Agenda of Governing Body - 25 September 2014

Governing Body

25 September 2014

Local Board Involvement In Alcohol Applications

File No.: CP2014/21932

Purpose

1. This report seeks the governing body’s decision on the role of local boards in relation to the minimisation of alcohol related harm, including local board involvement in alcohol licence applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act (2012).

Executive summary

2. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (SSAA), which came into full force in December 2013, establishes a new regime for managing alcohol. The reforms aim to improve New Zealand's drinking culture and reduce the harm caused by excessive drinking. Minimisation of alcohol-related harm is a particular issue for local boards and is a strategic priority in a number of local board plans.

3. The SSAA has established important roles for both the governing body and local boards including enabling the development of a Local Alcohol Policy and establishing District Licensing Committees (DLCs). The governing body has developed a draft Local Alcohol Policy in consultation with local boards and public hearings on this are underway. Several local board members have been appointed to sit on DLCs with the requirement that they cannot hear applications relating to their local board area.

4. The SSAA empowers ‘persons with a greater interest in the application than the public generally’ to object to licence applications. A person is defined in the Interpretation Act 1999 as including ‘a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body’. Local boards are unincorporated bodies.

5. However, under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act (2009) local boards would also need an express authorisation by way of delegation or allocation from the governing body in order to have the power to object. If, however, local boards were allocated or delegated the power to object (with subsequent appeal rights), then a situation is created where two governance arms of Auckland Council could be opposing each other on the initial application and potentially again before the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority. This option is not recommended.

6. Local boards have a significant role in understanding, representing and advocating for community priorities and preferences and therefore, it is important to find an appropriate and robust way for local boards to express a view on alcohol licence applications, should they wish to.

7. The proposed option is for a local board to provide its views on applications in a report to the DLC for consideration. The DLC will also receive reports from the licensing inspector as well as the police and medical officer of health for the area if either has any opposition or concerns to the application.

8. In our view this reporting mechanism has three benefits.

· It appropriately reflects the importance of local boards’ governance role in representing their communities’ interests and concerns.

· It appropriately reflects the recognition in the SSAA that local boards may have a greater interest in the issue than the public generally and removes the need for local boards to lodge an objection against a licence application to give effect to this.

· It mitigates against any public conflict between the two governance arms of Auckland Council, whilst ensuring a robust mechanism is in place for local boards to convey their views on licence applications.

9. Feedback from local boards and their communities suggest that the licensing process needs to be made more accessible to communities. Further work is needed to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications. This is in keeping with the purpose of the SSAA which is to bring communities closer to decision-making around alcohol licensing.

Recommendation/s:

That the Governing Body:

a) notes that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act (2012) gives the governing body and local boards various roles and powers in the development of alcohol policy and in the alcohol licensing process, including the standing to object to licence applications;

b) notes that the governing body has developed a draft Local Alcohol Policy in consultation with local boards and that local board members have been appointed to sit on District Licensing Committees;

c) agrees that local boards have a significant role in understanding, representing and advocating for community priorities and preferences around alcohol policy and licensing;

d) notes that although local boards are ‘persons with a greater interest than the general public’ under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act (2012) they do not have the authority to exercise the power to object to licence applications unless the governing body either allocates or delegates that authority to them;

e) agrees the recommended approach of establishing a reporting mechanism for local boards to provide their views on applications to the District Licensing Committee as this approach provides an appropriate and robust method for local boards to fulfil their governance role and the role anticipated for them under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act (2012) in terms of licence applications;

f) notes that council staff have commenced work aimed at making it easier for communities to access information and receive advice and support with respect to alcohol licence applications.

Background

Roles of the governing body and local boards under the SSAA

10. The governing body has a number of roles under the SSAA, including:

· setting a Local Alcohol Policy framework for the region covering matters such as location of licenced premises and maximum trading hours. The governing body has developed a draft Local Alcohol Policy in consultation with local boards and public hearings on this are underway

· establishing DLCs, which have responsibility for all uncontested and contested licensing applications

11. Local board members can be, and have been, appointed to sit on DLCs. The appointments have been made on the basis that they cannot hear applications relating to their local board area.

12. The SSAA empowers ‘persons with a greater interest in the application than the public generally’ to object to licence applications.

A person is defined in the Interpretation Act 1999 as including ‘a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body’. Local boards are unincorporated bodies.

13. However, under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act (2009) local boards would need an express authorisation by way of delegation or allocation of power from the governing body in order to use the implied power to object under the SSAA.

14. Giving local boards the delegated or allocated authority to object to licence applications raises important governance issues which are discussed further in paragraphs 32-35.

15. The alcohol licensing process is explained in paragraphs 20-24.

16. All local boards have been engaged with on the draft Local Alcohol Policy and have provided formal feedback to the governing body. Policy development is a key governance role and sets the framework for subsequent operational decision making. The draft Local Alcohol Policy is the appropriate place to address the broader concerns about alcohol-related harm and put in place measures to manage the impact on specific communities through, for example, more stringent controls for specific areas.

Local boards have significant interest in reducing alcohol harm

17. Local boards play an important role in understanding, representing and advocating for community priorities and preferences. This includes providing a voice on behalf the community on social and other issues. While local boards cannot speak for all members of their communities, they have gained, through consultation on their local board plans, local board agreements, networks and other engagement activities, a good understanding of the significant community issues.

18. Concern about alcohol related harm has been raised in a number of local board areas, with harm minimisation reflected as a strategic priority in local board plans. This is consistent with the alcohol reforms, as reflected in the SSAA which aim to improve New Zealand's drinking culture and reduce the harm caused by excessive drinking. The SSAA seeks to increase the ability of communities to have input on local alcohol licensing matters, as well as providing for local level decision-making for licence applications, through DLCs.

19. Given the role of local boards as advocates for their communities and the strategic importance placed on managing alcohol related harm by a number of boards, it is important to find an appropriate and robust way for local boards to express a view on alcohol licence applications, should they wish to.

Licence application process

20. The applicant for a licence is required to attach notice of the application to a conspicuous place on or adjacent to the site to which the application relates and give public notice of the application. A person may object to the granting of a licence only if he or she has a greater interest in the application for it than the public generally. An objection must be in writing and filed with the DLC within 15 working days of the public notice being published.

21. Once an application is made, an inspector makes inquiries and files a report with the DLC. The police and the medical officer of health for the area also file a report if either has any opposition or concerns about the application. Local board members receive a weekly list of on and off licence applications from the council.

22. The DLC determines whether a hearing will be convened. If there are any objections to the application a public hearing is required unless:

· the objection is considered vexatious or outside the scope of the SSAA;

· the objector does not require a public hearing; or

· the application is withdrawn.

23. If no objection is received, then the DLC can consider the application based on the papers, without requiring a public meeting.

24. The SSAA sets out the criteria to be considered by the DLC when considering a licence application. Any objection to an application must also relate to these criteria, otherwise it will be outside the scope of the SSAA. As well as considering objections, a DLC can seek views from other parties on a licence application which includes local boards, if it is of the opinion that the information may assist it to deal with the application. The SSAA also provides for an appeal process to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority.

Supporting local boards to express their views on licence applications

25. All local boards considered an issues paper on their role in alcohol policy and alcohol licence applications in June and July 2014 and formal feedback was provided on various options. Attachment A provides their detailed feedback. All local boards supported having a robust mechanism for their views to be considered by DLCs and for enabling greater community involvement in the licensing process.

26. The table in attachment A sets out the specific feedback on two different options for providing their views to DLCs on licence applications – through inputting into the Inspectors report (16 responses- all in support) or through having the authority to object delegated or allocated to them by the governing body (21 responses- 17 in support).

27. Further discussion with local boards on this issue has occurred following the receipt of formal feedback, including at the local boards chairs meeting on 25 August 2014. That discussion has resulted in the preferred option put forward in this report – that a local board would provide its views on applications in a separate report to the DLC, at the same time as reports from the licensing inspector and the police and medical officer of health for the area if either has any opposition or concerns to the application. The local board report would help ensure that all local community issues relevant to the SSAA process were known to the DLC, adding significant value to their consideration process. DLCs have the jurisdiction to receive such reports under s207(1) of the SSAA.

28. Local boards would be supported in preparing these reports by the council’s Legal Services and Local Board Services teams to ensure that the reports were robust and comprehensive. The council’s Legal Services team would also provide advocacy services to local boards. The council’s Alcohol Licensing team supports the proposed reporting mechanism and confirm that this would work well.

29. Taking this approach supports an efficient and timely process allowing the DLC to consider content and for the report to be circulated to the applicant and other parties thereby giving opportunity for them to respond if they consider it necessary.

30. If the DLC considered that the local board’s report raised issues that it needed to hear more on, it could call a hearing and invite representatives of the local board to appear to talk to their report and respond to questions. Two SSAA sections support this approach: s207(1) - the power to receive as evidence any statement, document, information, or matter that may assist in dealing with any matter before it; and s203(9) the power to regulate procedure in such manner as the committee thinks fit.

31. Attendance at a hearing as an invited witness would not give the local board the status of an objector under SSAA nor make them a party to the proceedings with consequential rights of appeal. The Board would simply be appearing as a witness in proceedings.

Other options

32. The SSAA empowers ‘persons with a greater interest in the application than the public generally’ to object to licence applications.

33. However, under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act (2009) local boards would also need an express authorisation by way of delegation or allocation from the governing body in order to have the power to object. The governing body could decide to allocate the power to local boards to object to alcohol licence applications. This could be done under the current review of decision-making allocations in conjunction with the draft Long-term Plan. Alternatively, the governing body could delegate the power to object. However, this option raises important governance issues.

34. DLCs are committees of the council. Allocating or delegating local boards the power to object (with subsequent appeal rights), creates a situation where two governance arms of Auckland Council could be opposing each other on the initial application and potentially again before the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority. This option is not recommended for that reason.

35. This option is also not recommended because it effectively means that local boards’ engagement in a licence application process would be of the same standing as any other objector, rather than reflecting the SSAA recognition that local boards, because of their community governance and advocacy roles have a greater interest in the issue than the public generally.

Enhancing community accessibility to the licensing process

36. Communities can play an important role in the implementation of the SSAA and to do so they need knowledge of the powers available to them through the legislation. To assist with enhancing community involvement, council has now commenced work aimed at supporting community organisations and advocates to understand elements of SSAA. Some local boards have also taken steps in this direction by supporting and resourcing communities to acquire knowledge of the legislation. Council staff are also considering how to develop online tools to further support communities that wish to reduce alcohol related harm.

37. The systems and processes surrounding DLCs have been in place for less than a year and during this time reporting has improved, understanding of roles has grown, and the model has been tested and adjustments made. Before the end of 2014 the current DLCs will be reviewed and this work will help inform what more can be done to make it easier for the community to access information.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

38. Paragraphs 25 and 26 summarise local board views and how these were sought and, Attachment A provides their detailed feedback. These are discussed further at paragraph 27.

39. Local board feedback also focused on the fact that local board members who are also DLC members are not allowed to be involved in licensing decisions in their own local board areas. As a result local boards believe that the DLC system is weaker on local input than smaller territorial authorities. This observation could form part of the review of DLC to take place this year.

Māori impact statement

40. Māori are interested in and impacted by DLC decisions on alcohol licence applications. This is an issue for the DLCs when considering alcohol licence applications. The support for communities now being undertaken by council will be working with Māori and thought will need to be given to providing culturally relevant approaches. There are also opportunities for learning from the work and approaches Māori organisations have undertaken.

Implementation

41. All options discussed in this report have potential resourcing implications, which can be covered within existing budgets.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A	17

Signatories

Authors

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

25 September 2014

Attachment A - Local boards feedback summary

Local Board	1. LB input into the development of the local alcohol policy	2. LB views provided to the DLC e.g. via inspectors report	3. LB are either allocated or delegated the power to object	4. LB supporting community involvement in licencing process	Additional comments
Albert-Eden	Y	Y	Y	Y
Devonport-Takapuna	Y	Y	Y	Y	If a delegation is made the local board will establish a policy setting out parameters in which it will use this power, noting it will consider making an objection only in instances of significant community concern about an application and in conformity with the legal requirements for an objection.
Franklin	Y	Y	N	Y
Great Barrier	Y	N/C	Y	N/C	Given the nature of the Great Barrier community, the board does not expect to regularly exercise a delegation but wishes to see this provided in any case to local boards.
Henderson-Massey	Y	Y	N	Y
Hibiscus and Bays	N/C	Y	Y	Y	LB views should be made known to DLCs automatically through the licence application process.
Howick	Y	Y	N	Y	A delegation not need if other processes for providing LB views are available. HLB strongly believe that their community has a clear expectation that local board representative’s act as advocates and spokespeople on their behalf.
Kaipatiki	Y	N/C	Y	Y
Mangere-Otahuhu	Y	Y	Y	Y
Manurewa	N/C	Y	Y	Y	Urges the Chief Executive to establish a process which will enable local boards to have their views made known to DLCs as an automatic part of their requests for and consideration of information. This could be through a delegation or other mechanism.
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	Y	Y	Y	Y
Orākei	N/C	Y	Y	Y	Requests that local board members who are members of the DLC be able to sit on decisions regarding licence applications in their local area so that local knowledge is incorporated into the decision process in a manner consistent with good decision making guidelines.
Otara-Papatoetoe	Y	Y	Y	Y
Papakura	N/C	Y	Y	Y
Puketāpapa	Y	Y	Y	Y
Rodney	N/C	Y	Y	Y
Upper Harbour	Y	N/C	N	Y
Waiheke	Y	Y	Y	Y
Waitakere Ranges	N/C	N/C	Y	N/C
Waitemata	Y	Y	Y	Y
Whau	N/C	N/C	Y	N/C

DLC review - LB formal feedback

Local Board	Formal Feedback
Albert-Eden	AE/2014/18 Local board role in alcohol licence applications FILE REF CP2014/15398 AGENDA ITEM NO. 19 Resolution number AE/2014/18 MOVED by Member MJ Watson, seconded by Member GD Easte: That the Albert-Eden Local Board: a) supports local boards having continued input into the development of the Local Alcohol Policy. b) requests that the Chief Executive be instructed to review the council’s processes to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications; c) supports local board views on a particular licence application being attached to the inspector’s report to the District Licencing Committee. d) in recognition of specific community concern about alcohol-related harm, requests that the governing body delegates to the local board the power to make objections on alcohol licence applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. e) advocates for allocation of the power to make objections on alcohol licence applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 to local boards in the Long Term Plan process. CARRIED
Devonport-Takapuna	Resolution number DT/2014/166 MOVED by Member G Gillon, seconded by Member AP Roe: That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board: a) support local boards having continued input into the development of the Local Alcohol Policy. b) request that the Chief Executive be instructed to review the council’s processes to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications. c) support local board views on a particular licence application being attached to the inspector’s report to the District Licencing Committee. d) in recognition of specific community concern about alcohol-related harm, requests that the governing body delegates to local boards the power to make objections on alcohol licence applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. e) in the event that the governing body delegates power to local boards make objections as per resolution d), will establish a policy setting out parameters in which the board will use this power, noting that the board will consider making an objection only in instances of significant community concern about an application and in conformity with the legal requirements for an objection. CARRIED
Franklin	FR/2014/124 Local board role in alcohol licence applications Resolution number FR/2014/124 MOVED by Member BS Crompton, seconded by Member AQ Cole: That the Franklin Local Board provides the following feedback on the preferred option for local boards to provide input into alcohol licence applications: a) That the Franklin Local Board supports Local Boards having continued input into the development of the Local Alcohol Policy. b) That the Franklin Local Board requests that the chief executive be instructed to review council’s processes to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications. c) That the Franklin Local Board does not support the governing body delegating to local boards the power to make objections on alcohol licence applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. d) That the Franklin Local Board supports Local Board views on a particular licence application being attached to the inspector’s report to the District Licensing Committee. e) That the Franklin Local Board supports Local Boards being given the opportunity to be heard at a licensing hearing. CARRIED
Great Barrier	Great Barrier Local Board feedback on the proposed Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy The Great Barrier Local Board delegated feedback to the board chair and member Spence at its 9 July 2014 business meeting, who provide the following feedback: 1. General support. The Great Barrier Local Board is supportive of the thrust and intent of the proposed Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) to reduce alcohol related harm. The nature and practises of licensed premises on Great Barrier (location, hours etc.) are such that with the exception of compliance cost implications, the proposed LAP poses no specific issues for the board. 2. Cost implications. Great Barrier’s inclusion in proposed “Rest of Broad Area B” means that medium risk on-licences and medium/low risk off-licence premises will need to undergo an Environment and Cumulative Impact Assessment (ECIA). This is considered to be generally unnecessary, unduly onerous and potentially cost prohibitive for Great Barrier premises. Although it is understood such costs will initially be internalised, should they ultimately be passed on to licensees, this will be a considerable burden which they may be unable to afford when most are struggling to be financially viable already. Business on the island is generally hard due to the greater costs structures businesses face compared to their counterparts on the mainland. Costs of pretty much everything are greater due primarily to freight and higher fuel costs and it is difficult for businesses to remain viable. This applies equally – and perhaps more so - to licenced premises. Chillers run on generators fuelled by diesel which is 30% dearer than in town. A number of the island’s licenced premises are clubs which provide the important role as a community focal point and in some cases these are the only place in local villages that people can gather publicly. The board is strongly supporting economic development on the island and wishes to avoid business failure. The reality of business on the island is such that if a business fails, it is far less likely than on the mainland that another operator will come in to take its place. The initial LAP draft placed Great Barrier in a “rural” area. The board understands the rationale for reducing the number of areas but submits that the issued faced, the number, location and role of licensed premises on Great Barrier is significantly different to the mainland. The board would like to see the data and analysis that has resulted in the above medium and medium/low premises in the “Rest of Broad Area B” requiring an ECIA. 3. Local board delegations. The Great Barrier Local Board is supportive of proposals being raised by other local boards that delegations from the Auckland Council governing body be provided to local boards to object to licence applications. It recognises that in some local board areas, decisions on applications in relation to such things as locations are an important matter and that local boards should have a role here. Given the nature of the Great Barrier community, the board does not expect to regularly exercise such a delegation but wishes to see this provided in any case to local boards. 4. Certified managers to be on site. The board considers that the varying provisions in the LAP that require a certified manager to be on site at certain times only are inadequate and that it a qualified bar manager should be on duty at all times in licensed premises where alcohol is consumed or sold. In obtaining certification, the manager has gained a full understanding of the Sale of Liquor Act and will therefore be better placed to address issues than a person without such certification. 5. Advertising in local papers. The LAP makes no reference to where new and renewed licenses are advertised. Currently mainland applications are required to advertise twice in The Herald only and for the Gulf Islands, once in The Herald and once in their local paper. Advertising in the local paper provides a greater chance for the local community to be aware of, and if they wish to, to object to the application. The number and placement of Herald notices makes it very difficult to read or find premises relative to a local area. The board requests that the LAP or other relevant mechanism require all applications for new and renewed licences to be placed in The Herald and a local suburban newspaper.
Henderson-Massey	Resolution number HM/2014/130 MOVED by Member MFP Chan, seconded by Member WI Flavell: That the Henderson-Massey Local Board: a) Provides the following feedback on the role of local board on alcohol licence applications as initially workshopped on Tuesday 15 July 2014: i) The Henderson-Massey Local Board wants the ability to provide their views to the District Licensing Committee (DLC) by way of a Local Board Report AND that this report had to be taken into account by the District Licensing Committees when reaching their decision. This could be achieved by including in the LAP the requirement for any Local Board Report to be taken into account by the DLC in reaching a decision. The Board would expect Local Boards would only prepare report on license applications that are of concern to them, not all applications. ii) The Henderson-Massey local board does not want the power to object to licences. iii) Communities would need expert input to help them complete objections to licence applications as the applicants often have skilled legal teams. iv) The Board is concerned that there is no compulsion in the LAP to take local board opinions and evidence into account, which renders the board potentially ineffective in representing the views of the community, if the DLC chooses to ignore the local board opinion and evidence. There also needs to be provision in the LAP for the DLC to explain why they ignored local board opinion and evidence in cases where they have done this. Secretarial note: Member L Wilson and Member T Kirkley left the room. The Chairperson vacated the chair and member Henderson chaired the meeting for this item. Member B Brady and Member V Neeson declared and interest in this item and did not participate in the discussion and decision.
Hibiscus and Bays	Resolution number HB/2014/132 MOVED by Deputy Chairperson AG Sayers, seconded by Chairperson JG Parfitt: That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) support a variance of options 3 and 4 as detailed in the issues and options report of 3 June 2014. b) has an interest in providing input into the alcohol (new and renewal) application process in a similar way and time frame as the Police and Medical Officer of Health currently have and urge the Chief Executive to establish a process which will enable local boards to have their views made known to District Licensing Committees as an automatic part of their requests for and consideration of information. c) in recognition of community concern about minimising the impact of alcohol harm, request that the option of local boards having the powers to make objections on alcohol licence applications be explored with the governing body in the form of a delegation or allocation. d) request that the Chief Executive ensures that all new and renewal applications for the sale and supply of alcohol are made easily accessible for all members of the public and local communities to view. CARRIED
Howick	Local board role in alcohol licence applications The document entitled “Alcohol Licence applications: Options for Local Board Involvement” was tabled at the meeting. A hard copy will be filed with the minutes and will also be available on the Auckland Council Website Resolution number HW/2014/133 MOVED by Chairperson DA Collings, seconded by Deputy Chairperson AJ White: That the Howick Local Board: a) confirms its feedback on Local Boards role in alcohol licence applications is as set out in the document tabled. CARRIED Attachments A - Feedback on Local Board's role in alcohol licence applications (copied below): Alcohol Licence Applications: Options for Local Board Involvement Howick Local Board Response Howick Local Board (HLB) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on potential options for Local Board involvement in alcohol licence applications. It should be noted that HLB strongly believe that their community has a clear expectation that local board representative’s act as advocates and spokespeople on their behalf. This has been at the forefront of HLBs discussion around its potential involvement in alcohol licence applications. Option 1: Input to Local Alcohol Policy HLB has provided feedback during the development of the Local Alcohol Policy and will be providing a formal submission as part of the consultation process. Option 2: Views provided to District Licensing Committees HLB are in favour of this option but would suggest a more formal process for bringing licensing applications to the boards attention. It suggests that the liquor licensing inspector (or other suitable position) assess applications against a given criteria (eg licensing location, proximity to sensitive areas, likelihood of high public interest) to establish a rating system as to the relative significance of each application. This would alert the local board to those applications where a submission to the District Licensing Committee should be particularly considered. Option 3: Delegated or allocated power to object So long as the Local Boards views are heard and taken into consideration by the District Licensing Committee (as per option 2), HLB does not feel that delegated or allocated power to object is required. Option 4: Local Board supporting community involvement HLB are supportive of any opportunity to educate, encourage and enable community involvement – including in the context of ensuring community accessibility to information around how to object to licensing applications and participate in the hearings process. The board notes that while the internet remains a core means of communication, consideration needs to be given as to appropriate means of reaching those who do not have computer access or who would benefit from material in languages other than English.
Kaipātiki	That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) support local boards having continued input into the development of the Local Alcohol Policy. b) request that the chief executive be instructed to review the council’s processes to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications. c) support either the allocation or delegation of the power to object to liquor licence applications to local boards, with the expectation that the appropriate budgets and support follows accordingly.
Mangere-Otahuhu	MO/2014/156 Local board role in alcohol licence applications FILE REF CP2014/15039 AGENDA ITEM NO. 17 Resolution number MO/2014/156 MOVED by Member EP Skelton, seconded by Member TW Togiamua: That the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board: a) Supports local boards having continued input into the development of the Local Alcohol Policy. b) Requests that the Chief Executive be instructed to review the council’s processes to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications. c) Supports local board views on a particular licence application being attached to the inspector’s report to the District Licencing Committee. d) In recognition of specific community concern about alcohol-related harm, requests that the governing body delegates to the local board the power to make objections on alcohol licence applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. CARRIED
Manurewa	Resolution number MR/2014/147 MOVED by Chairperson AM Dalton, seconded by Deputy Chairperson SP Brown: That the Manurewa Local Board: a) has a strong interest in providing input into the alcohol (new and renewal) application process and urge the Chief Executive to establish a process which will enable local boards to have their views made known to District Licensing Committees as an automatic part of their requests for and consideration of information. This could be through a delegation or other mechanism. b) in recognition of community concern about minimising the impact of alcohol harm, request that the option of local boards having the powers to make objections on alcohol licence applications be explored with the governing body in the form of a delegation or allocation. c) request that the Chief Executive ensures that all new and renewal applications for the sale and supply of alcohol are made easily accessible for all members of local communities to view. d) in the spirit of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act (23012) in respect of enabling communities to have a greater say in decision making and participation in the process of reviewing applications, the Chief Executive is asked to explore options and organisational potential to support communities in achieving this aim. CARRIED
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	Resolution number MT/2014/133 MOVED by Chairperson SD Randall, seconded by Member BM Graham: That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board: a) supports local boards having continued input into the development of the Local Alcohol Policy. c) requests that the chief executive be instructed to review the council’s processes to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications. d) supports local board views on a particular licence application being attached to the inspector’s report to the District Licencing Committee. e) requests that in recognition of specific community concern about alcohol-related harm, the governing body delegates or allocates to the local board the power to make objections on alcohol licence applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. f) requests that officers provide advice on ways in which the local board can support its community to be able to engage in the process of objecting to alcohol licence applications. CARRIED
Orākei	13 Local Board Role in Alcohol Licence Applications Resolution number OR/2014/7 MOVED by Chairperson DEC Simpson, seconded by Deputy Chairperson M Thomas: That the Orākei Local Board: a) supports local boards having the power to formally object to liquor license applications. b) in recognition of specific community concern about alcohol-related harm, requests that the governing body delegates to the local board the power to make objections on alcohol licence applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. c) supports local board views, if any, on a particular licence application being attached to the inspector’s report to the District Licencing Committee. d) requests that the chief executive be instructed to review the council’s processes to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications. e ) requests that local board members who are members of the District Licencing Committee be able to sit on decisions regarding licence applications in their local area so that local knowledge is incorporated into the decision process in a manner consistent with good decision making guidelines. CARRIED
Otara-Papatoetoe	OP/2014/117 Local board role in alcohol licence applications Resolution number OP/2014/117 MOVED by Chairperson E Collins, seconded by Member SC Grey: That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board: a) Supports local boards having continued input into the development of the local alcohol policy. b) Requests that the Chief Executive be instructed to review the council’s processes to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications. c) Supports local boards being given the opportunity, as an alternative to lodging their own objections, to put forward their views on a particular licence application as a separate report to the District Licensing Committee. d) In recognition of the specific community concern about alcohol-related harm: i) requests that the governing body delegates to the local board the power to make objections on alcohol licence applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012; and ii) confirms its resolution of 16 June 2014 (OP/2014/106) asking for the delegation on the additional grounds that delegating the power to local boards will better reflect the wide variety of local circumstances and preferences, and provide greater benefit, than a single approach exercised by the governing body across Auckland. CARRIED
Papakura	17 Local Board Role in Alcohol Licence Applications Resolution number PPK/2014/131 MOVED by Member DG Purdy, seconded by Deputy Chairperson MV Turner: That the Papakura Local Board receive the report and provide the following feedback: a) Has provided input into the alcohol renewal application process and wishes to continue to do so for both new and renewal applications. As a result requests that the Chief Executive establishes processes which will enable local boards to have their views made known to District Licensing Committees (DLC) and the Alcohol Regulatory And Licensing Authority (ARLA). In respect of the former, that this be as an automatic part of the District Licensing Committee requests for and consideration of information. b) The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 acknowledged community concern about minimising the impact of alcohol harm and therefore it is considered that the Chief Executive should explore and identify options for supporting communities to have their voices heard in the application process. c) That the option of local boards having the powers to make objections on alcohol licence applications be fully investigated to include either delegation or allocation for this purpose provided by the governing body. d) Request that the Chief Executive ensures that all new and renewal applications for the sale and supply of alcohol are made easily accessible for all members of local communities to view. e) Suggest that the District Licensing Committees (DLC) consider that in respect of members of the community objecting to a new or renewal application that they be enabled to do so if they live within one kilometre of the applicant’s premises. CARRIED
Puketāpapa	17 Local board role in alcohol licence applications Resolution number PKTPP/2014/137 MOVED by Member NJ Turnbull, seconded by Deputy Chairperson HAJ Doig: That the Puketāpapa Local Board: a) support local boards having continued input into the development of the Local Alcohol Policy. b) request that the chief executive be instructed to review the council’s processes to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications. c) support local board views on a particular licence application being attached to the inspector’s report to the District Licencing Committee. d) In recognition of specific community concern about alcohol-related harm, requests that the governing body delegates to the local board the power to make objections on alcohol licence applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. e) advocate for allocation in the Long Term Plan process. CARRIED
Rodney	18 Local board role in alcohol licence applications Resolution number RD/2014/163 MOVED by Member PH Pirrie, seconded by Member TP Grace: That the Rodney Local Board: a) has an interest in providing input into the alcohol (new and renewal) application process and urge the Chief Executive to establish a process which will enable local board to have their views made known to District Licensing Committees as an automatic part of their requests for and consideration of information. b) in recognition of community concern about minimising the impact of alcohol harm, request that the option of local boards having the power to make objections on alcohol licence applications be explored with the governing body in the form of a delegation of allocation. c) requests that the Chief Executive ensures that all new and renewal applications for the sale and supply of alcohol are made easily accessible for all members of the public and local communities to view. d) in the spirit of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 in respect of enabling communities to have a greater say in decision making and participation in the process of reviewing applications, the Chief Executive is asked to explore options and the council’s potential to support communities in achieving this aim. CARRIED
Upper Harbour	UH/2014/141 Local board role in alcohol licence applications Resolution number UH/2014/141 MOVED by Deputy Chairperson LM Whyte, seconded by Member CK Rankin-MacIntyre: That the Upper Harbour Local Board: a) support local boards having continued input into the development of the Local Alcohol Policy. b) request that the chief executive be instructed to review the council’s processes to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications. c) does not support a formal role for local boards in objecting to licence applications. CARRIED
Waiheke	Local board role in alcohol licence applications Resolution number WHK/2014/187 MOVED by Chairperson PA Walden, seconded by Member JP Meeuwsen: That the Waiheke Local Board: a) Supports local boards having continued input into the development of the Local Alcohol Policy. b) Requests that the chief executive be instructed to review the council’s processes to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications. c) Supports local board views on a particular licence application being attached to the inspector’s report to the District Licencing Committee. d) In recognition of specific community concern about alcohol-related harm, requests that the governing body allows local boards to make objections or provide advice on alcohol licence applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. e) Delegates to the Chair and Deputy Chair to make any additional final amendments or additions to the board’s input regarding the role of the Local Board in alcohol licence applications. CARRIED
Waitakere Ranges	WTK/2014/100 Local board role in alcohol licence applications FILE REF CP2014/15576 AGENDA ITEM NO. 13 Resolution number WTK/2014/100 MOVED by Deputy Chairperson DA Yates, seconded by Member S Toms: That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board: a) Provides feedback on the preferred option for local boards to provide input into alcohol licence applications. b) Delegates that the Chair, Deputy Chair and Member Toms to prepare feedback on alcohol licence applications. CARRIED Waitakere Ranges Local Board – Draft Feedback on Alcohol Licence Applications 1. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Alcohol Licence Applications process, which will be incorporated into a report to be presented to the governing body on this issue. 2. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board is currently entirely within a licensing trust area with relatively low numbers of on and off licences compared to other parts of the region. Any increase in the establishment of on and off licence applications will have a significant impact for the local communities within our board area, especially those in the outer rural villages. 3. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board area includes the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area which was established by the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. This national legislation seeks to protect the environment, heritage and amenity values of the Waitakere Ranges. Two of the key features of the Heritage Area Act are the ‘quietness and darkness of the Waitakere Ranges and the coastal parts of the area’, and ‘the subservience of the built environment to the area’s natural and rural landscape’. 4. A key objective of the Act is to ensure that impacts on the area as a whole are considered when decisions are made affecting any part of it. Reporting officers and decision makers on alcohol license applications for premises within the heritage area should have regard to this act when considering applications. 5. Having reviewed the Issues and Options paper recently presented to the board, the document states that in order for a local board to object to a licence application, the governing body must firstly allocate or delegate the power to object to local boards. 6. The board would firstly like to comment on whether it could under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, section 13(2)(e) Functions, duties, and powers of local boards, rely on this sub clause which states “may consider and report on any matter of interest or concern to the local board, whether or not the matter is referred to it by the governing body” to make an objection against an application it feels may have a negative impact on either its communities or natural environments. 7. If the board cannot object under Point 6 above, we wish to express our preferred option for involvement being Option 3 – Local board area allocated the power to object. 8. The board would prefer the option to be allocated the power to object over being delegated because the latter has the potential to be removed. 9. The board understands this option would be time consuming and would need to be resourced appropriately however this should not be a reason to prevent the board from objecting. 10. The board agrees with the Issues and Options paper where it acknowledges that a local board has a greater interest in the issue than the public generally. We are the face of our communities and through the boards engagement and consultative process, we have a very clear understanding of the concerns surrounding our communities. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board needs to be able to object to those applications where there may be potential to impact negatively within our communities such as Glen Eden, and including those in the more sensitive, outer rural villages, and those which have the potential to contravene the heritage features and objectives of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008
Waitematā	Resolution number WTM/2014/145 MOVED by Chairperson S Chambers, seconded by Member GJ Moyle: a) That the Local Board Role in Alcohol Licence Applications report be received. b) That the Waitematā Local Board: i) Supports Local Boards having continued input into the development of the Local Alcohol Policy. ii) Requests that the Chief Executive be instructed to review the Council’s processes to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications. iii) Supports Local Board views on a particular licence application being attached to the inspector’s report to the District Licencing Committee. iv) Requests that the Governing Body delegates to Local Boards to make objections or provide advice on alcohol licence applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, in recognition of specific community concern about alcohol-related harm. v) Delegates to the Chair and Deputy Chair to make any additional final amendments or additions to the Board’s input regarding the role of the Local Board in alcohol licence applications. CARRIED
Whau	Resolution number WH/2014/106 MOVED by Member DQ Battersby, seconded by Member R Manukia-Schaumkel: That the Whau Local Board: a) Supports option 3 (Local Board are either allocated or delegated the power to object) by way of delegation. CARRIED

Governing Body

25 September 2014

Local board decisions on local dog access rules

File No.: CP2014/20488

Purpose

1. To request the governing body give effect to local board decisions on changes to local dog access rules.

Executive summary

2. From 1 July 2013, local boards have the delegated authority to make changes to local dog access rules in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.

3. The following local boards have made changes to local dog access rules in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012:

· Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Puketapapa local boards (decision report in Attachment A)

· Hibiscus and Bays local board (decision report in Attachment B)

· Kaipatiki local board (decision report in Attachment C)

4. To implement local board decisions the governing body must update the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 and approve the Kaipatiki Local Board decision to use alternative summer beach times or seasons to those contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 (6.30pm instead of 5.00pm). Governing body approval for these local board decisions is not required.

5. The necessary updates to the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 to give effect to those changes are contained in a table attached to each decision report.

Recommendations

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the local board decisions on changes to local dog access rules in the Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Puketapapa, Kaipatiki, and Hibiscus and Bays local board areas (Attachments A to C).

b) make the necessary amendments to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 pursuant to section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996 in relation to the summer beach end time on specified beaches in Kaipatiki Local Board area as contained in Attachments C with a commencement date of 25 October 2014 (the Saturday of Labour Weekend).

c) make the necessary amendments to the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 in accordance with section 20 of the Dog Control Act 1996 as contained in Attachments A, B and C with a commencement date of 25 October 2014 (the Saturday of Labour Weekend).

d) authorises the Manager Policies and Bylaws in consultation with His Worship the Mayor and the relevant chair of the local board hearing panel to make any minor edits or amendments to Attachment A to C in (b) and (c) to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

Comments

6. From 1 July 2013, local boards for the first time have been delegated sole responsibility to change local dog access rules in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012. This does not include areas subject to region-wide rules (e.g. playgrounds), areas of regional significance or areas administered by the Department of Conservation.

7. To implement local board decisions the governing body must:

· update the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012.

This is a procedural step that cannot be delegated to local boards. The governing body under section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996 must update the dog bylaw within 60 days of a local board change to the policy on dogs. The governing body cannot change the local board decision.

· approve local board decisions that use alternative summer beach times or seasons to those contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 (10.00am and 5.00pm, Labour weekend to 1 March).

Alternative summer beach times and seasons may be adopted by local boards to better meet the council’s overriding statutory requirement to provide for public safety and comfort, and to achieve the overall objective and policy statements of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 to keep dogs as a positive part of Auckland life and to provide dog access in a way that is safe for everyone.

In these instances, the governing body in adopting the policy on dogs “recognised that regional consistency and local needs need to be carefully balanced depending on the unique circumstances for each area” (governing body resolution on 22 November 2012) which recognises that the desire for consistency is secondary to the overriding statutory requirement of council and overall objective and policy statements of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.

The Kaipatiki local board decision uses an alternative summer beach end time of 6.30pm instead of 5.00pm.

It is noted that the decision of the Kaipatiki Local Board provides overall more dog access for dogs on beaches in the Kaipatiki Local Board area by reducing the length of summer from the length of the daylight saving period to between Labour Weekend and 1 March and allowing dogs under control on a leash in summer between 10.00am and 6.30pm instead of prohibited. Governing body approval for these local board decisions is not required.

8. The following local boards have made changes to local dog access rules in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.

· Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Puketapapa local boards (decision report in Attachment A)

o made new dog access rules for new Onehunga foreshore

· Hibiscus and Bays local board (decision report in Attachment B)

o clarified dog access rules in parks adjoining beaches, areas of protected wildlife, bush, off-leash areas, picnic and fitness apparatus areas, and on Gulf Islands.

· Kaipatiki local board (decision report in Attachment C)

o reviewed coastal dog access rules from Beach Haven to Northcote and in selected bush areas.

o clarified dog access rules in parks adjoining beaches, and picnic and fitness apparatus areas.

9. The necessary updates to the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 to give effect to those changes are contained in a table attached to each decision report.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10. The opportunity for local boards to express their views was part of the local board decision-making process.

Māori impact statement

11. The opportunity for Maori to express their views was part of the local board decision-making process.

Implementation

12. Any decision that makes changes to dog access rules will require updates to signage, collateral information and require training of animal management officers and park rangers.

13. The administration and implementation of the changes to dog access rules will be provided for within existing local board budget in relation to signage and for all other matters be managed by operational units. On-going maintenance of signs, information and training are managed by operational units.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Puketapapa local board decisions on local dog access rules	37
b View	Hibiscus and Bays local board decisions on local dog access rules	49
c View	Kaipatiki local board decisions on local dog access rules	69

Signatories

Authors

Paul Wilson - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Helgard Wagener - Team leader, Policies and Bylaws

Warren Maclennan - Manager North West Planning

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

25 September 2014

World War 1 Centenary Memorial: Update on council led First World War Centenary Commemorations in Auckland and Centenary Memorial developed by an interdisciplinary team

File No.: CP2014/20799

Purpose

1. To report the World War 1 Steering Group’s recommendations regarding the First World War Centenary Commemoration Activity and proposed permanent Centenary Memorial to the Governing Body.

Executive summary

2. To update the Governing Body on the council led First World War Centenary Commemoration Workstreams.

3. At its 12 May 2014 meeting, the First World War Political Steering Group moved to recommend the appointment of a World War 1 Centenary Memorial working party of the political steering group to oversee the development, design and funding of the First World War Centenary Memorial and make recommendations back to the First World War Steering Group.

4. The First World War Centenary Memorial’s recommended location is the slope north of the Cenotaph in the Auckland Domain. Memorial planning will align with the recommendations of the 2014 Domain Masterplan, currently in development, and Auckland War Memorial and Museum planning.

5. The Project is expected to be ready for Armistice Day 2018 and funding to be part of the Working Parties responsibilities and currently no impact on the Long Term Plan.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the update on the council led activities to commemorate the First World War in the Auckland region.

b) endorse the First World War Political Steering Group’s recommendation to appoint a working party of the political steering group to scope the feasibility of a First World War Centenary Memorial.

Comments

6. Update on current activities - council departments have initiated several First World War Centenary Commemoration projects from Libraries, Parks and Recreation, Heritage and Community Development Arts Culture. Along with close partnership with Auckland Museum for their centenary activities. Current council initiatives are:

a) “It’ll be over by Christmas” exhibition at the Central Library

b) Oral History Project “More than a War “opens 25^th September At West Auckland Library

c) Digitisation of Quick March the RSA Publication form 1918-1923

d) “Our Boys, Our Families” research tool online

e) Auckland’s First World War Heritage Trail opened 8^th September covering 56 sites in the Isthmus

f) Memorials have been assessed and upgraded and refurbishment works carried out. Final $40k budget has been allocated to the Silverdale and Waikaraka Cemetery memorials for further works

g) Events have delivered commemorative services in partnership with Auckland Museum and Ministry of Culture and Heritage and planning is underway for ANZAC 2015

h) Auckland Heritage Festival opens with a Civic Event on the 26^th September with WWI Centenary as an overarching theme “He toa Taumata Rau – Courage has many resting places” and a public open day and parade are being delivered on Saturday, 27^th September on Queens Wharf

i) Regional Facilities through Auckland Art Gallery, MOTAT, Voyager National Maritime Museum and Torpedo Bay Naval Museum are also delivering a range of programmes.

Memorial

7. As it marks the passing of a century since the event, the purpose of the First World War Centenary Memorial is not to duplicate the commemorative function offered by the over 500 First World War memorials found throughout New Zealand. At its 12 May 2014 meeting, the First World War Steering Group endorsed the following criteria for the memorial:

a) To evoke empathy for all New Zealanders who faced the Great War’s challenges, uncertainty and devastation in ways that are universally resonant

b) To harmonize with the Auckland War Memorial Museum’s formal characteristics and the Domain’s informal landscape

c) To be suitable for private contemplation and group engagement

d) To be robustly made with any means and materials that will meet regulatory requirements for an asset life of indefinite duration

e) To look at potential funding through Public Subscription and WWI Lotteries fund.

8. The site identified by the First World War Political Steering Group for the First World War Centenary Memorial is the grassed slope north of the Cenotaph, which held a World War II U.S. military camp. The draft Auckland Domain Masterplan notes this area as an object exclusion zone, apart from a possible First World War Centenary Memorial. The Auckland Domain is zoned open space 2, informal recreation and is a scheduled archaeological and geological site in the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999 and also an archaeological site under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. The Proposed Unitary Plan specifies its zoning as informal recreation and schedules the park as a significant Historic Heritage Place. Views to and from the Auckland War Memorial Museum are protected in both plans.

9. The First World War Centenary Memorial in the Auckland Domain is a nationally significant proposition. It requires a world-class inter-disciplinary team with a balanced array of expertise in the visual and literary arts, design (i.e. landscape, built, technology), New Zealand military history and other areas as relevant to ensure an appropriate, transformational outcome.

Consideration

10. The First World War Political Steering Group has guided the council led initiatives representing the Governing Body.

11. Two committees with decision-making delegation relevant to the World War 1 Centenary Memorial are; Arts, Culture and Events and Parks, Recreation and Sports.

12. The views of key stakeholders identified in the draft Auckland Domain Masterplan will be taken into account as memorial planning advances.

Local board views and implications

13. As Local Boards are represented on the First World War Steering Group, the views of all will inform council led activities and memorial planning.

14. For the Memorial, the Domain sits within the Waitematā Local Board area. The Local Board boundary borders the Albert-Eden and Orākei Local Board areas.

Māori impact statement

15. Iwi are represented on the First World War Political Steering Group.

16. As visual art traditions and practices are inherent to Māori culture, Māori have expressed that involvement in council’s art and design projects are of special interest.

17. This may take the form of 1) formal consultation, 2) the contribution of heritage, ecological and narrative content to enrich project briefs and 3) working with council to agree when customary rights warrant projects to be exclusive to iwi.

18. Māori artists and designers are encouraged to compete for council-initiated projects, whether or not iwi-exclusive, as these present important development capacity opportunities.

19. Auckland’s Māori identity is agreed as the region’s point of difference. The increased presence of Māori visual art traditions and heritage in Auckland’s shared public places contribute to Māori wellbeing by fulfilling the fundamental need for recognition and visibility.

Implementation

20. Council led activities are being rolled out over various dates, under the guidance of the First World War Political Steering Group.

21. With the Governing Body’s decision to accept the First World War Political Steering Group’s recommendations for the First World War Centenary Memorial, staff will develop a business case that details all aspects of project planning, including the identification of resources.

22. The First World War Centenary Memorial working party of the political steering group will oversee staff efforts for all aspects of the First World War Centenary Memorial’s development, and will report back to the First World War Political Steering Group.

23. Implementation of the project’s various phases will align with Auckland Domain Masterplan implementation, such as improvements to adjacent vehicle, pedestrian and cycling routes.

24. The project is envisioned to be complete by Armistice Day, 11 November 2018 or mid-2019.

25. Funding would be overseen by the First World War Centenary Memorial working party and options assessed regarding national funding pools and public subscriptions. Currently there would be no impact on the Long Term Plan and as of yet no operational budget has been allocated to this plan.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Kaye Oliver, Senior Advisor Special Projects Heritage

Authorisers

Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Comments

Background

6. The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides the opportunity for local authorities to consider:

· changing the electoral system (for example from FPP to STV)

· establishing Māori wards

· reviewing representation arrangements.

7. That Act sets out deadline dates in relation to each of these, if they are to take effect at the next elections. A summary of these dates is:

· 12 September 2014 for a resolution to change the electoral system

· 23 November 2014 for a resolution to establish Māori wards

· 31 August 2015 for a resolution making the council’s initial proposal on representation arrangements.

If the Council does not pass any resolutions regarding these, the status quo continues.

Electoral system

8. Under the First Past the Post system (FPP) a candidate can be successful at election by winning more votes compared to other candidates.

9. Under the Single Transferable Voting (STV) system, a voter casts a single vote but ranks his or her preferences. First preferences are used to establish whether any candidates are elected by reaching the required quota of votes. If not, the system provides a method for transferring second preferences and other preferences until all vacancies are filled.

10. An argument in favour of STV is that it is a fairer system, in that if a voter’s first preference would otherwise be wasted, the voter’s second and other preferences can be recognised. An argument against STV is that it is more complex than FPP and more difficult for voters to understand – with a possibility of more “informal” votes (votes not properly entered so not counted). Some councils which moved to STV have moved back to FPP, on the basis that it is easier to understand for voters and that STV did not affect the outcome. There is some evidence that informal votes are due to mixed electoral systems on the one voting paper, rather than STV per se, and that when all issues on a voting paper are decided through STV there are fewer informal votes.

11. The legislation setting up the Auckland Council prescribed FPP for the 2010 and 2013 elections. When the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee reported the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill it said:

“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.”

12. The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has recently published its inquiry into the 2013 local government elections. It notes the mix of FPP and STV as follows:

“Local authorities can choose between the first past the post (FPP) voting system or STV. In 2013, 90 per cent of local authorities used FPP in their own elections. Therefore, voting in most local elections involved a combination of FPP and STV. We understand that generally the STV councils have a higher turnout, but the incidence of invalid voting is usually far higher in District Health Board elections, because people tick their preferred candidates rather than ranking them.

In 2008, the Local Government Commission conducted a post-election survey of voters; 52 per cent of the respondents said that having two systems was confusing, while 46 per cent said it was not. A large majority of respondents (82 per cent) said they would prefer a single system.”

13. The committee did not make a specific recommendation.

14. A further aspect of STV is that, on election day, the result is delayed, due to the need to have all votes in prior to transferring preferences.

15. The guidelines issued by the Local Government Commission state:

“The Commission notes, for example, the argument that to gain the full benefits of proportional representation under STV, multi-member wards or constituencies of at least three members, but preferably five to seven members, are required. Clearly this should be considered by a local authority using STV when undertaking its representation review.”

16. Governing Body member wards are either one member or two member wards, and therefore STV would not likely have a significant impact.

17. Local boards are multi-member bodies and local board members were invited to a briefing on these issues. There was not a strong desire expressed for change.

18. Whether or not the council resolves to change the electoral system, it must give public notice of the right of electors to demand a poll.

Review of representation arrangements

19. Each territorial and regional council must conduct a review of representation arrangements at least once every six years. If the Council decides to not conduct a review for the 2016 elections, it must conduct a review for the 2019 elections.

20. If the Council decides to conduct a review, it must resolve its initial proposal by 31 August 2015 (but not before 1 March 2015). Investigations would need to commence this calendar year to meet that deadline.

21. The total number of members of the Governing Body is set by legislation at 20 councillors. The review could determine:

(i) whether councillors are elected at-large, by ward or by a mixture of at-large and ward

(ii) the number, names and boundaries of wards

(iii) the names of local boards

(iv) the number of members of each local board (between 5 and 12)

(v) whether these are elected at large or by subdivision

(vi) the number of subdivisions and their boundaries

22. The representation review provisions which apply to councils generally and to Auckland Council’s Governing Body with respect to ward boundary changes do not apply for local board boundary changes. Proposed changes to local board boundaries must be dealt with as a reorganisation proposal in the same manner as proposed boundary changes between local authorities.

23. The legislation requires effective representation of communities of interest and fair representation (the people represented by each councillor should not deviate from the average by more than 10 per cent). However, when the Local Government Commission set the current boundaries it accepted some deviations over the 10 per cent threshold. The commission was directed by legislation to create a single member ward for the former Rodney district and a single member ward for what remained of the Franklin district after the southern part of the district was transferred to Waikato District Council.

24. On current statistics, there would be an under-representation problem in the Waitemata ward. This is primarily brought about by the number of residents now residing in apartments in the CBD and CBD fringe. Attached is a table of changes based on information from the 2013 census.

25. Adjusting the boundary of the Albert-Eden-Roskill boundary to include some of the current Waitemata ward could address this variance. Changing the boundaries of one ward can have a flow-on effect into other wards.

26. The process and timeframes, should the council choose to undertake a review this term are as follows:

· Council resolves its initial proposal by 31 August 2015

· Public make submissions

· Council hears and considers all submissions

· Council makes another resolution

· Council notifies its second resolution by 19 November 2015

· Public submit appeals and objections

· All appeals and objections are forwarded to the Local Government Commission by 15 January 2016

· The Local Government Commission makes a determination before 11 April 2016

27. We are not aware of significant problems with the current arrangements and do not intend to recommend a review for the 2016 elections. Further, the period during which the Council would be considering the various options prior to making a resolution, is when the Council will also be making its decisions around the LTP. This would be a particularly busy time.

Māori wards

Background

28. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance recommended a Governing Body comprising of the mayor and 23 councillors, two of whom would be elected at large from the Māori electoral roll and one of whom would be appointed by Mana Whenua.

29. However, Parliament legislated for a Governing Body comprising of the mayor and 20 councillors with no Māori seats and the creation of an Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB).

30. Nevertheless, the general provisions of the Local Electoral Act 2001 with respect to Māori wards still apply to Auckland Council. Thus, as the legislation stands, the IMSB would continue to exist if Māori wards were established.

31. The legislation provides for councils to establish Māori wards for the 2016 elections by passing a resolution by 23 November 2014. This is discretionary. Council is not required to take any action.

32. Two regional councils have Maori constituencies – Bay of Plenty and Waikato.

Concept of Māori wards

33. All wards function as a basis for electing members by those electors within the ward who are entitled to vote. Māori wards, where they exist, are an overlay over the geographical general wards in the same way as the Parliamentary Māori constituencies are overlays on the general constituencies.

34. An elector of a Māori ward is an elector who is registered on a Parliamentary electoral roll for a residential address within the Māori ward and who is registered as an elector of a Māori electoral district. Such an elector is not able to vote in regard to any other ward but can vote for at-large candidates (such as mayor).

Number of members elected through Maori wards

35. There is a formula in the Local Electoral Act 2001 for determining the number of members who may be elected through Māori wards.

36. On the basis of statistics supplied by Statistics New Zealand, one member of Auckland Council could be elected through a Māori ward. The total number of Governing Body members is set in legislation at 20 plus the mayor and so the number of general members would be reduced to 19 if a Māori ward was established.

37. At the time the report to the Governing Body was prepared, the advice was that 2 members could be elected. The difference occurs through the use of more recent statistics. The previous statistics produced 1.51 members (rounded to 2) whereas the recent statistics produced 1.44 members (rounded to 1).

How Māori wards may be established

38. Māori wards may be established in any of the following ways:

(i) the Council may resolve to establish Māori wards

(ii) electors may demand a poll at any time

(iii) the Council may hold a poll at any time (including in conjunction with the elections)

A requirement to establish a Māori ward arising through any of these processes would apply for at least two electoral cycles.

Effect of a Council resolution to establish Māori wards

39. If the Council resolved to establish Māori wards by 23 November 2014, the resolution would apply to the 2016 and 2019 elections. Any resolution to establish Māori wards made after that date would not apply to the 2016 elections but the two subsequent elections.

40. The Council would be required to give public notice of the right of 5% electors to demand a poll.

41. If a demand for a poll is received by 28 February 2015 then the poll will be conducted by 21 May 2015, and the result of the poll would apply to the 2016 and 2019 elections. The cost of a standalone poll would be approximately $1 million. The electoral officer is required to conduct the poll within 82 days of receipt of notice of a valid poll – the Council does not have the discretion to delay such a poll until the elections.

42. If there is no demand for a poll, the Council’s resolution is not defeated and takes effect.

43. The Local Electoral Act 2001 (Schedule 1A) requires a review of representation arrangements to be held if Māori wards are established. As discussed previously in this report, there is no compelling reason to conduct a full review for the 2016 elections.

44. Should the Council resolve to introduce Māori wards then the timeframes are as follows.

By 23 November 2014	Council resolution to establish a Māori ward followed by public notice of right to demand a poll
By 28 February 2015	If demand for a poll received, the poll must be conducted prior to 21 May 2015 and apply to 2016 elections

45. Through various engagement and consultation processes there has been a call for direct Māori representation on the Governing Body and greater involvement by Māori in council decision making processes.

46. This is reflected in the IMSB’s schedule of issues of significance and Māori Plan:

“Māori are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised in their ability to actively and meaningfully contribute to the development of Auckland, in becoming the world’s most liveable city by a council that actively engages, consults and includes Māori in decision making processes and future plans”.

“Māori are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised as playing an important role in the development of local communities by a council that recognises the role of Māori in local board decision making”.

47. In the IMSB’s view the establishment of Māori wards are an important part of contributing to these outcomes. The board is of the view that direct representation on the Governing Body through Māori wards is distinct from the IMSB’s role as an independent statutory authority. From the board’s perspective the two roles are not mutually exclusive.

48. The establishment of one or more Māori wards would have the effect of triggering a representation review. The transfer of Māori voters from the general roll to the Māori roll, would impact on the remaining number of voters in each general ward in a manner that would not be uniform. This would affect the plus or minus 10 per cent rule and mean the redrawing of most, if not all, ward boundaries. The Governing Body ward boundaries would then not be contiguous with local board boundaries unless the local board boundaries were to be reviewed as a consequence. This would require a reorganisation proposal, as noted in para 22.

Conclusion

49. There is no compelling reason to conduct a full review of representation arrangements but one would be required if the Council resolved to establish a Māori ward.

50. A review of representation arrangements could require a simultaneous reorganisation proposal in order to deal with alignment between local board boundaries with changes to ward boundaries.

51. Because the total number of Governing Body members is set at 20, a member elected through a Māori ward would reduce the total number of general members to 19.

52. If the council were of a mind to consider the establishment of Māori wards in the future it may well want to consider advocating changes to legislation as to the maximum number of members and the process for considering local board boundaries. Such a review could not be completed within the timeframe required for the 2016 elections.

53. It is therefore recommended that a working party is established to work with officers to investigate all options and report back to the Governing Body with recommendations relating to changes for the 2019 elections.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

54. A workshop was held for local board members. Those attending did not express a desire for change in relation to the electoral system. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has also advised their preference for maintaining status quo (WTK/2014/110) in regard to the electoral system. There was some support at the workshop, and by Waitakere Ranges Local Board, for investigating Māori wards. The report recommends the establishment of a working party, which could include local board representation.

Māori impact statement

55. There has been no consultation with Māori specifically in relation to this report. However, the matter has been raised through previous engagement processes and been the subject of advocacy to the council by the IMSB (see body of report). The report recommends the establishment of a working party, which could include IMSB representation.

56. Māori wards are one mechanism for increasing Māori participation in council decision making. However, there are a range of other mechanisms which are not reliant on a representation review. These are the subject of advocacy through the IMSB’s schedule of significance and Māori Plan, and the council is actively striving to advance enhanced involvement in decision making through a range of initiatives.

Implementation

57. If the Governing Body resolves to change from FPP to STV, the Council’s current provider of election services will be able to make the appropriate changes. However, there would need to be an extensive awareness campaign to ensure all voters were aware of the change.

58. If the Council resolves to establish Māori wards there is the risk of demand for a poll requiring a poll to be held with a cost of around $1 million, which is unbudgeted.

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Mayor	Len Brown, JP
Deputy Mayor	Penny Hulse
Councillors	Cr Anae Arthur Anae	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Cameron Brewer	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr John Watson
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Penny Webster
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr George Wood, CNZM
	Cr Alf Filipaina
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
	Cr Denise Krum
	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Calum Penrose

Authors	Sarndra O'Toole - Team Leader Governance Support
Authorisers	Stephen Town - Chief Executive