Councillor continues to defend herself ahead of vote on whether she stays or goes

Wednesday, 10 June 2026

Councillor Lisa Austin, pictured with mayor Nick Smith, says it is “inherently wrong” for the council to be voting on whether to remove her from office.

A Nelson city councillor has labelled a vote on whether she should be removed from council “inherently wrong”.

The Nelson City Council will meet tomorrow to vote on whether Lisa Austin can remain a councillor.

But Austin is continuing to defend herself, stating she has done nothing wrong.

“Council is not like the Hunger Games where we get to kill each other off,” she said.

Last week, the council held a closed-doors extraordinary meeting of the audit, risk and finance committee to consider the “position of the Audit Office regarding members interests under the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968”.

Following the meeting, mayor Nick Smith said the committee had met to consider “any potential residual legal risks following the decision of the Auditor General not to institute proceedings against Councillor Lisa Austin under the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968”.

The matter will be decided in another closed door meeting of the Nelson City Council on Thursday.

Smith declined to comment ahead of the meeting, but previously said the matter remained legally privileged.

Lisa Austin was sworn in as a first-term councillor in October.

“Council asks that the confidentiality surrounding this issue be respected until it is resolved. We recognise it is a matter of significant public interest and will make a public statement following the decision.”

The issue first came to the fore in May when the Audit Office said it was considering prosecuting Austin, who was elected to the council for the first time in October.

The issue arose over concerns about Austin and her husband’s business, Austin Transport Tippers Ltd, which supplied trucks for council contractors on set rates, but did not contract directly with the Nelson City Council.

The Local Authorities (Member’s Interests) Act 1968 sets rules for the financial interests of elected members with “concerns or interested” in contracts with a local authority amounting to more than $25,000 in a financial year.

The council’s summary of member’s pecuniary interests lists Austin as “subcontracting to Council contractors through tipper truck services”.

The act said elected members could seek approval for their non-disqualification from the auditor-general. But, when the council applied for an approval for Austin the office declined, because the earnings occurred before she was elected.

The office also said it was deciding whether to prosecute, and that she could be dismissed from the council.

The Audit Office then wrote to the council saying they had decided not to prosecute Austin, as it would not be in the public interest.

In a statement to the Nelson Mail at the time, the Audit Office said the Act provided that contracts with the council can make candidates ineligible for election, or, if they are elected, disqualify them from office.

“Any further steps in relation to Ms Austin are for the council. The council is responsible for complying with the Act and responsibility for its own decision-making processes remains with the council.”

Following that decision, Austin accused councillor Aaron Stallard of trying to “oust” her from office.

Smith defended Stallard, saying he was not trying to oust Austin, but was “responsibly performing his role as a councillor in seeking to understand and mitigate the risk that this issue brings to the council organisation, as we all are”.

Ahead of Thursday’s vote, Austin has continued to defend her position, stating the law does not disqualify her from office, because her company does not contract directly with the council.

“Being a service supplier of hire trucks to a council contractor is too far removed to be covered by the Act,” she said.

“It is also my position that I have consistently disclosed all my interests appropriately.”

It was “inherently wrong” for the council to be voting on Thursday, she said.

“The Auditor General decided it was not in the public interest to issue court proceedings, and had he done so, I would have had my day in court and vigorously defended myself.

“It is so wrong that Council is now going to vote on getting rid of me without any court or judicial process.”