Key Takeaways
- Dunedin City Councillor Benedict Ong is facing his third code‑of‑conduct complaint since being elected in October 2023, all stemming from alleged breaches of confidentiality.
- The latest complaint concerns Ong’s disclosure of a confidential investigator’s preliminary assessment about a potential hotel development at Forsyth Barr Stadium to two local journalists.
- Investigator Steph Dyhrberg concluded that Ong’s repeated conduct was likely deliberate, posed a serious risk to the council’s commercial interests, and warranted a full investigation.
- Ong maintains he did nothing wrong, arguing that discussing public‑asset matters encourages development and that the information was merely “rumoured hearsay.”
- Prior complaints include an unfounded allegation against fellow councillor John Chambers and a sanction for accusing a staff member of political bias, which led to his removal from two museum board roles and a loss of about NZ $15,000 in pay.
- The ongoing controversy highlights tensions between transparency expectations and the need to protect commercially sensitive information within public‑sector governance.
Background of the Latest Complaint
On 29 April 2024, Dunedin City Council chief executive Sandy Graham filed a formal code‑of‑conduct complaint against Councillor Benedict Ong. The complaint alleges that Ong leaked a confidential preliminary assessment prepared by investigator Steph Dyhrberg, which examined concerns that Ong had been repeatedly revealing confidential information and potentially jeopardising the council’s commercial interests. This marks the third complaint lodged against Ong since his election in October 2023, following two earlier matters that were either dismissed or resulted in sanctions.
The Leaked Investigator’s Report
Dyhrberg’s report, marked “confidential,” was emailed to Ong for feedback on Tuesday, 23 April. Within a few hours, Ong replied to Dyhrberg and copied two local reporters, effectively disseminating the document to the media. The investigator noted that Ong’s repeated conduct could constitute a serious breach, had already generated media coverage, and risked compromising the council’s and its subsidiaries’ commercial interests. Dyhrberg stressed that the pattern suggested deliberate breaches and recommended a full investigation to uphold natural‑justice principles.
Ong’s Response to the Investigator
In his reply, Ong acknowledged the principle of natural justice but justified forwarding the “possibly highly subjective assessment” to journalists, thanking Dyhrberg for the lengthy report and sarcastically noting it likely consumed countless billable hours of ratepayers’ funds. When interviewed by Radio New Zealand, Ong asserted he had done nothing wrong, characterising the complaint as a false attack. He argued that discussing public‑community assets openly encourages developer interest rather than deterring it, claiming there are “plenty of eggs to go around” for investment in Dunedin.
Details of the Hotel Development Disclosure
The confidential information pertained to a potential hotel development at Forsyth Barr Stadium, discussed during a non‑public workshop held by Dunedin City Council and Dunedin Venues Management Limited on 21 April. In an email chain that day, Ong mentioned that another councillor had raised The Russell Group as a possible developer for the stadium’s proposed hotel. After learning of this disclosure, the chair of Dunedin City Holdings warned Graham that the breach placed the business in a difficult position. Graham subsequently reminded councillors that the development details had been shared on an “in‑confidence” basis and indicated that staff and business practices would need reevaluation if confidentiality continued to be ignored.
Escalation and Ong’s Counter‑Claims
Graham emailed Ong the formal code‑of‑conduct complaint on 29 April, marking it “in confidence” and warning that further breaches would likely constitute additional code violations. Within minutes, Ong forwarded the email to several reporters. He later defended his actions by claiming the mention of the Russell Group was merely “rumoured hearsay” that he was entitled to question. Ong insisted that his conduct did not breach commercial sensitivity, framing the discussion as a legitimate public‑interest conversation about community assets.
Previous Conduct Issues
This is not Ong’s first run‑in with the council’s code of conduct. Late last year he lodged a complaint against fellow councillor John Chambers, alleging inappropriate remarks; investigator Dyhrberg dismissed the complaint for lack of substance. In March 2024, Ong faced another complaint after accusing a council staff member of “apparent political bias” and “lack of political neutrality” in an email to the chief executive and two journalists. Dyhrberg’s investigation found his actions a serious breach, possibly aimed at discrediting the staff member, and resulted in a sanction and a call from colleagues for him to resign. As part of the fallout, Ong was removed from two council representative roles on local museum boards, costing him roughly NZ $15,000 in lost pay, and he had previously lost a deputy technology portfolio role.
Public Protests and Unusual Behaviour
Throughout his first term, Ong has attracted attention for unconventional protests. He has publicly confirmed he is not an AI, posted about a code‑of‑conduct complaint after being asked not to compromise investigations, and had his movement temporarily restricted in the council building following allegations he was accosting staff—claims he denied as false. On multiple occasions, Ong has placed tape over his mouth in protest, a gesture that has become a symbolic, if controversial, element of his council presence.
Council’s Response and Ongoing Implications
The Dunedin City Council has been approached for comment on the latest developments but has not issued a detailed public statement as of the time of reporting. The repeated breaches raise significant questions about balancing transparency with the protection of commercially sensitive information in a public‑sector context. Should the investigation uphold Dyhrberg’s preliminary findings, Ong could face further sanctions, potential removal from additional committee roles, or even a formal censure. The situation underscores the challenge for elected officials to navigate whistle‑blowing tendencies, public interest arguments, and the legal obligations tied to confidentiality in council affairs.
Word count: approximately 950 words.