Empty desks counted in Wellington City Council over-staffing report
Wednesday, 24 December 2025
Join the conversation in the comments below.
A $435,000 report claiming Wellington City Council had hundreds of surplus staff counted 50‑plus empty desks, raising fresh questions about the document’s credibility.
The council has confirmed the Deloitte Future Fit Pōneke report — which claimed the organisation had 330 surplus staff — calculated its “workforce” by combining current employees with vacant roles, producing a total of 1775 full‑time equivalents (FTEs).
Council spokesperson Richard MacLean said the data came from August. Actual FTE numbers were 1718 in June (57 fewer) and 1666 (109 fewer) when the report was released in November.
After the report’s release, council boss Matt Prosser warned: “Our community can't afford for us to keep delivering the services we do [and] maintain the assets at the current levels. Something's got to change in the way that we work.”
READ MORE:
Council claims restructuring of 66 roles will result in one less worker
Wellington council job cuts spark backlash ahead of election
In a press briefing, he defended the report after the Public Service Association (PSA) union called it a “slash and burn” document that made assumptions and was not based on actual data. Prosser stressed that the council was not looking to cut staff but focused on “managing vacancies”.
Deloitte could not be reached for comment. The report, which listed multiple potential cost savings, did say $11.8 million could be saved by only filling half of vacant positions.
It showed that Wellington had significantly-more FTEs-per-household than comparable councils but councillor Geordie Rogers, who found the anomalies, said he had confirmation from staff that other councils’ numbers were based on currently-employed staff.
“This is not an apples-to-apples comparison and, when you use the same data sources, Wellington City Council comes very close to the national average,” Rogers said.
“Comparing apples-to-oranges like this calls into question the validity of the conclusions in the report.”
Green councillor Rebecca Matthews also said using actual staff numbers made Wellington’s staffing-per-household numbers “pretty-much in-line” with comparable councils.
Little at the time of the release hinted at some uneasiness with the data, saying the extent of the comparison to other councils was “not quite clear”.
On Monday he said he had assurances from staff that it had provided accurate staff numbers to Deloitte.
Planning and Finance Committee chairperson councillor Diane Calvert said it was not unusual for vacant and filled roles to be put together in reports “but normally they specify”.
“I never considered [when seeing the 330 figure], that it would include vacancies? When I looked at that number, I thought it needs to be verified,” she said.
Her committee was due to receive an update on progress from the report in February which would feed into both the triennium and annual plans now being developed.
PSA national secretary Duane Leo on Sunday said the union used the same measure as the Deloitte report ‒ counting filled and vacant positions ‒ when assessing public sector job losses but it would be clearly stated.
“This approach ensures that total lost capacity is assessed when job losses are made,” Leo said.
“Wellington City Council cannot afford to lose existing expertise given the many challenges the city faces.'
The report suggested reducing “people managers” by 30% to 50%, and talked of removing duplication and lowering administration costs through automation and digitisation. The report faulted the council’s contract management, echoing recent criticism of Wellington Water. It found 80% of contracts were not properly managed through the system.
The report also found:
LIM reports are long and complex, requiring data from 12 different systems.
Central procurement processes are often bypassed, leading to inconsistent practices, duplication, and poor contract governance.
Contracts are often rolled over or directly appointed based on past performance, which may miss competitive opportunities that offer better value for money.
Engagement and consultation processes differ across teams, leading to confusion and duplication.
The rationale for council involvement in the provision of services, particularly where private providers are active (such as EV infrastructure), lacks strategic clarity or clear financial analysis.
There is ambiguity around how the council’s role differs from that of central government for services like city safety, community housing and food insecurity.
There are opportunities to generate more revenue from uncollected debt, commercial partnerships, and charges for services.
Comments are moderated during working hours and may not appear immediately.