Tag: jma

Censorship on the Field

19 August 2025

Last week, a satirical rugby-themed meme about the JMA decision vanished from Facebook –  and with it, the entire Lake Taupo account that posted it. For the record: I don’t know who they are.

The meme showed three Taupo District Council councillors in a rugby maul, ‘driving the JMA upfield’.  No swearing, no threats – just political lampooning of the kind magazines like Punch had been doing for nearly 200 years.

So why did it disappear? Not because it broke NZ law, or even any of Facebook’s own rules. More likely:

  • Moderators in California couldn’t tell satire from ‘harassment’.
  • A couple of complaints reframed it as a personal attack instead of political criticism.
  • Facebook’s system defaults to ‘remove first, maybe review later’ – but small-town politics 6000 miles away rarely gets that ‘later’.

That’s the danger. In the middle of a local election that is turning out to be quite interesting, controversial but lawful political speech can be erased with a click – leaving voters with a sanitised version of reality. And don’t get me started on our local Facebook community groups, where moderators ban and delete posts and comments as they please (is it surprising that several months ago I was inexpicably banned from the Tūrangi Noticeboard, whose admin just happens to be partnered with a Mayoral candidate?)

To prove the point, I’m reposting the meme above and this time with harmless cartoon faces, alongside it a Punch cartoon from the 1870s. A reminder that lampooning those in power is a sign of a healthy democracy, not a threat to it.

So if you want uncensored local coverage, stop relying on social media’s shifting rules and sign up for my weekly updates in the below subscription box.
No algorithms. No sudden deletions. No California filter. Just Taupō politics, as it really is.

And yes – if you’ve got satirical material worth sharing, please send it my way, and if it’s sharp enough I’ll post it. Democracy and this place called Taupo need more humour, not less of it. Because you know, that’s what life is also about.

Friday Wrap – This Council is Broken

15 August 2025

Councillor Duncan here once again, and now we’re heading into the front end of the election campaign some new faces are starting to appear. One of them, Māori ward candidate Wahine Murch, is calling for a revolution in democracy, governance, and leadership. I may not agree with her on everything, but on this point we’re aligned – this Council is a poor imitation of what it is meant to be for the people it purports to represent, and it has been going on for way too long. It is broken and needs to be rescued.

But talk is cheap, and especially at election time. Belief in good ideas is one thing – delivering under pressure is another. Voters should ask candidates, and especially incumbents who should have been evidencing this to you already: When did you last hold your ground against determined opposition? When did you stand apart from the herd? Walking the talk is harder than it looks, and if you dislike playground politics, you may dislike the reality of local government even more.

Meanwhile, Council is in near-hibernation because our illustrious Mayor apparently finds it too uncomfortable to meet and talk about any issues before the election. Still, a few things are going on:

Councillor Duncan speaks out – Here is my interview with Erica Harvey of Tauranga based Lobby For Good covers how local government protects itself from scrutiny – from both the public and elected members put in there to govern.

JMA sentiments continue to disturb – This document sent to me by a constituent claims ~90% public opposition to the JMA was ignored. I can’t verify the author or data, but the gap between public concern and Council action is clear enough – and a good reason to keep pressing candidates on this. Oh, and we just have to make mention a very special Facebook post with the graphic below by an anonymous identity known as Lake Taupo which shows how much fun AI can be. However, it is quite apparent that some person(s) has reported it to Facebook as a rule breach (which it isn’t, because these are public figures and it is satire), because yesterday afternoon the Lake Taupo identity was deleted. I will probably do a fuller post about this next week, but let me tell you that censorship of that kind is one of the most insidious enemies of your local democracy and we should all be abhorring it. A California based company like Facebook cannot be relied upon to tell the difference.

Kaipara kicks back to the Treaty – Kaipara District Council has adopted an independent legal opinion on Māori obligations that avoids locking in governance  ‘partnerships’ not required by law, and some people aren’t very happy about it. In the past I have questioned some of the terminology in Taupō District Councils own planning documents, but have been abruptly flipped off with comments like: ‘go read some history’. It is quite clear to me now that statements in the Long Term Plan such as ‘Taupō District Council is committed to meeting its statutory Tiriti O Waitangi obligations and acknowledges partnership as the basis of Te Tiriti’ are there by political choice and not any legal necessity. Now that Kaipara has demonstrated that Councils can meet obligations without embedding partnerships into governance, I believe we should revisit these policies to reflect the law and the will of the whole community – and this has clear relevance to things like the proposed JMA partnership deal with Tūwharetoa Maori Trust Board.

Local government under the microscope – Management consultant Kathryn Ennis-Carter offers us a blunt assessment of why change is urgently needed. Worth a listen, especially for any newbie candidates before they get thrown in the deep end.

Signs of silliness – New signs at Five Mile Bay remind people it’s illegal to drive on a footpath, which it always has been. Yet despite a five-page staff paper in May to justify why the signs are needed, people still do it – just amazing, isn’t it? Anyway if you come across such activity and you don’t like it happening, please just report it to the Police.

Roundabouts right, or roundabouts wrong?  Someone asked me about the two Council planned roundabouts the other day, and do they really have to be so expensive at $1.6 M and $3M apiece? The short answer is: No they don’t. To put into context, when I was a Council engineer at Waitakere City pop. 300K, I was in charge of an annual safety budget approx. $2M (2025 dollars) from which we would get at least a dozen projects including at least a few of this nature. Because civil engineering infrastructure like this contribute a mighty portion of Council debt, it is important to employ staff who really know their stuff, and I can’t help but also think that perhaps tools like rates caps would better motivate some lateral thinking.

Pukenamu pushes back – while we’re on the subject of roundabouts, the Environment Court has set a 9th September hearing date for constituent Ivan Jones’ challenge to the Pukenamu Rd roundabout. Back in January I called this exercise a $300K harassment of a residential street — and if it proceeds, it’s being submitted straight to the Taxpayers’ Union Jonesie Awards as an example of wasteful spending.

DIA financial snapshot – The Department of Internal Affairs has just released a set of financial metrics comparing councils nationwide. One figure that stands out for Taupō District Council is our revenue-to-operating-expenses ratio, which has dropped from 121% in 2022 to just 93% in 2024. In plain English, that would appear to mean that we’ve gone from a healthy surplus to barely breaking even – with not much buffer for unexpected costs. At election time, that should make you ask whether the current spending mix is sustainable, or whether we’re quietly setting ourselves up for either more debt or more rates hikes – yet one more argument for rates caps.

Taupo Airport rejig shelved – last month or so an initiative to change Taupo Airport to a full Council Control Organisation (CCO) with independent directors was squashed by several elected members including the Deputy Mayor even before they got to read the 95% prepared staff paper, I say quite transparently because it was felt that the predicted controversy might compromise their chances of getting re-elected. Yes kiddies that is how things work in this town, and I bet those same elected members are now wishing they did the same for the JMA.

Berms and bureaucracy – not that we are so short of space in the Taupo region and the soil is pretty awful anyway, but I think this Aucklander who took on the bureaucracy of Auckland Council to plant a garden on Council berm deserves a medal.  After all if you are expected to maintain it, why can’t you choose what grows there?

Fridays flippant fancy: Why can’t we be more like the French?

Friday Council Circus – Purple Sky Who Can Deny

8 August 2025

Councillor Duncan reporting again, this week we have:

JMA keeps on giving: Earlier in the week there was my JMA debrief, and here is the latest Duncan Garner interview with Christine Rankin on the hospital pass to the next Council along with a message from promising Mangakino electorate hopeful Hope Woodward. I believe this will remain a live election issue, and choose to believe that the majority of voters will act wisely if they are properly informed. Around here that hasn’t been happening for quite some time now, so I hope this JMA saga will be a blessing in disguise for some change to really happen.

Conflicted or conflated interests? An interesting blog put out by local Sophie Smith is inferring some conflicted interests with regard to Taupo District Councillors Danny Loughlin and Yvonne Westerman. Now this is a topic I have come to recognise as quite a grey area indeed. As far as I can tell, the only practical way that non-declared conflicts of interest for elected members get dealt with is: (i) by way of legal hindsight e.g. expensive judicial review; (ii) by way of independent legal foresight; or (iii) public humiliation to exert influence at the next election. On that note, I have submitted a complaint to the Auditor-General to investigate breach of conflict-of-interest obligations with regard to Councillor Danny Loughlin, who despite being a significant party to both sides of the JMA agreement did not recuse himself from the voting. Even though he declared himself not conflicted, just because I say the sky is purple doesn’t make it true either.

Road cone hotline: yes you heard that right, if you spot excessive road cone use anywhere in New Zealand there is now a hotline you can now call to make things right. So don’t be afraid to dob in Taupo District Council or NZTA for wasting your time and money.

Join the dots for your own Council: Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) has just released its long awaited financial metrics for you to be able to compare with other Councils around the country.  I haven’t looked at them yet and am no financial genius anyway, but there will be people out there giving it a crack – so why not have a go yourself?

Conspiracy to take over local government? For a good laugh, you might like to read this attempted hit piece on freedom movement tainted electoral hopefuls from the mainstream media that reads more like a campaign endorsement to me.

Need more money or just wiser decision-making? A new July 2025 report by consultants Martin Jenkins confirms what many locals already suspect: New Zealand’s councils are chronically underfunded compared to their international counterparts. While the report recommends more flexible financing tools and debt options, the real takeaway is this – councils are being asked to do more with less, often without telling the public what trade-offs are on the table. So now more than ever, if local government is to truly serve local people, we need stronger democratic guardrails, greater public input, and clearer political accountability. Did we see any of that during the recent JMA debacle?

Public forums for all to see?  I should probably mention that it is not normal for public forums at Taupo District Council to be recorded for public viewing as happens at many if not most other Councils in New Zealand. I believe it should be standard practice and have tried to argue the case before, but for the public forum at last weeks Council JMA meeting I made a specific request through the Mayor for this to happen. I think everyone deserves the same opportunity not just mayoral candidates or ex-CEO’s, and would like the practice to become standard. Because your voice matters too.

If you want to receive these updates or want others to also receive them, don’t forget to press the subscribe button below and do tell others to do the same.

Friday Art Corner: Truth Coming Out of Her Well by Jean-Léon Gérôme. To further explain: sometimes truth can offend and truth can hurt (that’s what the whip is for).

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:

  1. That legal advice be provided in advance regarding potential conflict of interest issues of elected members; and
  2. 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:

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.

Friday Council Finale Finished Done

1 August 2025

Wow, what a past few weeks it has been in Council. Joint Management Agreement (JMA) antics have been happening all over the place (helpfully stirred up by yours truly), with candidate nominations for the October election closing midday today. A rule of thumb is apparently to never have major decisions like the JMA happening this close to an election, but I can see both sides to that argument – on the one hand it will be fresh in voters minds to hold existing Councillors directly accountable, but on the other you might see some distorted decision making for that very same reason. I believe we probably saw some of the later at play yesterday, and of the former we will just have to see. And I bet Mayor David Trewavas is now wishing he had emulated what Invercargill Mayor Nobby Clark did , and used his executive power to defer the decision well before it came to a head yesterday.

Anyway, let’s rattle through some of the week’s happenings:

JMA finally over…for now – I’ll be posting a fuller report next week, but for now can tell you that the JMA decision has been deferred for the next Council to grapple with after October.  But it was a packed Chambers with members of the public spilling out the door even half an hour before proceedings, and it was a close decision indeed.  I recommend watching the 17 min public forum of Topia Rameka (former CEO of TMTB) and Mayoral hopefuls Zane Cozens and John Funnell  – with Zane’s message being right on point about this saga being 100% a problem of Councils own making.  Full proceedings which lasted over 90 min are here.

Basketcase of Democracy – At yesterdays meeting the new Water Services Plan was also adopted by Council, myself being the only dissenting voice and substantially on a matter of principle:

“If these Council Chambers weren’t such a very much less than model of Democracy, I would have been given opportunity to express my own views in the so-called final debate on 24 June which lasted all of 20 minutes. Those were that a well-constructed Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) would probably have a better chance of being transparent and accountable to ratepayers, than the current very un-transparent and opaque in-house set-up that as far as I can tell is largely set to continue”.

Fewer road cones, or else – NZTA have developed a new guide to reduce the cost of traffic management and will start penalising Councils who don’t adhere . For those after a little more detail, see here.

Too late I’ve burnt my bridges already– Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden proposes a bill to raise the current maximum allowable value of business dealings between a Councillor and their own Council from $25K to $100K.

Lawfare? Erika Harvey of Lobby For Good argues in this 30 min interview that nowadays you need to be wealthy to be able to influence your local Council. I reckon that is absolutely relevant for here in Taupo, and people who can’t afford to get lawyered up can be at their mercy – including elected members.

Head to head in Rotorua – The Rotorua mayoral race will be an interesting one I think, and from my observations Mayoral candidate and existing Councillor Robert Lee stands a more than fair chance against current Mayor Tania Tapsell. Watch this recent 10min interview where he talks rates, Iwi partnerships and his mayoral bid.

Not for me, this time anyway – After much reflection – and encouragement both to run and not to – I’ve decided not to stand for Mayor. My priority isn’t the chain of office, it’s protecting the public interest and making sure the next council serves the people and not The Machine. I believe that goal is best served by returning as an elected councillor – free to speak plainly, collaborate strategically (possibly could try a little harder at that), and ensure the next Mayor, whoever they are, is held to account by someone with their eyes open and sleeves rolled up. If one of the current leadership gets voted in then I know my job will be that much harder, so I am hoping one of the other Mayoral candidates Zane Cozens or John Funnell is successful.

What’s my whakapapa?  For those interested, my forefathers arrived in New Zealand in the 1850’s from Scotland following the Highland Clearances, and came in a large group led by a Reverend Norman Mcleod first to Nova Scotia then onto Waipu.  My grandad Dick Campbell had a very illustrious career as a public servant, economist and diplomat with notable achievements including: saving the NZ economy during the Great Depression; negotiating trade deals with the Soviet Union; and roles as first chairman of the Public Service (1946) and acting High Commissioner to London (1958).  He was also instrumental in the planning of the controversial New Zealand House building in Haymarket, London which opened in 1963. And he had a great sense of humour, just like me.

Friday funny: Getting information out of Council shouldn’t be like this but it sometimes unfortunately is:

JMA decision draws near with continued opacity

29 July 2025

This Thursday 31 July, Taupō District Council will vote on whether to adopt the new Joint Management Agreement (JMA) with the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (TMTB). The full agenda is available here

Despite growing public concern, the staff recommendation remains to adopt the agreement in full. A fourth option – deferring the decision until after the election – has now been added, but without any commitment to public consultation or independent legal review. I say that’s not a compromise, it’s kicking the can without accountability.

The JMA embeds significant co-governance over planning, consenting, and environmental functions—many of which directly intersect with the Resource Management Act (RMA). Yet just two weeks ago, the Government froze RMA plan changes due to legal instability. Council’s own policy paper (Attachment 4) makes no mention of this. Instead, it repeats that the JMA is ‘not significant’ enough to require public consultation.

It also claims that co-governance concerns are irrelevant, calling this ‘co-management’ instead. Whether that distinction holds water legally is questionable – but politically, omitting national legislative context and public concern is indefensible.

Council staff offer no updated legal analysis, no plain-English summary, and no consultation plan. The public is still being sidelined. And the public deserves legal clarity that isn’t filtered by politics or internal convenience – if this agreement is so robust, let it stand up to independent scrutiny.

I’ve also raised potential conflicts of interest involving two elected members with close family or governance ties to TMTB. The CEO’s response: ‘Up to each councillor‘ – technically accurate, but politically negligent – and potentially damaging in the event of judicial review.

Meanwhile, staff say public feedback was ‘factually incorrect’ – referring to a Hobson’s Pledge newsletter – but offer no evidence. The referenced Attachment 5 isn’t a rebuttal, it’s an AI-generated summary that largely validates public concerns: lack of consultation, unclear governance shifts, and democratic erosion. If misinformation is being alleged, specifics so matter. Because without them, these claims look less like correction – and more like deflection. Also of note is that I circulated my JMA for Dummies to all councillors and senior staff explicitly asking for corrections – none were received.

This isn’t about obstruction – it’s about integrity, scrutiny, and public confidence. Council can and should pause this process, but only if it commits to doing the next part properly: with transparency, legal independence, and plain-English public consultation. Because anything less won’t just disappoint – it will fail the test of democracy.

And sometimes, good intentions just aren’t enough.

Friday Council Countdown

18 July 2025

Councillor Duncan of Taupo District Council again, and these Friday posts may be a regular thing for a while because there is a lot happening in the enthralling space of local government right now:

REALLY?  We have the monthly meeting of the ‘Tree committee’ next Tuesday 22 July (my shorthand for the Taupo Roads and Reserves Committee).  This time we have a six-page staff report that recommends declining a resident request for removal of several large trees on a reserve some 500 metres away from their property to improve their view of the mountain.  I am not sure what intrigues me the most – that anyone could be so bold to even ask, or that this Council feels itself so obliged to seriously entertain.  I look forward to lengthy and vigorous debate on this matter of great importance.

STOP!  Some unsafe roundabout designs are currently being tendered for construction by the engineers at Taupo District Council, the two locations being Crown Road / Taharepa Road and Tauhara Road / Taharepa Road.  Don’t get me wrong, these are good places for a roundabout – but one of these designs if not amended I am 100% sure will result in some pretty poor road safety outcomes. On this you will just have to trust me because I do it for a living, so keeping an eye on it.  

ABOUT BLEEDING TIME: Local government minister Simon Watts introduces the Local Government Amendment Bill to Parliament which includes rates caps and stronger transparency and accountability measures, see: Bill to ‘refocus’ councils enters Parliament – Inside Government NZ

ADVICE WITH A WARNING: To any budding candidates for the coming local body election, I offer you this insightful 9 min piece of advice from Christchurch Councillor of 18 years Sue Wells.  However BE WARNED: as helpful as this message is no doubt intended, this message is calibrated to moderate the ambition of any elected member who might dare to challenge the status quo – so please don’t be entirely like her.  See: What to expect when you’re elected – a beginner’s guide for local government candidates by Sue Wells

SORRY BUT YOU HAVE TO PAY ANYWAY: Former Taupo District Council CEO Gareth Green apologies for the unforeseen additional 3% rates increase:  Independent review of New Plymouth District Council plan finds significant errors | The Post

A NEW LOW – Mayor Trewavas & Councillors Taylor, Westerman & Fletcher all attended the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Superlocal annual conference in Christchurch 16 & 17 July.  Sounds like there was a bit of excitement with some protests outside:  Local Government New Zealand Hits New Low | Scoop News

EXPOSE: Find out yourself: What Is the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, Really?

JMA SAGA KEEPS ON GIVING: The July 31 Council meeting when this all gets decided draws nearer, and Councillors continue to receive communications from concerned citizens daily.  Here are a few recent news items including an interview of Christine Rankin who also encourages people to start giving a damn this next local body election; Public turnout high for JMA workshop and also of relevance: Government to stop Council plan changes | Beehive.govt.nz

IS THAT EVEN ALLOWED? Against the wishes of the Council CEO but for greater transparency, I am releasing a copy of the 26 June staff assessment which concluded that public consultation for the JMA is not required.  

PUBLIC MEETING: This MONDAY 21st July 6.30pmish at the REAP Centre with the theme of 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐑𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠? Speakers include myself and a bunch of others, flyer will follow so keep an eye out.

FRIDAY FUNNY: What do you think of the next ratepayer funded contribution to the Taupo Sculpture Trail:  The 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐒𝐀𝐔𝐑𝐔𝐒?

Still Missing in Action: Public Consultation on the JMA

7 July 2025

Thank you to everyone who turned up or tuned in to last Thursday’s Council workshop on the draft Joint Management Agreement (JMA). The public gallery was packed, and clearly this issue has touched a nerve—not just locally, but nationally too. But before another week rolls over this issue, let’s pause and look closer—because the fine print always matters.

Let’s be clear: no final decision has been made yet. But what concerns me—and many others—is the way this process has unfolded. The 2025 draft agreement expands the scope of the 2009 JMA considerably, yet it was progressing quietly behind closed doors. Only when outside attention was forced upon it did this matter finally surface in a more visible way.

Unfortunately, some of the information now coming from Council leadership is adding to confusion. For example:

  • The Mayor erroneously stated in a recent media interview that the JMA would help clean up emergency spills into Lake Taupō. In reality, this is a Regional Council responsibility—just like the threatened gold clam invasion. These are pointedly not covered by the JMA, even though they easily could be if that were the goal. In fact, as a purported mechanism for keeping Lake Taupō clean and green, I have doubts that this JMA contributes anything too meaningful.
  • He also referred to Lake Taupō as a “private lake,” which is not only legally debatable but contextually misleading.
  • The Mayor claimed the 2009 JMA was never consulted on. Yet records indicate it arose from a series of public hui and community engagement processes connected to the 2005 plan change. It may not have met a strict legal definition of consultation, but it certainly reflected a more community-facing era.

Another point worth clarifying: It’s often claimed that iwi or Māori entities own 60–65% of the land in the district, including the lakebed. However, the most reliable figure available for communally owned Māori land is closer to 35%, even with Lake Taupō included. In terms of financial contribution, this equated to just 4.15% of total Council rates intake in 2023/24. That gap between land ownership and fiscal input is worth bearing in mind when we talk about “partnership”.

And then there are the words of one of our own councillors, spoken at the workshop itself:

“Can this documentation be weaponized? Absolutely.”

That should raise more than eyebrows. It should raise accountability.

Bottom line: If the public is confused, they should be invited in—not shut out. If the agreement is sound, it should stand up to scrutiny. But if it contains embedded obligations or shifts in governance, then we owe it to Taupō residents to test that publicly—before it gets signed, not after.

Council staff say that doesn’t need to happen. I disagree.

The JMA will be tabled for decision at the next full Council meeting on 31 July. Councillors will have three choices:

  1. Sign the agreement by majority vote
  2. Defer it until after the election
  3. Open it up for public consultation

You can read the source material for yourself here:

Recent media coverage: here, here & here

As always, I welcome feedback directly—respectful disagreement included.

Let’s not sleepwalk into a governance shift without the public’s eyes wide open. 

“Let’s be careful out there” – and not just on the streets.