Far North District Councillor Mate Radich will get an independent review of the controversial Sweetwaters project, that is expected to cost more than $20 million, after initially calling for a judicial review of the scheme.
Far North District Councillor Mate Radich will get an independent review of the controversial Sweetwaters project, that is expected to cost more than $20 million, after initially calling for a judicial review of the scheme.
Far North District Council will hold an independent investigation into its controversial Sweetwater Aquifer project but pulled back from holding a judicial review into the scheme.
Te Hiku ward district councillor Mate Radich, a long-time critic of the escalating costs of the Sweetwater project, put a notice of motion in Thursday’s full council meeting “that the council requests that an independent judicial review be done immediately on the Sweetwater Aquifer”.
However, Mayor Moko Tepania asked Radich if he would instead move that the council hold an independent review into the scheme and report back to the full council in July.
Tepania said this would be cheaper for ratepayers and get the same result.
Radich accepted the change, and the council passed the alternate motion.
The alternate motion Far North District Councillors approved to hold an independent investigation into its Sweetwater Aquifer project that has seen costs soar to an estimated $20 million.
In speaking to the motion, Radich said he had concerns about the costs of the scheme and the processes used throughout. He said despite numerous requests he had yet to receive the full costs of the scheme so far.
Radich said an independent look into the project was needed and despite following the project closely over the past 13 years, he still did not know what had happened to make costs blow out and deadlines to be missed.
Figures given to him from council staff since 2021 ranged from $13.5 million to $18.9m, with three different figures – varying by almost $4m – provided just this year.
“Ratepayers have a right to know how much it cost,” Radich said. “I know a judicial review is expensive, but given the mess, what other option do I have? It’s so important to bring out the truth.”
“I’m just seeking clarity,” he said.
A judicial review would cost tens of thousands of dollars – possibly as much as $100,000 – and would take much longer than the independent review.
Radich said over the years he had been given different figures on how much the project had cost, with some figures less than what he had been given in previous years, and he believed the costs had now exceeded $20m.
Deputy Mayor Kelly Stratford wanted assurances any review would be “absolutely independent” as she was unconvinced it would have sufficient integrity if it was carried out internally.
“We’re not looking to lay blame, but we need to understand what happened, so we don’t make the same mistakes going forward.”
Councillor Ann Court said she was concerned about the expense of a review, and the cumulative cost of the council’s ad hoc decisions.
“If this is just a ‘gotcha’ exercise, I don’t think it would be a useful spend of ratepayer money.”
However, if the review led to useful lessons, it could have merit, Court said.
Chief executive Guy Holroyd said a review could cost “tens and tens of thousands of dollars”. He wanted to gather the information internally, then have it audited by external experts.
The independent review would be done immediately and involve council staff gathering the relevant information and passing it on to the independent reviewers, which would include an accountant. The review would then be reported back to the council in July.
But the project has been dogged with problems, and it has now soaked up more than $17m of ratepayer money, with the council insiders saying the final cost is likely to top $20m, but the council denies it will reach that level. It missed two deadlines over the past two years, but water was finally delivered into the public water supply in February.
Last month, Northland Age revealed that the council and contractor face potentially big fines if they are found guilty of illegally discharging more than 90 million litres of groundwater into the Sweetwater Wetland.
Each defendant faces a charge of illegally discharging abstracted groundwater within 100m of the Sweetwater Bore Wetland and two charges each of undertaking earthworks or vegetation clearance within a 10m setback from the same natural wetland. They have entered not guilty pleas to the representative charges – meaning they happened on more than one occasion – and the matter will be back before the court on June 13. The maximum penalties for the offences are a fine of no more than $600,000.
