Press releases

Local Water Done Well Redux July 18th 2025

A number of people have asked me if the Council's decision to reject expert advice and adopt the two-council model instead of the four-council option favoured by experts and those who formally responded to the Council's survey on Local Water Done Well could be rescinded. The short answer is no. A subsequent decision by Whanganui Council to go with Ruapehu sealed the deal. However, there are important lessons to be learned from the consultation process and how the decision was arrived at for the new council that will be elected in October.

It has emerged in press reports that, while the Council was holding public meetings in Taumarunui and Ohakune and surveying residents, members opposed to the four-council option were also consulting with iwi, Te Waiū-o-te Ika and Te Awa Tepua/Te Kōpuka on how they should vote. No mention of this was made during the public meetings by them or in their speeches in favour of the Whanganui option, only a vague reference to the importance of local voices. Councillor Neeson, who is standing for Mayor and who spoke in favour of going with the Whanganui option, wrote in last week’s Bulletin: “ We had a four-hour intensive debate, quizzing our staff member who created the report and considered all the options and alternatives.” Unfortunately the behind the scenes consultation with Te Waiū-o-te Ika and Te Awa Tepua/Te Kōpuka was not mentioned in the debate, which was, from subsequent statements, a foregone conclusion for those members supporting the Whanganui option. The council officer reporting to members on the options available might as well have been giving them the weather report.

Council has a long history of going through the motions with consultations and then going with a predetermined option. At least this decision has shown some consistency in that regard. However, the councillors who pressed forward with the after-the-fact argument that there was a need to honour the obligations to Te Waiū-o-te Ika and Te Awa Tepua/Te Kōpuka need also be aware of their obligations to open debate and honesty of intent. If there is primacy in the debate for the Whanganui option because of obligations to Te Waiū-o-te Ika and Te Awa Tepua/Te Kōpuka then these obligations should have been centre stage in the consultation with the community and in the debate on what was the best option for Ruapehu. It should not have been an after-the-fact explanation of why those who can least afford it will be paying an extra $1000 for their reticulated water. If Mātauranga Māori is to form an integral part of our governance, then there is a clear need to avoid polarisation and take people with you.

Open governance in Ruapehu June 15th 2025

The May council meeting heard a proposal from Councillor Janelle Hinch for Council to submit in opposition to the Regulatory Standards Bill. Speaking to the proposal, Deputy Mayor Vivienne Hoeta stated that Council had entered into partnership agreements with iwi. and went on to say, “The bill would have implications for the council in law and law-making, and the council should voice its opposition with an individual submission. The council had recently signed partnership agreements with post-settlement governance entities and iwi in the wider region.” “We can’t be signing partnership agreements and then just sitting back and doing nothing about it.” “We have strong relationships and we are practising and giving effect to the Treaty of Waitangi in what we do.”

However, as a concern of open governance, there doesn’t seem to be any reference to the partnership agreements on the council website, nor the agreements themselves. As someone who, as an elected member, made governance proposals regarding the Council’s relationship with local iwi through an enhanced Māori Council, I would welcome the opportunity to peruse the agreements the Deputy Mayor refers to. I wrote to the council on June 1st requesting copies of the agreements. Council responded by treating my request as an Official Information request. At the time of writing June 15th I have had no response to my request.

Let’s be clear, iwi do have a positive governance role to play in our district, especially given our demographic. However, if the Council is to enter into partnership agreements on governance with any unelected bodies, they must be open, transparent, and accessible on the council website for all to view.

John Chapman to stand for Council July 1st 2025

Veteran community board member John Chapman has announced his intention to stand for council. Chapman, who sat on both the National Park and Waimarino Community Boards, said: “ I’m delighted to have the opportunity to once again serve my community and continue the work I began as a board member in enlarging the scope and responsibilities of our boards and pressing for a board in Taumarunui Ohura. Whilst the changes in Council’s structure at the last election brought about greater engagement with Māori and the wider community, one crucial part of our community, the rural agriculture sector, has been left out. I would like to see the next Council give positive consideration to the establishment of a rural ward in the district. Our agricultural sector provides the lion's share of our local economy, and if we are to grow as a district, then they need to have a seat at the table. That said, the recent budget blowouts have demonstrated a clear need for real-time monitoring of council expenditure by council members.”

Chapman went on to say:

"Ruapehu District Council faces enormous challenges over the next decade in its governance of the district. The loss of jobs in the south and the closure of the Chateau in the north have negatively impacted our local economy still recovering from COVID. The challenges of rebuilding our economy and governing effectively and affordably for all our communities will take a team that will listen to our communities, work across our administration, community boards and iwi to meet those challenges. A team that, once elected, can set aside political differences and work together for the benefit of all our communities.

A $700K Overspend July 29th 2025

$700,000 isn’t just a line item—it’s life-changing money. At today’s median house price, it could buy two homes in Taumarunui, with enough left over to cover agent and legal fees. Imagine what our community could have done with that kind of funding.

So when news of the overspend broke, public outrage was more than justified. One mayoral candidate claimed it wouldn’t have happened under her watch—as a sitting councillor—except it did. It happened right under the full council’s nose. But here’s the real issue: our current system made it impossible for them to know.

In New Zealand, councils operate under two distinct and legally separate structures: Operations and Governance.

Operations includes council officers and the CEO, responsible for day-to-day administration.

Governance includes the Mayor and elected councillors, who set direction—but are barred from operational oversight.

Councillors approved a Parks and Recreation budget. From that moment, it became an operational task. The Mayor and councillors lost visibility, despite being held accountable in the public eye. The buck doesn’t stop with them—it stops with the CEO.

In light of this, Mayor Kirton’s call for an independent inquiry was the only responsible path forward. Until all facts are uncovered, further action would be premature and misguided.

But there’s a bigger problem: communication. The council has failed to clearly explain how decisions are made and who holds responsibility. That vacuum has been filled by social media commentators, fueling confusion and division. We’ve fractured into two camps—those who want expanded services, and those who just want clean water, paved roads, and low rates.

Now, central government is stepping in.

The Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, introduced last week and already through its first reading, doesn’t just “rein in costs” as Minister Simon Watts claims. It represents a fundamental shift in what councils are here to do. The bill strips away the “four well-beings”—social, economic, environmental, and cultural—that once defined council purpose. In their place, it imposes mandates:

Prioritise core services.

Deliver rigorous financial and performance reporting.

Publicly disclose all contractor and consultant spending.

For our incoming council, this means a tall order: deliver more, with less. The era of outsourcing and consulting is ending. Staff must upskill, and ratepayers must recalibrate expectations.

We’re entering a new phase of local governance—one that demands transparency, competence, and resilience. We deserve accountability not just in hindsight, but as a standard practice. And that starts with understanding how our system truly works.

Council CEO Salaries August 8th 2025

With local elections looming, we hear calls for good people to stand for Council. But the reality is sobering: even the most community-minded Councillor enters a system where real power lies not with elected representatives, but with highly paid staff—particularly CEOs. Community Board Members can’t even speak to our CEO without going through their Chair.

This shift isn’t accidental. It followed past corruption scandals, especially around zoning and land use, aiming to protect decisions from political interference. But now, the pendulum has swung too far.

Ratepayers who fund Councils are excluded from decisions on staffing structures, budgets, and salaries. Council CEOs are public servants, yet their pay is increasingly corporate-level. Our local CEO earns a reported $350,000 annually—a figure unthinkable in most rural communities.

So, who sets these salaries? We’re told the Remuneration Authority does, but how transparent is that process? What criteria are used? The public isn’t consulted or even informed. Benchmarking against corporate pay accelerates executive salaries, while essential workers, road crews, librarians, and customer service staff stay on modest wages.

This isn’t jealousy. It’s a fairness issue. It’s a question of democratic accountability. Ratepayers foot the bill yet have no say, and even elected officials struggle to question staff decisions. So what, exactly, are they being elected to do?

Let’s be clear: this isn’t a dig at individuals. Many Council executives are hardworking and care deeply about their communities. The problem lies in a system that’s drifted into opacity and unresponsiveness.

We don’t need more oversight bodies. We need transparency. Visibility around pay, genuine community control, and political courage to say public service must mean service.

This election should be about rebalancing the scales. Councils should work with their communities, not above them.

Time to Reconsider Council’s Costly Water Decision August 8th 2025

As local elections approach, the debate over water infrastructure has become a defining issue—one that deserves careful, nonpartisan scrutiny. A majority of mayoral and sitting council candidates have endorsed the Whanganui option, diverging from Mayor Kirton’s support for the four-council model. The implications are significant: ratepayers face substantially higher costs under the current plan.

This matter should not be reduced to political positioning. At its heart lies a question of affordability—something that affects every household in our district. While some have cited the Whanganui River as a reason to support the Whanganui option, it’s important to note that the river’s legal and cultural status is already protected under the Ruruku Whakatupua Deed of Settlement, signed in 2014 and backed by legislation. That protection is not contingent on which water model is chosen.

The evidence presented at the council meeting made a compelling case: the four-council option was the most economically viable. Choosing the more expensive alternative, despite clear data, raises concerns about whether the decision was made in the best interest of the community.

Mayor Kirton has since presented further documentation suggesting the decision may breach government guidelines on affordability. This presents council members with an opportunity, not to revisit old divisions, but to reassess the impact of their choice with fresh eyes and a shared commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Regardless of political affiliation or preferred candidate, this issue warrants deeper investigation. In a district where many residents are already facing financial pressure, the long-term cost of water should be weighed carefully. Leadership means making decisions that serve the public good, not just in principle, but in practice.