29 April 2022
Media: Newstalk ZB, Radio Waatea, Stuff, Mediaworks
Topic: Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill
Enquiry
Newstalk ZB, Radio Waatea, Stuff and Mediaworks all sought interviews with Mayor Chadwick yesterday following news of the decision to pause the local Bill.
Response
Mayor Chadwick agreed to the interviews.
Go to THIS LINK to listen to the Mayor’s interview on Newstalk ZB yesterday
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Rotorua Daily Post
Topic: Council compliance approach to accommodation operators providing emergency housing
Enquiry
Hi there,
I've sought comment from Restore Rotorua and Todd McClay regarding the council's action with emergency housing motels and they have just responded now with some points that need to be put to you for right of reply. Sorry, I know it's later in the day but can you please take a look and let me know if you'd like to respond. Your statement covers off a lot of the criticism.
- Restore Rotorua is pleased to hear the RDC is eventually taking some action against motels that are not complying. Rotorua is a mess and locals are not happy with the very slow and secretive approach of the Mayor and RDC. I have no idea why this has been dealt with in secret closed meetings except this seems to be the way our Council operates.
- Why has Rotorua District Council taken so long to act.
- The hearing of the 13 Resource Consent Applications to turn motels into permanent emergency housing seems a very long and slow process with MHUD being allowed to delay the process with more extended timeframes. The information the RDC has asked MHUD for should have been provided as part of their application. And why was none of this information requested for the Boulevard Motel Resource Consent application.
- RDC and the Government should be completely open and transparent with local residents and tell us what the Housing Taskeforce's plan is to resolve this growing problem, how they are going to achieve it, what the timeframes are and which Minister is going to stand and take responsibility to ensure it happens?
Todd McClay says this
- There has been too much secrecy in the council's decisions around Fenton St.
- The fact it can only be made public when the mayor says so is extremely worrying for local ratepayers.
- Ratepayers are pulling their hair out not knowing what it is the council is actually doing.
- We have ratepayers incensed they haven't been approached about the plan for housing on reserves and now and now they learn they are actually threatening some motels with court action if they don't get in touch with them.
- It all feels like too little too late and it should have been in the public domain months and months ago.
- Rotorua has lost confidence in the council and we are a dumping ground for the Government's homeless problem.
- I call on the council to release all information they have had closed door meetings on to the public and give reasons fir their decisions.
Response
Additional to the statement sent to you yesterday, see below. You can attribute to Jean-Paul Gaston, Deputy CE District Development:
Re the regulatory approach previously being a confidential discussion: The previous discussion related to legal matters so was dealt with in confidential. (Kelly, this was explained by JP during his presentation yesterday)
There are times when for various reasons, including commercial sensitivity or for legal reasons, matters are dealt with in confidential during meetings until they can be made public.
Re the Housing Taskforce and its plan:
From May 2021 Ministers’ announcement:
The Government has announced a suite of changes to emergency housing provision in Rotorua:
- Government to directly contract motels for emergency accommodation
- Wrap around social support services for those in emergency accommodation to be provided
- Grouping of cohorts like families and tamariki in particular motels separate from other groups
- One-stop Housing Hub for access to services and support to be established
Kelly, the above is what the taskforce was tasked with achieving. You can see the full announcement here
The above is part of the Housing Taskforce information that is publicly available on RLC’s website.
Re what else council is doing:
Housing is an absolute priority for Council – as set out in the 2021-31 Long-term Plan – and Council is progressing a comprehensive work programme to support Council’s housing and growth response.
The housing taskforce, which focuses on emergency housing, is one part of the work Council is currently undertaking to address Rotorua’s critical housing shortage.
Updates on housing-related work are provided on a regular basis via news releases, news items on Council’s website and through the monthly Operational Report that goes to the Operations & Monitoring Committee with presentations also regularly made on various aspects of housing-related work the Council is undertaking.
Housing-related work that is underway includes:
- Supporting and engaging with land owners and developers (as reported in last month’s Operational report there are currently 26 major residential development opportunities (major residential development is greater than 20 lots or houses) at different stages in the development pipeline. Six are Maori led and include a range of proposed housing types including papakāinga and kaumātua housing.
- Work on a Future Development Strategy and Intensification Plan Change;
- Applying for funding (eg via the Government’s Infrastructure Acceleration Fund) to fast-track planned infrastructure that will support housing;
- Stormwater management plan to support planned housing development at Pukehangi following the Pukehangi Heights Plan Change;
- Workshops with developers, iwi/hapu, local consultants and community stakeholders;
- Compliance approach to operators providing emergency housing (as outlined in statement);
- Housing taskforce
Re “plan for housing on reserves”: No decisions have been made. Residents would be informed of any formal proposal for consideration and would have the opportunity to make submissions.
Significant due diligence is required prior to any formal proposal being presented for consideration and/or public consultation.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Local Democracy Reporter
Topic: Council meeting process
Enquiry
I have the below comments for right of reply for the mayor. I also have a question for the mayor and the council - below.
For mayor:
Can she please explain her decision to rule from the chair that the council discuss its representation arrangements local bill in public excluded, and is she comfortable it was legal to do so?
For the council:
Given Dr Knight's and Mr Edgeler's viewpoints on the law, why did the council's governance experts not advise the mayor she could not rule the council could go into public excluded from the chair? Or is there a justification for it under the standing orders? If so, what is it?
Given the discussion was not lawfully had in a confidential setting, will the council release a full description of what was discussed and if so, when will it be released?
COMMENTS
Victoria University of Wellington public law expert Dr Dean Knight:
The unilateral actions of the mayor don’t seem to square with legal requirements for local authority meetings. Under the Local Government Official Information Act Meetings Act 1987, the power to exclude member of public is reposed in the “local authority” itself and must be done “by resolution”. Under the Local Government Act 2002 (Schedule 7, cl 24), a local authority decides questions by open vote, in accordance with the majority of those members present and voting, unless there is a delegation that says otherwise. The upshot of those two requirements is that motions to exclude the public should be voted on in the usual way.
Just to clarify, I’m not aware of any delegation of the power to exclude the public to the mayor. The part of the standing orders addressing the exclusion of the public reflects the statutory requirements, reiterating exclusion is done by putting a motion for deliberation (ie vote) by members of the meeting. I don’t read the power of the mayor to make rulings on procedural questions as extending to exclusion of the public, especially because (a) deviation from the statutory requirement of a vote would need to be explicit, and (b) the standing order provision only applies to “questions where there in insufficient provision in standing orders, which is not the case here. I haven’t had a comprehensive read of the standing orders but a skim didn’t throw anything else out – but would welcome the ability to comment if the mayor points to some other basis for her ruling?
--
Public law expert and lawyer Graeme Edgeler said there were several issues with the proceedings in the meeting.
He said the mayor needed to first move the motion to discuss the item as an urgent item in the meeting, and have the council vote on it.
This did not happen, he said.
He said the mayor also needed to seek a vote from the council on moving that discussion into public excluded.
He said the reason she gave to go into public excluded was also not lawful under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.
The reason - the "the free and frank expression of opinions" in the Act - is a reason to withhold information requested from the public but is explicitly excluded in the Act as a reason to go into public excluded in a meeting.
He said when the council did later vote to go into public excluded, the discussion of the bill was not mentioned as a topic for discussion nor a statutory reason for it to be in public excluded given, as is required.
"I don't believe [the council] lawfully excluded the public, I don't believe [the council] ever tried to lawfully exclude the public and the reason they gave to exclude the public isn't a lawful one."
He said no one would "go to jail" for the mistake, but a person could complain to the Ombudsman about the matter if the discussion was not released to the public, and the meeting could also be subject to a judicial review.
Additional comments provided for right of reply:
Horowhenua District councillor Sam Jennings watched a video recording of Thursday's meeting and said in his opinion it was "totally shameful".
"The way the mayor acted was so appalling.
"She totally disregarded their own standing orders and made a ruling as chair that she was not entitled to in my opinion. It was simply totally undemocratic and the actions of a dictator.
"It just reinforces the ongoing issues around transparency in local government.
"There is actually uncertainty as to whether a motion to go into public excluded is a procedural or substantial motion. If it is the former, then most council standing orders do not allow any debate around the decision to go into public excluded or not. It is wrong and anti-democratic."
Additional questions and comments provided for right of reply:
I have some comments to provide for the right of reply for the mayor and or council if either desires.
Can the council please clarify if the voting record Macpherson suggests is accurate.
Can the council please also clarify how much it has spent to date on all costs associated with the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill?
Tāmati - I have also cc'd you in as Macpherson makes a claim about you too, below - please provide comment in response to me if you wish.
COMMENTS
From Reynold Macpherson
First, the Mayor acted tyrannically by moving this discussion to the confidential section of the meeting. This allowed her to break confidence with a press release apparently orchestrated with list MP Tamati Coffey. Ir was all about narrative control. More mahi tinihanga - manipulation.
Second, since she has broken confidence, I can now assure the public that Crs Kai Fong, Tapsell, Wang, Kumar and I voted to withdraw the Local Bill. And since the Mayor and Crs Donaldson, Yates, Raukawa-Tait and Maxwell voted not to withdraw it, the Mayor had to use her casting vote to vote it down. THis demonstrates the marginal legitimacy of the current regime.
Third, the vote to 'pause' the process went the other way but was meaningless. What exactly is to be paused? No answer. I fear that the 'pause' decision will be used to revise the Local Bill, and then ram it through under urgency, which Parliament has the power to do.
It is crucial that another means be found to stop this extremely divisive co-governance agenda. Watch this space.
From Todd McClay
Rotorua MP Todd McClay said the bill had been an “utter and absolute waste of time and money”.
“The council should not pause the bill, they should throw it in the rubbish bin as fast as they can.
“It is the most undemocratic piece of legislation that I have seen. It does not have the support of Rotorua people.
“They have wasted tens and tens of thousands of dollars of ratepayers money on it so far, we need to stop this farce now and withdraw the bill from Parliament.”
"Local people will be angry that when the council says they need to do some more work that actually what they mean is, they’ve been caught out and they’re trying to now cover up, which means more money being spent on something that Rotorua does not want.”
He said the bill was an example of local government “getting carried away and not focusing on the things that are important”.
“It is self-serving and it needs to stop.”
Additional comments provided for right of reply:
Rotorua district councillor Sandra Kai Fong said the council's statement on the decision to pause the [RDC (rep arrangements)] bill did not tell the "full story".
She said she moved a motion to withdraw the bill, which was seconded by Fisher Wang and supported by councillors Raj Kumar, Reynold Macpherson and Tania Tapsell.
With Chadwick, deputy mayor Dave Donaldson and councillors Trevor Maxwell, Mercia Yates, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait voting against it, the vote was split.
Chadwick then used her casting vote as chair of the meeting to vote down the withdrawal of the bill.
Kai Fong said there was "robust discussion" about whether to withdraw or pause the bill and the council's statement hadn't reflected the mayor using her casting vote to vote down withdrawal.
Kai Fong said it was an "important point" to leave out of the statement.
"The public deserves to know what the full story is and that press release doesn't give confidence to the community."
Kai Fong said she had also challenged the legitimacy of the discussion being confidential as she did not believe there was good reason for it, but a "greater public interest" in the transparency of the "reasons and rationale" of councillors in their decision-making.
Response
From Mayor Chadwick:
It’s disappointing councillors have chosen to breach confidentiality. It appears to me they are positioning themselves for their own political agendas rather than working for the good of the community – that’s become manifestly obvious to me in this electoral cycle.
The bill is not my bill. The decision in November to proceed with the Bill was made by elected members with just two voting against but it appears some councillors are now losing their nerve and that’s disappointing.
I raised the bill as an urgent item for confidential discussion to provide an update and seek guidance from councillors and I wanted to give them the opportunity to have an open conversation. My use of the term “free and frank” wasn’t intended as the reason under the LGOIMA to go into confidential.
I said a public statement would follow our discussion and it is not unusual to release the outcome of a matter that has been dealt with in confidential at the appropriate time afterwards. We don’t, however, include a rundown of the confidential discussions and proceedings.
From Acting CE Craig Tiriana:
The matter re the Bill was raised for update and discussion as opposed to a decision to be made. See standing order 9.13 re “discussion of minor matter not on the agenda”.
The resolution later in the meeting to go into public excluded to deal with all confidential matters, which included the item relating to the Bill, was moved, seconded and carried with no alterations proposed at that time.
Mayor Chadwick released a statement following yesterday’s meeting. She indicated when she raised the Bill as an urgent matter for update and discussion that a public statement would be issued afterwards.
Re can the council please clarify if the voting record Macpherson suggests is accurate:
This matter was dealt with in confidential.
Information re all costs to date associated with the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill:
- Public notices in newspaper: $1983.24 (GST exclusive)
- Social media advertising: $200 (GST inclusive)
- Legal fees: $71,831.30 (GST inclusive)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Local Democracy Reporter
Topic: Councillor Bentley resignation
Enquiry
I have spoken with Peter Bentley about his sudden resignation yesterday. This is for a separate story.
I would like to provide some of his critical comments to the mayor and council for the right of reply.
Most comments are appropriately answered by the mayor, but the final line is critical of the council organisation - please respond as you view appropriate.
If either would like to take that opportunity, the deadline for those comments will be 3pm today.
COMMENTS
Bentley's resignation statement:
The Mayor found out very early that I would not be one to merely follow in her radical and blatant racist ideas. Therefore, she has shunned me and not sought the practical advice I bring to this Council table.
As a result, we have had some dreadful, expensive, and impractical decisions made – nearly always with a 7 to 3 vote. However, the votes for the co-governance bill was even so Mrs Chadwick had to use her casting vote. For me this is this is the last straw.
I can no longer sit here and be part of a Council that has turned Rotorua into a dumping ground for vagrants and miscreants and a slum with the biggest debt ever.
I no longer have confidence in this Council and hereby tender my resignation, effective immediately.
Peter Bentley said his resignation was "a final act of frustration".
"When [Chadwick] decided she wanted to debate that representation bill in secret, I thought, no.
"[Chadwick] is an autocrat and democracy comes second. She decreed. It wasn't up for discussion. I don't think that's how you run a democratic system."
He said the only thing to debate in secret was things like contracts with commercial sensitivity.
"This sort of thing is the very thing councillors are elected for, to make a decision on big issues, and the public has a right to know what each councillor thinks."
He believed Chadwick should issue an apology to the public for her behaviour in the meeting,
"Enough is enough. [She was] carrying out an illegal act as far as local government goes."
He said his statement was written six months ago but he had not wanted to quit at that time and cause a costly by-election.
"That's not what Rotorua deserves."
Asked what he meant by Chadwick's, in his opinion "radical and blatant racist ideas", Bentley gave the example of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill.
"I don't think it's democratic. I think it's a racially inflammatory document. I believe in democracy and I also believe in colour blindness.
He said he was opposed to Māori wards generally.
"The argument for racially selected seats doesn't sit well with me.
"It belittles the effort of people like Tania [Tapsell] and Trevor [Maxwell] who got elected there by the people irrespective of skin colour and irrespective of their heritage."
He said he wanted to see a future mayor and council remove the chief executive GeoffWilliams and change the senior management.
Response
From Mayor Chadwick:
Peter is mistaken about the vote taken in November to proceed with a local representation Bill – there were just two votes against. No casting vote was needed.
He is also mistaken in saying I wanted to debate the Bill at this week’s meeting. This was not a debate about the bill, it was to provide an update and seek councillors’ guidance.
I took exception to Peter’s inflammatory and personalised comments and a point of order was called – I did not appreciate being accused of racism.
Regarding his comments about staff, to take a cheap shot at staff who cannot publicly defend themselves is reprehensible. I have every confidence in the CE and his team.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Rotorua Daily Post
Topic: Events
Enquiry
I'm writing a story on events picking back up in the bay and wondered if you could please help me with some information and comment?
How are things looking with events coming up in Rotorua?
What kinds of things are being booked? (Numbers if known?)
What does it mean for local businesses and venues?
Pre-covid, is there an estimate for what events brought to the local economy? Visitors?
How did that change throughout the pandemic?
Any comment about how events booking and visitor numbers are expected to trend going forward and why?
Any information about council run events/venues and how things are going?
Response
From Joelene Elliott, Director of Events, Rotorua Lakes Council:
How are things looking with events coming up in Rotorua?
We are thrilled to have people back in our venues, doing what they love. Currently we are hosting the Tip-Off Basketball Tournament with over 500 players. Looking ahead we have a number of bookings that moved to later in the year and so forward bookings are looking very positive.
What kinds of things are being booked? (Numbers if known?)
We are expecting to host 10,000 business event delegates at the Energy Events Centre. The following large events have been postponed into the 2nd half of 2022:
Rotorua Marathon (postponed to September), Whaka100 (postponed to October), Six60 (postponed to November) and Crankworx (postponed to November).
There are also a number of events yet to be announced which is exciting!
What does it mean for local businesses and venues?
There is huge value in hosting events in Rotorua. As well as the economic benefits, more events add vibrancy to our city and contribute to our cultural and community well-being. Out of region visitation is an important part of our event strategy moving forward.
Pre-covid, is there an estimate for what events brought to the local economy? Visitors?
Please refer to Rotorua Economic Development.
How did that change throughout the pandemic?
Alert levels, the traffic light system and Covid-19 guidelines has had a significant impact on our ability to host events, however the desire to have these events has not changed. As confidence grows in the industry we are expecting more enquiries and can’t wait to welcome more people back to events in Rotorua.
Any comment about how events booking and visitor numbers are expected to trend going forward and why? As above
Any information about council run events/venues and how things are going? The above information is all about Rotorua Lakes Council venues and events booked into those venues.
Further info provided:
May I ask what time period this is for?
"We are expecting to host 10,000 business event delegates at the Energy Events Centre."
These numbers are bookings from today through to July 2023.
August to November 2022 is especially busy with around 15 conferences being hosted in RLC Rotorua over these months.
If possible, may I also ask if these bookings mean Winter is looking to be busier with events than usual?
The events space this Winter is looking busier than Winter 2021, and will contribute to, and support our local economy during the winter months which is traditionally the off-season for Tourism.