Auditor-General ends city council spending probe

The Auditor-General received several requests to look into Tauranga City Council spending. Photo / Brydie Thompson

The Auditor-General will not look into Tauranga City Council spending further despite several requests, including from MPs.

The Office of the Auditor-General said it had received requests to inquire into spending decisions made by the council from 2021-24, when the Government-appointed commission was in charge.

Senior inquiries specialist Andrew Goddard’s August 26 letter to council chief executive Marty Grenfell said the requests had come from members of Parliament, councillors and the public.

The concerns were about the sale of the Tauranga Marine Precinct, the sale of the former elder housing village at Pitau Rd, the $306 million civic precinct Te Manawataki o Te Papa, the lease of the council’s new office 90 Devonport, the purchase of 134 Durham St and 160–176 Devonport Rd.

The Auditor-General may carry out an inquiry into any matter concerning a public entity’s use of its resources, Goddard’s letter said.

“We receive many requests for inquiries each year and choose carefully which ones to investigate.

“We do not intend to carry out further inquiry work on these matters.”

In late 2024, the office considered several requests to inquire into the Marine Precinct sale but decided not to because it was subject to High Court proceedings.

Tauranga's marine precinct at Sulphur Point was sold for $13.98 million to a Christchurch developer. Photo / Brydie Thompson
Tauranga's marine precinct at Sulphur Point was sold for $13.98 million to a Christchurch developer. Photo / Brydie Thompson

The office said it would maintain a “watching brief” as proceedings progressed.

Tauranga MP Sam Uffindell and Act MP Cameron Luxton asked the auditor to investigate the sale because of concerns the precinct was sold for “well under” its valuation.

A last-minute injunction was filed in November to stop the sale of the precinct to Christchurch developer Sam Rofe for $13.98 million.

A midpoint of valuations was about $23m.

The injunction was heard in the High Court in February and dismissed by Justice Peter Andrew in April. The sale settled two weeks later.

Goddard’s letter said it was unlikely an inquiry into the sale would add further value.

“It would also be inappropriate for us to appear to second-guess the court’s view.”


Tauranga MP Sam Uffindell said the Marine Precinct sale was a "terrible deal" for ratepayers. Photo / Rosalie Liddle Crawford

Uffindell told Local Democracy Reporting the Auditor-General’s decision did not change anything because the sale, in his view, remained a “terrible deal”.

“Private developers profited massively at the expense of Tauranga ratepayers.

“The people of Tauranga deserve better.”

Goddard’s letter said concerns raised about the council centred on:

The office was not best placed to inquire into these concerns, the letter said.

The Pitau Rd elder housing village in Mount Maunganui was sold to developer Sanderson Group in 2022. Photo / Mead Norton
The Pitau Rd elder housing village in Mount Maunganui was sold to developer Sanderson Group in 2022. Photo / Mead Norton

It was up to the Ombudsman to examine whether it was appropriate to exclude the public from meetings.

It was also not the Auditor-General’s role to express a view on the merits of a particular decision.

“It is also not for us 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.”

The Auditor-General could examine whether a public organisation followed an appropriate or agreed process in making a particular decision.

The office had “carefully reviewed” information provided by correspondents, including the council, and other publicly available information.

“Based on what we have seen, the council has explained the approach that it took to the transactions it has entered into, including the policy trade-offs it has considered in arriving at the decision to purchase, sell, or lease property.

“We have not seen evidence to substantiate the concerns raised with us about the probity of the decision-making processes.

“The fact that transactions may have led to a private benefit does not mean that decisions made by the council were improper.”

The office asked the council to consider how and how often it made more information publicly available about the process and rationale for transactions, including those the office had reviewed.

“This might help to ensure trust and confidence in decisions the council has made.”

Tauranga City Council head of commercial Alastair McNeil. Photo / Alex Cairns
Tauranga City Council head of commercial Alastair McNeil. Photo / Alex Cairns

Council head of commercial Alastair McNeil said the council welcomed the findings.

“We acknowledge the finding that there is no evidence to support concerns about the council’s decision-making processes.

“We are committed to publicly disclosing significant future decisions, where appropriate.”

LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.

11 comments

Probity

Posted on 03-09-2025 13:02 | By Kaimai

Does that mean that probity is no longer a concern of the Office of the Auditor-General - does the Public Audit Act use of the the word "may" excuse the OAG from completing its duties as expected by the rate paying public. Smelly outcome me thinks


Surely not

Posted on 03-09-2025 13:08 | By Scottie P

This just goes against the purpose of having the Auditor General as a go to when your not happy or got serious questions on your local council. Then you ask yourself is this all related to self concealing and the very opposite of transparency


The old nothing to see here boys

Posted on 03-09-2025 14:05 | By an_alias

Yep, I dont see anything wrong, well its not my job to either. You see this is someone else job and I only see the things I want to see.
Look I'm only here to get my huge salary and to try and make ends meet with my expense package. None of that covers my time to look into these matters.


Complicit

Posted on 03-09-2025 15:19 | By formulafuzz

Dictionary : COMPLICIT ... Associated with or participating in an activity, especially one of a questionable nature.
This does not breed trust and confidence in our council. To the contrary, it adds to the pervading stench emitting from their office.


Hmmm

Posted on 03-09-2025 16:56 | By Let's get real

"I'm only allowed to colour inside the lines," in effect.
When you're an unelected public servant with access to public funds, there's absolutely no repercussions for your activities unless those funds go into your own pocket.
There's no enquiry that will ever probe political, financial or personal interests of council staff and ratepayers have no binding input into council spending.
I've written exactly the same thoughts previously, and it's my firm opinion that, any and all, council spending over a set limit should go to a BINDING public referenda for RATEPAYER ONLY approval. NOT lobby groups or single interest council employees, but those people who pay the bills.


Pathetic Reality

Posted on 03-09-2025 17:57 | By glass1/2 full

OMG ! What does one have to do to STOP this nonsense ????


So why on earth

Posted on 04-09-2025 07:53 | By earlybird

do we need an Auditor-General if he/she won't do anything when requested by concerned citizens AND their MP.


If it's not transparent, it is suspect.

Posted on 04-09-2025 12:16 | By morepork

I was surprised by this article.
But it confirms what we all knew; the Commission were not answerable and did whatever they wanted.
We've been shafted, there is no recourse, we can only move on.
But surely we can make sure it doesn't happen with our elected councils?
Full transparency and public accountability (I liked Let's Get Real's comment on binding referenda for big ticket projects, and have expressed the same myself here on a number of occasions...), are the best way to address these concerns.
But what we get is: “We are committed to publicly disclosing significant future decisions, WHERE APPROPRIATE” !!! (my emphasis...)
Who decides what and when it is "appropriate"? Shouldn't EVERY OCCASION where large amounts of OUR money are to be spent, be considered significant/appropriate for publication?
Stand against back room deals and brown paper bags.
Demand accountability and transparency.


Unbelievable

Posted on 04-09-2025 16:36 | By Fernhill22

This is totally unacceptable & unbelievable. It makes a complete mockery of the Auditor-General's role.
When you have members of Parliament, Councillors & the public questioning these transactions it should be raising alarm bells. I'm not sure what the next steps would be here, but maybe it requires further investigation by an outside organisation like the Serious Fraud Office. As Sam Uffidell has mentioned, these transactions were not in the best interests of the Tauranga ratepayers.


Bureaucracy lives

Posted on 05-09-2025 17:02 | By Kancho

The current councillors were not responsible for the poor deals but the CEO department heads and staff were there and the tail wagged the dog. The dollar parking building, the building inspector debacle, the marine precinct . The CBD woes and cost the Council office deal that costs huge money and we don't own All propositions forwarded by staff to lead council thinking .. So the buck is not passed but hidden


Read it again

Posted on 29-09-2025 16:10 | By morepork

I was disappointed (and a little angered) by this when I first read it a few weeks ago.
Now, I'm calm, so I read it again.
It's outrageous!
NOBODY who should have been responsible for the honesty of these deals has shown any inclination to do better in terms of transparency in future, or even accepted that they could/should have done better. Instead we get a smug gloat that they are officially not culpable.
I'd expect this from a department run by MAGA, where competence is secondary to loyalty, but not from Kiwi people who expect to SEE a fair go.
This is what happens when power is not answerable or called out. The process was followed so there can be no appeal. "We did what we are required to".
If you were part of this, you should be ashamed.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.