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.