Agenda of Governing Body - 23 February 2017

Governing Body

23 February 2017

Submission on Point England Development Enabling Bill

File No.: CP2017/01099

Purpose

1. To advise the Governing Body that on 31 January 2017, the mayor and chair of the Environment and Community Committee approved under delegation, as an urgent decision, a submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Point England Development Enabling Bill, and to provide a copy of that submission.

Executive summary

2. This report attaches the Auckland Council submission made to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee on the Point England Development Enabling Bill. The Bill had its first reading in Parliament on 13 December 2016 and a deadline for submissions was set at 31 January 2017. As no meeting of the Governing Body was scheduled in January, the submission was approved by the mayor and chair of the Environment and Community Committee under delegation as an urgent decision of the Governing Body.

3. The submission raises a number of concerns with the Bill and seeks amendments to it.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) note the mayor and chair of the Environment and Community Committee approved under delegation, as an urgent decision, a submission to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee on the Point England Development Enabling Bill.

Comments

Delegation for urgent decisions over summer break period

4. At the Governing Body meeting held on 10 November 2016, it was resolved that the Governing Body delegate to any two of either the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, and a chairperson of a committee of the whole, the power to make urgent decisions on behalf of the Governing Body or its committees, between the last scheduled Governing Body meeting in December 2016 and the first meeting of the Governing Body or other relevant committee in 2017 (GB/2016/253).

Point England Development Enabling Bill – announcement

5. On 6 December 2016 the Minister of Building and Construction, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, announced the government’s intention to provide for housing development over 11.69 hectares of Point England Reserve (‘the reserve’) as a component of a Treaty settlement with Ngāti Paoa (Attachment A). The Minister also announced his intention to introduce the Point England Development Enabling Bill (‘the Bill’) to achieve this.

Need for urgent decision to lodge submission

6. The Bill was introduced into Parliament on 7 December 2016 and had its first reading on 13 December 2016. The Local Government and Environment Select Committee (‘the Committee’) called for submissions on the Bill by 31 January 2017.

7. Because no Governing Body meeting was scheduled in January 2017 there was no opportunity to approve a submission before the deadline. Approval of a submission was not considered to require an extraordinary meeting of the Governing Body. The decision approving the submission was therefore made under delegation on 31 January 2017.

Council submission

8. The Auckland Council submission can be read in full at Attachment B. The submission makes five main points on the Bill:

· Point England Reserve is a highly valued public reserve for the Tāmaki community and the wider Auckland community

· Use of special legislation to lift reserve status and provide for housing development outside normal statutory processes sets a concerning precedent

· Assurance must be given that the Crown has considered all other options for reaching a Treaty settlement with Ngāti Paoa, such as the potential release of land owned by the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company

· If the Crown pursues the course of action proposed by the Bill, impacts from the loss of reserve land must be offset by reinvesting the entire proceeds of the sale in improved public open space in the Tāmaki area

· The proposed development land, if sold, should only be sold to Ngāti Paoa as a component of their Treaty settlement or otherwise remain as reserve land.

9. The submission refers to public views the council has received that the Bill should not proceed at all, and that the Crown should provide alternative Treaty settlement outcomes to Ngāti Paoa. It also refers to public views which support the social and cultural outcomes Ngāti Paoa seek by re-establishing a community in Tāmaki. The submission therefore states the council is concerned the Crown has considered all options for reaching a settlement with Ngāti Paoa to strike an appropriate balance between these views.

10. The body of the submission expands on these points and raises a number of related concerns, including policy assumptions underpinning the Bill. It provides contextual information on the reserve and sets out the Crown’s communication with the council on the proposal (no public consultation was undertaken).

11. The submission also records the views of six local boards. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board, which is most directly impacted by the Bill, has made a separate submission (Attachment C).

Crown communication with council on housing proposal at Point England Reserve

12. On 16 June 2016 the government sought the council’s views on the possible provision to Ngāti Paoa of a right to purchase up to 13 hectares from Point England Reserve through their Treaty settlement.

13. On 28 July 2016 the Governing Body agreed a response which recognised the Crown makes decisions on Treaty settlement redress, that underlying title to the reserve is held by the Crown, and that the Crown has a sovereign right to dispose of that land through legislation (GB/2016/56). The response noted Ngāti Paoa aspirations, the potential benefits of the proposal to the iwi, and related benefits of achieving social housing objectives and an increase in housing stock for the Auckland market.

14. However, the response stated the proposal would mean a net loss of public open space for the Tāmaki community. The argument was put that, if the government decided to proceed with the proposal, and because of that impact, the council wished to engage to determine an appropriate package of measures to offset the loss. A package could include both the acquisition and development of land for open space purposes elsewhere in the Tāmaki area, and further enhancement of the lands retained.

Delegation to mayor and deputy mayor to engage

15. The 28 July 2016 meeting of the Governing Body delegated to the mayor and deputy mayor authority to engage with ministers and Crown officials, as required, on the proposal, and that the outcome of any engagement be reported back.

Government confirmation of offer and discussions on mitigation

16. In August 2016 the government confirmed to the council its intention to offer up to 13 hectares of the reserve to Ngāti Paoa. It was put to the Minister that the Crown should commit to reinvesting all proceeds of sale from the land into the open space network in Tāmaki, allowing for the purchase of other lands for open space, and improvements to existing reserves.

17. At the date of this report, no agreement has been reached. The Minister has stated that all proceeds from a future sale will be reinvested in the Tāmaki area, with some going into reserves and some going into social housing outcomes. The council’s position is that 100 per cent of the proceeds must be reinvested in the open space network for the Tāmaki community. As described above, the council’s submission on the Bill states that if agreement is not reached, changes to the Bill are required that provide for all proceeds to be reinvested for this purpose.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. The submission records the views of six local boards (Devonport-Takapuna, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Manurewa, Papakura, and Waiheke). These boards express concern with the Bill, and particularly the risk a precedent may be set in using special legislation to provide reserve land for housing. Some boards state they are opposed to the Bill for this and related reasons.

19. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board and the Waitematā Local Board have relayed their support for the council submission (Attachment D). The Henderson Massey Local Board has provided a submission to the Committee supporting the council submission (Attachment E). The Waitākere Ranges Local Board made a submission to the Committee outlining their concerns with the Bill (Attachment F).

20. As noted, the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board, which is most directly impacted by the Bill, has provided a separate submission (Attachment C). That submission attaches notes from a community meeting the board facilitated on Friday 27 January 2017.

Māori impact statement

21. The Bill seeks to provide a housing development opportunity to Ngāti Paoa within the Point England Reserve as a component of their Treaty settlement. The council submission states the historical grievances of Ngati Paoa should be addressed and remedied and, therefore, the council supports a Treaty settlement with the Crown. The concerns the submission raises with the Bill relate to the use of reserve land for housing purposes, the Crown’s failure to sufficiently address the impact this will have on the open space network in the Tāmaki area, and related matters.

22. The submission acknowledges that Ngāti Paoa will submit on the Bill, and in doing so will set out in greater detail their aspirations for the land. Hence the submission is largely silent on the Ngāti Paoa aspirations previously considered by the Governing Body on 28 July 2016.

Implementation

23. The submission records the council’s desire to appear before the Committee, and asks that hearings are held in Auckland to enable the council and community affected by the Bill to attend. The mayor’s office will coordinate the council’s appearance.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Minister Smith press release (6 December 2016)	15
b ⇩	Auckland Council submission	17
c ⇩	Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board submission	51
d ⇩	Mangere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board letter supporting council submission	59
e ⇩	Henderson-Massey Local Board submission supporting council submission	61
f ⇩	Waitakere Ranges Local Board submission	63

Signatories

Author

John Hutton - Manager Treaty Settlements

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

23 February 2017

Relationship Agreements with Mana Whenua

File No.: CP2017/00148

Purpose

1. To obtain the Governing Body’s approval of a governance relationship agreement template as the foundation document for relationships with mana whenua groups in the greater Auckland area.

Executive summary

2. This report recommends that the Governing Body approve a relationship agreement template as the basis for discussions with mana whenua.

3. It further recommends that where the agreement remains substantively the same as the template, albeit with the inclusion of information describing the mana whenua party, that it proceed to a formal public signing without a further approval process.

4. Local boards are also being asked to approve the governance relationship template to support the expeditious completion of relationship agreements with mana whenua.

5. Auckland Council has an existing range of instruments and mechanisms to recognise and provide for its relationships with mana whenua. There is a strong desire from many of the parties to formalise the foundational governance relationships through the development of relationship agreements and in some cases acknowledge and build from legacy agreements held with former councils.

6. The final draft agreement for consideration (Attachment A) recognises the two parties, sets out the purpose, aspirations and shared principles, and in particular acknowledges the governance context of the council through the Governing Body and the relevant local board(s).

7. There are appendices to the agreement - the administrative provisions, existing and future projects or arrangements, and specific local board arrangements. These appendices are intended to be added to over time without alteration to the main agreement.

8. Discussions have begun with some mana whenua groups who have indicated they are ready to enter into this process.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) approve the relationship agreement template attached to the agenda report at Attachment A, as the basis for discussions with mana whenua.

b) approve a process where the agreement may proceed to signing without further approval, so long as any inclusions are either descriptive or minor drafting changes.

c) note that if there are any changes of substance, the agreements will be re-presented to the Governing Body and the relevant local boards for final approval.

d) authorise the mayor or his delegate to sign these agreements on behalf of the Governing Body at signing ceremonies.

Comments

9. Since Auckland Council was established, relationships with mana whenua have been sustained in a variety of ways. The demands for information and engagement that the council family places on mana whenua has led to a range of different approaches and mechanisms to make this efficient and effective for all.

10. A foundation for the interactions with mana whenua is the negotiation of contracts with each mana whenua group to support their capacity to engage with the council. These contracts specify deliverables which include participation in governance activities with council. Additionally, some of the high contact parts of the council family have set up separate fora to provide for project level engagement.

11. In 2013, the Governing Body, local board chairs and the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB), considered a discussion document about Auckland Council entering into relationship agreements with the nineteen iwi and hapū recognised as mana whenua for Tāmaki Makaurau. As a result, a political working party of Governing Body and local board members was established that was expected to work on the development of the relationship agreements.

12. Subsequent discussions with mana whenua indicated that they preferred to advance some form of collective body prior to dealing with relationship agreements, negating the need for the working party. This collective body, the Regional Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum, has been recently established and is developing a forward work programme at present.

13. At a governance level, opportunities to establish relationships between mana whenua and elected members have included:

· mana whenua leading pōwhiri and the inauguration ceremonies for each new council and local board

· kanohi ki te kanohi / face to face discussions between elected members and mana whenua within major regional planning processes – notably the Auckland Plan, the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan and the Unitary Plan

· at a local level, specific engagement with mana whenua who relate to the local board areas.

14. Since the establishment of Auckland Council, a strong desire has been expressed from many mana whenua groups and the Independent Māori Statutory Board to formalise the governance relationships through relationship agreements and, in some cases, to acknowledge and build on legacy agreements held with former councils.

15. Relationship agreements support elements of the Auckland Plan strategic direction to “enable Māori aspirations through recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi and customary rights” through formal acknowledgement of the mutual interests of council and mana whenua.

16. They are a means of documenting each party’s intention to work together respectfully and positively, and the development of the agreement itself may assist in mutual understanding. Nevertheless, relationship agreements may not be considered necessary by all mana whenua groups or be a current priority for some. Should that be the case, the current arrangements with each group will continue to support the relationship.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. Local boards were presented with the broad approach proposed to relationship agreements in workshops in 2015 and there was general approval of the approach.

18. To expedite the process of negotiating relationship agreements, this report is also being made to the next business meetings of each local board for their approval, tailored to recognise the iwi / hapū relevant to the local board area.

Māori impact statement

19. Although Auckland Council currently engages with mana whenua across a wide range of activities and has relationships with mana whenua at both governance and operational levels, the establishment of governance level relationship agreements is a further step towards cementing an enduring positive relationship with treaty partners. Entering into relationship agreements will also complete one of the recommendations of the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s 2015 Treaty Audit.

Implementation

27. In order to finalise the relationship agreements, signing ceremonies including the mana whenua group, Governing Body and the relevant local boards will be arranged at times to suit all parties. Te Waka Anga Mua ki Uta staff will administer the agreements and maintain oversight of any commitments made within the agreements.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Mana Whenua Relationship Agreement Template	85

Signatories

Author

Rama Ormsby - Paewhakatere Iho Kawe Tikanga, Principal Advisor Tikanga Maori

Authorisers

Graham Pryor - General Manager Maori Responsiveness and Relationships

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

23 February 2017

Recruitment process for independent District Licensing Committee members and resource management commissioners in 2017

File No.: CP2016/22653

Purpose

1. To seek approval of the recruitment process for District Licensing Committee members and resource management commissioners in 2017.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council currently contracts two pools of independent District Licensing Committee (DLC) members and resource management commissioners to hear and decide applications relating to alcohol licensing and resource management, respectively. The contracts for all members and commissioners are due to expire on 30 June 2017.

3. The council’s Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolved in April 2016 that staff would report to the incoming Governing Body seeking approval of a recruitment process and timetable for DLC members (REG/2016/24). Because recruitment for resource management commissioners is due to occur at the same time as DLC recruitment, this report seeks approval for a combined and consistent process.

4. Staff have reviewed the number and composition of the DLC and resource management commissioner pools based on application volumes and an assessment of availability in 2016. Staff recommend that the council recruits approximately 15 DLC members and approximately 52 resource management commissioners, across a range of specialist fields.

5. To enable a new contract start date of 1 July 2017, the proposed recruitment process for DLC members and resource management commissioners would occur from 23 February to 30 June 2017. We recommend that the Governing Body appoint two panels to help manage the selection process for each group. Each panel will finalise selection criteria and shortlist candidates, divide into smaller panels to conduct interviews, then reconvene to provide a list of preferred candidates to the Regulatory Committee for approval.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) approve the recommended process for recruiting approximately 15 District Licensing Committee members and 52 resource management commissioners in 2017, including using selection panels to finalise selection criteria, shortlist and interview candidates and provide a recommended list to the Regulatory Committee for approval.

b) appoint a District Licensing Committee selection panel comprising Councillors Daniel Newman and Richard Hills, Independent Māori Statutory Board members David Taipari and Liane Ngamane and four senior members of staff, including the General Manager Democracy Services, General Manager Licensing and Compliance, Head of Legal and Executive Officer – Operations.

c) appoint a resource management commissioner selection panel comprising Councillors Linda Cooper and Dick Quax, Independent Māori Statutory Board members David Taipari and Liane Ngamane and six senior members of staff, including the General Manager Democracy Services, General Manager Resource Consents, General Manager Plans and Places, Head of Legal, Governance Support Manager and Executive Officer – Operations.

d) delegate to the Regulatory Committee chairperson and deputy chairperson the power to appoint alternate or additional selection panel members if necessary.

Comments

Context

6. Auckland Council contracts independent District Licensing Committee (DLC) chairs and members to hear and decide applications for alcohol licences and managers’ certificates as required by the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. The council also contracts a pool of independent commissioners to sit on hearings and make decisions under delegated authority for a range of resource management matters.

7. The last full recruitment for council’s pool of DLC members and resource management commissioners occurred in 2013 and 2014 respectively. The contracts for all DLC members and resource management commissioners expire on 30 June 2017. A new pool of members and commissioners must be contracted before this date to ensure continuity of service.

8. In April 2016, the council’s Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolved that staff would report to the incoming Governing Body after the October 2016 election with a proposed process and timetable for DLC recruitment (REG/2016/24).

9. This report follows the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolution but also asks the Governing Body to approve a selection process for both DLC and resource management commissioner recruitment, to ensure consistency and minimise duplication of reporting.

10. The Regulatory Committee holds the responsibility for decision-making under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, Resource Management Act 1991 and other related legislation. As such, the Regulatory Committee will make the final decision on DLC member and resource management commissioner appointments. The Regulatory Committee will also be responsible for any future decisions about DLC or commissioner recruitment processes.

Composition of the District Licensing Committee pool

11. Sections 189, 192 and 193 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 set out the required composition of the DLC.

12. DLC members must have experience relevant to alcohol licensing matters, and chairpersons must have good standing in the community and the necessary knowledge, skill and experience relating to matters that are likely to come before the committee. DLC chairs and members must not be appointed if they have such an involvement or appearance of involvement with the alcohol industry that he or she could not perform his or her duties without actual or perceived bias; or the person is a constable, a Medical Officer of Health, an inspector, or an employee of the territorial authority.

13. Auckland’s current DLC is a region-wide pool of 10 chairpersons and 17 members who are selected on a case-by-case basis to hear and decide opposed alcohol licence and managers’ certificate applications. Unopposed applications are allocated to chairs and members on a rotational basis. One chairperson and three members resigned during the last three years, and two members chose not to extend their contracts after October 2016. Six members of the current DLC are also local board members.

District Licensing Committee review

14. Staff reviewed the structure of the DLC in 2015 and found that the workload for DLC chairs and members was significantly lower than anticipated. Although the number of alcohol licence and managers’ certificate applications remained between 10,000 to 12,000 per year, only around one per cent of applications were opposed and went to a public hearing (compared with an expected 15-20 per cent of applications).

15. The DLC review also considered the makeup of the pool from a geographic perspective and recommended retaining the region-wide structure rather than appointing a number of local area-based DLCs. The Regional Strategy and Policy Committee agreed to retain the existing region-wide structure but reduce the number of DLC members when their contracts expire (REG/2015/38).

16. Based on analysis of workload across 12,000 applications per year, staff recommend that the council appoints approximately 15 DLC members from 1 July 2017, with five of those members appointed as chairpersons. This will create an average workload of 20 hours per week for chairs and 4 hours per week for members. The recommended number allows for geographic distribution across the pool and leaves sufficient capacity to cover for peaks in workload and occasional unavailability of members.

Composition of the resource management commissioner pool

17. Auckland Council currently holds contracts with 52 independent resource management commissioners. The pool of commissioners is made up of experts in fields directly relevant to resource management. The graph below shows the general distribution of commissioners according to their primary area of expertise (some commissioners have more than one area of expertise, however only one per commissioner is used in this graph).

18. Auckland Council contracts these commissioners to sit on hearings and make decisions or recommendations on a range of matters, including resource consents, plan changes, notices of requirement, section 357 objections, bylaw dispensations, reserve management plans and special consultative procedures. Independent commissioners consistently undertake around 100 hearings per year with resource consent hearings forming the majority of the work.

19. In addition to hearings, a large part of independent commissioners’ work includes duty commissioner responsibilities. From the existing pool, 12 independent commissioners are appointed to be available at short notice to determine resource consent applications and objections not requiring a hearing. In the 2015/2016 year, duty commissioners considered 820 resource consent applications. This equates to 4.7 per cent of the 17,228 resource consents determined in that period.

20. This overall rate of resource consents has continued for the 2016 calendar year. It is significantly above the overall number of resource consents that continued to rise from 9,655 to 13,067 per year in the three previous years from 2011/2012 to 2014/2015.

Resource management commissioner review

21. In early 2014, the Hearings Committee oversaw a comprehensive review of the pool of Auckland Council’s independent commissioners. This was the first comprehensive review since the initial pool of commissioners was appointed in 2010 by Auckland Council’s Interim Chief Executive. The review enabled a better balance in the range of expertise across the pool by assessing the specialist commissioner use for hearings in the preceding year. The size of the pool was reduced from 65 to 49 commissioners, in part to reflect a drop off in plan change hearings and to better align commissioners with the specific skill sets sought.

22. The resulting 2014 recruitment sought applications for new commissioners following wide advertisement via media and through professional institutes. Commissioners from the initial pool competed directly for places in the new, slightly smaller pool.

23. In 2015, an audit of the use of the new pool over its first year showed a higher need for policy planners and urban designers and a specialist expression of interest was placed in 2015 to supplement the pool. At the request of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, additional kaupapa Māori specialists were also sought and this led to three planners/urban designers and three kaupapa Māori specialists being recruited in late 2015.

24. Staff have recently reviewed the number, expertise, and availability of commissioners engaged for all resource management and special housing legislation hearings conducted during the 2016 calendar year.

25. The review found that the need for commissioners with a particular expertise during 2016 has generally reflected the number of commissioners with that expertise within the pool following the 2014 review and 2015 supplementary commissioner intake.

26. There has still been a higher use of generalist planners and urban designers than their proportional makeup of the pool, despite supplementing the pool in 2015. Conversely specialists in some other areas are slightly over represented in the pool. This was an intended consequence of the 2014 review where for some specialist areas, such as discharge to air or freshwater ecology, there would be a choice of at least two commissioners knowing that their need would be very minor.

27. It is important that council is able to meet its responsibilities to applicants in conducting hearings within statutory timeframes and avoiding delay. An analysis of commissioner availability across the specialist areas shows that these technical and timeframe requirements are being met from the current number and mix of specialists.

28. It is possible to suggest that a small reduction in overall numbers could be possible without impact on service delivery, However the degree to which the Auckland Unitary Plan review may impact the need for notified resource consent or future plan change hearings is yet unknown. For these reasons it is recommended that the current number and mix of specialists for the coming three years remains without change.

29. There is no financial impact to the council of retaining the current number and mix of specialists. Commissioners are paid only for the work that they carry out for hearings or duty commissioner activities.

Recommendations for DLC and resource management commissioner selection panels

30. Selection panels have been used in previous DLC and resource management commissioner recruitment exercises as a way to share workload associated with a large recruitment programme. Staff propose that this practice be continued and that a consistent approach is used across DLC and resource management commissioner recruitment.

31. Staff recommend that the Governing Body appoints a selection panel for each pool, to finalise selection criteria, shortlist applications and conduct interviews between February and June 2017. Each selection panel will split into two or three smaller panels to conduct interviews and then reconvene to agree a recommended list of candidates to the Regulatory Committee for approval to recruit.

32. In April 2016, we presented three options for District Licensing Committee recruitment to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee. Options one and two involved recruiting new DLC members before their contracts expired in October 2016. Option one included using a selection panel comprised of staff members only, and option two included a selection panel comprised of staff, councillors from relevant committees and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member. Option three involved extending the DLC contracts to mid-2017 and recommended a selection panel comprised of staff, councillors from relevant committees and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member.

33. The committee preferred option three and agreed to extend the DLC contracts to mid-2017.

34. The bulk of the workload for selection panel members occurs throughout the month of April when shortlisted candidates are interviewed. There are likely to be approximately 30 interviews for DLC chairs and members and 70 interviews for resource management commissioners during this time, shared between two or three smaller selection panels, respectively. Each interview may take up to 90 minutes.

35. After reviewing the time commitment required for both DLC and resource management commissioner interviews, staff recommend that the Governing Body appoints two Independent Māori Statutory Board members to each selection panel and delegates to the Regulatory Committee chairperson and deputy chairperson the ability to appoint alternate or additional selection panel members if necessary.

The proposed panel membership is set out below. The membership is designed to ensure that the panels have a strong understanding of the requirements of DLC members and resource management commissioners, and expertise in the Treaty of Waitangi and kaupapa Māori.

DLC selection panel

Resource management commissioner selection panel

· Councillor Daniel Newman

· Councillor Richard Hills

· Councillor Linda Cooper

· Councillor Dick Quax

· Independent Māori Statutory Board member David Taipari

· Independent Māori Statutory Board member Liane Ngamane

· Independent Māori Statutory Board member David Taipari

· Independent Māori Statutory Board member Liane Ngamane

· General Manager Democracy Services

· General Manager Licensing and Compliance

· Head of Legal

· Manager Public Law

· General Manager Democracy Services

· Governance Support Manager

· General Manager Resource Consents

· Head of Legal

· General Manager Plans and Places

· Executive Officer - Operations

Recommended process for DLC and resource management commissioner recruitment

36. Staff have developed a robust recruitment process to ensure that commissioner and DLC roles are transparent, fully contestable and achievable within reasonable timeframes.

37. The table below sets out the proposed process for DLC and resource management commissioner recruitment. Some timeframes have been revised since the April 2016 meeting of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee, to adjust for the heavier workload associated with a combined recruitment process.

What	Who	When
Approval of recruitment process and establishment of selection panel	· Governing Body	23 February 2017
Agree criteria for candidate selection	· Selection panels	February 2017
Advertise for DLC applications	· Selection panels · Relevant staff	March 2017
Shortlist applications	· Selection panel	March 2017
Interview candidates	· Selection panel	April/May 2017
Approve final candidates for appointment	· Regulatory Committee · Chief Executive	May/June 2017
Offer and award contracts	· Democracy Services staff	June 2017
Contract start date	· DLC chairs and members · Resource management commissioners	1 July 2017
Training and induction	· DLC chairs and members · Resource management commissioners	June/July 2017

38. DLC and resource management commissioner positions will be advertised broadly through mainstream channels, professional and community networks to ensure maximum exposure, and encourage applications from new candidates.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

39. Local boards provided a significant amount of input and feedback on the operation of the DLC through the DLC review. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Manurewa and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local boards in particular have advocated for local representation on DLCs and have expressed an interest in the DLC recruitment process.

40. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board chairpersons made a submission to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in April 2016 on the selection criteria for DLC, which the committee endorsed. Staff have also agreed to arrange a briefing by the Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board chairpersons to the DLC selection panel on issues that their communities face in relation to alcohol.

41. Other local boards provided feedback on proposed DLC selection criteria through the Local Board Chairs’ Forum in June 2016.

42. A separate work programme relating to local board involvement in resource consents is currently underway and does not impact on the recruitment of resource management commissioners.

43. All local boards will be advised of the application dates for DLC and resource management commissioner recruitment, and encouraged to share information about the recruitment among their networks.

Māori impact statement

44. All DLC members and resource management commissioners are expected to have grounding in matters of importance to Māori and an understanding of tikanga relating to hearings. Candidates with specific expertise in the Treaty of Waitangi and kaupapa Māori will also be recruited as specialist commissioners to reflect the demand for hearings that directly involve matters of importance to Māori.

45. This report recommends that the selection panel for each type of recruitment includes two Independent Māori Statutory Board members, who will play a key role in finalising selection criteria and testing candidates’ understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi and kaupapa Māori.

Implementation

46. DLC members and resource management commissioners are contracted for a three-year term, which enables a regular review of their performance and of council’s requirements relative to demand and specialist needs.

47. The cost of advertising and recruiting new DLC members and resource management commissioners will be met within existing operational budgets.

48. There is no financial impact to council associated with the number and expertise of members or commissioners in each pool. DLC member and resource management commissioners are paid only for the work that they carry out for hearings or duty commissioner activities

49. The hourly rates for DLC members are set by the Minister of Justice and are recovered through alcohol licensing fees. The hourly rates for resource management commissioners are set by the council and are mostly on-charged to applicants. Staff are currently reviewing the hourly rates for resource management commissioners and will report the outcome of this review to the Finance and Performance Committee before June 2017.

50. If the Governing Body approves the proposed process, recruitment for DLC members and commissioners will commence in February 2017 and be completed on 30 June 2017, in time for the new contracts to come into effect on 1 July 2017.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth McKenzie - Principal Advisor Hearings

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

23 February 2017

2016 Elections - Highlights and Issues

File No.: CP2016/22919

Purpose

1. To review the highlights and issues of the recent local government elections and to agree a basis for seeking local board input into submissions to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee’s “Inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections”.

Executive summary

2. Planning for the 2016 elections commenced at the end of 2014. Staff presented a report to the Governing Body in March 2015, which set out the areas of focus for achieving outcomes in terms of voter and candidate experiences and turnout.

3. This report:

(i) describes initiatives taken in the areas of focus

(ii) evaluates the achievement of the outcomes

(iii) notes other activities associated with the election, such as inaugural meetings

(iv) summarises the budget and forecast expenditure

(v) identifies issues for the council to follow up

(vi) proposes submissions to make to Parliament’s Justice and Electoral Select Committee’s “Inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections”

(vii) outlines the timetable for the review of representation arrangements leading up to the 2019 elections.

4. The 2016 elections were successful. Particular highlights were:

(i) a successful marketing campaign based on the ‘showyourlove’ brand

(ii) innovative approaches to engaging with the community, including through social media, websites and the Love Bus

(iii) increased participation in Kids Voting

(iv) personal assistance provided to the visually impaired

(v) increased turnout over 2013

(vi) the elections came within budget.

5. We recommend that this report is presented to local boards to provide input to a submission to the Select Committee, with the final submission presented back to the Governing Body in May 2017. The submission needs to be lodged by December 2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) agree that the 2016 Elections - Highlights and Issues report be presented to all local boards with an invitation to make comments for inclusion in the council’s submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee’s “Inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections”.

b) note that it will receive a further report including local board comments, to finalise its submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee’s “Inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections”.

Comments

Strategic approach

6. A report to the Governing Body in March 2015 set out the strategic approach to the 2016 elections. It identified the following areas of focus:

· communications and community engagement

· candidate awareness

· on-line voting

· optimum use of council resources.

Those areas of focus were to deliver the following outcomes:

· an excellent experience for candidates and voters

· a voter turnout of at least 40 per cent

· a candidate-to-member ratio of three

· user-centric, innovative and transparent local body elections.

7. The following sections describe initiatives taken in these areas of focus and the achievement of the outcomes.

Actions taken in areas of focus

Communications and community engagement

8. Voter participation statistics showed that previous participation rates were low among 18 - 39 year olds and this age group was a key focus for the Election Planning Team.

9. Initiatives included:

· a comprehensive marketing campaign based on the “showyourlove” brand

· advertising – billboards, adshells, bus backs, press, magazine, radio, digital, ethnic radio and newspapers

· heart ballot boxes

· digital bus shelter voting tallies

· targeted social media: videos and articles via VoteAkl social media sites, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube

· “Our Auckland” council’s news channel

· Auckland Council channels for posters, such as libraries and service centres

· the Love Bus and community presentations

· showyourlove.co.nz web pages for information about candidates

· Kids Voting programme in schools.

10. The Election Team tested the “showyourlove” brand with audiences. Feedback, particularly from young people, has been very positive. Wellington City Council also developed its own brand, using our ‘love’ concept. Auckland Council and Wellington City Council experienced greater increases over 2013 turnouts than other metropolitan councils.

11. The Love Bus provided a visual reminder of the elections. It stopped at various locations where people gathered, such as at malls, and staff engaged with passers-by.

12. An engagement programme included making presentations to community groups:

· 80 events including: 22 Love Bus events, 11 English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) events, 22 community presentations (total attendance at these presentations was approximately 800), three meetings or informal chats, five5 information stalls

· 10 of these events were run in conjunction with the Electoral Commission

· sessions were facilitated by the deaf community, Disability Network NZ, Tongan and Samoan churches and Korean Youth Leadership Institute independent of council support

· 24 engagement sessions included an interpreter for at least one language; interpreters for eight different languages, including New Zealand sign language, were used

· groups reached included faith communities (Jewish, Muslim), Rainbow communities, Youth, Korean, Chinese, African, Indian, Tongan, Samoan, Sri Lankan, Somalian, Ethiopian, Rwandan, Filipino, West Indian, Burmese, Cambodian and Japanese

· all advisory panels contributed to the elections programme

· engagement activities and events were run in 15 of the 21 local board areas

· approximately 24,000 Aucklanders were reached by engagement activities.

13. The showyourlove.co.nz website provided information about candidates for voters. People often state, when asked in surveys, the reason they do not vote is they lack information about candidates. This website was planned very carefully to ensure that council did not provide any candidate with an electoral advantage. All candidates were given the same opportunity to provide information in addition to the information in their candidate profile statements.

14. A survey conducted after the 2016 elections gauged the effectiveness of these initiatives. The sample size was 1,259 people.

15. Awareness and likelihood of voting:

· awareness of the elections rose from 83 per cent before the campaign to 93 per cent following the campaign

· before the election, 75 per cent intended to vote but after the election only 63 per cent (of the survey sample) actually voted

· of the 35 per cent who did not vote, 56 per cent intended to vote but did not

· reasons given for not voting by the 35 per cent who did not vote include:

o don’t know anything about the candidates (25 per cent)

o don't know enough about the policies (22 per cent)

o did not know when voting finished, missed deadline (18 per cent)

o forgot to vote (18 per cent)

o can't work out who to vote for (16 per cent)

o not interested in politics or politicians (14 per cent)

o didn’t think vote would make a difference (11 per cent)

o couldn’t be bothered voting (11 per cent)

o too much effort to select the candidate (10 per cent)

o had other commitments during that time (10 per cent).

16. Effectiveness of messaging:

· 53 per cent said the ads made them think of their community

· 44 per cent said the ads reminded them of what they love about their city

· 46 per cent said the ads made them more likely to vote.

17. 21 per cent used the web and social media for information about the elections – mostly the Auckland Council website.

18. Of those who intended to vote but did not vote, 25 per cent said on-line or app based voting would encourage them to vote.

19. 74 per cent said they would prefer on-line voting over postal voting with 18 per cent preferring postal voting; those who preferred on-line voting were spread amongst all age groups but were mainly in the younger age groups.

20. The Kids Voting programme was an on-line voting experience for students. Students cannot legally take part in the actual election, but Kids Voting creates awareness of the elections which often flows from the participating students to their families. The Election Team prepared teaching kits class teachers could use to explain how council works. There was a hypothetical referendum question that students voted on using the STV voting system. 11,730 students and 56 schools registered to take part, compared with 8,319 students and 44 schools in 2013. 4,748 students from 41 schools actually voted. The lessons provided to the schools by the Election Team were:

· an introduction to Auckland Council

· an introduction to elections and voting

· a real world on-line referendum case study

· Local boards, wards and local issues

· researching candidates.

Candidate awareness of election information

21. The council’s website provided information for candidates. This included:

· candidate information handbook

· candidate audio booklet

· FAQs

· research material

· how to be nominated

· election timetable

· video explaining Auckland Council

· posters on all Auckland Council channels

· ads in newspapers

· radio

· digital ads.

22. The Election Team focused on on-line content over hard copy booklets. It did not hold candidate information evenings following the experience in 2013 of twenty-eight information evenings gathering only small attendance.

23. Wellington City Council publicised community-based candidate meetings on its website which people apparently found useful. The council could consider this for 2019.

On-line voting

24. Prior to the elections, the Associate Minister of Local Government announced that trials for on-line voting would not take place for the 2016 elections.

25. The community expects to have an on-line option, provided concerns about the security of on-line voting are addressed. In the post-election awareness survey, 74 per cent said they would prefer on-line voting over postal voting.

26. The Finance and Performance Committee resolved in December 2016 to request the Minister of Local Government to explore a pilot trial of an electronic voting system including for by-elections.

Optimum use of council resources

27. Key areas of the council involved in the elections were:

· Democracy Services and Communications and Engagement

· libraries and service centres held election information, received nominations and issued special votes

· communications staff undertook advertising, branding, web content, social media with assistance from the design studio

· bylaws compliance staff enforced the Auckland Transport Elections Signs Bylaw

· Legal Services provided legal advice when required

· Research and Evaluation (RIMU) staff provided advice on demographic data and undertook research for the report on the order of names.

28. Elections planning staff worked closely with the Electoral Commission, Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and the Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM).

29. Council’s election services provider (Independent Election Services Ltd) was based in the central business area, in Anzac Avenue, and was the main central city office. Staff later provided limited services at the Bledisloe service centre in response to demand.

Achievement of outcomes

30. The desired outcomes were:

· an excellent experience for candidates and voters

· a voter turnout of at least 40 per cent

· a candidate-to-member ratio of three

· user-centric, innovative and transparent local body elections.

Candidate experience

31. For the first time, the council conducted an on-line survey of candidates. 150 candidates took part. This feedback shows a positive candidate experience.

32. Key findings were:

· 76 per cent said it was easy, or very easy, to find information

· 88 per cent said that overall they could access the information they needed

· 87 per cent said they used resources on the Auckland Council website

· 83 per cent were aware of the “Love your Auckland – stand for council” campaign

· 80 per cent contributed to their information on the showyourlove.co.nz website

· 50 per cent said this was their first time standing for elected office with Auckland Council and 50 per cent said it was not their first time.

33. The Election Team has noted some candidate issues for following up or improvement:

(i) a couple of candidates were nominated for positions for which they did not intend to stand. In one case a number of candidates on the one ticket arrived at a service centre together, creating increased demand on staff at the last minute. In the future, the Election Team will co-ordinate with ticket campaign managers to help manage the processing of nominations and will provide additional briefings to staff helping at service centres. Legislative change to allow electronic submission of nominations to improve these processes will be sought.

(ii) there was a question whether a Samoan matai title could be used on the nomination form. The legislation prohibits “titles” but does not define “title”. The Electoral Officer, after receiving legal and cultural advice, allowed matai “titles” on the basis they were used more like names than titles. It would be helpful to have legislative guidance on this.

(iii) some candidates expressed concern about the requirement to state in the profile statement whether they lived in the area for which they were standing. The council previously submitted in opposition to this requirement.

Voter experience

34. The awareness survey showed that voters used on-line tools to find out about voting and about candidates.

35. Issues which negatively affected the experience of voters (some outside the control of council):

(i) a small number of voters in one area did not receive voting documents. The Electoral Officer received about 90 applications for special votes from voters in that area.

(ii) voters outside the area during the voting period either could not vote or had to apply for a special vote. An example was a voter who was overseas and who had arranged for a special vote to be posted to them but who could not meet the deadline for posting it back from overseas. An ability to supply the voting documents electronically would assist

(iii) an issue which continues to affect the voter experience is the mixture of different voting systems on the one voting document and different orders of candidate names.

36. Ten staff volunteered to assist blind people with their voting. This was arranged in partnership with the Blind Foundation and the volunteers were trained and made declarations as electoral officials. The volunteers visited voters at their residences and help them mark their voting documents. The Auckland Branch of Blind Citizens NZ wrote an appreciative letter to the mayor and chief executive.

Voter turnout

37. The council aimed for a 40 per cent turnout. The turnout was 38.5 per cent, an increase of 3.7 per cent over the 2013 turnout.

38. Across all of New Zealand, there was a slight increase over 2013:

2010

2013

2016

Change

National voter turnout %

49.0

41.3

42.0

+0.7

39. Across metropolitan councils, Auckland and Wellington achieved the two highest increases:

Voter turnout % - Metro	2010	2013	2016	Change %
Auckland	51.0	34.9	38.5	+3.7
Christchurch City	52.2	42.9	38.3	-4.6
Dunedin City	53.0	43.1	45.2	+2.1
Hamilton City	37.8	38.3	33.6	-4.7
Hutt City Council	40.4	36.6	37.8	+1.2
Nelson City	52.2	52.2	52.1	-0.1
Palmerston North City	43.2	38.7	39.1	0.4
Porirua City	39.1	36.6	38.0	+1.5
Tauranga City	43.8	37.8	38.0	+0.2
Upper Hutt City	44.3	40.8	41.0	+0.2
Wellington City	40.0	41.5	45.6	+4.1
Total	45.0	38.0	39.3	+1.3

Candidate to member ratio

40. The target was three candidates per position.

41. There were 19 candidates for mayor. In 10 out of 13 electoral ward issues for councillors, the ratio of candidates to positions was 3 to 1, or greater.

42. There were 32 local board electoral issues (there are 21 local boards but elections in some local board areas are on a subdivision basis). In 9, the ratio of candidates to positions was 3 to 1 or greater. For a local board that is not divided into subdivisions, it is harder to achieve the ratio because the number of positions is greater.

43. Overall, there were 468 candidates for 170 positions, which is a ratio of 2.8 to 1.

User-centric, innovative and transparent local body elections

44. The key ‘users’ in an election are the candidates and the voters. Feedback shows:

· candidates got the information they needed

· compared to previous elections voters could find out more about candidates, through the “showyourlove” website

45. Assistance was provided to voters who were blind. Blind Citizens NZ communicated its appreciation back to the council.

46. The report details above a number of innovative activities such as the Love Bus and Heart Ballot Boxes.

47. Aspirations to have on-line voting were not met. There is a need to provide a user-friendly option for voters who do not use postal services. Voters who are not in the area during the voting period also have issues. If a voter is overseas, by the time voting documents have been posted to them (if they have a reliable postal address) there is not sufficient time to post them back. The ability to download blank forms, and to scan and email completed forms, should be investigated.

48. For candidates, there is only the one option of paper-based nomination forms. Submitting nominations electronically needs to be investigated.

49. The communications and community awareness programmes were innovative and received positive feedback, as noted above under “Communications and Community Engagement”.

50. Ensuring candidates and voters had sufficient information assisted the transparency of the elections.

Other activities relating to the elections

51. The Executive Leadership Team adopted a staff policy around political neutrality and involvement in the election process outside of work hours. The Governing Body adopted an elected members’ policy dealing with issues such as the use of council resources by incumbent members. The policy required close management of council communications during the sensitive period and a panel met weekly to monitor this.

52. Council staff enforce the Auckland Transport Election Sign Bylaw and dealt with 162 complaints. Earlier in the year there was media coverage about the use of commercial billboards. This will be addressed in a review of the Auckland Transport bylaw.

53. Following each election there are a number of activities arranged for elected members:

(i) induction sessions for members

(ii) refreshing the technology provided to members

(iii) powhiri for all members

(iv) inaugural meetings of the governing body and the local boards at which members make their statutory declarations.

Cost of the election

54. Summary of budget and expenditure:

Budget	Planned	Actual (at 31/01/17)	Forecast	Comments
Election Services - IES	$4,893,000	$4,515,500	$4,653,490	Amount payable to IES as per contract plus a 10 per cent buffer for variable costs to be determined at wash-up in Feb ’17, Whilst costs are currently forecast to arrive over contract amount, these are expected to be within budget (including buffer).
Communications & Engagement (internal charge)	$1,221,000	$1,160,960	$1,221,498	Expected to meet budget once final costs are confirmed.
Staff	$620,000	$659,637	$669,637	Slight over-spend in staff due to increased programme scope and staff turnover.
Kids Voting	$50,000	$49,424	$49,424	Steering Group approved exceeding budget for increased number of participating schools and students. This includes $30,000 for IES for on-line voting capability.
Community Engagement	$40,000	$27,441	$27,441	Initial Elections budget had no allocation for Community Engagement hence in 2016 $40k was reallocated from other items. Under-spend here due to final budget being confirmed after a lower cost engagement schedule was already planned. $10k for translations and accessibility was covered by C&E budget.
Governing Body Inaugural Meeting	$57,000	$49,661	$52,697	Initial budget had allocated $81,000 for post-election costs of which specifics were not known to Elections team. This was reduced to cover Inaugural Meeting only and then further to fund Community Engagement. In 2013, Inaugural Meeting cost was $57,000.
Research	$20,000	$6,404	$8,700	This amount was reduced from $30,000 to fund Community Engagement.
Pre-election IES, DDB & Buzz	$0	$48,980	$48,980	Unplanned costs for development of elections strategy were funded by Democracy Services in 2015.
Miscellaneous	$0	$9,244	$9,244	Includes judicial recount, costs associated with services at libraries and service centres, other programme-wide costs and office expenses.
Recoveries - DHBs & LTs	-$1,500,000	-$622,500	-$1,517,964	Full recoverable amount will be determined at wash-up in February 2017. Current estimates expect to meet planned amount.
Total	$5,401,000	$5,904,751	$5,223,147	Overall budget under-spend expected once wash-up is confirmed in February 2017.

55. The costs of the Howick by-election ($104,000) will be absorbed in the budget if possible.

Issues to progress further

Howick by-election

56. A member of the Howick Local Board resigned at the inaugural meeting of the board. The council held a by-election at a cost of $104,000, which the Finance and Performance Committee has approved as unbudgeted expenditure. The committee considered the council should have the option of appointing to a vacancy that occurs within six months of an election and that the council should have the option of conducting a by-election on-line. The committee resolved:

“That the Finance and Performance Committee:

…

c) agree that the Mayor will write to the Minister of Local Government requesting, among other amendments to the Local Electoral Act 2001 necessary to improve the conduct of local elections, an amendment to section 117 to allow a local authority using the first past the post electoral system to determine by resolution whether to fill an extraordinary vacancy which occurs up to six months after the previous triennial local government election either by appointing the highest polling unsuccessful candidate from the previous triennial local government election, or by holding a by-election.

d) request the Minister of Local Government to explore a pilot-trial of an electronic voting system including by-elections.”

(Resolution number FIN/2016/1)

57. Both of these issues are discussed further in this report.

On-line voting

58. Survey results show the community prefers on-line voting. The government previously established a working party which made recommendations for a staged approach with trials in 2016. The government supported this and set out the requirements to be met for a council to establish a trial. Auckland Council was considered to be too large for a trial and was not eligible. In April 2016 the Associate Minister of Local Government announced the trial would not proceed as requirements had not been met.

59. The government wants local government to lead on-line voting, subject to its requirements being met. LGNZ should co-ordinate the local government sector’s development of on-line voting and Mayor Goff and Councillor Hulse will be pursuing this with the Local Government New Zealand National Council.

Voter participation

60. In order to prepare for the 2019 elections a voter participation project has been established. The main aims of the project are to reduce barriers to participation, encourage diversity and increase awareness and understanding of council and local elections.

61. The planning team for the 2016 elections has now completed its task and has been disbanded, however a position of Senior Advisor, Voter Participation, has been established within Democracy Services to provide continuity between the work that was carried out for the 2016 elections and the engagement that needs to occur for the 2019 elections.

Research on order of names

62. An analysis of the 2010 and 2013 election results was undertaken so that the council could decide whether the order of names on voting documents should be alphabetical or random. Further research will be undertaken and provided to the council when it next makes a decision on the order of names.

Review of Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw

63. Auckland Transport has undertaken to review the bylaw. The review will take place in time for implementation for the 2017 parliamentary election.

Submission to Justice and Electoral Select Committee on legislative change

64. The Justice and Electoral Select Committee conduct an enquiry following each election. Submissions on the inquiry into the 2016 elections will close in December 2017.

65. We recommend that local boards be consulted on the following issues and a proposed submission be reported to the governing body later in 2017.

(i) Matai names

The Local Electoral Act 2001 prohibits the use of official titles when listing candidate names on the voting document. Names that can be used include a registered name or a name by which the candidate has been commonly known for the six months prior to an election. Although sometimes referred to as ‘matai titles’, legal advice provided to staff is that these are more in the nature of names than of a title denoting the holding of some sort of office. To avoid doubt, the legislation should give guidance.

(ii) Vacancies occurring within six months of an election

Since the 2016 elections were held, three vacancies have occurred – Auckland (resignation of local board member), Bay of Plenty Regional Council (death) and Waikato Regional Council (death). When considering the budget for the Howick by-election, the governing body resolved to seek a law change allowing a local authority using the first past the post electoral system to appoint the highest polling unsuccessful candidate to a vacancy that occurring within six months of an election.

(iii) Legal requirement for candidate to state whether residing in area

Some candidates complained about this requirement. The council has previously submitted in opposition to it and may consider doing so again. Following the 2013 elections, the select committee recommended that the requirement be removed and noted that candidates for parliamentary elections did not have to make a similar statement. However, it has not yet been removed.

(iv) Timing of school holidays

The school holidays overlap with the postal voting period. Many people go out of the area during school holidays and do not vote. Currently local government elections are on the second Saturday in October. Moving election day to the first Saturday in October would provide one week before election day that would not overlap with school holidays. This still gives time to adopt the annual report and it provides an additional week between the elections and the end of the year for the new council to attend to business, such as a draft annual plan.

(v) Electronic transmission of voting documents to and from voters overseas

Voters who are overseas during the postal voting period often do not have enough time to post back voting documents prior to election day, after receiving their voting documents in the post. The select committee has previously recommended electronic transmission. The government has supported sending blank voting documents electronically but has opposed the return of completed votes electronically. On-line voting would also solve this issue.

(vi) Electoral Officer to have access to the supplementary roll

The processing of special votes relies on the Electoral Commission checking that voters are on the electoral roll. If the EO had access to the supplementary roll, the EO could do this, with the potential to speed up the counting of special votes. This has previously been supported by the select committee and the government.

(vii) Access to data associated with electoral roll

It is a concern that local government election turnouts are low. Having access to statistical data associated with the electoral roll, such as age groups of electors, would be helpful when planning election awareness campaigns. Currently the Electoral Act only allows this information to be supplied for research into scientific or health matters.

(viii) Electronic nominations and candidate profile statements.

The option to submit nominations electronically would benefit the candidate experience and it would lead to more accurate representation of candidate profile statements. Currently there are over 600 profile statements to be typed, from copy supplied by candidates, and then proof-read. Occasionally this leads to mistakes.

(ix) Legislative confirmation that local authorities may promote elections

Legislation should give a clear mandate to local authorities to promote elections. This is to avoid any uncertainty about public funds being used for election promotion purposes.

(x) Time period for printing electoral rolls

Electoral rolls were not printed in time for the start of candidate nominations because the legislated time period is too short. Extend time period for printing. This corrects a previous change to timeframes which shortened the time for printing the rolls.

(xi) Electronic access to electoral rolls for election staff

When processing candidate nominations, staff at service centres need to check whether nominators are on the electoral roll for the specified area. They may only have one hard-copy version to share between staff processing nominations for different candidates. It would be more efficient to access the current roll electronically.

(xii) Close of voting time

Extend voting later into the last day and create one full 'voting day'. The Electoral Officer received 18,000 votes on the Saturday morning via our ballot boxes. Extra time on the final Saturday would give voters more time to vote and could help turn the final Saturday into a voting day celebration.

(xiii) Discourage inappropriate use of elections

There were 19 candidates for mayor. Clearly some of these had no chance of being elected but presumably used the opportunity to promote their cause. Consideration could be given as whether this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

(xiv) Separation of DHB elections.

A variety of election issues on the one voting document together with different voting systems and ordering of names confuses voters. It would be better to hold DHB elections on a separate time, for example a separate year, or with the parliamentary elections. However, this would increase the cost of an election to Auckland Council, which currently receives $1.5 million in recoveries from DHBs and Licensing Trusts.

(xv) Candidate information in different languages

Candidate profile statements are limited to 150 words. If a candidate profile statement is provided in English and Māori, then each version may have 150 words as Māori is an official language. If a candidate profile statement includes English and a language other than Māori it is limited to 150 words in total. Consideration could be given to other options for candidates to provide information in languages relevant to their constituents.

(xvi) Consistency between Electoral Regulations and Local Electoral Regulations

The Electoral Regulations include provisions that would be helpful to local elections such as:

· Telephone dictation for voters with disabilities

· Receipt of special votes electronically.

(xvii) Relationship with Electoral Commission

Some voters, confused about who was responsible for running the council elections, contacted the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission typically referred callers to the council and enquirers ended up calling the council call centre only to be referred on to Independent Election Services. There should be consideration to jointly promoting awareness about who enquirers should contact with queries about local elections. This does not require a legislative change but could be implemented through Local Government New Zealand.

Timetable for 2019 elections

Electoral system

66. If the council wishes to change the electoral system from First Past the Post to Single Transferable Vote, a resolution is required by 12 September 2017. Such a resolution might then be subject to a petition for a poll. Alternatively the council could conduct a poll.

Māori wards

67. If the council wishes to establish Māori wards, a resolution is required by 23 November 2017. Such a resolution might then be subject to a petition for a poll. Alternatively the council could conduct a poll.

Review of representation arrangements

68. The council is required to review:

· whether the election of councillors is on a ward basis or at large and, for each local board, whether election of board members is on a subdivision basis or at large

· the number of members in each local board within a minimum of five and a maximum of twelve

· if there are wards or subdivisions, what the boundaries are and how many members there are in each

· the names of wards, subdivisions and local boards.

69. Unlike other councils, the council cannot review the number of members of the Governing Body because the legislation sets this at 20 members.

70. The statutory timetable for the review is:

Due dates	Requirement
No earlier than 1 March 2018	A council resolution setting out the council’s initial proposal
Within 14 days of resolution but no later than 8 September 2018	Public notice of the resolution, providing at least one month for submissions
Within 6 weeks of close of submissions	The initial proposal may be amended after considering submissions. Public notice of the final proposal
20 December 2018	Appeals from those who submitted on the initial proposal and fresh objections to any amendments are received
15 January 2019	Appeals and objections are forwarded to the Local Government Commission
11 April 2019	Appeals and objections are determined by the Local Government Commission, which may conduct hearings in order to do this

71. The review will be conducted as one component of the wider governance framework review reported to the Governing Body last December. The Governing Body established a political working party comprising 7 governing body members and 7 local board members.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

72. We recommend that this be presented to local boards for their views, before being presented back to the Governing Body to finalise its submission to the select committee. The Governing Body will be able to take their views into account at that time.

Māori impact statement

73. Initiatives that encourage the community to engage with elections will have a positive impact on Māori. There are activities associated with elections that are particularly significant to mana whenua, such as the pōwhiri to welcome all elected members following the elections.

74. The survey of candidates asked candidates to identify their ethnicities. Ten per cent of candidates were Māori, compared to 9 per cent of the total Auckland population. As a result of the election, 7 per cent of elected members are Māori (115 of 170 elected members replied to the survey).

75. There will be an opportunity to consider the establishment of Māori wards for the 2019 elections.

Implementation

76. This report will be presented to local boards for their comments, to be included in a report back to the Governing Body so that the Governing Body can finalise its submission to the select committee.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Mayor	Hon Phil Goff, JP
Deputy Mayor	Cr Bill Cashmore
Councillors	Dr Cathy Casey	Daniel Newman, JP
	Ross Clow	Dick Quax
	Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Greg Sayers
	Linda Cooper, JP	Desley Simpson, JP
	Chris Darby	Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Alf Filipaina	Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Wayne Walker
	Richard Hills	John Watson
	Penny Hulse
	Denise Lee
	Mike Lee

Author	Elaine Stephenson - Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Stephen Town - Chief Executive