Agenda of Governing Body

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Amended Governing Body Terms of Reference	11

Governing Body

26 July 2018

Review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections

File No.: CP2018/12159

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To resolve the council’s initial proposal for its representation arrangements at the 2019 elections, as required by section 19H of the Local Electoral Act 2001 (Act).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Auckland Council’s representation arrangements must be reviewed this year. The outcome will apply at the 2019 elections and the 2022 elections (unless the council chooses to conduct another review for the 2022 elections).

3. The process in the Act requires the council to make its initial proposal, by resolution, which is then publicly notified for submissions. After considering submissions, the council resolves its final proposal which is also publicly notified, with any appeals, objections and proposals that do not comply with the 10 per cent rule, being forwarded to the Local Government Commission to make the final decision. If there are no appeals or objections and if the council’s proposals all comply with the 10 per cent rule, the council’s final proposal is implemented for the 2019 elections.

4. Auckland Council has the most complex arrangements in New Zealand, with one governing body and twenty-one local boards. The Governing Body finalised the process for conducting the review in December 2017, following consultation with local boards. The Joint Governance Working Party (“Working Party”) has developed an initial proposal for consideration by the Governing Body. In doing this, all local boards were asked for their feedback and this is attached in Attachment A. The Working Party also received a report by the councillor for the Waitematā and Gulf ward, which is attached as Attachment B.

5. The council has six weeks following the close of submissions to publicly notify its final proposal. Within those six weeks, the Working Party must hear submitters, consider submissions and report its recommendations to the Governing Body, for the Governing Body to resolve its final proposal. Each local board has authorised a person, usually the board’s chairperson, to represent it if further feedback is required during the submission process.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body, as part of the review of the Auckland Council’s representation arrangements:

a) receive the recommendations of the Joint Governance Working Party as contained in this report, including the feedback from local boards and the report of the councillor for the Waitematā and Gulf Ward.

b) note that the Governing Body has taken into account:

i) the requirement for fair representation across all governing body wards and, within each local board, across all subdivisions

ii) the requirement for effective representation of communities of interest

iii) the requirement for ward boundaries to coincide with local board boundaries as far as is practicable

iv) that local board boundaries cannot be changed as part of the review

v) the existing communities of interest identified by the Local Government Commission in 2010.

c) propose that, for the Waitematā and Gulf ward to comply with the fair representation requirements, its boundaries, and those of adjacent wards, are changed as shown in the map in Attachment C with the result that:

i) the communities of Parnell and Newmarket become part of the Ōrākei ward

ii) the communities in Westmere and west of Surrey Crescent become part of the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward

iii) the community in Eden Terrace, south of the motorway, become part of the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward

and that, as a consequence of these changes:

iv) parts of Ellerslie and St Johns, currently in the Ōrākei ward, become part of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki ward

v) part of Mt Roskill currently in the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward become part of the Whau ward

vi) part of an area close to Royal Oak and Onehunga, currently in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki ward become part of the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward

noting that the Governing Body has particularly taken into account:

vii) the requirement for ward boundaries to coincide with local board boundaries as far as is practicable, and that this proposal will lead to the boundaries of the affected wards not being fully aligned with local board boundaries

viii) local board boundaries cannot be changed as part of the review

ix) that there is minor under-representation in the Ōrākei and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki wards but that, due to the Rodney ward having non-complying over-representation it is reasonable to allow small under-representation in other parts of Auckland.

d) propose that the Manukau ward be split into two separate wards with boundaries that align with the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board areas, named the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu ward and the Ōtara-Papatoetoe ward, noting that the Governing Body has particularly taken into account:

i) the existing communities of interest as recognised by the Local Government Commission in 2010, particularly in terms of current local board boundaries

ii) that the Manukau ward is the only double-member ward that can be split into single-member wards along local board boundaries and comply with the fair representation requirements

iii) at the local level the communities of Papatoetoe and Ōtara have guaranteed representation through the subdivision arrangements of the respective local boards

iv) creating two single-member wards based on the existing boundaries of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board and the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board will allow more effective representation of those communities with each ward member having a smaller constituency to support and only one local board to liaise with.

e) propose that the boundaries of the Manurewa-Papakura ward are not changed, noting that this needs confirmation by the Local Government Commission as it is a non-complying decision, and that the Governing Body has particularly taken into account:

i) the existing communities of interest as recognised by the Local Government Commission in terms of current ward and local board boundaries set by the Commission in 2010

ii) the requirement for ward boundaries to coincide with local board boundaries as far as is practicable

iii) local board boundaries cannot be changed as part of the review

iv) the non-compliance is very minor and it is preferable to maintain alignment with local board boundaries to avoid confusing residents and to avoid creating complexities in the administration of elections.

f) propose that the Rodney ward boundaries are not changed, noting that this needs confirmation by the Local Government Commission as it is a non-complying decision and that the Governing Body has particularly taken into account:

i) the existing communities of interest as recognised by the Local Government Commission in 2010 in terms of current ward and local board boundaries set by the Commission in 2010

ii) options for increasing the population of the Rodney ward result in splitting communities of interest or joining disparate communities of interest

iii) the requirement for ward boundaries to coincide with local board boundaries as far as is practicable

iv) local board boundaries cannot be changed as part of the review.

g) propose that the subdivision boundaries of the Rodney Local Board are changed as shown by the map in Attachment D to better recognise communities of interest and to improve compliance with the requirement for fairness by:

i) extending the Wellsford subdivision boundary south to meet the Kumeu subdivision boundary at Makarau

ii) moving the boundary between Warkworth and Wellsford north to include a small area north of Matakana Road in the Warkworth subdivision;

noting that the Governing Body has taken into account:

iii) the requirement for fair representation across all subdivisions of the Rodney Local Board

iv) the requirement for effective representation of communities of interest within the Rodney Local Board area

h) propose that the boundaries of the subdivisions in the Howick Local Board area are not changed noting that this needs confirmation by the Local Government Commission as it is a non-complying decision and that the Governing Body has taken into account:

i) the existing communities of interest as recognised by the Local Government Commission in 2010 in terms of current ward and local board boundaries

ii) the northern boundary of the Botany subdivision is close to the Botany Town Centre and that any options for moving the northern boundary of the Botany subdivision southwards will result in splitting communities which have more of an interest in the Botany area than in the Howick or Pakuranga area

iii) the population in the Botany subdivision is continuing to grow and once the non-compliance is more substantial, a future review should investigate all options, including an additional subdivision or additional board members.

i) propose that the name of the Great Barrier Local Board is changed to Aotea Great Barrier Local Board to acknowledge the intended re-naming of Great Barrier Island as a result of the settlement with Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea.

j) propose that all other representation arrangements that were in place for the 2016 elections remain unchanged.

k) hold an additional meeting on Thursday 18 October 2018 at 9.30 am to consider the report of the Joint Governance Working Party on submissions and to make the council’s final proposal for public notification.

l) delegate to the Joint Governance Working Party the responsibility and power under section 19M (3) of the Local Electoral Act 2001 to hear and consider submissions and to report recommendations to the Governing Body to take into account when making its final proposal.

Horopaki / Context

There are statutory deadlines

6. The Act requires all councils to review their representation arrangements at least every six years. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires Auckland Council to conduct a review of its representation arrangements no earlier than the 2013 elections and no later than September 2018.

7. The Act requires the following timeline and process:

· public notice of the council’s proposals within 14 days of the council’s resolution and by 8 September 2018 at the latest

· consideration of submissions

· public notice of the council’s final proposals within six weeks of the closing date for submissions.

· if there are no objections or appeals, and the council’s decisions include proposals that comply with the 10 per cent rule, the council’s proposals stand and are implemented

· if there are objections or appeals, they are forwarded to the Local Government Commission for a decision.

Role of the Joint Governance Working Party and the process for developing the Auckland Council proposal

8. In 2017 the Governing Body endorsed a process for the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections that was then recommended to local boards. Local board feedback, which was generally supportive of the proposed process, was reported back to the Governing Body in December 2017.

9. The Governing Body, after considering local board feedback, made the following decision:

“That the Governing Body:

a) receive the feedback from local boards.

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

Cr Cathy Casey (Central), Cr Linda Cooper (West), Cr Daniel Newman (South), Cr Wayne Walker (North), Angela Dalton (South), Phelan Pirrie (Rural North), Richard Northey (Central) and Shane Henderson (West).

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.”

10. The process for hearing submissions is considered later in this report under ‘Next steps’.

Representation arrangements that may be reviewed

11. For Governing Body representation, it is possible to review (for members other than the mayor):

· whether members are elected by ward or at-large or by a mixture

· if by ward, the number of wards, names, boundaries and number of members for each ward.

12. For the representation of each local board it is possible to review:

· the number of members for the local board

· whether members are elected by subdivision or at-large or by a mixture

· if by subdivision, the number of subdivisions, names, boundaries and number of members for each subdivision

· the name of the local board.

Matters the council must take into account

13. The Act requires the council to take into account:

· the effective representation of communities of interest

· fairness of representation.

14. Other provisions in the Act include:

· that ward boundaries should align with local board boundaries as far as is practicable

· that boundaries must align with mesh-block boundaries

· when the council gives public notice of its proposal it needs to give reasons for any changes from the 2016 elections.

15. The concept of effective representation of communities of interest includes the division of a total area into smaller wards (for territorial local authorities), subdivisions (for local boards), constituencies (for regional councils) or electorates (for parliament), to achieve a spread of representation through the area which ensures the various communities of interest are effectively represented.

16. There is no definition of ‘community of interest’ in the Act. The Local Government Commission, in its guidelines, identifies three dimensions for recognising communities of interest:

· perceptual: a sense of belonging to an area or locality

· functional: the ability to meet the community’s requirements for services

· political: the ability to represent the interests and reconcile conflicts of the community.

17. The concept of fairness means that the ratio of population to elected member for wards, in the case of the governing body, and subdivisions, in the case of local boards, should not vary significantly across the region or local board area respectively. The legislation allows for a variance of up to 10 per cent. This is referred to in this report as the ‘10 per cent rule’. The legislation further allows the council to not comply if compliance would result in splitting communities of interest or joining disparate communities of interest. The final decision on a proposal to not comply is made by the Local Government Commission.

18. A practical consideration is the distribution of voting documents. Each voter receives a pack of voting documents which is relevant to that voter (the pack contains voting papers for the governing body positions and local board positions relevant to that voter). Misalignment of boundaries can create additional combinations of governing body and local board positions. This leads to additional cost in terms of voting documents. This reinforces the legal requirement for ward and local board boundaries to align as far as is practicable.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Review of Governing Body representation arrangements

19. For Governing Body arrangements, the Working Party has reviewed:

(i) whether any Governing Body members should be elected at large

(ii) whether wards should be larger in size

(iii) conversely, whether any double-member wards should become single-members wards

(iv) whether any wards which do not comply with the 10 per cent rule should have their boundaries amended so that they comply. The wards which do not comply with the 10 per cent rule are:

· Waitematā and Gulf ward

· Ōrākei ward

· Rodney ward

· Manurewa-Papakura ward.

Whether any Governing Body members should be elected at large

20. The Royal Commission in 2009 proposed a total of 23 councillors with ten elected at-large, eight elected in four double-member urban wards, two single rural ward councillors, two elected by those on the Māori roll, one appointed by mana whenua.

21. The Government’s response to the Royal Commission in its report ‘Making Auckland Greater’ proposed 20 councillors with eight elected at-large and 12 single-member wards.

22. Parliament’s Select Committee, The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, reported there was significant opposition to electing councillors at-large and felt that retaining the at-large councillors could reduce voter participation. The majority of members believed that replacing the at-large councillors with ward councillors would provide for better representation of the communities of interest in Auckland.

23. The Local Government Commission determined the current arrangements in 2010. There was considerable public interest and the Commission’s final determination followed 736 submissions on its first proposal.

24. The Working Party noted that this issue had been discussed as part of the Governance Framework Review and that the Governing Body had resolved against any members being elected at-large. Nevertheless, the Working Party looked into whether to propose that any councillor positions should be elected at-large. It considered a scenario of three councillors elected at-large. That would have the effect that each of the remaining 17 ward councillors would represent populations of 97,000, which are very large populations. The Rodney ward is already over-represented and this would get worse, though the under representation in the Waitematā and Gulf ward would be improved. A related issue with at-large positions is the cost of by-elections if a vacancy occurs. The Working Party confirmed the Governing Body’s position that all councillors should be elected by ward.

Whether wards should be larger

25. The Working Party considered whether wards should be larger than they are currently. It considered a scenario where the three south Auckland urban wards were combined into one ward for the purpose of electing six members. It noted:

i) the total ward population would be 468,000

ii) there is higher voter turnout in the Howick area than in the other areas currently represented by separate wards and so Howick would have the potential to drive election results with the effect that there might not be a spread of representation over all south Auckland communities

iii) voters would need to choose six candidates from a long list of candidates, making the election process more complicated

iv) a vacancy would cause a costly by-election

v) the cap on election expenses would increase.

26. The Working Party is not recommending that any wards are increased in size to elect a greater number of members.

Whether any double-member wards should be single-member wards

27. The following table shows current single and double-member wards:

Single-member

Double-member

Rodney

Waitematā

Ōrākei

Whau

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

Franklin

Albany

North Shore

Albert-Eden-Roskill

Waitākere

Howick

Manukau

Manurewa-Papakura

28. The Working Party considered whether any double-member wards should be split into single-member wards. It noted that wards and local boards should both be based on communities of interest and if double-member wards are split, the split should align with local board boundaries.

29. The only double-member ward which can be split in this way is the Manukau ward. Splitting the other double-member wards results in single-member wards which do not comply with the 10 per cent rule.

30. The relevant matters to consider include the effective representation of communities of interest. Auckland Council wards are very large compared to wards of other councils, having a population on average of 82,860 per councillor. A double-member ward has approximately 160,000 population.

31. One advantage of creating single-member wards is more effective representation and engagement with the community in each ward because each councillor has a smaller area as a constituency. This needs to be balanced against any negative effects on communities of interest.

32. Splitting the Manukau ward would create a Māngere-Ōtāhuhu ward and an Ōtara -Papatoetoe ward. Both wards are already deemed to be communities of interest in terms of their respective local boards.

33. Within the combined Ōtara -Papatoetoe area the communities of Papatoetoe and Ōtara share many similarities but also have some differences. For example, Papatoetoe has a different ethnic composition to Ōtara and is larger in population. Both communities are lower socio-economic communities, but Ōtara has more population in the top deprivation index category, and in this respect is more like parts of Māngere than Papatoetoe.

34. The Working Party considered splitting the Manukau ward on two occasions – initially the majority of members agreed to recommend no change, but the Working Party reconsidered its position following the Governing Body workshop. The Working Party recommends that the Manukau ward is split. This will provide more effective representation with each councillor having a smaller area of focus. The smaller areas within the Ōtara-Papatoetoe ward have guaranteed representation at the local level through local board subdivisions.

Wards that do not comply with the 10 per cent rule

35. Based on statistics provided by the Local Government Commission (being a 2017 estimate) the following table displays population ratios. The Waitematā and Gulf ward, Ōrākei Ward, Rodney ward and Manurewa-Papakura ward do not comply with the 10 per cent rule.

Ward	Population	Members	Population per member	Difference from quota	Per cent difference from quota
Rodney Ward	64,300	1	64,300	-18,560	-22.40
Albany Ward	169,800	2	84,900	2,040	2.46
North Shore Ward	156,800	2	78,400	-4,460	-5.38
Waitākere Ward	176,500	2	88,250	5,390	6.50
Waitematā and Gulf Ward	119,100	1	119,100	36,240	43.74
Whau Ward	84,700	1	84,700	1,840	2.22
Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward	172,200	2	86,100	3,240	3.91
Ōrākei Ward	91,500	1	91,500	8,640	10.43
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Ward	79,700	1	79,700	-3,160	-3.81
Howick Ward	150,200	2	75,100	-7,760	-9.37
Manukau Ward	168,900	2	84,450	1,590	1.92
Manurewa-Papakura Ward	148,900	2	74,450	-8,410	-10.15
Franklin Ward	74,600	1	74,600	-8,260	-9.97
Total	1,657,200	20	82,860

Waitematā and Gulf ward

36. The Waitematā and Gulf ward varies from the average population to member ratio (the “quota”) by 43.74 per cent. To comply with the 10 per cent rule, the ward needs to lose population. The Working Party considered three options (Attachment E):

i) Option 1: the boundaries on both the east and west of the ward move inwards

ii) Option 2: the boundary on the east (with the Ōrākei ward) does not change and there is a greater change to the western boundary

iii) Option 3: the boundary on the west (with the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward) does not change and there is a greater change in the boundary on the east (with more of Waitematā and Gulf ward being transferred to the Ōrākei ward).

37. The Working Party is recommending option 1. The other options have greater flow-on effects to neighbouring wards. Option 1 affects the following communities:

· the communities of Parnell and Newmarket will become part of the Ōrākei ward

· the communities in Westmere and west of Surrey Crescent will become part of the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward

· the community in Eden Terrace, south of the motorway, will become part of the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward.

38. These changes will have consequential effects in neighbouring wards for those wards to comply with the 10 per cent rule:

· parts of Ellerslie and St Johns, currently in the Ōrākei ward, will become part of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki ward

· part of Mt Roskill currently in the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward will become part of the Whau ward

· part of an area close to Royal Oak and Onehunga, currently in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki ward will become part of the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward.

39. There are no effects on local board boundaries as these cannot be changed under the process for the review of representation arrangements.

40. The following table shows the effect of this option on populations in terms of the 10 per cent rule:

Ward	Per cent difference from quota
Waitematā and Gulf Ward	9.22
Whau Ward	9.58
Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward	10.07
Ōrākei Ward	10.91
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Ward	10.43

41. The Working Party considered formal feedback from local boards and a written report by the member for the Waitematā and Gulf ward, Councillor Mike Lee.

42. The Ōrākei Local Board has made proposals that modify the option supported by the Working Party. Parnell becomes part of Ōrākei. The board notes that Parnell shares a common boundary with Hobson Bay. However, it believes that Newmarket should stay within the Waitematā and Gulf ward because it shares characteristics with Grafton and the CBD. Further, it states that the areas of St Johns and Colin Maiden Park that are proposed to become part of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki ward, have more of a community of interest with Ōrākei than Maungakiekie-Tāmaki.

43. Other local boards located within the areas of the affected wards supported Option 1:

· Waitematā Local Board

· Albert-Eden Local Board

· Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

44. The Puketāpapa Local Board did not comment on the option.

45. Councillor Mike Lee has recommended the status quo:

i) He notes the requirement for fair representation in the Act, which refers to ensuring “…that the electors of the ward or constituency or subdivision receive fair representation, having regard to the population…” Councillor Lee points out that the ratio of electors to population in the Waitematā and Gulf ward is very low (if not the lowest in the country) and if fairness of representation is in respect to electors, then basing fairness on population in the Waitematā and Gulf ward is not appropriate.

ii) He also refers to various aspects of Auckland’s governance arrangements that make Auckland Council unique and that the arrangements that were set in place by the Local Government Commission for the establishment of Auckland Council in 2010 should not be interfered with.

iii) He notes that changing the ward boundaries will lead to a misalignment with local board boundaries and consequential additional election costs through having to publish different versions of voting documents

iv) Councillor Lee also notes the ability under the Act to not comply with the 10 per cent rule if compliance would lead to splitting communities of interest. He maintains that the Working Party’s recommendation would lead to splitting communities of interest.

46. The variance of the ward from the quota is 43.74 per cent and this will continue to grow as population increases. Although the legislation provides the ability to not comply with the 10 per cent rule, it is not likely that the Local Government Commission would accept this degree of non-compliance – though this is their discretion.

47. We reviewed several previous determinations of the Commission. The highest variance that has been accepted by the Commission appears to be -61.47 per cent in Christchurch for Banks Peninsula. In that case, it was clear that Banks Peninsula did not form a community of interest with any of the urban wards in Christchurch. A variance of -55.48 per cent was accepted for Fiordland in the Southland Regional Council area for similar reasons. However, other variances that have been accepted have been 20 per cent or less.

48. The Working Party considered the views of the local boards and Councillor Lee and confirmed its preference for Option 1.

Rodney ward

49. The Rodney ward is over-represented by -22.40 per cent and to comply it needs to expand its boundaries.

50. The Working Party considered options for increasing the population of the ward by expanding its boundaries.

51. An option that would provide sufficient population moves the area that includes Orewa to Waiwera into the Rodney ward and out of the Albany ward. The Working Party has rejected that option on the basis that it would split the community of interest that those places have with the Hibiscus Coast.

52. Another option is to move the southern boundary of the Rodney ward southwards. However, this option moves communities into Rodney which are south-facing rather than north-facing. These communities would tend to go south for work and retail shopping purposes rather than go north.

53. The Working Party noted:

· compliance with the 10 per cent rule would split communities of interest or join disparate communities of interest

· a variance of -22 per cent is likely to be acceptable to the Commission, and it is gradually improving over time as population in Rodney increases

· there is a legislative requirement for ward boundaries and local board boundaries to align as far as is practicable

· the current Rodney ward boundaries were established by the Local Government Commission.

54. The Working Party recommends the council propose the status quo for the Rodney ward.

Manurewa-Papakura ward

55. The Manurewa-Papakura ward is over-represented by -10.15 per cent and to comply it needs to expand its boundaries.

56. The ward cannot be expanded southwards as this would take population from the Franklin ward.

57. The Working Party considered two options for expanding the northern boundary. One option moves the boundary on the western side of the motorway northwards from SH20 to Cavendish Drive in the Manukau City Centre.

58. The other option moves the northern boundary on the eastern side of the motorway, currently along the Redoubt Road ridge, northwards.

59. The Working Party noted:

· the variance is only marginally over 10 per cent

· the communities north of Redoubt Road do not have a community of interest with Manurewa-Papakura

· the Ōtara -Papatoetoe Local Board has provided feedback that it considers SH20 to be the obvious northern boundary on the western side of the motorway

· there is a legislative requirement for ward boundaries and local board boundaries to align as far as is practicable.

60. The Working Party recommends the council propose the status quo for the Manurewa-Papakura ward.

Wards for the 2019 elections

61. The table below summarises the arrangements for wards for the 2019 election with the above proposals:

Ward	Population (2017 Est.)	Members	Population per member	Difference from quota	Per cent difference from quota
Rodney Ward	64,300	1	64,300	-18,560	-22.40
Albany Ward	169,800	2	84,900	2,040	2.46
North Shore Ward	156,800	2	78,400	-4,460	-5.38
Waitākere Ward	176,500	2	88,250	5,390	6.50
Waitematā and Gulf Ward	90,500	1	90,500	7,640	9.22
Whau Ward	90,800	1	90,800	7,940	9.58
Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward	182,400	2	91,200	8,340	10.07
Ōrākei Ward	91,900	1	91,900	9,040	10.91
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Ward	91,500	1	91,500	8,640	10.43
Howick Ward	150,200	2	75,100	-7,760	-9.37
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Ward	81,100	1	81,100	-1,760	-2.12
Ōtara-Papatoetoe Ward	87,800	1	87,800	4,940	5.96
Manurewa-Papakura Ward	148,900	2	74,450	-8,410	-10.15
Franklin Ward	74,600	1	74,600	-8,260	-9.97
Total Auckland	1,657,200	20	82,860

Review of local board representation arrangements

62. A presentation on the review was discussed at local board workshops. Following this, all local boards considered a formal report, which described representation issues for both the Governing Body and local boards and resolved their formal feedback (Attachment A). The Working Party received the local board feedback which has guided their recommendations on local board issues.

Number of members on local boards

63. The following table provides the population for each local board and the number of board members:

Board	Population	Members	Population per member
Rodney	64,300	9	7,144
Hibiscus and Bays	104,500	8	13,063
Upper Harbour	65,300	6	10,883
Kaipātiki	94,000	8	11,750
Devonport-Takapuna	62,800	6	10,467
Henderson-Massey	122,300	8	15,288
Waitākere Ranges	54,200	6	9,033
Great Barrier	1,000	5	200
Waiheke	9,630	5	1,926
Waitematā	108,500	7	15,500
Whau	84,700	7	12,100
Albert-Eden	109,200	8	13,650
Puketāpapa	63,000	6	10,500
Ōrākei	91,500	7	13,071
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	79,700	7	11,386
Howick	150,200	9	16,689
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu	81,100	7	11,586
Ōtara-Papatoetoe	87,800	7	12,543
Manurewa	94,500	8	11,813
Papakura	54,500	6	9,083
Franklin	74,600	9	8,289
Total	1,657,330

64. There is no legal requirement that the number of members should be proportional to the size of population, but clearly, the more populous areas have more members than those with less population.

65. There are no recommendations to change the number of local board members on any local board.

Names of local boards

66. The Great Barrier Local Board has proposed that its name changes to Aotea Great Barrier Local Board. The change of name reflects the intended re-naming of Great Barrier Island after the settlement with Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea.

67. This is supported by the Working Party. There are no other proposals for name changes.

Local board subdivisions that do not comply with the 10 per cent rule

68. The following boards do not have subdivisions:

· Upper Harbour

· Kaipātaki

· Devonport-Takapuna

· Henderson

· Waitakere Ranges

· Waitematā

· Ōrākei

· Whau

· Puketāpapa

· Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

· Manurewa

· Papakura

· Great Barrier

· Waiheke

69. For those boards with subdivisions, the following shows population in relation to the 10 per cent rule:

Local board	Population	Members	Pop per member	Difference from quota	% Diff from quota
Rodney Local Board
Wellsford Subdivision	6,380	1	6,380	-763	-10.69
Warkworth Subdivision	20,700	3	6,900	-243	-3.41
Kumeu Subdivision	29,700	4	7,425	282	3.94
Dairy Flat Subdivision	7,510	1	7,510	367	5.13
Total	64,290	9	7,143

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board
Hibiscus Coast Subdivision	53,300	4	13,325	263	2.01
East Coast Bays Subdivision	51,200	4	12,800	-263	-2.01
Total	104,500	8	13,063

Albert-Eden Local Board
Owairaka Subdivision	53,800	4	13,450	-200	-1.47
Maungawhau Subdovision	55,400	4	13,850	200	1.47
Total	109,200	8	13,650

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board
Maungakiekie Subdivision	31,200	3	10,400	-971	-8.54
Tāmaki Subdivision	48,400	4	12,100	729	6.41
Total	79,600	7	11,371

Local board	Population	Members	Pop per member	Difference from quota	% Diff from quota
Howick Local Board
Pakuranga Subdivision	45,800	3	15,267	-1,422	-8.52
Howick Subdivision	45,900	3	15,300	-1,389	-8.32
Botany Subdivision	58,500	3	19,500	2,811	16.84
Total	150,200	9	16,689

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board
Papatoetoe Subdivision	51,600	4	12,900	343	2.73
Ōtara Subdivision	36,300	3	12,100	-457	-3.64
Total	87,900	7	12,557

Franklin Local Board
Waiuku Subdivision	15,350	2	7,675	-619	-7.47
Pukekohe Subdivision	35,900	4	8,975	681	8.20
Wairoa Subdivision	23,400	3	7,800	-494	-5.96
Total	74,650	9	8,294

Note: any discrepancies between local board totals in this table and the previous table are due to rounding protocols being different when analysing populations under 10,000 (where rounding is to the nearest ten rather than the nearest one hundred).

70. There are two subdivisions that do not comply:

· Botany subdivision of the Howick Local Board (at 16.84 per cent, which needs to lose population)

· Wellsford subdivision of the Rodney Local Board (at -10.69 per cent, which is addressed in response to a suggestion to change the Warkworth subdivision boundaries).

Botany subdivision of the Howick Local Board

71. The Botany subdivision needs to lose population to comply. This requires the boundaries of the Pakuranga and / or Howick subdivisions to move southwards. The southern boundary of the Howick subdivision is already close to the Botany Town Centre. Moving it further south encompasses communities who would likely pursue their retail activities at Botany Town Centre rather than at the Howick town centre and who would likely identify more with Botany than Howick.

72. An option considered by the Howick Local Board was to move the Golflands areas into the Howick subdivision and the Burswood area into the Pakuranga subdivision, but the Burswood area is physically separated from Pakuranga by the Pakuranga Creek.

73. The Howick Local Board has recommended that the council should propose the status quo, noting there is continuing growth in the Botany area, and that the council should consider all options for Howick Local Board representation arrangements at a future review.

74. The Working Party supports this recommendation.

Subdivisions of the Rodney Local Board

75. A submission has been received from a resident, Mr Grant Kirby, living near the Kaipara Harbour, pointing out that the Warkworth subdivision extends from coast to coast. Mr Kirby was a former chair of the Local Government Commission. The submission states that the area alongside the Kaipara Harbour does not share a community of interest with Warkworth and suggests extending the Kumeu subdivision boundary northwards, to follow the Helensville electorate boundary.

76. Maps showing current subdivisions, the option of extending the Kumeu subdivision northwards and an option of extending the Wellsford subdivision southwards, are contained in Attachment F. Both options result in subdivisions that comply with the 10 per cent rule.

77. The Rodney Local Board has recommended extending the Wellsford subdivision south on the Kaipara side as well as a boundary adjustment at Matakana Road.

78. The subdivision populations comply with the 10 per cent rule, as follows:

Subdivision	Population (2017 Est.)	Members	Population per member	Difference from quota	Per cent difference from quota
Dairy Flat Subdivision	7,510	1	7,510	367	5.13
Kumeu Subdivision	29,700	4	7,425	282	3.94
Warkworth Subdivision	20,200	3	6,733	-410	-5.74
Wellsford Subdivision	6,870	1	6,870	-273	-3.83
Rodney Local Board Total	64,290	9	7,143

79. The Working Party supports these recommendations.

Other subdivision suggestions

80. The Waitematā Local Board, which does not currently have subdivisions, was invited to comment on a proposal for a central Waitematā subdivision. The local board has stated that it represents the various communities within its area well and subdivisions for the Waitematā Local Board are not required to ensure effective representation of communities of interest.

81. The Upper Harbour Local Board, which does not currently have subdivisions, was invited to comment on a proposal that it should have subdivisions to ensure a spread of representation. The current spread of population in the local board area does not permit subdivision boundaries along recognisable community or physical lines. Staff provided an option with three subdivisions which complied with the 10 per cent rule using the current number of board members for consideration by the board. The board resolved that consideration of establishing subdivisions is deferred to the next review when the population in the western part of the local board area will have increased.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

82. Local boards have supported a process where the Working Party develops the Auckland Council proposal for presentation to the Governing Body. The Working Party has joint local board and Governing Body representation. The Governing Body makes the Auckland Council resolution required by the legislation which will be notified for public submissions.

83. All local boards have had workshops on the review, received a formal report and made formal resolutions providing their feedback.

84. Following the closing date for submissions the Governing Body must make the final statutory resolution within six weeks. The Working Party will consider submissions. For the Working Party to liaise effectively with local boards, the local boards have delegated authority to the chair or another member to represent the board’s views on the review should the Working Party seek further engagement with and/or feedback from the board prior during the consideration of submissions following public notification.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

85. The Act provides for councils to establish Māori wards for electing governing body members.

86. The Auckland Council Governing Body has previously considered this aspect of its representation arrangements. A resolution to establish a Māori ward was required by 23 November 2017. The Governing Body supported the creation of a Māori ward in principle but decided not to proceed further until it could increase the number of Governing Body members.

87. There is no similar provision for local board elections. The process for electing local board members is the same for all.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

88. The review process is supported in-house. There will be costs associated with public notices and a payment to the Local Government Commission for preparing plans of boundaries and having them certified by the Surveyor-General. These costs will be met from existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

89. The legislation requires deadline dates for certain decisions and public notification. Auckland Council has the greatest number of governance entities in the country (one governing body and twenty-one local boards). The biggest risk to the review is not meeting the statutory deadlines due to the need to involve all entities in the review.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

90. The Working Party will hear and consider submissions after submissions have closed and develop final proposals for consideration by the Governing Body at its October meeting, when it will make its final statutory resolution for public notification.

91. The legislation requires public notification of council’s final proposal within six weeks of the date that submissions close. Within those six weeks, staff will analyse submissions for the Working Party. Submitters who request to be heard will be able to attend a hearing conducted by the Working Party. A report will then be written up for presentation to the Governing Body.

92. Some submissions may affect local boards. Each local board has authorised a person, usually the chairperson, to represent the board’s views. Every endeavour will be made to place relevant submissions before local board workshops for local board feedback or to get feedback from those who have been authorised by local boards, to report to the Working Party.

93. To meet the legislatively required timeline, the Governing Body will need to hold an extraordinary meeting to resolve its final proposal.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Formal feedback from local boards	71
b ⇩	Report from the member for the Waitematā and Gulf ward	87
c ⇩	Proposed boundaries for the Waitematā & Gulf, Ōrākei, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Whau wards	95
d ⇩	Proposed boundaries for Rodney Local Board subdivisions	97
e ⇩	Options for Waitematā & Gulf ward	99
f ⇩	Options for Rodney Local Board subdivisions	101

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	25 June 2018 Original Quarterly Health and Safety Performance Report	105

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	12 July 2018 Original Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 Statement of Proposal report to the Regulatory Committee	151

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	12 July 2018 Original Legacy On-site Wastewater Bylaws Statement of Proposal report to the Regulatory Committee	155

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Governing Body's Forward Work Programme	159

Governing Body

26 July 2018

GOVERNING BODY FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME 2016 – 2019 TERM

The Governing Body deals with strategy and policy decision-making that relates to the environmental, social, economic and cultural activities of Auckland as well as matters that are not the responsibility of another committee

The Mayor may require any matter that would otherwise be reported to a committee, to be reported to the Governing Body. If that matter is already on a published agenda for a committee meeting, that meeting will not consider that matter unless invited by the mayor to make a recommendation to the Governing Body.

Lead	Area of work	Reason for work	Governing Body role (decision or direction)	Budget/ Funding	Expected timeframes Highlight financial year quarter and state month if known
					FY18/19
					Jul-Sep 26 Jul 23 Aug 27 Sep	Oct-Dec 25 Oct 22 Nov 13 Dec	Jan-Mar 28 Feb 28 Mar	Apr-Jun 2 May 30 May 27 Jun
Chief Financial Office	Annual Plan	The Local Government Act 2002 requires each local authority to consult on and adopt a long term plan every three years. In each intervening year local authorities are required to consult the community on any significant or material changes to the relevant year of the long term plan through the Annual Budget consultation document. Legislation also requires that the council’s consultation document include a summary of key matters from Local Board Agreements and the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan for the Annual Plan year.	Adopt consultation document and supporting material Approve Annual Plan		Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4 (Jun)
Chief Operating Office	Americas Cup 2021	Location, infrastructure and funding	Approve preferred location Agree strategy for progressing resource consent applications Progress to Date: Report considered 14/12/17 and approval of Wynyard Basin option GB/2017/172 and agreed single hearing process through direct referral Report and revised decision and approval of Wynyard Hobson proposal 29/3/18 GB/2018/63		Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
	City Rail Link	Construction of the City Rail Link in the central city	Approve City Rail Link Heads of Agreement Note any matters raised by the Audit and Risk Committee about the project Progress to Date: Heads of Agreement approved 14/9/16 Conf Appoint chair of City Rail Link 15/12/16 Conf Note sponsors agreement and establishment of new entity City Rail Link Limited 29/6/17 Conf		Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Chief Financial Office	Annual Report	Statutory requirement	Adopt Annual Report		Q1 27 Sep	Q2	Q3	Q4
Governance	Review of Code of Conduct	The experience of working with the current Code of Conduct indicates that it could be further improved. In particular, it could be clearer about complaint, investigation and resolution processes, as well as available sanctions	Adopt new Elected Members Code of Conduct Progress to Date: Initial report was considered 22/2/18 Approval 22/2/18 for review GB/2018/37 Workshop – 15 March 2018		Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Governance	Representation Review	The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires all local authorities to undertake a review of representation arrangements at least once every six years. Auckland Council is required to undertake a review for the 2019 elections. Council’s decision must be issued no later than 11 April 2019.	Approve the process for conducting the review of representation arrangements Approve final decision Progress to Date: Report and approval of process 14/12/17 GB/2017/175		Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Financial Strategy and Planning	Contributions Policy	The Local Government Act requires Council to review the policy every three years. Consultation and adoption must be done by 1 July 2018	Adopt policy Progress to Date: Agree to consultation 30/4/18 GB/2018/79 Agree extension until new policy in place 27/6/18 GB/2018/96		Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Mayoral Office Governance	Terms of Reference	The Terms of Reference enables the governing Body to delegate to committees those power necessary for them to carry out their responsibilities to the most efficient and effective levels. Any changes to the Terms of Reference must be done by the Governing Body.	Adopt the Terms of Reference Adopt changes to Terms of Reference Progress to Date: Initial adoption 1/11/16 GB/2016/237 Review report 14/12/17 GB/2017/177 Review after by-election 22/3/17 GB/2018/57 Amend Appointments, Performance Review and Value for Money 19/4/19 GB/2018/71 Amend because of disestablishment of ACIL 26/7/18		Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Governance	Accountability Review of council-controlled organisations	The accountability review are to increase the accountability and value for money of CCOs by: • increasing the transparency of CCO decision-making • increasing the responsiveness of CCOs to the public and council • improving the recognition of ratepayer funding for CCO activity • increasing the ability to align CCOs to the direction set by the council. Reporting on a quarterly basis	Approve objectives as basis of review Approve scope and timing Progress to Date: Approve objectives, scope and timing 23/2/17 GB/2017/17 Memorandum 9/4/18 to councillors with an update	Within timelines and budgets	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Governance	Independent Māori Statutory Board funding	The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) requires Auckland Council to meet the reasonable costs of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) board’s operations, secretariat, the establishment of committees, and seeking and obtaining advice (Schedule 2, clause 20, sub-clause 1, LGACA)	Approve 2019/2020 funding agreement		Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
People and Performance	Health, Safety and Wellbeing	The Governing Body has the role of the person or organisation conducting a business or undertaking.	Receive the quarterly Health, Safety and Wellbeing Report Progress to Date: March report received GB/2018/55 June report received		Q1 (Sep)	Q2 (Dec)	Q3 (Mar)	Q4 (Jun)
Social Policy and Bylaws	Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw Review	Legislative requirement to review bylaw within five years. Committee resolution to “commence the review of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 at an early date”.	Approve statement of proposal. # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Length of time required to draft the statement of proposal will depend on the scope of amendments requested following the review findings.	Within current baselines.	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Social Policy and Bylaws	Dog management Bylaw and Policy on Dogs	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Approve statement of proposal # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.	Within current baselines.	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Social Policy and Bylaws	Health and Hygiene Bylaw	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Approve statement of proposal # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Progress to Date: Approve the statement of proposal	Within current baselines.	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Social Policy and Bylaws	Solid Waste Bylaw Review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Approve statement of proposal # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.	Within current baselines.	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Social Policy and Bylaws	On-site Wastewater Bylaw	Legislative requirement to review legacy bylaws by 31 October 2020.	Approve statement of proposal # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Progress to Date: Approve the statement of proposal	Within current baselines.	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Social Policy and Bylaws	Signage Bylaw	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Approve statement of proposal # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.	Within current baselines.	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Social Policy and Bylaws	Alcohol Control Bylaw Review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Approve statement of proposal # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.	Within current baselines.	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Social Policy and Bylaws	Freedom Camping	Explore the need for and options for regulating freedom camping in Auckland Regulatory response may be required following completion of research and pilot	If regulatory response required: Approve statement of proposal Make the bylaw	Review is within current baselines. Funding proposals will be required for any recommendations that require capital or operational upgrades.	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Mayoral Office	Mayoral Housing Taskforce Steering Group	Oversee the progress and implementation of the June 2017 Mayoral Housing Taskforce report.	Setup, agree and approve membership of group Receive six-monthly updates Progress to Date: Taskforce setup 27/7/17 GB/2017/79 Memorandum 9/4/18 to councillors updating progress		Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Governance	Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi	The Crown negotiates settlements with iwi on a confidential basis and from time to time invites Council to express its views. The Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Working party is accountable to the Governing Body and reports its findings to the Governing Body.	Approve submissions to the Crown as and when required Approve establishment and on-going implementation of co-management and other governance arrangements		Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Governance	Advisory Panels	The Governing Body appoints members to advisory panels, as required.	Approve appointments to advisory panels	Within current baselines.	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4

COMPLETED
Governance	2018 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting	The Governing Body sends representatives to the conference and as delegates to the Annual General Meeting		Appoint presiding delegate to Annual General Meeting Appoint three other delegates to Annual General Meeting Approve councillors to attend conference Progress to Date: Report was considered 22/3/18 Approved the above GB/2018/47	Q3 FY17/18	Q4	Q1	Q2
People and Performance	Remuneration Policy	The current Remuneration Policy was adopted in 2014. The policy provides high-level guidance for all remuneration decisions made by the council. The policy is also supported by operational guidelines and policies. Under the Local Government Act 2002 (Schedule 7, section 36A) the policy must be reviewed every three years.		Approve the change to the policy. Progress to Date: Report considered 22/3/18 Approved 22/3/18 GB/2018/42	Q3 FY17/18	Q4	Q1	Q2
Chief Planning Office	Auckland Plan Refresh	The Auckland Plan was approved in 2012 and a commitment made to a refresh within six years. A refresh will ensure that the Auckland Plan remains current and will inform Long-term Plan 2018-2028 prioritisation and budget decisions.	Approve refresh of Auckland Plan Progress to Date: Various workshops throughout 2017/2018 Adopted summary information 21/2/18 GB/2018/25 Adopted by Planning Committee 6/5/18 PLA/2018/62		Q3	Q4 FY17/18	Q1	Q2
Chief Financial Office	Long-term Plan 2018-2028	Statutory Process · Consultation process – including hearings for community to be heard and local board engagement meetings (Have Your Say events). Approach to communication of investments in local board areas to be considered · Elected members consideration of feedback · Decision-making for Long-term Plan 2018-2028 · Long-term Plan 2018-2028 adoption	Adopt consultation document and supporting material Adopt Long Term Plan and set rates Progress to Date: Various workshops throughout 2017/2018 Adopted consultation document and supporting material 21/2/18 GB/2018/24 Agree recommendation for adoption 31/5/18 GB/2018/91 Adoption 28/6/18 GB/2018/		Q3	Q4 FY17/18	Q1	Q2
Chief Financial Office	Regional Fuel Tax Proposal	Auckland Council consulted on its 10-year Budget 2018-2028 (LTP), part of which asked if there was support for a Regional Fuel Tax. A report on the consultation undertaken is required by legislation to be submitted to the Ministers of Transport and Finance.	Approve a Regional Fuel Tax for Auckland Progress to Date: Approved 31/5/18 GB/2018/90		Q3	Q4 FY17/18	Q1	Q2
Governance	Advisory Panels	The Governing Body appoints members to advisory panels, as required.	Approve appointments to advisory panels Progress to Date: Initial appointments to demographic panels 23/3/17 Conf Appointments to the Youth Advisory Panel 25/5/17 Conf Replacement members appointed to Youth Advisory Panel 22/3/18 Conf		Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
People and Performance	Chief Executive’s Employment Review Process	Under the Local Government Act 2002, a local authority Chief Executive is appointed for a five year term. Schedule 7 of the Act gives the option of a two year extension if Council undertakes a formal employment review at least six months before the expiry of the current contract. The Governing Body is responsible for the review.	Approve performance objectives Agree to the review of the chief executive performance before 30 June 2018 Delegate the review if desired Decision on chief executives contract Progress to Date: Objectives approved and released 23/11/17 GB/2017/153 Process approved 19/4/18 GB/2018/71 Re-appointment confirmed 27/6/18 GB/2018/103		Q3	Q4 FY17/18	Q1	Q2
Governance	Independent Maori Statutory Board funding	The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) requires Auckland Council to meet the reasonable costs of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) board’s operations, secretariat, the establishment of committees, and seeking and obtaining advice (Schedule 2, clause 20, sub-clause 1, LGACA)	Approve 2018/2019 funding agreement Progress to Date: Report received 27/6/18 and funding approved GB/2018/94		Q3	Q4 FY17/18	Q1	Q2
Governance	Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi	The Crown negotiates settlements with iwi on a confidential basis and from time to time invites Council to express its views. The Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Working party is accountable to the Governing Body and reports its findings to the Governing Body.	Approve submissions to the Crown as and when required Approve establishment and on-going implementation of co-management and other governance arrangements Progress to Date: Submission on Point England Development Enabling Bill 23/2/17 GB/2017/8 Submission on Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlements Bill 27/7/17 GB/2017/85 Report Upper Mangatangi-Mangarawhiri Catchments Co-governance Arrangements 24/8/17 GB/2017/99 Submission on Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill 22/2/18 GB/2018/36 Open Report Te Akitai Waiohua – Treaty Settlement Redress Conf 19/4/18 GB/2018/69 Open Report Ngāti Paoa – Treaty settlement redress Conf 24/5/18 Open Report on Maungauika – transfer of administration 27/6/18 GB/2018/97		Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4

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

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