Act 2020, which states the the business on a local government level should be conducted in an “open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner”. Having closed workshops is not in line with these principles. That’s what the Chief Ombudsman determined last year when he did an investigation into local council meetings and workshops.

The discussion during the last Motueka Community Board makes us believe that the majority of community board members have not read the report of the Chief Ombudsman from October 2023. To address the issue that the Tasman District Council does not follow the clearly stated expectations from the Ombudsman (“opening workshops to the public by default”), we

• gave a speech in a council meeting

• talked briefly the Mayor

• had several phone calls with the Office of the Ombudsman

• filed 2 complaint with the Chief Executive

However, the Tasman District Councils keeps its position that the public is excluded from all workshops. The Mayor made it clear that there is no room for negotiations to even only open some of the workshops to the public. Therefore, we had to file a formal complaint with the Ombudsman, which can be read here.

Community board member Graham said during the meeting: “That’s where the downside of our workshops not being open to the public is, we are not taking community along [in decision making process]”.

The exact same issue was mentioned in the report of the Chief Ombudsman. Further, the Chief Ombudsman did not accept the argument that closed workshops are a safe space to ask silly questions out of the public eye. This is against the view of some community board members that they like to have closed workshops to “speak freely” and have “frank and free conversations”. The Chief Ombudsman wrote:

“Another reason put forward by councils for closing workshops was to provide elected members a ‘safe space’ to ask ‘silly questions’ out of the public eye. I do not accept this argument. Councillors are elected to public office, a position that demands accountability. They should be prepared for a level of scrutiny and even reasonable criticism from those they represent. The questions and concerns councillors have are no doubt shared by many of their constituents. It may be valuable for the answers to these ‘silly questions’ to be heard by the public.”

Councillor Dowler brought up an example of land purchase in Motueka that “had to be confidential”, and in consequence a workshops was necessary so that the public is excluded from the discussion. Mr Kirby also mentioned that workshops are used to have “confidential discussions”. Even though Mr Kirby may well accurately describe current practice, we strongly oppose the view that this is what workshops are intended to be. There are good reasons to have “confidential discussions”. However, instead of having them in a closed workshops they need to happen in a confidential session of a regular meeting with the public excluded. For meetings there need to be true and accurate meeting minutes. It goes without saying that a land purchase would require thorough record keeping alone due to the significant amount of public money involved. According to Councillor Dowler’s example this appears not to be the case because the discussion was held in a workshop, not a meeting.

Councillor Walker said that individuals or certain community groups “may have some knowledge, skill set or experience that they could kind of share and help us make us more rounded and information decisions”. In short, public participation, which is mentioned as a purpose of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (“to enable more effective participation by the public in the actions and decisions of local authorities”)

Councillor Walker also said: “Regularly we have councillors that sit in the chambers and say, for this next workshop would we be able to open it to the public? We keep getting shut down on that.“ She asked “how do we get some movement over in the chambers in Richmond?”

There are 3 options:

1. having a majority of elected members to vote in favour of a resolution that workshops are open to the public

2. file a formal complaint with the Chief Executive or Mayor that the Tasman District Councils does not follow the expectations of the Chief Ombudsman

3. file a formal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman (or write an email informing the Ombudsman that you support the complaint that we filed)

Interestingly, the discussion around workshops did not appear on the agenda but was started in response to what was said in public forum. So, there was definitely no element of theatre involved which Councillor Maru rightly called out when things are firstly discussed in a closed workshops to then be discussed anew in fornt of the public eye.

It was an authentic and genuine discussion about ups and downs of having closed workshops. This gives the public the chance to understand different viewpoints. We would love to see more of this and wish at the same time that elected members become more knowledgable about their role, its limitations and the processes underpinning this work in public office. We strongly believe that this has the potential to cure the perceived unease of being seen by the public eye during a workshop.

Warrants for Enforcement Officers

Sometimes people come in contact with so-called warranted officers. The classic example is the Enforcement Officer of the Local Authority (in our area the Tasman District Council) who wants to visit your private property. In those instances you will see 2 different documents.

The first document shows who the person is (e.g. an appointed Enforcement Officer). It is called the Warrant of Appointment, specifying the identity and role of the person.

The second document shows what this person is entitled to do (e.g. enter private land under section 332 of the Resource Management Act 1991). It is called the Warrant of Authority specifying the particular provision relevant for the action that the person would like to perform.

Section 332 of the Resource Management Act 1991 states:

Every enforcement officer who exercises any power of entry under this section shall produce for inspection his or her warrant of appointment and written authorisation upon initial entry and in response to any later reasonable request.

Ideally, they show both documents proactively “upon initial entry”. If not, you can request to see them, before they do any inspection or enforcement action.

This is confirmed in the Appointment Register of the Tasman District Council:

A warrant of authority and evidence of the officer’s identity must be produced upon any request to do so. If an officer is entering private land for purposes that may lead to enforcement action being taken, they should always present their warrant to avoid any argument later that evidence was collected unlawfully and is therefore inadmissible.

We requested under LGOIMA the release of the TDC Appointment Register. We received this document, unfortunately, heavily redacted. The last two pages of the Appointment Register contain a template for the identity card (warrant of appointment or “who is the person“) and also a template of the Warrant of Authority (“what can this person do“).

The Tasman District Council completely redacted these templates providing withholding of this information would be necessary to “prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.”

We cannot disagree more with that statement. Seeing these templates would not be in any form an “improper gain or improper advantage“, instead it would empower people to ascertain the validity of certain documents, if presented to them (e.g. an Enforcement Officer enters private land).

However, we found a copy of a Warrant of Appointment and a Warrant of Authority online, see below. They were part of a TDC presentation during the Environmental Compliance Conference 2019 in Christchurch and show the documents that TDC staff needs to produce when entering private land.

View fullsize

TDC Warrant ID Card (source https://planning.org.nz/Attachment?Action=Download&Attachment_id=5678)

View fullsize

TDC Warrant ID Card (source https://planning.org.nz/Attachment?Action=Download&Attachment_id=5678)

The persistence game at Tasman District Council

I guess, everybody knows what persistence is. Children want their ice creams, a dog or whatever it may be. They will remind us vigorously about the fact that they really want this or that, that we had promised to go to the pools, get the dog, but not kept to the promise. They may have done their share of the bargain or not.

It really comes down to a critical assessment, including assessing our own behaviour. For that it needs integrity. As parents we carry the responsibility to guide our children, to teach them what is appropriate and what is not. If we made a promise and they remind us of that, are there valid reasons for us to not hold that promise right now? On the other side, am I being a good role model to give in after the third time I am being asked to buy the ice cream? What am I teaching my children by doing that?

Well, I dare say that by giving in simply because someone persistently demands something of me, I teach that my boundaries are weak. I teach that my initial explanation does not mean much, my word is up for negotiation. I do not hold authority over my decisions.

There seems to be certain pattern of persistence when it comes to Council decisions. The Waimea Dam project was voted out in 28 August 2018 in an eight against six vote. Earlier that same year, when public submissions were consulted on as to whether or not including the Waimea Dam into the Long Term Plan, Councillor Greening stated that there had been a "resounding rejection" of that funding model by the community. "Having considered all the submissions and evidence, I do not support this funding model," he said.

Councillor Peter Canton said he believed to support the resolution would be a "snub" in the face of democracy. "Would I die for water? Maybe. Would I die for democracy? Absolutely," Canton said. "So I can't support this because overwhelmingly, our community has said to us that they do not support [it]."

Councillor Anne Turley said consultation had taken place. "We need to give our community the dignity of knowing that we have listened so I won't be supporting it.“

Councillor Dana Wensley said she would like the proposals to go into the LTP but to put them through "carte blanche" would make a "mockery" of the consultation. "Five days of consultation, I didn't hear a community that was happy with that arrangement," she said.

The Stuff article also mentioned “councillors were advised by council staff to put aside matters raised by submitters that were out of scope“.

But then, early September we read the following article:

“The controversial Waimea Dam is back on track after Tasman District councillors changed their minds and voted to continue with a new funding model.

The Tasman District Council met yesterday and voted 9-5 to revoke an in-principle decision it made on August 28 not to continue with the $100 million dam in the Lee Valley near Nelson.

The joint venture with Waimea Irrigators had been voted down the first time because of fears the dam, which would provide water for much of the region, would be too expensive for ratepayers.

Tasman Mayor Richard Kempthorne said on Thursday the decision was overturned after new information was presented to councillors that showed the cost to ratepayers of a $23m increase in the overall project price would be minimised.“

We all know how much the dam has cost the ratepayer so far.

Another example is the Cat Bylaw proposal by staff. On 5 December 2021 we read in the newspaper

“A staff report says the council has received representations that a bylaw requiring the microchipping of cats would assist in managing cat trespass, cat-transferred diseases, domestic cats being attacked by feral cats and threats to native birds”.

However, after a lengthy discussion on Thursday, a majority of elected members on the council’s regulatory committee voted against the proposal for a bylaw and going out for consultation. They agreed instead to a non-regulatory approach to responsible cat management via education. Now, in 2024, the Cat Bylaw is back on the table at the Council eating away finances. Why, we don’t know.

In the last weeks, both Community Boards were asked to reduce their costs by only having 6-weekly meetings or even only every 8 weeks. This suggestion was presented on the Chair’s report.

Golden Bay deputy Chair Grant Knowles who attended last week’s Motueka Community Board, was asked what the reasons were that were brought forward by staff for suggesting such move. He said that the reasoning was to be more in line with Full Council meetings and this was being brought forward multiple times over the years. He personally did not agree to have fewer meetings, but the majority of his board did, so they will give it a go. They could always change their opinion.

The Motueka Community Board was advised that the Local and Democracy Services Team were under resourced and this move would help them to manage their challenges. There was an overwhelming opposition from the public forum, that also included former Board members, as well as from contributions from members of the current board that this was not at all what would support the board’s work. Councillor Maru also added that surely they wouldn’t make a decision on a point on the Chair’s Report. There should be a decision required report. They would however, give feedback to staff. I think this is very reasonable.

What I am very concerned about however, is another very persistent way of bringing a point across. Since October 2023, there is a statement that persistently reappears on the Motueka Community Board agenda in between other points of decisions, without being given the space to decide on the matter separately. Staff provided for the third time since October that the Motueka Community Board is assumed to be under the code of conduct adopted by a previous board.

This was slipped in between an announcement of a workshop on the topic, again when the decision on adopting a draft policy was to be made in March 2024 and again, one month later, in April 2024, when this decision of adopting a draft policy was tabled again as the decision was adjourned back in March.

In October, three members responded to this “little insert“ by requesting their position to be noted in the meeting minutes, namely that the board was not presented with a code, did not table it, did not discuss it, did not vote on it. However, the meeting minutes did not contain this information. Because the in-house advice on the matter differs from LGNZ advice, clarification would be sought.

The March report was not reflecting any clarification, simply stated the same again. The Motueka Community Board is subject to a code adopted by a previous board. If they vote on adopting a new one, the old one would only be replaced.

The problem is, and is well understood by all board members right now, that this ultimately means that this Board is not given the discretion as per Local Government Act to choose whether or not to adopt a code of conduct at all. A complaint was filed with the Chief Executive in March as a report of that nature is, according to the Standing Orders, under responsibility of the Chief Executive. However, her answer was “unwilling to investigate“. Code is in place. Fullstop.

When the Board finally voted on adopting their draft last Tuesday on 16 April, there was no clarification presented on that question. It needs to be said that Full Council passed a resolution on a code of conduct complaint in November 2023, so just after the statement appeared on the Motueka Community Board agenda for the first time. The position of the member subject to the complaint was made clear, namely that the member does not accept that the code which was used to investigate the complaint, was ever adopted by the current board.

A previous article talked about this case at length. Several members of the Motueka Community Board will have a clear conflict of interest in regards to this question, some because they voted on Council’s resolution back in November, others because of their involvement in the case. There could have been a clear statement from the Board to that effect and a clarification that the Board is merely voting on adopting their own code, without making any statements on staff’s position that a code is already in place. But this was not the case.

What is worth noting though is that a request for official information was filed with the Tasman District Council to find out whether the Board’s voting on adopting their own code would also mean they are endorsing the report which was presented to them, namely that they are already bound by a previous board’s code. We were simply given the answer that the request is being refused as this official information does not exist.

We had to contact two further external agencies to find an answer to this question.

In summary, it appears to be a persistence game.

Long Term Plan Consultation 2024

As some of you may know, there is currently the consultation open on the Tasman Long Term Plan proposal. I simply wanted to reiterate that anybody is free to provide their submission in the form they choose, irrespective of TDC's tick the box approach.

Here is Councillor Greening's comment that we think is worth sharing:

The full council meeting of 28 March 2024 contained a very frank assessment of councils current financial position – and the reading should be a concern for all ratepayers. According to staff “Councils projected financial position raises several concerns as financial pressures and unbudgeted expenditure impact on the Council.” A message I have tried to convery during the LTP workshops and why I could not support its final form.

In my opinion, TDC finances look precarious. Staff's advice to get out of this position was to “focus on efforts to enhance income and control spending” (of current budgets). In response, I noted the absence of any advice to "reduce" budgets or costs. And we need to stop continually reaching into the pockets of ratepayers to "enhance (TDC's) income".

I also highlighted that I had provided several ideas (as a good "community guardian") to significantly reduce costs (eg, don't hire an extra 50 staff over the next 3 years, and reduce the 150 staff increase from the last LTP), but the mayor, CEO, and the majority of councilors have refused to entertain any of theses ideas.

I also suggested the 'dynamic rates cap' (in the proposed LTP) should be ditched for a 'hard' rates cap (3%). Not only does a 'dynamic rates cap' incentivise councillors to spend more money on nice to have community facilities we cannot apparently afford - it doesn't drive prioritisation of spending.

Finally, I suggested that we will not contain spending if we keep lifting the debt cap. It was raised by $50 million 3 years ago in the last LTP, and we have already consumed it, and are looking to lift it again to take the pressure off councils continual spending habits.

Of course the mayor did not like my criticism of the LTP proposals and shut me down in making my suggestions on how we could meet the staff's call for help in containing costs.

https://www.facebook.com/GreeningTasman/posts/pfbid02kL3P613irEm7TVKKqYdZtLRQCXr4f6ErRD4Ut4LbTx9R4VgBiwQuRruomBxuDRuil

Workshops at Tasman District Council

We are currently preparing a complaint to the Ombudsman regarding TDC's position not following Ombudsman recommendation to hold Council Workshops open by default to the public, unless there are good reasons not to.

In late October 2023, the Ombudsman reported on his view of Council holding Workshops behind closed doors following an investigation into eight Councils around the country (Clutha District Council, Palmerston North City Council, Rangitīkei District Council, Rotorua Lakes Council, Taranaki Regional Council, Taupō District Council, Timaru District Council and Waimakariri District Council).

“Some councils were previously closing workshops by default. In my view, that is unreasonable. The Local Government Act states that local authorities should conduct business in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner. As a matter of good practice, workshops should be closed only where it is reasonable.”

The Ombudsman was encouraged that Councils signaled a readiness to consider holding workshops open to the public. Unfortunately, this is not the case for Tasman, even though it is the case for Nelson. Tasman’s Mayor Tim King remains of the firm position that he will not change his approach. This was asked only a few weeks back after two public forum presentations were touching on the Ombudsman position on Workshops and Tasman’s practice. It was also subject of a formal complaint to Council.

As Council, via Mayor King, is holding a very firm view, there are no other internal avenues available to initiate change and we decided to approach the Office of the Ombudsman instead.

We are intending to file a complaint on 18 April with a draft ready by 12 April. If one of you have interest in being part of this complaint, please let us know and we will include you and your reasons in the complaint. You don't have to be a member of our organisation, you can simply support the complaint. If you don't want to be named, but think you have got good reasons in support of this complaint, that’s also fine.

See: https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/news/chief-ombudsman-calls-council-workshops-be-open-default

Code of Conduct investigation: unlawful spending of $40,000 ?

In June 2023, former Tasman District Council Chief Executive Janine Dowding laid a Code of Conduct complaint against Motueka Community Board member Nick Hughes. However, no Code of Conduct policy was presented to or voted on by any member of the current board by then. Nor was the policy document in question provided when the complaint was presented to Mr Hughes. This is where this story should have stopped. 

As the Councils main policy advisor the Chief Executive is expected to know about the policies the Council has in place, including what to do if someone is subject to a workplace investigation. The story doesn't stop here. 

An initial assessor who is also the Chair of Council’s Audit and Risk Committee utilised two Council Code of Conduct policies to determine the merits of the complaint. Neither of these policies have anything to do with the current Motueka Community Board. The initial assessor would have had the experience to understand the financial implications of such an investigation in relation to the expenditure of public money and would have a duty to pay close attention to the policy framework he is using for a correct assessment. An assessment made under these two Code of Conduct policies did not make sense, but this didn’t stop the process. 

A further Council policy for investigating and ruling on alleged breaches was used to run the investigation. This policy sets out that the independent investigator’s findings and recommendations are binding for Council. Again, this policy was never tabled at a Motueka Community Board meeting. Yet again, this did not stop the process. 

The Mayor retains the view that this policy is binding for all, including Motueka Community Board members. This view appears questionable as the expected conduct must be well understood by the elected members and the community as set out in section 39 of the Local Government Act 2002 under the Governance principles.

In my view, it would somewhat imply that the process of dealing with breaches and possible repercussions are included therein. It could also indicate a certain lack of care and consideration for the members of the community boards in his district. If transparency and fairness are essential, then surely all members would be expected to be made aware of how their Council is dealing with anything that is considered to require intervention or an investigation. One of the four objectives of Code of Conduct policies according to Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) is to develop mutual trust, respect  and tolerance in working relationships.

See page 5 here: https://www.horizons.govt.nz/HRC/media/Media/Agenda-Reports/Regional-Council-Meeting-2019-5-11/19167%20Annex%20B%20LGNZ%20Guide%20to%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf

However, all repercussions sought from the complainant were of a punitive nature and the complainant declared that she does not expect any change from board member Hughes as a result of the investigation. The purpose of the complaint was to protect staff and to send a strong signal to other elected members that such behaviour as shown by Mr Hughes is not acceptable. 

This alone leads to the question whether the complainant believes the policy is not fit for purpose or whether the policy does not accommodate the purposes of the complainant as this is significantly different to what Code of Conduct policies are meant to achieve. This inconsistency is evidently clear from various aspects of the complaint.

Council paid more than $2,000 on the initial assessment alone. Surely, a thorough analysis of the merits of the complaint would be expected for that price. Unfortunately the complainant’s uncertainty about the role and limits of a code of conduct remained unnoticed by the initial assessor and so the process continued.

A substantial part of the evidence provided from the complainant were personal social media posts Mr Hughes had made. The policy alleged to apply to the current Motueka Community Board does not include any provision or consequence for this. The question arises, how could a personal social media post possibly be subject to a complaint against an elected member? LGNZ explains that there is a big difference between speaking about Council and speaking on behalf of Council.

“Provided that an elected member does not attempt to present a personal view as anything other than their own view (and does not contravene other parts of the Code) they should be able to do so. Codes of Conduct are ideally designed to provide rules of conduct that promote debate and make it clear that personal views, and the rights of all members to express personal views, are to be respected.“ And „Among other things, a Code should promote free and frank debate which should in turn result in good decision making. Codes of Conduct should not be used in such a way as to stifle robust debate.”

See page 7 at https://www.horizons.govt.nz/HRC/media/Media/Agenda-Reports/Regional-Council-Meeting-2019-5-11/19167%20Annex%20B%20LGNZ%20Guide%20to%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf

A member’s right to freedom of expression is guaranteed, especially in his private capacity. The process (and associated costs) could have stopped here; but it didn’t. Instead the independent investigator determined:

“The posts will be considered as part of this investigation to determine if the Code has been breached. Mr Hughes’s Facebook page is accessible by the general public in the public domain that anyone can follow or view. The Code of Conducts sets standards for how elected members should behave in public.”

There has been quite some publicity around the possible abuse of Code of Conduct complaints in Councils around the country with the latest example from Wellington or from a Southland Community Board.

The perception, that there might be a political driver at force against elected members presenting certain community views, especially when they are concerned about spending of public money, are evident. Put this together with the financial awards of being a community board member and one could ask: Who would possibly be willing to earn around $100 per week for presenting views that may be likely to earn a Code of Conduct complaint and may even be accompanied by further threats to personal financial wellbeing. In this case of Mr Hughes, the complainant suggested to Council to start recovering costs from Mr Hughes should he be found to have breached the Code of Conduct. 

Ms Dowding is of the view that Mr Hughes’ actions are costing the ratepayer, but provide no benefit for them. Even though Ms Dowding is entitled to her personal view, it is clear that the voters in the next election will decide whether or not they have benefitted from a member’s work or not. In addition, it appears as though a code of conduct complaint does not seem to be the process for a CEO to transport such personal view. It would be through the Auditor-General that Council has to report or deal with a loss incurred for Council and ultimately, for the community.

Of note is that the social media posts referred to as part of the complaint had been already dealt with in the past (apart from the most recent post days before laying the complaint). Apologies were presented by Mr Hughes. He had accepted to limit his right to freedom of speech by agreeing to provide Council the ability to amend the member’s personal social media posts. The fact that this happened at all is of grave concern. 

The courtesy email from Mr Hughes to staff offering to amend the post if of concern after posting the most recent comment does not appear in the complaint, however the post does. This in itself could have stopped these proceedings. Unfortunately, this was not the case. 

A serious concern in the form of a possible conflict of interest became apparent during the investigation. The independent investigator’s firm Intepeople generated a total income of $411,000 from working with the Council on 22 occasions within a period of less than 12 months.

The independent investigator Melisa Kappely is a director and shareholder of this business. Further shareholders are also a family member and another person of the same residential address. Apparently these facts did not equate to a conflict of interest as far as the Mayor is concerned who oversaw the investigation and so it continued at further expense to all involved, especially ratepayers. 

The independent investigator’s declaration of any possible conflict of interest declares to not have any knowledge of Mr Hughes, but misses such statement in relation to the Mayor, the complainant and any other witnesses, in this case Council staff.

Solicitor Patrick Corish wrote already in 2021 for the Local Government Magazine:

“Some codes give the mayor and the council’s chief executive control over the process. This can include joint powers to dismiss a claim and control the flow of information between parties and decision makers. This is more efficient than leaving the administration of a complaint process to a committee, but does not protect against bias in the case where the mayor or chief executive are directly or indirectly involved in a complaint.”

It was the independent investigator who changed the final version of Mr Hughes’ witness statement by adding the words “agreeing to the Code of Conduct” without Mr Hughes’ knowledge. Mr Hughes noticed that and responded:

“For reasons of fairness and transparency, I am also notifying you that I noticed you altered my statement in the reviewed interview summary.”

The investigator stated:

“I have reviewed what you sent through regarding the altered statement, there were a lot of formatting issues with what you provided so I did adjust these. I note that I have amended some incorrect spelling in the interview summary but that there is no change to the meaning of this clause. However, given your feedback I will ensure that in the final report and in the final copy of the interview summary that the wording is as you provided.“

The independent investigator is part of an international association for workplace investigators. They published a document about their guiding principles, but I could not find a code of conduct.

What the ongoing pattern of Mr Hughes’ ‘unacceptable behaviour’ is, we do not know. What we do know is the alleged claim of a ‘lack of honesty and integrity and not treating people with courtesy and respect and criticising staff’.

The fundamental requirement is to link allegation and evidence with the policy framework in order to establish causation. The question is: did the social media post in question create a conflict with the Council’s Code of Conduct policy? (for the purposes of this exercise, let us disregard the fact that the Council’s Code of Conduct policy was not presented to the member and assume the member was bound by this policy). Does the comment made by the member constitute the member’s observation and thus considered as ‘the truth’ from the member’s point of view? Or, does the concern raised regarding Council service performance equate to criticising staff? 

Both the complaint itself and the investigator’s report should have made the merits of the complaint, or lack thereof, obvious (according to the policy used). The investigator‘s findings report presented to Council would have been internally peer-reviewed according to the independent investigator. For reasons of confidentiality. 

Some of these questions and concerns were put before the Deputy Mayor as well as the independent investigator just after receiving the complaint at the onset of the investigation at the beginning of July 2023. A number of questions still remain insufficiently answered to this day. These questions did for example point out the concerns around using two different policies for an initial assessment or the use of personal social media posts for a complaint into someone’s role as elected member and should have provided sufficient grounds for the investigation to stop. It didn’t.

The questions from Mr Hughes put forward finished with:

“I kindly ask you to pause any investigation against me until all questions above have been addressed, so that the lawfulness of actions against me in my capacity as a Member of the Motueka Community Board is established. I am willing to cooperate in any form to solve this alleged issue and prevent possible unnecessary spending for rate payers.”

One of the questions raised was:

“The Tasman District Council Policy for Investigation and Ruling on Alleged Breached of the Code of Conduct mentions required ‘budgetary constraints’. I hereby request what ‘budgetary constraints’ are in place for the investigation that is taken place against me, and who made the decision on these ‘budgetary constraints’ on which date?”

The answer was: “there has been no constraint set to the budget“.

Mr Hughes’ view on the applicability issue for a code of conduct only adopted by a previous board was communicated to the Mayor on 8 September 2023. All of the concerns, including the questions around applicability and enforceability of any code of conduct policy to Motueka Community Board Member Nick Hughes have been carefully analysed and presented from Mr Hughes to the independent investigator in a 28-page document on 11 September 2023.

This document states that Mr Hughes acknowledges a conflict exists between the complainant, Council staff and himself. However, Mr Hughes strongly disagreed with the reasons for the conflict, the process of dealing with it and the remedy sought. Mr Hughes is of the opinion that it is his duty and obligation to present and address issues and concerns as brought to him by his constituents. He is not confident that this is happening as many of his questions remain largely ignored when advocating for his community. It remains unknown whether or not this information was made known to Council when the investigator’s report was presented, as this happened in a confidential session, where Mr Hughes was explicitly excluded. 

Mr Hughes’ firm position that he is not subject to any of those policies continues to cause disruption for Council who has just requested of him for a second time to accept the charges for this unacceptable behaviour. It is understandable that this situation causes disruption because the question that now needs to be answered is: Who is liable for spending almost $40,000 of ratepayers’ money on an investigation with no policy framework in place?

At the end of September 2023 the former Motueka Community Board Chair reached out to LGNZ for advice after being presented with the finding that no code of conduct policy was currently adopted by the Motueka Community Board. LGNZ provides Councils with Code of Conduct templates, which most Councils around the country then adopt for their work.

Staff from Tasman District Council did not like the advice given by LGNZ which was:

“Whether or not a community board adopts a code of conduct is a matter for each board’s discretion. In my view, the 2013 code only applied to the board that was in place for that triennium. It does not have an ongoing life, unless specifically endorsed by subsequent boards - which aligns with the principle that governments cannot bind their successors.”

As a consequence of giving the advice, “a number of queries“ were received by LGNZ on the matter. It was the former Chief Executive herself who strongly requested from LGNZ to amend their statement on the matter suggesting LGNZ’s advice had somewhat contributed to the spending of public money on their advice.

She wrote on 28 November 2023:

“Council has been undertaking a lengthy and expensive investigation which is having a significant impact on resources and staff.”

“The subject of the complaint has questioned the process at every point and your advice (shared with him by the Chair of the community board) provided sufficient doubt over the validity of the complaint to cause increased resistance, reduced cooperation and ultimately more time and cost for the investigator.”

“we continue to be challenged on the basis of this ‚advice‘ from LGNZ“

“What I am seeking from you is confirmation that the advice provided was incorrect, that it wasn’t legal advice or based on any legal advice, but simply a matter of opinion expressed by you based on the information provided. I would further ask you to confirm that having now obtained the facts, that the Board’s code is in fact valid, based on the correct application of the LGA provisions.“

I dare to say that I respectfully disagree, given that concerns around the process were communicated since July 2023 before the independent investigator had started the investigation. Mr Hughes’ view on the applicability of a previous board’s code of conduct to him was communicated to the Mayor on 8 September 2023.

The complaint against Mr Hughes was actually overseen by the Mayor and supported by the Council’s legal team as per Council’s Policy on investigation and ruling of alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct. 

It is concerning that the complainant deemed it appropriate to get involved in discussing the policy matters raised by the affected member through the former Chair of the Motueka Community Board with LGNZ. Clarity around these matters is important to establish the lawfulness of the process Mr Hughes was subjected to. What is even more concerning is that despite a legal background, the Council’s Legal Services Manager who also gets involved with LGNZ on the matter, confidently states to LGNZ

“I am very familiar with all the LGA (Local Government Act 2002) provisions in relation to conduct.“

but then needs to be educated by the LGNZ’s Senior Policy Advisor about certain provisions in the Act, namely that the adoption of any code of conduct is voluntary for a community board.

Tasman District Council’s Legal and Democracy Services Manager acknowledges towards LGNZ that it is good practice to review and adopt a code at the beginning of each triennium, but highlights that there are a “multitude of other tasks councils need to do to get set up and running after an election”.

After comparing the Council’s past practice around community boards and their Codes of Conduct it became apparent that the previous Motueka Community Boards were presented with a policy and voted on adopting one at the beginning of their triennium. They were also informed that this was voluntary. The agenda for the 2022 Motueka Community Board was different - no policy was presented, or voted on. Nor were the members informed that it was voluntary to adopt such policy as it was done after previous elections. 

For the Motueka Community Board meeting 01/11/2013 the Code of Conduct report from Pamela White says:

“A community board is not required to adopt a code of conduct but it is recommended that you do.”

For the Motueka Community Board meeting 21/10/2016 the Code of Conduct report MCB16-10-03 from Robyn Scherer says:

“A Community Board is not required to adopt a code of conduct but it is recommended that you do.”

For the Motueka Community Board meeting 05/11/2019 the Code of Conduct report RMCB19-11-3 from Richard Kirby says:

“A Community Board is not required to adopt a code of conduct but it is recommended that you do.”

Why was that practice and the agenda changed in 2022 instead of simply continuing to use the same practice?

Back in October 2023, the Legal Services Manager contacted LGNZ presenting information why the Code of Conduct policy from previous boards continues to apply for the current Motueka Community Board and tries to show that the board did know about the policy in place, including its implications.

This manager provided LGNZ with information that a workshop with the Motueka Community Board was organised earlier in 2023 to brief the community board about a code of conduct. However, the briefing workshop was held in February 2024. 

Further, this manager also informed LGNZ that all community board members were presented with a copy of the Code of Conduct policy and were briefed on it during an “housekeeping and overview” session. As no opposition to this code was received, it was assumed members are accepting of it.

An official information request confirmed that:

“Council has located one record that the current code of conduct was provided to the Board on the 26 of January 2024”.

The housekeeping session in question for all newly elected people was held two weeks before any member had taken their oath of office. None of them were in any position to make decisions as a community board member at the time of this housekeeping session.

The correspondence between TDC staff and LGNZ was not shared with Mr Hughes. It was only obtained in March 2024 through an official information request.

What is Council’s current position on the Code of Conduct for Motueka Community Board members?

Mr Hughes’ position on the policy matter was communicated formally to Council weeks before LGNZ was first contacted on the matter.  Council was asked to provide him with a formal statement on the matter, which did not happen until today.

When asked again by a member of the public in a request for official information, Council’s Legal and Democracy Services team confirmed “the requested document does not exist, or the information is not held“. This has got a huge implication - “information“ extends to any recollection in a person’s mind. Council has confirmed that they haven’t got any information as to why there is a code of conduct policy in place for the current Motueka Community Board.

Conclusion

What this story shows is that there were significant issues raised right at the beginning of the process as well as during the process which were simply ignored. It shows that the Tasman District Council was determined to follow the process through, no matter what. It demonstrates this determination even going as far as to pressure someone who was consulted for advice. This raises serious concerns how the TDC responds to procedural matters and the integrity and respect shown towards those who bring issues and concerns to their attention. It raises the question of accountability, fiscal responsibility and liability as it is the Council’s duty to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place and are fit for purpose. It is not the LGNZ or anybody else’s responsibility to retrospectively fix such problems.

The Council’s reputation has suffered, no doubt. This is completely separate from what Mr Hughes posted or wrote or whether there is a policy in place or not. The damage is created by a disregard for facts and democratic principles. What has been exposed is a deeply dysfunctional organisation lacking any consideration regarding genuine concerns brought to their attention as well as a willingness to engage. We should all be concerned and the TDC’s officers and staff need to be held to account.

In this case, the remedy is relatively straight forward in my view: revoke Council’s resolution on the code of conduct investigation, tender an apology to Motueka Community Board member Hughes and determine who has got financial liability for the spending of almost $40,000 on this complaint investigation.

Further reading on code of conduct complaints in local government:

https://localgovernmentmag.co.nz/code-of-conduct/

https://www.democracyaction.org.nz/council_codes_of_conduct_a_tool_for_muzzling_councillors

https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/free-speech-unions/council-codes-of-conduct-jsaktwIg_4i/

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/local-government-code-of-conduct-complaints-have-turned-into-a-monster/JN5N45IQ2VDURNG2NAALKG4EYU/

Community Board made resolution about 8-weeks-rule

During the February Motueka Community Board meeting a historic decision has been made: the Board made a resolution to recommend to Council to have the TRMP’s famous 8-weeks-rule changed. The three Councillors on the Board abstained from voting, so that they will be able to partake in the discussion when this matter will be before Council. The remaining Motueka Community Board members voted to support the change. Board Member David Armstrong voted against it.

The 8-week-rule is Council’s discretionary figure to determine whether an accommodation is considered temporary or permanent. This effects people living in various arrangements around the district, including Tiny Homes. This matter was tabled at the Community Board since latest 2019 clearly acknowledging the community’s request for more clarity around the matter and the impact this 8-week-rule is currently having on various members of the community. During the meeting Board Member Hughes was highlighting the vulnerability of such determination. When a CEO takes on a role somewhere else for a year, this is called temporary.

One could have hoped to have access to the recording of that meeting to make sure the quotes used are correctly. However, at the time of writing, no recording has been uploaded so my recollection is based on memory rather than on the recording. Yet, there was already Council’s Policy and Strategy committee meeting held last week where Councillor Walker and Councillor Maru talked about this resolution and made clear this needs to be put before the Council soon for discussion. Staff was not able to commit to a date when this will happen as the matter was considered “not a straight-forward process”. Both Councillors were expressing their frustration about that, as this rule is currently effecting a number of people in their community.

Here are some comments from the Policy and Strategy committee meeting:

Councillor Maru:

I am not sure if it has come yet, but the Motueka Community Board has proposed a minor change to the TRMP in terms of how long a temporary tiny home or structure becomes a dwelling in terms of 8 weeks. When do we get to have a discussion about that what’s that process?

Staff response:

I don’t want to raise expectation here. We have received the resolution and the recommendation through the minutes. I think it has been explained on a number of occasions that this is not straight-forward process and in fact it is quite difficult. I know some barriers, list of things to do and respond to, but it has to come back into Council for discussion. I want to set expectations that is not a thing that can happen overnight if at all under the current legislation.

Councillor Walker:

That response has thrown me a little. I grapple with the fact we have a Cat Bylaw coming up when we get a response like that and please don’t take it that personally because I know that’s coming from your sector. The implication that we have in our community currently around the current TRMP and the effects that it is having widely across not just Motueka ward but further afield. I grapple. I grapple with how many times the Community Board have raised this and the process they have been through to get it to where it is and then this big kind of caution question mark you now it’s not going to happen overnight. Yet, this Council is prepared to spend copious amounts of money on the Cat Bylaw. I am lost the words. And I am going to stop now before I regret what I say.

Staff response:

What we are really keen to do is have a proper conversation in here and explain the challenges of changing this. We will come back to you. […] There are some wider TRMP conversation we need to have. So this is going to be part of a package. Please don’t think I am offended by your passion on the issue.

Councillor Maling:

Could you email the timeline to them so that they have got some idea?

Staff response:

We will respond to that in some shape or form whether or not it will be this time or next time. We just need to get our wording right.

Councilor Maru picked up the topic again:

We are currently displacing people from properties in tiny homes because of some discrete legislation or bylaw and we are actively saying we don’t go looking for this. In our town there is a lot of people that could be displaced if somebody like somebody who has just come to me. Not a neighbour, not somebody who lives closely, but someone who doesn’t like them made a complaint and we have got to act. To leave this and have it sitting here, just absolutely frustrates me, because we know this occurs everywhere, but we don’t look for it. We don’t do anything unless there is a complaint which tells me there is a part belief from staff that in some cases don’t even go looking for this, because this is silly. It sounds like a silly rule, it is having consequences in terms of displacing people and I am just frustrated. I look forward to the paper and I really hope it comes sooner rather than later.

Council has various Activity Management Plans, one for managing the environment. In regards to the 8-week-rule it is worth highlighting the following from page 14 of this plan.

from Environmental Management Activity Management Plan 2021-2051.pdf

In addition, there will be case heard before the Environment Court on 10 and 11 June in Nelson which will provide more clarity on the issue as well. As a result from the judgment, we will get to know about the aspects of something being considered fixed to land, therefore falling under the definition of a building. This is crucial for the 8-week-rule, as a dwelling, what this rule relates to, must be a building first.