Invercargill may not often make national headlines, but last week, its city council made a decision that deserves attention and applause. In the face of pressure from activists to wade into a contentious foreign conflict, the council did what more local governments should: it said no.
On Tuesday (June 24), the Invercargill City Council rejected a motion to amend its procurement policy to exclude companies operating in Israeli settlements — territory that proponents of the motion claimed is “illegally occupied Palestinian land.” The vote was split 6–6, and Mayor Nobby Clark cast the deciding vote to reject the proposal.
That rejection is significant. In doing so, Invercargill refused to adopt the kind of politically selective policy already passed by Christchurch, Nelson, and Environment Canterbury — policies which, under the guise of human rights, single out Israel while ignoring far more serious and widespread global injustices.
The motion in Invercargill was driven by members of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa and based on a list published by the UN Human Rights Council — a body well known for its disproportionate focus on Israel. That list excludes companies involved in other occupied territories around the world, including Western Sahara, northern Cyprus, and Crimea. Only Israel is targeted.
In the council debate, those in favour framed the motion as a moral imperative. “We’re not some isolated council,” said Cr Lesley Soper. Cr Darren Ludlow declared that “as pointless as it may seem, there is a point. And that’s leadership.”
But real leadership means knowing the limits of your office. Cr Allan Arnold gave a refreshingly grounded response: “We’re the Invercargill City Council. Our job is to look after the water assets, infrastructure of Invercargill, and look after the people. This is far, far beyond our scope.”
He’s right. Local councils exist to serve local needs. They are not miniature foreign ministries. When councils pass symbolic foreign policy motions, they do more than waste ratepayer time — they risk undermining trust in local institutions and eroding public confidence that councils are focused on their actual mandate.
Mayor Nobby Clark echoed this concern. While acknowledging the council’s ethical responsibilities, he rightly pointed out the need to balance those with fiscal prudence and relevance to local governance. His casting vote against the motion was not a rejection of ethics — it was a rejection of grandstanding and inconsistency.
There was some discussion about the potential value of a more general policy framework — one that would apply ethical standards consistently across all UN-related issues rather than singling out Israel — but no such review was formally commissioned. The council simply voted the motion down. And in doing so, it upheld both democratic integrity and common sense.
Other councils would do well to learn from this. Targeting Israel alone for boycott and exclusion is not a principled stance — it is a political one, dressed up in moral language. If human rights are to be a factor in procurement, then let that principle be applied consistently, not selectively.
For now, Invercargill stands as a model of how a council can act responsibly, ethically, and within its mandate. It chose service over symbolism, and clarity over performative outrage.
That’s what local democracy should look like.
