Lee Vandervis – lee@vandervision.co.nz

Today’s ODT has a concise and insightful summary of DCC unsustainable spending and the shutting down of reasoned debate. Pay-walled unfortunately for online readers.

My accurately quoted responses to the ODT this week were as follows:

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>

Date: Thursday, 19 March 2026 at 8:13 PM

To: Grant Miller <grant.miller@odt.co.nz>

Subject: Re: stifling of debate

Hi Grant,

Mayor Barker’s rulings on points of order did not just stifle debate but prevented my free speech representations on behalf of Dunedin citizens.

In my view false safety claims have been inappropriately used to push through the recent $24 million far-end Peninsula cycleway extension and the Albany street cycleway, both of which I listed as recent unaffordable nice-to-haves.

Inappropriate points of order ruled against me by Mayor Barker helped cement untrue safety claims about the latest $24 million Peninsula far-end cycleway extension to the Marae.

Mayor Barker allowed Cr. Garey’s misrepresentation of what I said regarding the latest $24 Million Peninsula far-end cycleway extension to the Marae as a safety project in the face of NZTA specifically refusing to co-fund this project because it did not meet NZTA priority criteria for safety or for traffic volume.

For Mayor Barker to take Cr. Garey’s part and refer to the whole of the Peninsula cycleway project as a safety project was inappropriate when I was listing recent DCC spending decisions and the $24 million cycleway extension to the Marae.

In any case there is no reason why a nice-to-have project can not also be a safety project as these categorisations are not mutually exclusive. Surely safety projects are also nice-to-have, especially if lots of other people are paying for these nice-to-haves in your area.

In my view the Cr. Garey ‘safety’ points-of-order were needlessly interrupting and vexatious with Mayor Barker’s rulings against me an ill-considered use of Mayoral powers.

Regarding ‘picking on DCC departments’, some departments appear to me to perform much better than others, and a few departments, for example the zero carbon team appear to have outlived their usefulness as zero carbon is now embedded throughout the DCC.

When faced with a dramatic need to limit rates rises to 2%, some serious picking on departments and reducing their costs is now necessary to reduce our unsustainable operational spend.

Mayor Barker’s response that “On reflection, I acknowledge I could have handled the situation with Councillor 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 (the perils of receiving two vaccines the day before!) but I’ll take this on board for future meetings.” presupposes that there was ‘a situation with Councillor Vandervis’ when the actual situation was with vexatious points-of-order from Cr. Garey that should have been rejected by Mayor Barker, whether she felt unwell or not.

Seemingly encouraged by Mayor Barker’s upholding Cr. Garey’s nice-to-have point-of-order, Cr. Garey managed to successfully land another point-of-order when I noted the extraordinary business experience and success of our two multimillionaire businessmen Councillors Lund and Simms and how they both agreed with me that current Council spending on nice-to-haves was unsustainable.

Mayor Barker’s “my view was that the comments made were not respectful of other Councillors.” seems absurd when I made no comment of other Councillors when noting the stellar financial and business growth achievements of Councillors Lund and Simms.

Mayor Barker’s additional comment that she was somehow in a similar financial experience league to Councillors Lund and Simms ‘because of the success of Barker family’ was laughable on several levels, with the continuing 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.

Rather than perjure myself with a Mayoral demanded apology and retraction, I chose the only other option available – to quietly pack up and vote with my feet.

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

Cheers,

Lee

From: Grant Miller <grant.miller@odt.co.nz>

Date: Wednesday, 18 March 2026 at 2:42 PM

To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>

Subject: stifling of debate

Hello,

I’m continuing to work on a longer-form piece about the March 4-5 budgets meeting. It is principally about the “nice to have” ruling on the point of order and staff sensitivity to scrutiny, and a bit about the stadium. This is now intended to run this coming Saturday.

The one regarding comments about staff relates to councillors getting a bit of a caution on March 5 about “picking on departments”.

The mayor has conceded she was wrong about the nice-to-have matter, but stands by her next ruling about disrespect. Cr Garey basically deflected to the mayor.

The mayor got back to me to say:

On reflection, I acknowledge I could have handled the situation with Councillor 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 (the perils of receiving two vaccines the day before!) but I’ll take this on board for future meetings.

The Peninsula Connection has always been classified as a safety project, but I accept that Councillor Vandervis has his own opinion, and it is never my intention to stifle debate.

On the second matter, Standing Orders (19.2: Disrespect) are clear, and I can only put this down to feeling unwell on the day (the perils of receiving two vaccines the day before!) but I’ll take this on board for future meetings.

We have a duty to act as good employers, and our ability to deliver on this affects our ability to attract and retain talented staff to work for the benefit of our city.

Staff are an incredibly valuable asset for council and it’s vital to treat them with respect while ensuring that we have the right structures in place to deliver Council projects and services as effectively as possible.

What do you make of that?

Will you be seeking assurances free speech will in future be respected?

Was the other one about disrespect fair enough? What about the request from the mayor that you apologise?

Did you catch up on what happened with councillors being reminded to respect the staff? If so, any thoughts about that?

Re Cr Garey:

Among her thoughts: It is an established fact, not an opinion, that Peninsula Connection/ Te Awa Ōtākou completion is a safety project – hence my point of order.

I replied that stating a fact does not disqualify somebody else from expressing an opinion. She again deflected to the meeting chair.

Cr Garey also said: The importance of being a good employer was noted too and can not be underestimated.

There is provision under the LGA to have discussions around staffing roles / levels but doing so in public and in the way it was done, is totally unacceptable and totally unprofessional.

How would you respond to Cr Garey’s comments?

Anything else you would like us to bear in mind?

I’m hoping to receive a response from you before Friday. I’m looking to write the bulk of the article tomorrow.

Regards,

Grant Miller

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>

Date: Friday, 20 March 2026 at 2:23 PM

To: Grant Miller <grant.miller@odt.co.nz>

Cc: nicholas.smith@xtra.co.nz <nicholas.smith@xtra.co.nz>

Subject: Re: stifling of debate

Ta for your interest Grant.

I suspect that the issue with my Lund/Simms ‘most successful business people by far’ comment is that many Councillors are aware at some level of their inadequacies in dealing with budgets in the hundreds of millions, and positive reference to those on Council that have this budgetary expertise and experience may have highlighted some insecurities.

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 accumulation of interruptions, false accusations and points of order being ruled against me by Mayor Barker, meant that there was no point in my trying further to debate the unsustainable budget issues, with many Councillors in denial about nice-to-haves, and in denial regarding the warnings from new Councillors with long and deep experienced of controlling multimillion dollar budgets.

I have not received any apology from Mayor Barker.

Cheers,

Lee

From: Grant Miller <grant.miller@odt.co.nz>

Date: Friday, 20 March 2026 at 11:05 AM

To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>

Subject: Re: stifling of debate

Thanks for that.

I have a couple of things.

I suspect the issue with the Lund/Simms comment was saying they were the most successful business people at the table “by far”, creating a comparison potentially disrespectful to others who may have felt successful. I bring that up because of your statement that you made no comment of other councillors. Did you want to tweak that? Anyway, asking for an apology seems disproportionate, doesn’t it?

I wondered if the final point of order prompted you to walk out, or if it was more the accumulation of two or three.

And can I assume you’ve received no apology from the mayor?

Regards,

Grant Miller

odt.co.nz

Council debate — when things get out of hand

A councillor tired of being interrupted walks out. The mayor warns councillors it is “not OK” to pick on departments. Has debate been stifled at…

In 18 years as a Councillor and often Mayoral runner-up, I have done all I could for the ratepayer in the meeting, and then voted with my feet when it became pointless to stay…

On average only once every 3 years and never with reasonable Mayor Radich.

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/walked-out-or-kicked-out-six-times-vandervis-left-meeting-early?fbclid=IwY2xjawQVxzdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETE5RnEzSmV1ZHVaYXBBMmVTc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHvsOAQlUwN3QDG0nNPiSL3-nq6eZ9XS1Sv83X2kLtvskLLiXXYBkBkjOVLjV_aem_ZHg0h2uTelJj3qyIY5BRvA

Today’s full speech that Mayor Barker and other’s repeatedly interrupted and eventually silenced…

This data shows how NZ Councils have become unaffordable unsustainable bureaucracies since they deviated from providing basic services.

Not just rates but unprecedented debt…

ORC or not ORC? That is the question.
Whether it is better to suffer outrageous ORC rates increases, wasteful regulatory bureaucracy and lazy leaseholds, or simply end them – is too big a challenge for Central Government whose answer is to amalgamate, legislate less costly compliance and add Mayoral oversight.

Otago Regional Council Chairperson Hilary Calvert’s suggestion [ODT 28/11/25] that Port Assets could be “stolen away” from the ORC to pay off another Councils’ debt are weasel words that deny logic, justice and history.

Port and Harbourside land assets are not going ‘away’ anywhere as they have been reclaimed and developed by Dunedin’s ancestors for over a century before ownership was wrongly gifted to the ORC in 1989. 

It is the ORC that have been stealing the returns from Dunedin’s Port and Harbourside land from Dunedin for the last 35 years to fund their burgeoning bureaucracy.
ORC/Chalmers Property lazy leasehold of 400 Harbourside properties is one of the reasons that Dunedin has an undeveloped Harbourside with rotting wharves.

The ORC Chairperson’s statement that “The council’s new building in MacLaggan St was nearing completion and with the council set to disappear in two years, there was no time to waste over the future of the new offices.” also makes no sense.

Surely as an experienced businesswoman who accepts the ORC is set to disappear in two years, it would be much more efficient and less disruptive for the ORC to remain in their existing offices and complete their palatial Headquarters as new rentable commercial office space. 
This would give ratepayers an immediate rental return on the enormous MacLaggan street cost, and save the costs of transferring all the staff, office equipment and specific ORC communications installations to new temporary Headquarters. 

‘Land Grab’ characterisations from both Mayor Barker and DCC CEO Graham are also completely backwards, as our Port and Harbourside land was grabbed from us in 1989 and getting Dunedin land back is delayed justice, not a ‘grab’.

Because of ORC/Chalmers Property continued leasehold ownership, the ORC has also prevented development of Dunedin’s Harbourside while creaming $30 million annually just from Harbourside land rents. 

My successful DCC motion many years ago to get the ORC/Chalmers Property to freehold at least 50% of its Harbourside leases as a condition of DCC contributing $9 million to Harbourside Wharf reconstruction was unanimously voted for by the DCC, but later bizarrely rescinded with a push from then CEO Harland and Cr. Brown just prior to the end of the triennium.

ORC’s property arm Chalmers Property have not developed our best South Island natural harbour to be the leading Port for the South, instead losing ground to Timaru and earthquake-vulnerable Lyttelton with its sole tunnel freight access. 

Dunedin’s Port is central to most of the South Island’s export volumes of timber and dairy production and should have been developed with Inland Ports and better rail connections.

This could have made Port Chalmers the main South Island Port for the new much larger containerships now being built which will want to make only one stop for the South Island.

ORC Port inefficiency in a constrained Port area has been worsened by failing to organise Inland Ports which have been talked about for 20 years. 

Inland Ports provide space to pre-assemble ship-loads for mostly rail delivery and quicker cheaper ship turnaround, with the added benefit of reducing SH 88 truck movements to Port and the need to stockpile goods in the restricted spaces available in Port Chalmers.

The ORC Port property arm also pay themselves extraordinary management salaries confirmed in last year’s annual report with 14 managers being paid over $250,000 annually and up to a top salary of over $840,000.

My past suggestions of further Port and Harbourside reclamations that have been so valuable in the past have been barred by Iwi and environmentalist obstruction, making Inland Ports even more of an economic necessity.

Progressive Ports like Napier have long developed 3 Inland Ports efficiently facilitating NZ’s 2nd largest Port export volume after Tauranga.

Green Party Regional Councillor Alan Somerville has argued against ORC demise in his ODT opinion 3/12/25 where he makes a case for keeping a modified ORC regulatory bureaucracy, citing big catchment regulatory needs across boundaries like the Clutha river and added environmental regulations, neither of which Dunedin needs.

I do agree with Cr. Sommerville that “Whatever is settled on for local government organisation, it should be enduring.” and that “Port Otago must remain in public ownership.”

With sweeping changes also being made to the Resource Management Act and with the Draft Planning Bill, many of the Regional Councils’ stumbling block regulatory hurdles will hopefully reduce to free up businesses, reduce building costs and the excessive costs of local government generally.

Dunedin needs to be free of the ORC and to get back our Port and Harbourside land which must be changed to freehold to allow the development necessary for Dunedin to thrive.

Indebted DCC or not DCC?
That is the next question…

In my view and the view of most people I talk with, The Queen’s Drive trial is yet another unnecessary and excluding project from the DCC car-cancelling Council.

Queen’s driving through the green belt has long been the feature, and any additional features like speed humps, no parking signage and furniture expensively detract from the experience.

Public reaction so far has mostly been dismay or sad resignation.

The Queen’s drive car-exclusion trail is just another example of a virtue-signalling Council losing awareness of the needs and wants of the public they are supposed to serve.

Jules suddenly has gone.

Seems unfair and wrong.

Jules was decent and pleasant to everyone.

His experience and connections will be sorely missed on Council.

My heart goes out to Jules’ family and especially Pam who will have so much to cope with now.

Ta for all the good talks and candour Jules.

NZ Members of Parliament claiming expenses [in addition to their salaries] of more than 1/4 million dollars in a 21 month period is scandalous.

Unsurprisingly, spendthrift Maori, Labour and Greens MPs top the list

ODT election spending article

There was little point in my trying to compete with Andrew Simms’ massive advertising spend for the Mayoralty with his similar to me back-to basics policies, especially when much of this spend

was not counted before the insufficient 3 month pre-election notification period.

I am glad to have Andrew’s sensible spending vote and reasoned debate on Council.

I have long argued that DCC staff should not be involved in any aspect of local elections, since some of them have clear conflicts of interest, especially the DCC CEO who is effectively hired by the Mayor and Councillors.

I believe the actions of DCC CEO Bidrose in the run-up to the 2019 election changed the Mayoralty result to the detriment of Dunedin.

Elections should be run by the Electoral Commission with staff independent of Dunedin and Dunedin Council bureaucracy.

Council bid for legal costs fails in election sign dispute

Dunedin’s highest-polling councillor has welcomed the failure of a Dunedin City Council attempt to recover legal costs from him following a dispute over local election signage rules.

The councillor said the outcome reinforced the importance of fair process, transparency, and the right of candidates to question council decisions without fear of personal financial penalty.

The dispute arose during the local body elections, when differing interpretations of election sign rules led to legal proceedings. After the case concluded, the council sought to pursue the councillor personally for its legal costs — a move that was ultimately unsuccessful.

Observers say the decision helps clarify boundaries around election enforcement, and reassures future candidates that participating in local democracy — and standing up for their rights — should not come with undue personal risk.

The outcome has renewed discussion around how election rules are applied and the need for consistent, proportionate enforcement that supports democratic participation while maintaining clear standards.

Scenic Drive, Queens Drive and the pleasure of driving in Dunedin have long been eroded by our car-cancelling Council evidenced by the planet-saving ‘transport’ staff the previous head of which said ‘We have got to get people out of their cars otherwise the planet will burn’.

The pious planet-savers and selfish cyclists have cost us hundreds of millions with their virtue-signalling projects that have done nothing to save the planet or make any difference to transportation safety that better technology was not making anyway.

The systematic spreading of speed humps and sidelining of our most-used car transportation mode in favour of cycling has been a financial failure as well as failing to increase cycleway use as DCC data shows below.

 our car-cancelling Council have been working towards removing access for travel and parking along Queens drive and the centre city for many years.

We lost parking near Olveston for no reason and without consultation several years ago and the restriction of two way to one way and then many new horrendous speed humps have already limited Queens Drive car access and use.

All this in the name of safety when there have been no fatality our injury issues that staff could give evidence for.

We have a real problem with DCC car-cancelling staff with the previous head of transportation Mr Sargeant advising full Council that “We have to get people out of their cars or the planet will burn.”

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Friday, 21 November 2025 at 5:24 PM
To: Sophie Barker <Sophie.Barker@dcc.govt.nz>
Cc: Cherry Lucas <cherry.lucas@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: Council Roles

Hi Sophie,

Thank you for reconsidering Chair and Portfolio roles and offering me these two.

I accept the Co-Chair with DM Lucas although I am concerned that this may leave the deputy ‘role’ open which could be problematic. This was one of my reasons for wanting to fill the  Chair position alone with DM Lucas filling the deputy ‘role’. 

Chair alone would be preferable as I do not see the point of a co-role, but given you may have oversight reasons for this beyond my understanding, I accept your co-role with DM Lucas but I would not accept the role with anyone else. 

I am happy to also accept the Portfolio Lead CCOs with DM Lucas as deputy particularly because my unique two decades’ experience of our CCO’s is relevant to their sub-optimal performance now, and because I have established a candid and positive relationship with the new external DCHL directors employed [unfortunately much later than the Larsen report suggested] giving some hope long-term for CCO performance.

Thank you for including the Larsen Report in a previous email to all Councillors as it was comprehensive, insightful and prophetic in my view.

I do hope all Councillors will read it despite and even because it was written so many years ago.

Will you make these Council Role changes above public soon? I assume they are confidential until you do. 

Kind regards,

Lee

From: Sophie Barker <Sophie.Barker@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Friday, 21 November 2025 at 4:14 PM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Subject: Council Roles

Hi Lee

I have considered the Chair and Portfolio roles.

Would you consider Co-Chair of Finance and Performance Committee with DM Lucas?

Plus a portfolio lead CCOs with DM Lucas as deputy.

Please also be advised the Finance and Performance Committee would be one of the committees that may have mana whenua representatives on as per the 2022 Relationship Agreement signed by Mayor Radich last triennium. I have attached the agreement.

Kā mihi

All the best

Sophie Barker
Mayor of Dunedin

Te Koromātua o Ōtepoti

I am grateful to Deputy Mayor Lucas for negotiating with Mayor Barker for a position of actual responsibility for me, with Chair of Finance and Performance agreed as my minimum acceptable role.

It was a week later that Mayor Barker finally sent me an email asking me to consider new roles that would allow me to contribute significantly to Council decision-making and Dunedin’s development.

Although these were not the roles of Chair of Finance and Chair of Heritage Fund that I had requested, Co-Chair of Finance with DM Lucas and Portfolio Lead of Council Companies were roles that I believe will allow me to contribute my long Council and business experience to help achieve better results from our Companies and ensure transparency of Finance issues.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/579884/serious-shake-up-of-local-government-imminent

Part of this article accurately summaries some of my views as follows:

Among the criticisms before a recent council meeting were that much responsibility lay with Ms Barker and deputy mayor Cherry Lucas, especially chairing meetings. Other Councillors were “sidelined” or under-used.

Ms Barker said it was usual for the mayor and deputy mayor to have a high workload.

Cr Andrew Simms had been assigned deputy lead of the economic development portfolio and the top-polling councillor at the election was minded to turn this down.

A deal before the meeting elevated him to joint leadership with Ms Barker. Credit for the compromise belonged with the mayor, he said.

Experienced councillor Lee Vandervis was far from content with the overhaul and turned down deputy roles — resulting in a pay cut. In the past, competition for committee chairing posts had been an issue and now portfolio leads were being added, potentially making things worse, he argued.

An “all-encompassing muzzling clause” was how Cr Vandervis described a section of the proposed portfolio terms of reference.

Cr Russell Lund had taken issue with the same section — external communication protocol. He wanted it withdrawn and Ms Barker declined.

Then, as Cr Vandervis went through section 10 bit by bit, the mayor began to have doubts herself. Ms Barker said she had no intention of bringing in a muzzling clause for Councillors and so the section was dropped — it is to be rewritten next month.

I was surprised after our friendly discussions about changes to the Finance and Council-controlled Organisations Committee I had chaired for the past three years when she suddenly demoted me from Chair of Finance in the weekend with a text.

Mayor Barker denying her most experienced and second-highest polling Councillor from this Chair position or any of her seven new Portfolio Lead positions is the ugly politics of Mayoral exclusion power at play.

Why not accept a demotion to a deputy?

I was the deputy Chair of Infrastructure many years ago for 3 years and remember it as being a do-nothing position that excluded me from Chairs’ meetings and other positions made available to Chairs.

Also surprising was already announced Deputy Mayor Lucas willingness to take the Finance Chair position as well as being awarded Chair of Hearings, Deputy Chair of Policy and Planning Committee, Audit and Risk Committee, and CEO Performance Committee when the Mayor had said what a big job the Deputy Mayor position was and awarded her an unprecedented $145,008 per year salary.

All this makes a mockery of Mayor Barker’s claims to distribute workload and remuneration equally and allow experienced Councillors to lead the way for newer Councillors.

This was the text message – “Deputy Chair of Finance as discussed” is untrue.

In the minutes before the confirming Tuesday Council meeting Cr. Simms, who was front page ODT reported as refusing to accept his deputy position on Saturday, managed somehow to get his deputy ‘role’ changed to Co-Chair with Mayor Barker.

Today’s ODT front page Chairs story relegates my sidelining by Mayor Barker to page 3 as follows:

My comment to the ODT usual DCC reporter Grant Miller after the Council meeting was as follows:

For the record, Mayor Barker led me to believe that I would maintain my previous Chair of Finance role and sent me the revised Christchurch City Council model for Chair of Finance to see if I approved of it, which I did.

Mayor Barker has now given the Chair of Finance to already overloaded Deputy Mayor Lucas who also got Chair of the Hearings Committee making a mockery of Mayor Barker’s claim to distribute workload evenly and allow experienced Councillors to lead the way for newer Councillors. 

By only offering me empty deputy roles, Mayor Barker has prevented any Chair or Portfolio Lead leadership from me and sidelined me as she attempted to do with Cr. Simms who was just this morning able to negotiate a compromised Co-chair with Mayor Barker for Economic Development. 

I had also asked Mayor Barker to consider me for the Chair of the Heritage Fund which I had successfully conducted for several years in the past, but Mayor Barker has taken that role for herself, claiming to do this temporarily for continuity.

I had approved of Mayor Barker’s intention to pay Councillors equally which has also not happened.

My loss of remuneration resulting from being sidelined by Mayor Barker means I am the only Councillor earning the basic $84,000 minimum, and all other Councillors have benefited from my loss by having their annual salary pushed over $100,000.

Kind regards,

Cr. Lee Vandervis

I am disappointed that the DCC media release quoting Dr. Hazelton claims that  “As with any significant construction project, some minor repairs are needed in the first year following its completion and a few issues have been identified that need our attention”.

A brand new set of pavers in George street should last for many years if not decades and should not require ‘minor repairs’ in the first year in my view. I can’t imagine the Romans tolerating paver replacement after only one year!

The DCC statement also fails to make clear who is paying for paver replacement work in a variety of areas which I believe should be paid for under warranty by Isaacs who were the lead contractor.

campaign spending rules, STV confusion and postal voting lack of scrutiny, and lower voter engagement despite the STV and Postal voting that was supposed to increase voter engagement.