Auckland Council: Too big to care, too complex to control.
Despite her track record,
Rachel Kelleher was promoted to the
Auckland Council Executive Team.
Auckland Council has grown so vast that watchdogs lack the resources to keep up, fostering a culture that often rewards dubious conduct rather than punishing it.
The ‘Super City’ employs more staff than any central or local government agency. Serving 32% of the population, the council accounts for 42% of council employees in the country and 54% of all councils’ spending power.
Any suggestion that merging councils generates cost saving or other efficiencies has yet to be proven. Mayors only appoint the council chief executives, who then employs staff. At last count, Auckland has as many as six management levels who appoint subordinates. Salaries are based more on the resources each manager is responsible for rather than productivity - effectively creating fiefdoms.
Auckland Council was so poorly thought out that, in New Zealand’s biggest corruption case, Auckland Transport (AT) inherited Rodney District’s culture that effectively paid to have their own staff bribed. The scope was so extensive that the Serious Fraud Office cherry-picked who to prosecute to avoid taking up too “much of the court’s time.” AT leadership seemed more concerned with staff morale and organizational reputation than stamping out corruption. They downplayed the problem, arguing that ratepayers didn’t suffer any loss – a dubious claim given that contracts likely weren’t awarded to the lowest bidder.
The financial implications remain murky. Police claimed the proceeds of the crimes were $20.3m, the court froze $8.6m of assets, the judge ruled the benefits were $1.03m, but Police settled for $3.5m. AT then claimed that busting the racket proved their systems worked, despite the whistle-blower being one of the ringleaders. None of their subsequent anti-corruption measures would prevent a repeat situation.
Alarmingly, AT attempted to cover up two additional corruption instances. When a journalist tipped them off, AT redacted already published information, which the Ombudsman later forced them to un-redact. This culture at AT originated in Rodney District Council’s roading department, with Councillor John Watson fearing it was “just the tip of the iceberg,” pointing to issues in several other departments. Since then, Auckland Council’s staffing costs have nearly doubled to over $1.1bn.
Basic policies, such as managing conflicts of interest, are poorly understood and enforced. In one case, an unqualified senior manager dismissed code of conduct complaints against colleagues, falsely claiming their decision was final and failing to mention the option to appeal to an “independent” committee. When the Ombudsman intervened, the council audaciously argued that internal complaints processes hadn’t been exhausted.
Transparency is routinely obstructed. Information requests are stalled, redacted, and refused. Corruption complaints are intercepted and forwarded to relationship managers who often gaslight complainants. The council’s integrity unit is so obscure it doesn’t appear in Google searches or on the council’s website.
The Privacy Commissioner and Ombudsman admit they lack resources to investigate an organization as large as Auckland Council. New Zealand doesn’t have the laws or a centralized body to investigate and prosecute corrupt conduct, breach of public trust, abuse of office, misuse of information, and conduct adversely affecting public officials’ honesty or impartiality.
This contrasts sharply with Australia, where federal and state anti-corruption systems have proven effective. They successfully prosecuted the former CEO of Rodney District Council who, in Western Australia, showed “disregard for the rules,” “took short-cuts to benefit himself,” and was “the very embodiment of corruption.”
Several council staff operate as laws unto themselves. One imposed a ban to appease lobbyists, then sought evidence to support it. The council then employed extra staff to enforce the ban. They used this ban as a precedent for others, obstructed information releases, and redacted officials’ and lobbyists’ names. The staff member then joined the lobby group and helped it receive council funding. This was all facilitated with the help of the boss who, despite complaints, was promoted.
Restore Rodney East is a conduit for council money
to flow into the pet projects of lobbyists.
It’s nearly impossible to hold these officials accountable. Even when a controversial elected official was voted out, they found a lobbying job at AT. When other elected officials protested, AT became defensive, while another senior manager threatened complainants with code of conduct breaches.
With unelected officials wielding more power than elected ones, lobbyists bypass transparent, democratic processes. Planning decisions become favours dividing communities rather than impartial assessments. Enforcement is sometimes used spitefully to neutralize complainants.
As the organization grows, it becomes less accessible and accountable. Mistakes at lower levels often snowball into expensive problems where ratepayers find themselves at odds with their own council. Every layer of the council is now affected. In one instance, officials sabotaged a motion just before the mayor and councillors were to vote. In another, an official issued fines knowing the complainant had a history of making fraudulent complaints and impersonating council officials.
New Zealand continues to slip down corruption perception rankings. How bad must it get before action is taken to address a council larger than any central government department?
Auckland deserves a council that serves its citizens, not itself.
Auckland Council’s Risk & Assurance Unit can be contacted at: integrity@aklc.govt.nz.
These are just some examples of the many dodgy stunts involving Auckland Council in my book Unleashed: Sex, rackets & vigilantes in New Zealand's most corrupted community.