Probe into kiwi deaths cost $272k
Taxpayers have forked out more than $272,000 for a review into the deaths of 25 kiwi at a privately run sanctuary.
The Department of Conservation (DOC) hired former Chief Censor David Shanks to investigate complaints about wildlife handling practices and the deaths of 18 brown kiwi chicks and seven little spotted kiwi at Hawke’s Bay’s Cape Sanctuary.
But after repeatedly busting through an agreed fee cap, the final bill – which DOC says includes legal fees paid to law firm Dentons Kensington Swan – came in at $272,632.55.
Between 2016 and 2018, DoC came under public pressure after allegations of mishandling and mismanagement of the kiwi.
Wealthy tourists staying at the sanctuary’s luxury accommodation, including former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney, were offered the chance to pet and cuddle the kiwi on tours with staff. Critics claimed DOC was putting tourism dollars above wildlife welfare and was leading to the death of a high number of kiwi.
However, Shanks found excessive handling, while “unlawful and unnecessary”, did not contribute to the kiwi deaths. That was likely due to an extended dry season and loss of experienced staff at the sanctuary.
But his review was critical of DOC, saying the agency’s systems for issuing wildlife permits and handling complaints were inadequate.
Documents released to The Press under the Official Information Act reveal DOC struck agreement with Shanks to carry out the review in mid-2022.
Shanks is an executive director of RDC Group, which is on a panel of pre-approved consultancy businesses government agencies can select from.
An August email from DOC’s principal solicitor Tara Allardyce notes an agreed fee cap, but the amount, and his hourly rate, is redacted. It also did not include “reasonable expenses” such as travel or accommodation.
At that point it was expected the report would be delivered in December.
By November, Shanks was asking for a variation of the contract and for the delivery of the report to be pushed out. The documents are heavily redacted and no explanation is given. Officials agree to the legal fees, but not an additional 1% administration charge added by Shanks. “We need to be clear to Shanks this is the limit,” Mike Tully, deputy director general, wrote.
“Mike wishes for me to be clear that we wish to avoid further fee increases or overruns if at all possible,” Allardyce told Shanks. “I note that the fee is described as an estimate. In recognition of Mike’s desire to manage fees closely and avoid over-runs, can you please let me know how fees are tracking over the coming weeks and months?”
But by February, the bill had gone up again, with Shanks estimating he would need to bill for an extra 30 hours. The report would be delayed until April. Jonty Somers, DOC’s chief legal advisor, agreed this was “reasonable and not unanticipated”.
Somers told Tully: “The matter has assumed more complexity as he has got further into it, there has been rather more information that has been drip fed to him than he might have anticipated, and there have been additional people to interview.”
The draft report would also incur additional expenses from Dentons, he added. Tully agreed and also signed off on another increase later in February. By June, the draft report was done, but Shanks needed more – a bill for an extra 50 hours. Dentons also wrote to say they had used up the original budget and required “a small extension”.
Somers wrote to Allardyce: “While it looks like the revised estimate is significantly more than the original, there’s probably not a lot we can do about it.”
In August, Shanks said he would have to bill for an extra 10 hours work. DOC negotiated him down to six. “We are particularly mindful of the escalating costs associated with this matter. In addition, there is an expectation upon government departments to exercise financial restraint wherever possible,” Allardyce explained.
The report was published in late August. DOC did not answer further questions about the fee cap or legal expenses.
Shanks said as an independent investigator he was limited to which extent he could comment on report detail and process. “I would note that the level of complexity of the investigation may reasonably be inferred from the body of the report itself and the span of time/ range of factual issues addressed,” he added.