Elected to vote, but banned from voting

Wednesday, 17 June 2026

Councillor Karl Tiefenbacher at the council table earlier this year.

James Ross is a spokesman for the Wellington Ratepayers’ Alliance.

OPINION: Long before he was a councillor, Karl Tiefenbacher told Wellingtonians the Golden Mile project was a bad idea. He stood for election on that view. Voters who agreed with that voted for him. And now, despite being elected on a mandate to oppose the Golden Mile, he’s been banned from voting on whether to scrap the project this Thursday.

Whether you agree with the $2750-per-household white elephant going ahead or not, (and while we’re declaring interests, I definitely do not), barring councillors from delivering on their mandates from voters is democratically bankrupt.

Council officers told Tiefenbacher that him owning a hospitality business on Courtenay Place meant he had a conflict of interest. The Auditor-General agreed, and Tiefenbacher lost his right to vote on the Golden Mile.

Read more:

Now for the sake of argument, let’s put aside whether someone who owns a hospitality business on the streets the Golden Mile project is set to tear up might have some genuinely useful insight into how the project is likely to further hollow out the capital’s CBD.

The simple fact is this: Voters knew Tiefenbacher opposed the Golden Mile. They knew he owned the cafés in question, as he very openly campaigned as “the ice cream guy”. He promised to deliver on scrapping the project, and they elected him. That is the mandate, and it matters.

Nobody wants councillors using public office to fatten their own wallets, and conflict-of-interest rules exist for good reason. But Tiefenbacher's interest here isn’t hidden or shady. It’s the same view he’s held publicly, and campaigned on, for years. Ruling councillors out on that basis doesn’t protect ratepayers from corruption. It just stops voters from having the representation they elected around the council table.

Tiefenbacher is far from the first councillor to be barred from delivering on their electoral mandate. It’s doubtful he’ll be the last.

Two years ago in Carterton, Councillor Grace Ayling made a submission to the council’s long-term plan consultation. She criticised spending on a cycle trail and an events centre, which were examples of exactly the sort of nice-to-have spending she’d been elected to oppose.

Ayling was excluded from deliberating on the 10-year budget, on the grounds that she’d already made up her own mind.

But democracy is supposed to be pre-determined, at least in part. Councillors tell voters what they believe to be right, seek election, and then deliver the reforms they’d promised.

We don’t elect councillors to arrive at every meeting empty-headed. And we certainly don’t pay bureaucrats to tell our elected representatives which of voters’ demands they’re allowed to deliver.

Across local government, there’s a growing habit of treating elected members as though they are judicial appointments rather than politicians. There is a difference between a conflict of interests and just having an interest in a matter. And we’re seeing that if councillors have previous experience with the matter at hand, overzealous officials seem more than happy to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, there are times when councillors have to act quasi-judicially. Resource consents and regulatory enforcement are a different kettle of fish entirely, and genuinely do require a blank-slate approach. But budgets, plans, and major infrastructure spending are unquestionably political debates. Councillors are elected to be political.

There will always be cases where councillors have to recuse themselves, such as during procurement decisions where commercial interests are at play. That is the right and proper thing to do, and in some cases the Auditor-General stepping in to protect ratepayers’ wallets is necessary.

Owning a café on a street the council wants to spend years tearing apart at a cost of $2750 per Wellington household isn’t in that category. Neither is writing a submission to a public consultation.

These two cases might be different, in that one hinges on a supposed financial interest and the other a political one. But the chilling effect on democracy is identical. It makes a mockery of local democracy.