Agenda of Governing Body - 14 December 2017

Terms of Reference

Those powers which cannot legally be delegated:

(a) the power to make a rate

(b) the power to make a bylaw

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

(e) the power to appoint a chief executive

(f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement

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

Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body:

(a) approval of long-term plan or annual plan consultation documents, supporting information and consultation process prior to consultation

(b) approval of a draft bylaw prior to consultation

(c) resolutions required to be made by a local authority under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the appointment of electoral officer

(d) adoption of, and amendment to, the Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct

(e) relationships with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, including the funding agreement and appointments to committees

(f) approval of the Unitary Plan

(g) overview of the implementation and refresh of the Auckland Plan through setting direction on key strategic projects (e.g. the City Rail Link and the alternative funding mechanisms for transport) and receiving regular reporting on the overall achievement of Auckland Plan priorities and performance measures.

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

Council Controlled Organisations

· Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

Governing Body

14 December 2017

Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate

File No.: CP2017/22163

Purpose

1. To approve governance arrangements for decision-making over expenditure of the accommodation provider targeted rate.

Executive summary

2. On 1 June 2017 the Governing Body approved the accommodation provider targeted rate as part of the Annual Budget 2017/2018 (Resolution number GB/2017/57). The targeted rate was set at 50 per cent, or $13.45 million, of the visitor attraction and major events expenditure of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED).

3. At the same time, the Governing Body asked staff to report back on a proposal to introduce alternative governance arrangements of ATEED that includes greater participation for commercial accommodation providers, as appropriate to their level of funding of ATEED’s activities.

4. This report responds to that resolution and sets out six options. These options were developed and refined alongside a working group that included accommodation provider experts.

5. Wider feedback on a preferred option was sought from targeted rate payers and the accommodation sector.

6. Staff recommend option six in this report, which is two-fold:

· that a director with accommodation sector expertise is sought for a future ATEED board vacancy

· request that ATEED establishes a sub-committee with targeted rate payer representatives to make recommendations to its board on visitor attraction and major events activities.

7. The recommended option provides greater input for targeted rate payers into decision-making on relevant activities. The option leverages off current arrangements, the Board Appointment and Remuneration Policy for Board Members of Council Organisations, and current work programme. This means it is relatively low-cost and efficient.

8. The recommended option is supported by the working group, ATEED, and by feedback from targeted rate payers.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) approve option six which is to:

i) appoint a director with accommodation sector expertise to fill a future Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development board vacancy

ii) request that Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development establish a sub-committee to make recommendations on visitor attraction and major events activities and which includes representation for accommodation provider targeted rate payers

b) request that Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development establish the sub-committee prior to the end of the 2017/2018 financial year.

c) approve the key points for the sub-committee’s terms of reference (Attachment F) that cover the following matters:

· establishment and authority

· purpose

· composition and organization

· meetings

· reporting and review

d) request that Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development includes the key points in the sub-committee’s terms of reference, noting that the Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development board must approve the final terms of reference

e) request that Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development continues to work closely with Auckland Council staff and the sector to establish and implement its sub-committee.

f) thank the members of the working group on governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate for their input, time, and expertise.

Comments

Background

9. On 1 June 2017 the Governing Body resolution on the accommodation provider targeted rate (Resolution number GB/2017/57, Attachment A, page 3) included that:

c) as part of the final Annual Budget 2017/18, [the Governing Body] agree to a targeted rate on commercial accommodation providers to fund a proportion of the visitor attraction and major events expenditure of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development

(ATEED) as follows:

i) the amount of the targeted rate is set at 50 per cent of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development’s budgeted expenditure on visitor attraction and major events, being $13.45 million

vii) staff report back on a proposal for the introduction of alternative governance arrangements of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development, including greater participation for commercial accommodation providers appropriate to their level of funding of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development’s activities…

10. ATEED’s budgeted expenditure for visitor attraction and major events in 2017/18 covers:

· tourism

· i-SITES

· major events

· Auckland Convention Bureau

· international education

· external relations

· brand and marketing

· Auckland festivals.

11. The targeted rate became effective on 1 July 2017.

Application to online accommodation providers

12. The Mayor’s Proposal for the 10-year budget 2018-2028 includes that the targeted rate will be applied to online accommodation providers.

13. A criterion used to assess the options in this report includes flexibility of the model to incorporate input from future targeted rate payers.

Process

14. In order to recommend options, including a preferred option, to the Governing Body, staff:

· researched and considered existing governance models and best practice

· developed criteria based on best governance practice, the council’s obligations and requirements, and the need to provide proportionate input for targeted rate payers on relevant activities

· established a working group consisting of accommodation experts, council and ATEED staff

· analysed the options against the criteria

· consulted targeted rate payers on their preferred option

· consulted the sector more widely on its preferred option.

Each of those matters is set out below.

Research

15. A full-range of governance options was considered. Staff looked at existing models, processes, and best practice. This included advisory bodies (such as the council’s People’s Advisory Panels and the City Centre Advisory Board), independent bodies funded by a targeted rate (such as business improvement districts, including international models), and best governance practice for matters such as board appointments.

Criteria

16. A set of seven criteria were established to assess the options, as set out below.

Criteria	Detail and why criteria are necessary
Transparency	Provides transparency of decision-making over targeted rate expenditure.
Oversight	Allows the council to maintain oversight. The council parent is ultimately accountable to all targeted rate payers for expenditure of the targeted rate.
Ability for input	Targeted rate payers have input into decisions on relevant activities funded by the targeted rate.
Flexibility	Provides input across the accommodation sector, noting that the interests of the targeted rate payers are diverse and varied. This includes flexibility of the option to incorporate future targeted rate payers.
Wider Auckland perspective	Enables an Auckland-wide perspective to be maintained.
Cost and efficiency	The option is cost- effective and will enable efficient decision-making.
Proportionate	The option is proportionate to the level of funding of the targeted rate.

Working group

17. Staff established a working group of accommodation experts, council and ATEED staff to inform the advice contained in this report. The terms of reference for the working group are at Attachment A. The purpose of the group was to develop, test and refine options, understand associated impacts, and assist with more detailed design of any preferred options.

18. Three sessions were held with the working group between September and November 2017.

Options development

19. The working group reviewed, developed, and considered a full-range of options. It refined six options, as summarised in the table below. More detail on the options is at Attachment B.

Option	Description
Option one – Status quo	ATEED receives targeted rate funding from the council and makes decisions on expenditure under the existing arrangements.
Option two – Advisory body to the council and/or ATEED	An advisory body of targeted rate payers is established to provide advice to the council and/or ATEED.
Option three – Board appointment to ATEED with accommodation sector expertise	An ATEED director with accommodation sector expertise is sought to fill a future ATEED board vacancy. This follows the current council board appointment policy and process, as overseen by the Appointments and Performance Review Committee. The skills matrix for a future board appointment is expanded to include accommodation sector expertise. The sector can have further input following the current policy and process. For example, by nominating candidates to be considered alongside other nominations, or sitting on the interview panel.
Option four – Accommodation sector members on an ATEED sub-committee	An ATEED sub-committee is established to make recommendations to the board on visitor attraction and major events activities. Representation is proportionate to the level of funding of the targeted rate (three accommodation sector representatives and three ATEED representatives) and is flexible enough to incorporate at a later stage further targeted rate payers. ATEED staff support the sub-committee.
Option five- Independent body	This requires the sector to come together to establish an independent body. The council collects the targeted rate but the body is directly accountable to targeted rate payers for expenditure. It could operate similarly to the council’s business improvement district model.
Option six (preferred) – Both options three and four	A board appointment to ATEED (option three) together with representation for targeted rate payers on an ATEED sub-committee (option four). This provides targeted rate payers with input on relevant activities and representation at both the advisory and decision-making levels.

Assessment of the options

20. A summary of the six options assessed against the seven criteria is set out below. A more detailed description of the options is at Attachment B. This includes advantages, disadvantages, and risks.

	Trans- parency	Over-sight	Ability for input	Flex-ibility	Auckland perspect- ive	Cost & efficient	Propor-tionate	Key considerations
Option one: Status quo	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	· No input for targeted rate payers or transparency of decision-making so it is inadequate.
Option two: Advisory body	·							· Advisory only. · Activities and decisions most relevant to targeted rate payers sit with ATEED, not the council.
Option three: ATEED board appointment	·							· Input at the decision-making level. · Inflexible, as one appointment only. · Includes decisions on matters wider than activities funded by the targeted rate. Appointment through the council’s policy and process mitigates risk of an unsuitable appointee as a director.
Option four: ATEED sub-committee	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	· Advisory only. · Membership is flexible enough to provide representation for a range of targeted rate payers and incorporate others in the future.
Option five: Independent body	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	· Body is directly accountable to targeted rate payers. · Requires the sector to come together to establish the body. · Could duplicate or compete with ATEED’s activities.
Option six (preferred) Both options 3 and 4	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	· Provides input at both advisory and decision-making levels on activities most relevant to targeted rate payers.

Engagement with targeted rate payers and the wider sector

21. Staff engaged more widely on options two to six. Option one, the status quo, was excluded as it did not provide input for targeted rate payers.

22. The following were asked to identify a preferred option through a survey:

· targeted rate payers

· members of two large organisations representing members in the commercial accommodation sector, Hospitality New Zealand and Tourism Industry Aotearoa.

23. The number of responses was low.

· Sixty two responses were received from targeted rate payers. An analysis of the feedback is at Attachment C. Option six was preferred (24 people or 39 per cent). This was followed by option five (22 people or 35 per cent).

· Twenty five responses were received through Hospitality New Zealand and Tourism Industry Aotearoa. An analysis of the feedback is at Attachment D. The preferred option was option five (13 people or 62 per cent). This was followed by option six (11 people or 52 per cent).

24. Targeted rate payers were identified using the council’s rating database. It was not possible to determine whether the feedback received from the sector organisations was from targeted rate payers. Accordingly, responses from both groups were kept separate.

25. Option six, an ATEED board appointment and sub-committee, was the preferred option of targeted rate payers. The next preferred option was an independent body.

Recommended option

26. Option six, both an ATEED board appointment and sub-committee, is the recommended option. Further detail on how this works is set out below and has been tested with the working group.

Appointment to ATEED board

27. Section 57 of the Local Government Act 2002 sets out the council’s obligations in relation to board appointments to a council organisation. This includes that the council:

· must have a policy that sets out a transparent process for board appointments. This includes the process for identifying required skills, knowledge or experience of directors

· can only appoint a director if they have the skills, knowledge or experience to guide the organisation or contribute to its objectives.

28. To meet its obligations, the council adopted the Board Appointment and Remuneration Policy for Board Members of Council Organisations. An overview of the board appointment process, as set out in the policy, is at Attachment E.

29. The policy and the board appointment work programme are overseen by the Appointments and Performance Review Committee (as set out in its terms of reference).

30. Staff recommend that the ATEED board appointment follows the existing policy and work programme. This includes that:

· the skills matrix for a future ATEED board appointment includes accommodation sector expertise. The appointment would fill a future board vacancy

· further input from the sector can occur as part of the existing process. For example, the sector could put forward nominations, alongside others, into the process. The council could also invite members from the sector to sit on the interview panel.

31. It is not recommended that the ATEED board increases in size to accommodate this appointment. The current ATEED board is seven. In 2016 the board was reduced from eight to seven. An additional board member would also require additional director remuneration.

32. By following the existing policy, process, and work programme this ensures that:

· the council continues to meet its legislative obligations

· any appointee meets the wider core competencies required of an ATEED director

· targeted rate payers have a robust, transparent process

· the appointment is cost effective and efficient.

ATEED sub-committee

33. ATEED’s constitution (clause 10.5) allows its board to delegate powers to a committee of directors or others, although the board remains responsible at all times.

34. The sub-committee would make recommendations to the ATEED board on destination related activities which includes visitor attraction and major events.

35. Membership would be proportionate to the level of funding of the targeted rate. This would mean three targeted rate payer representatives and three ATEED representatives. The membership can be reviewed to include future targeted rate payers, such as online accommodation providers.

36. Staff recommend that the Governing Body request that ATEED include the key points set out in Attachment F in terms of reference for tis sub-committee. The key points cover the following matters:

· establishment and authority

· purpose

· composition and organization

· meetings

· reporting and review

37. The final terms of reference will need to be approved by the ATEED board.

Feedback on independent body

38. Consultation suggests there is also some support for option five, an independent body.

39. The advantages and disadvantages considered by the working group in relation to that option are set out in Attachment B.

40. The Mayor Phil Goff previously invited proposals for an independent body from the sector (Resolution number GB/2017/57 (Attachment A, page 4)):

xii) note that the Mayor is open to discussing with the industry any proposals it wishes to put forward for an industry-led and funded regional tourism organisation as a partial or complete alternative to using a targeted rate to fund Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development’s tourism promotion activities.

41. This option requires the sector to come together to form an independent body. Staff are not aware of any proposals put forward by the sector but it appears there is support for this.

42. Option six is still recommended and was preferred by targeted rate payers.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

43. Local board views were not sought. The Governing Body is responsible for governance of its council-controlled organisations. The council parent is accountable to targeted rate payers for expenditure of the targeted rate.

Māori impact statement

44. The council group does not hold data on Māori accommodation providers but all targeted rate payers were consulted on the options.

45. ATEED will engage further with the sector through the development of the Destination Auckland Strategy and as part of the proposed ATEED sub-committee. This is an opportunity to establish a closer relationship with any Māori in the sector and to grow the Auckland Māori business database.

46. The recommended option means that targeted rate payers sitting on the ATEED sub-committee will have input on matters such as the Tāmaki Herenga Waka Festival. Ensuring a Māori perspective is incorporated will be part of the work undertaken by staff in working alongside ATEED and the sector to establish and implement the ATEED sub-committee.

47. The ATEED board will make final decisions on visitor attraction and major events activities. The council will separately set out its expectations for ATEED to deliver on its commitments to Māori economic development through a range of other accountability mechanisms, such as the Statement of Intent process.

Implementation

48. Staff will work with ATEED and the sector to implement the Governing Body’s recommendations. If the recommended option is approved, this would include to:

· provide advice to the Appointments and Performance Review Committee to implement an ATEED board appointment with accommodation provider expertise

· identify alongside the sector any further input within the current board appointment policy and process

· work with ATEED and the sector to establish the ATEED sub-committee.

49. The ATEED board appointment is likely to occur in 2018/2019 under the current board appointment programme.

50. The ATEED sub-committee is likely to be established in early 2018 after the Destination Auckland Strategy is completed.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Terms of reference for working group	19
b ⇩	Governance options and considerations	25
c ⇩	Engagement feedback from targeted rate payers	31
d ⇩	Engagement feedback from sector organisations	35
e ⇩	Board appointment process	39
f ⇩	Key points for ATEED sub-committee terms of reference	41

Signatories

Authors

Ella Kay - Senior Advisor - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Tania Winslade - Principal Advisor Strategy & Performance

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

14 December 2017

Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements

File No.: CP2017/24242

Purpose

1. To finalise the process for conducting the review of representation arrangements in 2018.

Executive summary

2. The council has to review its representation arrangements in 2018. The process in the Local Electoral Act 2001 requires public notification of initial proposals followed by the hearing of submissions and public notification of a final proposal. Objections or appeals against the final proposal are referred to the Local Government Commission for determination.

3. With the Governing Body and 21 local boards, Auckland Council has more complex arrangements than other councils. An efficient means of developing the initial proposal and considering submissions needs to be decided.

4. On 28 September 2017, the Governing Body endorsed the following process for consultation with the local boards.

(i) A political working party comprised of governing body and local board members is established through the mayor calling for expressions of interest and appointing the members.

(ii) The political working party developing the initial proposal and presenting it to local boards and the Governing Body for comments prior to the Governing Body making the statutory resolution that is publicly notified for submissions.

(iii) The political working party hears submissions and reports its findings to local boards and the Governing Body prior to the Governing Body making the statutory resolution that is publicly notified for objections and appeals.

5. The proposed process has been reported to local boards for their comments. There is general support among local boards for the process endorsed by the Governing Body. Three local boards have requested that the hearing of submissions is conducted by the relevant local board rather than the working party. Staff recommend that the Governing Body proceeds with the initial proposal but reviews the process for hearing submissions once the initial proposed changes are decided.

6. The Governing Body is requested to finalise the process.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the feedback from local boards

b) note the mayor’s appointments to the Joint Governance Working Party

c) approve the draft terms of reference for the Joint Governance Working Party for inclusion in the Auckland Council Committee Terms of Reference

d) approve the following process for conducting the review of representation arrangements

i) The Joint Governance Working Party will develop Auckland Council’s initial review of representation arrangements and present it to local boards and the Governing Body for comments before the Governing Body makes the statutory resolution for public notification for submissions.

ii) the Joint Governance Working Party will conduct the hearing of submissions and 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.

iii) the Governing Body will review the process for hearing submissions under (ii) at the time the initial proposals for change are known.

Comments

Requirement to conduct a review of representation arrangements

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

8. 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. Auckland Council is required to undertake another review for the 2025 elections if it has not undertaken a review for the 2022 elections.

What can be reviewed

9. It is possible to review the following for the Governing Body:

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

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

10. 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.

11. 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.

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

Legislative timeframe

13. A representation review containing the council’s proposals must be publicly notified by the council no later than 8 September 2018.

14. Any member of the public can make a written submission on the council’s proposals. The council considers all submissions and may change its proposals as a result. If a person who made a submission is not satisfied with the council’s amended proposal they can appeal against it.

15. If the council receives any objections or appeals it must refer the whole representation review to the Local Government Commission (Commission). It must do this no later than 15 January 2019.

16. The Commission has a quasi-judicial role to determine the best representation arrangements. It takes into account the original council decisions, the submissions, appeals and objections. It must issue its decision no later than 11 April 2019.

17. A Commission decision can be appealed to the High Court on a point of law.

Process supported by the Governing Body

18. With a Governing Body and 21 local boards, Auckland Council has more complex arrangements than other councils. It needs to identify an efficient and effective process for undertaking the review.

19. A report was represented to the Governing Body meeting on 28 September 2017 setting out options. The Governing Body made the following resolution, which included inviting feedback from local boards before making a final decision on the process [GB/2017/126]:

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.

Local boards have provided feedback

20. Attachment A contains a schedule of the resolutions passed by the local boards.

21. A summary of the feedback on the individual aspects of the proposed process is as follows:

Proposal	Local board feedback
A political working party develops an initial proposal and reports this to local boards and the Governing Body. The Governing Body makes the statutory resolution which is publicly notified for submissions.	Of the boards which commented on this aspect, there was general support. Additional comments: Mangere-Ōtāhuhu Submitted that views from Mana Whenua are considered by the political working party in developing the council’s proposal for consultation Rodney At least one member of the working party should be a rural representative chosen by the Rodney and Franklin Local Boards. Ōrākei Does not support the political working party conducting the review Papakura The composition of the working party should include: · one representative from rural boards · one representative from the gulf islands boards · at least one representative from each of the geographical clusters: o south o central o west o north
The political working party hears submissions and reports its findings to local boards and the Governing Body. The Governing Body makes the final statutory resolution which is publicly notified for objections and appeals.	Those local boards that generally supported the total proposal or specifically supported this part of the proposal: · Albert-Eden · Franklin · Henderson-Massey · Howick · Kaipātiki · Manurewa · Papakura · Puketāpapa · Waitākere Ranges · Whau Alternative comments: Devonport-Takapuna The local board should hear the local submissions and provide feedback to the working party. Upper Harbour The local board should hear the local submissions and provide feedback to the working party. Orākei supports the individual local boards hearing local submissions from their respective local board area
The mayor calls for expressions of interest from elected members and appoints an equal number of Governing Body and local board members to the working party.	Of the boards which commented on this aspect, there was general support. Additional comments: Upper Harbour The mayor and deputy mayor together make the appointments.

Staff comments on issues raised by local boards

22. The Rodney Local Board has requested there is rural representation and noted the extensive geographical size of rural boards and wards. The proposed working party will not have representation from all wards and local boards. If a rural representative does not express interest in being appointed, or if the mayor does not appoint a rural representative to the working party, the terms of reference for the working party could allow for the working party to co-opt representatives of the area being considered if the working party feels it is not sufficiently knowledgeable about the area. The working party will have a programme of work which will include matters different to the review of representation and for which representation from particular areas may not be particularly relevant.

23. Three local boards have submitted that local boards should hear local submissions. The majority of boards have supported the proposal that the working party hears submissions and then reports its findings to the local boards and Governing Body.

24. Key reasons in support of the political working party conducting the hearing of submissions include:

(i) some submitters will submit on both governing body representation and local board representation. It is easier on submitters to attend only one hearing

(ii) there is only one hearing process to administer

(iii) the scope of the review includes deciding the number of board members. It could help to have a consistent approach across the region

(iv) all local boards will have the opportunity to comment on the findings of the political working party.

25. Key reasons in support of local boards conducting the hearing of submissions include:

(i) decisions within the scope of the review may require an expert knowledge of the location of communities of interest (for example if there are proposals to create or change subdivisions)

(ii) the scope of the review includes the option of changing the local board name. This would be of significant interest to the local board.

26. At this point in the process it is not known what proposals for change might be made by the council and notified for public submission. Staff recommend proceeding with the political working party hearing submissions, subject to reviewing this at the time the Governing Body finalises the initial proposal for public notification.

27. One local board suggested that members of the working party be appointed by the mayor and deputy mayor together. The majority of boards supported the proposal that the mayor appoint the members.

Political working party membership and terms of reference

28. The ‘Committee Terms of Reference’ includes terms of reference for one political working party – Te Tiriti o Waitangi Working Party. Other working parties are ad hoc – formed for specific issues - and do not continue. Their terms of reference are agreed when they are set up.

29. Because the proposed working party is to be ongoing it is appropriate to include its terms of reference in the formal ‘Committee Terms of Reference’.

30. This political working party arises out of the wider programme of work relating to the Governance Framework Review and is not limited to the review of representation arrangements. The draft terms of reference reflect this wider context.

31. The draft terms of reference for the working party, to be known as the “Joint Governance Working Party”, are contained in Attachment B.

32. The mayor called for expressions of interest in the membership of the working party to be lodged by 6 December 2017.

33. Some local boards made recommendations relating to the composition of the working party and these were passed on to the mayor for consideration.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

34. The Auckland Council is required to conduct the review of representation arrangements and make decisions in terms of an initial proposal followed by a final proposal after hearing submissions. The Governing Body will make the decisions of Auckland Council, however the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires that the Governing Body must:

“consider any views and preferences expressed by a local board, if the decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area.”

35. All local boards have had the opportunity to comment on the proposed process for conducting the review of representation arrangements. There will be local board representation on the political working party.

Māori impact statement

36. Council’s representation arrangements that relate directly to Māori representation (the creation of a Māori ward) has been considered separately. The Governing Body has resolved support in principle, subject to a change in legislation which gives the Governing Body the ability to increase the number of Governing Body members.

37. The next opportunity for the Governing Body to consider this will be in 2020, for the 2022 elections, subject to the legislative change being made. If the Governing Body decides then to establish a Māori ward it will need to conduct another review of representation arrangements for the 2022 elections.

Implementation

38. A meeting of the Joint Governance Working Party will be called early in the new year to consider the review in more detail.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local board feedback on the proposed process for the review of representation arrangements	51
b ⇩	Draft Terms of Reference for the Joint Governance Working Party	59

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

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

Author	Tam White - Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Stephen Town - Chief Executive

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

Chairperson:
Deputy chairperson:

Members:

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Health, Safety & Wellbeing Report	63