The Bottom Line on Conflicted Interest – is YOU

2 September 2025

Earlier this month, I submitted a formal letter of complaint to the Office of the Auditor-General regarding a potential conflict of interest involving Councillor Danny Loughlin. My concern was that as a Board Member of the Tūwharetoa Maori Trust Board (TMTB), he had failed to step back from the Council table during the Joint Management Agreement (JMA) deliberations on July 31, 2025. That, to myself and many others, clearly crossed a line of acceptability.  Mayor Trewavas declined to intervene, and the Chief Executive even refused my request for independent legal opinion ahead of the meeting. I see those responses as irresponsible, bordering on reckless disregard.

Let’s be clear: if Councillor Loughlin was simultaneously a director of a construction company bidding for a Council contract, they would almost certainly be required to recuse themselves. In fact it would be laughable if they didn’t.

So how on earth can a sitting Councillor, who is also a Board Member of a corporate entity proposing to engage in direct partnership negotiations with the Council, be reasonably considered free of any conflict of interest – financial or otherwise – when both organisations stand to benefit from the arrangement?  After all, isn’t that always the reason to have any agreement at all??

My complaint was about a non-financial conflict of interest given his governance role and Iwi affiliation, and my 4 August 2025 letter can be found here.

Last week the Auditor-General responded, you can read it here. The short version: ‘It’s not our job to rule on non-financial conflicts’.

So at the end of the day it is up to politicians to police themselves, and there isn’t anything anybody can do about it.  That is, apart from shaming people as Mayor David Trewavas attempted to do with me on 28 June last year in the final edition of the Taupo Times local newspaper:

“While Cr Campbell has repeatedly made his engineering qualifications known to the community, he and every councillor was elected to represent and advocate for their community, not provide specialised advice in their particular field.  That would represent a significant conflict of interest, one that this councillor has repeatedly failed to grasp”.

Perhaps next term instead of trying to helpfully contribute on a topic on which I know more about than Council staff, I should instead put forth a partnership deal with my own company and vote YES to it (that is, if I get elected in October).

A broader pattern?

Councillor Loughlin isn’t the only elected member facing public scrutiny around potential conflicts of interest. A recent article by Sophie M Smith raises community questions about Councillor Yvonne Westerman’s position, particularly given her professional background in property and real estate – an industry that naturally intersects with Council decision-making.

While no formal allegations have been made, perceptions of conflicted interests continue to surface (for example, there are reports of seeing her business signage on properties listed for sale that are owned or managed by Council). Real estate, of course, is one of the few industries that could be seen – rightly or wrongly – as benefitting from early insight into proposed District Plan changes. That perception alone underscores the need for greater transparency.

So then, the bottom line is really … YOU

There are very few public spaces where this kind of blurred line between public duty and private allegiance would be tolerated. But local government seems to be the exception, and no-one including other elected members have any real power to force recusals

This is not about attacking individuals, but as public figures they shouldn’t be above receiving that either.  It’s about ensuring that our decision-making remains above reproach, especially in politically and culturally sensitive areas. If the rules aren’t fit for purpose, then perhaps it’s time they got changed.

The Auditor-General mentioned at the end of their letter that they are developing some practice material around Treaty settlement entities like TMTB, which is all good and fine. But it sounds like that’s all they will be: Guidelines. I think we need something harder than that: Rules.  

Until that happens:

It’s on YOU to vote in some people who you think can tell right from wrong, and will represent YOUR best interests and not just their own.