As the volunteer driver of Dunedin’s campaign ambulance answered questions on his long-term-plan submission, a ‘‘guffawing’’ or perhaps a sniggering caught him by surprise.
To his left, Mike Waddell saw Dunedin city councillor Carmen Houlahan rolling her eyes and heaving an exasperated sigh, actions he says were mirrored by Cr Jim O’Malley.
Their response to his concerns on a proposed Smooth Hill landfill struck him as ‘‘appalling’’, and he told them so - ‘‘it’s a sad reflection when people are starting to laugh around the table,’’ he said.
‘‘Where is the respect?’’
Speaking to the Otago Daily Times a few days later, Mr Waddell said the interaction was ‘‘pretty awful’’.
The council had called for submissions and it was the councillors’ job to listen, ‘‘not to belittle people’’.
The reaction from Crs Houlahan and O’Malley was unprofessional - ‘‘‘could do better’ would be on the school report,’’ he said.
There were plenty of moments at last week’s long-term-plan hearing that suggested more than usual was on the line.
On the second day, three councillors walked out in protest, one was ejected and two submitters said they were being disrespected by councillors.
By the final day, mayoral hopeful Andrew Simms and developer Allan Dippie were squaring up over the Smooth Hill landfill - airing ‘‘colourful’’ emails which disparaged the current crop of elected officials as ‘‘weird’’, ‘‘woke’’ and talentless.
Cr Houlahan apologised if she upset Mr Waddell and Cr O’Malley had apologised for snorting during submitter Sarah Ramsay’s presentation, who also opposed the Smooth Hill landfill.
Mrs Ramsay stopped her presentation to chastise poor behaviour, saying ‘‘I don’t appreciate councillors laughing at me’’.
Both councillors said they were irked at submitters peddling incorrect information on Smooth Hill put forward by election candidates.
So what was different about this year’s long term plan hearing?
Three councillors have pointed to an unusual set of circumstances, which meant the hearing was held in election year instead of halfway through the council term.
In 2024, the Dunedin City Council deferred its long-term-plan a year amid uncertainty about transport funding and Three Waters reform.
On top of this, mayoral candidate Andrew Simms launched an early, well-funded campaign for office in January, which was in full swing as long-term-plan hearings began.
This meant the usual diet of earnest appeals for council to build more cycleways and improve playgrounds has been spiced up with a healthy helping of political point-scoring.
Mr Simms has been vocal in his opposition to the council’s planned $92.4m landfill at Smooth Hill, near Brighton - ads from his Future Dunedin campaign have said waste should be sent to an existing, privately operated site in Winton.
Mr Waddell and Mrs Ramsay happened to be making submissions about the topic which has so far dominated the election year.
Clearly Mr Simms’ campaign had hit a nerve and, when his talking points were recounted by others during the hearing, councillors were drawn into debate as they tried to explain the council’s position.
Cr O’Malley said there was little point in having hearings if ‘‘misinformation and political manoeuvring’’ entered the process.
‘‘Having these hearings during an election year has resulted in some presenters coming... armed with positions put forward by council and mayoral candidates that are factually incorrect,’’ Cr O’Malley in turn said.
‘‘When those presenters are informed the position is incorrect, some have then doubled down and some have been very casual in their language to councillors.’’
Cr Houlahan said she was frustrated at the amount of false information ‘‘being pushed’’ by election candidates.
Cr Sophie Barker said she was unhappy the long-term plan was being done in an election year.
‘‘There’s too much politics entering into the process and too many distractions for people,’’ she said.
‘‘It also means that we sign off the plan, then go straight into an election - the next council could quickly change the plan and budget.’’
A defining point of last week’s hearing came on its final day, when Mr Dippie and Mr Simms butted heads over the Smooth Hill landfill.
Mr Dippie called Future Dunedin’s ads opposing the landfill ‘‘wild, alarmist [and] extremist’’ trying to ‘‘be populist’’ ahead of the election.
He told councillors he and Mr Simms had exchanged ‘‘colourful’’ emails on the matter. In response, Mr Simms read from Mr Dippie’s colourful emails.
‘‘Just look at the lack of talent and the general weirdness and wokeness of some of the present councillors - probably the best money they have ever been on and ever will be,’’ Mr Simms read, before Cr Bill Acklin raised a point of order, upheld by the mayor.
Mr Dippie told the ODThe received unusual responses when he later apologised to councillors.
Some of replies to his apology included: ‘‘I totally agree with your weird and woke comment, no apology needed from me’’ and ‘‘Thanks for your email. No offence taken. Your submission was so refreshing thank you. It was great.’’
Cr Steve Walker said: ‘‘I’m hard to offend Allan, so no issue from me. To be honest, I’ve begun taking it as a compliment being referred to as woke!’’
Mr Simms said he was surprised some councillors had supported Mr Dippie’s comments though long-term-plan decisions would ‘‘inevitably’’ be impacted by the looming election, he said.
‘‘I can absolutely see that Mr Dippie’s personal attack on me will have suited some of them who may feel threatened by my campaign, but that doesn’t excuse them condoning that type of language and that type of behaviour.
‘‘I have no doubt that some of the hostility that I received during those hearings... was as a result of being a candidate essentially - it’s human nature, isn’t it?’’
Future Dunedin had no sitting councillors, which gave them the ability to focus on campaigning earlier, Mr Simms said.
‘‘And I guess to try and establish a profile, particularly in respect to the big issues that are facing the city.’’
One of those issues he had established a profile on was the Smooth Hill landfill, which he acknowledged he and Mr Dippie had ‘‘very different’’ views on.
‘‘I’m still yet to understand why Allan found it necessary to launch a scathing attack on myself and candidates and sitting councillors in order to express that view.
Cr Lee Vandervis said the ‘‘spat’’ between Mr Dippie and Mr Simms was an entertaining look into how ‘‘some wealthy people viewed elected representatives’’.
Hearing chairman Mr Radich was blamed by some councillors for allowing poor behaviour.
The hearing’s constant obstruction was Mr Radich’s ‘‘general incompetence... and the mystery and inconsistency of his rulings’’, Cr David Benson-Pope said.
‘‘After a term as mayor things ain’t coming together.’’
Cr Steve Walker said departure from previous LTP hearings was on Mr Radich.
‘‘Councillor conduct is only EVER as good as the chair’s ability to run a good meeting.’’
Cr Lee Vandervis said the mayor yielded to ‘‘precious sensitivities of councillors’’ by allowing rudeness towards submitters critical of council.
Mr Radich said it was disappointing to see some councillors blame him as chairman, rather than taking personal responsibility for their own behaviour.
‘‘But my focus remains on the big issues facing our city.
Submitters’ concerns raised about councillor conduct were addressed at the time, he said.
‘‘I encourage councillors to learn from this and avoid repeating the types of behaviour that disrupt meetings and erode the confidence our community should have in us all.’’
Cr Barker said elected members lack of respect was a low-point and Cr Benson-Pope said there was certainly more poor behaviour from councillors than previous long-term-plan hearings.
Cr Kevin Gilbert said despite a few lapses, councillor conduct was broadly fine.
‘‘I am still perplexed at the ease with which points of order get raised from some seats, and with the freedom that opinion and fact can get confused.’’
In an email sent to staff after the hearing, Cr Christine Garey commended them and said: ‘‘elected members could well take a leaf out of your book’’.
Despite being critical of their peers’ conduct, several councillors noted the high quality and variety of submissions and speakers who broadly understanding finances were stretched across households, organisations and the council alike.
Council deliberations on the long-term-plan will run from May 26-29. The plan is expected to be formally adopted in June.
