Key Takeaways
- Dunedin City Council chief executive Sandy Graham has imposed restrictions on councillor Benedict Ong to stop further unauthorised disclosures of confidential information.
- Ong will no longer be allowed to attend non‑public workshops; he may still attend regular council meetings but must read confidential papers in hard copy under supervision and may not copy or photograph them.
- The measures follow repeated leaks by Ong to the media, including details about a proposed hotel near Forsyth Barr Stadium and a draft conduct‑investigation report.
- Ong has forwarded the council’s restriction emails to the press, characterising the actions as “false attacks” against him.
- A code of conduct complaint is pending, alleging that Ong’s behaviour breaches the standards expected of elected representatives.
- Graham said the restrictions will be reviewed if Ong demonstrates a willingness to keep confidential information secure.
Background on the Restrictions
The controversy began when Dunedin City Council chief executive Sandy Graham identified a pattern of unauthorised information releases by councillor Benedict Ong. After several instances where Ong shared confidential council material with journalists, Graham decided that informal warnings were insufficient. She communicated directly with Ong via email, outlining concrete steps the council would take to mitigate the risk of further leaks. The email emphasized that the actions were not punitive but preventive, aimed at protecting the integrity of council deliberations and maintaining public trust in the decision‑making process. By putting the restrictions in writing, Graham created a clear record that could be referenced if the behaviour persisted or escalated.
The Council Chief Executive’s Actions
In her afternoon email to Ong, Graham specified that he would remain free to attend all ordinary council meetings as usual. However, for any agenda items marked as public‑excluded or confidential, the chief executive announced a new protocol: Ong would receive hard‑copy agendas and supporting documents that he could read only under staff supervision. He would be prohibited from making copies, taking photographs, or removing the paperwork from the supervised area. Graham stressed that this supervision was necessary to manage the “real and consistent risk” of Ong releasing such information without authorisation. She also indicated that staff would coordinate a suitable time and location for each supervised reading session once the council agenda had been published.
Ong’s Reaction and Media Dissemination
Rather than accepting the restrictions privately, Ong chose to forward both of Graham’s emails to the media. In his comments to journalists, he described the measures as “no big surprise” and framed them as part of a continuing series of “false attacks” against his character. By sharing the council’s internal correspondence publicly, Ong inadvertently amplified the very issue the restrictions were designed to curb—namely, the spread of confidential council deliberations into the public sphere. His actions raised questions about whether he respected the confidentiality obligations inherent to his role, and they prompted further scrutiny from both council officials and the local press.
Details of the Restriction Measures
The core of Graham’s directive hinges on controlling how Ong accesses sensitive material. While he can still participate in debates and vote on matters discussed in open sessions, any document classified as confidential must be examined in a controlled environment. Staff will be present to ensure that Ong does not retain a copy, photograph the pages, or otherwise remove the information from the supervised setting. This approach seeks to balance Ong’s right to fulfil his councillor duties with the council’s obligation to safeguard privileged discussions—such as those concerning commercial negotiations, personnel matters, or pending legal advice—that could be harmful if disclosed prematurely. The supervision requirement also serves as a deterrent, making any unauthorised release more difficult to execute without detection.
Code of Conduct Complaint and Specific Leaks
The immediate trigger for Graham’s intervention was a series of leaks that culminated in a formal code of conduct complaint against Ong. He had disclosed details about a potential hotel development adjacent to Forsyth Barr Stadium, a topic that was still under confidential council consideration. Subsequently, Ong shared more specifics about the project with the Otago Daily Times, further eroding the confidentiality surrounding the proposal. In addition, he leaked a draft preliminary assessment prepared by investigator Steph Dyhrberg, which examined his own conduct regarding the earlier disclosures. Graham characterised these actions as a “serious breach of the standard of behaviour expected of elected representatives,” noting that they undermined the council’s ability to conduct business transparently yet responsibly.
Implications and Outlook
The restrictions placed on Ong signal the council’s willingness to enforce confidentiality rules when informal appeals fail. If Ong complies with the supervised reading arrangement and refrains from further leaks, Graham has stated that she will review the measures and potentially lift them. Conversely, continued violations could lead to stronger sanctions, including formal censure or referral to the Local Government Ombudsman. The case highlights the tension between a councillor’s desire for openness and the legal and ethical duties to protect sensitive information. It also serves as a cautionary example for other elected officials about the repercussions of sharing confidential council material with the media, reinforcing the importance of adhering to established codes of conduct.