Home security allowance for councillors
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) chief executive Susan Freeman-Greene said her organisation had advocated for new protections such as the allowance given a significant increase in abuse, harassment and threatening behaviour.
Central Otago Mayor Tamah Alley said she had been involved in putting the case to the Remuneration Authority.
"We've been working on it for quite some time."
There were some startling examples around the country of abuse directed at elected members in their own homes, Mrs Alley said.
Last year, former Nelson City councillor and three-term mayor Rachel Reese came home to find a man in her house with a nail gun. Ms Reece stood down as mayor in 2022, in part, because of the abuse she was dealing with.
Earlier this year, Rotorua Mayor Tania Tapsell had a window in her car smashed while it was parked in her driveway.
In Central Otago, one elected member was subject to a campaign of abuse, including having items left in their mail box, Mrs Alley said.
It appeared the person responsible had a general dislike of the victim rather than it being over a specific decision.
While it was not possible to please everyone the decisions elected members made should not bring anxiety into their homes, Mrs Alley said.
"It's just wrong. We are here to make the decisions for the benefit of, you know, as much of the public as we can ... [but] the decisions we are making shouldn't be following you home and make you or your family feel unsafe."
The LGNZ allowance of up to $4500 for installing a security system and $1000 for annual maintenance was the same offered to members of Parliament.
In April, Clutha district Lawrence-Tuapeka ward councillor Jock Martin, who has Māori heritage, reported receiving a threatening voicemail in which he was called the n-word over rates relief for Māori land.
Clutha Mayor Bryan Cadogan, who has had angry members of the public come to his door, said he "strongly supported" initiatives to make councillors feel safe.
In 1998, when he was first elected to council it was "inconceivable" that any member of the public would have acted in that way — "now it's a regular occurrence".
"It's an unpleasant aspect of political reality now, but it's something that we have to address, and I think that while it doesn't stop the underlying issues, it gives a degree of protection to the councillors because they don't deserve this rubbish".
The "unacceptable norm" was happening up and down the country and as New Zealand was trying to encourage a broad spectrum of people to put their hands up for local politics, it was imperative they felt safe, Mr Cadogan said.
Dunedin city councillor Mandy Mayhem said there had been a rise in abuse online, and recently a group of what sounded like young people drove past her house "and yelled, 'Mandy Mayhem, you 'string of expletives"'.
But that was once in three years as a councillor — and for her an exception rather than the norm.
"People will ring up and rant at you, but I find they very seldom get abusive of me.
"They'll clearly be disappointed, in my opinion, in an angry way, but would I need to put security on my house?
"No, I don't think so."
She said it was unlikely all councillors would use the allowance and those who did would probably find less expensive options.
"A big part of it is elected members are often out and who's at home when you're not there and might need protecting."
People had become more vocal and there was more pushback than ever on council decisions, she said.
However, none of that should deter anyone from standing for the local body elections when nominations open tomorrow.
"It's a wonderful role and an absolute privilege to serve your community in this way." — Additional reporting Hamish MacLean
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
10 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
‘Deeply regret': Winston Peters' writes to United Nations after David Seymour letter
'We ... understand that you did not directly receive the letter to you by my colleague [REDACTED - likely to be David Seymour], but rather that you learned about its existence from reports in the media. 'We deeply regret this breakdown in protocol and appreciate this opportunity to put the record straight,' Peters said. It is not clear why Seymour's letter did not reach Barume. Peters went on to say that he understood Barume's letter to the Government did not convey his or the UN's official views, but merely sought the Government's response to concerns that had been raised by others with the United Nations, implying that Seymour's initial letter misunderstood this. The letter sets out the Government's position on the Regulatory Standards Bill and the Treaty settlement process and notes that the Government was 'committed to improving outcomes for all New Zealanders'. 'We are focused on reaching targets to improve outcomes in health, education, law and order, work and housing and on providing public services to all New Zealanders including working with iwi (tribes) and Māori to accelerate Māori economic growth and enable targeted investment in Maori social development.' Seymour was meant to be consulted on the new letter. The Herald understands he was consulted and wanted the contents of his original letter to be sent again, this time through Peter's' letter. Seymour did not see the final copy of the letter before it was sent, which did not include any of his earlier remarks. Peters included three appendices to his letter. One detailed New Zealand's relevant constitutional arrangements, including a section on MMP and the realities of coalition government. It also detailed the status of the Māori seats, the Bill of Rights Act, and the Waitangi Tribunal.
The Spinoff
4 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Bye bye, Rongotai – but why?
Out of 50,000-plus registered electors in Rongotai, just three proposed changing the electorate's name. One of those who didn't, former race relations commissioner Joris de Bres, is baffled by the decision to ditch a te reo name for Wellington Bays. When the new electoral boundaries were announced by the Representation Commission last Friday, there was one that took me completely by surprise. Although the changes to the boundaries of my electorate were relatively minor, the commission has decided to change the name from Rongotai to Wellington Bays. From a Māori name to a Pākehā name. I didn't see it coming because when the proposed changes were published in March they didn't include a name change for Rongotai. By the time submissions closed a month later, however, three people had lodged objections, not to a name change, but to the lack of a name change. Three people out of 50,000-plus registered electors in the area. If anyone noticed when the submissions were published in May, they could be forgiven for thinking that this was a ridiculously small number of objections. Only one of the three actually suggested the name 'Wellington Bays'. It was Neale Jones, well known Wellington political lobbyist and broadcaster, former chief of staff to Jacinda Ardern and Andrew Little. He said 'the name of Rongotai does not reflect the geography or identity of the area. As a suburb, Rongotai only has 40 people. As the electorate's boundaries grow the link becomes even less evident.' That argument is a little disingenuous, as the Rongotai isthmus is largely occupied by Wellington airport. But it is the bridge between the south coast, the Miramar Peninsula and Wellington Harbour, in other words all the bays that Neale Jones goes on to list in his submission. The local boys' secondary school is called Rongotai College and it proudly proclaims: Ko te Moana Raukawa ki te tonga (Cook Strait to the south) Ko te Motukairangi ki te rāwhiti (Miramar to the east) Ki te uru, ko Whataitai taniwha (to the west, Whataitai) Ko te Whanganui-a-Tara ki te raki (Wellington to the north) Kei waenganui ko te Kura Taitama ko Rongotai ( Rongotai in the middle) Jones said 'I am open to the idea of another te reo Māori name but do not pretend to be expert enough to suggest one. However, one thing that does connect much of the electorate is that it is near the coast or has a view of the coast… Therefore I suggest the name Wellington Bays.' Funny that, because Rongotai translates as the sound of the sea, or for that matter the coast. You can hear it in the bays. He says there is a precedent for the name with the Auckland electorate of East Coast Bays. But unlike Wellington Bays, East Coast Bays is an actual and well-known name for that part of Auckland's North Shore. The second objector, John Jamieson, imaginatively proposed that Rongotai and its central neighbour be renamed North Wellington and South Wellington. Unlike Jones, the third objector, Craig Spanhake, had no reservations about suggesting Māori names. In addition to Wellington South and Wellington Suburbs, he put forward 'Te Waha o te Ika a Maui (means the mouth of Maui fish), Taputeranga (the centrally located island in Island Bay), Te Raukawa Moana (Cook Strait), and Paekawakawa-Motukairangi'. In its report, the Representation Commission said that it adopted the names Wellington North and Wellington Bays 'to more accurately reflect their current disposition and likely direction of future growth'. Name changes for a number of other electorates were rejected 'for reasons including lack of public awareness of the proposed name, lack of public feedback through the objections and counter-objections process' . So, on the strength of one name suggestion by a Pākehā man, and objections to the current name by two other men who are quite likely Pākehā, a commission comprising seven Pākehā men made the decision to discard the Māori name and replace it with a Pākehā one. The majority of commissioners are heads of government agencies, the chair is Judge Kevin Kelly and the government and opposition nominees are former MPs Roger Sowry and Andrew Little. There would have been one Pākehā woman, the government statistician, but she delegated the role to her deputy. Andrew Little lives in the Rongotai electorate and is a candidate for the Wellington mayoralty. The present members for Rongotai and Wellington Central, Green Party MPs Julie Anne Genter and Tamatha Paul, have launched a petition against the change and are looking for legal avenues to challenge it. The current mayor of Wellington, Tory Whanau, has endorsed the petition. Is it too late? I hope not. I'm a Pākehā male too, but it's bye bye Bays from me.
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Christchurch Ponzi scheme: $4m fraud by Tuiras unravels in court
Between May 2014 and May 2021, the couple's company, Ngākau Aroha Investments Limited, received more than $4 million from 61 investors who were promised returns. However, the reality of the situation was far from perception. Thomas, who is known as Alex, had no personal connection with Jordan or Robbins, and the Tuiras did not invest any of the funds, instead using it to fund their lifestyle and repay other investors. The couple's Ponzi scheme would eventually come crashing down after repeated requests from investors for the withdrawal of their funds, and in late 2021 the Serious Fraud Office came knocking on their door. Last week, Alex Tuira pleaded guilty to two representative charges of obtaining $4m by deception. On Monday, Aroha also pleaded guilty to the same charges. Court documents obtained by RNZ reveal the full story behind the couple's criminal enterprise. Alex Tuira claimed he was personally connected to former NBA player Michael Jordan. Photo / Getty Images The Tuiras According to court documents, neither Alex nor his wife Aroha have any formal qualifications or any experience in financial management, investment services or investing. The couple are Jehovah's Witnesses. They were closely associated with members of their respective communities in Christchurch. In 2019, Ngākau Aroha Investments Limited (NAIL) was incorporated, with Alex listed as the director. In May 2019, Aroha was added as a director. The couple each held a 40% shareholding in NAIL, with the remaining 20% split between their three daughters. NAIL's main source of income was via investors, although it was also hired by a small number of entities. Alex gave introductory seminars to encourage Māori to become debt-free and was also hired to provide 'governance mastery' and business advisory services. Alex's financial literacy seminars were pitched at a 'basic level' and were modelled on seminars he had attended by other public figures such as Robbins and American businessman and author Robert Kiyosaki. Court documents say the couple 'purported to operate an investment business out of Christchurch', offering investment opportunities, financial advice, and financial literacy training. 'Mr and Mrs Tuira presented a facade that they were successful and well-connected businesspeople who had the ability to invest funds and generate high returns. In reality, the defendants did not operate an investment business and did not invest any of the funds.' The couple's 'fraudulent stratagem' involved a 'continuous course of deceptive conduct'. 'As at the date of the first investment, the defendants' accounts were overdrawn. From the outset of the scheme, they relied on investor funds as their primary source of income.' Alex was described as the 'architect' of the fraudulent operation and 'face of the purported business'. 'He pitched investment opportunities to new investors to encourage them to come on board. He was the primary presenter and outlined to potential investors his personal 'proximity' to wealthy and successful individuals and access to opportunities to generate high investment returns.' Aroha was the 'primary source of contact' for investors once they had been 'recruited'. 'In addition to communicating about investments, Mrs Tuira regularly communicated with investors on a personal level to generate love and trust. Mrs Tuira also attended all the pitch meetings with investors, often prompting Mr Tuira to say certain things, and signed the various agreements alongside Mr Tuira.' The couple took advantage of relationships they had developed in the Māori and Jehovah's Witness communities. 'Their modus operandi involved presenting as a strong, loving whānau who embraced the principles and values of these communities. They welcomed investors, as friends and whānau, into their home.' The couple have pleaded guilty to two representative charges of obtaining by deception. Photo / RNZ, Nate McKinnon The pitch The Tuiras would arrange in-person meetings with prospective investors, often at their home. The presentation would often be accompanied by a PowerPoint which included 'high-level information' about their values and connections with 'wealthy and successful people' including Jordan and others. 'Mr Tuira showed pictures of himself with Tony Robbins and Robert Kiyosaki and described them as personal mentors. In reality, the photos were taken when Mr Tuira attended large seminars presented by them.' On several occasions, he told investors Indian billionaire Sanjiv Saddy was going to invest a billion dollars into the couple and their businesses. 'While Mr Saddy is a wealthy businessman based in India and was introduced to Mr Tuira on one occasion ... he never invested in NAIL or any other business associated to the Tuira family,' court documents state. Many of the investors had 'limited experience' with investing. 'As such, they rarely sought detail from Mr Tuira of how funds were to be invested and were satisfied by confirmation that the funds would be invested. Mr and Mrs Tuira used the promise of guaranteed high returns to encourage investment.' Alex would also mention specific investment opportunities to lure them in such as former All Black Joe Moody, who believed his funds were being used to build a sports stadium commissioned by Jordan. Other investors believed their money was going towards things such as housing projects, a dental firm and education. The couple would often pitch investments as 'time-sensitive' and only available to certain people. In a text to a couple in June 2019, Alex said he wanted to 'propose an opportunity' where he could do a 50% return in 16 months 'plus bonuses'. 'Everything is in contract form as appropriate. It is time sensitive and exclusive.' In November 2018, he told another investor that as they were part of the 'small immediate proximity' he wanted to keep them updated with opportunities. 'Right now we have our best investment deal on the table which is 6 months with a 15% Return on Investment. However because this deal is so awesome we only have a small window of opportunity to take it. So for this particular deal all paperwork would need to be complete by 4pm tomorrow. There is absolutely no obligation to take this offer, it is simply out of courtesy and love for you both that we are sharing this Arohapumau Aroha & Alex xoxo.' The spreadsheet The summary of facts says despite the couple representing to investors that NAIL was an investment business, at no stage during the period of offending, were genuine investments made. Rather, the funds were used in two ways – paid to other investors as purported returns on investments, and transferred into accounts operated by the couple and used to fund their families' day-to-day expenses. 'NAIL was effectively insolvent from 2017 onwards.' Between May 2014 and May 2021 the couple and or NAIL received $4.7m. Of that, $4m was from investors. From that money $1.4m was payment to investors, more than $500,000 went on travel, $478,000 on personal expenditure and $270,000 on rent. Other expenses included contractors, finance, consultants and vehicle expenses. The couple took several steps to disguise their offending, such as providing false information to their accountants and setting up a new company in 2019 called Power to Me Aotearoa Tapui limited (Power to Me) and telling investors that their outstanding returns were connected to shareholdings in a 'successful and promising business'. In April 2019, the couple's former accountant emailed the couple expressing concerns about the viability of their 'business activities'. 'This is of particular concern when looking at your investors and their returns, which appear to be funded (along with principal payments) by new investors. As we mentioned to you, while we realise this is not your intention, this could be perceived from an outside party (including your investors) to be a 'Ponzi Scheme' which is for all intents and purposes an illegal activity.' The summary of facts says the couple told their former accountant and his colleagues that Power to Me was a 'genuine business venture' and that money was being invested into it. 'In reality, Mr and Mrs Tuira were not conducting any genuine business activities and their only source of income was funds obtained from investors.' By mid-2021, the couple were receiving a large number of requests from investors for the withdrawal of funds. The couple tried to get new investments, but were unable to meet all of the requests. About the same time, they created a spreadsheet named 'here is the reality of our money 2021'. The spreadsheet had three tabs – investments received, investments made and summary. According to the pair's calculations they owed $7.9m to investors and creditors such as Finance Now, Q Card, Westpac and ANZ. Investors were given an array of explanations by the couple in their attempts to delay repaying them money including illness, delays with clearing funds and legal problems. 'These successful delay tactics meant the defendants were able to continue their offending over a number of years and assisted them in identifying further investors and soliciting further investments.' The SFO investigates In November 2021, the Serious Fraud Office announced they were investigating the couple following continued failures by the couple to respond to requests for funds to be withdrawn. In an email sent to some investors shortly after, seen by RNZ, Alex wrote that 'for a variety of reasons' the expected returns on their shareholding 'had not been realised to date'. 'That under-performance will be reflected in the value of your shareholdings. 'That has caused disquiet and lead to what are in our opinion unjustified aspirations against our good names and a complaint to the Serious Fraud Office' (sic). He said all such claims were denied. 'We are taking legal advice concerning initiating defamation proceedings. 'Although we have received a number of messages of support, others apparently regarded their share purchases as some form of personal guarantee of return (which was never the case) and the situation has deteriorated to a point where we no longer feel able to continue to work with some people.' The SFO's investigation would reveal the couple obtained by deception $3.9m from 55 investors including former Ngāi Tahu chairperson Sir Mark Solomon. In May 2023, the SFO announced it had charged the couple. The couple were due to go to trial last week. However, Alex pleaded guilty to his charges before it began and then, on Monday, Aroha did the same. The pair are due to be sentenced in November. – RNZ
