Praise for keeping consultant fees low
Mr Day made the comments during the council's extraordinary meeting last week when he was speaking to his pre-election report.
Previously, Invercargill mayor Nobby Clark hit out at the council, saying its aversion to risk had resulted in an "eyewatering" consultants bill.
His comments followed an information request revealing the council had spent more than $7.3 million on consultants in less than three years between July 2022 and December last year.
The numbers were made public on the back of a Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request from the Taxpayers' Union, which released the data recently.
It showed $2.58m was spent on consultants for the 12 months to June 2023, $3.23m was spent for the 12 months to June last year and $1.52m was spent for the six months to December last year.
The document showed more than 160 companies were used during the two and a-half years.
Deloitte topped the spending with more than $424,000 for work on reviewing rates, contract compliance, internal audit support and risk and assurance support.
Stantec was next with a figure of more than $396,000 for support with the Bluff wastewater consent.
Mr Clark said the only way to change the situation was to tell staff not to spend large amounts on advice, and for councillors to accept the risk.
"And if we get it wrong, we get it wrong."
At a meeting last week, Mr Day said he was proud to praise staff for being able to absorb costs to keep consultants' fees as low as possible.
Now the figure had been made public, he highlighted the amount was only "2% of our overall spend over the same period".
The council was in a good position financially but there was always room for improvement, he said.
"We are very much focused on efficiency and effectiveness going forward as an organisation.
"Have been for some time."
— Additional reporting Matthew Rosenberg, Local Democracy Reporting
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
16 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The rates crisis – a canny view for New Zealand: Nick Stewart
Council rates increased 12.2% annually.¹ The Taxpayers' Union documents cumulative rate increases of 34.52% over three years whilst inflation totalled just 13.7%. This is systematic wealth confiscation by people who face no market discipline for their decisions, and the Hastings District Council provides a fine example of the melee ahead. Yet, Hastings is simply one example among many bad apples across NZ. Rate increases, or daylight robbery? In Hastings, ratepayers who budgeted for normal 3-4% increases got hammered with 19% in 2024-25, followed by 15% in 2025-26. That's a compound 37% increase over two years for Hastings ratepayers. An average Hastings family paying $3000 in rates now face $4300 annually – that's $1300 extracted from household budgets that could have funded children's education or emergency savings. The timing makes this especially vicious. Right as petrol prices fell 8% – providing families with a glimmer of relief – councils threw on rate increases that more than wiped out these savings. It's almost as if they calculated how much breathing room households gained … then took it. Hastings has projected debt rising from $400 million to $700m by 2030. We're witnessing a council that has grown beyond what its ratepayer base can sustain. The rider has become heavier than the horse, which spells eventual capitulation. Every private business understands that customers have a finite capacity to pay. Exceed that capacity and customers disappear. Councils operate under no such constraint. They simply send bigger bills to ratepayers who can't escape. Like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm, today's councillors have forgotten they're supposed to serve ratepayers – not rule them. While private-sector businesses slash costs and implement redundancies to survive, councils expand their fiefdoms with impunity. The contrast couldn't be starker. Business managers whose jobs depend on efficiency face market discipline daily. Councillors face elections every three years, where complex budget decisions get reduced to campaign slogans. Meanwhile, they enjoy inflation-plus salary increases and gold-plated job security while imposing austerity on the very ratepayers who fund them. Richardson's Democratic Solution Ruth Richardson captures the fundamental problem: councils have become 'arrogant', 'unaccountable', and 'wasteful' and 'have got to be brought to heel'. Her proposed solution cuts through the bureaucratic nonsense: cap rate increases at inflation unless ratepayers approve higher amounts through binding referenda. This isn't radical – it's basic democratic consent for taxation. An inflation cap would restore planning certainty overnight whilst forcing councils to choose between genuine necessities and bureaucratic empire-building. Critics claim this assumes ratepayers lack perfect information about 'complex' infrastructure trade-offs, but that misses the point entirely. The current system assumes councils have perfect information about ratepayers' financial capacity – an assumption that Hastings' compound 37% increase rudely disproves. When families face financial warfare dressed up as fiscal responsibility, the 'complexity' argument becomes irrelevant. Hastings, the bellwether? The upcoming Hastings mayoral election represents more than political choice – it's an opportunity for forensic examination of fiscal responsibility: every council vote recorded, every budget decision documented, and no way for candidates to escape their fiscal DNA through clever spin and newfound fiscal enlightenment. Some councillors already express concern about 'diminishing borrowing capacity' – a tacit admission that current spending is unsustainable. When the reality finally penetrates the bureaucratic bubble, it's too late for the ratepayers. This same dynamic is playing out from Auckland to Invercargill. Yes, New Zealand faces genuine infrastructure challenges. Ageing water systems, earthquake strengthening, and climate adaptation create real costs. But this reality has become the perfect smokescreen for herculean spending growth. The question isn't whether infrastructure needs exist. The infrastructure bill was always coming due. It's whether councils have used it to justify spending that extends far beyond pipes and roads – into glamour projects, consultant fees and bureaucratic expansion. Again – when the rider becomes heavier than the horse, the system collapses regardless of how noble the rider's intentions. Why can't RBNZ just drive rates down? The Reserve Bank faces an impossible choice. It cannot provide the interest rate relief the rest of us desperately need whilst councils pump 13% of total inflation into the economy. We all need to row the boat and play our part – including the public sector. A dollar is a dollar, whether it comes from a rates bill or a grocery receipt. When councils exempt themselves from inflation discipline, they force the RBNZ to keep interest rates higher for longer – crushing mortgage holders and businesses who had no say in council spending decisions. Every responsible household and business starts the year with careful financial planning. These assume government costs increase roughly in line with inflation – a reasonable expectation in a functioning democracy. The problem lies in the fact that our councils have abandoned this social contract. When rates contribute 13% of national inflation whilst representing a fraction of household spending, councils have become the primary destroyer of private planning. Families who budget carefully find their fiscal discipline rendered meaningless by public sector excess they cannot control or escape. Voters, now's your chance … Real reform requires acknowledging that councils have become the enemy of household financial stability. October's elections offer a chance to demand proven fiscal discipline, not conversion stories. The question isn't whether New Zealand can afford fiscal responsibility – it's whether families and businesses can survive another term of public sector excess. The arithmetic doesn't lie. It simply raises the question of whether voters will finally hold councils accountable for the mathematical reality they've created.
1News
a day ago
- 1News
Big, awkward, neglected: Auckland scores poorly on international report
The recent report comparing Auckland to nine international peer cities delivered an uncomfortable truth: our largest city is falling behind, hampered by car dependency, low-density housing and 'weak economic performance'. Timothy Welch reports. The Deloitte State of the City analysis was no surprise to anyone who has watched successive governments treat the city as a problem to manage, rather than an engine to fuel. The report's findings were stark: Auckland rates 82nd out of 84 cities globally for pedestrian friendliness, and its car-dependent transport system is more carbon-intensive and slower to decarbonise than peer cities. (Source: This is the direct result of decades of planning failures, including what urban researchers call the 1970s 'great down-zoning' which halved central Auckland's housing capacity. ADVERTISEMENT This isn't just Auckland's problem. When we mismanage what geographers call a 'primate city,' it reveals our fundamental misunderstanding of how modern economies work. The concept of the primate city was formalised by geographer Mark Jefferson in 1939. Such cities are defined as being 'at least twice as large as the next largest city and more than twice as significant'. Auckland fits this definition perfectly. With more than 1.7 million people, it is over four times larger than Christchurch or the greater Wellington region. The city accounts for 34% of New Zealand's population and is projected to hit 40% of the working-age population by 2048. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including Hulk Hogan dies, sentencing for a New Zealander who assaulted two airline stewards, and a big accolade for Te Papa. (Source: 1News) Auckland contributes 38% of New Zealand's gross domestic product and its per-capita GDP is 15% higher than the rest of the country's. Its most productive area, the central business district, enjoys a 40% productivity premium over the national average. To economists, these numbers represent the 'agglomeration benefits' research shows primate cities generate. It is the economic effect of combining businesses, talent and infrastructure. Yet New Zealand systematically underinvests in the very place generating this outsized economic contribution. ADVERTISEMENT A pattern of infrastructure failure Auckland's infrastructure deficit follows a predictable pattern. The City Rail Link, while progressing, has grown from an initial budget of NZ$2-3 billion to $5.5 billion, with opening delayed until 2026. The first train to be tested in Auckland's City Rail Link travels through Maungawhau in February. (Source: City Rail Link) Light rail was cancelled entirely after years of planning. A second harbour crossing has been studied for decades without a shovel hitting dirt. Each represents billions in opportunity costs while congestion worsens. This goes well beyond project mismanagement. It is a deep structural problem. The Infrastructure Commission-Te Waihanga identifies a $210 billion national infrastructure shortfall, with Auckland bearing a disproportionate burden despite generating a disproportionately high level of revenue. International research by the OECD shows successful countries treat metropolitan regions as engines of national growth, not a burden. ADVERTISEMENT The 'Wellington problem' Public policy expert Ian Shirley called it the 'Wellington Problem': the way Auckland's governance became an obsession for politicians and bureaucrats based in Wellington. The tension dates to 1865 when the capital was moved from Auckland to Wellington, establishing a pattern where political power was deliberately separated from economic power. Parliament (file image). (Source: 1News) Auckland loses an estimated $415.35 million annually in GST collected on rates. This goes to Wellington and into government revenue rather than being reinvested locally. Central government properties in Auckland, worth $36.3 million in rates, are exempt from payment while still using Auckland's infrastructure. When Auckland speaks with 'one voice' through its unified council, Wellington responds with legislative overrides. The recent National Land Transport Programme, for example, cut Auckland's transport funding by $564 million. Mayor Wayne Brown said the government's transport policy 'makes zero sense for Auckland'. ADVERTISEMENT Learning from others The contrast with international approaches reveals just how counterproductive New Zealand's approach has been. London has an integrated Transport for London authority with congestion charging powers, generating £136 million annually for reinvestment. Paris is investing more than €35 billion in the Grand Paris Express transit project. Paris: city of trains (Source: Japan's 'Quality Infrastructure Investment' principles include ¥13.2 trillion in regional infrastructure investment. Australia's A$120 billion infrastructure programme explicitly recognises its largest cities contribute over 50% of GDP and require proportional investment. Research has shown excessive urban concentration in one country can create problems. But denying the primate city resources only leads to a 'deterioration in the quality of life' that drags down the entire national economy. The solution lies in making strategic investments that maximise the benefits of agglomeration while managing any negative costs to the national economy. ADVERTISEMENT Growing pains Auckland isn't a problem to be managed, it is an asset to be leveraged. Every successful developed economy has learned this lesson. Paris generates 31% of France's GDP and gets treated accordingly. Seoul produces 23% of South Korea's output and receives massive infrastructure investment. Tokyo drives Japan's economy. The international evidence is unambiguous: countries that strategically invest in their primate cities achieve higher productivity growth and maintain competitive advantages. Auckland doesn't need sympathy or special treatment. It needs what every primate city in every successful economy gets: infrastructure investment proportional to its economic contribution, governance structures that reflect its scale, and political leadership that understands agglomeration economics. The question isn't whether Auckland is too big. The question is whether New Zealand is big enough to nurture its primate city. Timothy Welch Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Auckland Council Spends $14.4 Million On Colin Dale Park Facility
The Auckland Ratepayers' Alliance can reveal through a Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request, more than $14,393,977 has been spend by Auckland Council on the Colin Dale Park development since 2014. While the facility was initially presented as a motorsport facility that would be funded through the Colin Dale Park Kartsport Development Charitable Trust, ratepayers have ended up paying tens of millions towards earthworks, drainage, power, and more. Auckland Ratepayers' Alliance spokesman Sam Warren said: 'What was meant to be a club-led effort has turned out to be a $14 million dollar white elephant funded by Auckland ratepayers. Where's the accountability on this?' 'Ratepayers should not be funding infrastructure for private organisations – virtually everything but the track itself looks to have been paid for by hardworking ratepayers that will never use it.' 'Auckland Council had already contributed $2.8 million from a local board grant in 2014, and then followed through with another $2.5 million last year. Now that we've exposed the real number for exceeding $14 million, you have to wonder where this all stops?" "No more blank cheques for white elephants. Auckland Council has no business funding private endeavours that should stand on their own two-feet.'
