Accusations of “political bullying” have emerged after debate around a proposal to amend Christchurch City Council’s submission to Environment Canterbury’s Long Term Plan.
But the accusations made by city councillors Sam MacDonald and Aaron Keown have been bluntly denied by Mayor Lianne Dalziel and Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner, along with claims the city council is like a “dictatorship.”
At the city council meeting last Thursday, MacDonald and Keown, along with councillors James Gough, Phil Mauger and Catherine Chu, asked to amend the council’s draft submission on ECan’s 10-year budget to express concern over the regional council’s 24.5 per cent rates increase.
Consultation on the draft Long Term Plan is now closed. ECan proposed a 24.5 per cent rates increase across Canterbury, but only a 3 per cent increase for Christchurch residents.
The city council ultimately voted to decline the amendment.
Said Dalziel during the meeting: “Disappointingly, for me, I’ve been told that I have to accept this dreadful amendment.”
MacDonald replied: “It’s healthy for democracy.”
City councillors including Turner, Mike Davidson, Melanie Coker, Sara Templeton, Tim Scandrett, Anne Galloway and Yani Johanson also voiced opposition to the amendment at the meeting.
The decision means the city council’s final submission to ECan will not include any mention of rates increases.
Dalziel said at the meeting: “It is frustrating that we end up having these debates around headlines and slogans instead of debating the real, serious, challenging issues that we have as a city in the context of our regional council’s Long Term Plan.
“Focusing on one aspect of it [the 24.5 per cent rate increase] – a headline story – doesn’t cut the mustard.
“We are required to think for the current generation, but also for future generations as well.”
Dalziel told The Star the amendment got in the way of more important discussion about specific challenges ECan’s LTP aims to address, including nitrates in water, ensuring compliance with air quality and buses.
MacDonald said he feels the amendment proposal was “shot down” and was disappointed with how, he believes, he was accused of “headline grabbing.”
“In a democracy, there’s nothing wrong with someone like me raising valid concerns over proposals the council are raising. To be dismissed like that, it should alarm, I think, a lot of ratepayers,” he said.
“It does feel like a dictatorship, where if you don’t comply then you’ll be publicly embarrassed like that and that’s not healthy for democracy.
“What probably frustrates me the most, is that when we raise valid arguments like that around financial discipline, that the first response of colleagues is to call me headline-grabbing.”
Dalziel said MacDonald was not accused of “headline grabbing.”
She clarified what she meant by her headline comments with The Star, saying sometimes issues that generate headlines are focused on more than specific elements that need attention.
Said Keown: “There’s quite a strong undertone in our council at the moment with a level of political bullying and it’s rearing its head on quite a regular basis now and I think the public should be very, very concerned that that’s going on.
“You can disagree, that’s fine. Especially, you can disagree with a strong debate, but when you just basically shut down people and laugh at the ideas that they put forward on behalf of their residents, we are seriously staring at a dictatorship.”
Dalziel completely refuted MacDonald and Keown’s comments and told The Star the amendment proposal was debated fairly.
“That is ridiculous. I don’t have the power to dictate,” said Dalziel.
“I don’t feel that there was any bullying.
“I played back the debate. I intervened twice on Aaron’s speech. I didn’t shut him down and I didn’t laugh. On both occasions I intervened, the clock was stopped so it did not affect Cr Keown’s speaking time. His speech went for the full three minutes that each councillor is allocated.
“It was debated. I didn’t stop anyone from debating the issue.”
Turner said: “I’m not aware of any dictatorship or bullying, all I see is democracy at play.”
Dalziel said she had not been informed by MacDonald or any other city councillors who supported the amendment that it was going to be raised at the meeting, and this was the reason for her frustration.
