Home‎ > ‎Latest News‎ > ‎

Petition - Public Records Act


The petition closed on Tuesday the 25th of September 2018, with 418 signatures and was delivered to Parliament by Greg Rzesniowiecki 
Thank you Greg , Nikki Kaye , Lisa Er , to everyone who came down - and especially to one who didn't - who we've done this for : Penny Bright  - Alan Preston


Auckland Council must comply with the Public Records Act 2005 – Petition

“Open the books,” was Penny Bright’s catch phrase and this petition is continuing her very valuable work insisting on transparency.

The Public Records Act is not being fully implemented and enforced in New Zealand.
Ratepayers’ have a right to know how their money is being spent.
NZ law is very clear on this requirement for transparency in public spending
“Requirement to create and maintain records
(1) Every public office and local authority must create and maintain full and accurate records of its affairs, in accordance with normal, prudent business practice, including the records of any matter that is contracted out to an independent contractor.”

The petition requests that the House of Representatives undertake an urgent inquiry into whether Auckland Council has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of section 17(1) of the Public Records Act 2005.
 "Council needs to provide the following details of awarded contracts on the websites of Auckland Council and Auckland Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs)
The unique contract number; name of consultant/contractor; a brief description of scope of contract; contract start/ finish dates; exact dollar value of every contract, including those sub-contracted; how contract was awarded, by direct appointment or public appointment or public tender.”


Private procurement, or “contracting out” of public services, formerly provided in-house by staff directly employed under the public service model, is often done under contract management.

Council staff were portrayed as not having the skills to do contract management - so council professional staff then hire expensive consultants to 'project manage' the contractors, who can then sub contract to others making accountability difficult.
By the time you get down to those in the boots and overalls you might have up to four layers of pinstripe suits clipping the ticket. How is that a 'cost-effective' use of public money?

If there is no 'cost-benefit analysis' which proves the privatisation (contracting out of public services) is more cost-effective' for the public majority of taxpayers and ratepayers - then it is 'corporate welfare'.

Where exactly are the billions of dollars of public funds being spent on private sector consultants and contractors?

How can you check for cost-effectiveness in the spending of public funds that is being spent on private sector consultants if you don’t know where the money is going?



Lisa Er, and Alan William Preston - on behalf of Penny Bright ( now in Auckland Hospital - 2018-09-20 )

For more on Penny Bright's campaign

More information:

Here is a November 2017 interview with Penny Bright on Corruption and Contract Management.  She says it is time to look at the whole underpinning private procurement model for public services.

Here are two US websites that give information on contracting out and public private partnerships:

Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted on Hiring Contractors:


Public-private partnerships (PPPs) involve commercial contracts between public authorities (state or local) and private businesses in the design, construction, financing and operation of public infrastructure and services that have traditionally been delivered by the public sector. such as water, park management, and transport: