Image: The Tauranga City Council administration building.
The Office of the Auditor-General says requests to inquire into spending decisions made by Tauranga City Council in recent years have come from members of Parliament, councillors, and the public.
After the Office of the Auditor-General received several requests to inquire into spending decisions made by Tauranga City Council between 2021 and 2024 it says it looked into the matter but won’t be doing any further inquiry work.
Under section 18 of the Public Audit Act 2001, the Auditor-General may carry out an inquiry into any matter concerning a public entity’s use of its resources. The inquiries function is discretionary.
It sent a letter to Council CEO Marty Grenfell asking the Council to consider how and how often it should make more information publicly available about the process and rationale for the transactions it has entered into, in order to ensure trust and confidence in its decisions.
It also detailed the concerns over spending decisions it had received, including the sale of the Tauranga Marine Precinct and Civic Centre project. Most sale decisions were made while the Council was governed by Commissioners (between 2021 and 2024). Other concerns raised centred on whether it was appropriate to exclude the public from relevant meetings or a lack of publicly available information about sale decision and whether the Council followed a clear and appropriate process when deciding to sell, purchase, or lease property.
“We are not best placed to inquire into all of these concerns,” said the letter. “For example, it is not our role to examine whether it was appropriate to exclude the public from Council meetings or to review its compliance with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. These are matters for the Office of the Ombudsman.
Andrew Goddard, Senior Inquiries Specialist for the Office of the Auditor-General also says it is not for the office to say whether the Council has achieved an appropriate sale or purchase price: that is, whether any transaction is a “good” or “bad” deal for ratepayers. “However, we can examine whether a public organisation has followed an appropriate or agreed process in making a particular decision.”
After reviewing information provided by correspondents, along with other publicly available information: “We have not seen evidence to substantiate the concerns raised with us about the probity of the decision-making processes.”
However, the AG concluded that in the interest of being transparent and strengthening trust in the public sector, “The starting position should be ‘what information do we need to withhold, and why?’ rather than ‘What is the minimum amount of information that we need to share?’
“To that end, the Council might want to consider how and how often it makes more information publicly available about the process and rationale for the transactions it has entered into – including those mentioned above. This might help to ensure trust and confidence in decisions the Council has made.”
The Chief Ombudsman was more direct to the Marlborough District Council over its public-excluded councillor briefings and workshops, saying they should be “open by default”.
In regard to compliance with the Local Government Information and Meetings Act, Chief Ombudsman John Allen told the council back in August that all workshops and briefings should be open to the public by default and it had “acted unreasonably” in its lack of record keeping. “We understand that there may be occasion to partially or fully close specific briefings and workshops.
“However, our view is that councils should start from a position of ‘open by default’, then consider whether proceedings may need to be closed on a case-by-case basis. Elected members are accountable to the public and must be prepared to submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.”
Lessons from NSW
In NSW new rules for council meetings will soon be in place as the State Labor Government spearheads a change of culture aimed at transparency and community confidence in local government.
A new Model Code of Meeting Practice for local councils in NSW comes into effect in councils from 1 January, as part of a broader set of LG sector reforms to improve confidence, trust and transparency across NSW councils. Changes simplify the way meetings are conducted, how disorder is dealt with more effectively, and that councillors make decisions in “full view” of the communities they represent, and “dignity is returned” to council chambers.
All NSW councils will need to adopt a code of meeting practice that contains the mandatory provisions of the updated Model Meeting Code by 31 December 2025.
Key changes to the Model Code of Meeting Practice preventing councils from holding private councillor briefing sessions to discuss matters that should be considered in the public domain at committee and council meetings (unless they are confidential). Councils are encouraged to hold public forums preferably before committee meetings or, if they choose council meetings, to enable community engagement in local matters. Powers are expanded to mayors to remove councillors from meetings for acts of disorder and remove members of the public if they disrupt council meetings.
Information considered at closed meetings is to be made public after it ceases to be confidential and councils must provide reasons when making decisions on planning matters that depart from staff recommendations. “Neutrality” must be promoted in the role of the general manager, while council and committee meetings need to be live streamed to give the community and media access to council decision making, and to require those videos to be public for at least the rest of the council term, or 12 months in the case of a meeting in an election year.
In addition to this new Code of Conduct for councillors are “significant” legislative changes as to how “misconduct” is dealt with in local government.
“The council chamber should be a place of dignity, where debate and decision making takes place in full view of the community,” says NSW Minister for Local Government, Ron Hoenig. “Making decisions on behalf of communities is the very role of a councillor, and all councillors should never lose sight of this core responsibility.
“These changes should ensure that, in a council chamber or committee meeting, mechanisms are in place to prevent the derailing of meetings and overshadowing the important work of local government. Council and committee meetings must be effective, transparent and genuine, and strive for outcomes to benefit the community.
“Under the new code, mayors should be given the power to take immediate action against disorderly councillors. This should lessen the need for councils to resort to the broken Code of Conduct process and instead address misbehaviour immediately in the council chamber.
“I know not everyone will agree with these changes, but most people in this state would agree action is necessary to improve transparency, increase community confidence and faith in local government.”