A Tauranga councillor says he was required to enter a supervised room with no device, pen or paper to review documents related to the Mount Maunganui landslide inquiry.
By Ayla Yeoman of Local Democracy Reporting
Glen Crowther says it is one in a series of examples, before and after he was elected, where he has had trouble getting information from the Tauranga City Council.
In another, he said he was asked to pay $3500 for information another council provided for free.
It comes as the Government progresses a bill from National MP Stuart Smith, supported by Tauranga MP Sam Uffindell, seeking to make information gathering easier for elected council members.
In a council meeting on Tuesday last week, Crowther raised his experience with documents relating to landslide risks known before the slip.
The council was discussing its response to former High Court judge Paul Davison’s council-commissioned external review into the Mount Maunganui landslide tragedy, which claimed six lives in January.
Crowther told the meeting there should have been more transparency around historical documents and geotechnical reports relating to landslide risks known before the slip.
He referred to a wider council review of historical records undertaken after the landslide.
The council has previously said reviews of more than 150,000 documents were underway, covering a range of potential risks across the city rather than solely landslide issues.
Crowther said about 720 documents available on the council website amounted to roughly one-eighth of the documents provided to Davison and less than 0.5% of the nearly 150,000 documents the council reviewed.
"I've had to go into a supervised room without a device or without a pen and paper to look at [other documents]."
Crowther later said he reviewed five documents under those conditions after specifically requesting access.
He said one document he reviewed appeared relevant to questions about how information was escalated within the organisation, but declined to discuss its contents because it was subject to legal privilege.
Local Democracy Reporting last Friday approached the council for a response to Crowther’s comments but had not received a response by late on Tuesday.
Crowther earlier told Local Democracy Reporting that councillors did not have automatic access to all council information, and could not force staff to provide information.
He said he had struggled to get information about the Marine Precinct, water reform discussions, the 15th Ave/Turret Rd project, property-related matters, and matters connected to Mauao.
Marine Precinct information “took a couple of months”. He said even then, it appeared some information was withheld.
Crowther said being unable to access information, and the council’s main file system, left him at a disadvantage when residents expected answers from elected representatives.
He said he was not alleging the council had acted illegally, but believed elected members should have greater access to information held within the organisation.
He said that since being elected, some requests had still been treated like Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) requests.
He said he also found it hard to get information from the council before he was elected.
He requested information related to Cameron Rd Stage 1 works under the act.
After more than 20 days, “they came back and said, it’ll be $3500”.
He said he requested the same information from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and received it quicker for free.
"I thought when I was elected, 'Thank goodness, now I’m about to see what's really going on'. But then I still ran into some similar problems."
Anyone can request official information from a council under the LGOIMA.
Councils are generally required to provide the information unless there is a lawful reason to withhold it. They can apply reasonable charges.
An August report on the council’s LGOIMA and privacy requests for April to June 2026 said the council had handled 141 requests, including 128 under the LGOIMA.
The report said 82% of these requests were made by individuals, 11% by organisations and 7% by media organisations.
The council reported the requests consumed an estimated 818 staff hours at a cost of about $112,100.
The amendment
Smith, MP for Kaikōura, is behind a Local Government Amendment Bill seeking to make it easier for councillors to obtain information from their councils.
Smith said his motivation came from recognising that, in practice, significant authority rested with council chief executives rather than elected councillors accountable to their communities.
"The intent is to ensure that elected councillors can exercise the governance role that voters expect them to perform, while maintaining the operational responsibilities of council staff."
He said elected members had reported having information filtered, withheld, or being forced to use formal information request processes.
He said filtering of information could lead to systemic failure over time with significant financial, productivity, or even health and safety consequences.
Smith said he had received overwhelming public feedback supporting his bill – a "good proportion" of this from Tauranga.
If passed, Smith said the bill would strengthen democratic accountability by clarifying that governance responsibility rests with elected members.
Uffindell said the amendment aimed to give power back to elected members and get information to them.
He said councillors in multiple councils had trouble getting information from staff.
Uffindell said there were numerous examples across the country where elected members had to file LGOIMA requests.
He claimed information was being "withheld or filtered".
"To have council staff stymying them and withholding information or just refusing to give it is really insulting. Frankly it’s not good enough."
Uffindell said the bill would require elected members to be provided with the information they requested.
Staff act in good faith - council
Tauranga City Council strategy, growth and partnerships general manager Christine Jones earlier responded to the comments by Crowther and Uffindell made before last Tuesday’s council meeting.
She said council staff acted in good faith and strived to provide elected members with the information they needed to fulfil their governance responsibilities.
Jones said staff "make every effort" to do this fully and promptly, recognising the importance of timely information to support decision-making and enable elected members to respond to their communities.
"The suggestion that council staff are stymying elected members, deliberately withholding information or refusing to assist them does not reflect the approach taken by our teams."
She said there were limited circumstances where it would not be appropriate to provide particular information, including legal or statutory restrictions.
This included employment matters, privacy considerations, or circumstances where disclosure could prejudice the council’s legal position, such as during litigation.
She said these situations were relatively rare, and where they arose, staff clearly explained the reasons and any constraints to the elected member concerned.
"Ultimately, the council and its staff operate within the legislative framework that applies and will continue to do so should that framework change."
What’s next for bill
Submissions on Smith’s bill have closed. The Select Committee report is due in February, and would be followed by a second reading.
Smith said the bill was recognised by Act, Greens, Labour and NZ First at its first reading on August 5.
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
SHARE ME