Addendum Agenda of Governing Body

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Governing Body will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Thursday, 25 October 2018

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

Tira Kāwana / Governing Body

OPEN ADDENDUM AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

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

(Quorum 11 members)

Sarndra O'Toole

Team Leader Governance Advisors

23 October 2018

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8152

Email: sarndra.otoole@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Governing Body

25 October 2018

Mayoral Housing Taskforce work programme update

File No.: CP2018/19988

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To update the Governing Body on the Mayoral Housing Taskforce.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Mayoral Housing Taskforce (MHT) was set up to provide advice, identify barriers, as well as opportunities to building more homes at a pace and scale that meets the demand created by Auckland’s growth. The MHT is also tasked with finding options and progressing work to overcome these constraints.

3. This work is aligned to the recommendations made in the MHT’s Report released in June 2017 and reported to the Governing Body on 27 July 2017 (CP2017/12102).

4. Since its inception, the MHT has provided a high-level forum where political, community and industry leaders can come together on a regular basis. This is beneficial because it provides a forum for key partners to collectively discuss barriers, opportunities and explore Auckland specific solutions. No other forums exist that allow for this dialogue to take place between key partners on a regular basis.

5. Since the report to the Governing Body in July 2017, the MHT has met four times - December 2017, April, July and October 2018.

6. Six workstreams were established to undertake the work required to progress the report’s 33 recommendations:

- Construction Procurement and Contracting;

- Infrastructure Funding;

- Building Code;

- Construction Skills and Labour;

- KiwiBuild Programme; and,

- Urban Development Authority (UDA).

7. It is worth noting the increased commitment and engagement of central government and its agencies to participate in this work.

8. Auckland Council and other MHT members have made good progress via the six workstreams. Several recommendations have been completed and significantly advanced since the MHT last reported to the Governing Body.

9. In terms of next steps and given that many recommendations have either been completed or nearly closed-out, the MHT will refine and prioritise the outstanding recommendations.

10. The MHT has also agreed to reflect on its membership and the strategic role it can continue to play to support quality urban growth and housing programmes across Auckland. These issues will be considered intersessionally and discussed at the next MHT meeting planned for the first quarter of 2019.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) note the update on progress with the recommendations of the Mayor Housing Taskforce Report (Attachment A of the agenda report).

Horopaki / Context

11. The Mayoral Housing Taskforce (MHT) was set-up in early 2017 to help identify significant barriers, as well as opportunities to building homes at a pace and scale to meet Auckland growth; and to catch-up on the deficit in Auckland’s housing stock. Its main purpose was to provide advice, investigate the constraints and opportunities more closely; and get industry representatives, central government and council around the same table to discuss these issues and explore solutions.

12. The purpose of the taskforce was to:

- Identify barriers and constraints to building more homes in Auckland at a pace and scale which meets the demand created by population growth; and,

- Identify options and make recommendations to overcome those barriers and constraints.

13. Specifically, the MHT has investigated issues around barriers to getting homes built and the related supply chain, for example, labour/skills, industry capacity, procurement, infrastructure funding, consenting and regulatory processes.

14. The MHT did not focus exclusively on the demand-side issues, for example, social housing and homelessness. It did, however, make the recommendation to investigate new tenure and ownership models (recommendation 6 – see Attachment A). To support this recommendation, the council’s Planning Committee, at its meeting on 2 October 2018, tasked staff to develop a scope of work and provide advice on ways to increase affordable housing (CP2018/17787).

15. Since the last report to the Governing Body in July 2017, the MHT has met four times (December 2017, April, July and October 2018). These meetings have involved discussions, including with Ministers, on urban development initiatives and housing challenges/opportunities in Auckland (see Attachment A for an update of progress on the recommendations).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

16. The MHT established six workstreams to progress the 33 recommendations:

- Construction Procurement and Contracting;

- Infrastructure Funding;

- Building Code;

- Construction Skills and Labour;

- KiwiBuild Programme; and,

- Urban Development Authority (UDA).

17. This report focuses on providing a high-level update on the first four workstreams, as well as the recommendations that have been completed and progressed.

18. Several interrelated and mutually dependent recommendations have been aggregated to be progressed under one of the first four workstreams. For example, recommendation 3 and 4 cover skills, workforce issues and working visas. These issues have been allocated to the construction skills and labour workstream.

19. The Kiwibuild programme and UDA workstreams, both led by central government, have been established, and work to deliver Kiwibuild is well underway in Auckland.

20. A summary of workstream activity progressed since the last update is outlined directly below:

Recommendations progressed and completed

21. Good collaboration has ensured progress has been achieved on scaled up joint venture building programmes on public land (recommendation 1), community engagement on urban regeneration programmes (recommendation 2) and establishing a long-term programme of housing development (recommendation 5). Auckland Council has been working closely with HLC (Homes.Land.Company. Previously referred to as the Hobsonville Land Company) and Housing NZ on housing regeneration areas, for example, Mt Roskill (more than 2400 homes), Mangere (up to 3500 homes) and Mt Albert (1200 – 1600 homes)

22. Auckland Council is developing the scope of work on affordable housing; this work supports the MHT’s recommendation on new tenure & ownership models (recommendation 6). Ongoing progress will be reported to the Planning Committee in November 2018 and March 2019.

23. Work on aligning the Auckland Plan with the national policy statement (NPS) on future urban development capacity (recommendation 13) has been completed. This follows the recent adoption of the Development Strategy as part of the Auckland Plan refresh. Council’s view is that the Development Strategy fulfils the requirements of the NPS, for example, making sure Auckland undertakes responsive planning and the region has a future development strategy.

24. The MHT’s recommendation on broadening sources of funding for infrastructure and revenue sharing (recommendation 17) has advanced on several fronts. For example, the adoption and implementation of the regional fuel tax, as well as council securing Housing Infrastructure Funding and Crown Infrastructure Partners funding from central government.

25. Work on the merits of land value versus capital value as a tool to improve incentives to develop (recommendation 18) was presented to the MHT on 12 October. While the initial analysis is complete, the MHT has asked for further analysis of the benefits and risks including for commercial property.

26. Auckland Council has implemented and continues to measure positive progress with its ‘Consenting Made Easy’ service models (recommendation 20). The Qualified Partner service (applies to standardised, repeat new builds or selected customers with approved assurance plans) has received positive customer feedback. Other improvements are tracking upwards, for example the move to digital lodgement of applications has seen e-lodgement of building consent applications increase to 57% and 39% for resource consent applications.

27. Council has improved its data collection and reporting (recommendation 23). The ongoing data reporting has largely been embedded as ‘business as usual’ activity and is largely completed. The council produces monthly housing updates that are available publicly and formally reports on a quarterly basis to the Planning Committee.

28. To ensure alignment of national planning standards with best practice elements of Auckland’s Unitary Plan (recommendation 27), council lodged a submission and raised several significant concerns on the draft national planning standards. Also, the Mayor and the Chair of the Planning Committee sent a joint letter in support of council’s submission. It is expected that the new national standards will be released by the end of this year.

29. Work on investigating building warranty and insurance schemes (recommendation 31) has been progressed since the last update. Auckland has advocated for central government to review building warranty/insurance matters to help rebalance the risk, responsibility and liability many councils can face, for example, with faulty building/construction work.

30. Overall, positive action is being achieved to help address barriers, but also to progress opportunities and explore solutions to building homes at pace and scale. Notwithstanding the multiple dependencies required to progress the recommendations, progress is being achieved.

Benefit of the forum

31. Since its inception, the MHT has provided a high-level forum where political, community and industry leaders, as well as relevant central/local government officials can all come together on a regular basis. Having relevant partners around the table to collectively discuss issues, challenges and solutions is useful because they seldom take place - outside of the MHT - on a regular basis.

32. As a forum, the MHT has enabled its members and stakeholders to consider the supply-side housing issues in an interrelated and holistic manner. It also ensures all members remain accountable because all partners have visibility of the work (of the MHT’s recommendations) that has been completed or is underway.

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

33. Local Board views were not sought for this report. All local boards are concerned with housing matters to some degree. The work of the MHT is specifically focussed on housing supply barriers, and this isn’t limited to any local area. The focus remains at the regional level/scale and this report and work on the recommendations reflect this.

34. The work underway will impact local boards in different ways depending on the nature of their respective communities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

35. In terms of housing supply and affordability, the MHT’s work impacts the whole community, including Māori. Nonetheless, the MHT is mindful that Māori are disproportionately affected by affordability. For example, in 2013, an estimated 32 per cent of the homeless population were Māori, and approximately four in every 10 people on the social housing register are Māori.

36. As reported to the Planning Committee on 2 October 2018, council-led work on affordable housing will consider Māori needs, Māori housing providers’ constraints and holistic solutions that ensure Māori needs can be met.

37. In addition, Auckland Council supports papakāinga development on Māori land. Grants are available for Māori land owners to support feasibility studies, resource consents related costs and offsetting development contributions.

38. The MHT will consider ahead of its next meeting, the future membership of the group. As the Housing Taskforce Steering Group has been disbanded, future membership of the MHT will also consider appropriate Māori representation. This will ensure relevant Māori perspectives are incorporated in MHT’s ongoing discussions and work.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

39. The MHT’s ongoing work and recommendations, especially those that the council is accountable for, will be undertaken within existing baselines.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

40. The MHT’s ongoing advocacy to central government regarding its Urban Growth Agenda will help to mitigate risks that may impact on council, its regulatory functions and the region. For example, the impact this Agenda may have on the council’s planning and regulatory functions, and the impact its delivery could have in Auckland.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

41. Many of the recommendations have either been completed or nearly closed-out; the MHT will continue to advise and focus its attention on the next tranche of recommendations that remain outstanding.

42. The MHT will also reflect on its membership and the effective role it can continue to play in supporting quality urban growth and housing programmes across Auckland. This will be considered intersessionally and discussed further at the next MHT meeting proposed for the first quarter of 2019.

43. In the meantime, the MHT will continue to actively engage with Ministers and advocate for housing policy that better addresses shortages and affordability in Auckland.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	The Mayoral Housing Taskforce Recomendations	11

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Koro Dickinson – Executive Officer, COO Division

Authorisers

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

25 October 2018

Submission on Proposed New Infrastructure Body

File No.: CP2018/19778

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve Auckland Council’s submission on the Government’s proposal to establish a new independent infrastructure body.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Government is proposing to establish a new independent infrastructure body to strengthen infrastructure strategy, planning, investment and delivery.

3. The proposal is for an independent national body (the Body), with the ability to speak publicly on infrastructure issues, that will:

· provide new, expert, central transactional capability to support the delivery of major infrastructure projects across central and local government

· act as a first point of contact for all interested private sector parties in relation to upcoming infrastructure investment and delivery opportunities

· provide an additional stream of advice to assist Ministers with identifying, prioritising and assuring the delivery of infrastructure projects.

4. A consultation document was released on 8 October 2018, with feedback due by 26 October 2018.

5. A submission has been prepared in consultation with key councillors and staff and includes the following main points:

· support for the establishment of a new independent infrastructure body

· support for the Body to carry out functions spanning the two broad areas of strategy and planning, and project delivery support

· support for the intention to develop a long-term infrastructure strategy for New Zealand (“Function 2”)

· request for clarification on how “Function 3 - Identifying New Zealand’s priority infrastructure” is to be undertaken

· support for publishing a pipeline of infrastructure and a view that the pipeline should be promoted locally and internationally

· views on the nature of procurement and delivery support that would be of assistance

· views on how the new independent infrastructure body would best work with local government to support and deliver infrastructure projects

· request that solid waste and recycling be included in the definition of significant infrastructure.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) approve the submission on the new independent infrastructure body appended in Attachment A to the agenda report.

b) authorise the Mayor and General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy & Research to make any minor amendments to the submission, including changes requested at this Governing Body meeting and prior to lodgment on Friday 26 October 2018.

Horopaki / Context

6. The Government has announced a proposal to establish a new (national) independent infrastructure body to strengthen infrastructure strategy, planning, investment and delivery.

7. This proposal is in response to Government’s view that New Zealand faces a major infrastructure deficit - New Zealand’s transport and urban infrastructure is struggling to keep up with population growth, increased demand and changing needs, including transitioning to a low emissions economy.

8. It follows a review of the institutional settings for infrastructure carried out by the Treasury. It found that the existing system is not consistently delivering good outcomes. Weaknesses identified in the review include:

· investment decisions are not well integrated

· the focus is on building new assets, rather than focusing on outcomes

· infrastructure investment decisions are not always informed by evidence

· central and local government procurement capability is at times lacking

· there are gaps in our information and data

· skills shortages are one of the greatest challenges faced by industry.

9. It is proposed that the Body has the following functions:

10. The infrastructure body will:

· be empowered to make recommendations to ministers but decision-making rights and direction setting will remain with Ministers and departmental chief executives as at present

· be complementary to and will not duplicate other ongoing work streams

· not have direct funding or project delivery powers

· provide staff to agencies to support them to undertake specialised infrastructure functions related to project delivery, while ownership and responsibility for the asset remains with the procuring body

· be accountable, in relation to its strategy and planning functions, to Minister for Infrastructure.

11. A consultation document was released on 8 October 2018, seeking feedback on how a new independent infrastructure body can best deliver on the Government’s objectives of strengthening infrastructure strategy, planning, investment and delivery. Feedback is due by 26 October 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

12. A submission has been prepared. It incorporates the views of council departments and council-controlled organisations, and initial input from the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and chairs of the Planning and Finance and Performance committees.

13. It includes the following submission points:

· support for the establishment of a new independent infrastructure body to advise Government and the wider public and private sector on infrastructure matters across all New Zealand

· support for the proposal for the infrastructure body to carry out functions spanning the two broad areas of strategy and planning, and project delivery support

· support the development of a long-term infrastructure strategy for New Zealand

· request for clarification on how “Function 3 - Identifying New Zealand’s priority infrastructure” is to be undertaken and advise that Council would be keen to work with Government on the development of a prioritisation framework and criteria for identifying priority infrastructure needs

· support for publishing a pipeline of infrastructure and a view that the pipeline should be promoted locally and internationally

· views on the nature of procurement and delivery support that would be of assistance

· views on how the new independent infrastructure body would best assist local government to support and deliver infrastructure projects

· request that solid waste and recycling be included in the definition of significant infrastructure.

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

14. The proposal relates to the planning and delivery of major (nationally and regionally significant) infrastructure. In the time available to prepare the submission, staff could not identify any specific impacts at the local level. Local board views were not sought.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15. In the time available to prepare the submission, staff could not identify any specific beneficial or adverse effects on Māori that would occur on the decision to make a submission. The way that infrastructure is planned, invested in, and delivered in the future will, however, impact on Māori and Māori aspirations. Māori views were not sought.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

16. There are no financial implications from deciding to make a submission.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

17. There are no risks in deciding to make a submission.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

18. Treasury will advise Ministers on the outcome of the consultation as part of their advice on final proposals for Cabinet to consider. The Government intends the new entity to be established by mid to late 2019.

19. In advance of the new independent infrastructure body being established, an interim infrastructure transactions unit (interim ITU) will be established within the Treasury from 1 November 2018.

20. The purpose of the interim ITU is to provide support to agencies on the planning and delivery of major infrastructure projects while the new independent infrastructure body is being established. The interim ITU will move into the new independent infrastructure body when established.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Council submission to New Infrastructure Body - draft	29

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Jim Fraser - Principal Transport Planner

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

25 October 2018

Auckland Council Submission:

Government's Proposed Independent Infrastructure Body

Date: 26 October 2018

He mihi ki te kaahui tūpuna,

te taura-here mō tātou te muka tāngata,

ki ngā mana ātua, kia tau te mauri.

He kura tangihia, he maimai aroha,

rātou kua whetūrangitia ki a rātou

tātou te hunga mata-rerehua ki a tātou

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā karangatanga maha,

tēnā rā koutou katoa.

1. Overview

This is Auckland Council’s submission in response to the Government’s proposed new independent infrastructure body.

The address for service is Auckland Council, Private Bag 92300, Victoria Street West, Auckland 1142. Please direct any enquiries to Jim Fraser, Principal Transport Advisor, Auckland Council.

This submission has been approved by the Governing Body of Auckland Council.

2. Introduction and Summary

Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the government’s proposed new Independent Infrastructure Body (the Body).

Auckland’s infrastructure directly supports how well the city and region functions. Many infrastructure assets last for a long time and provide services for several decades. How Auckland grows and changes over the next 30-years and beyond will affect the performance of current infrastructure and future investment needs.

Auckland needs infrastructure that can cope with increasing demand as the city grows, a changing environment and that meets community expectations for service delivery. Auckland’s infrastructure needs to keep up with the pace and scale of growth.

Submission Summary:

Our key submission points are:

· support for the establishment of a new independent infrastructure body

· support for the new independent infrastructure body to carry out functions spanning the two broad areas of strategy and planning, and project delivery support

· support for the development of a long-term infrastructure strategy for New Zealand

· request for clarification on how “Function 3 - Identifying New Zealand’s priority infrastructure” is to be undertaken and advise that Council would be keen to work with Government on the development of a prioritisation framework and criteria for identifying priority infrastructure needs

· support for publishing a pipeline of infrastructure and a view that the pipeline should be promoted locally and internationally

· views on the nature of procurement and delivery support that would be of assistance

· views on how the new independent infrastructure body would best assist local government to support and deliver infrastructure projects

· request that solid waste and recycling be included in the definition of significant infrastructure.

These main submission points are expanded upon below.

3. A new independent infrastructure body is required

Council supports the establishment of a new independent infrastructure body to advise Government and the wider public and private sector on infrastructure matters across all New Zealand.

The arrangement of New Zealand’s public services has, in the past, not always resulted in the best long-term public outcomes. A new independent body has the potential to achieve far greater integration amongst infrastructure classes, with a more specific focus on delivering a broader range of outcomes (compared to ‘class’ restricted outputs). It also has the potential to help bring about improvements in the capacity and capability of the industry. Both these aspects will however only be achieved if the Body works closely with all players.

It is also worth noting that central and local government bodies provide a range of services which require investment in infrastructure. Changing technologies, expectations of environmental performance and priorities around resilience and climate change have made the planning, coordination and procurement of infrastructure much more complex in recent times.

Dedicated bodies which harbour and foster expertise in the delivery of public infrastructure services are a common response internationally to the challenge of increasing procurement complexity and a similar response here is highly likely to result in improved capital efficiency. There is however a potential danger in one body having both strategy and delivery functions – this is further elaborated on in section 4 below.

4. Support for the proposed functions

Council supports the proposal to establish the Body to carry out the proposed functions

An independent assessment of the state of New Zealand’s infrastructure assets and advice on the nation’s long-term infrastructure needs are important aspects of creating a long-term pipeline of infrastructure investment. It will also assist to ensure we invest in the ‘right’ infrastructure, especially considering the lead-in times and costs associated with such investment.

A word of caution though. The two ‘groups’ of functions proposed for the independent body, strategy and planning on the one hand and project delivery on the other, are not complimentary functions and require different skill sets.

The Body could find the delivery support function becomes burdensome and a distraction from its other core functions. It may also be perceived as compromising its independence, especially if it is heavily engaged in specific projects.

Notwithstanding, both aspects are important if New Zealand’s infrastructure is to be improved. Careful thought should therefore be given to the most appropriate - and most likely to be successful over the long term – way that these functions can be established and performed.

5. Support for the development of a long-term infrastructure strategy

Council supports the intention to develop a long-term infrastructure strategy for New Zealand. It suggests, however, that the following would ensure that this strategy would be effective and help overcome the current issues identified by the Treasury review on current institutional settings:

· the long-term strategy should cover a 30-year time period, consistent with long term project evaluation analyses

· different infrastructure investment scenarios should be both tested and published, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches

· the Government should be required to respond to the strategy, either by adopting its recommendations or publishing reasons for its different view. This requirement is critical for the Body to have influence and standing

· agencies need not be compelled to align plans to the strategy, but their failure to do so should be subject to ongoing assessment by the Body and the Government should be required to explain why agency plans are not consistent.

· consultation on the strategy should be required, noting that feedback from stakeholders is critical for the Body remaining informed of all issues likely to impact infrastructure over the medium-long term

· local authorities need to be consulted on draft strategies. Council needs to have the option to advise on the interrelation of proposals on legislation, planning, and financing and delivery of local authority works

· Council supports that Long-term Plans get a formal response from central government. By referring to the local authority with comments for further consideration or 'please explain' if there are elements that are not in alignment, there will be more rigour and inter-agency planning outcomes to deliver on the intent of the Body.

6. Function 3 - Identifying New Zealand’s priority infrastructure needs

Council requests clarification on how “Function 3 - Identifying New Zealand’s priority infrastructure” is to be undertaken, specifically:

· how will priorities be set and what will be the decision-making process to set these?

· how will they link with other Ministers’ priorities?

· how will they link with local government priorities?

· which infrastructure classes and spatial areas will take priority?

· what is the jurisdiction of local authority projects identified as being of national significance?

· is it the intent that local authorities’ re-phase and prioritise projects to enable national infrastructure projects?

This potentially has a significant impact on the way local government plans, finances and approves spending on infrastructure.

Auckland Council acknowledges that it is the intention of the entity to draw on council’s Long-term Plans in developing its view on New Zealand’s priority infrastructure needs to deliver a long-term strategy. Something that needs further consideration is the potential for misalignment between Long-term Plans and the strategy. Council would wish to see that it was treated in a similar manner to what is proposed for central government, i.e. that decisions on which it has legislative remit for, are made by its elected members.

Council would be keen to work with Government in developing its approach to identifying priority infrastructure needs, i.e. a framework and criteria for prioritising infrastructure and triggers for new or improved infrastructure requirements.

7. Function 6 – Act as a ‘shop front’ for the market and publish a pipeline of infrastructure projects

Council supports the Body acting as a first point of contact on future significant infrastructure projects.

In addition to collating and publishing the pipeline, the Body should also play a role in promoting the pipeline of projects, both locally and overseas. International promotion could widen the scope of players in the market and bring wider expertise to the market.

Auckland Council is also of the view that the industry will benefit from the pipeline in that it will enable them to better plan for capacity and skill requirements. This has the potential to help smooth out demand and boom/bust cycles.

However, the success of this function is highly contingent on the credibility of the pipeline of capital intentions. This is a key signalling device for the infrastructure market. Without this credibility it will do little for the market.

An additional constraint is that priorities change; governments and councils change, over time new information comes to light and changes what should be built when etc. This complicates the credibility of the signals given to the market – all the more important therefore that the pipeline aligns with capital intentions.

Because funding plans do not go beyond 10 years – at least not for central and local government – this function of the independent body must be supported by other measures to give more confidence to the market, including procurement arrangements that allow firms to gear up and maintain capacity over time.

8. Function 8 – Provide project procurement and delivery support

It is Auckland Council’s view that this support should be outcomes focused and include consulting advise on procurement. Support in selecting appropriate contracting models and tailored go-to-market approaches would be of particular assistance.

Council would be keen to further discuss with Government what best practice procurement and delivery support could look like.

9. Assisting local government to support and deliver infrastructure projects.

Council is of the view that the Body would best assist local government by:

· developing a pipeline of decisions on infrastructure investment that could overcome electoral cycles and provide greater planning certainty for infrastructure providers and industry

· giving local authorities the time to align with new agreed strategic infrastructure projects that the local authorities will need to support through local infrastructure

· providing a forum for central government, local government, utility providers and large investors in housing and employment land to align planning and investment spend regionally, in particularly in Auckland with the concentration of investment required to respond to growth

· aligning timing and financing of central government projects with local authority projects in growth areas

· where strategic initiatives are over and above basic local authority service provision but are required to meet central government strategic objectives, provide funding to local authorities to deliver.

10. Inclusion of solid waste and recycling as necessary infrastructure

Council suggests that the definition of infrastructure be expanded to include those assets, systems and facilities necessary for waste and recycling collection, processing, reprocessing and disposal purposes. Traditionally the waste industry’s infrastructure requirements are not considered for major infrastructure planning purposes and as a result the industry and local authorities are currently struggling to keep up with population growth, increased demand and changing needs.

In the past, each local authority has taken its own approach to solid waste collection, processing and disposal. This has created a fragmented response to waste management that misses out on economies of scale and means that many communities have poor access to recycling services. There is need for better central government direction to develop a New Zealand-wide approach to recyclables processing.

By including waste and recycling infrastructure as a part of the Body’s scope of works, New Zealand will be more equipped to develop infrastructure needs that enable a circular economy, allowing waste to be turned into commodities and resources.

Auckland Council would welcome the opportunity to further discuss the prospects that come with waste and recycling as infrastructure with the Treasury or Minister.