Budget priorities.
This project is essential, one councillor might argue.
That project is hard to justify, another might say.
It has merit, but cannot proceed right now, a third may conclude.
Argument.
Counter-argument.
Debate may occur within parameters that are fairly well understood, and the person chairing the meeting may be called upon to intervene occasionally. Point of order — the speaker misrepresented what was said, or their language was malicious or disrespectful, or the speaker detoured into irrelevance.
A call then has to be made — the point of order is upheld, please withdraw the comment. Or it is not upheld, please continue.
That is the rough framework for debate at council meetings and, for the most part, this functions as intended.
However, at a Dunedin City Council meeting on March 4, a councillor walked out over the way rules were interpreted and what he was prevented from saying.
In the meantime, the lead-up to Cr Lee Vandervis walking out of the annual plan draft budgets meeting is worth exploring in some detail. As are the implications.
What happened?
The possibility of a 10.5% rates rise for 2026-27 was in front of councillors or, as the council preferred to put it, Three Waters rates could increase by 16.7% and "non-water" rates by 6.9%.
On March 4, Ms Barker referred to 30 items of potential savings that were discussed confidentially two days prior. Cr Mandy Mayhem made the bold claim "there are no nice-to-haves in this budget".
It was soon the turn of Cr Vandervis to speak.
He claimed the majority of councillors did not support any of the 30 ideas and was advised by the mayor such territory was confidential — he withdrew the comment and apologised.
Cr Vandervis sought to refute Cr Mayhem’s claim by listing things he viewed as "nice to have". One was the council having a zero-carbon team when zero-carbon activity was established across the organisation. Others were an Albany St cycleway, a trial closure of Queens Dr to vehicles and "more Peninsula Connection funding — quite massive there".
"Point of order" — it came from Cr Christine Garey.
"The councillor has described the Peninsula Connection as a nice-to-have. It is a safety project, not a nice-to-have."
The mayor advised Cr Vandervis she would uphold the point of order "if you wouldn’t mind".
He went on to describe Crs Andrew Simms and Russell Lund as "the two most successful businesspeople on council by far".
Ms Barker took umbrage, but she allowed Cr Garey to raise the point of order, for disrespect, and the mayor then upheld it "because I think there are many successful businesspeople ... My family are quite successful businesspeople".
Cr Vandervis rocked back and then held his head in his hands.
"Please stop laughing — it’s just rude," Ms Barker said.
"Please withdraw and apologise."
Rather than do so, Cr Vandervis got up and left.
Candidates in the city council by-election — to replace Cr Jules Radich, who died in January — were among the people to react on social media.
Bill Acklin: "There was absolutely nothing inappropriate with Lee’s comments here, and earlier. He is entitled to his views and to verbalise them in debate."
Jo Galer: "Points of order on Lee are overused. I’d like to see an ombudsman ruling on this. Lee’s views are just that — free speech."
Conrad Stedman wondered why the statement about Crs Lund and Simms prompted a point of order against Cr Vandervis. "He stated a fact."
Cr Vandervis had a comment, too: "You are 10 times more likely to die on a bike than in a car ... so much for safety."
In a statement last night, Ms Barker focused on the point of order that immediately preceded Cr Vandervis walking out of the meeting.
Elected members were required to be courteous to each other and the comment by Cr Vandervis about Crs Lund and Simms was not courteous to other councillors, she said.
Ms Barker said she was "not going to debate" who had the biggest wallet or the most financial success around the council table.
However, she added: "It is well known that Larnach Castle was built into a multimillion-dollar business hosting over 100,000 visitors annually and contributing hugely to Dunedin’s economic development over its 59-year ownership by the Barker family.
"Tourism is worth around $800 million each year to our city — this figure was helped to grow exponentially by my family’s dedication, huge personal sacrifices and financial investment in a city heritage icon, plus my own work as part of that team for 40 years."
In an email to the Otago Daily Times, Cr Vandervis responded to Ms Barker’s statement at the meeting in this vein.
"Mayor Barker’s additional comment that she was somehow in a similar financial experience league to Crs Lund and Simms ‘because of the success of Barker family’ was laughable on several levels," he said.
"Vexatious interruptions and mayoral requirements for me to retract and apologise for provably true statements meant I finally had no option but to leave the meeting.
"Mayor Barker’s encouraging of Cr Garey’s bogus points of order and demanding retraction and apology for true statements meant that reasoned debate of the big issue of unsustainable council spending on nice-to-haves could not proceed."
In another email, he added: "There is nothing to apologise for or retract from my gratefully acknowledging the much-needed multimillionaire experience of two new councillors we are now fortunate to have on council."
The meeting rules document known as standing orders says the person raising a point of order must cite a specific subject — this did not occur.
Cr Garey told the ODT she was free to take a point of order and it was up to the person chairing the meeting to make a ruling. She reasserted it was a safety project — "hence my point of order".
Cr Vandervis said there was no reason why a nice-to-have project could not also be a safety project — the categorisations were not mutually exclusive.
Two by-election candidates were critical of Cr Garey.
Ms Galer: "Cr Garey in effect is trying to deploy points of order to shut down free speech and debate."
Mr Acklin: "For another councillor to call a point of order just because they don’t agree with what the speaker is saying is totally inappropriate."
Another by-election candidate, Aaron Hawkins, said the episode had not been handled well.
"The handling of Cr Vandervis’ comments in the annual plan meeting was embarrassing, really, and I’m sure wouldn’t have been supported by staff advice had it been sought."
There was quite a set-up for this comment.
"Over recent years there’s been a growing tendency among elected members to weaponise standing orders — the outcome of which, sadly, can be the stifling of debate," Mr Hawkins said.
"Council meetings should be a forum for robust political debate, without people being shut down by accusations of misrepresentation or offensive language. More often than not, in both cases, it’s simply a case of rebuttal.
"There is no basis in standing orders to demand the withdrawal of comments that are politically inconvenient. Just let people have their five minutes and move on."
Ms Barker said, on reflection, she could have handled the situation with Cr Vandervis better by taking an adjournment and seeking advice before making a ruling.
"I can only put this down to feeling unwell on the day," she said, having received two vaccines the day before.
"I’ll take this on board for future meetings," the mayor said.
"The Peninsula Connection has always been classified as a safety project, but I accept that Cr Vandervis has his own opinion, and it is never my intention to stifle debate."
The ODT asked the Free Speech Union specifically about the ruling on the nice-to-have issue.
"Budget debates are exactly the forum where elected representatives should be free to characterise spending priorities as they see them," the organisation’s chief executive, Jillaine Heather, said.
"Describing a project as a ‘nice-to-have’ rather than an essential is a political judgement, not a breach of meeting procedure.
"Points of order exist to enforce procedural rules, not to adjudicate which councillor’s opinion about a project is more correct. Calling something a ‘nice-to-have’ versus a ‘safety project’ is a difference of political priority and judgement, not a misquotation or breach of conduct," Ms Heather said.
"If Cr Garey was invoking standing order 25.2(d), which is meant to address misrepresentation of what someone said, it would be a misuse of that clause to suppress a value judgement about a project.
"And when they are used that way, the effect is to shut down legitimate political speech mid-debate, and that should concern anyone who values robust democratic deliberation."
