The Future Fit Pōneke report, released on 25 November 2025, concluded the council had about 330 more full-time-equivalent staff than comparable organisations.

Deloitte estimated reducing staffing by that amount could save an average of $33.9 million.

But subsequent council analysis has identified significant problems with how that figure was calculated.

The council found occupied positions had been counted alongside vacant roles, while some staffing comparisons relied on employment data from the Taxpayers’ Union that was current as at June 2022.

Wellington City Council had supplied Deloitte with staffing and cost information through to 30 June 2025.

Council papers also found employees had been costed at their full-time salary regardless of the hours they actually worked.

That overstated staffing expenditure by $21.5 million.

Another assumption treated positions containing the word “project” as duplicated roles.

Council officials were blunt about what those problems meant for Deloitte’s central staffing recommendation.

“The incorrect data usage means that the assumptions used to construct the recommendation to reduce the organisation by 330 FTE were inherently flawed,” council papers said.

Recalculating the figure produced an estimate of 284 FTE, but council papers cautioned that this did not account for other assumptions in the Deloitte analysis which could also be incorrect.

The distinction matters because the report was not merely an academic exercise.

When it was released, the 330 figure became one of its most prominent findings and formed part of a wider argument that Wellington City Council could substantially reduce staffing costs.

The report was commissioned by council chief executive Matt Prosser as an independent review aimed at improving council performance and rates affordability.

At the time, Prosser cautioned that its recommendations would need to be critically assessed.

Mayor Andrew Little has since intensified criticism of Deloitte’s work.

Speaking to Newstalk ZB, Little said the council had provided Deloitte with up-to-date staffing information, but the firm had used the older Taxpayers’ Union data for part of its analysis.

“They’ve never explained why they did that,” Little said.

Little also alleged that artificial intelligence had been extensively used in producing the report.

“The other thing that we’ve since discovered, because you can do this now, is that large chunks of it were written by AI.”

Little did not identify which sections he believed had been written using AI or explain publicly how that conclusion had been reached.

Deloitte has not accepted Little’s characterisation that “large chunks” of the report were written by AI.

The company has said it uses a range of technologies across its work, including AI-enabled tools where appropriate, and that analysis, findings and conclusions require human sign-off.

Deloitte has also stood by the report.

“We are satisfied that the report’s conclusions reflect the work performed and the professional judgement applied throughout the engagement,” a spokesperson said.

Little acknowledged that the report was not without value, pointing particularly to its examination of the council’s contract-management systems.

But his assessment of other sections was stark.

“Other parts of the report were frankly just a waste of time,” he said.

Little said the report had already informed some actions inside the council, including work on vacancy management and contract management.

He said council staffing numbers were also being reduced independently through restructuring and efficiency work.

Asked whether the council had approached Deloitte seeking a refund, Little said he personally had not and noted that the report had been commissioned by the chief executive rather than the mayor.

He said the matter was ultimately for Prosser and council officers.

Asked whether he would raise it with Prosser, Little said: “I’ll talk to him about it.”