Mayor Ben Bell, CEO Stephen Parry, and the only force that may be able to sort this mess out, Gore’s supernatural brown trout statue. (Image: Jason Stretch)
Mayor Ben Bell, CEO Stephen Parry, and the only force that may be able to sort this mess out, Gore’s supernatural brown trout statue. (Image: Jason Stretch)

PoliticsMay 16, 2023

So what exactly is Gore mayor Ben Bell accused of?

Mayor Ben Bell, CEO Stephen Parry, and the only force that may be able to sort this mess out, Gore’s supernatural brown trout statue. (Image: Jason Stretch)
Mayor Ben Bell, CEO Stephen Parry, and the only force that may be able to sort this mess out, Gore’s supernatural brown trout statue. (Image: Jason Stretch)

With NZ’s youngest ever mayor facing a no-confidence vote, it’s not always obvious what he’s alleged to have done. 

Less than a week after his 24th birthday, Mayor Ben Bell today faces the judgment of the councillors of Gore, who are expected to vote at an extraordinary meeting on a no-confidence motion. Were the motion to be carried, Bell would not be obliged to resign; the eight-vote margin by which he was directly elected in October is the vote that matters. But after a bumpy, sometimes ugly seven months since the election, it would amount to a fresh nadir. 

As the 10 elected councillors in the deep south prepare to vote – they’re also considering whether to urge central government to step in and barring the mayor from committees – the paramount, surprisingly opaque question is this: what did Ben Bell do? How is it that a “firestorm exploded”, as TVNZ Sunday put it, after he won office? Just what is it, exactly, that he stands accused of? Specifics are scarce. Answers instead lie somewhere in a swirl of broken relationships, toxic culture, and seething, deep-rooted enmities.

The mayor v the CEO 

At the heart of it all is a clash. A clash of approach, a clash of culture, a clash of personality, a clash of pretty much everything between the elected mayor and Stephen Parry, the Gore District Council CEO of more than 20 years. 

The pair had “a very strained relationship”, said Parry in March. “Trust has eroded significantly.” Mediation quickly fell apart. An intermediary was appointed, so that they didn’t have to meet directly. In April, an independent review was commissioned in the hope of resolving the standoff. That failed to pause the discord, however, and last week seven councillors urged Bell to resign.

But what was it all about? “The issue has been the mayor’s preference to take advice from others – and earlier offers of assistance were rebuffed,” was how Parry put it.

Zoomers, boomers and phone messages

A clash of generations, perhaps, too. “Things got off to a rocky start,” 60-year-old Parry said last month. After the election, he phoned the youngest ever New Zealand mayor “to talk through some transitional issues”, but didn’t get a reply to a request for “10 minutes of his time”. 

The response from Bell, speaking for his generation, though most of his generation aren’t the mayor: “He did call me but I didn’t see it. I don’t have any evidence he left me a voice message, either. When you’re a new mayor coming in you would kind of expect an email or a text.”

Complaints swiftly followed from council staff who claimed there had been a lack of communication on the part of the mayor, as well as an unwillingness to listen, with some saying it had adversely impacted their mental health. Others questioned his ability to organise his own time.

Councillors decry style

During a March council meeting when councillors worked through a timeline of the mayor-CEO relationship, Bell walked out. He was accused by one of believing he had “presidential powers”.

The young mayor was criticised for choosing to hire a personal assistant and for bringing her with him on a council-funded trip to Wellington. He later said he’d pick up the tab personally.  

The prospect of a no-confidence vote first emerged at the end of March, with one councillor lamenting a “very traumatic time”. Again, however, there was a notable absence of specifics. 

Murky, messy local networks

Ben Bell is a relative newcomer to Gore, having first struck success with a medical identity bracelet as a teenager in the tropical climes of Horowhenua. But he has a family link. And festering in the political soils of the south is some fascinating backstory – “family ties, allegiances and grudges that go back decades”, as Sunday put it. 

Ben Bell promoting his ‘Wellband’ in 2015.

Kristin Hall summed up the most tortuous and intriguing example this way: “Mayor Ben Bell’s mother is Rebecca Taylor, who used to work at the Gore District Council. Her employment ended last year with a legal dispute that cost the council more than $300,000 in legal fees alone. Rebecca now works for councillor Joe Stringer, whose partner is Ben’s former assistant, and they live next door to Ben. Rebecca works in the same office as councillor Robert McKenzie, who ran for council as part of a team with Joe Stringer and Ben. Rebecca was the campaign manager, and she’s influenced public opinion of her son since her exit from council.” And breathe. 

Ben Bell rejects any suggestion his run for mayor might be linked to what happened with his mum. “I haven’t come in trying to get rid of him [Parry] or to upset the council in any way,” he said.

A CEO under pressure, too

While Bell faces the wrath of councillors, Parry, whose contract was renewed a couple of days before the election, has his own vocal detractors. Doug Walker, a former chief financial officer at the council, told Sunday that there had been a culture of bullying and plotting at the council. He was of the view that Parry was “out to get me”. According to Newsroom there were questions around Parry “arriving unannounced on [Walker’s] doorstep in London”. Parry rejects the allegations.

An online petition calling for Parry’s resignation has collected more than 3,000 virtual signatures. Launched by resident Sean Burke, it decries the “efforts being made by a select few to oust our newly elected mayor … driven by a select few of the ‘old guard’ on council” and a “toxic, bullying culture”. Questions have been raised, too, about severance payments and accompanying non-disclosure agreements during Parry’s time in the role. 

Tracy Hicks, the seven-term mayor edged out by Bell in October, defended Parry as “professional, capable, competent”. He told Sunday that the CEO did not, however, “suffer fools gladly”.

Where does that leave us?

Something is rotten in the district of Gore. On that just about everyone agrees. Some say Bell is out of his depth. Others see ageism at play. To some, the mayor fails to understand how to work with council. To other, decades of faction-making and patronage are to blame. 

Ultimately, it comes down to culture and trust, ideas that are nebulous as well as critical. But in the absence of any serious and substantial allegations against Bell, is it enough to demand a directly elected leader resign? Do not mistake red mist for a smoking gun.

Keep going!
a microscope and two test tubes, one with a tree inside, against a green and blue backdrop
Image: Tina Tiller

OPINIONScienceMay 15, 2023

The research sector needs investment now – for the good of our planet and people

a microscope and two test tubes, one with a tree inside, against a green and blue backdrop
Image: Tina Tiller

The government must stop kicking the can down the road and deliver the long-promised increase of R&D investment in Thursday’s budget, writes Nicola Gaston.

With many others in the scientific community, I will be watching the government’s budget announcements closely for details of the Te Ara Paerangi – Future Pathways process to reform New Zealand’s science and research infrastructure. The road map outlined in the white paper released last year told us to expect announcements on fellowships and research priorities to guide the direction of future investment.

What is a research priority, you may ask? Well, that is to be seen, but in essence they have been framed as areas of strategic importance to Aotearoa New Zealand, into which new government investment in research, science and innovation (RSI) will be directed. One obvious example to me – in the wake of the most recent state of emergency in Auckland – is climate change. Another might be in health, and particularly health equity, with the different health outcomes for Pākehā, Māori and Pacific New Zealanders having been repeatedly mentioned by Ayesha Verrall, the minister of health as well as research, science and innovation, as being unacceptable.

So in some sense, priorities are easily identifiable. On the other hand, the more easily we can identify them, the more likely they are to be areas where the scientific research has already made the case for them. I have said before in responding to government budgets that the scientific community should look for and celebrate budget decisions that implement scientific advice, as much as we should look for new funding for science. The mounting infrastructure debt – a deficit of infrastructure investment – exacerbated by the effects of climate change is one such area; similarly, direct and targeted investment into the health system is probably the best way of improving health equity. Government priorities are not exactly the same as research priorities, no matter how important they are.

So what do we need research priorities for? 

The need to guide new government research investment is one of politics, in a way – if research funding is to be increased, goes the argument, the public must be given an explanation of what the money is for. And I hardly disagree with this – transparency of our research funding system is very important. But while I call it an issue of politics, it is also a very apolitical problem.

There is a longstanding bipartisan expectation of new investment to move the dial towards the current government’s goal of increasing R&D investment to 2% of GDP. As the National Party first pointed out in 2019, there’s a year-on-year deficit of $150 million of investment accumulating while the government fails to act, and that deficit lies behind the need for the Te Ara Paerangi reforms to lead to significant investment. 

Successive governments have agreed on the principle that increased funding in research, science and innovation is needed for economic diversification and development. The National Science Challenges, established under Steven Joyce as minister of science and innovation, were a first attempt to move the dial. However, the attachment of new funding to research priorities proved in that case to limit the capacity of the research sector to absorb the intended new funding. The need to create new structures through which the funding could be delivered had a massive overhead – and I say this as someone who very strongly admires the teams of researchers who rolled up their sleeves and got on with making the challenges work. They did amazing work with the funding received, but it was hard work to get off the ground.

I mentioned fellowships as a second area where we might be likely to see announcements. These function somewhere at the other end of the strategic scale, prioritising investment in excellent researchers with good ideas. These are particularly important for diversity in our research sector as they can be targeted to support early career researchers, for example. 

However, there is a clue in the Te Ara Paerangi documents about why fellowships are seen positively by the ministry in charge, MBIE: they are an inherently short-term investment. In addition, they can be justified as being about building capacity in the sector, to prepare it to be able to absorb more money than what it is currently capable of.

The following statement in the white paper did not outrage me the first time I read it: “The RSI system is not well-placed to absorb the increased funding that is necessary to prepare us for the future.” 

In the white paper it is linked to problems such as incentives to unhealthy competition between our universities, which I agree with.

Hundreds of staff at the University of Otago are currently expected to lose their jobs, with inaccurate budget forecasts by university management being blamed. Those inaccuracies relate directly to the structural “unhealthy competition” mentioned above, as student numbers fluctuate year on year and small percentage changes can have large consequences. Most problematic, however, is the assumption by university managers that advertising budgets or spending on student facilities drives student choice, and that therefore it is something they can control. The impact of the cost-of-living crisis on students does not seem to have been factored in.

Outraged yet? Redundancies are not limited to any one university in New Zealand – they have been playing out across the sector since the onset of the pandemic, and are continuing. Notably, some of the staff affected are researchers leading MBIE-funded research programmes. They are the necessary “capacity” to absorb research funding, and we are in the process of losing it.

So here is what I believe we need to see in this budget: the long-promised increase of R&D investment to 2% of GDP. It can be done through current structures – the Marsden Fund, MBIE research investments and capability funds, and perhaps even through the PBRF which delivers baseline funds to universities. Through fellowships for early career researchers, absolutely. So long as it is money that will get to people doing the work, it will be money well spent.

Structural change in the sector can still be made over time. But we need to get on with making the financial commitment in this year’s budget rather than pushing it out another year and compounding the existing infrastructural deficit in our research sector. I am confident that the scientific community is up for the challenge. 

Nicola Gaston is a professor of physics at the University of Auckland and co-director of the MacDiarmid Institute.