|
MOVED by Cr A Filipaina, seconded by Cr L Cooper:
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.
|
