Ray Chung’s downfall: Anatomy of a failed election campaign

Saturday, 1 November 2025

It was a campaign so dogged by controversy that it arguably cost Ray Chung any shot at Wellington’s mayoralty and tarred like-minded council candidates as unelectable by association. Fergus Goodall Smith looks at how Independent Together’s 2025 election run went off the rails.

For a man who promised to lead Wellington to better financial prosperity, Ray Chung is surprisingly in the dark about key details of how his mayoral campaign was run.

In particular, how much money was raised, how much was spent and where it was spent.

He tells The Post he was “never across the finances at all”.

Wellington council wards have a spending cap of $30,000, apart from Southern/Paekawakawa, which is $20,000. The cap for a mayoral candidate is $60,000. In Chung’s situation, spending caps don’t compound when running for both the mayoralty and a ward seat - it’s the higher of the two figures.

He is unsure what his situation will be on December 10 - the legally mandated deadline for candidates to submit electoral donations and expenses.

“It’s a terrible place to be where you don’t know what you’ve spent,” Chung says.

Chung’s Wellington City Council mayoral campaign started with promise. He was the surprise package at the 2022 election, garnering more votes for the mayoralty than expected and securing a spot as Wharangi/Onslow-Western Ward councillor.

This time his bid for the top job was different. He had the financial backing of Better Wellington - a sort-of ratepayer lobby group that has publicly criticised council spending and decision-making, led by political PR operative Glenn Inwood and with well-known publican Alistair Boyce as spokesperson. Prominent property developer Vlad Barbalich emerged as one of the main financial backers.

From that emerged political grouping Independent Together (IT), which was Chung and initially others seeking council seats, although the exact relationship between two groups remains uncertain. The operation looked slick, organised and well-funded - three key ingredients for success.

But the cracks began to show immediately.

When challenged Chung struggled to explain how one of IT’s key pillars - zero rates rises - would be achieved. The biggest cost-saver he pushed was selling the council’s social housing portfolio to the Government - a decision ultimately out of the council’s hands.

The campaign was further bogged down in controversy after being found to be sharing misinformation about rival mayoral candidate Andrew Little, and the revelation of a dossier on Labour rivals that labelled mask-wearers “Covidians”, criticised candidates’ partners and painting pro-Māori views as extremist.

Then there was the release of a lewd 2023 email Chung wrote about then mayor Tory Whanau, detailing an alleged “night of debauchery”. Chung dug in, saying he was the victim of a smear campaign.

But it caused a ripple effect, with candidates Lily Brown, Dan Milward and Andrea Compton quitting IT and public heckling at the group’s zero rates roadshows.

Chung’s campaign manager claimed she was intimidated by Little during The Post’s mayoral live debate ‒ but photographs and eyewitness accounts appeared to contradict her claims. Candidate Diane Calvert, who witnessed the exchange, said it was Rhonda Fitzpatrick who approached Little and appeared “agitated”.

The relationship between Independent Together and Better Wellington finally collapsed in the final weeks before the election.

When a Better Wellington social media post in mid September referred to councillor Rebecca Matthews as a“retard” and a “grift monkey”, Independent Together candidate Paula Muollo said they had been “flying solo” from Better Wellington since the roadshows due to the nature of the campaign trail. They were being tarnished by associates who they had “nothing to do with” any more, she told The Post at the time.

In the washup, Chung narrowly held on to his council seat and none of the Independent Together candidates were elected (Compton was, but departed Independent Together in July).

And now the finger-pointing has begun.

Chung’s regrets

Chung says at the beginning of the campaign, he was happy not to have to worry about handling the funding.

“I didn’t want to be responsible because the people collecting the money have to work out the plans on how to actually spend it, [and] how you divide it up amongst the nine candidates. I thought, ‘well gosh, you know I have enough things to do without having to do that as well’.”

Chung says he’s still in the dark about how much has been spent. On the first night of the campaign back in July, IT received pledges of more than $150,000.

“I spent about $26,500 of my own money. But I don’t know [about IT] … and that’s the trouble. I don’t know how much my portion of the Better Wellington collection comes to.”

As the campaign progressed, communication between Chung and IT grew more confusing and complicated.

“It definitely got worse,” Chung says, when asked if anything changed in the weeks leading up to the election.

He says when IT started asking for money from each candidate for billboards that would go up around the city, it wasn’t easy to get information from them. IT also repeatedly mentioned that spending would be spread between nine candidates instead of six, even though three had dropped out just days into the official campaign period.

The Post has obtained an email sent to former IT candidates by Better Wellington’s Glenn Inwood. In the email, Inwood advises the candidates to “wait until you hear from us” before filing election expenses. “Some of our spending will have to be attributed to your campaign.”

In local elections, candidates are responsible for their campaign budgets. The law says it’s the candidate - not their campaign team or donors - who’s on the hook for every dollar spent.

Anything done to promote them, from billboards to Facebook ads, counts towards their spending cap if they knew about it or approved it. Candidates must file a detailed return of donations and expenses after the election, and if they overspend or fail to declare properly, they risk a fine or even losing their seat.

The Post spoke to former IT candidates, with some agreeing to talk only under the condition of anonymity. They said they feared retribution from Better Wellington if they spoke out, describing the group’s attack style as “toxic”.

Dan Milward, one of the three who dropped out early, confirmed he received the expenses email from Better Wellington, but wasn’t sure how much money would be apportioned to him “given I resigned only a few days into the official campaign period”.

The three who dropped out had already informed Election NZ of their estimated spend from three days as part of Independent Together’s campaign, which was $500 to $1000. They would reject Better Wellington’s efforts to attribute more money to them.

“I don't think any of us would feel comfortable. If multi-thousands of dollars were being put under your name for a campaign. We never signed anything. Never agreed to anything,” one said.

“I do not think it is reasonable or legal because we made it very clear we did not want to be on the advertising and did not benefit from it.”

Andrea Compton, another of the candidates who left IT, says “the results spoke for themselves” when it came to Better Wellington’s campaign behaviour. Compton eventually won a seat in the Takapū/Northern Ward as an independent, coming in third.

Electoral officer Warwick Lampp told The Post the matter was an internal issue between Better Wellington and the former candidates and the expense returns list was the only document he needed. If that wasn't provided by December 10, police could become involved.

Paul Heffernan, who is listed as Better Wellington’s advertising authoriser, says he has no knowledge of the email telling former candidates to hold off on declaring expenses.

Asked about candidates fearing retribution from the group, he says he is “very well known” and “that would never happen on my shift”.

“There are better things you could be doing with your time,” Heffernan added, before promptly ending the call.

Who knew what and when?

The candidates echoed Chung’s remarks about having had no oversight or idea of how much money was being spent by Better Wellington or Independent Together.

One claims no-one was even aware Better Wellington was behind Independent Together “until we brutally became aware of them” after the social media posts attacking opponents appeared.

Candidates say there has been a lack of transparency and they have been gagged from speaking to the media by Better Wellington.

The controversies around Chung’s inappropriate email and Better Wellington attacking other contenders were “soul-damaging” for one candidate, and it was at that point they decided to leave. “I was just so embarrassed.”

Chung’s attempts at an apology did not help. “It was like, ‘holy f…, can it get any worse?’ And it turns out, yes … we were out.” Another says their partner started being treated differently at their workplace, getting “weird looks” from co-workers.

One candidate says Chung could be easily influenced and overly trusting of people. Chung says he wasn’t afraid of Better Wellington. “No not at all, I’ve actually spoken up when I haven’t agreed about some things.”

The Post put the former candidates’ comments to Chung and asked whether they deserved an apology from him. “I can understand them feeling affected by it, and what that actually meant for them. Personally, they shouldn’t have felt people were judging them because of it.”

The Post attempted to make contact with Inwood multiple times to discuss the allegations of toxicity, but did not receive a response.

The campaign strategy

The IT campaign was largely run by volunteers, such as Karen Tonks, who Chung says worked on “speeches and strategies”, and Fitzpatrick. The latter was notably involved in the stoush with Little at The Post debate and described herself as Chung’s support person and chauffeur. Their bios don’t reveal any past election campaign experience.

The team also included Jeremy Verity, who Chung says organised “meetings, hoardings, and promotions”. Verity is a representative for Wadestown Voices, a community group opposing new cycleways in the suburb. Tonks, also seen on the “supporters” page of Better Wellington’s website, describes herself as a “creative” and “passionate Wellingtonian”. One of the former Independent Together candidates told The Post all of Chung’s speechwriting, including the apologies, was written and scripted by Better Wellington.

With donations of more than $150,000, could a more star-powered team have been assembled to assist Chung?

By comparison, Little’s PR was managed by Neale Jones, whose CV includes working for former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Little, when he led the Labour Party.

Better Wellington’s Alastair Boyce says the “Labour machine” could afford to pay people, whereas “we’re all just volunteers doing our best for Wellington”.

Little tells The Post he did not pay for Jones’ services, or any campaign strategists, instead having a team comprised solely of volunteers.

Chung says IT did consider a professional campaign manager, but the quotation was $350,000 - “beyond the funding that we had”.

The Post asked Chung who was in charge of financial oversight at Independent Together. “It was the Better Wellington people until it was passed over to the Independent Together people. But the Independent Together people didn’t have … oversight of how much funding was actually coming in.”

Boyce says there was a committee that “supported the candidates and paid for billboards, fliers, distribution, etcetera”. As for logging the returns of campaign expenses, Boyce says: “We’ve abided by the law at all times … and we know exactly where we stand in regard to our obligations.”

Boyce says he knew nothing about Chung’s concerns. “He should be talking to the campaign team. He’s in constant touch with them, and it’s totally unhelpful to conduct that discussion via The Post. It’s not necessary.

“The election’s over, the scrutiny needs to come on to the elected representatives in the council now - not the organisations behind the campaigns.

“We’re all volunteers and we’ve done our best for Wellington.”

Regarding a second shot at the mayoralty, Chung says it’s too early to say. “This job [as a councillor] isn’t as satisfying as previous jobs I’ve held. I’d like a job that gives me a lot of satisfaction. So I’ll consider it.”