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…