I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Governing Body will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 24 August 2017

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Governing Body

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

 

Deputy Mayor

Cr Bill Cashmore

 

Councillors

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Dick Quax

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Richard Hills

 

 

Cr Penny Hulse

 

 

Cr Denise Lee

 

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Sarndra O'Toole

Team Leader Governance Advisors

 

18 August 2017

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8152

Email: sarndra.otoole@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 



Terms of Reference

 

Those powers which cannot legally be delegated:

 

(a)        the power to make a rate

(b)        the power to make a bylaw

(c)        the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long term plan

(d)        the power to adopt a long term plan, annual plan, or annual report

(e)        the power to appoint a chief executive

(f)        the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement

(g)        the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

 

Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body:

 

(a)        approval of long-term plan or annual plan consultation documents, supporting information and consultation process prior to consultation

(b)        approval of a draft bylaw prior to consultation

(c)        resolutions required to be made by a local authority under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the appointment of electoral officer

(d)        adoption of, and amendment to, the Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct

(e)        relationships with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, including the funding agreement and appointments to committees

(f)        approval of the Unitary Plan

(g)        overview of the implementation and refresh of the Auckland Plan through setting direction on key strategic projects (e.g. the City Rail Link and the alternative funding mechanisms for transport) and receiving regular reporting on the overall achievement of Auckland Plan priorities and performance measures.

 


Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·         Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·         Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·         Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·         In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·         The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·         However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·         All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

·         Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

·         Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Staff

 

·         All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·         Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·         Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

·         Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

 

 

 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Affirmation                                                                                                                      7

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

5          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

6          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

7          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

8          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

9          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

10        Whether to propose an Easter Sunday Trading Policy                                            9

11        2019 elections - opportunity to change to the Single Transferable Vote electoral system                                                                                                                                       67

12        Agreement to a Crown representative on the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority                                                                                                                       71

13        Contributions Policy 2015 - Variation B                                                                    73

14        Appointment to Living Cell Technologies Limited Animal Ethics Committee     83

15        Councillor Richard Hills report on trip to Taipai, Taiwan                                      85

16        Upper Mangatangi-Mangatawhiri Catchments: Co-governance Arrangement   87

17        Summary of Governing Body information memos and briefings - 24 August 2017    89  

18        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

19        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                                 91

C1       CONFIDENTIAL:  Upper Mangatangi-Mangatawhiri Catchments: Co-governance Arrangement                                                                                                                91  

 


1          Affirmation

 

His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation.

 

 

2          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Governing Body:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 27 July 2017, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

 

6          Public Input

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Governance Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

 

 

7          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

 

 

 

8          Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

 

9          Notices of Motion

 

There were no notices of motion.

 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 

Whether to propose an Easter Sunday Trading Policy

 

File No.: CP2017/16602

 

  

 

Purpose                    

1.    To seek a decision on whether Auckland Council should propose a policy to permit more shops to open for trade on Easter Sunday.

Executive summary

2.    The Shop Trading Hours Amendment Act 2016 (the Act) came into force in 2016.

3.    Council can adopt a policy to permit more shops to open for trade on Easter Sunday. 

4.    On 23 March 2017 council approved community engagement on the following options:

·      Option One: ‘status quo’ - retain the status quo so that only shops currently able to trade on Easter Sunday will continue to be able to do so, or

·      Option Two: ‘more shops open’ - adopt a policy that will allow shops in all or parts of Auckland to trade on Easter Sunday from 2018.

5.    An economic analysis found that Easter Sunday trading would increase spending in shops not previously open, but the overall increased contribution to the Auckland economy would be minimal.

6.    Impacts assessment against council strategic objectives highlighted that there was a positive impact for Option One: ‘status quo’ in relation to Auckland’s People. The impacts in relation to Option Two: ‘more shops open’, were neutral.

7.    Findings from community engagement include:

·      a contrast of views between a demographically representative Research Survey and a self-selecting Public Engagement Survey:

55 per cent in the Research Survey supported Option Two: ‘more shops open’

68 per cent in the Public Engagement Survey supported Option One: ‘status quo.

·      key themes for supporting Option One: ‘status quo’ were that it’s only a couple of days a year, there is no need to shop every day, it provides time off for employees and preserves spending time with families

·      key themes for supporting Option Two: ‘more shops open’ were that not everyone follows or wishes to be bound to the Christian faith, retailers should be allowed to open and consumers want to shop, eat or drink with their families

·      business highlighted the importance of the principle of freedom of enterprise, and protections in the Act for employees who do not wish to work in support of Option Two: ‘more shops open’

·      churches, faith groups, unions, Pacific peoples and some Māori were concerned for employees who would lose a guaranteed day off under Option Two: ‘more shops open’ and the need to retain time for rest, family, religious and cultural activities in support of Option One: ‘status quo’.

8.    Staff recommend the Governing Body agree to Option One: ‘status quo’ as this retains a guaranteed day off for more retail employees. It also provides a positive impact towards council’s strategic objective for Auckland’s people.

9.    The key trade-off between the options is the loss of a guaranteed day off for more employees against the benefit for some Aucklanders of gaining leisure or convenience from having more shops open on Easter Sunday.

 

 

 

Recommendation

That the Governing Body:

a)    agree to retain the status quo so that only shops currently able to trade on Easter Sunday will continue to be able to do so.

 

Comments

Background

Legislation allows council to develop a policy to permit all shops to open on Easter Sunday

10.  The Shop Trading Hours Amendment Act 2016 (the Act) came into force in August 2016.

11.  The Act allows council to adopt a policy to permit shops in all or parts of the Auckland district to open for trade on Easter Sunday.

12.  The policy cannot require shops to open, decide trading hours or the types of shops that can open.

13.  The process under the Act requires:

·      the full council to decide to adopt a policy

·      public consultation using the special consultative procedure.

14.  All shop employees have the right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday.

15.  A personal grievance process applies for compulsion to work or adverse treatment for refusing to work. Employee protections apply whether or not a policy is adopted.

16.  The Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment’s Labour Inspectorate is responsible for enforcement of the Act.

17.  Easter Sunday is a restricted shop trading day; it is not a public holiday. The only other restricted shop trading days are Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day (until 1pm).

Community engagement was approved on the status quo or Easter Sunday trading

18.  At its meeting on 23 March 2017 the Governing Body considered whether to retain the status quo or propose an Easter Sunday trading policy. The option of engaging with the community was also considered. An analysis of the advantages, disadvantages, risks and implementation of options was provided to assist decision making.

19.  The Governing Body approved community engagement on whether to retain the status quo or propose an Easter Sunday trading policy [Resolution GB/2017/22].

Options

20.  The options available to council in responding to the Act are:

Option One: ‘status quo’

21.  Option One: is to retain the status quo so that only those shops currently able to trade on Easter Sunday will continue to be able to do so.

22.  Under Option One: ‘status quo’ only certain shops are currently permitted to open for trade in Auckland on Easter Sunday, these include:

·      service stations

·      dairies

·      pharmacies

·      restaurants and cafes

·      take away food shops

·      duty free shops

·      garden centres

·      shops at public transport stations, shows or exhibitions

·      certain services (e.g. hairdressers, video rental and real estate agencies)

·      shops on Parnell Road under an historic exemption issued in 1989.

23.  The types of shops currently not permitted to open include shopping malls, supermarkets and clothing, appliance, homeware, sports and recreation retailers.

Option Two: ‘more shops open’

24.  Option Two: allows more shops to open by adopting a policy that will permit shops in all of Auckland to trade on Easter Sunday from 2018.

25.  Should the Governing Body adopt this option, staff will provide the necessary recommendations to progress this decision in time for Easter 2018. This report includes a copy of the proposed Easter Sunday trading policy and statement of proposal (refer Attachment A).

26.  Staff also considered a policy (as provided for in the Act) that would apply to only parts of Auckland, specifically the central business district. This has not been included in this option because:

·      of the strong preference from people supporting Option Two: ‘more shops open’ for any policy to apply to all parts of Auckland (e.g. 92 and 94 per cent across the two surveys)

·      minimal likely contribution to Auckland’s economy

·      potential impacts on employees - albeit a smaller number of employees.

Analysis

27.  To assist council to determine its response to Easter Sunday trading staff have undertaken:

·      an economic analysis of Easter Sunday trading

·      impact assessment against council’s strategic objectives

·      community engagement to obtain a breadth and depth of views.

Economic analysis - Easter Sunday trading

28.  Research included international comparisons and electronic card expenditure for the Anzac Day and Easter period in 2016[1].The research looked at spending across Auckland and key retail areas including Albany, Manukau, Sylvia Park, New Lynn and the central business district.

29.  It also included data on the origin of the card used – international, the Auckland region, or other regions of New Zealand.

Card spending data in Auckland show ‘spikes’ and ‘lows’ in spending across the Easter and Anzac weeks

30.  For the majority of retail locations analysed, electronic card expenditure during the week of  Easter in 2016 shows a combination of ‘spikes’ (significant increases in spending) on the days before and after Good Friday and the day before Easter Sunday.

31.  These peaks were punctuated by ‘lows’ (significantly reduced spending) on Easter Friday and Easter Sunday when the trading restriction was in effect.

32.  Supermarkets and grocery shops, and food hospitality (e.g. cafes, restaurants, pubs, etc) have the highest levels of spending among majority of the retail locations analysed. The exception to this was in Auckland’s central business district.

33.  Auckland residents contributed the largest share of total retail spending across all retail centre locations for the 2016 Easter period, followed by tourists from other regions of New Zealand and international tourists.

34.  Auckland’s central business district was less affected by the Easter trading restrictions, with less dramatic ‘peaks’ and ‘lows’ in spending around the 2016 Easter weekend (i.e. the day before Easter Friday to Easter Monday).

Any extra spending is likely to come from tourists and a transfer from online spending

35.  The Auckland central business district made up the greatest share of tourist spending during Easter 2016 due to spending by international tourists.

36.  Allowing more shops to open on Easter Sunday in the central business district may provide an opportunity to increase retail spending.

37.  However, as many tourist-oriented businesses are already able to open on Easter Sunday – restaurants, duty free shops and shops at public transport locations for instance, the economic benefit is likely to be minimal.

Easter Sunday trading would increase spending in more shops but with minimal contribution to the Auckland economy

38.  If more shops are allowed to open on Easter Sunday this could transfer spending away from smaller shops (currently allowed to open) to larger shops like supermarkets and department stores. There is also likely to be some transfer from online spending to spending in shops.

39.  The total increase in spending in the Auckland economy would be minimal. Aucklanders who make up the bulk of spending in the economy have set incomes which impose limits on their spending.

40.  Studies in the United Kingdom provide examples of where some of the most detailed analysis on proposals to change shop trading hours have been undertaken.

41.  This analysis indicates that the overall, annual economic benefit of opening more shops on Easter Sunday was likely to be very minimal (0.005 per cent - five thousandths of 1 per cent) of annual gross domestic product)[2]

42.  Wider economic impacts including choice, employment, productivity and congestion were also assessed (refer Attachment C).

Impact assessment

Net impacts of each option against council’s strategic objectives are neutral

43.  Staff have assessed the impacts of each option against the strategic objectives in the Auckland Plan and Māori Plan (additional information is contained in Attachment D). 

44.  The assessment ranks overall impact as either: Positive, Neutral or Negative. There is limited evidence to determine the magnitude or certainty of impacts.

45.  Option One: ‘status quo’ provides a positive impact towards the strategic objective for Auckland’s people through retaining a guaranteed day off for more Aucklanders.

46.  Option Two: ‘more shops open’ provides a neutral impact against all three relevant strategic objectives, Auckland’s people, economy and Māori through marginal economic benefit and more choice and convenience for some Aucklanders.

47.  The net impact of each option against all three relevant strategic objectives has been assessed as neutral. The assessment did not identify a net benefit supporting Option Two: ‘more shops open’.

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Summary of potential impacts against Council’s strategic objectives

Option One: Status quo: Impact

  Option Two: More shops open: Impact

Auckland’s people: A fair, safe and healthy Auckland

Sub impact: Positive

·    a guaranteed day off retained for more employees – for rest, cultural, religious or whānau activities

·    Aucklanders and tourists can still access shops selling essential supplies, attractions, restaurants and cafes which can all legally open for trade.

 Sub impact: Neutral

·    reduction of guaranteed day off for more employees. Restricted shop trading days reduced to 2.5 from 3.5 days

·    some Aucklanders benefit from having more shops open for leisure, convenience and choice

·    employees can refuse to work and can take a personal grievance

·    some employees unaware of and unlikely to use the protections in the law

Auckland’s economy: An Auckland of prosperity and opportunity

Sub impact: Neutral

·    some retailers and services can legally trade

·    an uneven playing field for businesses

·    some transfer to online spending

·    some businesses breaking the law

·    limited enforcement by the Labour Inspectorate.

 Sub impact: Neutral

·    minimal economic benefit to the Auckland economy

·    minimal economic benefit to the central business district and larger businesses (supermarkets and department stores)

·    some transfer away from online spending to shops

·    turnover/revenues unlikely to grow, productivity may fall, reducing profits

·    more employees can choose to work and gain an additional day’s wages

·    supports freedom of enterprise and a level playing field for businesses

·    businesses no longer being penalised for breaking the law

·    some businesses may feel compelled to open

·    protections in the Act for those who wish to refuse to work on Easter Sunday

·    some employees unaware of, or unlikely to use, the protections in the Act.

Auckland’s Māori and the Māori Plan

Sub impact: Neutral

·    Māori retail employees may retain a guaranteed day’s holiday for rest, cultural, religious or whānau activities

·    Māori retailers/employees may prefer to work/trade and receive a day’s wages /revenue but currently do not have the opportunity.

 Sub impact: Neutral

·    reduction of guaranteed day off for more Māori employees which could impact cultural, religious and whānau activities etc.

·    more Māori retailers and employees could gain an additional days revenue or wages

·    Māori employees have protections under the Act but may find it difficult to refuse to work on Easter Sunday.

Net impact: Neutral

                        Net impact: Neutral

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Community engagement

Community engagement aimed for breadth, depth and a balance of views 

48.  Staff undertook a range of community engagement initiatives in May to early July 2017 to obtain views about the two options for Easter Sunday trading.

49.  Views of businesses, social organisations, churches, faith groups, unions, ethnic groups and employees were sought.

50.  A strong focus was also placed on engaging with Māori, Pacific, diverse, hard to reach[3] and precarious employees[4].

51.  Two surveys were conducted as part of community engagement to provide a breadth of community views.

52.  The first was a Research Survey by Colmar Brunton of a demographically representative sample of 1,600 Aucklanders, across four equivalent regions of Auckland.

53.  The second was a Public Engagement Survey via a Shape Auckland online feedback form that attracted 2,027 responses[5]. This survey was open to the public (self-selecting) and was also sent to a wide range of stakeholders.

54.  Staff used the following targeted engagement provided a depth of community views:

·      key informant interviews

·      a Pacific Leaders’ Fono

·      a Pacific Youth Talanoa

·      intercept surveys at Papatoetoe Night Markets and Manukau Institute of Technology

·      an UPsouth[6] callUP asking ‘What do you and your whānau like to do on Easter Sunday?

·      engagement with the Rainbow Communities Advisory Panel[7].

55.  A total of 50 emails and one submission were received from Aucklanders and businesses/business organisations.

56.  A draft summary of the engagement findings to be finalised for publication following the decision by the Governing Body is provided in Attachment B.


 

Option One: Aucklanders participating in the Public Engagement Survey were more likely to favour the status quo

Table 2: Key results and themes from community engagement for Option One: Status quo

Research Survey

Public Engagement Survey

Targeted Engagement

42 per cent favoured the status quo

 

Those favouring the status quo were more likely to be:

·    Female (47%)             

·    South Aucklanders (49%)

·    Aged 60+ (60%)

·    Pacific peoples (62%)

·    Christian religion (52%).

68 per cent favoured the status quo

 

Those favouring the status quo were more likely to be:

·     Female (73%)

·     South Aucklanders (78%)

·     Aged 60+ (71%)

·     Pacific peoples (89%)

·     Māori (71%).

·    unions, Pacific stakeholders, social support providers, ethnic organisations, churches and faith groups and some Māori stakeholders favoured the status quo

·    all attendees at the Pacific Leaders’ Fono favoured the status quo

·    16 of the 17 attendees at the Youth Talanoa favoured the status quo

·    from the intercept survey, full time retail employees favoured the status quo (59%)

·    all UPsouth respondents highlighted the importance of the day for family time

·    46 of the 50 email submissions favoured the status quo.

33 per cent said it’s only a couple of days a year/No need to shop every day

‘No compelling reason to change. One day closed is no hardship’

30 per cent said it gives employees time off

‘The current law allows more people to be with their family and loved ones to either celebrate the day or to just simply be together’

30 per cent said people should spend the weekend with families

‘I don’t think shops need to be open Easter Sunday, give staff in retail a day off to enjoy with family and friends’

23 per cent said for religious reasons

‘Religious reasons and to give shop staff a day off. They work nearly every day of the year’.

 

 

54 per cent said it enables people to spend more time with their families

‘There are so few days now when people can spend time with family and friends and disconnect’

33 per cent said for religious reasons

‘Easter time is a time for families to be together on a special Christian holiday’

27 per cent said it’s only a couple of days a year

‘Having three days a year when most shops are closed is fantastic it forces us to stay home and spend more time with families’

26 per cent said that it gives employees time off

‘Give the staff a break. Enjoy family time. Shops don’t have to be open’.

 

Email respondents said it enables family time, a day to rest and fairness for employees:

‘This is about fairness, it’s about one sector being forced to work when everyone else gets the day off’

Pacific youth, church, community leaders highlighted Christianity being the foundation of New Zealand and Pacific culture. Strong concern that change would undermine this

‘Easter Sunday holds a significant place in our culture and goes to the heart of our religious beliefs’

Concern for Pacific employees who would feel obliged to work, have and lack confidence to decline an employer’s request to work

‘We don’t do well in negotiations in terms of having a voice’

No significant reason to change

‘It’s one Sunday man. One Sunday out of 52 a year!’

Māori, including mataawaka organisations, marae, and unions said it was the potential loss of a guaranteed day off for more employees and a loss of whānau time

‘It’s a genuine time to take leave, visit and spend time with family’

‘It’s a justice and rights issue’ ‘a removal of rights and freedoms’

UPsouth respondents refer to family time

‘We like to hang out as a family and have a big dinner together’.

 

Option Two: Aucklanders completing the Research Survey were more likely to be in favour of more shops open

Table 3: Key results and themes from community engagement for Option Two: More shops open

Research Survey

Public Engagement Survey

Targeted engagement

55 per cent favoured more shops open

 

Those favouring more shops open were more likely to be:

 

·  Males (61%)

·  People aged 60+ (60%)

·  Asian ethnicity (66%)

·  No religious affiliation (63%)

No significant differences between people who do and do not work in retail or hospitality, or people who do and do not currently work on a Sunday

Of the 55 per cent, 92 per cent favoured more shops open in all of Auckland. Of those favouring only parts of Auckland, the majority mentioned the malls (28 per cent) followed by the CBD (18 per cent).

31 per cent favoured more shops open

 

Those favouring more shops open were more likely to be:

 

·  Male 39 %

·  18-39 33%

·  Asian ethnicity 37%

Of the 31 per cent, 94 per cent favoured more shops open in all of Auckland

Of those favouring only parts of Auckland, the majority mentioned the central business district (61 per cent).

·    businesses and business organisations were in favour of more shops open

·    from the intercept survey (and in contrast to full time retail employees),

·    63% of part time retail employees, and 41% of non-retail employees favoured Option Two.

 

28 per cent said that not everyone is Christian or observes Easter

‘We are not all Christian based, in this day and age, it should be up to the individual shop if they open or not’

22 per cent of retailers and businesses said they should be permitted to open

‘Businesses should be allowed to open on any day’

17 per cent said people want to shop, eat, or drink with their families

‘Because it’s a good time to do shopping with the family’

11 per cent said make it equal for all businesses

10 per cent said employees should have the choice.

 

 

 

36 per cent said not everyone is Christian or observes Easter

‘It is a religious holiday; it does not apply to the whole of the population’

20 per cent said businesses should have the choice

‘Business and employees should be free to choose how to observe Easter, whether that means doing absolutely nothing or marking the occasion’

15 per cent said the current trading restriction is outdated:

‘We are a multicultural society and as such Easter is not celebrated by all. Closing shops to suit one religion is archaic’

Businesses and business organisations want the choice to open based on demand in line with the principal of freedom of enterprise.

They reinforced the very strong protections in place for employees who did not wish to work, and think Council should ensure that this fact is made clear as part of decision making and potential implementation:

Council must make clear to Aucklanders that there are strong protections in place for employees’

They also noted that they had a diverse workforce and didn’t have any problems finding people to work on Easter Sunday in the areas where a policy has been put in place

‘We have a diverse workforce many of whom are not Christian and who are keen to work on Easter Sunday’

 

 

 

 

Staff recommendation

Staff recommend Option One: ‘status quo’

57.  Based on the economic analysis, impact assessment and community engagement staff recommend Option One: ‘status quo’, for the following reasons:

·      it maintains a positive impact of time for relaxation, family/whānau, leisure, sports, cultural and religious observance

·      it retains a guaranteed day off for more employees

·      it prevents concerns for vulnerable employees and their ability to use the protections in the Act

·      minimal economic benefit to Auckland’s economy under Option Two: ‘more shops open’

·      it is comparatively highly supported across the range of community engagement undertaken.

58.  Option One: ‘status quo’ retains a guaranteed day off for more retail employees. It has a positive impact towards the council’s strategic objective related to Auckland’s people.

59.  Option Two: ‘more shops open’ provides for only minimal benefit to Auckland’s economy

60.  Option Two: ‘more shops open’ was assessed to have a neutral impact against three of Council’s relevant strategic objectives

61.  The key trade-off between preferred Option One: ‘status quo’ and Option Two: ‘more shops open’ is the loss of a guaranteed day off for more employees against the benefit for some Aucklanders of gaining leisure or convenience from having more shops open on Easter Sunday.

Risks and mitigation

62.  If Option One: ‘status quo’ is agreed then council may be criticised that this decision is unfair and the current situation remains where only some businesses able to trade on Easter Sunday.

63.  This can be mitigated by releasing a clear statement about why the decision has been made. It can highlight that council has chosen to retain the social, cultural and recreational benefits of the status quo. The economic assessment demonstrating minimal benefit to the Auckland economy can also be communicated.

64.  If Option Two: ‘more shops open’ is agreed then council may be criticised for removing a guaranteed day off for more employees. This can be mitigated by clear communication about the reasons for the decision. The special consultative process enables Aucklanders to express their views on the Easter trading policy before council makes a decision.

Considerations

Local board views

65.  Of the 21 Local boards, nine expressed a view. Of these local boards one board supported Option Two: ‘more shops open’, seven boards supported Option One: ‘status quo’ and one board declined to indicate a preferred view. Local board views are attached verbatim in Attachment E.

Māori impact statement

66.  A decision on Easter Sunday trading could impact Māori wellbeing more than the general populace. Māori are relatively highly represented as retail employees and although currently underrepresented, are increasing as a proportion of business owners. Māori also value Easter Sunday as an important time for whānau and cultural activities.

67.  Strategic objectives for Māori in the Auckland Plan and Māori Plan relate to economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing for Māori.

68.  Community engagement targeted Māori. Key findings of research and engagement with Māori include:

·      concerns at the loss of a day off work for more Māori employees

·      Easter Sunday is an important time for whānau and cultural activities

·      concerns for Māori who may be vulnerable employees and may not take up the protections provided in the Act

·      Māori tourism businesses would still be able to open for trade under Option One: ‘status quo’

·      Māori who completed the Research Survey (51 per cent) were slightly more in favour of Option Two: ‘more shops open’

·      Māori who completed the Public Engagement Survey (72 per cent) and targeted engagement were more likely to favour Option One: ‘status quo’.

69.  Option One: ‘status quo’ would best support the strategic objectives for Māori and minimise negative impacts on Māori wellbeing.

Implementation

70.  If the Governing Body agrees to adopt Option One: ‘status quo’, staff will inform the public and Labour Inspectorate of the decision and the expectation that Easter Sunday trading restrictions will be proactively monitored and enforced.

71.  If the Governing Body decides to adopt Option Two: ‘more shops open’ for the whole of Auckland, staff will commence the special consultative procedure. To enable a policy to be approved in time for Easter 2018 consultation will need to be undertaken in October 2017. To meet this timeline staff have prepared a draft statement of proposal and an Easter Sunday trading policy for approval (refer Attachment A).

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed policy and statement of proposal

19

b

Draft - Summary of community engagement

27

c

Overview of economic analysis and key findings

53

d

Detailed impacts assessment

57

e

Verbatim local board recommendations

63

      

Signatories

Author

Pania   Elliot - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 


 


 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 


 


 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 

2019 elections - opportunity to change to the Single Transferable Vote electoral system

 

File No.: CP2017/14165

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To note the opportunity to change to the Single Transferable Vote electoral system and to consider the council’s position.

Executive summary

2.       The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides for a local authority to resolve to use an electoral system that is different to the one previously used.  There are two electoral systems available – ‘First Past the Post’ (FPP) and ‘Singe Transferable Vote’ (STV).

3.       A resolution to change from the current FPP system to the STV system would:

(i)   need to be made by 12 September 2017 in order to apply to the 2019 elections

(ii)  apply to the next two triennial elections (2019 and 2022) and any by-elections held after the 2019 elections

(iii) be publicly notified and subject to a petition for a poll by five percent of electors.

4.       The council has the option to hold its own poll, which would be binding.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note that both First Past the Post and Single Transferable Vote systems both have advantages and disadvantages

b)      confirm that the First Past the Post voting system will continue to be used for the 2019 elections due to the perceived complexity of the Single Transferable Vote system

c)      note that council will give public notice by 19 September 2017 of the right for Auckland Council electors to petition for a poll on a change to the electoral system.

 

Comments

Local Electoral Act 2001

5.       The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides for two electoral systems – FPP and STV.  A local authority may resolve to change its electoral system if it does so prior to 12 September two years prior to a triennial general election.  A change takes effect for the next two triennial elections and then continues until it changed again.

6.       A local authority must also, by 19 September two years prior to a triennial general election, give public notice of the right of five percent of electors to petition for a poll on the electoral system, regardless of whether the system is changed by the local authority. The result of the poll is binding for the following two triennial general elections and associated by-elections.

7.       An electoral officer must conduct a poll within 89 days of receiving notice from the chief executive of the receipt of a valid demand.  If the poll is held by 21 May in the year before an election, the poll takes effect at that election and is effective for two triennial general elections and associated by-elections.

8.       A local authority may itself decide to conduct a poll.

Implications for Auckland

9.       A valid request for a poll would require approximately 51,000 signatures of Auckland Council electors.

10.     A stand-alone referendum would cost approximately $1.2 million. A referendum held in conjunction with an election would cost approximately $150,000 (including the cost of explanatory material).

Voting systems used by other councils

11.     City and regional councils that used STV in 2016 were:

(i)   Dunedin, Palmerston North, Porirua and  Wellington City Councils

(ii)  Wellington Regional Council.

12.     City and regional councils which used FPP in 2016 were:

(i)   Christchurch, Hamilton, Hutt, Invercargill, Napier, Nelson, Tauranga, Upper Hutt City Councils

(ii)  Bay of Plenty, Canterbury, Hawke’s Bay, Manawatu-Wanganui, Northland, Otago, Southland, Taranaki, Waikato, West Coast Regional Councils.

Advantages of retaining First Past the Post electoral system

13.     The advantages of retaining the FPP system are:

(i)   voters are used to this system for local government elections

(ii)  it is easier than STV to understand how votes are counted

(iii) results can be announced earlier since STV requires all votes to be in and all iterations completed; STV results are not announced until the day following election day.

Advantages of adopting Single Transferable Vote electoral system

14.     The advantages of moving to the STV system are:

(i)   The electoral system for local government and district health boards would be the same, leading to a less confusing voter experience

(ii)  STV is a proportional representation system which may provide an outcome that is more representative of the community. 

How does STV work?

15.     Voters rank candidates in order of preference.  If a voter’s vote is not required to elect their first preference, the voter’s vote can be transferred to their second preference and so on.

Quota

16.     One aspect of STV is the quota.  This is the number of votes a candidate needs to receive in order to be elected.  Unlike in FPP, where a candidate needs to achieve more votes than other candidates, the quota is based on the total number of voters and the total number of vacant positions.  In a multi-member election, this mechanism can lower the threshold for getting elected. The quota is the total number of voters divided by the number of positions plus one.  For instance if there are 10,000 voters and there are 3 positions to fill, the quota is 2,500 (10,000 / 4). 

17.     An example helps to illustrate this and also illustrates how STV might facilitate diversity or proportional representation.  Consider a community comprising 10,000 voters who are required to elect candidates to three positions.  There are two groups of voters in the community.  Each group stands three candidates and each group votes for its own candidates. “Group A” comprises 6,000 voters and “Group B” comprises 4,000 voters.

18.     Under an FPP election, Group A’s candidates will each receive 6,000 votes and Group B’s candidates will each receive 4,000 votes.  All of Group A’s candidates will be successful and none of Group B’s candidates will be successful.  Because 6,000 votes always beats 4,000 votes, the minority group, Group B, will never elect a candidate.

19.     For this example, under STV, the threshold for getting elected is 2,500 votes.  It is now possible for Group B to successfully elect its candidates.

20.     STV is more effective in multi-member constituencies.

21.     This example relies on an assumption that voters are in definable groups where members of each group only vote for their own candidates.  This is true of Parliamentary elections where the groups above might represent two political parties.  STV has been used as a proportional representation system for Parliamentary elections in countries such as Ireland. 

Votes are not wasted

22.     Under FPP a voter needs to be more strategic.  Voting for a candidate who is not ultimately successful can be a wasted vote.   A voter might wish to support a candidate but if the voter believes the candidate will not get enough votes to be successful, will vote for a candidate who is more likely to succeed. 

23.     Under STV, if a candidate does not get enough votes and is dropped off during counting, the votes for that candidate will be allocated to voters’ next preferences.

24.     A document produced by the STV Taskforce in 2002 described this as follows:

          “In effect, voters are saying, ‘The candidate I most wish to see represent me on the council is Joe Bloggs. If Joe wins so many votes that he doesn’t need my vote to be elected, then my vote is to be transferred to Bill Smith to help him get sufficient votes to be elected. But if Joe has so few votes that he can’t possibly be elected, my vote is to be transferred to Bill’.”

Previous consideration

25.     The Governing Body previously considered a report on changing to STV in 2014 for the 2016 elections.  The report noted the comments of the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee which stated:

     “The majority of us are of the view that the disadvantages of STV, particularly its perceived complexity (and therefore its propensity to discourage voting), outweigh the disadvantages of FPP for the 2010 elections.”

Conclusion

26.     There are some very positive aspects of STV as a system of proportional representation. Some other city councils, including Dunedin and Wellington, have adopted it. However, it is more complicated than FPP. 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

27.     This matter has not been formally reported to local boards.  The need to consider the STV option was noted in the report to local boards about the select committee inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections.  Fours boards made comments.  The need to consider STV was also mentioned to local board workshops on the Governance Review Framework, but was not put to boards for their feedback.  The comments made by boards included:

·    Henderson-Massey Local Board submitted that all issues on the voting document should be FPP

·    Orākei Local Board did not support a change to Single Transferable Vote.

·    Puketāpapa Local Board did not support a change to Single Transferable Vote.

·    Hibiscus and Bays Local Board felt STV was not well understood and asked for more work to be done on it.

Māori impact statement

28.     STV as a proportional representation system may be helpful to Māori since the Māori community statistically is a minority within the community. The issue of the preferred voting system has not been directly canvassed with Māori or the wider community. 

Implementation

29.     Regardless of the decision of the Governing Body, there is a legal requirement to publicly notify by 19 September 2017 the opportunity to petition for a referendum.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 

Agreement to a Crown representative on the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority

 

File No.: CP2017/16866

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To agree that there be a non-voting Ministerial appointment to the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (Tūpuna Maunga Authority).

Executive summary

2.       The Crown has a non-voting representative on the Tūpuna Maunga Authority for the first three years of the existence of the Authority.  After that the position lapses. 

3.       Under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage may appoint a non-voting representative for any period after this first three years with the agreement of the Tūpuna Taonga o Tāmaki Makaurau Trust Limited, and the Auckland Council. Under this provision the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage proposes to appoint a person for a period of three years with the ability for this person to be re-appointed for an additional three years. 

4.       The Minister considers that a non-voting position will assist with furthering an application for World Heritage status for the Tūpuna Maunga.  The Ministry for Arts, Culture and Heritage has advised that the Tūpuna Taonga o Tāmaki Makaurau Trust Limited has agreed to the appointment.  The Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage also seeks the agreement of the Auckland Council to the appointment.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      agree to the appointment by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage to the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority for a term of three years with the ability for this representative to be re-appointed for an additional three years

b)      note that if no agreement is given, an appointment will not be made and the existing non-voting position on the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority would lapse. The Minister could nominate an alternative person at a later date.

 

Comments

5.       The Crown presently has a non-voting representative on the Tūpuna Maunga Authority.  This position will lapse at the end of the first three years of the existence of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority.  

6.       Under s107(1)(e)(ii) of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, the Tūpuna Taonga o Tāmaki Makaurau Trust, and the Auckland Council must agree if the position of the non-voting Crown representative is to continue.  The Crown pays for the costs associated with this non-voting position.  

Proposed appointment

7.       The Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage considers that a non-voting position will assist with furthering an application for World Heritage status for the Tūpuna Maunga. The Minister has proposed to appoint a manager from Manatū Taonga – Ministry for Arts, Culture and Heritage as a person she considers has the appropriate knowledge and level of authority to contribute productively to the Tūpuna Maunga Authority. 

8.       The Minister has proposed a three-year term with the ability for the representative to be re-appointed for an additional three years.  This arrangement seeks to ensure consistency of Crown representation and engagement with the Tūpuna Maunga Authority over the next phase as a World Heritage nomination is explored. 

Agreement from Tūpuna Taonga o Tāmaki Makaurau Trust Limited

9.       The Ministry for Arts, Culture and Heritage has advised the Tūpuna Maunga Authority management that it has received a letter from the Tūpuna Taonga o Tāmaki Makaurau Trust Limited in support of the appointment.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10.     The work of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority spans many local board areas, but an agreement to a non-voting Ministerial appointment to the Tūpuna Maunga Authority is a governing body decision, therefore the views of local boards have not been sought.

Māori impact statement

11.     The appointment of a Crown representative from the Ministry for Arts, Culture and Heritage will support improved outcomes in the management of the Tūpuna Maunga.

Implementation

12.     Upon council’s notification of its resolution, the appointment process will be handled by the Ministry for Arts Culture and Heritage.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Author

Dominic Wilson – Head of Co-governance

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 

Contributions Policy 2015 - Variation B

 

File No.: CP2017/17277

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To adopt an amendment to the Contributions Policy 2015 to provide for a new contributions funding area in Ararimu.

Executive summary

2.       The council is building bulk transport infrastructure to unlock development of the Special Housing Area (SHA) in the Ararimu precinct. The $17.9 million cost of the infrastructure will be recovered by development contributions.

3.       To enable this, the council has to amend its development contributions policy which will need to add the ‘Spine Road upgrade – stage one’ project, and create a new funding area. 

4.       To bring these changes into effect, the Governing Body needs to approve the amendments contained in Contributions Policy 2015 Variation B (Attachment A):

·   Schedule 3 – Schedule to development contribution policy (contribution charges)

·   Schedule 4 – Summary of capital expenditure for growth (capex)

·   Schedule 8 – Assets for which development contributions will be used

·   Funding Area Map - Transport

5.       In July 2017, the council consulted with Drury South Limited, the only land owner affected by the amendment.  The land owner agreed with the amendment as shown in their feedback dated 9 August 2017 (Attachment B).

 

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note that Auckland Council has to amend its Contributions Policy 2015 to enable the ‘Spine Road upgrade – stage one’ project costs to be recovered through development contributions.

b)      adopt the amendments to the Contributions Policy 2015 Variation B as listed below:

i)        new Transport Funding Area - Drury South

ii)       update Schedules 3, 4 and 8 to reflect charges and capex

iii)      update Funding Area Map – Transport.

 

 

Comments

Significance of Decision

6.       This is not a significant decision.

Consideration

Consultation

7.       The Group Chief Financial Officer authorised commencement of consultation on 24 July 2017 in line with the delegation from the Finance and Performance Committee in 2015 (Resolution number FIN/2015/54). 

8.       Consultation commenced on 26 July 2017 and closed on 9 August 2017 with the land owner who will be affected by the policy amendment.  They support the proposal.

Local board views and implications

9.       Local Boards were not consulted on this proposal as it relates to a regional activity and only impacts on one land owner.

Māori impact statement

10.     Māori were not consulted on the Contributions Policy amendment as it affected only one land owner and covered a project already in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.  Māori were engaged in the earlier spatial planning process.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

11.     The LTP 2015-2025 provides for the bulk roading infrastructure to be delivered at a programme level in the Ararimu precinct.

12.     The first stage of the Spine Road Upgrades will enable allocation of programme budget already contained in the LTP 2015-2025.

13.     The amendment will enable recovery of costs to be funded by development contributions.

Legal and Legislative Implications

14.     The amendments proposed in this report comply with the Local Government Act 2002.

Implementation

15.     There are no implementation issues.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Contributions Policy 2015 Variation B

75

b

Drury South Limited Feedback on Contributions Policy Variation B

81

     

Signatories

Author

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - GM Financial Strategy and Planning

Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 

Appointment to Living Cell Technologies Limited Animal Ethics Committee

 

File No.: CP2017/16775

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To make a nomination to Living Cell Technologies Limited’s Animal Ethics Committee.

Executive summary

2.       The Animal Welfare Act 1999 (the Act) requires all organisations which use live animals for research, testing or teaching to have both a Code of Ethical Conduct and an Animal Ethics Committee.  Living Cell Technologies Limited is a commercial organisation which conducts research for medical purposes.

3.       The Act also requires that a member of the committee is appointed by the code holder on the nomination by the council.

4.       In January 2014 the Governing Body nominated Waitakere Ranges Local Board Member Neil Henderson.  Mr Henderson was appointed to the company for three years and his term has now completed.

5.       Living Cell Technologies has requested that Neil Henderson retain his position on the committee for a further term.  The Act requires the council to nominate and the code holder organisation to appoint.

6.       Alternatively, the Governing Body could request that expressions of interest are called so there are others who may be considered for this position. 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      re-nominate Neil Henderson to be a member of the Living Cell Technologies Limited Animal Ethics Committee for a further term.

 

Comments

7.       The Act requires all organisations which use live animals for research, testing and teaching to have both a Code of Ethical Conduct and an Animal Ethics Committee.  Living Cell Technologies Limited is a code holder organisation.

8.       The Animal Ethics Committee comprises at least four members, one of which needs to be nominated by Auckland Council (section 101(8)). All are appointed by the chief executive of the code holder organisation.

9.       The requirements of the legislation in section 101 are:

“(8)    One member must be a person appointed by the code holder on the nomination of a territorial authority or regional council.

(9)     The person appointed under subsection (8) must not be —

(a)     a person who is in the employ of, or is otherwise associated with, the code holder; or

(b)     a person who is associated with the scientific community or an animal welfare agency.

(10)   The appointed members of each animal ethics committee hold office for such terms and on such conditions as are specified in the code of ethical conduct.”

10.     The Code of Ethical Conduct refers to the council nominee as representing the public interest and sets the term of office for all members at three years.

11.     The functions and powers of committee members, and the procedures that they must follow, are outlined in the Act, but their overall responsibility can be summarised as ensuring that no unnecessary harm or distress is caused to animals as a consequence of research or captivity.

12.     The committee:

·    weighs the benefits of the proposed research, teaching and testing protocol against the welfare cost to animals in considering applications

·    stipulates appropriate conditions

·    monitors compliance with approvals

·    monitors animal management and facilities

13.     There are legal implications if no appointment is made as the Act requires that a code holder must establish and maintain an animal ethics committee made up of at least four members.

14.     Living Cell Technologies Limited have asked the council to re-nominate Mr Henderson so that he can be appointed for another term.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15.     Expressions of interest have not been sought from other elected members as Mr Henderson is happy to continue as a member.

Māori impact statement

16.     There is a requirement that an application to use native animals must receive Department of Conservation approval, which includes consultation with Māori.

Implementation

17.     Following the Governing Body’s decision, staff will advise Living Cell Technologies Limited and Mr Henderson.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 

Councillor Richard Hills report on trip to Taipai, Taiwan

 

File No.: CP2017/13934

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       Councillor Richard Hills will provide a verbal update and PowerPoint presentation to the Governing Body on his 10 day trip, representing Auckland Council, to Taiwan.

Executive Summary

2.       Councillor Richard Hills travelled to Taipei, Taiwan on Thursday, 29 June 2017 and returned on Saturday, 8 July 2017.  He attended the 2017 NiHao Taiwan Study Camp for Future Leaders at the invitation of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, along with 27 representatives from local government from across the Asia Pacific region.

3.       Attendees shared ideas, learnings and opportunities on subjects such as economic policy, policies of climate change, disaster prevention, movement of citizens and public transport.

4.       Councillor Hills also attended three city-building meetings to discuss housing affordability, transport and resourcing, and travelled locally to understand the city’s public transport system and bike share scheme.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      receive the presentation from Councillor Richard Hills, regarding his 10 day trip, representing Auckland Council, to Taiwan.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Team Leader – Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 

Upper Mangatangi-Mangatawhiri Catchments: Co-governance Arrangement

 

File No.: CP2017/17209

 

  

 

 

 

Purpose

1.       To provide a high level outline of matters relating to the Crown’s intention to establish a statutory co-governance body for the upper Mangatangi-Mangatawhiri catchment area that will be presented to the Governing Body in the confidential agenda.

Executive summary

2.       The Crown has sought council’s views on proposed Treaty settlement redress for the Pare Hauraki Collective and Waikato-Tainui / Waiohua affiliated iwi relating to the upper catchments of the Mangatangi Stream and the Mangatawhiri River (‘upper Mangatangi-Mangatawhiri area’).

3.       In the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed, initialled on 22 December 2016, the Crown recognises the ‘great spiritual, cultural, customary, ancestral and historical significance’ of the upper and lower Mangatangi River and Mangatangi Stream to Hauraki Iwi.  The deed records that cultural redress over the area will be agreed as soon as possible prior to the signing of the deed.

4.       The Ngāti Tamaoho deed of settlement, signed on 30 April 2017, records that redress over the upper Mangatangi-Mangatawhiri area is to be developed in further negotiations between the Crown and other groups who have interests in the catchment areas, including Ngāti Tamaoho.

5.       The upper Mangatangi-Mangatawhiri area is owned by Auckland Council and administered as part of the Hunua Ranges Regional Park.  However, it is outside the Auckland Council boundary and the Waikato Regional Council and Waikato District Council have regulatory responsibility there.  Two metropolitan water supply dams, owned and managed by Watercare Services Limited (‘Watercare’), are located in the area – the Mangatangi Dam and the Upper Mangatawhiri Dam.

6.       Despite being part of the catchment for the Waikato River, the upper Mangatangi-Mangatawhiri area is north of the boundary of the Waikato River Authority, the Crown-iwi co-governance body established by the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010.

7.       The Crown has offered Auckland Council participation on the proposed co-governance body in a non-voting capacity.

8.       Details of the proposed co-governance body are currently subject to the confidentiality afforded Treaty settlement negotiations.  Auckland Council views are sought by the Crown on the understanding that confidentiality is respected.

9.       In the confidential agenda the Governing Body will be provided further detail on the proposal and the reasons for it.  An assessment is made of the value of participation in the proposed body.  The anticipated deed of settlement between the Pare Hauraki Collective and the Crown, which will record details of the co-governance entity, will be a public document.


 

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note that there is a confidential report on this meeting agenda providing information and recommendations regarding the Crown’s intention to establish a statutory co-governance body for the upper Mangatangi-Mangatawhiri catchment area and offer to Auckland Council to participate on that body in a non-voting capacity.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Author

John  Hutton - Manager Treaty Settlements

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 

Summary of Governing Body information memos and briefings - 24 August 2017

 

File No.: CP2017/10016

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that may have been distributed to Governing Body members.

Executive summary

2.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to Governing Body members via memo-briefing or other means, where no decisions are required.

3.       The following workshops/briefings have taken place:

·   17/8/17 – Governance Framework Review

4.       This document can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

o at the top of the page, select meeting “Governing Body” from the drop-down tab and click “View”;

o under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

5.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary.  Governing Body members should direct any questions to the authors.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      receive the Summary of Governing Body information memos and briefings –  24 August 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance Framework Review Minutes (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Team Leader – Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

      

 


Governing Body

24 August 2017

 

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

b)                                           

That the Governing Body:

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       CONFIDENTIAL:  Upper Mangatangi-Mangatawhiri Catchments: Co-governance Arrangement

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

In particular, the report contains information provided by the Crown to council in confidence on the understanding the information is negotiation sensitive between hapū / iwi and the Crown. If confidential information is made available, it will prejudice both those negotiations and the provision of similar information to council in the future.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

   



[1]        Data over Easter 2017 was not analysed due to an expected significant weather event which likely affected usual patterns of consumer spending.

[2]      Williamson, Hargreaves, Bond and Lay, The economic costs and benefits of easing Sunday shopping restrictions on large stores in England and Wales A report for the Department of Trade and Industry, May 2006

 

[3]        Hard to reach groups may face barriers to engagement these may include: Attitudinal barriers (e.g apathy towards the government,  a particular issue, a previous negative experience of engagement,  consultation fatigue); lack of confidence, money, knowledge of rights, or a lack of literacy or numeracy skills; mental or physical health issues; physical or intellectual disability; issues related to gender, sexuality, or race; language barriers; age barriers; lack of social support; lack of transport; time constraints; homelessness or without a stable physical location; caring responsibilities work commitments (Source: People who are hard to reach – A guide to engagement, Department of Premier and Cabinet Tasmanian Government,2014)

[4]         Precarious workers are those who fill permanent job needs but are denied permanent employee rights – International Labor Rights Forum http://www.laborrights.org/issues/precarious-work

[5]        This total included 86 paper based surveys from local board events.

[6]        Upsouth is an online space operating as part of the Southern Initiative for South Aucklanders (especially rangatahi/youth) to share their views an input on local issues.

[7]        All Advisory Panels were invited to provide feedback in regards to Easter Sunday trading either face to face or via the online survey. Only the Rainbow Communities Advisory Panel chose to engage face to face.