Agenda of Governing Body

1 Affirmation

His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation.

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Governing Body:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 29 June 2017, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Petitions

5.1 Save Chamberlain Park Inc. - Petition objecting to the redevelopment of Chamberlain Park

Purpose

1. To present a petition to the Governing Body.

Executive summary

2. Geoff Senescall, Chair of Save Chamberlain Park Incorporated, will present a petition to the Governing Body. The prayer of the petition is as follows:

“We object to the provisions as outlined in the Chamberlain Park Master Plan to redevelop Chamberlain Park and believe that Chamberlain Park should remain as it is, an 18-hole golf course with public access.”

3. Council’s Standing Orders allow for the presentation of submissions to the Governing Body and its committees.

4. A judicial review was filed on 30 May 2017, in relation to the Albert-Eden Local Board’s decisions on Chamberlain Park (Save Chamberlain Park Incorporated v Auckland Council). The judicial review challenges a number of decisions in relation to the change of use of Chamberlain Park.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) thank Geoff Senescall, Chair of Save Chamberlain Park Incorporated, for his attendance.

b) note the content of the petition submitted by Save Chamberlain Park Incorporated, opposing the Albert-Eden Local Board Master Plan in respect of Chamberlain Park and requesting that the course remain as it is, an 18-hole golf course.

c) note that the matter is the subject of a judicial review.

d) note that decision-making of local boards under their allocated activities cannot be reviewed by the Governing Body.

e) forward these resolutions to the Albert-Eden Local Board and the Governance Director for their information.

6 Public Input

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

6.1 Public Input: John Stowell - Participatory budgeting as a contribution to enhancing the engagement of citizens

Purpose

1. Mr John Stowell will be present to speak to the Governing Body on the matter of participatory budgeting as a contribution to enhancing the engagement of citizens in the governance of our city.

Executive summary

2. On 9 June 2017, Waitakere Ranges Local Board received a submission from Mr Stowell on the Local Board Plan. The subject of the submission was participatory budgeting.

3. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board received the submission.

4. Council’s Standing Orders allow for the presentation of submission to the Governing Body and its committees.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the presentation from Mr John Stowell regarding participatory budgeting as a contribution to enhancing the engagement of citizens and thank him for his attendance.

6.2 Public Input: Fields of Remembrance Trust - End of the World War 1 commemorative period

Purpose

1. To update the Governing Body on plans for the end of the World War 1 commemorative period in the Auckland Domain during October and November 2018.

Executive summary

2. David McGregor and Juliana Austen from the Fields of Remembrance Trust will be present an update to the Governing Body on plans for the end of the World War 1 commemorative period in October and November 2018.

3. Plans for a field of remembrance with 18,277 crosses and a commemorative walk in the Auckland Domain will be covered in the presentation.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the presentation from David McGregor and Juliana Austen of the Fields of Remembrance Trust regarding plans for the end of the World War 1 commemorative period in the Auckland Domain during October and November 2017 and thank them for their attendance.

7 Local Board Input

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

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

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

8 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Governing Body

27 July 2017

Housing Taskforce Report implementation

File No.: CP2017/12102

Purpose

1. To agree a governance structure to implement the recommendations made by the Mayoral Housing Taskforce’s report released in June 2017.

Executive summary

2. In late 2016, the Minister for Building and Construction invited the Mayor of Auckland to propose arrangements to succeed the Housing Accord, which was due to expire on May 19 2017. Rather than extend the Accord, the mayor considered that it was important to identify other significant impediments to building new homes at a pace and scale to meet the demand created by growth and to catch up on the deficit in the current housing stock that has accumulated over recent years. The mayor therefore decided to set up a taskforce to look into these barriers more closely, getting industry representatives around the table to discuss issues and tangible solutions.

3. The purpose of the taskforce was to:

· “identify barriers and constraints to building more homes in Auckland at a pace and scale which meets the demand created by population growth; and

· identify options and make recommendations to overcome those barriers and constraints”.

4. The Taskforce met five times between March and May and in June produced a Mayoral Housing Taskforce Report’, which contained 33 recommendations.

5. The Taskforce identified three key areas where changes are needed in order to deliver more homes in Auckland:

(i) Remove impediments to the construction sector developing at scale, including identifying investors who can build through the dips to lift construction in the peaks

(ii) Unlock the availability of land with appropriate zoning and infrastructure, at the right price, to enable more development, faster

(iii) Deliver efficient and certain planning, consenting, and risk management to reduce costs, enable innovation in construction and delivery, and create communities with high-quality built and urban form outcomes.

6. It is proposed that a Housing Taskforce Steering Group be convened in order to prioritise the recommendations of the Taskforce, and oversee progress and implementation of these.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) agree that a Housing Taskforce Steering Group be appointed in order to oversee the progress and implementation of the recommendations of the June 2017 Mayoral Housing Taskforce report.

b) approve the membership of the Housing Taskforce Steering Group as follows:

· Mayor Phil Goff (Chair)

· Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore (Deputy Chair)

· Councillor Chris Darby (Chair, Planning Committee)

· Councillor Linda Cooper (Chair, Regulatory Committee)

· David Taipari (Chair, IMSB)

· Dean Kimpton (Chief Operating Officer)

· Jim Quinn (Chief of Strategy)

· David Wood (Director, Finance & Policy, Office of the Mayor)

· Senior manager in Watercare Services Limited

· Senior manager in Auckland Transport.

c) request that the Terms of Reference for the Housing Taskforce Steering Group be circulated to all elected members and Independent Maori Statutory Board members for their information.

d) note that the Housing Taskforce Steering Group will report periodically to the Governing Body on progress.

Comments

Background

7. In late 2016, the Minister for Building and Construction invited the Mayor of Auckland to propose arrangements to succeed the Housing Accord, which was due to expire on May 19 2017. Rather than extend the Accord, the mayor considered that it was important to identify other significant impediments to building new homes at a pace and scale to meet the demand created by growth and to catch up on the deficit in the current housing stock that has accumulated over recent years.

8. The mayor therefore decided to set up a taskforce to look into these barriers more closely, getting industry representatives around the table to discuss issues and tangible solutions.

Mayoral Housing Taskforce

9. The Mayoral Housing Taskforce (‘the Taskforce’) was set up in early 2017, with a series of five meetings from March to May. The Taskforce was facilitated independently by Bernard Hickey (an economist and journalist), and produced the report with the assistance of economists MR Cagney. The Taskforce report represents the views of the wider Taskforce, rather than the mayor’s or council’s views.

10. The purpose of the taskforce was to:

· “identify barriers and constraints to building more homes in Auckland at a pace and scale which meets the demand created by population growth; and

· identify options and make recommendations to overcome those barriers and constraints”.

11. It should be noted that the Taskforce was asked to specifically look into issues around the barriers to getting houses built and the related supply chain (such as labour / skills, industry capacity, capital availability, and consenting and regulatory matters). It did not consider demand-side matters, nor did it specifically look into wider housing issues, such as social housing or homelessness. These do however remain part of the mayor’s wider focus, through programmes such as Housing First.

12. A range of stakeholders were invited to be part of the Taskforce. A wider group was also asked to provide written feedback to add to the Taskforce’s discussions. Attachment A contains the list of taskforce members and the list of stakeholders who provided feedback to the taskforce. The council was represented by Mayor Phil Goff, Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore, and Planning Committee Chair Chris Darby. Council’s Chief Operating Officer Dean Kimpton and Director of Regulatory Services Penny Pirrit were also members.

13. The Taskforce met on five separate occasions (one half day and four full days), and had a wide-ranging discussion across a range of topics, including presentations from guest speakers from within council, council-controlled organisations, government agencies, and the construction, banking and skills sectors.

14. The Taskforce’s report took shape throughout as a result of these discussions, and the final day saw the taskforce agree the content of the report including its 33 recommendations.

Mayoral Housing Taskforce report findings and recommendations

15. The Taskforce identified three key areas where changes are needed in order to deliver more homes in Auckland:

(i) Remove impediments to the construction sector developing at scale, including identifying investors who can build through the dips to lift construction in the peaks

(ii) Unlock the availability of land with appropriate zoning and infrastructure, at the right price, to enable more development, faster

16. Within each category, the Taskforce identified a mix of ‘tactical’ interventions that can be done soon, without significant legislative or policy change, and ‘systemic’ interventions that they believe may take longer to deliver but which have the potential to have a large and long-term impact on housing supply outcomes. In their view, “delivering these interventions will require partnership and collaboration between Auckland Council (and its wider ‘family’ of organisations such as Auckland Transport and Watercare), central government, and the development sector”.

17. They also point out that focusing on short-term interventions without addressing systemic challenges will not fully address Auckland’s housing supply challenges. They note that their recommended ‘tactical’ changes “can help create the platform for deeper policy changes, but are not a substitute for more fundamental change in a market that has not built enough homes for several decades”.

18. The Taskforce’s report provides 33 recommendations across the identified key areas of change required. These are outlined in Attachment B. They have not been numbered in the report, so for ease of reference, these have been numbered in the order that they appear in the original report.

Implementation of the Taskforce’s report recommendations

19. This report seeks the support of the Governing Body to approve the establishment of a Housing Taskforce Steering Group.

20. Some of the report’s recommendations are already in the process of being implemented by council. One of the key benefits of having a steering group is to enable council and senior managers to more ably track and prioritise work around housing supply. It will provide impetus moving beyond the Housing Accord, and has the potential to enable council to be better placed to understand housing delivery.

21. There are a range of recommendations specifically focusing on council’s activities, and these are outlined in Attachment B in Table 1; there are also a range of recommendations requiring wider collaboration with other parties and advocacy to central government (outlined in Table 2).

22. Council staff have provided guidance focused mainly on those recommendations aimed at Council’s own activities, in terms of existing work already underway which will implement the recommendations, or where work can either be redirected or realigned in order to be able to do that (see Tables 1 and 2 in Attachment B).

23. In addition to this, there will also be a need to pursue other recommendations at a more political level with central government, by way of collaboration and advocacy. These recommendations include matters such as changes to the way in which the Building Code works; the way in which councils are ‘the last person standing’ when it comes to claims against faulty work (i.e. advocating for building warranty and insurance schemes); and the way in which infrastructure is funded.

24. It is intended that the Mayoral Housing Taskforce will reconvene every six months in order to discuss progress made towards implementation of any of its recommendations, as well as provide an opportunity to highlight any new or emerging significant issues that were not necessarily identified in their June report.

Housing Taskforce Steering Group

25. The purpose of the proposed Housing Taskforce Steering Group is to:

· Agree the Terms of Reference of the Housing Taskforce Steering Group

· Prioritise the report’s recommendations - both those that deal with council responsibilities, and those that require collaboration with other partners and advocacy to central government

· Oversee the progress of council work across those recommendations focused on council responsibilities

· Report on progress to the Governing Body at regular intervals and the Mayoral Taskforce every six months

26. The duration of the Housing Taskforce Steering Group’s work will be determined by implementation of recommendations as well as wider political priorities of the mayor and council. ‘Secretariat’ support will be provided by the Office of the Mayor.

27. Proposed membership of the Housing Taskforce Steering Group is as follows:

· Mayor Phil Goff (Chair)

· Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore (Deputy Chair)

· Councillor Chris Darby, (Planning Committee Chair)

· Councillor Linda Cooper, (Regulatory Committee Chair)

· Dean Kimpton, Chief Operating Officer

· Jim Quinn, Chief of Strategy

· David Wood, Director of Finance and Policy, Office of the Mayor

· David Taipari, Chair, Independent Maori Statutory Board

· Senior manager in Watercare Services Limited (for CCO-related implementation)

· Senior manager in Auckland Transport (for CCO-related implementation)

Consideration

Local board views and implications

28. Local Board views were not sought for this report. While all local boards are concerned with housing matters to some degree, the work of the Taskforce was specifically focussed on housing supply barriers, and as such are not particular to any local area. The focus is at the regional scale and therefore the Housing Taskforce Steering Group should be represented by councillors.

29. In addition, the Taskforce report was independently commissioned and represents the views of the wider Taskforce, rather than the mayor’s or council’s views.

30. Recommendations will impact local boards in different ways depending on the nature of their communities. Individual implementation of recommendations may require Local Board input and engagement and this will occur as needed.

Māori impact statement

31. Implementing the Taskforce’s recommendations will impact on the whole community, including Maori, in terms of housing supply and affordability.

32. The Independent Maori Statutory Board was invited to give feedback to the Housing Taskforce, which they provided (along with 19 other stakeholders, as listed in Attachment A). Specific recommendations around provision of mandatory affordable housing, Maori housing, or impacts specifically on Maori are not however addressed directly by the report’s recommendations.

33. It is therefore proposed that the Chair of the Independent Maori Statutory Board be a member of the Housing Taskforce Steering Group, to help ensure that impacts on Maori are taken into account when considering the recommendations, as well as bringing a Maori perspective to the steering group’s discussions.

Implementation

34. The implementation of the recommendations of this report have been discussed in the body of the report. Implementation will be directed via the Taskforce Steering Group, and the work of council staff, the Office of the Mayor, Councillors and other stakeholders.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	List of Taskforce members and list of stakeholders who provided feedback	17
b ⇩	Tables of recommendations from the Mayoral Housing Taskforce report	19

Signatories

Authors

Jared Boow - Portfolio Manager – Housing, Mayoral Office

Authorisers

David Wood - Director Finance & Policy, Mayoral Office

Taha Macpherson - Chief of Staff, Mayoral Office

Governing Body

27 July 2017

World War I Centenary Memorial

File No.: CP2017/13739

Purpose

1. To provide an update on progress with the World War I Centenary Memorial project and seek decisions in support of progressing the project.

Executive summary

2. In June 2015, the Governing Body approved budget allocation for a World War I Centenary Memorial to be constructed in Auckland Domain. In early 2016, the Governing Body endorsed the selection of a preferred concept design by a design team led by Wraight Athfield Landscape + Architecture, known as Te Takuahi – The Hearth.

3. Delegation of final approval of the design was made to the council’s World War I Centenary Memorial Working Party, and on adoption of the current Governing Body Terms of Reference passed to the Auckland Domain Committee.

4. In June 2017, the Mayor exercised his power in the Governing Body Terms of Reference to ‘call in’ the project, based on the recommendation of the Chief Executive. Concerns highlighted included proposed change in design, withdrawal from the project of the selected design team, loss of funding opportunity and risk to the delivery of the memorial project.

5. There are four key issues to resolve in order to progress the memorial project, relating to:

· project governance

· design and design team

· budget and funding

· timeframe for delivery.

6. It is proposed to proceed with the concept design as endorsed by Governing Body in February 2016 and for any further detailed design decisions within the scope of that concept design to be made by staff. Work can then move quickly to complete developed design and submit a resource consent application before the end of October 2017.

7. It is proposed that a Mayor’s Advisory Group is formed to oversee fundraising initiatives, stakeholder management and communications for the project, and that decision making for the project is undertaken by the Governing Body.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) revoke any previous delegations regarding the World War I Centenary Memorial, including delegations to the Auckland Domain Committee, Chair of the Auckland Domain Committee or Manager of the Auckland Domain.

b) confirm that all oversight and governance for the World War I Centenary Memorial project will now be undertaken by the Governing Body and Governing Body will be responsible for the delivery of the project.

c) revoke any and all previous decisions of the Auckland Domain Committee or its delegates regarding the World War I Centenary Memorial.

d) note the decision of Governing Body in February 2016 (GB/2016/14) which endorsed the concept design for Te Takuahi.

e) agree to proceed with the concept design as endorsed by Governing Body in February 2016.

f) delegate to the Chief Executive responsibility for implementing the project including responsibility for any further detailed design decisions within the scope of that concept design.

g) recommend staff continue to seek external funding to the value required to deliver Te Takuahi.

h) create a Mayor’s Advisory Group to oversee fundraising initiatives, stakeholder management and communications associated with the World War I Centenary Memorial in the Auckland Domain, to include the following members:

i) Mayor Phil Goff

ii) Councillor Christine Fletcher

iii) Councillor Desley Simpson

iv) Local Board Member Sandra Coney

v) Local Board Member Shale Chambers

vi) Local Board Chair Colin Davis

vii) Independent Maori Statutory Board Member Renata Blair

viii) David McGregor, Chair of Fields of Remembrance Trust

ix) David Gaimster, Director Auckland War Memorial Museum

i) delegate consideration of possible alternative completion dates for the project to the Mayor Advisory Group for recommendation back to Governing Body.

j) request that the Mayor’s Advisory Group report back to the Governing Body, before but no later than March 2018, on the status of the project, including costs, funding and delivery.

Comments

Background

8. In June 2015, the council approved a budget of $1,000,000 for the development of a World War I Centenary Memorial in Auckland Domain. The funding was provided in anticipation of a further $2,000,000 being raised from non-rates revenue to complete the memorial.

9. Following a competitive procurement process, the council’s World War I Centenary Memorial Working Party selected a design by a team led by Wraight Athfield Landscape + Architecture, known as Te Takuahi – The Hearth, as the preferred design.

10. In February 2016, the Governing Body endorsed the working party’s recommendation, and resolved that the design be refined to include a “suitable and subtle way of connecting the feature, adjacent to Domain Drive, with the Auckland War Memorial Museum”, while being careful to protect and retain the open grass area in front of the cenotaph” (GB/2016/14 – refer Attachment C for all resolutions referenced).

11. Delegation of final approval of the design was made to the working party. On adoption of the current Governing Body Terms of Reference, that delegation subsequently passed to the Auckland Domain Committee.

12. In February 2016, an application was made to New Zealand Lotteries for funding for the project. In June 2016, a grant of $655,000 was confirmed. In September 2016, the Governing Body authorised the Chief Executive to “explore and enable all suitable mechanisms for funding the completion” of the project (GB/2016/223).

13. Wraight Athfield was commissioned in September 2016 to amend the design of Te Takuahi to respond to the Governing Body’s February and September 2016 resolutions.

14. In December 2016 and February 2017, Wraight Athfield presented design options to the Auckland Domain Committee. The committee did not support the proposed options and made a number of resolutions that provided design direction, particularly in relation to a desired path connecting the memorial to the Museum (ADC/2016/32 and ADC/2017/7). The committee also resolved that the resource consent be publically notified (ADC/2016/32).

15. In anticipation of a successful resolution of the Te Takuahi design, an application to the Lotteries Significant Project Fund was made in March 2017. The application sought funding in addition to the $655,000 already granted in June 2016.

16. In April 2017, the Auckland Domain Committee resolved to seek a new, simplified design, and requested staff to report that decision to the Governing Body for endorsement (ADC/2017/12).

17. Following that resolution, staff:

· advised New Zealand Lotteries we could not make an application compliant with the conditions of the Lotteries Significant Project fund

· received written advice from Wraight Athfield that in light of the Auckland Domain Committee requirement for a new design with reduced project budget they did not wish to continue as design team for the project

· discussed possible involvement in the project with two alternative design teams

· sought to understand and document the project delivery implications arising from the requirement to seek a new design.

18. In June 2017, the Auckland Domain Committee reiterated its request to staff to report the status of the project to the Governing Body (ADC/2017/27).

19. The Mayor has now ‘called in’ the project under section 1.4 of the Auckland Council Governing Body Terms of Reference (2016). This was based on the recommendation of the Chief Executive which highlighted concerns with the proposed change in design, design team and project budget, and delay in progress of the project and recommended all future World War I Centenary Memorial reports and decisions to be reported to and decided by the Governing Body.

Current project status

20. At this time, the council, through resolutions of the Auckland Domain Committee, has:

· made a number of resolutions that provided design direction (ADC/2016/32, ADC/2017/7)

· requested a new simplified design for the project in line with the existing design brief, which delivers an axial path within a budget of $1.4 million to be completed by 11 November 2018 and report to the Governing Body for endorsement (ADC/2017/12)

· resolved to request that the resource consent application is publically notified (ADC/2016/32)

· a target completion date for the project of 11 November 2018, being the 100 year anniversary of Armistice Day (GB/2016/223, ADC/2016/32, ADC/2017/7, ADC/2017/12)

· an available project budget of $1.4 million, subject to future confirmation that $655,000 funding from Lotteries Commission remains available for a new design.

21. In response to the Mayor’s call in of the project and the Auckland Domain Committee’s request to provide an update on the status of the project to the Governing Body, staff have undertaken an assessment of issues influencing successful delivery of the project.

Key issues for successful project delivery

22. Staff have identified four key issues, explored more fully below, that will influence the successful delivery of the project, including:

· project governance

· design and design team

· budget and funding

· timeframe for delivery.

Project governance

23. With the Mayor’s call in of the project it is recommended the project governance remains with the Governing Body and that the Governing Body exercises all necessary decision making powers and delegations of authority to deliver this project within the Auckland Domain.

24. The Mayor has proposed a Mayor’s Advisory Group for the project. The proposed membership and Terms of Reference are included in Attachment A.

Design and design team

25. Although the Auckland Domain Committee has resolved to seek a new design for the memorial, Te Takuahi has previously been selected through a competitive procurement process as the council’s preferred design.

26. In order to gather an independent assessment of Te Takuahi, the Auckland Urban Design Panel was asked to review the design. The panel met in early July 2017. The panel’s recommendations report is provided as Attachment B.

27. The panel recommendation report is supportive of all key aspects of the Te Takuahi design. The panel notes that “the proposed design…is a carefully considered and well balanced response to the Design Brief (July 2015) and convincingly addresses a number of high level aspirations attached to this project.”

28. Staff consider that the independent design review of Te Takuahi, alongside the design selection process undertaken in early 2016, suggest that Te Takuahi remains a suitable design for the memorial.

29. Wraight Athfield have advised staff that they are willing to continue to lead the design process if Te Takuahi was to be reconfirmed as the council’s preferred design.

Budget and funding

30. Table 1 summarises the project budget, funding and expenditure to date.

Table 1 – project budget, funding and expenditure

	Amount
Auckland Council	$1,000,000
NZ Lotteries grant	$655,000
Expenditure to date	$242,000
Budget available (funding less expenditure)	$1,413,000

31. The New Zealand Lotteries grant was awarded based on the Te Takuahi design proposal.

32. Project costs to date include approximately $150,000 for the design competition procurement process, a further $70,000 of design fees for Wraight Athfield, with the balance being for project management costs and specialist reports.

33. The currently funded and available budget of $1,413,000 is substantially less than the original project budget of $3,000,000, noting that the original budget has at no time been fully funded.

34. The currently funded and available budget is not sufficient to deliver Te Takuahi, which has an estimated cost based on the current concept design of $3,000,000. Staff have explored with the design team options for reducing the Te Takuahi cost estimate, and have not identified any significant potential savings.

35. One of the key purposes of the Mayor’s Advisory Group is to provide leadership and support for the fundraising effort.

Timeframe

36. The intended timeframe for the project is completion on site before 11 November 2018, the 100 year anniversary of Armistice Day.

37. Staff believe that achieving project completion by November 2018 remains possible, but is now challenging and are unable to provide certainty of completion by that date.

38. Key issues in relation to the completion date include:

· the need to award a construction contract no later than March 2018

· the need to have secured necessary additional funding from external sources prior to award of construction contract

· the desire for earthworks to occur in the normally dry months of summer and early autumn.

39. Possible alternative completion dates will be discussed with the Mayor’s Advisory Group, and any recommendations from the advisory group will be reported back to the Governing Body for consideration.

Next steps

40. If Governing Body resolves as recommended in this report, key next steps and indicative timeframe are set out in Table 2.

Table 2 – Proposed next steps

Key steps	Indicative completion
Reappoint Wraight Athfield design team to continue design development	Start August 2017
Developed design, including ongoing engagement with stakeholders to inform the design process	End October 2017
Preparation and submission of resource consent application	End October 2017
Detailed design and specification	To be agreed with Mayor’s Advisory Group, approved by Governing Body, and subject to funding
External fundraising
Contractor procurement
Works on site
Official opening

Consideration

Local board views and implications

41. The previous WWI Steering Group had been at the heart of this project. Membership of the steering group included local board members and through this steering group, local boards provided input and were kept up to date on WWI activities and projects.

42. The WWI Centenary Memorial is included in the Auckland Domain Master Plan, which was the subject of public input. The master plan was reviewed by the Waitematā Local Board and three members of the Auckland Domain Committee are members of the Waitematā Local Board.

Māori impact statement

43. Mana whenua have been engaged during the development of this project. An initial email seeking interest in the project was sent out to all iwi on 16 July 2015. A copy of the high level design brief was included. The following iwi expressed an interest in the project:

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Te Akitai

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Tamatera confirmed they would be represented by Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara deferred to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei.

44. Mana whenua were given an update on the progress of the project at a hui on 20 October 2016, at which Te Takuahi was presented as the preferred design. There was a general consensus that the design and minimal impact on the close was positive.

45. Mana whenua asked for continued engagement as the project evolved.

Implementation

46. Issues relating to implementation have been addressed in the body of this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Mayor's Advisory Group Terms of Reference	39
b ⇩	Auckland Urban Design Panel recommendations	41
c ⇩	Summary of resolutions of the Governing Body and Auckland Domain Committee	45

Signatories

Authors

Rob Cairns - Manager Parks and Recreation Policy

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

27 July 2017

Resolutions in relation to the World War I Centenary Memorial project

Governing Body Resolutions

Resolution number GB/2016/14

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the recommendation of the WWI Centenary Memorial Working Party which has selected the concept design Te Takuahi – The Hearth, for development at Auckland Domain.

b) endorse the recommendation of the WWI Centenary Memorial Working Party to select the concept design Te Takuahi – The Hearth, for development at Auckland Domain, subject to the remaining funds being sought from NZ Lotteries or other non-rate funding sources.

c) ask that the WWI Centenary Memorial Working Party work with the consortium, Wraight Athfield Landscape + Architecture in association with Ross Hemera, AECOM, Dunning Thornton and eCubed Building Workshop, to continue to refine the design in accordance with the brief. This refinement shall include the option of exploring a suitable and subtle way of connecting the feature, adjacent to Domain Drive, with the Auckland War Memorial Museum, while being careful to protect and retain the open grass area in front of the cenotaph.

d) note that the WWI Centenary Memorial Working Party will continue to work with engaged stakeholders, iwi, Heritage NZ, Auckland War Memorial Museum as well as keep the WWI Commemoration Political Steering Group, the Auckland Domain Committee and public informed of progress and the final developed concept.

e) note that the report regarding the WWI Centenary Memorial, and the confidential memo will remain confidential.

f) note that the committee decisions will be made publicly available after the preferred consortium has been advised and concurrently with Auckland Council’s official media release.

Resolution number GB/2016/223

That the Governing Body:

a) note:

i. the World War One Centenary Memorial Working Party was established by the Governing Body in October 2014 to identify a suitable World War One centenary memorial for all Aucklanders, to be completed by November 2018

ii. the World War One Centenary Memorial project was estimated to cost up to $3 million

iii. as part of the development of the Long-term Plan, council agreed to contribute $1 million towards a World War One Centenary Memorial to be developed at Auckland Domain

iv. after inviting five designers to submit concept designs, “Te Takuahi – The Hearth” was approved by the Governing Body in February 2016

v. in July 2016, NZ Lotteries granted $655,000 to the World War One Centenary Memorial project.

b) approve a capital funding campaign for the World War One Centenary Memorial, based on the design for “Te Takuahi – The Hearth”, and in accordance with the design brief, include a suitable and subtle way of connecting the feature with the Auckland War Memorial Museum and Court of Honour.

c) delegate to the Chief Executive authority to explore and enable all suitable mechanisms for funding the completion of the World War One Centenary Memorial project and in consultation with the Urban Design Panel.

Auckland Domain Committee resolutions

Resolution number ADC/2016/32

That the Auckland Domain Committee:

a) provide the following design brief for a connecting path between the WWI Centenary Memorial and the Auckland War Memorial Museum.

i) A path be interpreted as a formed green reinforced grassed path.

ii) A continuous route (The journey to and from the memorial is critical. The journey, on the axis to and through the memorial, should be uninterrupted. This will necessitate a separate entry and exit.)

iii) Beyond the close (The memorial, located at the end of the close, will help define the end of the close but also provide a clear invitation and navigation beyond the close to the walkway network beyond. This will include thinking about a direct axial link onto Domain Drive and beyond Domain Drive north to the track entrance that eventually leads to Parnell Station.)

iv) Visually recessive (The connecting path shall be visually recessive with, where possible; all materials being installed flush with ground level. Materials should be visually recessive from a distance but sufficiently visible to lead people to and from the memorial. As such it will perform a subtle and functional purpose rather than be a significant design feature in its own right.)

v) Axis (The connecting path, between the memorial and the museum shall be on the central axis. The path from the memorial to the north and the track network shall also be as direct as possible.)

vi) Size and scale of the grass connection to be as indicated in Option 1 i.e. 4 metres in width

vii) Accessibility:

- option 1 between memorial and museum :

The connecting path shall follow the topography of the ground and shall not include steps or changes in ground level. The exception is to this is the connection with the cenotaph and memorial – at these two points it may be necessary to include a step/s or a change in ground level.

The connecting path will not meet accessibility standards as defined by NZS 4121:2001 or NZ Building Act 2004 but should attempt to follow some of the principles of universal access design - below and abridged:

· Equitable use - useful to people with diverse abilities;

· Flexibility in use - accommodates a wide range of individual abilities;

· Simple and intuitive to use - easy to understand;

· Perceptible information - the design communicates to the user regardless of conditions or the user's abilities;

· Tolerance for error - the design minimises hazards or unintended actions;

· Low physical effort - the design can be used with a minimum of fatigue;

· Size and space for approach and use

It is likely that this path will be inaccessible to many wheelchair users (who will have an alternative route alongside The Crescent as per the current design) but will be relatively accessible by young children, fit elderly people, parents using buggies (noting the need to pull the buggy over a threshold stair).

- option 2 for the connection north to Parnell Stations:

This may include steps or subtle changes in ground level, if needed.

The connecting path will not meet accessibility standards as defined by NZS 4121:2001 or NZ Building Act 2004.

While this path will be inaccessible to most wheelchair users or people with a disability. The alternative path in the current design, alongside The Crescent, will cater for universal access. None the less the design should be designed with a fit elderly person or young person in mind.

- option 3 a recessive connection to the Crescent in for disabled access that shall be in accordance with the building code.

b) delegate to the Chair of the Auckland Domain Committee and the Manager Auckland Domain to agree the design of the connection, in accordance with the design brief, and any consequential changes to the memorial design.

c) agree that the resource consent be publicly notified in a process to meet the time scale of November 2018.

Resolution number ADC/2017/7

That the Auckland Domain Committee:

a) request that the design reflect resolution ADC/2016/32 of 14 December 2016 in regard to a) ii) and a) vi)

b) note that there is a delegation in place for the Chair of the Auckland Domain Committee and the Manager Auckland Domain (or an extraordinary meeting of the committee, if required, as soon as practical) to agree any final refinements of the design, in accordance with the design brief. Further engagement with stakeholders will be undertaken prior to lodging resource consent.

c) emphasize the absolute importance of achieving this project on time and within budget.

Resolution number ADC/2017/12

That the Auckland Domain Committee:

a) request that a new simplified design be developed, in line with the existing design brief, which delivers an axial path within a budget of $1.4 million to be completed by 11 November 2018.

b) brief the Mayor on this decision and report to Governing Body for endorsement.

c) request Auckland Transport partner on the delivery of a connection to the north across Domain Drive.

d) agree to a programme of meetings that will enable a new design to be agreed, following engagement with key stakeholders and mana whenua, no later than August 2017.

Resolution number ADC/2017/27

That the Auckland Domain Committee:

a) reiterate its request that staff report to the Governing Body on the status of the WWI Centennial Memorial project as per the committee’s resolution on 12 April 2017.

Governing Body

27 July 2017

2016 elections - submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee

File No.: CP2017/06669

Purpose

1. To finalise submissions to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on its inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections.

Executive summary

2. In February 2017 staff reported to the Governing Body on the highlights and issues of the 2016 elections. The report included draft proposals for submission to the Select Committee. The Governing Body agreed to the draft submissions being presented to local boards, and for their feedback to be reported through a political reference group back to the Governing Body in order to finalise its submission. The feedback from the local boards is included, as is a draft submission for approval by the Governing Body.

3. Submissions to the Select Committee close on 22 August 2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) note the feedback from local boards.

b) approve the submission in Attachment B to the agenda report.

c) authorise the General Manager Democracy Services to make minor amendments to the submission in order to correct errors or improve clarity.

d) advise the Select Committee that the council wishes to appear.

e) agree that Deputy Mayor, Councillor Cashmore, represent the Auckland Council at the Select Committee, supported by Democracy Services staff.

Comments

4. Following each local authority election, Parliament’s Justice and Electoral Select Committee conducts an inquiry. This is a key opportunity to raise matters to be considered for legislative change. The inquiry following the 2016 elections is later than those following previous elections and significant legislative change may not occur prior to the 2019 elections.

5. During the course of the election, participants in the election (including the electoral officer, candidates and voters) raised various matters with staff. In February 2017 staff reported these to the Governing Body, which agreed to obtain local board feedback to be reported back to the Governing Body, following consideration by a political reference group.

6. In agreement with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor the Governance Framework Review Political Working Party was used as the political reference group and a draft report was sent to members for their comments.

Local board feedback

7. The issues raised in the previous report are outlined below with comments made by local boards. Local boards used different processes for considering comments, including workshop discussion, formal resolution or delegation to a member to convey the board’s comments.

8. The Henderson-Massey, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Whau Local Boards have set out their comments as submissions to the select committee and have asked for their submissions to be attached to the council submission.

Matai names

9. Issue

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. During the election a number of Samoan candidates wished to use their matai titles. Although 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.

Local board feedback

(i) No boards disagreed with seeking legislative guidance.

(ii) The Ōrākei Local Board stated it did not support the use of matai titles.

(iii) The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board, Henderson-Massey and Whau local boards expressed support for the use of matai titles.

Recommendation

Proceed with submission requesting legislative guidance.

Vacancies occurring within six months of an election

10. Issue

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 occurring within six months of an election.

Local board feedback

(i) No boards disagreed with the principle.

(ii) Franklin Local Board noted the appointment would be subject to the agreement of the next highest polling candidate.

(iii) Waitematā Local Board submitted the next highest-polling candidate should be within 20 per cent of the lowest successful candidate to avoid appointing an unpopular candidate. The appointment should be by the body holding the vacancy.

(iv) Franklin, Waitematā, Kaipātiki, Ōrākei and Hibiscus and Bays Local Boards specifically supported a six-month period. Henderson-Massey and Whau Local Boards submitted the period should be 90 days rather than six months and Papakura Local Board submitted it should be three months.

(v) Hibiscus and Bays Local Board submitted there should be a financial penalty for the candidate who resigns.

Recommendation

Proceed with a submission requesting the ability to appoint to a vacancy occurring within six months of a First Past the Post election. The local authority responsible for conducting the elections would be responsible for making the decision and would have the discretion to not appoint, in which case a by-election would be held. The submission will note the concerns of the Waitematā Local Board and its suggestion for the next-highest polling candidate to have 20 per cent or more of the votes of the lowest polling successful candidate.

Online voting

11. Issue

The Governing Body has previously resolved to support online voting. Staff have had discussions with Local Government New Zealand and the Society of Local Government Managers to progress this. The timeframes that are involved mean that action needs to commence now rather than wait for the select committee hearings. A number of local boards made comments on online voting.

(i) Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Waiheke and Henderson-Massey Local Boards made comments in support of online voting.

(ii) Kaipātiki, Rodney, Whau and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Boards also noted support for online voting, subject to security concerns being met.

(iii) Puketāpapa Local Board is opposed to online voting until security issues are resolved.

Recommendation

The submission will include Auckland Council’s strong desire to make progress with online voting for the 2019 elections (subject to security being assured).

Legal requirement for candidate to state whether residing in area

12. Issue

Some candidates had complained about this requirement. The council has previously submitted in opposition to it. 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.

Local board feedback

(i) There was divided opinion on this.

(ii) Henderson-Massey Local Board specifically supported the removal of the requirement.

(iii) Devonport-Takapuna, Ōrākei, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Hibiscus and Bays Local Boards supported retention of the requirement.

(iv) Upper Harbour Local Board was divided at its workshop. Papakura Local Board was divided but the majority supported removal.

(v) Franklin Local Board noted the implication of subdivisions. Candidates for a board having no subdivisions would simply need to state whether or not they lived in the board area, whereas candidates for a board having subdivisions currently have to state whether they live in the subdivision, even though, once elected, they have to act in the interests of the whole board.

Based on the division of opinion about removing this requirement entirely, the recommendation is to seek a change that applies the requirement only in respect of the full council area, or full local board (rather than in respect of wards or subdivisions).

Recommendation

Submit that candidates for local boards should state whether or not they live in the board area and that candidates for the Governing Body should state whether or not they live in the Auckland Council area, however there should be no requirement for a residential statement in regard to subdivisions or wards.

Timing of school holidays

13. Issue

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.

Local board feedback

(i) There was a degree of division between local boards.

(ii) Kaipātiki, Ōrākei, Henderson-Massey, Whau, Puketāpapa and Hibiscus and Bays Local Board supported the proposal.

(iii) Waitematā Local Board suggested moving election day back rather than forward.

(iv) Papakura Local Board simply stated there should not be an overlap with school holidays.

(v) Franklin and Upper Harbour Local Boards did not support the proposal.

Recommendation

Proceed with submission to move election day to the first Saturday in October.

Separation of District Health Board elections

14. Issue

A variety of election issues on the one voting document relating to local government, district health board and licensing trust elections, together with different voting systems and ordering of names, confuses voters. It would be better to hold District Health Board 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 District Health Boards and Licensing Trusts.

Local board feedback

(i) There was division between boards and within boards. This was possibly due to recognition that the current arrangement creates complexity combined with a reluctance to incur additional costs.

(ii) Upper Harbour, Howick, Henderson-Massey, Franklin, Ōrākei and Papakura Local Boards did not support holding District Health Board elections at a different time.

(iii) Devonport-Takapuna Local Board had mixed views.

(iv) Kaipātiki, Waitematā, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Hibiscus and Bays, Puketāpapa Local Boards would support a move to have separate District Health Board elections.

(v) Ōrākei, Henderson-Massey and Waitematā Local Boards would prefer a common voting system.

(vi) Waitematā and Henderson-Massey Local Boards would like District Health Board elections to be ward-based.

(vii) Franklin Local Board made the point that online voting would assist the voting process.

Recommendation

Proceed with a submission that raises the combination of elections, together with different voting systems, as being too complex.

Electronic transmission of voting documents to and from voters overseas

15. Issue

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. Online voting would also solve this issue.

Local board feedback

(i) No boards opposed this.

(ii) Some boards noted security concerns. Ōrākei submitted this should be one-way. Blank voting forms could be transmitted electronically but completed forms should be returned by post. The Papakura board also noted concerns about risks of technology not being secure.

Recommendation

Proceed with the submission, noting concerns about security.

Legislative confirmation that local authorities may promote elections

16. Issue

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.

Local board feedback

(i) No boards disagreed there should be a legislative mandate. Some boards expressed concern about the extent of local government involvement in promoting elections. Some felt that promotion should be at central government level. Some noted that the council and the electoral officer need to be politically neutral. Ōrākei Local Board stated that the electoral officer should not be involved in promoting the elections.

(ii) A proposal to provide this mandate has already been discussed at Cabinet.

Recommendation

Proceed with the submission acknowledging the need to be politically neutral.

Electronic nominations and candidate profile statements.

17. Issue

The option to submit nominations electronically would be easier for candidates and 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.

Local board feedback

(i) No boards opposed this proposal and some made specific statements in support.

Recommendation

Proceed with the submission.

Consistency between Electoral Regulations and Local Electoral Regulations

18. Issue

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.

Local board feedback

(i) No boards opposed this proposal and some made specific statements in support.

Recommendation

Proceed with the submission.

Electoral Officer to have access to the supplementary roll

19. Issue

The processing of special votes relies on the Electoral Commission checking that voters are on the electoral roll. If the electoral officer had access to the supplementary roll, the electoral officer 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.

Local board feedback

(i) No boards opposed this proposal.

Recommendation

Proceed with the submission.

Access to data associated with electoral roll

20. Issue

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, not for research by local authorities.

Local board feedback

(i) Devonport-Takapuna Local Board did not support this if the data could be used for political campaigning. Papakura Local Board expressed some concerns.

Recommendation

Proceed with the submission on the basis that the data is statistical only and does not identify individual electors.

Time period for printing electoral rolls

21. Issue

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.

Local board feedback

(i) No boards opposed this proposal.

Recommendation

Proceed with the submission.

Electronic access to electoral rolls for election staff

22. Issue

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.

Local board feedback

(i) No boards opposed this proposal.

Recommendation

Proceed with the submission.

Relationship with Electoral Commission

23. Issue

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 The New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers or Local Government New Zealand.

Local board feedback

(i) No boards opposed this proposal.

Recommendation

Proceed with the submission.

Discourage inappropriate use of elections

24. Issue

There were 19 candidates for mayor. Some of these candidates had little chance of being elected, and may have used the opportunity to promote other causes. Consideration could be given as whether this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Local board feedback

(i) This was an issue that was raised with staff. Staff do not propose any specific recommendations other than to note that the deposit may act as a means of discouraging frivolous nominations. No boards made any proposals and any feedback received was to the effect that people have a right to stand for election.

Recommendation

Do not proceed with this submission.

Candidate information in different languages

25. Issue

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.

Local board feedback

(i) Staff did not propose a specific legislative change. There is recognition of the ethnic diversity of our communities however there are no suggestions from local boards for legislative change.

Recommendation

Although this issue was raised with staff, there are no proposals for changing legislation. Do not proceed with this submission.

Close of voting time

26. Issue

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.

Local board feedback

(i) There was divided opinion.

(ii) Some boards felt that extending the closing time would not solve the issue of voters leaving their vote to the last minute. Boards which did not support an extension of close of voting included Upper Harbour, Devonport-Takapuna, Howick and Franklin Local Boards.

(iii) Those boards which supported the proposal included Kaipātiki, Albert-Eden, Waitematā, Hibiscus and Bays and Papakura Local Boards.

Recommendation

In view of the division of opinion, do not proceed with this submission.

Other issues

27. Henderson-Massey and Puketāpapa Local Board recorded opposition to a change to Single Transferable Voting while Hibiscus and Bays asked for work to be done on it.

28. Waiheke raised concerns about voting age, the timing limitations that are imposed by postal voting (the need to post early in order for voting papers to be received on time), and how to address diversity.

Submission to Select Committee

29. A draft submission based on the recommendations above is attached as Attachment B.

Upcoming election issues

30. The council has until 12 September 2017 to resolve to change the voting system from First Past the Post to Single Transferable Voting, if it wishes to do so.

31. The council has until 23 November 2017 to resolve to establish a Māori ward, if it wishes to do so.

32. In both cases, the processes include provision for a petition for a poll on a council resolution. There is also the option for the council itself to conduct a poll, for example in conjunction with the next elections.

33. Reports on Single Transferable Voting and Māori wards will be presented to the August meeting of the Governing Body.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

34. Local board views are set out in the body of the report.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

36. Staff will arrange for the submission to be sent to select committee and for council representatives to attend the hearing of submissions.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local board feedback	59
b ⇩	Draft submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee	87

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

27 July 2017

Albert-Eden	i. Paragraph 66, point (vii) - Access to data associated with electoral roll The board supports the proposal for access to the electoral roll, noting that the date be used only for delivering election awareness campaigns and is not able to reveal people’s identities. ii. Paragraph 66, point (viii) - Electronic nominations and candidate profile statements The board supports the proposal, so long as it is an option and not compulsory for all candidates. iii. Paragraph 66, point (ix) - Legislative confirmation that local authorities may promote elections The board supports this proposal. iv. Parapraph 66, point (x) - Time period for printing electoral rolls The board supports this proposal. v. Paragraph 66, point (xi) - Electronic access to electoral rolls for election staff The board supports this proposal. vi. Paragraph 66, pint (xii) - Close of voting time The board supports extending the hours for available for voting on the final voting day and noted that there were a high number of people dropping off voting papers to local libraries on the last day of voting. The board also noted that there can also be delays in the mailing-delivery of voting packs. The board requests staff to further investigate the optimal voting period for the next election. vii. Paragraph 66, point (xv) - Candidate information in different languages The board supports this proposal. viii. Paragraph 66, point (xvi) - Consistency between Electoral Regulations and Local Electoral Regulations The board supports this proposal. ix. Paragraph 66, point 66 (xvii) - Relationship with Electoral Commission (i) The board supports this proposal.
Devonport-Takapuna	agree in principle with the points identified within the agenda report for inclusion as part of Auckland Council’s submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee’s ‘Inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections’, save the following points: i) The board supports retention of the condition that candidates must state where they live as part of registering to run in local government elections, especially in relation to candidates running for local boards; ii) The board does not support access to statistical data associated with the electoral roll, particularly if such information is being used by political parties for the purposes of electioneering; iii) The board in general supports the concept of legislative confirmation that local authorities may promote elections, but does not support local authorities, in the course of promoting elections, targeting certain demographic groups to increase voter turnout; iv) The board does not support the concept of extending voting later into the day while postal voting is still used as the predominant mechanism to cast votes, and supports retaining the practice of polls closing at midday on election day; and v) The board has mixed views as to whether or not district health board (DHB) elections should be held apart from local government elections, but agree that options need to be investigated to increase voter knowledge and informed choice as part of DHB elections.
Gt Barrier Island	Resolved to receive the report (without further comment)
Howick	Verbal comments at workshop. Agreed all except: · close of voting time · inappropriate use · separate DHB elections · re languages, made suggestion that could use Google Translate on the showyourlove (or equivalent) website · OK with residential statement with regard to whole board area.
Kaipātiki	a) agree the following comments be reported back to governing body for inclusion in the Auckland Council’s submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee’s ‘Inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections’: i) support vacancies occurring within six months of election day be filled with the next highest polling candidate; ii) support moving the election date away from school holidays – bringing forward one week; iii) support the requirement to state whether candidate resides in the area; iv) supports access to data associated with the roll; v) supports electronic nominations and candidate profile statements; vi) supports legislation to promote elections by local authorities; vii) support extending the final close of ‘election day’; viii) support separating district health board elections and aligning these with parliamentary elections; and ix) support the trial of online voting. b) provide the following additional comments about the 2016 local authority elections to the governing body outside of the scope of the select committee inquiry: i) support the reinstatement of candidate information sessions; and ii) support the online format of candidate information being investigated.
Ōrākei	i. Matai titles The Board does not support the use of Matai titles on voting papers. The Board considers these are titles and not ordinary names and therefore the same principle of not having any titles on voting papers should apply. ii. Vacancies occurring within six months of an election The Board supports a law change to allow a local authority using the first past the post electoral system to appoint the highest polling unsuccessful candidate to a vacancy occurring within six months of an election. iii. Legal requirement for candidate to state whether residing in area The Board agrees that candidates should state whether or not they reside within the area for which they are standing as this is one of the criteria that electors use when electing candidates. iv. Timing of school holidays The Board agrees in principle of moving the election day so that it does not coincide with school or public holidays and would support moving election day to the first Saturday in October which would provide one week before election day that would not overlap with school holidays. v. Electronic transmission of voting documents to and from voters overseas The Board agrees with sending blank voting documents electronically but is opposed to the return of completed votes electronically. vi. Electoral Officer to have access to the supplementary roll The Board supports this proposal. vii. Access to data associated with electoral roll The Board supports in principle accessibility to statistical data associated with the electoral roll, such as age groups of electors, as this would be helpful when planning election awareness campaigns. However this needs to managed carefully to ensure data is not manipulated. viii. Electronic nominations and candidate profile statements The Board supports this proposal. In the Auckland Council’s 2016 election mistakes were made. ix. Legislative confirmation that local authorities may promote elections The Board supports this proposal but states that the role of the electoral officer should be very clearly defined to ensure that the electoral officer’s role does not include promoting elections. x. Time period for printing electoral rolls The Board supports this proposal. xi. Electronic access to electoral rolls for election staff The Board supports this proposal. xii. Close of voting time The Board supports this proposal and suggests that there be consistency with the closing time for parliamentary elections. xiii. Discourage inappropriate use of elections The Board does not support this proposal as it interferes with the democratic process even though some candidates inappropriately use the election process for self-promotion. xiv. Separation of DHB elections The Board supports all local elections being held at the same time provided the same voting system is used. In recent elections the use of one local election having a different voting system from the other elections has caused confusion and consequentially a lower turnout. xv. Candidate information in different languages Given the range of cultural identities in Auckland the Board supports this proposal as part of the democratic process to ensure greater voter participation. xvi. Consistency between Electoral Regulations and Local Electoral Regulations The Board supports this proposal. xvii. Relationship with Electoral Commission The Board supports this proposal provided that the roles of the Electoral Commission and the Council are clearly stated as well as the independency of the Electoral Officer. xviii. Electoral system The Board does not support a change from First Past the Post to Single Transferable Vote for the 2019 elections. xix. Māori wards The Board does not support the establishment of Māori wards as the Governing Body and local boards are elected to represent all citizens within their constituency. xx. Review of representation arrangements The Board supports Governing Body members being elected on a ward basis provided the ward boundaries do not coincide with a local boards boundaries to avoid confusion and to differentiate the statutory roles of Governing Body and local board members; such boundaries, membership and names of the wards and areas would be determined by the Local Government Commission following consultation and hearings. xxi. Existing members who are also candidates The Board considers that the present policies relating to existing members who are also candidates are unnecessarily restricting the ability of board members to uphold their local government duties and are unreasonable. Members are elected for a full three year term and the staff and governing body policies around presumed political neutrality in effect reduces the term by three months. In an attempt to have a so called level playing field, the stringent restrictions on elected members prevents them from fully carrying out their statutory duties.
Manurewa	Noted the report
Rodney	(i) candidates should be permitted to file their nomination forms and supporting material online; this is particularly important for rural candidates who had to travel a considerable distance to attend one of the few service centres or locations authorised to take enrolments in 2016 (ii) more information should be made available to prospective candidates on the role and duties of being an elected member and, in particular, that candidate information evenings (which were run by Auckland Council in 2013 but not in 2016) should be widely held to provide more information and insight into the expectations of an elected member; this may help establish both realistic expectations for new candidates and encourage more high quality candidates to stand for local government (iii) online voting should be made available as a priority for the 2019 local government elections, noting that this is one of the few ways to combat the ongoing decline in voter turnout in local government elections, especially in younger voters (iv) the Electoral Commission should do more to assist in raising the profile of local government elections and the importance of voting and not leave this solely to local government and the candidates.
Upper Harbour	Verbal comments. Agreed all except: · 50/50 over residential statement – just local board area not subdivisions · Disagreed to move to avoid school holidays · Comments that promotion is a national responsibility · Close of voting – don’t change, people will always leave to last minute · Inappropriate use – cannot stop candidates from standing · Separate DHB elections · Different languages – candidates should use english
Waiheke	That the Waiheke Local Board: a) note the report 2016 Elections – Highlights and Issues. b) delegate to Board Member S Brown for feedback on the 2016 Elections – Highlights and Issues report. From Member S Brown: 1 Voter age should be lowered to 16. This would mean that many students would have had some civic engagement before leaving school which is likely to make them more engaged into the future. 2 The second benefit is that youth (under 40) turnout is much lower and adding these two years would skew the results less in favour of the old voting public. 3 The need to send postal votes by Wednesday but voting day and the close of voting on Saturday is shambolic. Possibilities: a) Get rid of postal votes in favour of online voting, b) make people specifically request a postal vote when the letters are sent around to check electoral details. Are these details correct – would you prefer to receive a notification for online voting or a postal ballot? If they don’t answer send them the postal ballot with the option of online voting. c) allow votes to be received for a week after the close of voting. The provisional results can still be out on the Saturday, and the confirmed results the following week. 4 Bring in online voting alongside postal voting. I don’t think online voting is a magic bullet and will need lots of advertising to support it but it is a worthy tool for that percentage of people who are switched into the system. Make sure the online voting works with a strong phone interface as well as general computer connectivity and people can also go to a place – like the library and service centre to vote. 5 Still waiting for the election results from Rimu but my own observations are that there is a lack of diversity in representation. One Maori Chair, one Maori Deputy Chair, most candidates deny their ethnicity, most candidates are over 40. Is the Maori Statutory Board working for us, and given we have a 20? Maori population what else do we need to be encouraging Maori to stand and support them to be elected in the mainstream. 6 By 2024? One in three people are apparently going to be Asian in that lovely wide description which incorporates anyone from the Middle East to China. This does not represent anything like the demographic of the people elected. 7 Youth candidates are not standing, but if they do, tend not to get in. The ones that are successful are very successful – all of them are either chairing or deputy chairing on the boards they’re on. Many of them have come through the Youth Panel or youth initiatives which is great. Do we need initiatives that support participation in governance for immigrants and Maori in the way that initiatives like Youth Voice work? 8 Talking to friends in Auckland, they miss the elections as there is negligible press coverage – local papers either don’t cover it or are patchy as the distribution area covers more than one ward. People have a really patchy idea of which ward area/local board area they’re in and can’t seem to ever name either the chair of the board or their governing body member or the name of their ward or local board area. A) Use Our Auckland to talk about candidates in the run up to the election and give sitting members opportunity to be featured equally and answer questions. B) Have candidate meetings at the libraries. I tried to get our local library to do one and was told they couldn’t as they’re not supposed to be political. Politics is all around us – hosting something that is civic engagement would allow people to engage with candidates. They are sufficiently independent for the librarians to be able to run them without favouring incumbent candidates. C) Do some publicity (possibly centred in libraries) around civic engagement and what your local board area is. You could even make it part of a Summer reading challenge in election year.
Waitākere Ranges	Advises they support the Henderson-Massey feedback
Franklin	Attached
Henderson-Massey	Attached
Hibiscus and Bays	Attached
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	Attached
Ōtara-Papatoetoe	Attached
Papakura	Attached
Puketapapa	Attached
Waitematā	Attached
Whau	Attached

Franklin Local Board provides the following feedback on the detailed points raised in the draft council submission:

(i) Matai names

Agree - the legislation should give guidance.

(ii) Vacancies occurring within six months of an election

If there is a vacancy within the first 6 months of a term then then next highest polling candidate should be elected if they agree. If they are not in agreement, the next highest polling candidate should be elected, and so on. The same should apply for Governing Body members but not for the mayor.

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

There should not be a differentiation with boards that have sub-divisions. The sub divisions are used for large LBs to ensure representation for that area, the person is being elected to a local board as a whole.

(iv) Timing of school holidays

The electoral period is three weeks and the school holidays are two weeks so there is ample time to vote before or after the school holidays.

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

This should be an option. This option should be expanded to all voters.

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

Agree.

(vii) Access to data associated with electoral roll

Agree.

(viii) Electronic nominations and candidate profile statements

Agree - also extend to digital images that are a true representation of the person. Printing of a photo is an additional step when images are taken and supplied digitally. It adds a further step in the process for preparation of artwork for print. It would save time and costs for all parties.

(ix) Legislative confirmation that local authorities may promote elections

Agree - the council should be able to organise or promote drop in sessions to try to provide public accessibility to candidates. There would need to be rules about the types of events, for example council should not host or control public meetings or debates.

(x) Time period for printing electoral rolls

Agree that there should be an extended time period for printing.

(xi) Electronic access to electoral rolls for election staff

Agree that staff should be able to access the current roll electronically.

(xii) Close of voting time

Disagree - extending the time for close of votes will not alter the fact that many people leave it to the last minute.

(xiii) Discourage inappropriate use of elections

Anyone should be able to stand for election and promote their point of view.

(xiv) Separation of DHB elections

Separating the elections will add unnecessary costs. The board supports the use of online voting, which may reduce costs and has the benefit that electors are more likely to be able to differentiate between what body they are voting for.

(xv) Candidate information in different languages

Do not support printing information in languages other than English and Te Reo Māori. Translations in other languages could be provided digitally, which people can print themselves or upon request at libraries and service centres.

(xvi) Consistency between Electoral Regulations and Local Electoral Regulations

Agree.

(xvii) Relationship with Electoral Commission

Agree that the council and the Electoral Commission should jointly promote awareness about who electors should contact with queries about local elections.

Māori wards

Keep things as they are, unless there is a desire to reduce the number of overall Governing Body members to accommodate change.

Committee Secretariat

Justice and Electoral Committee
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Re: Inquiry Into The 2016 Local Authority Elections

The Henderson-Massey Local Board submits:

Postal Voting System

1. This Board supports abolishing the postal voting system.

2. The 2016 elections were held in the wake of a significant downsizing of postal services in New Zealand. Post boxes were removed from various locations, and deliveries reduced in frequency as well. This made the act of voting even more difficult than usual.

3. For most, the idea of posting anything is becoming a foreign concept. Most residents would not know where the nearest post box is, and to expect a voter to post their vote is an unnecessary step that drives turnout down through the extra effort required.

4. An alternative system needs to be investigated further and designed carefully. This Board supports circulating the candidate information as before, with an online code available for online voting, but use a system of a polling day with polling booths and an early voting option. This would also bring local election voting in line with central government voting.

Electronic Submissions and Online Voting

5. The Board supports online voting, subject to a sufficient finding of security. While not a panacea for systemic voter engagement issues, we feel this will make a positive difference to voter turnout.

6. The Board also notes that online voting is as a preferred option for resolving the issue of overseas voters not being able to post their ballots back.

7. The Board supports electronic submission of candidate profile statements, as a more workable and modern solution that aids in avoiding mistakes from candidates and staff.

Candidate Information

8. This Board submits that requiring a candidate to indicate in the information book that they do not live in the Board area is unfair and supports removal of this requirement.

9. The statement described above creates a significant electoral distortion in favour of candidates that live inside the Board area. This distortion cannot be justified as local board areas are largely arbitrary and historical constructs, especially at the margins.

By-Election Issue

10. The Board considers the Howick by-election issue an egregious waste of ratepayer funds, and also negatively affects the dignity of the office of Board member in the perception of the public. Being an elected member of Auckland Council is a deep honour, and this incident is a reminder that this honour should not be treated lightly and that the residents of the board area should be treated with the utmost respect.

11. This Board would recommend legislative change to allow the next closest candidate to be appointed within 90 days.

District Health Board Elections

12. This Board supports a consistent voting system across every electoral position, and thus supports removal of the STV voting system for District Health Boards. The Board strongly submits that the DHB elections should be conducted with a First Past The Post voting system.

13. To promote geographic balance on the DHB, this Board supports an investigation into a ward system for Waitemata consisting of a West ward and North ward.

14. This Board does not support holding DHB elections in a separate year or with parliamentary elections.

Licensing Trust Elections

15. In line with this Board’s support of one electoral system for simplicity and ease of use, the Board submits that Licensing Trust positions should be elected on a First Past The Post basis.

16. The Board submits that the requirement of a licensing trust candidate to live in that particular area for the entire term of service is an anachronism that does not reflect the modern housing situation. It is a unique quirk, not replicated in any other elected position in New Zealand, and thus should be removed.

Communications and Community Engagement

17. This Board has particular concerns with the “Love Bus” mobile voting engagement vehicle. We are concerned that concentrating the bus into specific areas creates a real risk of distorting the voting returns to favour candidates that tend to be more popular in an area.

18. Dealing with voter engagement from the organisational perspective is a sensitive issue. It is not enough that there is no bias, there must also be an avoidance of perception of bias at all cost. For this reason, the Board recommends the mobile bus not be used for future elections.

19. This Board is concerned that Auckland Council spent $1.2 million on advertising and promoting the election, a mismanagement of ratepayer funds when there are more pressing issues. Further, the information online was difficult to access and many of our ratepayers do not access the internet regularly.

Other

20. The Board commends those that administrated the 2016 election, a high performing organisation that were strong in engagement and handled a complex process without significant organisational issues.

21. This Board supports randomisation of names on the ballot papers, as a fairer method to reduce primary and recency bias when voting.

22. The Board agrees with allowing matai titles on the ballot paper and candidate information.

23. The Board agrees with moving the voting period to avoid school holidays.

Summary

Local government is an incredibly important civic role, and the electoral system should reflect that importance. Our Board submits that the process of elections should mirror as close as possible the central government requirements and electoral process.

Yours sincerely,

Shane Henderson BA. LLB.

Chairperson

Henderson-Massey Local Board

Comments on Submission to Justice and Electoral Select Committee on legislative changes - Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board thanks Auckland Council for the opportunity to make comment on the proposed submission to the Select Committee and wishes to make the following comments.

(i) Matai Names

No particular view stated

(ii) Vacancies occurring within six months of an election

We support the request 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 occurring within six months of an election. Further consideration should be given to a financial penalty if it can be proven that a candidate who resigned did so for dis-ingenuous reasons.

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

The HBLB opposes the Council’s submission that the requirement to state in the profile statement whether the candidate lived in the area they were standing for be removed.

(iv) Timing of school holidays

The HBLB supports the suggestion of moving Election Day to the first Saturday in October if it means allowing an even greater number of people would participate.

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

The HBLB supports the request by Auckland Council to trial online voting as it believes that this would lead to far greater participation by the community and sees this as being supplementary rather than replacing postal voting (ie: voters would receive their voting papers in the mail but would have the option of casting their vote online or returning the ballot paper in the mail).

This would also assist those who are out of the country (where papers have been sent to them) to be able to cast their vote within the required timeframe.

Online voting has been used by Independent Election Services for the past year in the ballots held to establish or expand Business Improvement Districts in Auckland. Voting returns show that almost half of all electors chose to vote online.

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

The HBLB supports the Council position that the electoral officer should have access to the supplementary roll.

(vii) Access to data associated with electoral roll

No particular view stated.

(viii) Electronic nominations and candidate profile statements.

The HBLB supports the request that candidates be given the ability to be able to lodge their nomination papers online. With the ability to be able to attach electronic files such as nomination forms and a candidate photo, this should be fairly easy to achieve.

(ix) Legislative confirmation that local authorities may promote elections

The HBLB supports the Council suggestion that legislation should give a clear mandate to local authorities to promote elections.

(x) Time period for printing electoral rolls

No particular view stated

(xi) Electronic access to electoral rolls for election staff

The HBLB supports the council position

(xii) Close of voting time

The HBLB Support the suggestion that voting be extended to 4pm on Election Day to allow more time for final votes to be cast.

(xiii) Discourage inappropriate use of elections

The HBLB does not support any moves to deny candidates the ability or right to stand for any position they wish, regardless of their perceived chance or otherwise of being elected.

(xiv) Separation of District Health Boards elections.

The HBLB supports investigation of holding Health Board elections at a different time to Local Government elections as the mixture of the two can be confusing and discourage people participating at all.

(xv) Candidate information in different languages

No particular view stated

(xvi) Consistency between Electoral Regulations and Local Electoral Regulations

No particular view stated

(xvii) Relationship with Electoral Commission

No particular view stated

Electoral System

While members of the HBLB have differing views on the merits or otherwise of changing the voting system to STV, we believe that further investigation into this as an option should be undertaken as it is apparent that there is a lot of misunderstanding around the perceived complexities of the STV voting system and the merits or otherwise of making a change.

1 May 2017

Committee Secretariat
Justice and Electoral Committee
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Re: Inquiry into the 2016 Local Authority Elections

The Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board submits:

Postal Voting System

§ The Maungakiekie Tamaki Local Board supports both Postal and Electronic Voting Systems to capture a wider range of our voters

§ We support the need for security logins for the electronic system

Candidate Information

§ We support the use of Matai Titles in Candidate forms and ballot papers

§ We support that candidates need to live in the area that they are running for and this should be indicated on the form

§ We support candidates being able to send through their candidacy forms online

By-Election

§ Our Board supports the current process of By-Election and that elected members that pull out and cause By-Elections should cover the costs if it’s not medical

District Health Boards and Licencing Trust Elections

§ Our Board feels that we should separate District Health Boards and Licensing Trust Elections from Local Board and Governing Body Elections. We feel it is too much for our community to take in at once and that Local Board and Governing Body don’t get enough attention

Communications and Advertising

§ We feel that Council need to re-evaluate all communications and advertising to do with local elections

§ Campaign packs to be more informative, helpful and useful to ensure that all candidates know what is involved with running

Yours sincerely

Governing Body

27 July 2017

The Committee Secretariat

Justice and Electoral Select Committee

Parliament House

WELLINGTON

SUBMISSION OF THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL TO THE JUSTICE AND ELECTORAL SELECT COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE 2016 LOCAL AUTHORITY ELECTIONS

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Auckland Council would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to make comments for the consideration of the Committee on its inquiry into the 2016 Local Government elections.

1.2 The Council’s submissions arise from an initial paper presented to the Council’s governing body and then presented to each of the 21 local boards for their comment before final adoption by the governing body. The following local boards presented their comments with a request that they be attached to the Council’s submission to the Select Committee: Henderson-Massey Local Board, Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board, Whau Local Board.

2.0 Background

2.1 Auckland Council is responsible for local government elections in its area, which comprises a population of 1,493,200 and a total of 1,044,481 electors. The 2016 elections for Auckland Council involved 170 elected member positions for which there were 468 candidates. The positions were:

· one mayor

· 20 governing body members, elected on a ward basis

· 149 local board members for 21 local boards

2.2 Elections for three district health boards and four licensing trusts were held at the same time.

2.3 The Council engaged with the community through a number of initiatives, including:

· a campaign based on a theme of “Show Your Love” which we tested with audiences prior to implementing

· showyourlove.co.nz web pages providing information about candidates, supplied by the candidates themselves

· heart-shaped ballot boxes placed in shopping centres

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

· digital displays on bus shelters showing real time rates of voting returns, comparing returns from different areas

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

· “Our Auckland” – the Council’s news channel

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

· the “Love Bus”, a brightly coloured Kombi van, which visited areas that were frequented by people, such as shopping centres, and gave presentations to community groups

· a “Kids Voting” programme in schools where classes were taught the elements of voting and undertook mock voting.

2.4 Surveys and research undertaken by the Council before and after the elections showed, among other results, that voters’ awareness of the elections increased as a result of the Council’s campaign, more people intended to vote than actually voted and more people would prefer online voting to postal voting. The full results of the research are available on http://www.knowledgeauckland.org.nz .

2.5 As a result of this activity, Auckland Council and its Electoral Officer interacted with many citizens as candidates or voters. The following submissions result from comments made by participants and from the experience of Auckland Council staff and its Electoral Officer and through reports to the local boards and the Council’s governing body.

3.0 Matai names

3.1 The Local Electoral Act 2001, in section 56, prohibits the use of official titles in candidate names when a candidate nomination is submitted. 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. The Auckland Council area has a large Samoan population and a number of Samoan candidates wished to include their matai names on the voting paper.

3.2 Although sometimes referred to as ‘matai titles’, legal advice provided to staff is that a matai name is more in the nature of a name than of a title denoting the holding of some sort of office.

3.3 The Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995 under section 18 includes a similar prohibition on the use of titles as in the Local Electoral Act, yet we understand that a birth name can be changed by deed poll to include a matai name. If this is not prohibited under the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995 then it should also be not prohibited under the Local Electoral Act 2001. To avoid doubt, the legislation should give guidance on the use of matai names.

Recommendation

3.4 Amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 to include in section 56, for the purposes of avoiding doubt, a statement on whether a matai title is, or is not, a prohibited title under section 56 (c)(iii).

4.0 Vacancies occurring within six months of an election

4.1 At the inaugural meeting of the Howick Local Board, only four weeks after election day, one of the members resigned. This resulted in a by-election at a cost of over $100,000. At the same time, the Council’s Electoral Officer was aware of two other vacancies – Bay of Plenty Regional Council (death) and Waikato Regional Council (death).

4.2 The legislation provides for an appointment to be made if a vacancy occurs within 12 months of the next triennial election. There could be a similar provision for vacancies which occur within 6 months following an election. For a First Past the Post (FPP) election, this could be the highest-polling unsuccessful candidate, subject to a test for electoral mandate (such as the number of votes received by the highest-polling unsuccessful candidate being no less than 20% of the votes of the lowest successful candidate).

4.3 The rationale for this approach is that the community would not have changed its view within a period of six months on which, of the available candidates at the time of the election, it wished to elect. However, if the highest-polling unsuccessful candidate polled very low, then this rationale is not valid and, as stated in the previous paragraph, there should be a threshold to how many votes the highest polling unsuccessful candidate received, if the appointment to the vacancy is to be automatic.

4.4 Alternatively the appointment could be at the discretion of the local authority responsible for conducting a by-election. It would take the number of votes received by the highest polling unsuccessful candidate into account when deciding between appointing to the vacancy and holding a by-election.

4.5 The rationale does not apply to mayoral positions. If a mayoral position became vacant within six months of an election it not safe to assume the community’s preference would be for the runner-up to be appointed.

Recommendation

4.6 Amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 by including a provision in section 117 “Extraordinary vacancies” to the effect that, if a vacancy occurs in the office of an elected member of a local authority, local board or community board within six months of a triennial election, the local authority responsible for conducting a by-election may fill that vacancy either by appointing the highest-polling unsuccessful candidate, providing the votes received by that candidate were at least 20% of the lowest polling successful candidate, or by holding a by-election. This provision would not apply to the position of mayor.

5.0 Online voting

5.1 The Auckland Council wishes to establish online voting as an option for voters. A survey of Auckland voters conducted by the Council shows voters have a preference for online voting (out of a sample size of 1,259, 74 per cent said they would prefer on-line voting over postal voting). The Council is aware of the security risks associated with a voting system that is connected to the internet and so the Council is working closely with the Society of Local Government Managers, Local Government New Zealand and the Department of Internal Affairs to help ensure such a system would have the confidence of the community.

5.2 In order to gain the confidence of the community, it is the Council’s wish to start with a small trial for the 2019 elections so that an online voting system can be made more widely available in 2022 if the trial is successful.

5.3 The Council wishes, for 2019, to provide online voting as an option for the disabled and voters who are overseas. To do this, changes to the Local Electoral Act 2001 and its regulations are required. It is currently not possible under the legislation to offer online voting to a subset of types of electors, such as the disabled and overseas voters.

5.4 The Local Electoral Act 2001 defines the following voting methods in section 5:

voting method means any of the following methods of voting that are prescribed for use at an election or poll:

(a) the method of voting commonly known as booth voting:

(b) the method of voting commonly known as postal voting:

(c) any form of electronic voting:

(d) any method of voting involving a combination of more than 1 of the methods of voting referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c):

(e) any other method of voting (however described)

5.5 Section 139 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 provides for voting methods to be authorised by regulation:

(1) The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations…

..(c) authorising the use of 1 or more voting methods in elections and polls, or any specified class of election or poll, or any specified election or poll, describing each authorised voting method, and prescribing conditions, standards, performance measures, and forms for the operation of that method:….

5.6 Section 139 (2) & (3) requires advice from the Minister, before the authorisation of a voting method, that the Minister is satisfied the voting method would be able to operate consistent with the principles in section 4 and after consulting with organisations likely to be affected.

5.7 The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 clause 9 states:

Authorised voting methods

The voting methods that may be used at an election or poll are—

(a) postal voting; or

(b) booth voting; or

(c) a combination of booth voting and postal voting.

5.8 The end result of the above provisions is that electronic voting is a voting method that is available under the Act but it is not yet authorised in the Regulations. For electronic voting to be available it simply needs to be added to the list of authorised voting methods in clause 9 of the Regulations.

5.9 Online voting can also be offered to a small section of electors when by-elections occur. A change to the Local Electoral Regulations to allow electronic voting as an authorised voting method would allow this to happen.

5.10 For electronic voting to be available to only a subset of electors such as voters who are disabled or overseas a change to the Act is required. There is a precedent with the Electoral Regulations, for the general election, which allow the Electoral Commission to offer a telephone voting service to just some electors (visually impaired) because they are defined as special voters for the general election, and the regulation making power at section 267 of the Electoral Act 1993 allows regulations to prescribe different methods of voting for different classes of special voters.

5.11 The Local Electoral Act 2001 in section 139 provides for regulations to be made:

(e) authorising the use of special procedures for the casting of votes by any specified class of person, including (without limitation) persons with specified disabilities, and persons living or travelling overseas or living in remote locations:

5.12 An amendment could be made that allows for separate authorised voting methods by specified classes or persons, or makes it clear that the existing provision above for special procedures may include the use of separate voting methods.

Recommendations

5.13 Amend clause 9 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 to include electronic voting as an authorised voting method.

5.14 Amend section 139 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 to allow regulations to provide for a separate authorised voting method to be used for the casting of votes by any specified class of person, including persons with specified disabilities, and persons living or travelling overseas or living in remote locations.

5.15 Make these amendments in time to be implemented for the 2019 elections.

6.0 Legal requirement for candidate to state whether residing in area

6.1 Section 61 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 requires that a candidate’s profile statement must state whether the candidate lives in the area for which they are seeking election. For a candidate for a ward-based vacancy, the candidate must declare whether the candidate lives in the ward and, for a subdivision vacancy, the candidate must declare whether the candidate lives in the subdivision.

6.2 The reason for electing members on a ward or subdivision basis is to ensure a spread of representation. However, the residence statement does not give the elector any information about whether a candidate who does not live in the ward or subdivision lives just outside the ward or subdivision or lives a great distance away, possibly outside the boundaries of a council or local board altogether. Candidates who live just outside the ward or subdivision boundaries feel disadvantaged by this requirement.

6.3 It is also noted, that once a candidate is elected, the candidate is required to act in the interests of the full council area, or local board area, rather than the ward or subdivision.

6.4 The Auckland Council has received complaints about this requirement. While there is divided opinion over removing this requirement altogether, there is general agreement that it should apply to a full council area or local board area, but not the ward or subdivision area.

Recommendation

6.5 Amend the requirement in section 61 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 for a residency statement so that it applies only to whether the candidate’s principal place of residence is in the full council or local board area and not the ward or subdivision area.

7.0 Timing of school holidays

7.1 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 a new council to attend to business, such as a draft annual plan.

Recommendation

7.2 Amend section 10 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 so that local government triennial elections are held on the first Saturday in October.

8.0 Separation of District Health Board elections

8.1 A variety of election issues on the one voting document together with different voting systems and different ordering of names confuses voters. Auckland Council used the First Past the Post electoral system and alphabetical order of names. The district health boards used the Single Transferable Vote electoral system and random order of names.

8.2 There is division of opinion on whether district health board elections should be held separately to local government elections. This would make voting for council elections simpler but it would increase costs to both a council and the district health boards.

8.3 There was, however, general agreement among local boards and governing body that the combined elections create confusion for voters. In the longer term, the option of online voting will be able to reduce this confusion as an online process has the potential to guide a voter through the voting process.

Recommendation

8.4 Note the confusion created for voters by the current system which combines local authority, district health board and licensing trust elections and that online voting has the potential to make the voting process more friendly to voters by being better able to guide voters through the process.

9.0 Electronic transmission of voting documents to and from voters overseas

9.1 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.

9.2 The select committee has previously recommended allowing electronic transmission. The government has supported sending blank voting documents electronically but has opposed the return of completed votes electronically.

9.3 Ultimately, online voting would solve this issue.

9.4 The Local Electoral Regulations describe postal voting in clause 6:

The voting method commonly known as postal voting involves—

(a) the conduct of ordinary voting by—

(i) the electoral officer posting, or delivering by other means, voting documents to the residential or postal addresses of electors; and

(ii) voters marking those documents in accordance with instructions on the documents; and

(iii) voters returning those documents to the electoral officer by post, or other means of delivery, for counting; and

(b) the conduct of special voting in a manner prescribed by regulations (whether in a similar manner to the conduct of ordinary voting or otherwise).

9.5 The term ‘other means of delivery’ is not defined but is assumed to be confined to physical delivery and not include electronic delivery.

9.6 Clause 51 deals with the issuing of voting documents and requires the electoral officer to ‘send’ the voting documents to electors together with a reply-paid return envelope.

9.7 It is not possible to construe the existing regulations to allow electronic transmission of voting documents.

9.8 The Electoral Regulations 1996, however, contain provisions in clause 45A to issue voting documents to electors overseas electronically.

9.9 The security of such a system should be as secure as postal voting, however the Council notes that postal voting is not entirely secure and that voting documents can go missing, or can be used by persons they are not intended for. A system that allows voters to vote more easily should not be jeopardised by unnecessary security concerns.

Recommendation

9.10 Amend the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 to allow for electronic transmission of voting documents to voters overseas in similar fashion to clause 45A in the Electoral Regulations 1996.

10.0 Legislative confirmation that local authorities may promote elections

10.1 Legislation should give a clear mandate to local authorities to promote elections to avoid any uncertainty about public funds being used for election promotion purposes. The Committee is aware of concerns around the decreasing voter turnout. In the current context where the Electoral Commission has the general election as its focus, it is the responsibility of local government to remind voters of their opportunity to participate in the democratic process.

10.2 The Council is aware that this has been agreed by Cabinet and a “Local Government Regulatory Systems Bill” is being prepared to give effect to this. The Council supports this.

10.3 The purpose of promoting the elections is to raise awareness and participation. This must be done in a politically neutral manner, without providing any candidates with an electoral advantage over other candidates.

Recommendation

10.4 Amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 to give a clear mandate to local authorities to promote local authority elections as in the Cabinet papers describing a proposed “Local Government Regulatory Systems Bill”.

11.0 Electronic nominations and candidate profile statements.

11.1 The option to submit nominations electronically would benefit the candidate experience and it would lead to more accurate representation of candidate profile statements.

11.2 Currently over 600 profile statements have to be typed for Auckland Council elections, from copy supplied by candidates, and then proof-read. The potential for mistakes arising from mis-reading candidates’ submitted originals would be reduced if content could be copied and pasted from originals submitted electronically.

11.3 The Local Electoral Act requires, in section 55, that nominations are to be submitted “in the prescribed manner” and the Local Electoral Regulations, in clause 25, state this must be in writing.

11.4 Section 61 of the Local Electoral Act requires a candidate profile statement to be submitted along with the nomination.

Recommendation

11.5 Amend the Local Electoral Regulations so that a nomination and the associated profile statement may be submitted electronically.

12.0 Consistency between Electoral Regulations and Local Electoral Regulations

12.1 The Council notes that there are provisions in the Electoral Regulations that would be useful for local government elections. Examples of such regulations are:

· Telephone dictation of vote by a voter with a disability (clause 23A, 23B)

· Electronic issue of special voting papers to voters overseas (clause 45A)

· Return of special voting documents electronically (clauses 47A, 47B, 47C)

12.2 The Electoral Regulations have been modernised to use technology but the Local Electoral Regulations have not. The Select Committee, in its report on its inquiry into the 2013 local elections, supported similar provisions in the Local Electoral Act 2001 (pages 11 and 12 of the report).

Recommendation

12.3 Modernise provisions in the Local Electoral Act 2001 or Local Regulations 2001, as appropriate, by including similar provisions to those in the Electoral Regulations which make use of modern technology to assist voters.

13.0 Electoral Officer to have access to the supplementary roll

13.1 The processing of special votes relies on the Electoral Commission checking that voters are on the electoral roll. If the electoral officer had access to the supplementary roll, the electoral officer could do this, with the potential to speed up the counting of special votes.

13.2 The Select Committee supported this in its report on its inquiry into the 2013 local elections, (pages 11 and 12 of the report).

Recommendation

13.4 Amend the Local Electoral Act 2001, Electoral Act 1993, or their regulations, as appropriate, to provide access to the supplementary roll to electoral officers.

14.0 Access to data associated with electoral roll

14.1 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.

14.2 Currently the Electoral Act allows information from the electoral roll to be supplied to various recipients for various purposes. Section 112, for example, provides for information from the roll relating to age and Maori descent to be supplied for the purpose of research into scientific or health matters. In that case, the information that is supplied includes the names and addresses of electors.

14.3 The Council is only interested in anonymous statistical data for the purpose of election promotion and planning.

Recommendation

14.4 Include a provision in the Electoral Act 1993 providing for anonymous statistical information from the electoral roll to be provided by the Electoral Commission to local authorities for the purposes election planning.

15.0 Time period for printing electoral rolls

15.1 Electoral rolls were not printed in time for the start of candidate nominations because the legislated time period is too short. The time period for printing needs to be extended. It was shortened as an unintended consequence of a previous change.

15.2 This could be achieved by bringing forward the date at which residential electors are entitled to be included under the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 clause 10(1).

Recommendation

15.3 Amend clause 10(1) the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 so that the date for entitlement of residential electors to be included on the roll is brought forward from 7 July to 1 July, thus allowing more time for the roll to be printed and distributed for public inspection.

16.0 Electronic access to electoral rolls for election staff

16.1 When processing candidate nominations, staff at the Council’s service centres need to check whether nominators are on the electoral roll for the specified area. They may only have one printed hard-copy version to share between staff processing nominations for different candidates.

16.2 Typically many nominations are submitted on the final day for receiving nominations. If only one printed copy of the roll is available in a service centre where nominations are received and processed this can lead to a delays and those submitting nominations having to wait. It would be more efficient to access the current roll electronically online.

16.3 The Electoral Act 1993 provides for information on the electoral roll to be provided to local authority electoral officials on electronic storage media. Rather than using this mechanism for accessing the roll, the Council would prefer that electoral officials processing nominations had online access to the electoral roll hosted by the Electoral Commission.

Recommendation

16.4 The Electoral Commission to provide online access to electoral officials for the purpose of verifying the electoral qualifications of nominators of candidates and legislation amended as appropriate.

17.0 Relationship with Electoral Commission

17.1 The Council notes that there is confusion in the community as to who is responsible for local elections. Often, enquirers will contact the Electoral Commission which then supplies the Council’s contact details to the caller. The caller contacts the Council, and the Council’s call-centre gives the caller the contact details of the Council’s election provider.

17.2 The Council believes that the customer experience would be improved if the Electoral Commission provided the contact details of the Council’s election services provider rather than the contact details of the Council.

Recommendation

17.3 Encourage the Electoral Commission to supply the contact details of a council’s election services provider, where this is a council’s preference, to callers who mistakenly contact the Electoral Commission in regard to local elections.

18.0 Conclusion

The Council looks forward to appearing before the committee to speak to its recommendations.

Some of the Auckland Council local boards asked for their comments to be forwarded in full to the committee and these are attached.

Governing Body

27 July 2017

Submission on Ngati Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill

File No.: CP2017/14200

Purpose

1. To approve a submission for the Māori Affairs Committee on the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill.

Executive summary

2. Submissions on the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill are due on 22 August 2017. The proposed submission from Auckland Council acknowledges the importance of the settlement to Ngāti Tamaoho and the people of Auckland (Attachment A). It also acknowledges the ongoing relationship between Auckland Council and Ngāti Tamaoho and describes, for the benefit of the Māori Affairs Committee (the Committee), aspects of the settlement that have involved direct consideration by Auckland Council. In this manner the submission seeks to assist the Committee in their deliberations and contribute positively to the relationship between Auckland Council and Ngāti Tamaoho.

3. Parliamentary Counsel Office will propose a technical amendment to the Bill to clarify the administrative processes Auckland Council will be required to follow in respect to the Hūnua Falls Scenic Reserve. This proposed amendment has been discussed with Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Office of Treaty Settlements and is considered a necessary and practical clarification. The proposed submission supports this change.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) approve the Auckland Council submission in Attachment A of the agenda report, to the Māori Affairs Committee in support of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill.

Comments

4. On 30 April 2017 Ngāti Tamaoho signed a deed of settlement with the Crown. The Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill, which gives effect to the deed, was introduced into Parliament on 22 June 2017 and had its first reading on 5 July 2017. Parliament has referred the Bill to the Māori Affairs Committee. Submissions on the Bill are due on 22 August 2017.

5. Ngāti Tamaoho is an iwi in the Auckland Council area. They also have interests in the Waikato Regional Council area. A summary of the Ngāti Tamaoho settlement is provided in Attachment B. The proposed submission refers to the ongoing relationship between Ngāti Tamaoho and the council and the opportunities provided to Ngāti Tamaoho by the settlement.

6. During settlement negotiations Auckland Council views were sought on two sites the Crown wished to provide to Ngāti Tamaoho as Treaty settlement redress – referred to in the Bill as the Waitete Pā property (Waiau Pā Historic Reserve) and the Hūnua Falls property (Hūnua Falls Scenic Reserve). The proposed submission summarises the redress associated with these sites for the benefit of the Committee.

7. The Crown also sought the views of Auckland Council on a transfer of the Kingseat Landing Reserve, an unclassified reserve vested in council, to Ngāti Tamaoho (GB/2016/42). Although the council supported a transfer, this site was not included in the final Ngāti Tamaoho settlement package and remains with council.

Waitete Pā property (Waiau Pā Historic Reserve)

8. The Waiau Pā Historic Reserve is a Crown owned and managed reserve. The Bill provides for the land to transfer to Ngāti Tamaoho as a reserve, with administration by Ngāti Tamaoho, and to be renamed the ‘Waitete Pā Historic Reserve’.

9. Part of the reserve was formerly an esplanade reserve owned by the Franklin County Council. In the late 1970s the Franklin County Council agreed for this portion to transfer to the Crown at nil consideration to form part of the reserve (i.e., the land was gifted). Under Treaty settlement policy, if Crown-owned land was originally acquired through a gift, confirmation is sought from the original donor that the donor is comfortable with a transfer to the settling group.

10. On 31 March 2016 the council confirmed it supported a transfer of the reserve to Ngāti Tamaoho, on the basis the land will remain a historic reserve, administered and maintained by Ngāti Tamaoho (GB/2016/29). The proposed submission notes this and states the council looks forward to engaging with Ngāti Tamaoho as the future owner and administering body for the reserve.

Hūnua Falls Scenic Reserve

11. The Hūnua Falls Scenic Reserve is Crown land administered by Auckland Council under a Reserves Act section 28 appointment to control and manage. In September 2014 the council considered the Crown’s proposal for the property to transfer jointly to Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Koheriki and Ngaati Whanaunga, with the council continuing as the administering body as if under section 28 of the Reserves Act 1977 (PAR/2014/62; also GB/2014/24). A smaller portion of the reserve, the Hihiorapa Urupā, will transfer solely to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and is dealt with under their deed of settlement.

12. It was also proposed that, as long as the council remains the administering body, the regional parks management plan in force will continue to apply. When the council reviews that plan, and to the extent it applies to the reserve, the council and the owners must jointly prepare and approve the section which relates to the reserve. The Bill provides for this.

13. In 2014 the council also agreed that the Manager Regional and Specialist Parks be authorised to enter into an interim agreement, consistent with the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010, with the future iwi owners, in relation to how the Hūnua Falls Scenic Reserve will be managed. The proposed council submission refers to this commitment. This is relevant as it is unknown how long it will take for the land to transfer to the four iwi – the transfer will only take place when the last group is settled.

14. We note clause 53 of the Bill allows for a future change to administration of the reserve. This reflects the policy intent in the Reserves Act in respect to a section 28 appointment to control and manage. If the owners and the council jointly agree the council should no longer be the administering body of the reserve, the Minister of Conservation may revoke the appointment of the council as the administering body. Administration would then transfer to a new joint management body constituted of the iwi owners. There is no intention at present for a change in administration to take place.

15. Clause 52 of the Bill provides that, as long as the council remains the administering body for the reserve, the owners may accept, grant or decline to grant any interest in land that affects the reserve land. This provision reflects the way administration is provided under section 28 of the Reserves Act 1977. That is, in normal circumstances the Crown, as the land owner, retains decision making for granting interests in land. (The council will have decision making over the granting of interests that are not interests in land). The clause also provides that council must undertake the administrative processes required by the Reserves Act 1977 in relation to each application.

16. We understand Parliamentary Counsel Office will propose a technical amendment to clause 52 of the Bill to expressly disapply section 59A of the Reserves Act 1977 to the Hūnua Falls property. Section 59A provides the Minister of Conservation powers to grant concessions for reserve land vested in the Crown through the process set out in Part 3B of the Conservation Act 1987, including where a reserve is controlled and managed by an administering body. Given the appointment of the council to control and manage the reserve as if under section 28 of the Reserves Act 1977, there is potential confusion as to whether section 59A would also apply to council.

17. The proposed amendment has been discussed with Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Office of Treaty Settlements and is considered a necessary and practical clarification. The draft submission refers to the amendment Parliamentary Counsel Office will propose and states the council supports it.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. Local boards with relationships with Ngāti Tamaoho are aware of the Ngāti Tamaoho deed of settlement and settlement legislation. The Franklin Local Board has been previously consulted on the Waiau Pā Historic Reserve and Hūnua Falls Scenic Reserve.

Māori impact statement

19. The Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill settles the unsettled historical grievances of Ngāti Tamaoho and provides redress. The proposed Auckland Council submission supports the Bill.

Implementation

20. If approved the submission will be filed with the Māori Affairs Committee.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Submission on Ngati Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill	103
b ⇩	Ngati Tamaoho Settlement Summary	109

Signatories

Authors

John Hutton - Manager Treaty Settlements

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

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

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