Fridays Flying Fancy

7 Nov 2025

Councillor Duncan reporting in again, this time it’s a much shorter piece because I have been distracted elsewhere. In terms of the new Council we really are only just starting out as elected members go through a few months of induction sessions to educate and remind what Council is all about. These induction sessions are quite important, not least because we also have a new Mayor who is fresh to local government – so I don’t think we will be making any major decisions before Christmas. It also offers a chance to start afresh with some new perspectives and throw out some of the old. I recognise that Taupo District Council has some dysfunction in terms of its transparency and democratic representation, so I want some things to be set right from the outset as much as possible (even the format of Karakia’s are getting a look in). My professional engineering knowledge was a big reason people voted for me in 2022, and I am still angry to have been sidelined from substantially contributing along those lines for the past three years – entirely due to the very small-town stuff of not pleasing the right people.

We are also in the throes of allocating elected members to various committees and working groups. In 2022 this was sorted out in less than an hour, but this time it is being evaluated whether we need new committees or even if some of the former committees should exist at all. So along with the quite special induction session we had the week before last, this time round the newly elected are getting quite a different experience. And by the way although a few of the committees are compulsory (like Risk & Assurance with an independent chair), many of the others are not and will depend upon local politics. For example in Auckland where transportation is a No.1 hot topic there will probably be armfuls of committees dedicated to transportation alone, but here in Taupo it will probably get lumped in with a bunch of other stuff like water pipes.

But some things remain the same, as the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) induction day in Rotorua on Monday did remind. Although some of the presenters were good enough and the chance to meet elected members of surrounding districts is always appreciated, the clear political bias of LGNZ still shone through with a very one-side presentation relating to the Treaty of Waitangi obligations of local government. Rotorua Councillor Robert Lee even had the microphone taken off him before he could ask a few challenging questions that one of the presenters (a staff member of Rotorua Lakes Council) clearly knew was coming. So my desire for this Council to remain affiliated to that particular club is quite muted, and there is good reason that around half the country (by population) decline to partake.

This week and there isn’t much:

Lakeside landgrab? By now many of you will have heard about local agitator Jane Arnotts attempt to highlight a reserve encroachment on Te Kopua Street in Acacia Bay, if not you can read about it here in this Waikato Times article and listen to Jane’s 8 min radio interview here. I still haven’t got to the bottom of how it all came about, but it appears that despite community consultation several years back about a proposed land swap which was rejected, Council staff subsequently and in practical terms let it happen anyway. I have visited the site myself and met Jane in person, and she doesn’t seem the type to give up very easily – so this story hasn’t ended yet.

Making a point about something: These Dunedin newly elects weren’t just wearing scarves to keep out the southerly wind chill, because their swearing in all happened indoors. Any guesses to which team they support?

Unelected representation: This Invercargill Councillor also tried to make his point by opposing the presence of unelected Manua Whenua representations to Council at their inaugural meeting. The presence of unelected members to Council committees or working groups also has relevance here, because even though they might not have delegated decision-making authority these committees can still significantly influence the Council decision making process. Given my own campaign pledge to oppose this sort of thing (i.e. unelected appointments to Council committees with financial or regulatory powers), I am now at least questioning the eligibility for voting – and this does not just apply to Manua Whenua, but all sorts of outside representatives.

Because nobody spoke for the trees: A streetload of trees on suburban Wylie Street in Rotorua got the big chop and despite local objections and afterward furore (see pics before on L and after on R). Although we have had a few mishaps in Turangi the past year or so, I would like to think that in Taupo this sort of significant decision would involve elected members – which did not happen there.

Fridays politically correct message: This is the sort of thing that we see in some of our institutes of higher learning nowadays, one can only imagine what someone time transported from 1970 would think.

Friday Foreboding- Freight Train Coming?

19 September 2025

Councillor Duncan coming at you again with this weeks election highlights including a few things of interest, and we also managed to get even more snow on top of our Maunga just in time for the school holidays – so because I don’t like crowds that means I probably will be steering clear of it for the next two weeks. So who keeps talking up this global warming again?

On voting: my advice is to only vote for those you really want to get in, because any otherwise votes scattered around will reduce their chances. Remember that you don’t have to tick the number of boxes to match the number of vacant seats. And do some research on the candidates not just rely on their 150 word statements, for example why don’t you ask them about the JMA or why they haven’t yet signed the Taxpayer’s Union Pledge to keep rates to inflation? Because I say if something isn’t done about it soon, the current trajectory of Council spending habits will sooner or later run you down – just like a freight train.

Here we are then:

Drama Queen or Diva Diviner? Christine Rankin gives us her breakdown about Taupo politics on the Duncan Garner Podcast (starts at 7:39). I am not sure that we are that close to violence in the streets as Christine seems to think, but there is no doubt we are in a place of disquiet and for too long things have been swept under the carpet. I actually find these times quite interesting.

Duncans Campaign Page: If you haven’t already do please check out my Campaign Page here which includes links to my Campaign Priorities #1 Restore Democracy & #2 Take Back Control of Council. I never did get around to setting up a givealittle account, but if you want to donate to my campaign please feel free to message me privately.

Liston Heights Legacy? Last Sunday gone we had a Taupo ward candidates event put on at the Liston Heights retirement village, with a very nice afternoon tea put on afterwards. One observation made at the end included a question (my paraphrasing): “there seems to be two quite different camps, so how are you going to manage to work together?” No-one was very able to solve that particular riddle, but if I were to personify the split I would put the likes of Mayoral candidate Kevin Taylor and to some extent Rachel Shepherd on the one side with their (scaremongering) messages about the impending doom of central government intervention and implying that any changes now are bad, as opposed to the likes of Zane Cozens, John Funnell, Ann Tweedie and myself who say that change absolutely has to happen and it has to happen now. My own five-minute speech can be found here, and it includes reference to all three of my Campaign Priorities (or read the transcript see here).

Ratepayers dollars going to a worthy tourist cause? I attended a Mayoral candidate event on Monday gone which was put on by the hospitality and tourism industry, and I have to say that two things stood out for me: First the absence of edible refreshments at a hospitality event, and second the oft-repeated line that every dollar put into tourism generates around $800 of return for the ratepayer. This mantra gets repeated so often I think the sayers actually believe it, and if it were really true then we should be doubling or trebling the $1.4M or so we put into Destination Great Lake Taupo (DGLT) every year. Heck, why not also throw in the $70M TEL Fund so that all of us can ride the bandwagon to becoming millionaires (do the math)!! Yeah right.

JMA for the record: I have been asked a few times lately about who voted for what including about public consultation, and the place to go is my JMA summary here and specifically for the voting record go to the JMA Debrief here. Basically if you agree that the public deserve to be formally consulted, then you are on the same wavelength as myself, Rachel Shepherd, Christine Rankin, Sandra Greenslade and Kylie Leonard. The rest of them don’t seem to think your opinions matter very much.

What a good idea: Local Invercargill media outlet Whatsonininvers.nz recently did a poll on local body candidates. I reckon it would be great for someone local to do the same here, because otherwise all we get is this boring election.nz page which gives a daily tally but with no breakdown (because that would apparently be illegal). I reckon a sweepstake would be quite interesting – is anybody keen to set one up?

Maori Wards Obligation: I personally think that all of the other current elected members should explain their support position on Maori Wards, and also why they think the referendum is a bad idea. I know that is their position because they all agreed to a submission to Wellington back in May 2024 which you can read here. Because if anybody can best explain what Maori wards have achieved and can achieve for this district, it should be them. So why all the silence?

Money for Taupo flights? The government is throwing some money into regional aviation, but only time will tell if Taupo will manage to get any.

Common sense prevails but only just: NZ Water Service Authority Taumata Arowai seems to be showing some common sense by presenting some Acceptable Solutions for rural water suppliers. It seems in New Zealand that we always have to go down this road of sledgehammer solutions to relatively minor problems and only later back down a little, and this goes for everything from car warrants to roofing safety to traffic management. What on earth ever happened to the Kiwi pioneer can do attitude? Instead just like decline and fall of the Roman Empire, it seems we are faced by the slow death of a thousand bureaucratic cuts.

Nice job: Give credit where credit is due, Taupo ward candidate Rachel Shepherd has put together some nice video clips with a cartoon animation which you can sample here. But like most candidates in Taupo she still hasn’t signed the Taxpayer’s Union Pledge to cap rates to inflation. Doesn’t she know that unless that starts to happen, grandmas and grandpas will inevitably get forced out of their homes?

Cos positive discrimination still comes across as discrimination: Lo and behold, human rights law is seemingly acting as a barrier to Maori self-determination. But Auckland Law School Associate Professor Andrew Erueti manages to come up with some arguments that they shouldn’t apply when it comes to indigenous peoples. Funny how lawyers can spin things to their own design, and exactly why I say we need to get independent professional opinions and not just rely on Council staff.

Another word for Propaganda? Another few interesting posts by Taupo local Sophie M Smith, this time on Council marketing budgets and also a summary of the candidates. In my experience these communications or marketing departments of Councils have significantly expanded the past 20 years, and when they talk of ‘socialising‘ a message you can also interpret as ‘propagandising‘. Okay we do now live in a different world with social media all over the place, but enough has to be enough at some point.

Skyrocketing rates linked to inflation? On that note, why not have a listen to Stewart Group founder Nick Stewart who talks to Peter Williams of Taxpayer’s Union in this interview about the link between your rates bill and groceries and the inevitable crash that will happen it the current Council spending trajectories continue. Splash Planet in Hastings gets dis-honourable mention as a ratepayer funded sinkhole, which is a bit of a shame but it seems that swimming pools simply aren’t very easy to make money out of.

Friday funky educational funny: Because some people out there still don’t know what ‘White Privilege‘ actually means.

JMA Debrief

6 August 2025

The highly anticipated Council meeting to decide the fate of the draft Joint Management Agreement (JMA) was held last Thursday 31 July. The outcome – though not final- marks a critical juncture in what has become an increasingly controversial and politicised process.

It also draws a line in the sand for voters: how seriously do your current elected members take representative democracy? Based on the results, for many of them it is quite clearly: not very.

Decision: Deferment to the Next Council

After a packed and emotionally charged meeting, Council narrowly voted for Option 4: to defer the JMA decision to the incoming Council after the October election. This avoided immediate ratification of a flawed agreement, but failed to include any binding conditions. Therefore the door remains wide open for the next Council to proceed without public consultation or legal review.

A motion to make public consultation compulsory was supported only by Councillors Campbell, Rankin, Shepherd, Greenslade and Leonard – and opposed by Taylor, Williamson, Loughlin, Fletcher, Westerman, and Mayor Trewavas. Democracy lost that vote – so please take note.

The final votes on Option 4:

For deferment (Option 4): Mayor Trewavas, Councillors Campbell, Shepherd, Rankin, Greenslade & Leonard
Against (preferring adoption now): Councillors Taylor, Loughlin, Fletcher, Westerman & Williamson

The Strategic Dance of Deferral

Let’s be blunt: several councillors clearly voted strategically ahead of the election. For example:

The Mayor, who has consistently defended the JMA, now claims he voted to defer merely in order to ‘address public confusion’. Given that his was a deciding vote we can be grateful that expressed public wishes were at least heeded, but to me that just comes across as damage control and not wise or firm leadership.

The Deputy Mayor, who tabled Option 4 as his own idea to the rest of elected members just one week earlier, subsequently voted against it. That action seems less one of principle and more like election optics.

So can we please recognise that this decision wasn’t just about governance – it was also about some people hedging their bets for October.

Conflict of Interest – Councillor Danny Loughlin

Equally troubling was the participation of Councillor Danny Loughlin – a current Board Member of the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, which is one half of the JMA agreement. Despite this fairly apparent non-financial conflict of interest, Councillor Loughlin did not recuse himself.

In the week or so leading to the vote, I requested two things from the CEO:

That legal advice be provided in advance regarding potential conflict of interest issues of elected members; and
That legal representation be present at the meeting if needed.

Both were refused, although I recently discovered that we did indeed have a Council lawyer present at the meeting (who didn’t pipe in to answer any questions).

Under the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968, Councillor Loughlin’s dual governance role appears to breach both ethical norms and legal expectations. Public trust in Council depends on both the appearance and reality of impartiality. This was neither.

Formal letters of complaint have now been submitted by myself to the CEO and Auditor-General, seeking a full investigation.

Legal Advice or Legal Disguise?

During the meeting I also did motion for an additional clause to be added to Option 4, so that Council:

“Commissions an independent legal review of the draft JMA and makes it publicly available, with particular focus on:

(i) Conflicts of interest;

(ii) Legal implications of the expanded scope (LakeTaupō and ‘Further Matters’); and

(iii) Compatibility with national legislative changes including the RMA freeze“.

Perhaps confusing things though and a reason this motion did not receive support from any other elected members, earlier in the meeting a supposedly independent legal review from Buddle Findlay partner Paul Beverley was referenced in absentia. This previously unmentioned document was subsequently found to be a single-page memo only, which confirmed the JMA’s compliance with statutory requirements – but said nothing about risk, process integrity, or governance exposure. It was inferred in the meeting as ‘independent legal advice’ – but in practical terms functions more as a superficial legal cover than actual legal review.

It has now been confirmed that two law firms advised Council throughout this process: Buddle Findlay supported the internal drafting and negotiation of the JMA, while Simpson Grierson provided advice on the ‘assessment of significance and engagement’ – in other words, justifying why no public consultation was legally required. Neither firm was engaged to provide an independent review. Both operated within the Council’s mandate, not outside it. So if or when the public asked: ‘Who’s keeping this process honest?’ the uncomfortable answer is: No one. Council’s legal strategy wasn’t about testing risk, it was about minimizing pushback.

Contrast this with comparable cases:

Waikato River Authority / Waikato Regional Council – this Treaty-based partnership was subject to high levels of legal and parliamentary scrutiny.
Te Waihora (Lake Ellesmere) Co-Governance Agreement – Canterbury – involved multiple rounds of legal review and public accountability measures.

Why is Taupō District Council being so reckless to settle for less? Perhaps you had better ask your elected members that question, because it won’t be them who picks up the expensive tab for any future legal challenges – it will be yourselves the ratepayer.

If any outsider or a future Council down the track is opposed to the JMA as signed up to in its current form, their best option could be to initiate a judicial review. This would challenge the legality of the agreement’s process, particularly the inclusion of non-mandatory provisions like the expansion to Lake Taupō and the vague but sweeping ‘Further Matters’ clauses. Clear weaknesses are if the public do not get consulted, and if any elected members are found to have conflicted interests. Legal costs of such an exercise could easily be in the six figures to both sides.

Public Input Dismissed

To make matters worse, the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and senior staff framed the entire controversy as the product of ‘misinformation‘ and ‘public misunderstanding‘.

That is not only patronising – it’s dangerous. It dismisses over 500 pages of public correspondence as the confused rantings of an ignorant mob. Deputy Mayor Taylor mentioned that the views were ‘fairly evenly split’ – but that is a disingenuous claim, because around 100 templated submissions from TMTB arrived just one day prior to the meeting. In the weeks before, those in opposition outnumbered support by around ten to one.

What This Vote Really Means

This decision is a pause, not a solution. No conditions. No community assurance. No leadership.

By deferring the JMA without requiring legal review or public consultation, the current Council has simply passed the political burden to whoever wins in October. It’s not a compromise – it’s a live grenade. Elected members could have made a real call to sign up to it, put it out for public consultation, or scrap it altogether and start again. Instead, temporary shelter has been taken in the delay, hoping public anger will cool and putting it onto the next Council to clean up the mess. That isn’t governance – it’s cowardice camouflaged as caution – and make no mistake, it will be costing you.

Mayor Trewavas could probably have deferred this decision months ago – just as Invercargill Mayor Nobby Clark did in a comparable case. He didn’t.

Instead, we witnessed a major policy vote held less than 24 hours before election nominations closed. That’s not just bad timing, it was arguably strategic. The public backlash which did happen was completely unexpected, primarily because the public wasn’t meant to even be fully aware of what was really going on.

This entire saga has laid bare how such a herculean effort is required to push back against a staff-led recommendation, crafted behind closed doors by those with all the resources and levers to control the narrative. That alone should be a very red flag. Now imagine what could happen when staff from a partnering corporate entity are embedded into Council operations, as was proposed and which so very nearly got signed off. Who do you think is driving policy then, and who’s left to scrutinise?

This isn’t over. The next chapter depends entirely on who voters choose to write it.

What’s Next?

Public scrutiny must stay high
Council candidates must be questioned
Transparency must be demanded from day one

As for me? I’ve witnessed more stupid and pre-meditated decision making in the past three years at this Council than I figure most endure in a lifetime, all wrapped in glorious red tape and presented to you as sane governance.