Lee Vandervis – lee@vandervision.co.nz

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.

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.

In the DCC election run-up Mr Ong made many extraordinary claims including listed credentials on his website  https://www.benong.nz>meet-ben   that “I held Vice President and Associate Director roles at leading global banks- Royal Bank of Canada, Rabobank International, UOB Bank and Bank Sarasin-Rabo…” 
That is all I have recorded as a screenshot because Mr Ong’s site has only shown “Maintenance mode is on” since he was elected as a Councillor.
Despite many searches my many people including journalists from the Otago Daily Times, there is no evidence that Mr Ong ever been a Vice President of any leading Global Bank as he has claimed.

Today I have had the following confirmation from David Johnston of Rabobank NZ that in addition to his information that “Our records show that Benedict Ong was employed by Rabobank Singapore in the Mergers and Acquisitions team from 2007 to 2010.” that Rabobank Singapore HR confirmed “a Benedict Alvin Ong was employed as an Associate Director in the Mergers and Acquisitions team from 2007 to 2010.” Mr Ong’s claim that he held Vice President and Associate Director roles at Rabobank International, a Dutch multinational banking and financial services company [Wikipedia] remains unverified, but it is now established that he did hold an Associate Director role in one of over a hundred Rabobanks worldwide, this one in Singapore.

If Mr Ong can produce independent evidence that he held a Vice President role at any leading global bank – Royal Bank of Canada, Rabobank International, UOB Bank, or Bank Sarasin Rabo…  as he has claimed on his now inaccessible website, I will sincerely apologise to him for questioning his Vice President of leading Global Bank credentials.
Having established that Mr Ong’s work experience did include at least some much lower level banking experience, I still welcome Cr Ong as a new DCC Councillor and as one of the few Mayoral candidates to raise the issue of DCC Billion dollar debt during the election, which he also claims to have a secret solution to.

Millions of people work in international banks.

Mr Ong’s claims of having been a Vice President and Associate Director as below are decidedly not confirmed, on Google or anywhere else.

Lee Vandervis

I initially supported STV as promoted by Otago University Political Studies Professor Janine Hayward, as being more representative than the traditional First Past the Post system still used by the majority of NZ Councils.

My first decade of actually seeing the effects of STV and my personal investigations into STV including many questioning emails to Warwick Lampe of Electionsnz have completely changed my view.

I learned that the STV system we use in NZ was borrowed from a winner-only system and modified by two computer programmers at the NZ Department of Internal affairs to rank losing candidates as well as picking a winner.

The concept of taking people’s second preference votes into account was achieved by first taking the lowest polling candidates second preferences and bouncing them up to the next lowest polling candidate etc in a series of computer iterations and through arbitrary thresholds that ended up making subsequent to first preference votes very important in the final outcome.

I have repeatedly challenged Electionsnz to prove that this system is truly representative, after I found that this modified STV system boosts minority candidates and punishes candidates with strong views and supporters who tend not to cast second preferences.

Electionsnz have only confirmed that the they test the program before every election and that it gives consistent results, not confirming that it supplies truly representative results.

Major practical drawbacks of this modified STV system include:

1 – most people find having to rank large numbers of candidates daunting, rather than simply ticking the candidates they want under the traditional FPP system.

2 – Modified STV promotes minority candidates – this effect being approved by people like ex-Mayor Hawkins who has falsely claimed ‘that majority rule can never serve minorities’.

3 – Modified STV punishes candidates with strong views or policies, in favour of waffling or fence-sitting candidates.

4 – The computer programmers who modified the STV system setting thresholds and other parameters have moved on decades ago and nobody now can interrogate these parameters.

5 – When faced with a modified STV computer program that has significant complications and has many people arguing for and against, faith in our electoral system declines along with voter participation.

6 – There are few opportunities for scrutiny of this STV voting system, with voters expected to simply accept an end result from screeds of iterative number charts with subsequent preference votes bouncing all over them.

If we are to restore faith in our Electoral system, I suggest that Dunedin goes back to First Past the Post voting, that the $55,000 election advertising limit be extended to six months prior to the election to make it meaningful, and that Mayoral candidates not be allowed to aggregate many times the $55,000 advertising limit spending across many ‘team’ Council candidate supporters.

If not, we face a future where only multi-millionaires, or candidates funded by multimillionaires with ‘teams’ will have the best chance of becoming Mayor in Dunedin.

The reality is that money buys votes which is why we have the $55,000 limit.

The Electoral Commission should also remove DCC Council staff from all election-related roles, as DCC bureaucrats, especially CEOs have conflicts of interest because resulting Mayor and Councillors will be their direct employers.

This was strikingly seen in the run up to the 2019 Mayoral Election where DCC staff ran a smear campaign against me as the leading Mayoral contender where I still got the majority of First Preference votes, but lost to second preferences.

DCC staff publicly ruling on electoral signage and other electoral advertising issues again should only be done by independent Commission staff or contractors.

The Electoral Commission should run our elections with completely independent staff operating all the electoral roles currently run by DCC staff.

And lastly, the Electoral Commission should stop sending thousands of voting papers to students in Dunedin North for many years after they have moved on, as many of these papers are easily misused.

I have complained to the Commission for years about these voting papers floating around Dunedin North, having seen them piled up in University halls of residence common-room corners and other places.

To summarise, I suggest that we return to the traditional electoral system where people vote ticking just who they want in booths across Dunedin with scrutineers available in a simple First Past the Post system.

Also lacking credibility are most of the claims made by Benedict Ong in his Mayoral campaign speeches where his credential claims were so outlandish and vacuous that I had written him off as completely un-electable despite his extensive advertising, especially in the ODT.
When it appeared that Mr. Ong had provisionally won a Council seat I did some source checking on google, then Perplexity AI, then his website and finally his claim of now being a Dunedin resident.
None of his claims were able to be verified by independent sources, world-wide as follows:

Google:

“Meet Ben – BENEDICT ONG

benedict ong

https://www.benong.nz › meet-ben

I held Vice President and Associate Director roles at leading global banks – Royal Bank of Canada, Rabobank International, UOB Bank and Bank Sarasin–Rabo …

Missing: records ‎independent ‎online ‎sources ‎state

Home – BENEDICT ONG

benedict ong

In my former international banking career in Singapore, I was Vice President and Associate Director for leading global banks from Canada, Switzerland, the …

Missing: there ‎There ‎records ‎independent ‎online ‎sources ‎state“




AI Perplexity searches have found no independent records anywhere of Mr Ong’s claims to have been Vice-President or having senior roles in any of Rabobank International, Royal Bank of Canada, UOB, and Bank Sarasin-Rabo Asia as he has repeatedly claimed during Mayoral candidate meetings.

I have done several AI searches of all world information available from AI search engine Perplexity [but no doubt Grok and Chat GPT will be similar] and this is one of the specific  questions I asked and the result:

Are there any independent source records showing that Benedict Ong was Vice president of Rabobank International, Royal Bank of Canada, UOB, and Bank Sarasin-Rabo Asia?

There are records from independent online sources that state Benedict Ong held Vice President and Associate Director roles at Rabobank International, Royal Bank of Canada, UOB Bank, and Bank Sarasin-Rabo Asia, with all roles based in Singapore. These records appear on his official campaign and biographical pages, which outline his former banking career and experience. However, none of these records are primary third-party sources such as official company press releases, news articles from major outlets, or authoritative regulatory disclosures. The information available is based on personal claims and biographical summaries shown on independent platforms and his campaign websites, and does not include corroboration from the banks themselves or major independent industry publications.

Further Perplexity search on Ong’s residence claimed to be in Dunedin “Property Ownership and Addresses

• No publicly available or disclosed information on ownership of property in New Zealand.
• No publicly disclosed current residential address beyond the declaration that his principal residence is outside the Dunedin City Council area.
  
  Benedict Ong’s Google page is unavailable with the message that it is temporarily closed for maintenance.
  

This Benedict Ong site has been in maintenance mode all this week so far.

Independent Information

• Benedict Ong’s education credentials (Bachelor of Commerce in Finance, University of New South Wales) are independently listed in Dunedin City Council and official candidate profiles, consistent across multiple sources.​
• His candidacy statements and biographical sites repeatedly mention senior roles held at global banks, listing Rabobank International, Royal Bank of Canada, UOB, and Bank Sarasin-Rabo Asia as workplaces in Singapore; these are consistent with job titles (Vice President, Associate Director) detailed on official venues beyond his self-published claims.​
• No independent employment verification or third-party reporting (such as press releases, regulatory filings, or corporate HR records) are publicly available beyond these campaign and certification sources.​

What Remains Self-Attested

• All specific role details (responsibilities, projects, deal sizes, duration in roles) are based only on his own statements and campaign material.​
• There is no direct evidence (like third-party employment history, media interviews specific to his transaction leadership, or international news coverage of banking activities directly attributed to him) to independently verify the scope of jobs or experiences beyond general campaign or web biographies.​

Conclusion

His qualifications (education and former employment at major banks in influential roles) and candidacy for Dunedin Council and Mayor are independently stated and publicly acknowledged in official profiles, but the specifics of his international banking experience are only self-attested, with no third-party independently verifiable documentation evident in public records.​

Other concerns relating to Mr Ong’s behaviour have been appearing on social media e.g. on Cr Mayhem’s FaceBook page, and reported to me by other fellow Councillors.