‘Poorly controlled’ and risky: Wellington City Council’s contract chaos

Saturday, 21 February 2026

A damning internal audit has labelled Wellington City Council’s contract management processes as “poorly controlled,” revealing systemic failures that expose ratepayers to significant financial and legal risks.

The report, conducted by Grant Thornton, confirms the troubling findings of a previous Deloitte probe which estimated that poor oversight could be costing the city tens of millions of dollars.

That report was commissioned in the wake of two blistering reports which revealed that the Capital's ratepayers were paying nearly three times more for water repairs than in other parts of the country.

The latest review, buried in the agenda for an upcoming meeting of the council’s audit and risk committee, found that documentation for a vast majority of contracts could not be located.

Read more:

• Wellington Water financial controls ‘insufficient, informal, unreliable’

• Money down the drain: Scathing Wellington Water report explained

• Wellington City Council: Too many staff, time for ‘right-sizing’, new report shows

It found more than 80% of contracts lacked reference numbers, and nearly half had no listed contract manager, leaving council staff unable to verify active contracts or monitor financial commitments.

The council’s central contract system, OneCouncil, is inconsistently used, auditors revealed, with many staff bypassing it.

The review found more than a quarter of contracts were signed after services have already begun, and in some cases, staff without the proper Delegated Financial Authority-approved agreements. Those lapses exposed the council to potential legal, operational and financial risk.

Monitoring of supplier performance is inconsistent. More than a quarter of contracts lacked key performance indicators or service level agreements, and over a third omitted a 'right to audit' clause, limiting the council’s ability to verify supplier costs or performance. Reporting requirements, where they existed, were often ignored.

Staff capability was another concern. The audit found no formal contract management training, with many employees learning on the job or relying on prior experience.

Many contract managers had only a partial understanding of their responsibilities, and some were unsure if they were even officially designated as the manager of a specific contract.

In a statement to the committee, chief executive Matt Prosser acknowledged the problems and said staff are working on a project to “strengthen contract management”.

“It is timely that this audit has been conducted …and will support the work already commenced in June this year…to address concerns that ELT [the executive leadership team] held and have subsequently been raised within the audit.

“I will be supporting the accountable officer and ELT colleagues, as we implement the changes necessary to ensure our contract management processes are robust and deliver value for money for the city.”

Andrea Reeves, chief strategy and financial officer, said: “As we progress the contract management system review we will consider if the recommendations in this report are adequately covered in the review, or how we will adequately address the recommendations through an alternative process.”