Thursday, March 27, 2014 at 10:47 AM
Controller and Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General
Dear Lyn, your shameful handing of the inquiry into Dunedin City Council subsidiary Delta’s acquisition of land at Jacks Point and Luggate is both unprofessional and an insult to Justice and Democracy in NZ. You personally have done a massive disservice to the 53,000 ratepayers of Dunedin.
Your very selective choice of “evidence”, and general lack of thoroughly seeking evidence, has amounted to a complete whitewash for the individuals under investigation. Why, for example did you choose to competely ignore Councillor Lee Vandervis’ extensive evidence?
Your conclusions of unsound business practices are completely at odds with failing to note the massive conflicts of interest, personal gain and any notion of personal accountability.
Further, your ham-fisted and gutless handling of this inquiry has been a complete waste of time and public money. You have been a lackey and have orchestrated the sort of politically motivated sham one would expect from Russia or North Korea. You should resign.
Individual letters may be sent to:
Controller and Auditor-General
Office of the Auditor-General
04 917 1500
100 Molesworth Street, Thorndon
PO Box 3928, Wellington 6140
OAG | Our people: http://www.oag.govt.nz/our-people
OAG | Contact us: http://www.oag.govt.nz/contact-us
Dunedin City Council critic Russell Garbutt reacts to the recently released report by the Office of the Auditor-general on Delta’s move into property development.
### ODT Online Thu, 27 Mar 2014
Opinion: City ratepayers let down again
By Russell Garbutt
I have two major concerns. The first is the quality of the report and the second is that of a lack of accountability – particularly on the part of directors of council companies.
Audit NZ provides audit services to many local bodies, but the fact is the Local Government Act 2002 gave councils the power of ”general competence” – sweeping powers to undertake many projects or actions.
At the same time, the Office of the Auditor-general (OAG) provides investigative services such as this report into the actions of Delta.
It may seem strange, but if a local government body goes feral, the body which investigates this and the one which provided audit services to that local body are both business units of the Auditor-general.
So, bearing that in mind, what has the OAG found about the dealings of Delta and its foray into property development? It found the actions of Delta and its directors and the directors of council umbrella company Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL) as well as the actions of the Dunedin city councillors at the time were such that ”expensive lessons were learned”.
This is corporate gobbledygook for saying this was a gigantic cock-up.
Related Posts and Comments:
25.3.14 Delta blues . . . and Easy Rider
20.3.14 Delta: Report from Office of the Auditor-General
14.3.14 Delta: Mayor ignores Cr Vandervis’ official complaint
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
7 responses to “Jeff Dickie: Letter to the Auditor-General Lyn Provost”
Strong letter to follow
reporter – happy to make it a new post for prominence when it appears.
At the start of this feature article I began to think the author was very naive or ill-informed about the level of blatant fraud and corruption in New Zealand (I add the word ‘fraud’…), but as the article developed I realised it has considerable merit in its generalities if not in the specific instance of student and university politics.
### critic.co.nz Posted 2:59pm Sunday, 16 March 2014
Critic Issue 4, 2014
Opinion entitled to hearing?
By Loulou Callister-Baker
“Corrupt” is a word that resonates; it is a word that condemns. Sometimes “corrupt” is used flippantly – tossed into political debate in a moment of red-cheeked irrationality or slipped into news headlines to overly simplify the crumbling of an authority figure or entire political body. Corrupt is not a word heard often in New Zealand. We are a nation filled with privileges and this creates a general feeling of ease; the more cynically inclined might even label this feeling as “complacency.” But, while cases of extreme corruption in New Zealand are rare, this does not mean they are impossible. The rarity, along with New Zealand’s reputation, should encourage us all to maintain awareness of corruption, reinforce sanctions that lower its likelihood, and – as the public or the media – report on it when it occurs.
But first, as always, there is an issue of definition. Whether a state or authority is corrupt or not is difficult to determine. In 2013, Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index ranked New Zealand and Denmark as the least corrupt countries in the world. Somalia, North Korea and Afghanistan all came in last place. Experts allocated scores based on perceived levels of corruption within the public sector of a country – defining corruption as the misuse of entrusted power for private gain. Reflecting New Zealand’s high ranking in both this index and others, Transparency International New Zealand’s website comments: “New Zealand’s public sector is consistently ranked among the least corrupt in the world. This reputation is not a coincidence. New Zealand has a long tradition of being first with legislation aimed at promoting human rights. Milestones include the Public Service Act 1912 and the Official Information Act 1982.”
However, what both this organisation and Emeritus Professor of Political Science at Victoria University, Robert Gregory, stress is the importance of not becoming too self-congratulatory about New Zealand’s ranking. “In key areas, passivity and complacency continue,” the 2013 NZ National Integrity System Assessment Executive Summary states. “New Zealand has not ratified the UN Convention against Corruption more than 10 years after signing it, and is not fully compliant with the legal requirements of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention more than 14 years after signing it.” As Professor Gregory also comments in his paper on good governance and corruption in New Zealand: “… it is worth noting that in New Zealand since the introduction of the State Sector Act 1988 there has been no central record kept of criminal offences committed by state servants. Nor is there in New Zealand any common law covering misconduct in public office, as there is in Britain and Hong Kong, for example.”
Related Post and Comments:
16.6.11 “Dunedin” – we introduce Transparency International UK
In China a $20,000 – $100,000 payment will ensure you can achieve your aims. In New Zealand, you pay lawyers $250 an hour, drainage consultants $350 an hour, Delta $4000 for two letters, the ORC, $100 per year to monitor, a non-utilised consent, the DCC rates which do not provide expected services and planners $200 an hour to get resource consent. The poor wage slave pays tax before he gets the money. Who needs corruption.
The Chinese have a better deal – at least you know the cost of approval.
What I know of Chinese authorities and their government ‘force’ doesn’t do anything except scare the shit out of me as a human being. If DCC wants to buy into that evil regime they are truly fucked.
ODT fails to provide any balance or analysis of potential downsides to the Chinese investments stacking up for Dunedin due to the shysterian efforts of our shiny suit Cargo Cult leaders who do not question the great levels of corruption and lack of human ethics that typify the communist ‘block’.
Cooperation is key [snort]
TO Lord Cook of Thorndon. Dear Cookie, you huggy bear of a man. Would you be able to pop over to the Provost-Marshall’s to ask Lyn WT? The ducals, formerly of Kelburn Heights.