Mayor: Xmas Stocking or Sacking?

So. Tomorrow, at a full Council meeting, according to the media, the majority of Auckland City Councillors will vote for a motion to censure Mayor Len Brown for various misdemeanors. A minority of "right wing" councillors - apparently led by Dick Quax - are reported to be supporting a no-confidence motion.

It is unfortunate that this matter has so quickly split along party lines. Though not completely. For example Cllr Mike Lee was quoted in NZ Herald this morning expressing concerns: "there's an aura of sleaze starting to build around the mayor now and that's the problem"......

Conscience

I want to suggest in this post, that Councillors need to consider what or who they are casting their vote for on Thursday. I say this because I don't believe Councillors can vote according to promises they may have made in the election campaign. Nor can they vote according to their own personal interests (eg whether they are supported to be Chair of a committee by Mayor Brown or not) or political interests - whatever they may be. This issue was not canvassed before the election - so there was not an opportunity for councillors to develop a "position" on this matter before the election.

This is de novo. It is being considered for the first time.

In significant measure, because this matter is not provided for in statute, it is a conscience vote. Councillors need to examine their consciences, and in some way, take account of the conscience of the Auckland community.

Promises and Fiscal Responsibility

In 2010, when Len Brown stood for the Supercity mayoralty for the first time, his 150 word statement to the voters said this:

“…The region needs a mayor who believes in communities and people, so that together we can make the hard decisions to move our region forward….”

Good hard-hitting stuff. Note the emphasis on hard decisions. Then in 2013 he said this in his 150 words:

"....Ratepayers want a fiscally responsible mayor...."

When you say this, knowing it is the main piece of information that will definitely be provided to everybody who can vote, you have to think about what it means to the layperson voter. While it does not explicitly say: "I am a fiscally responsible person", it certainly implies it and suggests that if you vote for Len Brown you will get a fiscally responsible mayor.

The record that has been painfully revealed by the EY report does not paint a picture of a fiscally responsible mayor. The record, combined with other credit card irresponsibilities in his term as Mayor of Manukau City Council, suggests if anything a systematic lack of fiscal responsibility.

Unreserved Apologies and Censure Motions

If I had a dollar for every apology I've heard from a politician I'd be a rich man. It's just words.
And words come cheap for a politician. It's their stock-in-trade.
Goes with the territory.
Trying to win over support for an idea, for a vision, for a project, for a political reputation.
Whatever it takes.

A censure motion might feel good for councillors.
A whack. A rap over the knuckles. A momentary grimace.
Forcing someone to swallow the odd dead rat. In public.
But it goes with the territory too.
It's hot, but it's what happens in the political kitchen.

But it won't make any difference.
Len has done the mea culpa act before,
And he's showing he's more than ready to do it again.
Probably written tomorrow's apology speech already, rehearsed it with his closest allies
Those who stand to lose the most if he stops being mayor.

Is Len a bad man?

I don't think Len is a bad man. But he's probably too nice, too forgiving, too forgetful, to be a mayor we can have confidence in. If someone else - another councillor say - had a problem with an affair (using Council furniture after hours), being late to declare an expense, using the council cellphone a bit much, charging excessive travel expenses - I can see Mayor Brown finding it hard to confront that Councillor - finding the least confrontational way of dealing with it, being nice, being forgiving, and if all else fails just forgetting it.

Small beer anyway. Tiny amounts in the scale of things.

Problem is, this fiscal attitude seems to be behind Council's odd extra billion in debt. Just another billion.

Auckland may be a big little city, but it's a big bad city too - especially if Council is too nice, too forgiving and just plain forgetful. And unless the right attitudes are modelled top down, and enforced top down, the rot sets in. Len was right: Auckland does need a mayor who is a zealot about fiscal responsibility - and he has shown himself to be relaxed when it comes to his own fiscal responsibility.

It makes it very difficult for Auckland Council to be effective if its mayor preaches something which he does not personally practice.

Kingdom of Len

I couldn't really resist this. I imagined Len with his most trusted mayoral office aides and spin-doctors. He's frustrated with them, wanting some creativity, another brand....

"Look. When I got elected there were jokes. They talked about King Len - you know - Auckland is a Kingdom. Needs a King. I was Auckland's King. For a while...."

Perplexed looks. Len pressed on....

"Now I know Auckland's not an Empire, and it would be hard to make me look like an Emperor. But it could work I think. Empires need Emperors..."

One of the aides thought about trousers and emperors wearing no clothes but thought better of it. His job was on the line. Nothing in his Christmas Stocking if Len got the sack. Len, warming up...

"I've had a better idea. Auckland was the first supercity. We've forged ahead of the rest of New Zealand. We're different. We're like - another Country. Auckland's a Country, and just as Kingdoms need Kings, Countries need......"


What's the best thing to do?

Seriously now.

A Censure motion is a wet bus ticket - and Auckland has enough of them right now.

If Councillors pass a censure motion, what it really means is that Len is Mayor (along with his mayoral office and with the chairs and deputy mayor he wants) for three more years - with all of the difficulties and challenges that brings - and that is not what Auckland wants (if you believe the various polls as reflecting the will of the population).

Remember. This is de novo. Auckland has not been here before. There is no position statement that was developed before the election. This decision must be taken on the basis of facts and information that is now before councillors - and this information was not before the public when they cast their votes on October.

It is before them now. The information that is before the Auckland public now makes Len's statement: "ratepayers want a fiscally responsible mayor" a bit hard for them to swallow.

So. Councillors need to ask themselves this question:

  Are you going to vote so that Aucklanders have to swallow a rat?
  Or are you going to vote so that Len has to swallow that rat.

Note what the Local Government Electoral Act states:

4.   Principles 

(1) The principles that this Act is designed to implement are the following: 

    (a) fair and effective representation for individuals and communities: 

    (b) all qualified persons have a reasonable and equal opportunity to—

          (i) Cast an informed vote......

Were voters able to cast an informed vote when they voted Len Brown for Mayor?


My suggestion for a more useful motion tomorrow would be something like this: 

That, given the loss of public confidence in the office of mayor that has followed publicity and investigative reports relating to the mayor's conduct of his affair and his subsequent behaviour, and to avoid the risk of public confidence in Auckland Council being diminished by association and by the need to manage damaged relationships for the rest of the term, and to give the mayor the opportunity to properly redeem and rehabilitate himself, this council calls on the Mayor of Auckland to resign forthwith to enable a new mayoral election to take place.

This is difficult. Kia kaha.

OAG - Head Should Roll

I do not write this posting lightly.

At the Mangawhai Heads announcement of its Ecocare wastewater scheme enquiry, Lyn Provost, New Zealand's Auditor General was put under the microscope to an extent. You can read my recent posting about the Audit of the OAG's Audit New Zealand's role in the fiasco here.

The question I asked the Auditor General at the announcement, more or less went like this:

"You have unreservedly apologised here to the community for the problems in Audit New Zealand. You have told us that as a result Audit New Zealand is carrying out no further audits. You have told us that two people have been appointed to make changes to Audit New Zealand. Yet you appear to be taking no responsibility for what has happened.

This is Light Handed regulation. There are insufficient checks and balances. But you expect the community to carry the can. We have seen failures at Pike River with health and Safety Checks. We have seen failings in building safety in Christchurch because of inspection failures.

Where are the checks and balances?

As far as the community is concerned we rely on your office to check what was happening in KDC. No amount of LGOIMA and official information requests could reveal to members of the public what was happening "off balance sheet" (I didn't quite say that bit - but that's what I meant).

If you didn't check properly, then is it your failure, or is it the failure of Government because you didn't look hard enough?  It's one or the other.

Tell us what we can do about about this?"

I was struck by her answer, because it is not at all what I was expecting.

The Auditor General began with this remark....

"We must not act to discourage innovation...."

Man oh man. She went on about checks and balances a bit. But it was all pretty unsatisfactory. What did she mean? Was it innovative for KDC to build a wastewater treatment plant? Don't think so. Not rocket science. Ah. I get it. The innovation was the PPP scheme. A Public Private Partnership. That's the innovation that "must not be discouraged by the Auditor General...."

We read in the audit of Audit NZ (See quoted paras 35-40 and 339) that the loans for the scheme went "off balance sheet" from 2006 to 2009, which is while the scheme was built and funded through a PPP - though the loans were raised in KDC's name. This is the time when the OAG got no letters from the public. The ratepayers didn't know what was happening because there was no indication in Council's annual plans. It was Off Balance Sheet. And the Audit Office didn't revise its view of the project all the way through that time - 2006 to 2009.

Consider this. In 2006, the OAG prepared its own report entitled:  Achieving public sector outcomes with private sector partners. The OAG's 2006 report overview says this:

“Partnering” in its various forms is gaining in popularity in other countries as a means of building new infrastructure and delivering public services. There are also signs of increasing interest in this approach to procurement in the public sector in New Zealand, particularly in local government. Examples of partnering range from contracts where the private sector finances and owns public infrastructure to arrangements where public and private sector organisations work closely together as one team sharing risks and rewards....

The actual report contains these pearls:

It will be important throughout the process of making the decision to opt for a partnering arrangement, and during the partner selection process, to ensure that arrangements are in place for the involvement of internal and external audit. This involvement should provide assurance to the public entity and other stakeholders (such as Parliament) that the decision-making and selection processes stand up to public scrutiny.

and

(In relation to Papakura's PPP scheme) Water is seen as an essential commodity, and the control and supply of water and wastewater can arouse strong emotions. The Auditor-General identified a need for the Council to carry out sufficient consultation to assure itself that it had identified the needs, issues, and any concerns the community might have, to be used in the decision-making process. (ie - at this stage the OAG understood the consultation need).

And then in November 2011, the OAG went further and published its 2006-2011 enquiry entitled: Managing the implications of public private partnerships. Which includes this very interesting case study:

Case study: Mangawhai EcoCare Wastewater Treatment Scheme Project 

In the early 1990s, the Mangawhai EcoCare Wastewater Treatment Scheme Project began when the water quality in the Mangawhai estuary, north of Auckland, became noticeably degraded because of the cumulative effect of sewage disposal, geographic features, the number of people in the area during peak seasonal periods, and the use of septic tanks and long drops.

After the 1998 local government elections, Kaipara District Council engaged project managers who had Australian expertise in PPPs. The initial plan envisioned a “Build Own Operate Transfer” PPP model, with the assets being transferred to the Council in 25 years. However, the initial plan was changed when the Local Government Act 2002 came into effect.

In late 2005, from a short list of three companies, tenderer Earthtech Engineering Limited (now Water Infrastructure Group) won the contract to provide wastewater services to Mangawhai for up to 15 years, including providing a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system.

In January 2007, work on the $65 million EcoCare Scheme began. In July 2009, the first house was connected. The scheme includes 21 kilometres of sewers, 15 pumping stations, six kilometres of rising mains, a small water-reclamation plant, an 11-kilometre reclaimed-water transfer pipeline and a 180 megalitre reclaimed-water storage facility and irrigation system. Today, more than 2000 properties are connected to the scheme, which has the capacity to service 4500 properties.

The Council sought innovation from the market, long-term certainty in wastewater treatment, affordability, and improved water quality in the Mangawhai estuary. A major achievement of the project was the ability to change the scope of the works during the project development and construction stages.

Some of the lessons learned from the project include:

•  there is a clear need for expertise and experience with PPP projects to ensure success; 
•  flexibility is important, particularly where changes in demand are expected; frequent and effective communication with the community and other stakeholders is essential; 
• and a PPP education programme throughout the Council’s organisation was needed. 

 The project has attracted much local comment. The last two lessons could have helped mitigate some public concerns that the Council faces.

This is salutory for a number of reasons, not least of which is a clear statement from the OAG that it knew and acknowledged that: "A major achievement of the project was the ability to change the scope of the works during the project development and construction stages..."

This change of scope has been at the heart of the cost blow out. The OAG knew about it long ago, and thought it was a great thing.Even though it happened "off balance sheet" and away from the public gaze.

In her overview to this 2011 report, Lyn Provost says this:

If more PPPs are entered into, careful attention is needed to ensure that innovation continues to be encouraged and the challenges and opportunities that these partnerships present are fully understood, managed, and accounted for. For the public sector, this means broadening oversight and control of the PPP programme to ensure that the public’s interest is effectively represented, supervised and, ultimately, satisfied.

and...

Along with managing the risks identified in my Office’s 2006 report, Achieving public sector outcomes with private sector partners, and informed by the observations of my Auditor-General colleagues from other jurisdictions,

I consider that: public entities (ie Councils) involved in PPPs must:

– properly understand and manage these partnerships strategically, tactically, and operationally; and
– establish and maintain good ongoing relationships and processes with stakeholder and community groups;

and central agencies (ie Office Auditor General, Government...) should consider how best to:

– provide more co-ordinated guidance and support throughout the public sector, particularly with monitoring and managing these partnerships when they become operational;
– build a co-ordinated reporting strategy that provides regular and transparent performance information on the portfolio of PPPs; and
– comment on, and manage if needed, the strategic, sector-wide, issues that could affect the PPP programme, such as perceived limitations in local funding markets and the lack of domestic private sector expertise.

So. Given this advice to itself, much of which was known in 2006, why has the OAG sat on its hands for so long, especially when it knew full well about the lack of expertise at Kaipara District Council, and the risks involved?

An unreserved apology does not cut it.

Your head is on the block.

Auckland Council - Worrying Signs

I'm writing this posting because I'm concerned about the political silence emanating from Auckland Council. I'm not worried about green or blue street signs especially - or about whether berms are mowed by Council or not.

Those are not the signs that are worrying...

I've started as Councillor on four occasions. Twice as a North Shore City Councillor, and twice as an Auckland Regional Councillor. Maybe I see the starts of those terms through rose tinted spectacles (with the exception of my last term at ARC - that was a bit of nightmare - but I won't go into that....)

Each three year term started with significant public debate and discussion about the term, and about the year ahead. There were opportunities for councillors - some new, some old timers - to share ideas and generally get the measure of each other. Testing times. But there was a genuine direction-setting process.

You will recall that the first term of the supercity there was a lot of this (2010 and 2011). NZ Herald covered those times comprehensively. There was a high degree of public interest and engagement.

What is worrying is that we are not seeing that this term.

Here's what the Mayor told a public meeting on the North Shore a few weeks ago:

"...One of my first tasks is setting out my priorities for the next annual budget. I’ve talked to thousands of Aucklanders over the past few months. People want to be assured that we’re doing everything to keep rates low while keeping a close eye on debt and making thoughtful, strategic investment in infrastructure, which has been neglected and underfunded for so long. As Aucklanders, we need to have a discussion about funding – what funding mechanisms are acceptable to us for the infrastructure shortfall, how we could utilise public private partnerships, and possible sponsorship agreements for day-to-day operations, such as our swimming pools. Fairness is critical to the new Auckland, and I know some of the changes we have faced have not seemed fair to some communities. Berm mowing and rates are two examples. Auckland City was the only former council which mowed berms. We faced the decision between saving $3 million to cease mowing, bringing the area into line with the rest of Auckland or spending an additional $12-$15 million to mow all Auckland berms. We needed to consider what was fair practice and what was the fairest and best use of our finances. Moving to a single, region wide rating system was a challenge that would face the first Mayor and council of all Auckland, irrespective of the people in the hot seats. Properties of equal value being rated on an equal footing is the principle, but I acknowledge it hasn’t felt equitable for many people on the North Shore in the transition from a land-value based rating system to a capital value based rating system. Uneven impact of the change is why we asked the government to enable us to have a three-year transition period. The first term of Auckland Council has been a big step forward – never has there been so much debate about our future direction as well as so much real progress. The second term will be no less significant as we make real progress towards making Auckland the world’s most liveable city...."

There's not a lot in there that you might take exception to.
Not a lot in there to get excited about either. No mention of debt. But it starts with this line:

"One of my first tasks is setting out my priorities for the next annual budget...."

Look more closely:

"One of my first tasks is setting out my priorities for the next annual budget...."

When Mai Chen delivered her Auckland Conversation a couple of weeks ago, she reported feedback from 50 or so conversations she'd had. What people liked and disliked about the supercity. Interestingly there were strong views expressed about the Mayor's Office. Strong likes and strong dislikes.

As an aside I note that Doug McKay did not agree with Mai Chen's assessment that all the foundational work stemming from amalgamation was done - and that now it's onward and upward. McKay considers that there is more foundational work to do....

In the first supercity term I my observation is that Councillors and Council and Mayor only really engaged with Auckland issues when they were forced to by public pressure. For example the Unitary Plan and density planning, and Ports expansion proposals. Public interest forced Council to function like a Council, councillors needed to inform themselves, understand local concerns, take considered positions, and then work together as a team to arrive at decisions. Local media were there to see the debate, report it, and keep the public informed as it progressed.

Democracy in action. Might not be perfect. But it's what we have to work with.

Imperfections in the Council process include councillors who make statements that are designed to attract media attention rather than contribute to a consensus decision. That's politics, part of the political process. Noisy and opinionated. When issues first arise, or begin to attract public attention, then councillors come from many points of view. Some are informed, but appear not to be, others are uninformed but act is if they know what they are talking about. Again, all part of the process, par for the course.

My worry about the Mayor's office is that unless there is evidence of public interest and pressure, the mayor's office will maintain a low profile, and will do only what it needs to do, to nurse decisions through the democratic process. There are all sorts of arguments for this - some felt, some stated, sometimes true, sometimes not true:

• Council meetings take time and waste time
• Councillors use the opportunity to make statements that might embarrass the Council
• Councillors add little to what skilled officers recommend
• Council meetings are organised chaos
• Council meetings are risky because they are hard to control and predict
• Councillors are a liability

So. What to do - if you agree with these arguments:

• Look for opportunities to delegate decision-making to officers. 
• Avoid collective decision-making if possible - by getting officers to work with key councillors on a one-one basis beforehand - so the decision is effectively made before the meeting. 
• Avoid public debate of contentious items. 
• Avoid contentious items.

Last term I tried to engage with the Mayor's office on a few occasions. Like many others. Most times that became an engagement with key people in the mayor's office. Now here's another worrying sign. Without exception the people I spoke with, or learned about, had previous roles in the Parliamentary Labour Party. This is a worry for a variety of reasons - not least of which is their lack of knowledge of, and feeling for local government. I appreciate that the Mayor's office is front of house for Auckland Council and its dealings with Central Government which has a clear agenda of economic growth in Auckland, and that as far as it's concerned no stone should be left unturned in pursuit of that objective.

The problem that I see emerging is that the Mayor's office is turning itself into the meat in the sandwich between Central Government and Council. It's neither one thing nor the other.

This was certainly the case toward the end of the last term. We see the fruits of that in the Ernst and Young paper on PPP's, and the Mayor talking about that idea, after the election, and before having a formative debate about that controversial issue with his new Council. What's going on here? Are we being treated to a kiwi version of Tony Blair's Third Way? Is that on the table? What's the purpose of having 20 councillors?

This challenge and process needs to be brought out into the open more. Transparency required.

And just as the Mayor needs to rebuild trust with the wider Auckland community, he needs to be building a political relationship with his new team of councillors, and in doing so, enabling them to build political relationships with each other. That takes work and effort and focus.

The benefits include more public understanding too.

That doesn't happen with a single one-on-one chat after the election and the allocation of Chair and Deputy Chair roles. I would like to see the emergence of a collective leadership approach at Auckland Council. This needs to be led and facilitated. A good start would be the formation of some sort of leadership team between the Mayor and his key Chairs.

It is not a happy sign that Mayoral papers, reports, agendas and suchlike descend into the attention of Councillors, and appear on their tables, at the very meeting they are to be debated and decided.

These worries need attention to avoid more questions about who/what really controls Council.

The time has passed when meaningless statements like...."making Auckland the world’s most liveable city...." will pass for leadership. Sure given recent events it might be hard to front up and show leadership. But it is not good enough to rely on faceless political bureaucrats to develop your leadership position and to write your leadership statements. Now is the time to work with your varied team of councillors, who do want the best for our city, who - given the chance and the space - can be encouraged to work as a team, and build the city's political leadership in public.

Auditing the OAG's Audit Arm

I was there, in the Golf Club at Mangawhai heads to hear Lyn Provost (The Auditor General) provide a community briefing about its enquiry into the Mangawhai community wastewater scheme. And I guess I have been "there" - involved - for the past 12 years and more in both the early planning that led to the scheme, and as bach owner, and lately as a member of the Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Association.

Yesterday was a special moment for many. It was the first inkling we had of what was explored in the enquiry, (enquiries) that have been underway for 20 months.

In this posting I will concentrate on the review of the audit work done by the Audit Office of the Office of the Auditor General.

This was a separate enquiry.

It was conducted by Neil Cherry.  (According to Linkedin he is currently with: External Reporting Board (XRB), New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (NZAuASB), and Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB). And also/ previously with: Professional Standards Board, NZICA, Wellington City Council, New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants).

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Terms of Reference for the Review follow. These are quoted in full - to give you a good flavour. You will recognise some of these words in the enquiry findings, which I quote from selectively, later on in this posting:

Scope of the review of audit work

The Reviewer will assess and report on the sufficiency and appropriateness of the planning, performance and reporting of the audits by Audit New Zealand of Kaipara District Council’s:

• Long Term Community Council Plans (‘LTCCPs’) for 2006, 2009 and the Long Term Plan for 2012,
• Annual Reports for the years 2003 to 2012; and 
• Annual Plans for the years 2003 to 2012. 

 The Reviewer will assess whether the work of Audit New Zealand was carried out in accordance with New Zealand auditing and assurance standards (including those issued by the Auditor-General), that applied at the time the audits were performed. In particular the Reviewer will assess and report on the following matters:

Planning and performance of the audit engagement 

• Whether the auditors sufficiently and appropriately planned and performed the audits, including whether they had a sufficient and appropriate focus on significant material risks or financial matters, including in relation to the Mangawhai scheme;
• Whether the auditors planned the audits so that they identified the key legislative matters that needed to be addressed in the audit and whether they appropriately performed the audits to ensure that these matters were addressed; 
• Whether the auditors planned the audits with due care, competence, independence and with sufficient professional judgement and scepticism; 
• Whether the auditors had and applied sufficient and appropriate quality control mechanisms in planning and performing the audits; 
• Whether the auditors in planning and performing the audits sufficiently and appropriately took into account key issues affecting the financial management of the Council; 
• Whether the auditors sufficiently and appropriately communicated with Kaipara District Council staff in planning and performing the audits; 
• Whether the auditors used adequate and appropriate resources in planning and performing the audits, including the use of appropriately skilled staff or experts; 

 Audit reporting and conclusions

Whether the auditors’ conclusions were supported by sufficient and appropriate evidence;
Whether the auditors’ conclusions were appropriately reported both in the audit report and management letters;

Audit documentation

Whether the audit files contained sufficient and appropriate documentation of the audits;
Whether the audit files contained evidence to show that the auditors had obtained sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support their conclusions;

Audit methodology

Whether the Audit New Zealand audit methodology adequately supported the planning and performance of the audits of Kaipara District Council;

Audit communications 

Whether the audit opinions in the audits were appropriate;
Whether the management letters were appropriate.

 So. That's what Neil Cherry was asked to do. His report is presented in full as Appendix 6 of the 427 page report. It is about 100 pages in length. It is quite separate from the enquiry conducted by the Office of Auditor General into the wastewater scheme itself.

INDEPENDENT REVIEW: AUDIT SERVICES ON KDC

In this part of the posting, I will simply cut and paste, sometimes with comment, the sections of this very detailed and comprehensive review, that - to me - are the most salient.

I present these in the order they are contained in the review - which begins with an Exec Summary....

Summary: The auditor’s knowledge and understanding of the wastewater project....

Summary:  2003 - 2005....

Summary:  2006 - 2009

Summary:  Audits performed 2006-2009....

Key Findings and Observations (Selection)....

The auditor’s assessment of KDC's financial management control environment....

Other general findings and observations...

Various other selections..(You will note here an italicised quote from Audit NZ that was obtained in answer to questions posed to Audit NZ by Neil Cherry in the course of his review...)

Assumptions and financial prudence....

Engagement Quality Control Review (bombshell)....

The Council's accounting treatment of the wastewater project....

(and so on...)

My Wrap Up...

What is interesting is that the OAG has organised its enquiry - and so has Neil Cherry - into specific special periods of time. 2002-2005, and 2006-2009, and 2010-2012.

When defending herself from attacks at the public meeting, the Auditor General (Lyn Provost) emphasised the fact that no letters or complaints had been received from residents in the period 2006-2009, which is (you will see above) the period when the most critical failings of Audit NZ happened. Provost did acknowledge the complaints that were received in the period 2002-2005 (and upon which the OAG acted), and also the complaints received in the period 2010-2012 (when the OAG commenced this enquiry).

It seems to me that this is a thin attempt by the OAG to avoid any responsibility for what happened (or didn't happen) in the most problematic period which was 2006-2009.

I ask you this Ms Provost: why apologise unreservedly to the Mangawhai community (which you did  - it was an unqualified apology), if you seriously believe that it is all down to failings of Audit NZ only, and that your office holds no responsibility for the audit failings of Audit NZ - your own arms-length audit entity?

And did you have anything to do with, or knowledge of, the dispensation of the Audit Quality Review referred to in 267 and 268 above?