Agenda of Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

04 August 2016

Smokefree Policy Review Findings and Decision on Next Steps

File No.: CP2016/14978

Purpose

1. To seek a decision on the preferred option to address the findings of the Smokefree Policy Review.

Executive summary

1. Auckland Council (the council) adopted the Smokefree Policy (the policy) in July 2013. It applies until 2018.

2. The policy aligns with the Government’s goal of becoming a smokefree nation by 2025, and gives effect to specific commitments made in the Auckland Plan. It follows a non-regulatory approach aimed at encouraging people to refrain from smoking, particularly in public places and at public events. Compliance with the policy is voluntary and relies on the public being well-informed about the policy objectives.

3. The policy is implemented over time, in three phases. The policy scheduled a policy review for 2016, between phases two and three of the implementation programme.

4. Staff have now completed a review of the intent and implementation of the policy.

5. The purpose of the review was to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy in achieving its overall intent i.e. to determine whether the policy is working in practice. This involved:

· an assessment of the policy’s effectiveness in “representing the council’s commitment to work proactively with others towards making Auckland smokefree by 2025” (general purpose)

· a review of the council’s progress towards each of the five policy objectives

· consideration of the processes and implementation associated with the policy to identify conditions that have supported and/or hindered the policy effectiveness

· determining whether a bylaw would help to improve the overall policy effectiveness.

6. The review findings, options and recommendations are presented in this report and Attachment A: Smokefree Policy Review: Findings Report (findings report).

7. The key findings of the review are:

· the policy framework and intent are generally effective and well supported by stakeholders

· there has been a reduction in the prevalence of smoking in Auckland since the policy was adopted, and Auckland as a whole is on track to meet the 2025 goal (objectives 1 and 4, and the overall purpose). However, it is unclear what role the policy has played in this

· the policy is not on track to achieve the policy objectives for Māori and Pacific groups, and The Southern Initiative area (objectives 2 and 4)

· the policy’s performance against other objectives is inconsistent

· implementation has been gradual and fragmented, which has hindered the policy’s overall effectiveness in meeting its purpose and objectives. This has also created confusion amongst all stakeholders and the community about the council’s role in contributing to smokefree outcomes

· a smokefree bylaw mechanism is not necessary to implement the remaining phases of the policy. The council would be unable to issue infringement notices under the bylaw, meaning formal prosecution would be the only enforcement remedy available. There is support for a bylaw among smokefree advocates. Survey data from these organisations indicates there is also public support for a bylaw, though the survey question specifically referenced fines as the bylaw enforcement mechanism.

8. Staff have identified four options for the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee’s consideration:

· option 1: strengthen the implementation of the existing policy – develop a new resourcing model to enable improved implementation within the existing policy intent and framework

· option 2: develop a new smokefree policy to 2025 – develop a new policy framework and intent, and redefine the council’s role in contributing to a smokefree Auckland by 2025

· option 3: progress the investigation of a smokefree bylaw – commence the statutory process for investigating a draft smokefree bylaw to complement the council’s smokefree policy

· option 4: status quo: retain the existing policy – retain the Smokefree Policy 2013 with no changes to the policy or its implementation.

9. Options 1 to 3 have been informed by the review. Option 4 is not derived from the review, but is a course of action open to the committee.

10. Staff recommend option 2 for the following reasons:

· it will help to define the nature and extent of the council’s role within the sector and allow council to make a more targeted approach

· it creates an opportunity to build wide sector support and renewed momentum for a smokefree Auckland through the policy redesign process and

· enable the council to improve public awareness of the council’s role in providing smokefree public places.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) agree that its response to the findings of the Smokefree Policy Review is to progress:

EITHER

Option 1: Strengthen the implementation of the existing policy – Develop a new resourcing model to enable improved implementation within the existing policy intent and framework.

Option 2: Develop a new smokefree policy to 2025 –Develop a new policy framework and intent, and redefine the council’s role in contributing to a smokefree Auckland by 2025.

Option 3: Progress the investigation of a smokefree bylaw – Commence the statutory process for investigating a draft smokefree bylaw to complement the council’s smokefree policy.

Option 4: Status quo: Retain the existing policy – Retain the Smokefree Policy 2013 with no changes to the policy or its implementation.

Comments

Overview of the Smokefree Policy 2013

11. Auckland Council (the council) adopted the Smokefree Policy (the policy) in July 2013. It applies until 2018.

Strategic framework and policy intent

12. The purpose of the policy is to “document and give effect to the council’s commitment to work proactively with others towards making Auckland smokefree by 2025.” In this context, “smokefree” means that less than five per cent of Auckland’s adult population will be current smokers and there will be a range of smokefree public places for Auckland’s communities to enjoy.

13. The policy aligns with the Government’s goal of becoming a smokefree nation by 2025, and gives effect to specific commitments made in the Auckland Plan (see Figure 1 below).

14. The five objectives of the policy are to:

· improve the health and well-being of Auckland’s communities by reducing the prevalence of smoking and de-normalising smoking behaviour

· focus on those most in need, as indicated by smoking prevalence and health statistics, and as outlined in the Auckland Plan

· protect Auckland’s environment by decreasing risk of fire from cigarette butt litter and by reducing the amount of cigarette packet and butt litter that enters the environment

· give effect to the strategic commitments made in the Auckland Plan and local board plans

· acknowledge the importance of council’s role in advocating for wider smokefree initiatives.

15. Figure 1 summarises the policy’s strategic framework and intent.

Figure 1. Summary of Smokefree Policy 2013

Policy approach and content

16. The policy follows a non-regulatory approach aimed at encouraging behaviour change and promoting a positive smokefree message. Compliance with the policy is voluntary and relies on the public being well-informed about the policy objectives.

17. The main policy content focuses on encouraging people to refrain from smoking in certain public places and at public events, as outlined in the table below. The smokefree public places component is implemented over time, in three phases. The smokefree events component applied from the date the policy was adopted.

Table 1. Summary of main policy content: smokefree public places and events

Smokefree public places

Smokefree events

Phase 1: 2013

Phase 2: 2015

Phase 3: 2018

· outdoor facilities including stadiums, outdoor swimming pools and the Auckland Zoo

· playgrounds and skate-parks

· sports fields

· parks and reserves,

· the public outdoor areas around council buildings and facilities

· transport areas, including train stations, train platforms, bus stations, bus shelters and ferry terminals

· shared spaces

· plazas and civic squares

· areas around sports clubs on council land

· outdoor dining areas;

· urban centres

· public beaches;

· common areas of council housing

Note: Implementation of Phase 3 is subject to the 2016 policy review

· all council-delivered events

· events held at any of the council’s smokefree public places

18. The policy also outlines the council’s advocacy role and its work place policy, though this is not a key focus of the policy.

Implementation of the policy

19. The policy sets out a regional, council-wide position but it allows implementation to occur locally, in order to comply with the council’s specific governance arrangements. In the Long-term Plan 2012-2011, the council allocated non-regulatory decision-making responsibilities for local activities to local boards. This means that local boards have responsibility for implementing the policy at a local level, but that the exact detail of the implementation is a matter for local board discretion.

20. The policy commits the council to undertaking a policy review in 2016, between phases two and three of the implementation programme. It states that as part of the review, the council will determine whether the 2018 timeframe is still appropriate, and whether a bylaw is necessary to achieve the changes planned for phase three.

Policy review

21. Staff have completed a review of the intent and implementation of the policy. The review is now complete. The review findings, options and recommendations are presented in this report and the accompanying findings report (Attachment A).

Terms of reference for the review

22. The purpose of the review was to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy in achieving its overall intent i.e. to determine whether the policy is working in practice. This involved:

· an assessment of the policy’s effectiveness in representing the council’s commitment to work proactively with others towards making Auckland smokefree by 2025

· a review of the council’s progress towards each of the five policy objectives

· consideration of the processes and implementation associated with the policy to identify conditions that have supported and/or hindered the policy effectiveness

· determining whether a bylaw would help to improve the overall policy effectiveness.

23. The review also considered the merit of the overall policy intent to determine whether it still aligns with the council’s priorities and mandate in this policy area.

24. The intended outcomes of the review are as follows:

· recommendations for improved policy effectiveness of the policy

· determination of whether a bylaw is necessary to implement phase 3 of the existing policy

· improved working relationships between the council and sector stakeholders

· increased knowledge of current trends and current research across the policy area.

25. The review has not included a full impact analysis, as the nature of the policy area means it is difficult to attribute outcomes to particular interventions (i.e. to measure cause and effect).

26. There are a number of government and non-government organisations contributing to smokefree outcomes in Auckland. Central government plays the strongest role and has a broad range of policy levers within its mandate, including tobacco control, population health policy measures and the provision of public health services. In comparison, the council’s role is more enabling. Analysis of changes in smoking rates over time has not been a key focus of the review.

Review methodology

27. Staff primarily followed a qualitative approach to the research and analysis, though some quantitative analysis was also completed. The review methodology is outlined in detail in section 12 of the findings report and the key points are summarised below:

Table 2. Summary of review methodology

Summary of quantitative approach

Summary of qualitative approach

· analysis of smoking rates across the region, including by ethnic group, and by local board area, helped to provide context for the more in-depth qualitative analysis

· a survey was completed to measure public perceptions and opinions regarding smokefree public places and the council’s policy work in this area

· literature-based research

· domestic and international environmental scan

· key informant interviews with 41 individuals representing 17 external smokefree stakeholder organisations and 18 staff representing 14 departments

· hui with Māori stakeholders

New Zealand and international practice

28. Almost all councils in New Zealand have taken steps to make public outdoor areas smokefree.

29. Almost all of these councils have taken a non-regulatory approach, using policies, signage and public awareness tools, as outlined in section 6 and the comparison table in Appendix 1 of the findings report.

30. Auckland Council was one of the first councils in New Zealand to adopt a comprehensive non-regulatory smokefree policy. The policy has been used as a role model by other councils.

31. A few councils have taken a different approach throughout the country, including:

· Whanganui District Council, which adopted a smokefree bylaw that enables the council to designate parks and reserves as smokefree. Anyone in breach of the bylaw could be subject to prosecution and a fine of up to $20,000 however, the bylaw has not been actively enforced. The council also has a policy approach to complement the bylaw that focuses on public awareness. Whanganui District Council is the only council with a smokefree bylaw

· Palmerston North District Council has used existing bylaws to require businesses using council land for the purposes of outdoor dining to implement smokefree signs and refrain from providing ash trays.

32. Other case study examples, including Wellington City Council and a joint approach between Napier District and Hastings City councils are provided in section 6 of the findings report.

33. Internationally, more cities are opting for a regulatory approach. For example, in Australia, six of the eight states and territories have adopted smokefree laws for significant outdoor areas. In Brisbane, smokefree outdoor dining was introduced in 2006; Perth introduced a local law (bylaw) on smokefree alfresco dining in 2009; Hobart brought in smokefree outdoor dining in 2011; and Melbourne is currently trialing a smokefree zone in a popular food/dining street in the city. Further detail is provided in section 5 of the findings report.

34. Cities in Hong Kong, Canada and United States are also opting for a hybrid approach using both non-regulatory and regulatory mechanisms.

35. The legal systems in these countries tend to provide more autonomy at the state and local government level for cities to write local laws and issue infringement notices compared to New Zealand.

36. Evidence shows that fines are seldom issued in practice. Enforcement relies on non-regulatory measures such as smokefree signage, information campaigns and public health education.

Review findings

37. The review findings and conclusions are detailed in section 12 of the findings report. The general findings are summarised below.

38. The review found that the policy is generally effective as a document to guide actions and decisions to support Auckland in becoming smokefree by 2025 i.e. the policy framework and intent is sound and well supported by stakeholders.

39. However, the policy has not been implemented effectively or efficiently. Implementation has been gradual and fragmented, which has hindered the policy’s overall effectiveness in meeting its purpose and objectives. This finding was evident across almost all sources including, public opinion surveys, informal feedback from local boards, and key informant interviews with internal and external stakeholders.

40. The review also found that insufficient resources have been dedicated to actively promoting the policy implementation. There has been a lack of communication with relevant stakeholders and communities since the policy was first adopted, resulting in confusion:

· amongst the public about which places are smokefree

· across the sector about the council’s role and contribution to the smokefree goal

· within the council in terms of responsibility for implementation of the policy.

41. The review also identified the following specific findings:

· Auckland has the most comprehensive smokefree policy in the country

· the policy is not on track to achieve the policy objectives for Māori and Pacific groups, and The Southern Initiative area (objectives 2 and 4). The council has not implemented any specific smokefree initiatives focused on Māori or The Southern Initiative area, as a result of the policy

· whether the policy is helping to reduce the amount of cigarette butt litter entering the environment is not measurable (objective 3). The review did not identify any specific implementation actions or direct outcomes relating to this objective

· the council has undertaken some advocacy activity since the policy was adopted (objective 5), though this has been mostly reactive, such as responding to calls for submissions. The review found little evidence of the council being proactive in this space

· the governance parameters that the policy operates within have complicated the policy implementation process. Moreover, local board views indicate that a lack of resourcing has made policy implementation difficult

· the council did not complete a public awareness campaign to support the policy implementation. This has impacted the effectiveness of the non-regulatory approach, which relies on the public being well-informed about the policy intent

Improvements

42. The review identified the following areas of improvement:

· better resourcing to enable the council to proactively implement the policy approach and promote its intent. This should include specifically allocated budget to implement smokefree signage and events and deliver a public awareness campaign. A dedicated staff resource should also be allocated to coordinate implementation

· proactive communication with stakeholders and the public to clarify the council’s role and policy intent in contributing to smokefree outcomes

· prioritisation of activities to align with core business activities and focus on areas that can most affect change.

Options for consideration

43. Staff have identified four options for the committee’s consideration, three of which have been informed by the review. The fourth option is not derived from the review, but is a course of action open to the committee.

44. The options are:

· option 1: strengthen the implementation of the existing policy – develop a new resourcing model to enable improved implementation within the existing policy intent and framework

· option 2: develop a new smokefree policy to 2025 – develop a new policy framework and intent, and redefine the council’s role in contributing to a smokefree Auckland by 2025

· option 3: progress the investigation of a smokefree bylaw – commence the statutory process for investigating a draft smokefree bylaw to complement the council’s smokefree policy

· option 4: status quo: retain the existing policy – retain the Smokefree Policy 2013 with no changes to the policy or its implementation.

45. This report provides the committee with information to make a decision on the preferred option for immediate implementation, or to choose a preferred option for consultation with local boards.

Options analysis

46. The following sections provide further information about the options proposed, for the committee’s consideration. Section 12 of the findings report provides additional information about Options 1 to 3.

Option 1: Strengthen the implementation of the existing policy

Description

47. The review identified insufficient resources and a lack of support for local boards as barriers to effective implementation of the existing policy. Addressing these barriers would enable the council to give greater effect to the overall policy intent. Option 1 therefore focuses on improving implementation in the following key areas:

· increased resourcing to implement smokefree signage in the public places identified in the policy

· better communication to inform the public about the council’s smokefree policy

· provision of dedicated staff resources to manage and coordinate the policy implementation on behalf of the council.

48. Staff consider a revised resourcing model that shares implementation costs across the governing body and local boards is required. A cost share model would enable local boards to better exercise their allocated decision-making powers to implement the policy locally and in line with the regional parameters set out in the policy framework. Under this option, staff would develop a draft model for the committee’s approval, following the election.

49. This option would not require substantive changes to the existing policy intent or framework. However, staff recommend minor amendments to the policy objectives to:

· better reflect the council’s role in contributing to a smokefree Auckland i.e. by emphasising de-normalising smoking as the policy’s key contribution

· removing the focus on reducing cigarette butt litter (objective two), as this is already an outcome of objective one, and it is not measurable as a stand-alone objective.

50. These policy amendments align with the above operational improvements and help to address the review findings.

Table 3. Analysis of Option 1: Strengthen the implementation of the existing policy

	Analysis
Benefits	This approach would: · address the review findings that implementation problems, particularly local board funding restraints, are hindering the policy effectiveness · better inform the public about the council’s smokefree places · provide greater coordination of the council activities · not be subject to the uncertainty associated with significant external consultation, as it would work within the existing policy framework
Disadvantages	· would not address stakeholder feedback that the council should be more involved in the sector · requires additional funding that cannot be met from within existing budgets, meaning implementation may be delayed to align with annual plan process
Implementation and costs	· implementation would occur over 1.5 to two years. Staff would initially prepare a proposed funding model and report back to the committee, 1.5 full time equivalent staff resources would then be required to coordinate the policy implementation. Staff costs could be met from existing baselines · specific funding would be required for the installation of smokefree signage and a public awareness campaign. These costs cannot be met from within existing baselines
Risks and risk mitigation	· some external stakeholders may perceive that the focus upon operational improvements will not accelerate progress towards the 2025 smokefree goal (a reputational risk to council, with the sector) o communications would need to emphasise the council’s increased resourcing for policy implementation · the shared funding model may not align with local board feedback requesting regional funding for policy implementation o develop shared funding model in consultation with local boards

Option 2: Develop a new smokefree policy to 2025

Description

51. Under this option, the council would develop a new smokefree policy in consultation with the public and key stakeholders. The council would need to meet the relevant consultation requirements under the Local Government Act 2002.

52. The policy development process would seek to:

· redefine the council’s role within the sector

· realign the policy with the council’s core business activities

· prioritise activities through which the council can most significantly effect change.

53. The terms of reference for the policy development process would therefore focus on delivering a policy product that maximises the council’s contribution to the smokefree goal in the following key areas:

· provision of smokefree areas around council-owned buildings and assets, and at council events

· communication of the council’s smokefree goals around these spaces.

54. The new policy could include new smokefree outdoor spaces that have emerged as sector priorities, including the entrances around public buildings.

55. The policy would not include a bylaw component.

56. This option would help to address the review finding that there is confusion among internal and external stakeholders, and the public, about the nature and extent of the council’s role in contributing to the national goal of becoming smokefree by 2025.

57. The policy would run until 2025.

Table 4. Analysis of Option 2: Develop a new smokefree policy to 2025 (recommended)

	Analysis
Benefits	This approach would: · engage the public and a range of stakeholders through a consultation process · create an opportunity to build wide sector support and renewed momentum for a smokefree Auckland, through the policy redesign process · enhance the council’s reputation with external stakeholders, and therefore address sector feedback provided in the policy review · help to define the nature and extent of the council’s role within the sector and allow the council to take a more targeted approach · enable the council to improve public awareness of the council’s role in providing smokefree public places · more closely align the policy with the national target of a smokefree New Zealand by 2025
Disadvantages	· the policy scope may broaden during consultation as public and stakeholder expectations may be raised, and the consultation outcome may therefore be unpredictable · implementation and other substantive action would be delayed for up to 12 months, while the council redesigned it policy. Implementation issues would not be addressed in the interim · the new political term is due to begin, requiring buy-in and ownership from the new council · there are costs associated with the process as well as the subsequent implementation
Implementation and costs	· the policy would be developed over a period of one to 1.5 years. Staff would initially prepare a proposed funding model and report back to the committee, · 2.5 full time equivalent staff resources would be required over a two year period, to develop and implement the new policy · staff and policy development costs could be met from existing baselines, though project timing would be need to be considered against wider work programmes · specific funding would likely be required for the installation of smokefree signage and a public awareness campaign to implement the policy outcome
Risks and risk mitigation	· the policy development process may reopen for discussion and critique issues that have already been extensively discussed in the review o develop clear terms of reference and procedures defining the new policy development process · there is a risk that some stakeholders may raise unrealistic expectations regarding the council’s role in the smokefree sector during the policy development process o ensure communications during the consultation and policy development process clearly outline the council’s legislative parameters

Option 3: Progress the investigation of a smokefree bylaw

Description

58. Under this option, the council would commence the statutory process for investigating a draft smokefree bylaw, in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002. This would involve:

· evidence collection and research

· stakeholder engagement

· legal review and approval

· full public consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure

· hearings and public deliberations.

59. This is a lengthy process of up to 2 years.

60. The resolution for this option does not commit the council to adopting a bylaw. It enables staff to formally commence a statutory investigation. Before adopting a bylaw, the council would need to demonstrate that a bylaw is the most appropriate response to the problem and that it is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, as required by the Local Government Act 2002. The council must also be satisfied that the bylaw is reasonable, practical and enforceable.

61. In investigating a bylaw, the council would determine the outdoor spaces where smoking would be banned. This could range from high density areas (pavement dining, civic squares) to extensive areas (public beaches and the entire CBD), depending on the evidence available to justify intervention.

62. A smokefree outdoor spaces bylaw could be adopted to complement a smokefree policy.

Table 5. Analysis of Option 3: Progress the investigation of a smokefree bylaw

	Analysis
Benefits	This approach: · would enhance the council’s reputation with some sector stakeholders · would clearly make smoking in designated open spaces illegal · may empower hospitality staff and members of the public to more readily challenge smokers if they are smoking in designated non-smoking areas · would strengthen efforts at denormalising smoking as a socially acceptable form of behaviour
Disadvantages	· developing a new bylaw is a lengthy and expensive process · the bylaw would take some time to develop and the outcome is by no means certain: it could be rejected by legal experts on assessment, by members of the public during public consultation, or by the governing body · given that this would be the first major outdoor smokefree bylaw in New Zealand, it would likely attract major legal scrutiny, and possibly challenge. This would particularly be the case if the bylaw covers relatively ‘extensive’ smokefree areas (i.e. public beaches, the CBD) · under current national legislation, a smokefree bylaw would not grant powers to issue infringement notices to smokers. The only legal recourse would be public prosecution, which courts may consider a disproportionate response to a misdemeanour · there are costs associated with the process as well as the subsequent implementation
Implementation and costs	· this option would require three full time equivalent staff resources over a two year period, to develop and implement a bylaw. This would include policy , legal and communications staff · staff and bylaw development costs could be met from existing baselines, though project timing would be need to be considered against wider work programmes · specific funding would likely be required for the installation of smokefree signage and a public awareness campaign to implement the bylaw outcome · monitoring and compliance resources would be additional o the nature and extent of the requirements would depend on whether the council was empowered to issue infringement notices o the council currently does not have this power. However, the council continues to raise this with government ministers and senior officials
Risks and risk mitigation	· risk of significant legal challenge o provide robust legal analysis and advice from the outset of the bylaw development process · heightened stakeholder and public expectations that the bylaw would grant powers to issue infringement notices o communication and information dissemination about the new bylaw and the legal context in which the bylaw would operate · risk that the public may consider a bylaw an unreasonable response.

Option 4: Status quo

Description

63. Under this option, the council would retain the existing policy with no changes to the content or its implementation. Implementation of the existing policy would continue on an ad hoc basis, with the majority of signage being installed over time through signage renewal programmes.

64. The council would begin the process of developing a new smokefree policy in 2017, to run from 2018 when the current policy expires.

65. This option is not consistent with the findings of the review.

Table 6. Analysis of Option 4: Status quo

	Analysis
Benefits	· no additional costs to the council · no disruption to the on-going implementation of smokefree activities
Disadvantages	· would not address the findings of the review · the policy would be unlikely to achieve the objectives to 2025, particularly for key target groups such as Māori and Pasifika peoples, and the southern initiative region · the council’s ability to meet the policy objective of working with others to promote a smokefree Auckland by 2025 would be significantly reduced due to reputational damage and a lack of resourcing · the council would lose credibility with sector stakeholders
Implementation and costs	· there are no specific impacts in terms of implementation or costs of this option as no new action would be required
Risks and risk mitigation	· significant risk that the smokefree targets for a reduction in smoking prevalence amongst key groups would not be met · significant risk of council losing credibility with sector stakeholders and the general public · staff have not identified risk mitigation measures under this option

Summary of options against criteria

66. Staff have assessed each option against the following criteria:

· effectiveness in contributing to the 2025 smokefree goal – how well the option will contribute to creating a smokefree Auckland by 2025

· alignment with council’s mandate – how well the option aligns with

· cost effectiveness – how effective the option is both in terms of the costs to develop the option (i.e. operational and process costs) and to deliver the option (i.e. implementation costs)

· alignment with stakeholder views – how well the option would address internal, external and local board views

· practicability – how straightforward the option would be to implement and the likely risk of any unintended consequences.

67. The table below provides a summary of this assessment to enable the committee to evaluate the different options.

Table 7. Comparison of options

	Criteria	Option 1 Implementation	Option 2 New policy	Option 3 Bylaw	Option 4 Status quo
1.	effectiveness in contributing to the 2025 smokefree goal	üü	üüü	üüü	-
2.	alignment with council’s mandate	üü	üüü	ü	üü
3.	cost effectiveness	üü	üü	ü	ü
4	ability of council to ensure the outcome of the option is realised	üüü	üü	ü	-
5.	alignment with stakeholder views	üü	üüü	üüü	ü

Key

Level of impact / alignment with criteria

üü

üüü

Low impact / alignment

Medium impact / alignment

High impact / alignment

No impact

68. Improving implementation of the existing policy is likely to accelerate the council’s progress towards the 2025 smokefree goal. Implementing this option would involve no additional process costs, however the largely internal focus of implementation carries a risk that external stakeholder expectations will not be met. Staff consider this option would be an improvement to the status quo, however it not the most preferred.

69. Developing a new policy would significantly improve the council’s progress towards the 2025 smokefree goal by refining the council’s position to better align with its mandate. Implementing this option would require additional staff resources, however these could be met within existing budgets. Developing a new policy is likely to meet the expectations of external stakeholders, but external consultation may increase pressure on the council to extend its commitments beyond its core business. Staff are confident this risk could be managed and recommend this option as the preferred course of action.

70. Developing a new bylaw may enhance the council’s ability to meet the 2025 smokefree goal, but would require increased political commitment and staff resources. Developing a bylaw is most likely to align with external stakeholder expectations. However, the practicability of a bylaw is uncertain as the council currently does not have the power to issue infringement notices. Staff do not recommend this option.

71. Maintaining the status quo is unlikely to improve progress towards the 2025 smokefree goal, and it is likely that the Auckland Plan targets for key groups (Māori, Pasifika) would not be met. This option would also fall considerably short of external stakeholder expectations. Staff do not recommend this option.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

72. The policy sets out a regional, council-wide position but local boards have the responsibility and discretion for implementing the policy at a local level.

73. Local boards therefore have an interest in the policy review. However, as outlined in a memo to committee members, dated 17 June 2016, staff adapted the timeline and process for the policy review to allow the committee to consider the review findings at its August 2016 meeting. Therefore, staff have not yet formally consulted with local boards on the findings, options or recommendations of the review.

74. Staff have completed informal engagement with local board members, which has involved the following briefing sessions:

· Local Board Chairs’ Forum – February 2016

· local board advisors’ briefing session – March 2016

· southern, northern and central cluster meetings with local board members – April 2016.

75. Local board members and their advisors provided preliminary feedback about the policy and its implementation at these briefing meetings. Many local boards also provided written feedback to inform the review.

76. Key themes across the feedback received include:

· there was strong support for the policy intent

· almost all feedback noted concerns about the lack of regional resourcing for policy implementation. Many noted that the costs associated with implementing phase one of the policy put significant strain on local board budgets

· many recommended that the council develop a more proactive communication strategy to promote the smokefree public places policy. Some suggested that the council should also work more directly with communities and sector stakeholders to support local initiatives

· some boards also suggested that the council should incorporate smokefree clauses into lease agreements and as a condition of funding grants.

77. It is unclear whether this view would be shared across board members that did not provide feedback.

78. The committee could choose to consult with local boards on its response to the findings to the review as well as through the implementation of its decision.

Māori impact statement

Smoking among Māori

79. Māori currently have the highest smoking rates of any group in Auckland. Data from the 2013 New Zealand census shows the overall Māori smoking rate is 30 per cent, compared to 13 per cent for the Auckland population overall. In 2013, the smoking prevalence rate amongst Māori women was 32 per cent, compared to 28 per cent for Māori men.

80. Māori women in the 25-34 age group have the highest overall smoking rates of any group, at 38 per cent. Smoking prevalence amongst the same age group of Māori men is also high, at 35 per cent.

Relevance of policy issue to Māori

81. Reducing the smoking prevalence rates amongst Māori is a shared policy goal amongst Auckland Council and sector partners, including Māori health groups. The Southern Initiative region has the highest population concentration of Māori in the Auckland region, and the Auckland Plan includes a target to reduce smoking rates in The Southern Initiative area to three per cent.

82. In March 2015, the Maunga Authority for the 14 Tūpuna Maunga in Auckland passed a unanimous resolution that Tūpuna Maunga be alcohol and smokefree at all times. A statement acknowledging and supporting the spiritual, cultural and community significance of having the Tūpuna Maunga alcohol and smokefree was incorporated into the Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority’s draft Integrated Management Plan. A policy and action plan for communicating the alcohol and smokefree status of the Tūpuna Maunga will be developed as a next step.

Engagement with Māori as part of review

83. During the review, staff conducted key informant interviews with Māori health providers. In particular, staff have built a relationship with Hapai te Hauora Tapui Ltd (Hapai), a West Auckland based Māori Health Advocacy Agency, to ensure Māori views are recognised.

84. Hapai has been nominated as a primary stop smoking service partner (working with Procare Health Limited and the Fono) for the Auckland and has been awarded the national Ministry of Health contract to deliver advocacy services across New Zealand. Further information about feedback from Māori is provided in the findings report.

Review findings relating to Māori and options

85. The policy review found that, for the Auckland population overall, the five per cent smokefree goal is on track to be reached by 2023. However this overall figure disguises significant differences for Māori (and Pasifika) people.

86. As part of the review, staff used current data to model declines in smoking rates for Māori and found that, if the current rate of smoking cessation continues:

· Māori smoking rates would stand at 12 per cent by 2025

· the five per cent goal would not be achieved until 2030

· The Southern Initiative target of a three per cent smoking rate amongst Māori would take until 2037.

87. Progress towards the targets is also projected to be delayed for those local boards with a high proportion of Māori residents.

88. In terms of the options proposed, staff consider that Option 2 and then Option 1 would have the best outcomes for Māori health. Under Option 2, the smokefree policy would be redesigned with significant input from representatives of the Māori smoking cessation sector, and Māori themselves.

89. Designing culturally relevant mediums and messaging will have the best impact in terms of Māori smoking cessation. Option 1 would also have a good anticipated outcome in terms of smoking cessation, through the additional operational support that would be provided to local boards with high rates of Māori smokers.

90. Option 3 may stigmatise Māori smokers and may undermine some of the educational work done in public health to support smokers struggling with addiction.

91. Pursuing option 4 would mean that the 2025 smokefree target for Māori cessation would be unlikely to be met.

Implementation

92. An overview of the implementation and cost requirements associated with each option are outlined in the options analysis section above. Further detail is provided in the table below.

93. The costs are estimates only based on the data available and on the following assumptions:

· approximately half of the remaining smokefree sites can be implemented through signage renewal programmes and by using smokefree stickers

· the delivery costs for smokefree signage, a public awareness campaign and smokefree events are comparable across options 1 to 3. Under option 4, signage costs would be the same but implementation would be gradual.

Table 8. Estimated costs per option

	Option 1 Implementation	Option 2 New policy	Option 3 Bylaw	Option 4 Status quo
Process costs · Policy / bylaw development	Nil	$120,000	$160,000	Nil
Delivery of option
· Smokefree signage	$125,000	$125,000	$125,000	$125,000
· Public awareness campaign	$60,000	$60,000	$60,000	Nil
· Smokefree banners for events	$2,500	$2,500	$2,500	Nil
Compliance and enforcement	Nil	Nil	Unable to calculate at this point	Unable to calculate at this point
Policy monitoring and evaluation	$20,000	$40,000	$40,000	Nil
TOTAL	$207,500	$347,500	$387,500	$125,000
Staff resources*	1.5 FTE: 1 year	2.5 FTE: 2 years	3 FTE: 2 years	0.5FTE: on-going
Portion not within existing budgets	$185,000	$185,000	$185,000	Nil**
Notes: includes FTE for process, delivery and monitoring but not compliance *Implementation would occur gradually, as budget becomes available

94. Costs associated with process, monitoring and evaluation, and staffing could be met from within existing budgets.

95. For Options 1 to 3, delivery and implementation costs would require additional budget. Under Option 4 implementation would occur gradually, as budget becomes available.

96. Staff are unable to calculate the costs for enforcement under Option 3 at this time, though increased resources would be required as there would be:

· an expectation from the public that the bylaw would be monitored and enforced

· increased complaints, requiring call centre resources and resulting in staff follow ups.

97. The nature and extent of the enforcement costs would also depend on whether the council was empowered to issue infringement notices under a smokefree bylaw. The council currently does not have this power.

98. The council continues to advocate for an amendment to allow council officers to issue infringement notices. The council has discussed this with government ministers and senior officials. The Mayor is scheduled to meet with the Minister of Local Government to progress the matter further.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Smokefree Policy Review: Findings Report (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Local board resolutions	27

Signatories

Authors

Kimberly Rees - Policy Analyst

Peter Chaudhry - Principal Policy Analyst

Belinda Hansen - Team Leader Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

04 August 2016

Auckland Council submission on the Review of Class 4 Gambling discussion document

File No.: CP2016/14780

Purpose

1. To approve Auckland Council’s submission to the Department of Internal Affairs’ Discussion Document: Review of Class 4 gambling (Attachment A).

Executive summary

2. The Department of Internal Affairs called for submissions on the Discussion Document: Review of Class 4 gambling (the discussion document) on 27 June 2016.

3. Auckland Council (the council) has made several submissions on class 4 (“pokie”) gambling legislation and regulations. Most of the topics covered in the discussion document have been addressed in these previous submissions.

4. A submission (Attachment A) was developed in consultation with the Class 4 Gambling Political Working Party, and is based on the council’s previous submissions. In particular, the submission advocates for:

· greater returns to the community, including a percentage of “pokie” grants to be returned to the community from where the funds were taken

· a strengthened, but less costly, role for local government in gambling venue licensing.

5. Submitting on the discussion document means the council’s views on class 4 (“pokie”) gambling are more likely to be reflected in any bills that may result from the review.

6. The Regional Strategy and Policy Committee has been delegated the authority to approve submissions.

7. Submissions are due by 12 August 2016, and an announcement on the review will be made by the Minister of Internal Affairs at the end of the year.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve Auckland Council’s submission to the Department of Internal Affairs’ Discussion Document: Review of Class 4 gambling (Attachment A).

b) delegate authority to the Chair of the committee to approve any final amendments to the submission resulting from changes agreed at the meeting.

Comments

The discussion document

8. On 27 June 2016, the Department of Internal Affairs released the discussion document for public consultation. The results of the consultation will inform a review of the class 4 (“pokie”) gambling sector. The deadline for submissions is 12 August 2016.

9. The stated purpose of the review is to establish “how community funding from class 4 gambling (pokies in clubs, pubs and bars) can be sustained into the future”. The review may entail changes to the legislation governing gambling, the Gambling Act 2003.

10. The discussion document covers a wide range of topics, including:

· the appropriateness of current legislative restrictions on the class 4 (“pokie”) sector

· class 4 (“pokie”) funding, in particular, the minimum rate of return and grant distribution

· the role of local government in regulating gambling through local venue policies

· the Department of Internal Affairs’ regulatory functions and associated costs

· non-club corporate societies (“pokie trusts”), in particular, the number currently operating and their relationships with venues

· problem gambling and online gambling.

Formulating the council’s submission

11. The Auckland Plan identifies addressing gambling-related harm as a key way to improve health and wellbeing in the region (Strategic Direction 1: a strong, inclusive and equitable society, Priority 2).

12. The submission (Attachment A) was developed with input from the Class 4 Gambling Political Working Party (the working party), and confirmed by the Chair of the working party. The working party has been delegated authority to “inform the development of a submission on any further changes to gambling legislation” (REG/2013/10, 5 December 2013).

13. The council has made six submissions on gambling legislation and regulations over the past four years. The council has also written to the government advocating for regulations that would require a percentage of grants to be returned to the area where the money was lost.

14. The submission (Attachment A) echoes the council’s previous gambling-related submissions. Most of the topics covered in the discussion document have been addressed, some extensively, in these previous submissions (see Table 1 below).

Table 1. Key submission points, with previous advocacy on the submission point listed

Key submission points	Previous Auckland Council submissions on this topic
The council supports retaining, and increasing, the required minimum rate of gambling losses returned to the community.	· Department of Internal Affairs: four Class 4 gambling proposals, October 2013 (REG/2013/10) · Department of Internal Affairs: minimum rate of return to authorised purposes, 20 November 2015 (REG/2015/106)
The council supports requiring the return of a percentage of funds to the community of origin.	· Commerce Committee: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, July 2012 (GB/2012/105) · Department of Internal Affairs: four Class 4 gambling proposals, October 2013 (REG/2013/10) · Minister Dunne: letter regarding the definition of local areas when determining the distribution of class 4 gambling proceeds, 18 August 2014 (REG/2014/100)
The council supports enhancing the role of local government in gambling venue licensing.	· Commerce Committee: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, July 2012 (GB/2012/105) · Department of Internal Affairs: four Class 4 gambling proposals, October 2013 (REG/2013/10) · Ministry of Health: Strategy to Prevent and Minimise Gambling Harm 2016/17 to 2018/19, September 2015 (REG/2015/80) · Department of Internal Affairs: minimum rate of return to authorised purposes, 20 November 2015 (REG/2015/106)
The council does not support policy approaches that prevent market forces leading to efficiency gains in the gambling sector.	· Department of Internal Affairs: four Class 4 gambling proposals, October 2013 (REG/2013/10) · Department of Internal Affairs: minimum rate of return to authorised purposes, 20 November 2015 (REG/2015/106)
The council recommends more stringent enforcement to improve compliance and minimise problem gambling.	· Government Administration Committee: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3), January 2015 (REG/2015/10)

Options and risks

15. Staff recommend that the council submits on the discussion document, to ensure its views are considered in any bills resulting from the review.

16. If the council does not submit, this increases the risk that the council’s views are not reflected in the review’s outcome, and represents a missed opportunity. For example:

· Risk: The council’s current class 4 (“pokie”) gambling venue policy is a “sinking lid” on both class 4 (“pokie”) venues and machines. If new legislation changed or removed councils’ role in gambling venue licensing, that could undermine the “sinking lid” policy.

· Opportunity: Legislation requires councils to review their gambling venue policies every three years. This consultation is an opportunity to revisit the frequency of these reviews. Less frequent reviews would be in line with the requirements for other policies and bylaws and would reduce resource requirements, and costs, to the council.

Next steps

17. The Regional Strategy and Policy Committee has been delegated the authority to approve submissions to external bodies. If approved, officers will lodge the submission on behalf of the council before 12 August 2016.

18. As this is a discussion document, not a bill, oral submissions will not be heard at this stage.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

19. Nine local boards, predominantly in South Auckland, have specifically identified addressing gambling harm as a priority in their local board plans for 2014/15 – 2016/17. The council’s submission will be forwarded to all local boards for information.

20. Local board input was provided through involvement in the Class 4 Gambling Political Working Party and through feedback on previous gambling-related submissions.

Māori impact statement

21. Māori are disproportionately affected by problem gambling; addressing problem gambling represents a targeted improvement to Māori outcomes.

22. The Independent Māori Statutory Board provided input through the Class 4 Gambling Political Working Party and feedback on previous gambling-related submissions.

Implementation

23. The Minister is expected to make an announcement early next year with the outcome of the review. This may include a review of gambling legislation.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland Council submission to the Department of Internal Affairs in the matter of the Discussion Document: Review of Class 4 gambling	80

Signatories

Authors

Rebecca Turner - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Page_000001

Page_000002

Page_000003

Page_000004

Page_000005

Page_000006

Page_000007

Page_000008

Page_000009

Page_000010

Page_000011

Page_000012

Page_000013

Page_000014

Page_000015

Page_000016

Page_000017

Page_000018

Page_000019

Page_000020

Page_000021

Page_000022

Page_000023

Page_000024

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

04 August 2016

Disposal Recommendation Report

File No.: CP2016/14790

Purpose

1. To seek approval to sell one non-service council owned property that Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) considers suitable for sale.

Executive summary

2. Panuku is required to identify properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale to a combined value of $45 million by 30 June 2017. Capital receipts from the sale of surplus properties contributes to the Auckland Plan outcomes and the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

3. 161R Maraetai Drive, Maraetai is a vacant, residential site that was vested as reserve upon subdivision in 1947. The rationalisation process commenced in December 2015. Consultation with council and its CCOs, iwi authorities and the Franklin Local Board has now taken place. No alternative service uses have been identified for this property through the rationalisation process and the feedback received has been supportive of the proposed divestment of this site. Due to this, Panuku recommends that this site be divested.

4. As this site is a reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977, if approval is obtained to dispose of this site, the reserve status would need to be revoked. Final revocation of the reserve status will be subject to completing the statutory requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 and Local Government Act 2002, including public advertising.

5. If approval is obtained to revoke the reserve status and divest of this site, Panuku will undertake the disposals process in a manner which provides an optimal return to council, and ideally achieves a housing outcome on the site.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the revocation of the reserve status of 161R Maraetai Drive, Maraetai comprising approximately 1,057m² more or less being Lot 12 DP 34466, on the basis that site is not serving or likely to serve a park function;

b) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the disposal of 161R Maraetai Drive, Maraetai comprising approximately 1,057m² more or less being Lot 12 DP 34466;

c) agree that final terms and conditions be approved under the appropriate delegations.

Comments

6. Panuku and the Corporate Finance and Property team work jointly on a comprehensive review of council’s property portfolio. One of the outcomes of the review process is to identify properties in the council portfolio that are potentially surplus to requirements and that may be suitable to sell. The subject site was identified as potentially saleable through the review process.

7. Once a property has been identified as potentially surplus, Panuku engages with council and its CCO’s through an expression of interest process, to establish whether the property must be retained for a strategic purpose or is required for a future funded project. Once a property has been internally cleared of any service requirements, Panuku then consults with local boards, mana whenua and ward councillors. All disposal recommendations must be approved by the Panuku Board before it makes a final recommendation to the Auckland Council governing body.

Property information

8. 161R Maraetai Drive is a vacant, 1,057m² section that inclines down from street level. It was vested in the Crown as a recreation reserve upon subdivision in 1947. It was subsequently vested in Auckland Council pursuant to successive legislation. There is deemed to be no underlying Crown ownership. As a reserve, the site is subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

9. This site was held by the Parks, Sports and Recreation (PSR) department. PSR reviewed 161R Maraetai Drive in 2015 and found it “is not serving or likely to serve a park function. The subject site does not contain any unique features or connect to any existing open spaces. The site is no longer required for park’s service requirements”. The site was subsequently transferred to Auckland Council Property Limited (now Panuku) for rationalisation.

10. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan zoning of this site Public Open Space – Informal Recreation. A recent valuation has provided an indicative market value of $575,000 for this site, subject to the revocation of the reserve status of the land.

Internal consultation

11. The rationalisation process for this site commenced in December 2015. No alternative service uses were identified for this site during the internal consultation process.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. The Franklin Local Board endorsed the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of the subject site at its June 2016 business meeting.

Māori impact statement

13. 11 mana whenua iwi authorities were contacted regarding the potential sale of 161R Maraetai Drive, Maraetai. The following feedback was received.

a) Te Kawerau a Maki

No feedback received for this site.

b) Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki

Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki has confirmed they have a commercial interest in the property.

c) Ngāti Tamaoho

No feedback received for this site.

d) Te ākitai - Waiohua

Te ākitai has confirmed they have a commercial interest in this property.

e) Ngāti Te Ata - Waiohua

No site specific feedback received for this site; however Ngāti Te Ata has expressed general cultural interest across Tāmaki Makaurau, has potential commercial interest in any council owned land that comes available for sale in their rohe and notes specific association with the south western area of Auckland, focusing around Manukau and the western coastline.

f) Ngāti Paoa

Ngāti Paoa has reinforced their desire to be kept in the loop for property disposals.

g) Ngaati Whanaunga

No feedback received for this site.

h) Ngāti Maru

No feedback received for this site.

i) Ngāti Tamatera

No feedback received for this site.

j) Te Patukirikiri

No feedback received for this site.

k) Waikato-Tainui

Waikato-Tainui has reinforced their desire to be kept in the loop for property disposals and noted that as a matter of principal all lands are culturally important, should they fall within their tribal rohe.

Implementation

14. As this site is a reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977, should the land be sold the reserve status would have to be revoked. Public notification is required for a proposal to revoke a reserve, with such notice to include the reason for the proposal. It is a Department of Conservation requirement (in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977) that the sale proceeds from reserves are placed in reserve accounts so that funds can be used to acquire other land for reserve purposes or for maintenance of existing reserves.

15. This site is not subject to the offer back obligations set out in section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981.

16. The subject property is not one of council’s strategic assets to which the Significance Policy applies.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Images of 161R Maraetai Drive, Maraetai	109

Signatories

Authors

Letitia McColl - Team Leader Portfolio Review, Portfolio Strategy, Strategy and Engagement, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Marian Webb - Manager Portfoilio Strategy, Strategy and Engagement, Panuku Development Auckland

David Rankin – Director, Strategy & Engagement, Strategy and Engagement, Panuku Development Auckland

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

04 August 2016

Update on outcomes of new inorganics service

File No.: CP2016/12410

Purpose

1. To note the outcomes of the new inorganic collection service since its introduction on 30 September 2015.

Executive summary

2. The new inorganic collections service was introduced in September 2015 to targeted areas of legacy North Shore, Waitakere and south-eastern Rodney, and rolled out across the rest of the Auckland region from mid-February 2016.

3. The service is booked by residents with items collected from within property boundaries, with reusable and recyclable items collected separately from waste that goes to landfill.

4. Overall, results indicate the service is meeting its key objectives of reducing waste to landfill and diverting reusable goods to community organisations.

5. In the ten months since the service started, 4,750 tonnes of inorganic material have been collected with 1,359 tonnes diverted for reuse and recycling and 3,400 tonnes sent to landfill.

6. Over 80 community organisations have registered to recycle or upcycle items collected and 418 tonnes have been distributed to these groups so far.

7. An ongoing customer survey found that the majority of residents who received a collection were satisfied with the booking system and collection service. However, some areas have been identified for improvement including:

· making it easier to find out about collections

· improving the collection process, in particular, making it easier to have your materials collected.

8. These issues are being resolved and various improvements have been made to the service model during the last ten months. For example, a comprehensive communication and engagement plan has been implemented to promote the service.

9. The online booking tool for the service was initially only available for a short time period before scheduled collections. It has now been made available year round, meaning residents can book well in advance. The search function on the booking tool has also been improved to make it easier for residents to find their address.

10. Council has also been more flexible in regards to the volume of materials collected and honouring late bookings to accommodate residents during this first round of collections.

11. Finally, council has put in place more training and monitoring for collections staff to ensure that materials which can be recycled or upcycled are not taken to landfill.

Recommendation

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) note the outcomes of the new inorganics collection service.

Comments

Background

12. The first service roll-out under the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan was the introduction of a regionally consistent, annual, rates-funded inorganic collection.

13. The service is booked by residents with items collected from within property boundaries, with reusable and recyclable items collected separately from waste that goes to landfill.

14. This contrasts with the previous service model in many areas of Auckland (for example, legacy North Shore City and Manukau City Councils) in which materials were placed on the kerbside and taken directly to landfill.

15. The goals of the new service are to:

· reduce waste to landfill

· divert as many good quality reusable items as possible to community-based organisations

· improve street amenity

· reduce health and safety risks

· eliminate illegal kerbside dumping.

Participation rates and waste diversion

16. The new service started ten months ago with a soft launch on 28 September 2015 in the legacy North Shore, Waitakere and south-eastern Rodney areas. This first trial phase was intended to test the system and iron out problems. This was followed by a full launch across the rest of the region in February 2016.

17. 52,273 properties have received a collection so far. This equates to a household participation rate of 15.8 per cent which is on target with initial modelling projections. The average amount of material put out for collection by households is 92 kilograms and the amount diverted from landfill at the point of collection is 27.6 per cent.

18. In the ten months the service has been operating, 4,750 tonnes of inorganic material has been collected with 1,359 tonnes diverted for reuse and recycling and 3,400 tonnes sent to landfill.

19. This compares with the legacy council inorganic collection systems (excluding Rodney which did not have a collection) in which diversion rates were not measured and 27,377 tonnes of waste were sent to landfill in the 2014/2015 year.

Distribution of reusable items

20. Two contractors provide the new collection service. Waste Management Ltd provides the collection using two trucks per pass; one taking refuse to landfill and one reusable and recyclable material to a warehouse in Mount Wellington.

21. The Community Recycling Network, the national umbrella organisation for community recyclers, is responsible for distributing reusable items to organisations that repair, refurbish, on-sell and re-distribute them. It is also tasked with developing new markets for inorganic material with the goal of increasing diversion from landfill.

22. Reusable items are distributed to over 80 organisations ranging from large charities like the Red Cross and Habitat for Humanity, to individual church and school groups, community organisations, and start-up social enterprises. Some individuals who used to take materials from kerbside collections are also participating in the new system.

23. To date over 418 tonnes of reusable items have been redistributed by the Community Recycling Network, with eight to 28 tonnes leaving the warehouse every week.

24. A recent outcome of the new system is the establishment of an incubator hub at the Mount Wellington warehouse. Space and mentoring support are being offered to social enterprises to trial new business ideas focused on upcycling or recycling waste in a low risk environment. The scheme will allow three or four groups at a time to access materials and build capacity over a six month period before taking the next step in their ventures.

Electronic waste

25. Televisions, computers and other electronic waste items that used to go to landfill are now taken to Abilities Group for dismantling. Over 8,600 televisions have been processed so far with most of the dismantled materials diverted from landfill.

26. The contract for this work has enabled Abilities to employ ten staff at their Glenfield site, providing job opportunities for those with disabilities.

Customer satisfaction

27. Key results of an ongoing customer survey are outlined in Table One below.

Table One. Results of customer survey undertaken 1 March to 6 July 2016 (n= 4,592 responses)

	Results (percentage of customers)
Measure	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dis-satisfied	Very dissatisfied
Overall satisfaction with new service	53%	16%	9%	7%	14%
	Very easy	Easy	Neutral	Difficult	Very difficult
How hard it was to find out about the collection	51%	19%	17%	6%	5%
How hard it was to book a collection	70%	16%	9%	3%	3%
How hard it was to have your inorganics collected (once booking made)	61%	14%	9%	5%	10%
	Online	By phone	Email	At service centre
Method for booking collection	69%	25%	4%	1%

28. Overall, results indicate that on most measures the majority of respondents were satisfied with the new service but improvements are needed in some areas. For example, 69 per cent of respondents were overall very satisfied or satisfied with the new service. However at the other end of the spectrum 21 per cent were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

29. Most residents (86 per cent) also found it easy to book a collection, with the majority using the online booking tool or a phone call to our customer service team.

30. The majority of residents (70 per cent) also felt it was easy or very easy to find out about the collections in their area, although 11 per cent found it difficult or very difficult.

31. Although 75 per cent found it easy or very easy to have their inorganics collected, 15 per cent found it difficult or very difficult.

32. The three main reasons residents gave for finding it difficult to have their inorganic materials collected were:

a) The contractor did not take all the items.

b) They found the one cubic metre limit confusing or difficult to follow.

c) They did not have anywhere to place items on their property.

Improvements made to inorganics service

33. Rolling out a new regional service will inevitably result in issues which need to be addressed. Actions taken to mitigate these issues included:

· Implementing a significant communications and engagement programme on how to use the new service and what materials could be collected. In particular, notice of the inorganics is now being trialled in a letter format, rather than a leaflet, to see if this will have better readership rates and make it easier for residents to find out about collections.

· Opening the booking system all year round. Initially, the booking tool was only available to residents for a few weeks prior to each collection.

· Improving the booking tool so that it is easier for householders to locate their property on the system. Initially the search function did not always detect variations on an address such as 1/12 Melrose Street versus 12A Melrose Street. The search function has been made more user-friendly so that it now brings up all properties related to a street number and residents can select the correct one.

· Relaxing the rules around the volume of materials that can be collected, as this was a concern for residents during the earlier collections.

· Accommodating late bookings for residents in recognition that this is the first time they have used the new collection model. Initially, late bookings that were made after the booking period closed were not accepted.

· Noting any instances where properties are not listed as being eligible for an inorganics collection and updating the rating database to ensure these residents receive a service.

34. These improvements are aimed at making it easier for residents to find out about their collections and have their materials collected.

35. There have also been instances where contractors have been observed putting reusable items in the refuse truck. Collection contractors have been made aware of this issue and fined for breach of service.

36. The Community Recycling Network has also been asked to increase its auditing role. Their staff are now going on collections to check the right material is being collected, as well as assisting with training of Waste Management New Zealand staff to ensure they can correctly identify items for upcycling and recycling.

Summary

37. Overall the new collection service is achieving its key objectives. There are areas to improve on around service delivery and these will be addressed on an ongoing basis.

38. The key objective of reducing waste to landfill is being achieved with 27.8 per cent of material collected from households diverted from landfill and over 20,000 fewer tonnes going to landfill - which is a significant step towards Auckland’s zero waste goal.

39. Providing a consistent supply of reusable goods to a growing network of community organisations is also a significant achievement and consistent with the objectives of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

40. Before the service was introduced workshops were held with all boards to discuss the new service model. Updates and information have also been provided to local boards on the implementation of the new inorganics service throughout the process.

41. In some instances, staff have worked closely with specific local boards to resolve collection issues. For example, in Māngere-Ōtāhuhu the local board funded some communications specifically targeted at their community to make them aware of the collection.

Māori impact statement

42. A workshop was held on the new inorganic service and opportunities for community enterprise at the mana whenua information forum in November 2015. Positive feedback was received from mana whenua representatives who expressed support for the new inorganics collection model.

43. A number of mana whenua organisations have also expressed interest in participating in the resource recovery network. For example, both Ngāti Rehua-Ngātiwai ki Aotea and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei have received grants from the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund for resource recovery initiatives.

Implementation

44. The new service will continue to be provided throughout 2016/2017 and in future years. Funding is available through budgets for waste management as approved in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Julie Dickinson - Senior Waste Planning Specialist (RRN)

Parul Sood – Manager, Waste Planning

Ian Stupple - General Manager, Waste Solutions

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

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

i	Option 2	Enable the acquisition of pocket parks if provided at no cost to council and in accordance with criteria in relation to size, location and configuration, as detailed in Part 2 of the recommended Open Space Provision Policy (refer Table 1: Recreational and social open space, on Page 18 of Attachment A).
ii	Option 2	Apply a provision target of 400m walk to a neighborhood park and 1000m walk to a suburb park in the mixed housing urban and suburban zones as detailed in Part 2 of the recommended Open Space Provision Policy (refer Table 1: Recreational and social open space, on Page 18 of Attachment A).
iii	Option 1	Do not require provision of neighborhood parks in business park and industrial zones as set out in Part 2 of the recommended Open Space Provision Policy (refer 25 of Attachment A)

Authors	Tam White - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Authors	Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer