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.