Niki Gladding: Her full statement to Crux

"We have a big (un)democratic problem on our hands."

“I’m going to make this statement and then let’s get back to the important issue which is obviously that QLDC is about to discharge 12,000 cubic metres of effluent a day to the Shotover River – for at least the next five years.

Firstly, I work for the community – not QLDC. The community voted me in, it pays my wages, and I have responsibilities to the community that are written into the law. Part of my role is to hold management to account, and I make no apology for doing that.

Last Thursday morning I was told that QLDC was about to discharge 12,000 cubic metres of treated (for some contaminants) effluent to the Shotover River. Three to seven days was the timeframe. We were told this in a publicly excluded meeting to discuss the outcomes of mediation related to enforcement proceedings brought by the Otago Regional Council.

No slides or reading materials were provided ahead of the meeting. Based on the information provided (or not provided) on the day and previously, I didn’t believe the bird strike ‘emergency’ or the use of emergency powers was before the Court. So, faced with significant information gaps and the potential for discharge in just three days time, I made the decision to inform iwi (via someone I trust), an ORC councillor, and one journalist – David Williams from Newsroom who could ask some questions. He wouldn’t be publishing until he had heard from QLDC, and I let QLDC know that I would prefer it disclosed its intentions proactively. I didn’t release any presentation materials because I didn’t receive any.

Now I’m hit with the consequences of sharing that information. And that’s fine, but there’s a process to follow and that’s definitely not what’s happening at next Tuesday’s meeting. If the Council pushes ahead and the Councillors vote me out of my Committee positions, then it’ll be just another example of QLDC bending procedure and overriding the rights of others to achieve their objectives.

Part 2 of the elected members’ Code of Conduct is QLDC’s policy for dealing with breaches of the Code. The policy states:

“A process needs to be adopted by elected members for investigating and resolving breaches of the code and the principles of natural justice must apply to the investigation, assessment and resolution of complaints made under the code. The process for investigating an alleged breach must be politically independent and be seen to be so. The policy for investigating and making recommendations is designed to achieve that independence.”

Councillors also have to abide the Standing Orders which reinforce that decision-making procedures and practices should meet the standards of natural justice.

What it means is, if the Mayor wants to pursue this, they need to appoint an independent investigator to consider (amongst many other things) the contents of the Code of Conduct and the context of the alleged breach.

I don’t believe I did breach the Code of Conduct. I acted in the public interest; I was acting in a way that respected the principles of Te Tiriti (which are written into the Code and which we are obliged to uphold); my actions were in line with the principles of good governance (also listed in the Code); I didn’t believe the information was of a confidential nature (although I acknowledge that the staff said it was). I also gave the CE the opportunity to release the information before any story came out.

I believe the Council was (and is) potentially unlawfully withholding information in the context of taking an action that potentially breaches our legal responsibilities under the RMA and the decision-making requirements of the Local Government Act. And that has other consequences for our key relationships and QLDC’s reputation.

Not having sufficient information makes it difficult to be certain about the legal aspects at this point but QLDC management has been known to get things badly wrong in terms of its legal obligations and part of my job is to ensure it doesn’t - not to wait until the ‘shit’ hits the fan and mop up the mess with the ratepayers’ hard earned cash.

If councillors can sit in a meeting, bypass the Code of Conduct they agreed at the start of the triennium, and remove a councillor from Committees, based solely on the staff’s view of what the community has a right to know and what it doesn’t, then we have a big (un)democratic problem on our hands.”