South Waikato councillor rejects punishment, boss says too bad

Wednesday, 17 June 2026

Zed Latinovic, inset, says he will not accept the council’s censure, or participate in any further code of conduct complaint processes.

A South Waikato councillor censured for “offensive” comments and “disruptive behaviour” is adamant he won’t be accepting any punishment after twice breaching his council’s code of conduct.

But the council’s boss says that’s exactly what he signed up to when he was sworn in.

Councillor Zed Latinovic also said he will not participate in three more code of conduct complaints made against him saying the council had failed to engage with him properly, and “bypassed due process in the code of conduct”.

However, council chief executive Susan Law said issues over the process had already been resolved and the council had followed the rules.

South Waikato District Council chief executive Susan Law says a decision on Latinovic’s future involvement in the process was yet to be made.

“All councillors when they are sworn in sign the code of conduct, as did councillor Latinovic.

“As such, he has agreed to follow the process of those conduct complaints.”

She said decisions on Latinovic’s ongoing involvement in three further code of conduct complaints would not be made until preliminary reports had been received.

South Waikato deputy mayor Maria Te Kanawa continued last week’s code of conduct complaint meeting without councillor Latinovic after he and his supporters called the meeting a ‘sham’.

The latest three complaints were made by fellow elected members.

The nature of those complaints remain confidential to the parties involved but will be made public in the coming weeks.

Last Friday, the South Waikato District Council decided Latinovic should apologise to council staff, and undergo further training on the council’s policies and procedures, after an independent report found him to have breached the council’s code of conduct twice.

The cost to ratepayers for those investigations was $33,925.

However, Latinovic and his spokesperson on the day did not mount a defence, and pulled out of proceedings saying the process was a “sham” after being given 15 minutes to respond to the investigator’s report.

The meeting went ahead without them with all but one councillor - Dave Shaw - voting to censure him.

Latinovic said despite reaching out to mayor Gary Petley, and his council colleagues on numerous occasions, none had accepted his offer of a sit down meeting to resolve their problems, and was concerned about the ongoing costs to ratepayers.

“The conclusion reached was made through a process that does not reflect natural justice, fairness, or proportionality, therefore I don't find it valid.”

Latinovic said he said he would not engage with the independent investigator assigned to review the latest three code complaints.

“I'm very concerned about the cost to the ratepayer, and by me not engaging, I want to save ratepayers' money.

“I made myself available on multiple occasions to sit around the table and sort those issues internally … they just disregarded that … bypassed the process, and went into an investigation.

“They still have the opportunity to withdraw those complaints and sit around the table with me. I am absolutely available at any time for any internal conversation,” he said.

“I don't want to be burden to the ratepayer any more … and I won’t be resigning.”

Law said it was not up to her to decide if the council continued the process.

“Because the complaints have come from councillors, I don’t see how the council can pull out without express agreement from the complainants.”

Code of conduct consequences:

Breaching the council’s code of conduct can result in a range of penalties, with the most serious including loss of council roles, suspension from appointed bodies, or referral to outside agencies if laws have been broken.

Minor complaints can be dismissed, or resolved through an apology.

For material breaches, the council can censure a member, request a private or public apology, remove council-funded privileges, strip roles such as committee chair, deputy chair or portfolio holder, restrict access to council offices, limit dealings with staff, pass a vote of no confidence, suspend the member from committees or other bodies, or invite them to consider resigning.