In recent weeks there has been disturbing and escalating coverage of the ‘toxic culture’ that exists within Auckland Council, even managing to recently embroil the popular Ponsonby News. In one earlier instance Councillor Christine Fletcher, a former Member of Parliament and mayor of Auckland City, said she’d been called a ‘f-----g b---h ’ and a “f-----g fat b---h” by another elected representative.
By any measure this amounts to appalling behaviour – repeated foul-mouthed abuse of a female councillor. If it had occurred in any other workplace the perpetrator would have been facing serious disciplinary proceedings, if not dismissed already. Instead the individual responsible remains both protected and enabled within the council hierarchy and there have been no consequences. That sends a chilling signal for the balance of this term, in effect that some people can literally do or say whatever they like. Other female councillors who’ve also complained about bullying have been told to ‘toughen up’ or more crudely, to ‘grow some,’ by so-called colleagues.
If it were limited to this repugnant behaviour that would be bad enough but it actually goes beyond this. Last month I wrote to the CEO detailing a ‘chairs’ meeting at Auckland Council in June where some of the chairs of council committees signalled their intention to target councillors who had voted against the record rates increase and ‘to make an example of them’. In effect to potentially remove services and projects from the areas those councillors opposing the rates increase represent.
Since Auckland Council’s inception members have been free to vote however their conscience dictates, without fear of retribution and secure in the knowledge council planning and funding processes are treated with objectivity and fairness.
What was being openly advocated at this meeting, however, amounted to little more than a political predetermination to target individual councillors and their communities. If effected, such conduct would impact significant numbers of Aucklanders who, for whatever else they might think, still assume their council’s decision-making is not motivated by personal or geographic malice.
The very notion that specific communities could be selectively punished is both unethical and abhorrent. In these circumstances subsequent calls for an independent Crown observer has merit. For one thing is very clear, no change will come from the current leadership or from those who seek to minimize or ignore such poor treatment of colleagues and members of the public.
For let’s just call this out for what it is – bullying, misogynistic behaviour and a gross abuse of office that should not be tolerated – by any elected member or by the Auckland public they are meant to serve.
John Watson
Auckland Councillor
