'Some old Pakeha men' complaint not upheld by Selwyn District Council

Malcolm Lyall.

A complaint about Selwyn deputy mayor Malcolm Lyall’s claim the Treaty Principles Bill has the backing of “some old Pakeha men that are living in the past” has not been upheld.

Lyall made the comment during a Selwyn District Council debate on whether it should make a submission against the controversial bill.

Lyall’s claim prompted Lincoln resident Stuart McKinlay to lodge a formal complaint with chief executive Sharon Mason and Mayor Sam Broughton.

McKinlay claimed it breached the council’s code of conduct and was racist in nature.

“I was offended by this remark, as I am sure many other residents of Selwyn District would be if they were aware of what he said,” McKinlay told

Selwyn Times

The comment came before councillors voted to make a submission against the bill.

In his complaint, McKinlay said Lyall’s comment breached the following behavioural standards: Bullying, discrimination, disrepute, respect, and relationships with the public.

But Lyall has been cleared by Mason and Broughton who deemed his comment did not meet the threshold for a code of conduct breach nor did it bring the council into disrepute.

“The language used was in the context of the broader debate during the Treaty Principles paper discussion. Therefore, no further action was taken,” Mason said.

Lyall told

Selwyn Times

he took the complaint as “a badge of honour” that reflected his opposition to the bill.

Lyall said his comment was directed at Hobson’s Pledge a lobby group founded by former Act leader Don Brash in 2016.

Lyall said he would have travelled to Wellington to take part in the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti, a national march in December against the bill, if he was able to.

Councillors debated what would be in the submission as the council had not canvassed ratepayers’ views.

In its submission, the council was focused on how the bill would affect its operations and partnerships, which includes providing a seat around the table for local iwi.

Councillors Grant Miller and Elizabeth Mundt voted against the council making a submission.

They said the council was taking a political stance but traditionally it had been an apolitical council.

Councillor Bob Mugford, who was not at the meeting, told

Selwyn Times

if he had been there he would have abstained from voting. He did not believe the council should get involved in the issue.

Councillors who supported the submission said it was not made on behalf of ratepayers but rather showed how the bill would directly impact the council.

Said Broughton: “The council regularly makes submissions on legislation that could impact our operations.

“While we aim to represent the best interests of the entire community, we acknowledge that not every decision will align with everyone’s perspective.”

What do you think of Malcolm Lyall’s comment and the Selwyn District Council submission? Send your views in 200 words or less to

[email protected]

. Photo: File image

Broughton and councillor Sophie McInnes also made personal submissions against the bill.

Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury also made submissions against the bill.

Key points in the council's submission

In its submission, the district council said the bill would not help its existing partnerships and would be costly to implement.

“We are committed to fostering meaningful partnerships, grounded in dialogue, mutual respect, and shared aspirations. The bill, however, undermines these efforts by introducing changes that are unnecessary and unhelpful,” Mayor Sam Broughton said in the submission.

“Partnership is central to Te Tiriti. The absence of meaningful engagement with Māori during the development of the bill is concerning and undermines the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti. The unilateral approach taken by this bill fails to respect the principles of partnership, participation, and protection.”

Broughton said the bill creates unnecessary uncertainty for established legislative frameworks like the Resource Management Act and Local Government Act. This could lead to increased litigation and legal costs as new interpretations are tested. It may also require additional training and resources, create financial pressures, and divert funding from essential services.

“Council remains committed to fostering meaningful bicultural relationships and supporting positive outcomes for all our communities. The bill is unnecessary, risks undermining existing progress, and diverts focus and resources from the significant work already being undertaken to strengthen bicultural partnerships.”