The Auckland Council deserves kudos for starting to publish details about the spending of ratepayer money. This is not a step it would have taken without some trepidation. As much as such transparency is a catalyst for better governance and, indeed, is nothing more than ratepayers should expect, it carries the threats associated with the opening of a Pandora's box. That risk is multiplied if the released information is incomplete or difficult to draw conclusions from. Effectively, the public is invited to indulge in speculation that may be unwarranted. Such, unfortunately, is the case after the council's first step.
It has listed contractors next to the tasks for which they had been contracted, but with a threshold of $100,000 as the only indication of the cost to ratepayers. With suppliers, the council has listed the company and the value of the supply agreement where it was greater than $100,000. But it has not listed what was being supplied. In total, $383,049,101 of spending is revealed.
This spending has been a subject of considerable criticism since the Super City was born. It was anticipated that it would deliver savings in staff numbers, and that the new council's bulk would allow it to extract better deals. Reined in would be a culture of public money in which suppliers knew they could charge councils what they wanted because there was little pressure on managers to drive hard bargains and cope with fewer staff.
On at least one level, this has not happened. The number of council employees, as of last year, had increased to 11,134, or the equivalent of 8441 full-time staff. Of that number, 1780 earned six-figure sums. The council has attributed the increase to the replacement of external contractors by in-house positions. Aucklanders, however, appear unconvinced that savings have been struck. A Herald-Digipoll survey last September showed 42 per cent believed the best way for the council to meet its budget was to reduce staff and salaries.
The details released so far provide no basis for allaying concerns about the council's spending. If ratepayers do not, for example, know what is being supplied, they have no way of assessing if the council has got a good deal. And the $100,000 threshold for contracts provides no way of knowing whether work that could and should be being done in-house was outsourced. There is, in sum, no reassurance that the council is doing all it can to contain costs without reducing its range of services.
