Prior to the election, the Taranaki Regional Council received a report investigating the shameful fiasco surrounding New Plymouth District councillor Dinnie Moeahu’s attempt to address the council’s public forum in December 2024. He had been there to acknowledge the strong leadership of the TRC for developing a draft submission and to explore whether that submission might form the basis of a collective Taranaki voice on the Treaty Principles Bill. Instead, he was rudely shut down before he had even started – not once but twice according to the investigation’s findings.
As one who has traditionally held Dinnie and his Dad AND Neil Walker (who orchestrated the whole shameful embroglio) in high esteem, I had drawn my own conclusions about the situation. Namely that Neil had taken temporary leave of his senses and abused his position of elder statesmanship to trick a couple of his more gullible colleagues into subverting a process that has hitherto been pretty much sacrosanct within Local Government – namely the (pre-arranged) right to appear at public meetings to speak briefly on just about any matter at all.
In a rare and unprecedented step away from business as usual – namely to provide feedback to government on a range of issues relating to the environment and the people within it – a draft submission relating to the Treaty Principles Bill was inexplicably deemed by Neil Walker to be too politically hot to handle, so he dug out a hitherto unused standing order and used it to shaft Dinnie’s presentation. There was fall-out and justifiably so.
The Council Conduct Review stretches to over 100 pages – therein perhaps is the reason it took nigh on 8 months to complete.
The findings of the report traverse a number of worthy suggestions to improve process and the adeptness of elected members to be able to adhere to that process but it fails to address the fundamental principle – which is that in this instance process was used to subvert good manners and fair practice.
The whole point of local government is that it can respond to local need. That means being accessible to local communities. Using process to intimidate and belittle those from the communities that it exists to serve is not demonstrating accessibility. It reeks of the sort of arrogance that justifiably incenses rational people.
In most situations rules exist to cater to the lowest common denominator. Dog control bylaws do not exist to inconvenience responsible dog owners – they exist to provide a way of managing negligent dog owners. Likewise with council standing orders. They are a tool to manage badly behaved elected members. They do not exist to shaft well meaning members of the public.
Local Government is in no position to alienate itself from it’s own communities. It’s already comprehensively out in the cold from the mainstream decision-makers. The best way back may well involve a lot more transparency, and a concerted effort to rebuild the trust and confidence of communities – who need to be able to recognise their local councils as advocates rather than adversaries.