Agenda of Governing Body - 28 September 2017

Note: The meeting will adjourn at 10.30am and reconvene at 2.00pm.

1 Affirmation

His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation

2 Apologies

Apologies from Cr L Cooper, Cr D Newman and Cr W Walker have 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, 24 August 2017, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Petitions

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

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 Meeuwsen - Governance Framework Review

Purpose

1. John Meeuwsen will address the meeting regarding the Governance Framework Review.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive and note the public input presentation from John Meeuwsen, regarding the Governance Framework Review and thank him for his attendance.

6.2 Public Input: John Faire and a concerned group of Auckland Primary and Secondary Principals - the current Auckland education staffing crisis

Purpose

1. John Faire will address the meeting on behalf of a concerned group of Auckland Primary and Secondary Principals regarding the current Auckland education staffing crisis.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive and note the public input presentation from John Faire and a concerned group of Auckland Primary and Secondary Principals, regarding the current Auckland education staffing crisis 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.

7.1 Local Board Input: Waiheke Local Board - Governance Framework Review

Purpose

1. Waiheke Local Board chair, Paul Walden, will make a presentation to the Governing Body regarding the Governance Framework Review.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) thank Waiheke Local Board Chair, Paul Walden for his input in relation to the Governance Framework Review and for his attendance.

7.2 Local Board Input: Rodney Local Board - Governance Framework Review

Purpose

1. Rodney Local Board Deputy Chair, Phelan Pirrie, will make a presentation to the Governing Body regarding the Governance Framework Review.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) thank Rodney Local Board Deputy Chair, Phelan Pirrie for his input in relation to the Governance Framework Review and for his attendance.

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

28 September 2017

Governance Framework Review: Recommendations of the Political Working Party

File No.: CP2017/19833

Purpose

1. This paper seeks decisions from the Governing Body in response to the recommendations of the political working party that was established to consider the findings of the 2016 Governance Framework Review.

Executive summary

2. The 2010 Auckland governance reforms brought about significant change for local government in Auckland. The primary intent of these reforms was to provide stronger regional decision-making alongside greater community engagement and decision-making at the local level. The resulting governance model created a two-tier system of local government with strong regional consistency over regulatory and planning decision-making by the Governing Body, with local decision-making over local activities being allocated to local boards, unless there is a compelling reason not to.

3. In early 2016, an independent consultant was commissioned to carry out a review to look at whether the implementation of the model since 2010 has enabled Auckland Council to work optimally to meet the aim of the reforms. In December 2016, the governing body received the Governance Framework Review report and set up a political working party to further consider and work through the recommendations of that report.

4. The political working party has worked constructively to address a wide range of complex issues. It is now making 37 recommendations to the Governing Body in response to the review. They are set out below in three parts: policy issues, funding and finance, and governance and representation. The process of working together to develop a response to the Governance Framework Review has provided a model of how both arms of governance can work together to grapple with issues of mutual interest to achieve better outcomes for Aucklanders.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) endorse the work of the political working party in considering the recommendations of the Governance Framework Review

b) thank the members of the political working party for their work

Part 1: Policy issues

Regional policy and decision-making processes

c) approve the implementation of new mechanisms that ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions, via a framework that sets out, at a minimum:

i) a process for involving local boards in the development of regional work programmes at the beginning of each term and in an annual refresh

ii) earlier, and more, joint engagement between local boards and the governing body in regional decision-making processes

iii) requirements for analysis of local impacts and local interest of regional decisions and options, and reporting of this to local boards and the governing body

iv) specified criteria for categorising the potential local impact and local board interest of regional decisions

v) processes and methods for tailoring local board engagement so it is consistent with the local impact and local interest of regional decisions

vi) specified methods for engagement and communication with local boards at all stages of the decision-making process

d) approve local boards being consulted on the details of these mechanisms prior to implementation

e) endorse organisational capacity to enable local boards to be provided with policy advice on issues of local significance being considered through the organisational support workstream of the Governance Framework Review

Local decisions that may have regional impacts (development of a ‘call-in’ right)

f) approve the requirement for the provision of formal regional impact advice to local boards, whenever a local board is to make a decision that has potential impacts beyond the immediate local board area

Allocations and delegations

g) approve the delegation of the following Reserves Act 1977 decision-making functions relating to local reserves from the governing body to local boards:

i) the decision to declare a reserve under section 14(1)

ii) the decision to classify a reserve under section 16(1), which has been delegated by the Minister of Conservation to Auckland Council

iii) the decision to classify a reserve under section 16(2A)

iv) the decision to reclassify a reserve under section 24(1)

v) the decision to propose to the Minister of Conservation that the status of a council-owned reserve should be revoked under section 24(1), but only where the reason for the request to revoke is because the local board wishes to manage the land under the Local Government Act 2002

h) approve the Minister of Conservation’s delegated supervisory powers remaining sub-delegated to staff

i) either:

i) agree that, in line with officer advice and the majority of the political working party, the governing body retains decision-making over proposed reserve exchanges under section 15(1) Reserves Act 1977

or:

ii) agree, in line with the views of the majority of local boards, to delegate decision-making over proposed reserve exchanges under section 15(1) Reserves Act 1977 to local boards

The role of Auckland Transport and local boards in place-shaping

j) endorse the role of local boards’ critical role in local place-shaping and Auckland Transport’s need to be guided by, and responsive to, local boards to enable them to give effect to this role

k) direct Auckland Transport to meet all requirements for local board engagement as set out in the Governance Manual for Substantive council-controlled organisations

l) request that Auckland Council staff monitor Auckland Transport’s compliance with the requirements for local board engagement, as set out in the Governance Manual for Substantive council-controlled organisations, and to report back to the governing body at least annually

m) direct Auckland Transport, in working with local boards, to:

i) ensure that local boards have a strong governance role in determining the ‘look and feel’ of town centres and streetscapes, in line with their allocation of non-regulatory decision-making

ii) improve co-ordination between local place-shaping projects, such as town centre upgrades, and its renewals programmes

iii) provide more opportunities for local board direction on the prioritisation of minor traffic safety projects, with the exception of those which Auckland Transport considers are of critical safety importance

iv) be more responsive to local place-shaping initiatives in non-transport parts of the road corridor, including reducing or removing barriers to community place-making initiatives

v) take direction from local boards on how and where to implement community-focused programmes

vi) provide a local work programme for each local board as soon as practicable each financial year

n) direct Auckland Transport to report to the governing body annually on how it is meeting the directions given under recommendation (m)

o) request that the review of accountability mechanisms for substantive council-controlled organisations, when considering direction under section 92(2) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, should include consideration of whether to direct substantive council-controlled organisations to act consistently with local board plans

p) request that officers report to the relevant governing body committee, through the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan process, on options for significantly increasing the Local Transport Capital Fund and the method of allocation of the fund

q) direct Auckland Transport to implement a more systematic work programme approach with respect to the Local Transport Capital Fund to assist local boards to identify potential projects and make decisions

r) direct Auckland Transport to actively engage with governing body members (ward councillors) on transport projects and issues within their ward areas

s) direct Auckland Transport to provide a formal response on the directives contained within these approved responses to the Governance Framework Review within three months

Waiheke Local Board pilot

t) approve the Waiheke Local Board pilot project as set out in the Waiheke Local Board pilot project plan in Attachment E

u) approve the Waiheke Local Board maintaining oversight of local implementation of the pilot and that regular updates of the pilot will be reported to all local boards

Part 2: funding and finance

Service property optimisation

v) approve the current ‘optimisation of service assets’ policy being strengthened by delegating the final decisions on local asset disposal and reinvestment to local boards, providing all policy criteria have been met

w) request that appropriate support be provided to local boards to enable them to utilise the policy

Renewals funding

x) approve renewals funding continuing to be managed at the regional level, but with local boards being given flexibility to reallocate their renewals programme across all local asset categories noting that:

i) the process of review and reallocation will be annual, and timed to ensure that the delivery programme is as efficient and effective as possible

ii) management of the individual projects within the programme will continue to be delegated to staff

iii) management of the overall budget (including overs and unders) will be at a regional level

iv) there will be a short term cost associated with this option of approximately $850,000 per annum for between 12 and 18 months to improve data quality, and that the detailed approval of this be referred to the next Finance and Performance Committee for approval, as part of the monthly budget update

v) there may be a need to amend local board delegations to staff to reflect the additional flexibility to move funding between local activity classes

Operational funding and service levels

y) approve, in principle, that local boards will be given more flexibility of decision-making over operational funding and service levels and, that before final decisions on the degree of that flexibility are made, further work (including a more detailed timeframe) be reported back to the governing body on:

i) existing service levels

ii) options for equalising service levels between local boards

iii) options for minimum service levels and to which activities these may apply

iv) the impacts on organisational support

z) approve the additional work on service levels and organisational support, noting that it will take approximately 12 months and incur additional costs of $200,000 in the 2018/2019 year (to be considered as part of the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan process)

Local rates consideration

aa) approve local activities continuing to be funded through a general rate, and that further work on local rates funding of local activities for which local boards have decision-making responsibility be completed to:

i) review possible mitigation options to address any significant increases or decreases in rates at the local board level that might arise from a local rates model, in light of the 2017 revaluations

ii) initiate further discussions with local boards explaining the opportunities and impacts of the local rates model

bb) note that while a model of local rates for local activities, applied generally, is not supported or recommended by the majority of local boards or the political working party, four local boards requested that they participate in a pilot of the local rates model of decision-making

cc) request that officers report back to the governing body with further advice on the merits and implications of running an optional pilot for local rates through the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan process

Part 3: governance and representation

The optimum number of local boards

dd) approve the political working party’s recommendation that no further work be undertaken on changing the number of local boards until at least after the Governance Framework Review has been completed and implemented, and the outcomes of reorganisation proposals that are underway for North Rodney and Waiheke Island are known

Methods of electing governing body members

ee) endorse the continuation of the current system of electing governing body members from wards

ff) approve council continuing to advocate to central government for legislative amendments that would allow changes to the number of governing body members, and simplification of the process for changes to numbers and boundaries of local boards

Naming conventions

gg) either:

i) agree that the term ‘councillor’ is used to refer solely to members of the Auckland Council’s Governing Body, and that members of local boards are referred to as ‘local board members’

or:

ii) agree that all elected members of Auckland Council are referred to as ‘councillor’ with the term ‘local councillor’ being used for elected members of local boards

hh) require these conventions to be used consistently in Auckland Council communications and publications

Future political working party

ii) approve the establishment of a new political working party to consider ongoing joint governing body/local board governance issues

jj) request that officers report back to the Governing Body before the end of 2017 with recommendations on the terms of reference before the end of this year

kk) note that the process to form the political working party is addressed in the paper on the Process to Consider a Review of Representation Arrangements reported separately on this agenda.

Comments

Context

5. This paper provides a high level overview of the context and findings of the political working party’s response to the Governance Framework Review’s recommendations and has attachments that detail the policy analysis and options considered under each of the three work streams:

· Attachment A – Policy issues: covers a range of issues relevant to the policy development process, new delegations to local boards, the relationship between Auckland Transport and local boards and a proposed pilot of increased local decision-making with the Waiheke Local Board.

· Attachment B – funding and finance: provides the analysis in relation to recommendations on changes to local board financial decision-making and how local activities might be funded

· Attachment C – governance and representation: presents analysis and findings on matters relating to the governance model of Auckland Council and the ongoing political oversight of joint governance matters.

· Additional attachments (D, E and F) provide further details on the delegations test for Reserve Act 1977 decision-making, the detail of the proposed Waiheke Pilot Project and a summary of local board feedback. A complete set of local board feedback and resolutions is provided under separate cover in Attachment G.

Background and high level findings

6. The 2010 Auckland governance reforms brought about significant change for local government in Auckland by:

· disestablishing the seven legacy territorial local authorities and one regional authority

· establishing Auckland Council as a unitary authority, and New Zealand’s largest local authority

· introducing a new, shared decision-making structure with a governing body and 21 local boards supported by one council organisation

· establishing seven (now six) substantive council-controlled organisations, which are governed at arm’s length.

7. The drivers of Auckland’s amalgamation were the need for stronger regional decision-making and greater community engagement and decision-making at the local level^{^[1]}^. Since 2010 there has been a strong focus on addressing important regional priorities, for example putting in place the Auckland Plan and the Unitary Plan, and addressing challenges in funding infrastructure for growth.

8. While this is important and many of these issues continue to require significant effort, a prolonged focus on regional priorities is not consistent with the policy intent of the governance reforms. In addition, it may risk the council being perceived as distant from and not responsive to the needs of local communities.

The Governance Framework Review

9. In early 2016, an independent consultant, Gareth Stiven, was commissioned to carry out a review which looked at the policies, processes, protocols and organisational support structures that had been put in place since 2010. The review considered whether what has been set up since 2010 is enabling the governance model to work optimally in terms of meeting the aim of the reforms and the policy intent of the legislation.

10. The scope of the report was largely confined to the relationship between the governing body and local boards, with some scope to look at the relationship between Auckland Transport and local boards (any fundamental changes to the governance structure or the structure of council-controlled organisations was out of scope).

11. This report resulted in 36 recommendations for change^{^[2]}, under four key themes:

· Organisational structures and culture have not adapted to the complexity of the model: the review found that the organisation has struggled to adapt to the unique and complex governance arrangements in Auckland, and that this has impacted on the quality of advice and support for elected members.

· Complementary decision-making, but key aspects of overlap: the review touched on a number of decision-making functions where there is overlap between the governing body and local boards, or a lack of clarity about roles.

· Lack of alignment of accountabilities with responsibilities: the review found that the system of decision-making creates incentives for elected members to act locally despite regional benefits.

· Local boards are not sufficiently empowered: the review identified that there are some practices that are constraining local boards from carrying out their role, including the inflexibility of funding arrangements and the difficulties in feeding local input into regional decision-making. It also noted some local frustrations in relation to transport decision-making.

Political working party

12. In December 2016, the governing body received the report and established a political working party to further consider and work through the recommendations from the report [GB/2016/268]. It was agreed that the working party would have seven members from the governing body and seven members from local boards, and would:

· receive and consider the recommendations of the Governance Framework Review

· provide oversight and direction for the development of a work programme to address the findings and recommendations of the report

· report back to local boards and to the governing body for decisions on final recommendations.

13. The membership was agreed in December 2016 (governing body members) and February 2017 (local board members):

Local board members	Governing body members
Shale Chambers (Deputy Chair)	Bill Cashmore (Chair)
Angela Dalton	Cathy Casey
Peter Haynes	Fa’anana Efeso Collins
Phelan Pirrie	Christine Fletcher
Greg Presland	Richard Hills
Paul Walden	Penny Hulse
Lisa Whyte	Denise Lee

14. Through the review, the political working party has traversed a wide range of issues under three workstreams: policy, finance and funding, and governance.

15. A fourth workstream on organisational support has been established to respond to the changes coming out of the review and will look at how the council organisation supports local boards as well as implementation of improvements required with current support provision. This workstream will be reporting back internally to the project’s executive steering group in November.

Options consideration process

16. Options for change across the different workstreams were presented to the political working party at a series of eight workshops between February and September. Officers used a standard set of criteria to assess options. The criteria that were informed by relevant statutory provisions and the key themes of the Governance Framework Review and were endorsed by the Governing Body in May 2017 [GB/2017/47]. They were:

· consistency with the statutory purpose of local government

· provision for decision-making at the appropriate level, as set out in Section17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and consistency with the subsidiarity principle

· contribution to improving role clarity between the two arms of governance, both internally and for the public

· provision for increased empowerment of local boards, especially in their place shaping role

· ensuring appropriate accountability and incentives for political decisions

· contribution to improved community engagement with and better services for Aucklanders

· administrative feasibility, including efficiency and practicality of implementation.

17. The political working party and the project team have ensured that there is transparency around the options and advice developed; all elected members (outside of the political working party) have had access to all agendas, minutes and presentations considered by the political working party.

Political working party recommendations

18. The review has traversed a wide range of issues, with one of the key themes being that there needs to be more recognition, support and empowerment of local boards as governors of a discrete set of local services and activities. The political working party has agreed a set of recommendations to the governing body for its consideration. The recommendations have largely been agreed by consensus, apart from two issues where there are split recommendations to the governing body.

19. It was noted that Auckland Council’s focus has tended to be on the regional ahead of the local for the first six years. While this is understandable for the purposes of developing and harmonising a wide range of policies, plans and bylaws, it is not sustainable in the long term and is not consistent with the policy intent of the governance reforms.

20. For example, one of the key issues that working party has been grappling with in the funding and financial model that is currently in place and how that constrains local decision-making and local flexibility. In effect, the Auckland Transition Agency put in place a model that locked in legacy funding arrangements and service delivery models that are now seven years out of date.

21. The same is true of the role of local boards in relation to Auckland Transport – the policy intent of the legislation is clear about local boards’ role in place shaping and funding local transport projects, and the accountability framework for council-controlled organisations provides a clear framework for monitoring this. The recommendations of the political working party are intended to ensure these provisions are given full effect.

22. The working party has consistently challenged itself to address a wide range of complex issues. This process has provided a model of how both arms of governance can work together to grapple with issues of mutual interest.

Policy issues

23. The policy issues cover a broad range of matters relating to decision-making roles and policy development processes.

24. The initial 2016 review identified a number of issues about the way regional policy is developed, including low awareness by local boards of regional work programmes, the considerable time and resource required to seek local board input and variable advice to local boards. The political working party has recommended that a framework for local input into regional policies should be developed, including prioritisation and agreed mechanisms for seeking local board input.

25. The review concluded that are limited incentives for local boards to consider local assets in a regional context and this can lead to conflict between the governing body and local boards. It recommended a ‘call-in’ right was considered. The working party does not consider a call-in right is desirable, but instead has recommended that staff provide explicit regional impact advice where local decisions may have regional or sub-regional impacts.

26. The initial review identified a number of issues where the allocation of non-regulatory decision-making under Section 17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) should be reviewed. All of these have been superseded through legislative change or are part of existing work programmes, for example reviewing dog access rules, reviewing the process for informing local boards about local resource consent applications.

27. The outstanding issue was the consideration of whether some decision-making functions under the Reserves Act 1977, which are regulatory and therefore default to the governing body, should be delegated to local boards. The political working party has recommended that decisions to declare, classify, reclassify and revoke reserve status (in limited circumstances) are delegated to local boards:

28. The working party did not resolve a formal position on whether the exchange of reserves should also be delegated to local boards, although this was a clear preference coming through from local board feedback. Officers, however, do not support this delegation.

29. In response to frustration among some local board members about transport decision-making and their ability to carry out their place-shaping roles, the political working party considers local boards have a critical role in local place-shaping and has recommended that:

· Auckland Transport should be more responsive to local boards in their place-shaping role

· there should be increased use of the existing accountability mechanisms available to the council to ensure that Auckland Transport complies with expectations on local board engagement

· there should be a significant increase to the Local Transport Capital Fund (currently set at $10.8 million) and the exact amount and allocation across local boards should be decided in the 2018-28 Long-term Plan

· the review of accountability mechanisms for council-controlled organisations should consider the use of section 92(2) of the Local Government Auckland Council Act 2009 for local board plans, which allows the governing body to direct council-controlled organisations to act consistently with plans and strategies of the council.

30. The political working party has also recommended that a three-year pilot project with the Waiheke Local Board is established to enable more local leadership and the development of policy for specific local issues. The pilot would be actively monitored and the findings considered for wider application. The detail of the project is provided in Attachment E.

Funding and finance

31. The 2016 Governance Framework Review report identified some issues related to funding and financing, in particular:

· local boards do not have to balance the trade-offs of financial decisions in the same way that the governing body needs to e.g. local boards can advocate for both additional investment in their own area and lower rates

· inflexibility of the current funding policies to empower local board decision-making. In particular local boards feel they have little or no control over the 90 per cent of their budget that is for ‘Asset Based Services’

· inflexibility of the current procurement processes and definition of when local boards or groups of local boards can undertake procurement of major contracts.

32. The funding and finance workstream has worked through a number of options to address these issues. Several different models of decision-making were considered by the political working party and narrowed down to two major options:

· Option 1 - enhanced status quo: this option leaves the decision-making on overall budget envelopes for local activities, and the distribution of funding between local boards, with the governing body i.e. rate increases, efficiency targets and levels of service would be governing body decisions. Some additional flexibility is envisaged for local decision-making, primarily in the renewals area with the option of a bulk funding approach

· Option 2 - local decision-making within parameters (local rate funded): this option envisages more decision-making for local boards, although some parameters were outlined. Local activities were envisaged to be funded (in full or in part) by a local targeted rate which would in turn reflect the level of local services provided.

33. Following workshops and formal feedback from local boards a third option emerged, i.e. local decision-making within a funding envelope. This sought to have similar levels of decision-making as Option 2 but based on general rates funding, and allocated funding envelopes as in Option 1.

34. Each of the options had some elements in common and others that were different. The political working party has made recommendations on each of the elements of financial decision-making and also recommended a phased approach to implementation:

· Optimisation of service assets: local boards should have final decision-making on the disposal of service assets and reinvestment in new assets, as long as it is within the parameters of the ‘optimisation of service assets’ policy adopted in March 2015.

· Renewals: local boards should be able to manage the renewals programme with greater flexibility i.e. funding can be moved between years and between asset classes, but the total renewals budget would still be set by the governing body and managed centrally by staff. This would allow ‘overs and unders’ and the programme delivery to be managed more effectively. This option is more cost effective than a full bulk funding approach but does have additional, unbudgeted cost to improve data quality, which will need to be provided for in the current year.

· Operational funding and service levels: in principle, local boards should have increased flexibility in the use of operational funding for local activities, but additional work on whether there should be minimum service levels, how existing services would be equalised and the impact on organisational support needs to be carried out first. This is expected to take about 12 months (from January 2018) and has some unbudgeted, additional cost to determine minimum service levels, which will need to be provided for in the current year.

· Procurement: while options for giving local boards greater control over the procurement of major contracts were explored, there are significant practical details of establishing parameters that would enable efficiencies of scale to be maintained. On that basis, the political working party has recommended that the ‘Project 17’ approach for local board input into specifications of major contracts for local activities is continued and expanded into other areas where appropriate.

· Funding: local activities would still be funded by general rates, although local rates will continue to be explored. Four local boards have also sought to participate in a pilot for the local rates model, and the political working party has recommended that staff should report back on this proposal in the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan.

Governance and representation

35. The 2016 Governance Framework Review concluded that the organisation had struggled to grapple with the complexity of servicing 21 local boards, and recommended that the council should form a position on the optimum number of local boards. The political working party has recommended that there should be no further work on changing the number of local boards until at least after the implementation of its other recommendations, and the outcomes of reorganisation proposals that are underway for North Rodney and Waiheke Island are known.

36. In response to the issue of tension between governing body members’ regional role and local electoral accountabilities, and role overlap between the two arms of governance, the review recommended that the council consider amending the size and number of wards. The political working party did not consider there was a sufficient case for such change, but has recommended that the council advocate to central government for legislative change to allow the council to review the number of governing body members.

37. The review also found that naming conventions contribute to role overlap and confusion. The political working party considered three options, and has made a split recommendation that the governing body:

either

· retain the status quo (political working party governing body members’ preference)

· adopt a convention where all elected members are referred to as ‘councillor’, and to avoid confusion the prefix ‘local’ added for members of local boards (political working party local board members’ preference).

38. The political working party also considered an ongoing joint political working party. It considered that, while its own mandate was limited to this specific review, a new vehicle to consider ongoing governance issues that impact on local boards and the governing body would be useful. The political working party has recommended that a new political working party is formed. Its terms of reference should be confirmed before the end of this year.

Limitations and risks

39. This report contains recommendations that have been carefully considered and endorsed by a political working party. While most have been costed and analysed to understand at least the short term resourcing implications as well as process and/or systems changes, some further work will necessarily be included in the next steps outlined in Attachments A, B and C. It is important to note that there are likely to be longer term resourcing implications which will be further considered in the long-term plan process. Two examples of this are:

· resource implications arising from changed regional policy development processes and the need to better support some local policy priorities and enable local boards to effectively meet the needs and aspirations of their communities

· work on documenting service levels and costs as well as regional service level minima. In turn this work will allow us to define the extent of local board discretion and to enable costs to be understood so that local trade-offs and reprioritisation can occur with proper regard to budget.

Local board impact

40. Local board views were thoroughly canvassed throughout the review in a number of ways. Local board members were interviewed in the development of the original report which led to a range of constructive feedback.

41. Five of the seven local board members of the political working party were appointed to specifically represent geographic areas of Auckland (central, south, north, west and rural) in their role as working party members.

42. Most significantly, the draft recommendations of the political working party were presented to each local board in workshops during June and July this year. Staff were present to answer questions from local board members, and a local board and governing body members of the political working party were present at most meetings.

43. Following these workshops, each local board provided a set of resolutions on the draft recommendations through a formal business meeting. This feedback was collated and presented to the political working party in its last meeting on 6 September 2017, which it took into account in making its final recommendations to the governing body. Reporting and analysis of local board views is incorporated throughout each of the three attached reports in response to specific proposals.

44. A summary of the feedback from local boards on each set of issues is contained in Attachment F with further detailed feedback and local board resolutions attached under separate cover in Attachment G.

Māori impact statement

45. The 2016 Governance Framework Review did not specifically consider the governance or representation of Māori in Auckland. The relationship between the two political governance arms of Auckland Council and the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) was also out of scope.

46. The IMSB and Te Waka Angamua were consulted through this process. In response to the final Governance Framework Review report the IMSB secretariat provided a memorandum setting out its views on a number of the report’s recommendations. These views largely focused on ensuring that Auckland Council meets its existing statutory requirements for:

· enabling Māori to participate in decision-making in Auckland local government are met

· engaging and consulting Māori and considering the needs and views of Māori communities when making decisions

· recognising the need for greater involvement of Māori in local government employment.

47. These statutory requirements should be met as a matter of course and have been noted. No specific actions are recommended.

48. The secretariat also identified that there is:

· a lack of definition of the relationship between the governing body, local boards and the IMSB.

· a lack of acknowledgement of the IMSB as promoting issues for Māori.

· a lack of awareness of the governing body and local boards of their obligation to consult the IMSB on matters affecting mana whenua and mataawaka, the need to take into account the IMSB’s advice on ensuring that input of mana whenua groups and mataawaka is reflected in council strategies, policies, plans and other matters.

49. As stated above, the council-IMSB relationship was out of scope of the Governance Framework Review, so these issues are not being addressed through this work.

50. No specific Māori impacts have been identified.

Implementation

51. Some recommendations, if agreed to by the governing body, have implications for implementation. These are detailed in each of the substantive papers that are attached.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Policy Issues	25
b ⇩	Funding and Finance	37
c ⇩	Governance and Representation	47
d ⇩	Delegations test for Reserves Act decisions	53
e ⇩	Waiheke Local Board Pilot Project proposal	59
f ⇩	Summary of local board feedback	79
g	Complete feedback and resolutions of local boards (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author

Linda Taylor – Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

28 September 2017

2019 elections - opportunity to establish a Māori ward

File No.: CP2017/13249

Purpose

1. To note the opportunity to establish a Māori ward and consider the Governing Body’s position.

Executive summary

2. The rationale for establishing a Māori ward is based on Treaty of Waitangi obligations. Although the Treaty does not refer directly to Māori representation in government or local government, it provides mana whenua with tino rangatiratanga (chieftainship / sovereignty) over their area. Participation of Māori in local government decision-making is one way of implementing the promise of tino rangatiratanga.

3. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance considered options for designing appropriate Māori representation into the decision-making structure of Auckland Council. It proposed a dedicated seat for a mana whenua appointment and two seats for election by those on the Māori roll.

4. The government considered that representation on Auckland Council should, instead, be through the existing mechanisms in the Local Electoral Act. It also established an independent Māori Statutory Board, which must appoint up to two members on the council’s committees that deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources.

5. The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides an opportunity for councils to establish Māori wards for the purpose of electing members. Those on the Māori roll are entitled to vote for a Māori ward member. To take effect at the 2019 elections a resolution would need to be made by 23 November 2017. If a council passes a resolution to establish one or more Māori wards, a petition of five percent of electors may demand a poll on whether or not the council should have Māori wards.

6. Based on population, Auckland Council is entitled to one governing body member elected by a Māori ward. This member would be one of 20 governing body members (not including the mayor) and not an additional member. Five percent of electors equates to approximately 51,000 electors. The likelihood of 51,000 electors making a valid petition for demanding a poll is unknown. If there was a valid petition, the cost of a poll would be in the order of $1 million. The experience to date of other councils is that a poll overturns the council’s resolution. An option is for the council to initiate its own poll, for example in conjunction with the next triennial elections, which would reduce the cost to about $150,000.

7. The body of the report sets out matters the Governing Body might wish to take into account when considering its position.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

EITHER:

a) receive the report and take no further action

b) resolve to establish a Māori ward for the 2019 elections and publicly notify the opportunity for electors to petition for a poll

c) resolve to conduct its own poll in conjunction with the 2019 elections.

Comments

Te Tiriti o Waitangi and participation of Māori in local government

8. Consideration of Māori seats in local government arises through obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.

9. Article 1 of the Treaty acknowledges the ability of the Crown to govern (kāwanatanga) and Article 2 the ability of Māori to retain chieftainship / sovereignty (tino rangatiratanga) over their areas. There has been debate over the extent of the sense that chiefs ceded power to the Crown. The Waitangi Tribunal has recently inquired into the meaning and effect of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal concluded that the chiefs who signed the Treaty expected to share power and authority with the Governor, to enter into an equal relationship between the parties.

10. The principles for acknowledging Treaty obligations have been developed through the courts, including the Privy Council and the Waitangi Tribunal.

11. While there has been debate over whether the obligations of the Crown need to be exercised by local government, local government in New Zealand performs a form of kāwanatanga (governance) at the local level, making governmental decisions under delegation from central government.

12. While the Treaty, does not provide explicitly for dedicated seats in Parliament or local government, the provision of guaranteed seats is one way in which Māori can participate in decision-making over those things for which they have an expectation of holding tino rangatiratanga. The provision of guaranteed seats would be broadly consistent with the Treaty Principles of partnership, reciprocity and autonomy (as explained for example by Professor Hirini Matunga).

13. There is formal recognition of the Treaty in the Local Government Act 2002: section 4 recognises that it is the Crown which is the Treaty partner, and which places an obligation on local government to provide for participation of Māori.

Royal Commission on Auckland Governance

14. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance considered the obligation to make provision for Māori in its design of the Auckland Council structure:

“22.46 […] Section 4 of the Local Government Act 2002 draws a clear distinction between the respective responsibilities of local and central government. It makes it clear that the Crown, and not local government, is the Treaty partner and therefore has direct obligations to Māori pursuant to the Treaty of Waitangi. Parliament has, however, enacted specific provisions in the Local Government Act 2002 that require local authorities to act in ways that “recognise and respect” the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty.

22.47 Mana whenua Māori have rights conferred by both articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi. Non-mana whenua Māori have rights conferred by article 3.

22.48 Article 2 concerns kaitiakitanga of resources. Under this article, Māori retained tino rangatiratanga over their whenua, kāinga, and tāonga. Many submitters indicated that they consider mana whenua representation on Auckland’s decision-making structures to be a Treaty right pursuant to article 2.

22.49 Article 3 is about well-being. This is a matter affecting all Māori, not just mana whenua. Some submitters indicated that, in the context of Auckland’s governance, they consider this to mean that all Māori should have a voice in decision making affecting their well-being.”

[…]

22.55 [The Commission] agrees that Māori should have a certain number of specific, safeguarded seats at the regional level.

22.56 It considers that this is consistent with the spirit and intent of the provisions in the Local Government Act 2002, which require local authorities to consider ways in which they can provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes, and require them to establish and maintain processes for Māori to contribute to decision making.”

15. The Commission wanted to be clear that the aspect of addressing under-representation of a minority group was not the prime consideration:

“22.60 In other words, the Commission’s primary reason for making these recommendations is to give effect to obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. General considerations of equity and fairness of representation also come into play, but to a lesser extent.”

16. The Commission proposed one Māori seat appointed by a mana whenua forum and two other seats subject to election by those on the Māori roll.

Government’s response

17. The bill presented to Parliament by the Government did not include provision for dedicated Māori seats. The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee heard submissions on the bill, which included submissions on Māori seats. The majority view stated:

“While we acknowledge that some form of Māori representation, advocacy, or partnership would be valuable within the Auckland governance structure, the majority of us believe that it is up to the people of greater Auckland to decide what shape this representation should take, and whether representation should be for tangata whenua, mana whenua, or both. Such representation could, for example, be provided in the committee membership of the Auckland Council. The majority of us therefore urge the Auckland Council to carefully consider establishing Māori representation should there be community support for this move. The majority of us note that current provisions in the Local Electoral Act 2001 provide a mechanism by which the Auckland Council could seek to provide for Māori representation.

However, the majority of us believe that the question of whether the existing legislation provides adequate opportunities for Māori representation in local government is an issue of national significance, extending beyond Auckland. Resolving this issue should therefore be considered in that context rather than through this piece of legislation.”

18. The final form of the Auckland Council legislation provided for the Independent Māori Statutory Board, which must appoint up to two members on the council’s committees that deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical. The only mechanism open to the council to provide for Māori representation on the full Governing Body is through the Local Electoral Act.

History to the provision of Māori wards in the Local Electoral Act 2001

19. The history to the provision of Māori wards in the Local Electoral Act explains the rationale behind its inclusion.

20. The Local Electoral Act and the Local Government Act were reformed in 2001 and 2002, with both pieces of legislation including new acknowledgements of Māori. The new Local Government Act 2002 included a section acknowledging the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty and other sections placed an obligation on local government to provide for Māori participation in decision-making.

21. The Local Electoral Act 2001 was amended in 2002 to include the provisions for Māori wards. These provisions were modelled on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Māori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001. The Bay of Plenty legislation came from a local bill promoted by the regional council, which was concerned that, although there was a high percentage of Māori in its area, Māori were not being elected to the council through the majority-based election system.

22. In 1996, Māori had requested direct representation on the regional council. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council's Māori Regional Representation Committee prepared a submission for the council, which proposed the introduction of Māori (constituency) seats. This could only succeed if a local Bill was passed. Extensive public consultation was led by retired Chief Family Court Judge Peter Trapski, appointed as a hearings commissioner.

23. After considering submissions, Judge Trapski concluded that there was significant support for provisions similar to the Māori seats in Parliament, and based upon this support there was a good basis to establish Māori seats on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. He also found that the Bay of Plenty Regional Council's proposal was in accordance with New Zealand constitutional principles of law. His report noted that in parts of the region, Māori comprised up to 58 percent of the population but were unrepresented. His recommendations particularly acknowledged the position of Māori under the Treaty, the existing lack of representation and the continuing practice to provide Māori seats in Parliament – indicating this practice is constitutionally acceptable.

24. The Bill was drafted in early 1999 and passed in October 2001. The select committee report noted that two-thirds of the submissions it received supported the bill.

25. These provisions in the local Act were then mirrored in the Local Electoral Act 2001 through an amendment in 2002.

Local Electoral Act provision and timeframe

26. The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides for councils to establish Māori wards (or Māori constituencies in the case of regional councils):

· a council may resolve to establish Māori wards

· five percent of all electors may petition for a referendum of all electors

· alternatively a council may initiate a referendum (for example in conjunction with an election)

· the electors of a Māori ward are those on the Māori roll, who cannot vote for any other ward positions

· once elected, a member elected by a Māori ward is under the same obligation as all governing body members to act in the best interests of the region.

27. A resolution must be made by 23 November 2017 for it to take effect at the 2019 elections (if not overturned by a poll).

Implications for Auckland Council

28. On current statistics and with a total governing body of 20 members plus the mayor, Auckland Council would be entitled to one governing body member elected by Māori ward. Because Auckland Council is not able to change the total number of governing body members, there would then be 19 general members.

29. The electors of a Māori ward would be those on the Māori roll.

30. A petition of five percent of electors requires approximately 51,000 signatures. A stand-alone referendum would cost about $1 million.

31. Relevant statistics - Population of Auckland:

	2013 census	2018 projected
Population	1,493,200	1,646,500
Māori	169,800	187,100

Electoral roll for Auckland:

Est Eligible Population	General Roll	Māori Roll	Total Enrolled
1,204,800	987,371	57,110	1,044,481

· The Māori population is 11 percent of Auckland’s total population.

· Those on the Māori electoral roll are five percent of all those enrolled.

· Less than half of Māori in Auckland have chosen to go on the Māori roll and will be eligible to vote for a member elected by a Māori ward

Māori ward provisions and the experience of local government

32. The table below shows that a number of councils have passed resolutions establishing Māori wards, and most have been subject to a petition for a poll.

Year	Council	Poll	Result of poll		Members
			For	Against
2007	Whakatane District Council	Yes	30%	70%
2011	Waikato Regional Council	No			2
2011	Nelson City Council	Yes	20%	80%
2012	Waikato District Council	Yes	20%	80%
2013	Hauraki District Council	Yes	19%	81%
2015	New Plymouth District Council	Yes	17%	83%
2015	Far North District Council	Yes	32%	68%
2016	Wairoa District Council	Yes*	54%	46%	3

* after the first resolution a poll was demanded which overturned the resolution; the council then conducted its own poll with the 2016 elections with the majority of responses in support.

33. Hastings District Council recently considered establishing a Māori ward but decided to not go ahead on the advice of their Māori Joint Committee. Instead, the council resolved that the chief executive report back on options for increasing Māori participation in council governance and decision-making. It also resolved to seek legislative change so that Māori representation is considered as part of the review of representation arrangements and that the poll provisions are abandoned.

34. Palmerston North City Council is currently considering establishing a Māori ward and is consulting the community prior to making a decision this year.

Proposals for legislative change

35. Following the defeat of the New Plymouth resolution by a poll, the then mayor, Andrew Judd, petitioned Parliament for a change to the law to allow the establishment of Māori wards as part of a council’s review of representation arrangements and not subject to a poll. This petition will be considered by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee when it considers submissions on its Inquiry into the 2016 local government elections.

36. On 11 May 2017, a member’s bill was pulled from the ballot which would achieve the same result. This bill had its first reading on 28 June 2017 but was not successful.

Previous consideration by Auckland Council

37. Auckland Council’s Governing Body, prior to the 2016 elections, considered the possibility of a Māori ward and also of conducting a review of representation arrangements for the 2016 elections. The Governing Body decided to pursue legislative change on two matters.

(i) The ability to review the total number of governing body members, as other councils are able to do. One of the reasons for seeking this change arose from the option of establishing a Māori ward, in that if a Māori ward was established, there could then only be 19 general members. The Governing Body wanted to have the ability to increase the number of members if it so wished, so that a member elected through a Māori ward was an additional member.

(ii) The second matter related to the alignment of ward boundaries and local board boundaries. This issue is not related so closely to the Māori ward option, but it is pertinent to note that if a Māori ward was created and the number of general ward members decreased to 19, it is highly likely that the consequent re-drawing of ward boundaries would lead to ward and local board boundaries becoming unaligned. The legislation does not provide a process for addressing boundaries becoming unaligned as a result of the Māori ward option or a general review of representation arrangements.

Other existing mechanisms for Māori participation

38. Other mechanisms that provide for Māori participation in decision-making are outlined below.

Co-governance entities

39. In recent years, some matters over which Māori have sought a direct role in decision-making are being addressed through Treaty settlements. Co-governance entities are being created through these processes. These entities are 50/50 decision-making bodies and provide a vehicle for the joint participation of Māori and local government in decision-making. The Tupuna Maunga Authority is one of these entities.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

40. For Auckland, the establishment of the IMSB provides for participation of Māori in decision-making at committees that make decisions relating to the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources, and at other committees by invitation. However, it does not provide a seat on the full governing body. IMSB members are chosen through a selection process rather than an election process.

Te Arawa Partnership Board / Te Tatau o Te Arawa

41. The Rotorua District Council approved in principle in late 2014 the creation of the Te Arawa Partnership Board / Te Tatau o Te Arawa. The rationale was based on the rights of Te Arawa as mana whenua and the obligations on the council to include mana whenua in decision-making.

42. The partnership model also allows for one Te Arawa representative to be nominated to act as one commissioner of three on statutory hearing panels for resource consents, and for one Te Arawa representative to be nominated to working groups and steering committees as required.

Conclusion

43. The statutory option to establish a Māori ward provides an opportunity to reflect on the ability of Māori, as Treaty partner, to participate in council’s decision-making processes. The provision in the Local Electoral Act is one mechanism for this but there have been associated difficulties leading to recent requests for legislative change. Alternative mechanisms are now available. In considering its position, the Governing Body may wish to take account of the other mechanisms in which it is already involved.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

44. A Māori ward is a mechanism for electing a governing body member. This does not impact on local boards and formal feedback from local boards has not been sought.

45. Local boards have recently provided feedback on issues identified in the Governance Framework Review. This included aspects of representation arrangements. Boards were advised that the council has previously advocated for a change in legislation to allow the total number of governing body members to be reviewed. Nine local boards commented that the statement of council’s advocacy position to central government for legislative changes should include the creation of Māori wards in Auckland. One local board specifically stated that it ‘does not support the election of members of the Auckland Council on the basis of race’.

Māori impact statement

46. This report is of direct relevance and interest to Māori.

47. The Independent Māori Statutory Board has reviewed a draft version of this report and has provided the following recommendations:

· “that the council establishes one or more Māori wards for the purpose of electing members of the council.

· If a valid petition was received, that the council conduct a referendum on its own initiative in conjunction with the upcoming election in 2019

· The Independent Māori Statutory Board in Auckland was created by an act of Parliament; the Board supports having both a Māori ward and an Independent Māori Statutory Board, not one or the other.”

48. The Board’s additional comments are:

“The Board considers that Māori wards are an investment into the future partnership and leadership of regions and is a tangible demonstration of how local government shows respect and regard for the Treaty of Waitangi and how they can give effect to this. That identifying the cost of $1m for a referendum as a risk is a poor way to consider this opportunity for a Māori ward/s. It perpetuates the misunderstanding that the general public have about Māori wards which is that it is a race-based approach to becoming an elected member to councils and therefore ratepayers funds should not be used for referendums of this type. It also perpetuates the ignorance that the general public have about the challenges and difficulties Māori face being elected onto councils due largely to the low turnout of Māori voters for local government elections.”

49. If the council receives a valid petition for a referendum prior to 21 February 2018, it does not have the option of deciding to conduct a referendum on its own initiative in conjunction with the next elections; it has to conduct the referendum within a specified time period.

50. A Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum has recently been established. Initial comments from the co-chairs were that consideration of the Māori ward option should be in the context of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. The relevant findings of the Royal Commission have been set out in the report.

Implementation

51. If the council resolves to establish a Māori ward, this decision will feed into the review of representation arrangements which must take place during 2018.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

28 September 2017

Process to conduct a review of representation arrangements

File No.: CP2017/17701

Purpose

1. To agree a process for undertaking the statutory review of representation arrangements.

Executive summary

2. The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires all local authorities to undertake a review of representation arrangements at least once every six years.

3. Auckland Council was established in 2010 and was not required to undertake a review of representation arrangements for the 2016 elections, but is required to undertake a review for the 2019 elections. The review will take place during 2018.

4. It is possible to review the following for the governing body:

(i) whether members are elected at-large or by ward or a combination

(ii) if by ward, the number of members in each ward, the ward boundaries and ward names.

5. The number of governing body members is set at 21 (the mayor and 20 councillors) in the Auckland Council legislation. Therefore, unlike for other councils the number of members cannot be reviewed.

6. It is possible to review the following for each local board:

(i) the number of members

(ii) whether local board members are to be elected by subdivision or at large

(iii) if by subdivision, the number of members in each subdivision and the subdivision boundaries and names

(iv) the local board name.

7. It is not possible to review the boundaries or number of local boards; a reorganisation process is required to do this. This is a separate process under the Local Government Act 2002.

8. With a governing body and 21 local boards, Auckland Council has more complex arrangements than other councils and an efficient and effective process for undertaking the review needs to be determined. This report outlines options and recommends a political working party with representation from the Governing Body and local boards.

9. Following consideration by the Governing Body, staff propose to present this report to local boards for their feedback, which will then be presented back to the Governing Body to make a final decision regarding the review process in December 2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) note that the statutory review of representation arrangements requires an initial proposal be developed, which is publicly notified for submissions

b) note that the Governance Framework Review political working party has recommended that a new political working party, comprised of governing body and local board members, be formed to deal with governance issues, which could include the representation review

c) endorse the staff recommendation that the new governance political working party, develop the initial proposal and present it to local boards and the Governing Body for comments before the Governing Body makes the statutory resolution to release the Auckland Council’s initial proposal for consultation

d) endorse the staff recommendation that the new governance political working party hear public submissions on the proposal, then report its findings to local boards and the Governing Body before the Governing Body makes the final statutory resolution on any representation changes, which will then be publicly notified for objections and appeals

e) endorse the staff recommendation that the Mayor call for expressions of interest from all elected members to be on the new governance political working party and then appoint an equal number of governing body and local board members to the political working party

f) agree that this report, together with the Governing Body’s resolutions, be presented to local boards for their comments, and that local board comments be reported back to the Governing Body for a final decision on the process for conducting the statutory review of representation arrangements in December 2017.

Comments

The scope and overall process of the representation review are set in legislation

10. For the next local body election in 2019 the council must determine by resolution, for the governing body:

(i) whether councillors are to be elected by ward, at large or by a mix of both

(ii) for any wards, their names, boundaries and the number of members to be elected in each ward

For each local board, it must determine by resolution:

(iii) the number of members

(iv) whether local board members are to be elected by subdivision, at large or, if a local board area comprises two or more wards (not the case in Auckland), by ward

(v) for any subdivisions, their names, boundaries and the number of members to be elected in each

(vi) The name of the local board.

(Local Electoral Act 2001, section 19H)

11. The number of governing body members is set at 21 - a mayor and 20 members (Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, part 2 section 8). Therefore, unlike for other councils the number of members cannot be reviewed.

12. It is not possible to review the boundaries, or number, of local boards. A reorganisation process is required to do this. This is a separate process under the legislation.

13. The council must give public notice of its resolution on the initial proposal within 14 days of making it and by 8 September 2018 at the latest. The public notice must provide a period of at least one month for interested persons to make submissions. (Local Electoral Act 2001, section 19M)

14. The council hears and considers submissions and must give public notice, within six weeks, of its amended proposal. The public notice must advise the right to appeal for those who made submissions and the right to object for any interested person. (Local Electoral Act 2001, section 19N)

15. The council forwards all appeals and objections to the Local Government Commission for determination. (Local Electoral Act 2001, section 19Q)

The council’s representation proposal must meet set legal requirements

16. The legislation requires:

(i) effective representation of communities of interest

(ii) that ward and subdivision boundaries must coincide with statistical meshblock boundaries

(iii) that ward boundaries must coincide with local board boundaries so far as is practicable.

(Local Electoral Act 2001, section 19T)

17. The legislation also requires fair representation when members are elected by ward or subdivision.

(i) The population per member in each ward (or subdivision) must be no more than 10 percent greater or smaller than the population of the Auckland Council area (or local board area) divided by the total number of members elected on a ward (or subdivision) basis.

(ii) Non-compliance with the +/- 10 percent rule is possible in the case of isolated or island communities, or if compliance would compromise effective representation of communities of interest by dividing a community of interest or amalgamating disparate communities of interest.

(iii) A decision to not comply must be referred to the Local Government Commission to determine.

(Local Electoral Act 2001, section 19V)

There are relevant matters to consider when deciding the representation review process

18. The purpose of this report is to identify the process for conducting the review and not to debate the substance of representation issues. However, the following information is relevant to decide what process to follow and specifically whether to conduct preliminary consultation.

Previous governing body discussion

19. In 2014 the Governing Body decided to defer the representation review until 2017 and established a political working party to look at options for conducting the review and whether legislative changes were warranted [AUC 2014/19 and GB 2014/110]. On the advice of the working party, in 2015 the Governing Body decided to seek legislative change, as follows [GB2015/79]:

(i) the council should be able to review the number of governing body members, as are other councils. This was particularly an issue when considering whether to establish a Māori ward. A member elected by a Māori ward would reduce the number of members elected through general wards. The council sought the ability for such a member to be an addition

(ii) if, through the review, ward boundaries needed to change to maintain fair representation, ward boundaries would get out of alignment with local board boundaries since these could not be reviewed. Any change to local board boundaries would need to be through a reorganisation process. The council sought a process for local board boundaries to be changed if that was the wish of the local board

20. The then Minister of Local Government advised the council that he felt there should be no change to the number of governing body members, but that the matter of the alignment of boundaries would be considered. A streamlined process for local authority-led reorganisation applications was included in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill No.2. The Bill completed its second reading; however the House did not pass it before Parliament rose prior to the general election. It is unclear whether, and if so when, the incoming parliament will resume its consideration of the Bill. This means there is limited chance that any change will happen in time for the Auckland Council’s representation review.

Previous commentary on representation arrangements

21. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance considered the representation arrangements for the new Auckland Council in detail. The Commission noted that at-large representation would provide members that had region-wide appeal and who had a regional focus while ward representation provided members who would be more representative of the various communities in Auckland. The Commission recommended a mixture of 10 members elected at-large and 10 elected by ward (and three Māori seats).

22. In its proposal “Making Auckland Greater”, the government recommended 8 members elected at-large and 12 members elected by ward.

23. The Auckland Legislation Select Committee noted that it received a significant number of submissions opposing at-large members. It recommended that all members should be ward-based to provide for better representation.

24. The Auckland University of Technology’s report, “The Governance of Auckland: 5 Years On”, noted the need for members to have a regional focus but felt there were good reasons for retaining ward representation.

25. Gareth Stiven’s Governance Framework Review report also identified the need for councillors to have a regional focus and raised the issue of overlap between ward-based councillors and local boards. The Governance Framework Review political working party has considered the issue and considers that it is not sufficient in itself to warrant a restructure of ward arrangements.

26. These facts will be relevant when considering whether to change the way ward councillors are elected.

Effect of population growth on wards

27. The representation review will not affect all areas of Auckland. The following table illustrates the effect of population growth on representation ratios. One ward that will be affected is the Waitematā and Gulf Islands ward, with a potential flow-on effect on neighbouring wards. It is likely that the variance for this ward is too great to be accepted by the Local Government Commission as valid non-compliance. The next greatest variance is in Rodney, however the findings of the Commission on the current applications for reorganisation may contain guidance for dealing with this.

Ward	2016 Population estimate	Number of councillors	Population per councillor	Difference from regional average	% Difference from average
Rodney	62,200	1	62,200	-18,520	-23%
Albany	164,400	2	82,200	1,480	2%
North Shore	153,200	2	76,600	-4,120	-5%
Waitakere	173,300	2	86,650	5,930	7%
Waitemata and Gulf	111,900	1	111,900	31,180	39%
Whau	82,900	1	82,900	2,180	3%
Albert-Eden-Roskill	168,000	2	84,000	3,280	4%
Orakei	89,200	1	89,200	8,480	11%
Maungakiekie-Tamaki	78,300	1	78,300	-2,420	-3%
Howick	146,500	2	73,250	-7,470	-9%
Manukau	166,100	2	83,050	2,330	3%
Manurewa-Papakura	145,600	2	72,800	-7,920	-10%
Franklin	72,800	1	72,800	-7,920	-10%
Auckland	1,614,400	20	80,720	0	0%

Known requests for change

28. The known community requests for change include the applications to the Local Government Commission for reorganisation in Rodney and Waiheke. The findings of the Local Government Commission will be known before the council undertakes its review.

29. In August 2017 the Waiheke Local Board resolved:

“Request that, in conjunction with the Great Barrier Board, the coming representation review give consideration to an Auckland Council Hauraki Gulf Islands only Ward Councillor position in recognition of the difference between the islands and the mainland and the importance of these communities being fully represented.” [WHK/2017/138].

30. Other boards may have additional requests for change.

31. The council will take all issues into account when it develops its initial proposal for public consultation.

There are options for what process to follow

32. This section presents and analyses process options to conduct the review. The key issues relating to the process are:

(i) whether there should be preliminary consultation to inform the council’s first proposal

(ii) how the proposal is developed in a way which includes local boards

(iii) the process for considering submissions

(iv) the timeframe.

Should the council conduct preliminary consultation?

33. One approach to conducting a representation review is to undertake a preliminary consultation to inform the council’s first proposal. This is discretionary and not a legislative requirement.

34. The Local Government Commission publishes guidelines for conducting representation reviews. On the matter of preliminary consultation the guidelines state:

“8.4 Some local authorities undertake preliminary consultation before beginning the formal statutory representation review process, including community surveys or referenda, discussion documents, newspaper advertising, focus groups, email groups of interested citizens, and public workshops and meetings. These activities are led or facilitated by local councillors, community boards, or other community groups. Targeted consultation may also be appropriate, including with local Māori.

8.5 Preliminary consultation may seek views on particular representation options as well as on factors such as current communities of interest. This consultation can assist local authorities to identify issues relevant to the review process and enable them to consider a wider range of representation options when developing their formal proposal.

8.6 Preliminary consultation is not a substitute for the formal statutory steps. For example, the results of a referendum may indicate overall public opinion, but should not be used as the only justification of a particular ward/constituency configuration. The review must seek to achieve fair and effective representation for all individuals and communities of interest of the district/region, and not be limited to reflecting community views on particular aspects of arrangements.

8.7 Consider using independent panels to undertake preliminary consultation and then make recommendations on options for representation arrangements. This avoids potential perceptions of parochialism and self-interest arising from elected members’ involvement.

8.8 When convening an independent panel:

· select people who have relevant skills, and a good knowledge of the district/region

· provide clear terms of reference,

· fully brief the panel on its task, ensuring it has a good understanding of the statutory requirements for reviews.”

35. The following table presents the pros and cons of conducting a preliminary consultation prior to the statutory consultation process.

Pros	Cons
There has been growth in various parts of Auckland. This will lead to some ward and subdivision boundaries needing to be redrawn to maintain fair representation. Preliminary consultation could help understand any changes in communities of interest which will be relevant to draw the new boundaries.	When Auckland Council was established, there was a lot of public participation at the time. The Local Government Commission, when making its determinations regarding the governing body and local boards, had community views to take into account and, as a result, the Commission’s determinations were robust and have withstood seven years of operation.
The number of local board members can be reviewed. There may be community views which could be considered when developing the first proposal.	The number of members of the governing body is set in legislation and is not open to review. In terms of the governing body, there is less to consult about than for other councils.
Although the council cannot review the number of governing body members, it can review whether any governing body members should be elected on an at-large basis. This would be a significant change and community feedback could be helpful.	The ward representation of governing body members and their alignment with local board areas was discussed as part of the Governance Framework Review. There was a consensus that any issues relating to this were not so strong that a restructure of ward arrangements was required.
	The Local Government Commission has been recently consulting on issues relating to Rodney and Waiheke. Its findings for those areas can be taken into account.
	There may be consultation fatigue in Rodney and Waiheke. If pre-consultation occurs local residents will have been consulted three times on similar issues in 18 months.
	The political working party can decide to conduct targeted consultation in areas where there are known issues, without the need to pre-consult with the whole of Auckland

36. On balance staff recommend not to conduct initial consultation and to directly develop the initial proposal. However, should elected members decide to conduct initial consultation, staff ask that they indicate in what forms they would like consultation to take place so an overall plan can be developed and costed. In particular, staff will need guidance on whether elected members want to conduct hearings themselves or use independent commissioners.

Staff recommend a political working party develop the initial proposal

37. One of the recommendations of the Governance Framework Review political working party is that a new working party, comprised of governing body and local board members, be formed to work on ongoing joint governance issues, including the representation review.

38. Staff recommend that this new governance political working party develop the initial proposal. The political working party would work with staff to develop options that would meet the legal criteria. These would be reported to local boards and the Governing Body. The Governing Body would pass the statutory resolution that is publicly notified for submissions. Public consultation would then take place on the proposal developed and adopted by the council.

39. To form the political working party staff recommend that the mayor call for expressions of interest from all elected members and then appoint an equal number of governing body and local board members to the political working party. We recommend that the party comprise between 6 and twelve members. The mayor can make the final decision on numbers based on the number of expressions of interest he receives.

40. The Governance Framework review paper on this agenda recommends that staff submit the Terms of Reference for the new political working party to the Governing Body in December 2017 so it aligns with the timing of the representation review.

We recommend that the political working party hear submissions on the initial proposal

41. Two options for hearing submissions are:

(i) the Governing Body and local boards each hear submissions in relation to their own arrangements. Local boards make recommendations to the Governing Body, which passes the statutory resolution. The resolution is then publicly notified for appeals and objections; or

(ii) the political working party becomes a hearings panel that hears all submissions and reports its findings to local boards to make recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body passes the statutory resolution which is then publicly notified for appeals and objections.

42. Staff recommend that the political working party hear the submissions because of the expertise it will have built up developing the initial proposals.

Indicative timeframe

43. The following indicative timeframe is based on an outcome where the initial proposal is made by 31 July 2018 (the statutory deadline is to give public notice of this by 8 September).

Indicative dates	Process
14 December 2017	Governing Body decides the process for conducting the representation review after local board feedback has been gathered Governing Body approves the terms of reference of the new governance political working party
February - March 2018	Mayor appoints the political working party, which develops the draft initial proposal
April – June 2018	The draft initial proposal is reported to local boards and Governing Body. Local boards make recommendations to Governing Body.
26 July 2018	Governing Body resolution establishing the Auckland Council’s initial proposal
August 2018	1 month for submissions
September 2018	Submissions are heard (either by the political working party or by local boards and governing body separately). Final proposals agreed for presenting to Governing Body.
By mid-October 2018	Governing Body passes resolution that establishes the Auckland Council’s final proposal; Public notice of the amended proposal published. If there are no appeals or objections this proposal is implemented for the 2019 elections
November 2018	Appeals or objections can be lodged
December 2018	Any appeals or objections are forwarded to the Local Government Commission
11 April 2019	Deadline for the Local Government Commission to determine appeals and objections. Their determination is then final.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

44. A political working party comprising governing body and local board members undertook the Governance Framework Review. A proposal emerging from that review was that some form of joint political working party should continue to deal with governance-related issues. This proposal received support from local boards.

45. The process proposed in this report includes full local board engagement, with final statutory decision made by the Governing Body.

Māori impact statement

46. There is a large impact on Māori of representation arrangements. The provision in the Local Electoral Act for establishing dedicated Māori wards is the subject of a separate report.

47. One of the responsibilities of the political working party will be to ensure that active engagement occurs with Māori to seek their views and hear their feedback on the council’s proposal.

Implementation

48. Following consideration by the Governing Body, staff will arrange for the report to be presented to local boards for their feedback, which will be reported back to the Governing Body for its final decision on the process in December 2017.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

[1] Report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance March 2009

[2] Gareth Stiven, Governance Framework Review Final Report, 17 November 2016

Mayor	Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP
Deputy Mayor	Cr 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

Author	Sarndra O'Toole - Team Leader Governance Advisors
Authoriser	Stephen Town - Chief Executive