Agenda of Governing Body

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

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Thursday, 31 March 2016

9:30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

Governing Body

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

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

(Quorum 11 members)

Elaine Stephenson

Democracy Advisor

23 March 2016

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8117

Email: elaine.stephenson@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; or

(b) the power to make a bylaw; or

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

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

(e) the power to appoint a Chief Executive; or

(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; or

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

Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body:

(a) Approval of a draft long term plan or draft annual plan prior to community consultation

(b) Approval of a draft bylaw prior to community 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 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

31 March 2016

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Affirmation 7

2 Apologies 7

3 Declaration of Interest 7

4 Confirmation of Minutes 7

5 Acknowledgements and Achievements 7

6 Petitions 7

7 Public Input 7

8 Local Board Input 7

9 Extraordinary Business 8

10 Notices of Motion 9

10.1 Notice of Motion - Cr Mike Lee - Auckland Council's Corporate Membership in the Property Council New Zealand 9

11 City Rail Link and Auckland Transport Alignment Project Update 11

12 2016 Local Government New Zealand AGM and Conference 79

13 Order of names on voting documents 81

14 Audit and Risk Committee - Revised Terms of reference 93

15 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

16 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 107

C1 Waiau Pā Historical Reserve - Ngāti Tamaoho 107

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, 18 February 2016 and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 24 February 2016, as true and correct records.

5 Acknowledgements and Achievements

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

6 Petitions

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

7 Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy 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.

8 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.

9 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.”

10 Notices of Motion

10.1 Notice of Motion - Cr Mike Lee - Auckland Council's Corporate Membership in the Property Council New Zealand

In accordance with Standing Order 2.5.1, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Councillor Mike Lee for inclusion on the agenda for the Governing Body meeting being held on Thursday, 31 March 2016:

Cr Mike Lee proposes to move the following motion, seconded by Cr Cathy Casey:

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body, in recognition of the Council’s statutory planning role in the Unitary Plan process, and in order to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest:

a) direct that Auckland Council’s corporate membership in the Property Council New Zealand be terminated as the latter is a major submitter in the Unitary Plan.

Background

The signed notice of motion, is appended as Attachment A.

Attachments

a Cr Mike Lee Notice of Motion - Auckland Council's Corporate Membership in the Property Council New Zealand............................. 111

Governing Body

31 March 2016

City Rail Link and Auckland Transport Alignment Project Update

File No.: CP2016/03120

Purpose

1. To provide an update on developments relating to the City Rail Link (CRL) and the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP), and authorise the negotiation with the Government of a joint business plan for the CRL project.

Executive Summary

2. This report was deferred by the 24 February 2016 Extraordinary Governing Body meeting, for consideration at this meeting.

3. On 27 January 2016, the Prime Minister confirmed the Government’s support for, and intent to, part fund the CRL.

4. The next step is for Auckland Council and the Government to negotiate a joint business plan for the project.

5. On 19 February 2016, the ‘Foundation Report’ for ATAP was released. This report provides the framework for the remainder of the project, which will provide advice on intervention packages in May 2016 and a final report including recommendations regarding implementation in August 2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive an update on the Government's position on the City Rail Link and related next steps.

b) authorise the Mayor, Cr Bill Cashmore and the chief executives of Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to negotiate a joint business plan for the City Rail Link with the Government for adoption by the Governing Body.

c) receive an update on the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.

Discussion

City Rail Link

6. In November 2015, I wrote to the Prime Minister requesting that the Government confirm the nature and timing of its funding contribution to the CRL. On 27 January 2016, the Prime Minister confirmed his Government's support for the CRL by announcing that it would fomalise its funding commitment by bringing forward work on the joint business plan for the project to 2016.

7. This commitment of funding from the Government provides the certainty to the council and Auckland Transport to progress the project, based on the timeframe set out in the 2015 Long-term Plan.

8. As a result of the Government's funding confirmation, a range of details now need to be confirmed with the Government regarding the project. The issues to be negotiated as part of the joint business plan are expected to include ownership, governance, project risk and funding details.

9. The Government has proposed that the business plan largely be confined to the matters above, as opposed to it representing a wholesale rework of the analysis and detail of the project that has previously been undertaken. The amount of work that the council has already undertaken on the project and related issues will position us well for these negotiations.

10. To advance this work there will need to be continued discussions at a governance level, with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport, and at an officer level, from the council's perspective, by the chief executives of the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport.

11. This report recommends that the Governing Body authorise the Mayor, Cr Bill Cashmore and the chief executives of Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to negotiate a joint business plan for the City Rail Link with the Government for adoption by the Governing Body.

ATAP Foundation Report

12. The Budget Committee, at its 7 May 2015 meeting, resolved the following in relation to engaging with the Government on alternative transport funding (BUD/2015/10):

"that the Mayor and Chief Executive engage with the government to enable the implementation of an alternative funding system by 2018/2019 to fund the implementation of the Auckland Plan Transport Network for the Long-term Plan 2018-2028".

13. On 27 August 2015, the Minister of Transport joined with me to release the terms of reference for the ATAP project. The focus of the project was to improve the alignment between the council and the Government regarding Auckland's transport programme in order to advance the following broad objectives:

· to support economic growth and increased productivity by ensuring access to employment/labour improves relative to current levels as Auckland's population grows

· to improve congestion results, relative to predicted levels, in particular travel time and reliability in the peak period and to ensure congestion does not become widespread during working hours

· to improve public transport's mode share, relative to predicted results, where it will address congestion

· to ensure any increases in the financial costs of using the transport system deliver net benefits to users of the system.

14. Since that time, the partners in the project (Ministry of Transport, The Treasury, State Services Commission, NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport) have worked closely and collaboratively to advance the first deliverable of the project, the "ATAP Foundation Report" which was released by the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Simon Bridges and myself on Friday 19 February 2016.

15. The Foundation Report (a copy is appended as Attachment A) provides an overview of the context, a problem definition and includes the following information:

· a summary of Auckland's current transport situation, including recent trends and how Auckland compares with similar cities internationally

· an outline of future trends that will impact on Auckland's transport system, including growth changing land-use and travel trends

· an evaluation framework to test an intervention's (or combination of interventions) contribution to desired outcomes

· a presentation and description of key issues for future stages of the project to focus on.

16. The Foundation Report provides a framework through which intervention packages can be developed and assessed. This work will result in two further deliverables for the project, specifically:

· initial advice reporting on the development, testing and evaluation of broad intervention packages - May 2016

· a final report detailing the best performing intervention packages the related preferred strategic approach and recommendations regarding implementation - August 2016.

17. By achieving agreement on the optimal transport programme for Auckland, ATAP will provide for the council and Government to discuss and agree a sustainable long-term funding model for transport infrastructure. This, in turn, will conclude the almost five years of work that the council has undertaken on alternative funding sources for transport infrastructure.

Consideration

Local Board Views

18. Both the CRL and ATAP are regional in their impacts.

19. The CRL is designed to increase the transport system’s ability to move people to and from the region’s business and entertainment centre.

20. ATAP is designed to review and agree on the significant elements of the entire region’s land transport planning from 2018 onwards.

Māori Impact Statement

21. Impact on Māori is expected to be positive, in that the CRL will enable more people to access the city centre for employment and social activity via a more cost effective and less environmentally harmful means of transport than most feasible alternatives.

22. ATAP also is designed to improve both social and environmental outcomes.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	ATAP Foundation Report	15

Signatories

Author

His Worship the Mayor, Len Brown

Governing Body

31 March 2016

2016 Local Government New Zealand AGM and Conference

File No.: CP2016/03532

Purpose

1. To appoint delegates to attend the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Annual General Meeting (AGM) and conference in Dunedin from Sunday, 24 July 2016 to Tuesday, 26 July 2016.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council is entitled to have four official delegates to the LGNZ AGM, one of whom is the presiding (or voting) delegate. The Mayor is a member of the LGNZ National Council and the Deputy Mayor is the Mayor’s alternate for this position; Councillor Webster chairs LGNZ Zone One and is a member of LGNZ National Council; and Councillor Cashmore is the council’s representative on the Regional Sector Group of LGNZ.

3. The Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillor Webster have indicated that they wish to attend the AGM and conference as three of the council’s official delegates. The Chief Executive will be the final official delegate.

4. In addition to the three elected member official delegates highlighted above and Councillor Cashmore as a member of the Regional Sector Group, additional members’ attendance at the conference should be agreed by the Governing Body so total numbers are managed.

5. Other councillors who have been involved in LGNZ are Councillors Anae and Cooper, who are additional representatives on Zone One, and Councillor Filipaina, who the Governing Body appointed to the LGNZ Te Maruata Subcommittee.

6. Local board members can attend the conference. Attendance will be considered by each local board, with costs to be met from local board budgets. As in previous years, the expectation is that boards will approve no more than one member to attend the conference.

7. The Independent Māori Statutory Board will be invited, as in previous years, to send members to the conference.

8. Attendees at previous conferences and AGM included the following:

2014 attendees

2015 attendees

Deputy Mayor Hulse

Councillor Webster

Councillor Cooper

Councillor Filipaina

24 local board members

No Independent Māori Statutory Board members

Mayor

Deputy Mayor Hulse

Councillor Webster

Chief Executive Stephen Town

Councillor Krum

Councillor Wayne Walker

23 local board members

No Independent Māori Statutory Board members

9. The cost of registration is $1,510 incl. GST. Travel and accommodation costs are additional.

10. The theme of this year’s conference is “Place making – creating places where people love to live, work and play”.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) appoint the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Penny Webster and the Chief Executive (or nominee) as its official delegates to attend the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting on 24 July 2016, with the Mayor as the presiding delegate, and approve their attendance at the Local Government New Zealand conference.

b) approve the attendance of further councillors at the Local Government New Zealand conference from 24 to 26 July 2016.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Elodie Fontaine - LGNZ Zone One Secretary

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

31 March 2016

Order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2015/27123

Purpose

1. To determine the order of names to be used on voting documents for the Auckland Council 2016 elections.

Executive Summary

2. The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 allow a local authority to resolve whether the names on voting documents are arranged in:

(i) alphabetical order of surname

(ii) pseudo-random order

(iii) random order.

3. “Pseudo-random order” means an arrangement where names are listed in a random order and the same random order is used on every voting document.

4. “Random order” means an arrangement where names are listed in a random order and a different random order is used on every voting document.

5. In 2013, the council resolved for names to be arranged in alphabetical order of surname. A key consideration was the additional cost of using a random order. All other metropolitan councils used random order in 2013.

6. The electoral officer has advised that it is now possible to use a true random arrangement with minimal additional cost.

7. An analysis of overseas research and of the council’s 2013 election results is attached. The analysis shows that any potential advantage to those at the top of alphabetical voting lists is very small. The analysis notes that overseas research is not based on New Zealand’s postal voting system, which includes a candidate booklet in alphabetical order. The analysis of Auckland Council’s 2013 results does not provide a compelling case for changing from alphabetical order.

8. It is recommended that alphabetical order printing is retained for the 2016 council elections. It is considered that the noted benefits of alphabetical order for the voter outweigh any perception of a name order basis problem. The majority of local boards support alphabetical order.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) note any further recommendations from local boards.

b) agree that that candidate names on voting documents for the Auckland Council 2016 elections should be arranged in:

(choose one only)

EITHER: alphabetical order of surname

OR: pseudo-random order

OR: random order.

Comments

Ability to choose order of names

9. The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 in clause 31 state that candidate names may be arranged on the voting document in alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random order or random order. The council may, by resolution, determine which order is to be used.

10. The two random orders are:

(i) “pseudo-random order”, which means an order of names that is random and that order is used on all voting documents

(ii) “random order”, sometimes called “true random”, which means an order of names that is random and each voting document has a different random order.

2013 elections

11. All the metropolitan councils apart from Auckland Council used random order printing for their 2013 local authority elections.

12. The council resolved to use the alphabetical order. A key consideration was that there would be an additional cost of $100,000 if council chose the random order.

13. Of the District Health Boards that were elected in conjunction with the 2013 council elections, the Counties Manukau District Health Board chose the random order. Auckland and Waitemata District Health Boards chose the alphabetical order.

14. Of the Licensing Trusts that run elections in conjunction with the 2013 council elections, all chose alphabetical except for the Wiri Licensing Trust, which chose pseudo-random order.

15. The electoral officer has advised that due to changes in printing technology, it is now possible to use the random order with minimal additional cost.

Options for 2016

Alphabetical order

16. The advantage of the alphabetical order printing is that it is familiar; easier to use and to understand. When there are a large number of candidates competing for a position it is easier for a voter to find the candidate the voter wishes to support if names are listed alphabetically.

17. It is also easier for a voter if the order of names on the voting documents follows the order of names in the directory of candidate profile statements accompanying the voting document. The directory is listed in alphabetical order for each election issue. It is not possible to print it in such a way that each copy aligns with the random order of names on the accompanying voting documents.

18. The disadvantage of alphabetical printing is that there is some documented evidence, mainly from overseas, of voter bias to those at the top of a voting list.

Pseudo-random order and random order printing

19. Random order printing of names removes the perception of name order bias, but the pseudo-random order of names simply substitutes a different order for an alphabetical order. Any perceived first-name bias will transfer to the name at the top of the pseudo-randomised list. The only effective alternative to alphabetical order is random order.

20. A disadvantage to both of the random printing options is potential confusion for the voter as it is not possible for the supporting documents such as the directory of candidate profile statements to follow the order of a random voting paper.

Analysis of research and 2013 results

21. An analysis of overseas research and the council’s 2013 election results is contained in Attachment A. The analysis shows that any potential advantage to those at the top of alphabetical voting lists is very small. The analysis looked at:

· impact on vote share (did the candidate at the top of the list receive more votes than might be expected)?

· impact on election outcome (did being at the top of list result in the candidate being elected more often than might be expected?).

22. The analysis showed that, for local boards, being listed first increased a candidate’s vote share by approximately 1 percentage point above that which would be expected statistically if voting was random. There was no detectable impact of being listed first on the share of votes received in ward elections.

23. In terms of election outcomes, there was no detectable impact of being listed first on whether a candidate was elected or not. In fact there were slightly fewer candidates at the top of lists elected to positions (29) than might be expected statistically if voting was random (31). Similarly, there was no meaningful impact of having a surname earlier in the alphabet on election outcomes.

24. The analysis also notes that overseas research was largely based on booth voting, whereas in New Zealand postal voting allows for a more considered approach. In addition a candidate booklet, in alphabetical order of names for each election issue, is included in the voting documents.

25. The research team suggested Democracy Services should consider testing with a small group of voters whether using randomised voting documents alongside a candidate directory that is in alphabetical order results in confusion. This research would need to be conducted properly, with a robust methodology and a peer review process. Democracy Services is looking into arranging this research for the 2019 elections.

26. The research team also suggested Democracy Services should consider the alphabetic rotational order of names. This is where the list of candidates is alphabetical except for the first on the list, which is random. This is not a legally available option which therefore is not relevant to the decision that needs to be made.

27. Given there is no compelling evidence of first name bias for the council’s own 2013 results, staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2016 council elections. It is considered that the noted benefits of alphabetical order to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

28. This matter has been reported to local boards during March. Their recommendations are summarised below:

Meeting date	Local board	Comments
Wed 2 March	Albert-Eden	Alphabetical / alphabetical rotational
Thurs 3 March	Orakei	Alphabetical
Tues 8 March	Waitemata	*
Wed 9 March	Kaipatiki	Alphabetical
Thurs 10 March	Manurewa	Alphabetical
Thurs 10 March	Waitakere Ranges	Alphabetical
Mon 14 March	Rodney	Alphabetical
Mon 14 March	Howick	Alphabetical
Tues 15 March	Devonport-Takapuna	Alphabetical
Wed 16 March	Gt Barrier Island	Alphabetical
Wed 16 March	Papakura	Alphabetical
Wed 16 March	Hibiscus and Bays	Alphabetical
Wed 16 March	Mangere-Otahuhu	Alphabetical
Wed 16 March	Whau	Alphabetical
Thurs 17 March	Henderson-Massey	Alphabetical
Thurs 17 March	Maungakiekie-Tamaki	True random
Mon 21 March	Otara-Papatoetoe	Alphabetical
Tues 22 March	Franklin	Alphabetical
Tues 22 March	Upper Harbour	Alphabetical
Thurs 24 March	Waiheke	**
Informal	Puketapapa	True random

* The report was inadvertently left off the March agenda of the Waitemata Local Board.

** Recommendations from the Waiheke Local Board will be provided at the meeting.

Māori impact statement

29. The order of names on voting documents does not specifically impact on the Māori community. It is noted that candidates are able to provide their profile statements both in English and Māori.

Implementation

30. The Auckland Council’s resolution will be advised to the electoral officer. The district health boards and district licensing trusts will make their own decisions about order of names.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Order of candidate names on voting documents - an analysis of research and the 2013 election results	85

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

31 March 2016

Audit and Risk Committee - Revised Terms of reference

File No.: CP2016/04541

Purpose

1. To adopt revised terms of reference for the Audit and Risk Committee and make recommendations to the incoming mayor and governing body.

Executive Summary

2. The Audit and Risk Committee reviewed its terms of reference (TOR) at its 15 December 2015 meeting. The report to that committee is in Attachment A.

3. The revised terms of reference, contained in Attachment B, reflect that the Audit and Risk Committee’s core areas of responsibility are:

· Enterprise risk management

· Internal and external audit

· Integrity and investigations

· Monitoring compliance with laws and regulations

· Significant projects and programmes of work focusing on the appropriate management of risk

· Oversight of risk management and assurance across council’s Council-controlled Organisations

· Oversight of preparation of the Long-term Plan, Annual Report and other external financial reports required by statute.

4. The revised terms of reference will replace the current TOR and provide more detail to better guide the work of the committee.

5. Included in the report to the Audit and Risk Committee of 15 December 2015, is a recommendation to the incoming Mayor and Governing Body that the membership of the Audit and Risk Committee, in the next term, be comprised of three independent members, one of which will be the chair, and three elected members, one of which will be the deputy chair.

6. The proposals are based on best practice as recommended by the Auditor-General, PwC, NZX and the Institute of Directors.

7. The Mayor supports the recommendations of the Audit and Risk Committee.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) adopt the revised terms of reference (Attachment B to the agenda report) for the Audit and Risk Committee, to be effective immediately, apart from the proposed changes to committee membership.

b) recommend to the incoming mayor and governing body the full terms of reference, including the proposed changes to membership, as recommended by the Audit and Risk Committee.

Attachments