Gore District Council stands firm despite audit challenges

Gore District Council has received an adverse audit opinion on its 2025 – 2034 Long-Term Plan due to its decision to include water services ahead of Southern Water Done Well consultation outcomes, a step taken to ensure transparency and protect the integrity of the process.

The 2025–2034 Long Term Plan, scheduled for adoption today (30 June), includes the Council’s current in-house water services delivery model across the nine-year life of the Plan.

The Office of the Auditor-General had advised councils that if they were consulting on a preferred water services delivery option, under the Government’s Local Water Done Well legislation, that preferred option should be reflected in their LTPs.

Chief Executive Debbie Lascelles said the decision to include the current in-house water services model in the plan was based on legal advice and reflects the Council’s commitment to open and honest communication with its community.

“We made a deliberate choice to include water services in the LTP because to do otherwise would pre-empt the outcome of the Southern Water Done Well consultation and risk judicial review.”

She stressed that the underlying financial information for the first two years of the LTP were robust and based on the best available information the Council had at the time.

The Council understands that two other councils have received an adverse audit opinion for the same reason as Gore.

Gore District Mayor Ben Bell said the decision to retain water services in the Long-Term Plan had unanimous support from elected members.

"It's frankly absurd that the Auditor-General is penalising us for being transparent with our community.

"The audit position demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of our obligations to our community, and undermines the principles of local government transparency and accountability.

“Elected members simply refuse to pre-empt a decision without proper consideration of our resident’s views. If this leads to us getting an adverse opinion, then so be it.”

The adverse opinion does not impact the Council's financial stability or service delivery, he said.

Ms Lascelle said the audit opinion does not reflect on the financial quality of the plan. The infrastructure programme included in the LTP is sound, and the costs would apply regardless of the delivery model, she said.

“Whether Gore delivers water services as part of a joint entity or itself, the capital programme and associated costs are largely unchanged,” Ms Lascelles said.

Once a final decision is made about future water services delivery, the council will be required to review and update the LTP.