I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regulatory Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 17 March 2020

10.00am

Room 1, Level 26
135 Albert St
Auckland

 

Kōmiti Whakahaere ā-Ture /

Regulatory Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Josephine Bartley

 

Members

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

 

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

 

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

 

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

 

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

 

IMSB Chair David Taipari

 

 

IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox

 

 

Cr Paul Young

 

Ex-officio

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

 

 

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Maea Petherick

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua /

Senior Governance Advisor

 

11 March 2020

 

Contact Telephone: 021583018

Email: maea.petherick@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 



Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

 

The committee is responsible for regulatory hearings (required by relevant legislation) on behalf of the council.   The committee is responsible for appointing independent commissioners to carry out the council’s functions or delegating the appointment power (as set out in the committee’s policy).  The committee is responsible for regulatory policy and bylaws.  Where the committee’s powers are recommendatory, the committee or the appointee will provide recommendations to the relevant decision-maker.

 

The committee’s key responsibilities include:

 

·         decision-making (including through a hearings process) under the Resource Management Act 1991 and related legislation

·         hearing and determining objections under the Dog Control Act 1996

·         decision-making under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

·         hearing and determining matters regarding drainage and works on private land under the Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002 (this cannot be sub-delegated)

·         hearing and determining matters arising under bylaws

·         appointing independent hearings commissioners to a pool of commissioners who will be available to make decisions on matters as directed by the Regulatory Committee

·         deciding who should make a decision on any particular matter including who should sit as hearings commissioners in any particular hearing

·         monitoring the performance of regulatory decision-making

·         where decisions are appealed or where the committee decides that the council itself should appeal a decision, directing the conduct of any such appeals

·         considering and making recommendations to the Governing Body regarding the regulatory and bylaw delegations (including to Local Boards)

·         recommending bylaws to the Governing Body for consultation and adoption

·         reviewing local board and Auckland water organisation proposed bylaws and making recommendations to the Governing Body

·         appointing panels to hear and deliberate on public feedback related to regulatory policy and bylaw matters

·         deciding regulatory policies that are not otherwise the responsibility of another committee

·         deciding regulatory policies, standards and controls associated with bylaws including those delegated to the former Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, under resolution GB/2012/157 (dogs) and GB/2014/121 (alcohol)

·         receiving local board feedback on bylaw and regulatory policy development and review

·         adopting or amending a policy or policies and making any necessary sub-delegations relating to any of the above areas of responsibility to provide guidance and transparency to those involved.

 

Not all decisions under the Resource Management Act 1991 and other enactments require a hearing to be held and the term “decision-making” is used to encompass a range of decision-making processes including through a hearing.  “Decision-making” includes, but is not limited to, decisions in relation to applications for resource consent, plan changes, notices of requirement, objections, existing use right certificates, certificates of compliance, regulatory policy and bylaws and also includes all necessary related decision-making.

 

In adopting a policy or policies and making any sub-delegations, the committee must ensure that it retains oversight of decision-making and that it provides for councillors to be involved in decision-making in appropriate circumstances.


 

For the avoidance of doubt, these delegations confirm the existing delegations (contained in the chief executive’s Delegations Register) to hearings commissioners and staff relating to decision-making under the RMA and other enactments mentioned below but limits those delegations by requiring them to be exercised as directed by the Regulatory Committee.

 

Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to:

 

All Bylaws

Biosecurity Act 1993

Building Act 2004

Dog Control Act 1996

Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

Gambling Act 2003

Health Act 1956

Land Transport Act 1998

Local Government Act 1974

Local Government Act 2002

Local Government (Auckland Council Act) 2009

Maritime Transport Act 1994

Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

Resource Management Act 1991

Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

Waste Minimisation Act 2008

 

Related Regulations

 

Powers

 

(i)         All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a)        powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2)

(b)        where the committee’s responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only.

(ii)        Power to establish subcommittees.


Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

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

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

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

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

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

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

 

Members of the meeting

 

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

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

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

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

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

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

 

Staff

 

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

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

 

Local Board members

 

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

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

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

 

 

 


Regulatory Committee

17 March 2020

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        9

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   9

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               9

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          9  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    9

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          9

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                9

8          Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 17 March 2020                                    11

9          Findings of Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 Review                                                  33

10        Review findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015                                     241

11        Provisional Local Alcohol Policy Working Party for Appeals                              325

12        Initiation of Gambling Policy Reviews in 2020                                                       331

13        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Apologies

 

An apology from Mayor P Goff has been received.

 

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 18 February 2020, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Petitions

 

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

 

 

5          Public Input

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Governance Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

 

 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

 


 

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”


Regulatory Committee

17 March 2020

 

Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 17 March 2020

File No.: CP2020/02930

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update of all current resource consent appeals lodged with the Environment Court.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report provides a summary of current resource consent appeals to which the Auckland Council is a party. It updates the report to the Regulatory Committee on 12  September 2019.

3.       If committee members have detailed questions concerning specific appeals, it would be helpful if they could raise them prior to the meeting with Robert Andrews (phone: 353-9254) or email: robert.andrews@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) in the first instance.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      receive the Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 17 March 2020.

 

Horopaki

Context

4.       The Regulatory Committee holds responsibility for council’s position on all resource consent appeals lodged before the Environment Court. The principal specialist planners - resource consents and legal services solicitors are tasked to seek resolution of these appeals or defend the council’s decision where resolution through court mediation is not unsuccessful.

5.       Our practice has been to provide a monthly report to the Regulatory Committee that notes the current status of the appeals and those recently lodged and settled. This update report bridges the gap between our last report to the Committee of the previous political term and to this Committee meeting.

6.       As at 3 March 2020, there are 36 resource consent appeals to which Auckland Council is a party. These are grouped by Local Board Area geographically from north to south as set out in Attachment A.  Changes since the last report and new appeals received are shown in bold italic text.

7.       In the period since preparing the September 2019 status report, there have been eight new appeals lodged.

8.       The appeal from Box Property Investments Limited relates to the decline of their resource consent application for a 71-unit development at 30 & 40 Sandspit Road and 2 & 4 Reydon Place, Shelly Beach. The integrated residential development (IRD) application was considered by the hearing commissioners to not qualify under that status and declined as multiple residential dwellings within the Single House Zone.

9.       The appeal by Pacey Family No.2 Trust relates to the decline of resource consents for the expansion of an existing quarry in Lake Road, Te Arai. This matter has since proceeded quickly to hearing in late December 2019 due to the associated abatement notice proceedings.

10.     The Schimanski appeal is by a neighbour opposing the decision of Auckland Council to grant resource consent to Northland Waste Limited. The applicant seeks to construct and operate a waste minimisation and sorting facility at 183 Sandspit Road, Warkworth.

11.     The applicants Drive Holdings Limited, appeal the decline of consent to a major mixed-use development on the block bounded by Tamaki Drive, Patterson Avenue, and Marau Crescent in Mission Bay. The development comprises basement carparking, servicing and circulation areas and seven multi-level buildings to be used for a range of  commercial, entertainment and residential activities.

12.     The appeal by Infotech Accountants Ltd relates to the costs associated with the processing of their application to establish and operate a cleanfill at 782 Haruru Road, Wainui. The objection to fees was heard by independent commissioners who did not accept that the processing costs should be reduced.

13.     The new appeal by a submitter Bruce McInnes opposes the consents that allow subdivision to create 25 additional rural residential sites and 4 rural balance sites.  The appeal relates specifically to the consideration of the effects upon the condition of Matthew Road and the users of the road.

14.     The new appeal by M. May is to the refusal of consent for an oversize minor dwelling and garage at 55 Collings Drive in Lucas Heights, Albany.

15.     The appeal by Auckland City Centre Residents Group against the grant of consent to construct a public plaza space between Princess Wharf, Pier 2 and the Ferry Building has since been withdrawn.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16.     To receive the report as provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17.     The report provides an update of consent appeals and seeks no resolution or consideration of the merits associated with them.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18.     The report provides an update of consent appeals and has no identified impacts on other parts of the council group.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

19.     The report provides an update of consent appeals and has no identified local board impacts.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20.     The decision requested of the Regulatory Committee is to receive this progress report rather than to decide each appeal.


 

 

21.     The Resource Management Act 1991 includes a number of matters under Part 2, which relate to the relationship of Tangata Whenua to the management of air, land and water resources.  Maori values associated with the land, air and freshwater bodies of the Auckland Region are based on whakapapa and stem from the long social, economic and cultural associations and experiences with such taonga.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22.     Environment Court appeal hearings can generate significant costs in terms of commissioning legal counsel and expert witnesses. Informal mediation and negotiation processes seek to limit these costs.  Although it can have budget implications, it is important that Auckland Council, when necessary, ensure that resource consents maintain appropriate environmental outcomes and remain consistent with the statutory plan policy framework through the appeal process.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23.     Not applicable.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

24.     Not applicable.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Current Resource Consent Appeals as at 3 March 2020

15

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Robert Andrews - Principal Specialist Planning

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

17 March 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

17 March 2020

 

Findings of Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 Review

File No.: CP2020/02390

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To agree the findings of the Ture ā-Rohe Urungi Āhuru 2014, Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 review and request a report on options that responds to the findings.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Staff have prepared this findings report to enable the Regulatory Committee to complete a review of the Auckland Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014. Key findings are:

·   the Bylaw will expire on 31 July 2021

·   council must decide whether a bylaw is still required, and (if a bylaw is required) adopt a new bylaw before that date to avoid a regulatory gap

·   a bylaw remains the most appropriate way to manage safety and nuisance issues and the use of space on Auckland’s navigable waters for example this risk of collisions, injuries or fatalities

·   the Bylaw provides regional-specific rules that complement or fill regulatory gaps in national legislation and Maritime rules, for example by requiring the wearing of personal flotation devices on small vessels

·   the Harbourmaster proactively implements the Bylaw, including through education, warnings, infringement fines, licenses, and permits

·   a number of improvements to the existing Bylaw have been suggested, for example revising speed limits for recreational and commercial vessels. 

3.      Staff recommend that the committee endorse the findings in this report, determine that a bylaw is still needed, and request an options report. Taking this approach will progress the review to allow consideration of options on what a new bylaw would regulate and how.

4.       If approved, staff will develop options that respond to the findings in this report.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      endorse the ‘Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014: 2020 Review Findings Report’ in Attachment A of the agenda report.

b)      agree that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to protect public health and safety, and manage public nuisance and misuse of Auckland’s navigable waters.

c)      request that staff as delegated by the Chief Executive prepare an options report in response to the findings in Attachment A of the agenda report.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

The Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 regulates activities and vessels within Auckland’s navigable waters

5.       The Governing Body adopted the Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-Rohe Urungi Āhuru 2014, Auckland Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 (the Bylaw) on 31 July 2014 (GB/2014/66).

6.       The Bylaw seeks to protect the public from safety risks and nuisance, and to manage the use of Auckland’s navigable waters as shown in figure below.

Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 Framework

 

 

 

 

 

7.       The Bylaw is aligned with the following strategic directions in the Auckland Plan:

Auckland Plan Outcomes and Directions related to Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014

Outcome

Direction

Belonging and

Participation

Direction 1: Foster an inclusive Auckland where everyone belongs.

Transport and

Access

Direction 1: Better connect people, places, goods, and services.

Direction 2: Increase genuine travel choices for a healthy, vibrant and equitable Auckland.

Environment and

Cultural Heritage

Direction 1: Ensure Auckland’s natural environment and cultural heritage are valued and cared for.

Opportunity and

Prosperity

Direction 1: Create the conditions for a resilient economy through innovation, employment growth and raised productivity.

 

8.      The Bylaw is one part of a wider regulatory framework that includes the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and Maritime Rules that impose national standards for water safety.

The Local Government Act 2002 sets out the Bylaw review requirements

9.       The Bylaw will expire on 31 July 2021. The council must decide whether a bylaw about navigation safety is still required, and (if a bylaw is required) adopt a new bylaw before that date to avoid a regulatory gap.[1]

10.     Any new bylaw must be well drafted, meet the requirements of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Maritime Transport Act 1994, and be adopted using a public consultative process.[2]

11.     If the Bylaw is no longer required, council can decide to allow the bylaw to expire using a public consultative process.

Staff prepared a findings report as the first step in reviewing the Bylaw

12.     Between November 2018 and May 2019 staff carried out engagement and research to develop a findings report (Attachment A). This includes meetings with the Harbourmaster, Māori, local boards, internal and external stakeholders, engaging communities through online surveys, and attending water safety sector forums.[3]

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

There are issues which still need to be managed and there are some new issues 

13.     Issues such as the risk of vessels colliding, speeding, fatalities, and misuse of ferry fast lanes remain similar to those in 2014.

14.     There have been incremental increases over time in reported incidents, injuries and fatalities in line with population growth and increased recreational and commercial use.

15.     The demand for space, particularly in the Waitematā Harbour is increasing.

16.     There are also some new issues such as the uptake of hydrofoils and motorised surfboards.

 

 

 

Certain population groups are more at risk of fatalities than others

17.     The majority of fatalities in Auckland occur in relation to recreational activities. Pacific peoples have the highest representation amongst related fatalities occurring on the water relative to population size followed by people of Asian ethnicity.

18.     There has been a decrease in the number of Māori fatalities in Auckland in line with a trend nationally. Nationally the number of Māori fatalities is decreasing with 35 fatalities recorded from 2015 to 2019, compared to 54 fatalities recorded from 2010 to 2014.

Recreational and non - recreational fatalities by ethnicity 2015-2019

(Source: Water Safety NZ – DrownBase)

 

The Bylaw fills a regulatory gap to address the issues

19.     The Bylaw can address the issues about safety, nuisance and use Auckland’s navigable waters in a way that complements the Maritime Transport Act and Maritime Rules for a range of key issues, for example:

·   requiring the wearing of Personal Flotation Devices on small vessels

·   requiring navigational and communications equipment on recreational vessels

·   reserving lanes for use by fast ferries for example, the Auckland Ferry Terminal Basin

·   setting speed limits

·   when a pilot must navigate a cruise ship past Rangitoto Island

·   specific operating procedures relating to large vessels such as rules for operating in pilotage areas

·   requirements for tankers – including reserved areas and minimum distances between vessels

·   licensing of moorings and jet skis and permits for events.

20.     The Bylaw can and is be implemented through a graduated compliance approach that includes education, warnings, infringements, licenses, and permits.

Some improvements to the Bylaw have been suggested

21.     The Harbourmaster and stakeholders have suggested a number of improvements to the current bylaw, for example:

·   reviewing speed limits

·   specific rules for hydrofoils and motorised surfboards

·   removing rules about commercial vessels for hire which are now regulated in adventure activity regulations

The Bylaw does not give rise to any unjustified Bill of Rights implications and is not inconsistent with other legislation, Unitary Plan and the Maritime Rules

22.     Any potential limitations on freedom of movement are justified due to the nature and potential severity of nuisance and safety risks.

 

23.     Staff consider the Bylaw complements and supports the objectives of the Auckland Unitary Plan and is in line with the purpose of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 to achieve navigation safety, including by making regionally specific rules.

Staff recommend the committee endorse the findings, determine a bylaw is still needed and request an options report

24.     This report establishes that navigational safety issues in Auckland remain, and that the Bylaw is still necessary, appropriate and useful, but could be improved.

25.     Staff recommend that the committee endorse the findings in this report, determine a bylaw is still needed, and request an options report. This approach will enable the findings to be used to develop options on what a new bylaw would regulate and how.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26.     The Bylaw does not directly impact climate change. The Bylaw focuses on safety and nuisance rather than the emissions from vessels. The impacts of climate change (for example, sea level rise and extreme weather events), may impact on matters regulated in the Bylaw for example the location of moorings.

27.     Any options that respond to the findings in this report would need to ensure consistency with the strategic direction of reducing emissions in the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 and Auckland Council’s Climate Action Framework.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28.     The Bylaw impacts the operations of several council teams involved in licensing, resource management, events, marine and environmental servicing. It also links with events delivered by Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development and Auckland Transport’s ferry operations role. Relevant staff provided feedback to the review through face-to-face meetings.

29.     Council teams suggest improvements to the Bylaw, for example whether to regulate fireworks displays on barges (an emerging issue) and whether speed limits should be changed on the Waitematā Harbour. The options report will take these views into account.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

30.     Local board members participated in cluster workshops held in March 2019. Members support the Bylaw working in conjunction with other measures, for example education from external water safety organisations.

31.     The main concerns of members included, people not complying with the Bylaw, nuisance and safety around structures (for example, wharves) and licensing and registration of personal watercraft and larger vessels. The options report will take these views into account.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32.     The Bylaw can contribute to the Māori Plan’s key directions and aspirations by supporting safe recreational, cultural and economic activities on Auckland’s navigable waters.

33.     The Bylaw regulates a number of activities undertaken by Māori for example, waka ama, other cultural or sporting events on the water and the operation of commercial vessels.

 

34.     Mana whenua and mataawaka organisations were engaged during the review and indicated a preference to provide feedback on any proposed changes to the Bylaw. The opportunity to provide feedback will be tailored to ensure a broad spectrum of Māori views are captured during the public consultative process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35.     The cost of reviewing the Bylaw and implementation will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36.     There is a very low risk that some recreational boating participants and/or stakeholder of the commercial vessel industry may express concern about suggested improvements, the council’s role in regulating navigation safety, or engagement to date. For example, people may think that:

·   the suggested improvements are amendments, rather than ideas, to be investigated in an options report

·   people have not had a chance to properly have their say when there will be an opportunity once the council considers its options and adopts a proposal.

37.     The above risk will be mitigated by future public consultation on any proposed changes to the Bylaw.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38.     If approved, the next steps are shown in the figure below.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 review findings report

39

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Pania Elliot - Principal Policy Analyst

Fereti Lualua – Policy Advisor

Bayllee Vyle – Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

17 March 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

17 March 2020

 

Review findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2020/02689

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To agree that the review of the Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe 2015, Animal Management Bylaw 2015 is complete, and request an options report that responds to the findings.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Staff have prepared a findings report to enable the Regulatory Committee to complete the review of the Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015 (Bylaw). Key findings are:

·   a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to manage specific animal issues in relation to people, for example limiting the number of poultry in urban residential areas minimises noise and odour nuisance to neighbours

·   the Bylaw has however, limitations, for example it is difficult to identify animal owners

·   the current Bylaw approach is appropriate but could be improved, for example clarifying the definition of nuisance

·   the current Bylaw does not give rise to any unjustified Bill of Rights implications.

3.       Staff recommend that the committee endorse the findings in this report, complete the statutory review and request an options report. Taking this approach will progress the review to allow consideration and proposal of statutory options to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the Bylaw.

4.       If the findings report is endorsed, there is a low risk that some people may express concern about suggested improvements, council’s animal management role or engagement to date. This risk is mitigated by future public consultation on any proposed changes to the Bylaw.

5.       If approved, staff will develop options that respond to the findings in this report.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)        endorse the animal management bylaw review findings in the agenda report

b)        agree that the statutory review of the Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015, is complete including that:

i)      a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to protect public health and safety, and manage public nuisance, offensive behaviour and misuse of public places from animal issues in relation to people

ii)     the current Bylaw does not give rise to any implications and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

iii)     the current Bylaw approach to include general rules and to enable detailed rules to be made in a separate animal management control is appropriate but could be improved

iv)    the current rules in the Animal Management Controls 2015 could be improved.

c)      request that staff as delegated by the Chief Executive prepare an options report in response to the findings in Attachment A of the agenda report.

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       The Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015, Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe 2015 (Bylaw) was adopted by the Governing Body on 30 April 2015 (GB/2015/22). The Bylaw was amended in 2019 to include matters related to animals previously included in the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (GB/2019/22).

Council can make bylaws to regulate the effect of animals on people

7.       The Bylaw seeks to regulate the effect of animals on people, for example to protect public health and safety, and minimise public nuisance, offensive behaviour and misuse of public places by:

·   requiring all animal owners to ensure their animals do not cause a nuisance to any other person, risk to public health and safety, or damage to property in a public place

·   making specific controls for keeping of bees and stock in urban areas (including licensing) and presence of horses in a public place

·   licensing the keeping of bees and grazing of stock in council controlled public places

·   managing the behaviour of people who take their animals to regional parks

·   managing the slaughtering, hunting, removal and release of animals.

8.       The Bylaw is aligned with the following strategic directions in the Auckland Plan:

Outcome

Direction/Focus area

Belonging and Participation

Focus Area 1: Create safe opportunities for people to meet, connect, participate in, and enjoy community and civic life.

Homes and Places

Direction 1: Develop a quality compact urban form to accommodate Auckland’s growth.

Focus Area 5: Create urban places for the future.

Environment and Cultural Heritage

Direction 1: Ensure Auckland’s natural environment and cultural heritage is valued and cared for.

Focus Area 1: Encourage all Aucklanders to be stewards of the natural environment, and to make sustainable choices.

Council cannot make bylaws to protect animal welfare or wildlife

9.       The Bylaw was made under the Local Government Act 2002 and Health Act 1956. Neither Act provides council with the power to make bylaws to protect the welfare of animals or wildlife from predation.

10.     The Bylaw is only one part of a range of regulations which govern how animals are managed in New Zealand and Auckland (refer Table 7 in Attachment A), for example:

·   the Animal Welfare Act 1999 ensures people properly care for animals and is administered by the Minister for Primary Industries and welfare organisations such as the SPCA (not council)

·   the Impounding Act 1955 regulates wandering stock

·   the Dog Control Act 1996 regulates the care and control of dogs.

11.     This means it would be inappropriate for example for council to use this Bylaw to protect Maui Dolphins from being caught in set-nets, regulate cats to protect birdlife, or to prohibit a rodeo on council land due to welfare concerns.


 

 

The Local Government Act 2002 sets out the bylaw review requirements

12.     A findings review of the Bylaw must be completed by 30 April 2020 to determine whether a bylaw is still necessary, and whether the current Bylaw is well drafted and meets the requirements of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[4]

13.     Following the findings review, the council can consider and propose statutory options to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the Bylaw using a public consultative process.[5]

14.     If a findings review is not completed by 30 April 2020, the Bylaw will expire on 30 April 2022 and council must (if a bylaw is still necessary) make a new bylaw to avoid a regulatory gap.[6]

Staff have prepared this report to complete the findings review

15.     Between March and October 2019 staff engaged with a range of stakeholders and carried out research (Attachment A) to develop this findings report, including:

·   council’s compliance officers and biosecurity advisors at face-to-face interviews

·   animal interest groups at face-to-face meetings and by written feedback

·   local boards at informal cluster workshops and business meetings

·   mana whenua through the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Mana Whenua Forum

·   a sample testing of Aucklanders about their recent experiences with animal-related nuisance by survey

·   analysis of council’s database on animal-related complaints

·   review of literature about animal management issues in Auckland along with the assessment of domestic and international approaches to animal management.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Animals benefit Aucklanders

16.     Animals can provide significant psychological and physiological benefits to people. For example, interacting with animals can encourage caring and responsibility in children, improve feelings of safety, reduce mental stress, and help create social bridges in communities.[7]

Many Aucklanders however also experience animal related issues

17.     The most common animal issue in relation to people are noisy animals (especially roosters), unhygienic behaviour (such as animal excrement), and impacts from wandering animals.

18.     The number of animal complaints to council (excluding dogs) from 2010-2013 to 2015-2019 increased from 10,016 to 13,599.

19.     The majority of animal related problems are however not reported to council. A survey in April 2019 found that 45 per cent of Aucklanders experienced nuisance from an animal in the past year. Only two per cent of those experiencing nuisance reported it to the council.

20.     The main reasons why people did not report problems to council include ‘animals will be animals’, inability to identify the owner, or lack of understanding of the rules or processes.

Animal Management Bylaw Review Findings

A bylaw is still the most appropriate way to manage specific animal related issues

21.     A bylaw is still the most appropriate way to manage the nature and scale of specific animal related issues that are not appropriately regulated by other legislation. For example:

·   restrictions on keeping poultry in urban residential areas help minimise nuisance to neighbours

·   conditions about the use of council controlled public places by people with horses help minimise nuisance from animal excrement.

There are limitations to the Bylaws effectiveness

22.     There are limitations to the effectiveness of a bylaw, for example:

·   it is difficult to identify owners to discuss the behaviour of their animal, for example, capturing animals for that purpose is challenging and time-consuming

·   prosecution of an owner for their animal’s behaviour is difficult, time-consuming and costly due to the evidence required to prove fault of the owner

·   council is unable to issue infringement fines – this would require legislative change

·   limited public understanding of the rules or processes and therefore uncertainty of what types of animal behaviour should be reported as problems to council.

The current Bylaw approach is appropriate but could be improved

23.     The current Bylaw approach to include general rules in a bylaw and providing a framework to facilitate the development of controls is appropriate but could be improved. Suggested improvements which will be considered as part of an options report include:

·   clarifying definitions of nuisance and owner to make enforcement easier

·   clarifying what animal related issues are and which are not addressed in the Bylaw, to improve understanding of the wider regulatory framework

·   considering controls on cats to prevent nuisance

·   considering limits on urban beehives and more specific location controls for chicken coops to make enforcement easier

·   clarifying controls about the removal of horse manure and minimising damage to coastal dunes

·   amendments to reflect current best practice drafting standards.

The current Bylaw does not give rise to any unjustified Bill of Rights implications

24.     The Bylaw could potentially limit rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Any limitation, however, is justified. The Bylaw addresses matters related to its purpose, is regulated proportionally, and no more than necessary.

25.     For example, prohibiting the release of animals in a regional park without approval could be a limitation on the right to the practice of religion or belief that involves such practices. This limitation is however justified to prevent public nuisance and damage to regional parks.

Staff recommend the committee endorse the findings, complete the statutory review, and request an options report

26.     This report establishes that animal related issues in Auckland remain, and that the current Bylaw is still necessary, appropriate and useful, but could be improved.

27.     Staff recommend that the committee endorse the findings in this report, complete the statutory findings review, and request an options report. This approach will enable the findings to be used to consider and propose statutory options to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the Bylaw.


 

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28.     The impacts of climate change (for example, rising temperatures and increased weather intensity) will impact animals in terms of a change in their behaviour and overall health which would then impact their levels of impact on humans.

29.     Any options that respond to the findings in this report would need to ensure consistency with the strategic direction of reducing emissions in the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 and Auckland Council’s Climate Action Framework.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30.     The Bylaw impacts on the operations of a number of council teams involved in animal management, for example Animal Management and Compliance Response. Input was sought through face-to-face meetings and by written feedback.

31.     Council teams suggest improvements to the Bylaw such as amending the definition of nuisance and reviewing the controls for bees and chickens. The options report will consider these concerns.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

32.     Local Boards had an opportunity to consider the draft findings report from May 2019 (including at individual workshops) and provide formal feedback in September 2019.

33.     Local board key concerns are summarised in Table 1 below. The options report will consider these views. A full list of local board formal views is provided in Attachment B.

 

Table 1 – Formal local board views

View

Local boards providing view

Bylaw definition of what constitutes an “owner” needs to be reviewed and clarified

· Devonport-Takapuna

· Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

· Ōtara-Papatoetoe

· Howick

· Papakura

· Manurewa

Bylaw needs to consider accountability for people feeding wild animals, especially cats and pigeons if it is practical and enforceable

· Howick

· Franklin

· Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

· Papakura

· Waitematā

Bylaw should consider requiring identification of owned animals if it is practical and enforceable

· Devonport-Takapuna

· Maungakiekie-Tamaki

· Manurewa

Bylaw definition of nuisance needs to be updated with more specific criteria which will help with both enforcement and compliance

· Devonport-Takapuna

· Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

· Howick

 

Keep Bylaw’s definition of nuisance broad

· Ōtara-Papatoetoe

 

Bylaw review should consider compulsory microchipping of cats

· Devonport-Takapuna

· Papakura

· Waitematā

Bylaw should consider licensing requirements for owning more than two cats

· Devonport-Takapuna

· Franklin

Bylaw definition of stock animals needs to be reviewed with consideration of referencing companion animals for clarity

 

· Ōtara-Papatoetoe

· Rodney

Bylaw should apply to stock animals whether they are kept for farming or for companionship

· Devonport-Takapuna

Bylaw should consider the proximity to neighbouring properties for permitting bee keeping

· Hibiscus and Bays

· Howick

Bylaw should have clear procedures for cleaning up animal fouling

· Hibiscus and Bays

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34.     The Bylaw has significance for Māori as kaitiakitanga of Papatūānuku. Input was sought from mana whenua in April 2019.

35.     Key concerns related to clarifying which rules apply to papakāinga (communal Māori land) and improving controls on horse riding on coastal bridle trails. The options report will consider these concerns.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36.     The cost of the Bylaw review and implementation will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37.     There is a low risk that some people may express concern about the suggested improvements, council’s animal management role or stakeholder engagement to date as contained in this report. For example, people may think that:

·   the suggested improvements are amendments, where in fact they are ideas to be investigated in an options report

·   council’s role is to protect animal welfare, where in fact for this bylaw it is limited to the impact of animals on people

·   people have not had a chance to properly have their say, where in fact there will be an opportunity once council considers its options and adopts a proposal.

38.     This risk is mitigated by future public consultation on any proposed changes to the Bylaw.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

39.     If approved, the next steps are as shown in the table below.

 


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015: Review Findings Report 2019

247

b

List of local board formal views on findings

317

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

17 March 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

17 March 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

17 March 2020

 

Provisional Local Alcohol Policy Working Party for Appeals

File No.: CP2020/02938

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval to establish the Proposed Local Alcohol Policy Appeals Working Party to make urgent decisions on court proceedings involving the Auckland Council Provisional Local Alcohol Policy (PLAP).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Council Provisional Local Alcohol Policy is subject to the following court proceedings:

·    Judicial review against the 2017 decision of the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (Authority). This matter was heard by the High Court in early February 2019. The decision was made on 28 February 2020 in favour of the applicants.

·    Appeal lodged by Foodstuffs North Island Limited against a preliminary decision of the Authority. This matter was heard in the High Court on 5 March 2019. The matter was decided on 19 July 2019 in favour of Foodstuffs North Island Limited.

·    Appeals against the resubmitted policy to the Authority which are on hold pending the outcome of Foodstuffs North Island appeal in the High Court.

3.       Details were presented to councillors in the memorandum to the committee dated 16 October 2018.

4.       The High Court (Her Honour Justice Duffy) decided on 28 February 2020 in favour of the applicants, referring the appeal matters back to the Authority for reconsideration.

5.       Council will need to obtain legal advice on the merits of any appeal before proceeding. Appeals must be made within 20 working days of receipt of a court decision.

6.       The Regulatory committee cannot obtain legal advice and lodge an appeal within this timeframe.

7.       Staff recommend that a working party is formed to make urgent decisions on matters related to court proceedings involving the policy. In recommending that the Proposed Alcohol Policy Working Party is created, staff have considered the:

·    statutory timeframes to bring an appeal

·    potential delay if an application to extend the timeframe to appeal is needed

·    loss of appeal opportunity if it is not lodged in time and council cannot get an extension

8.       This approach has been used previously for urgent decision making for the Provisional Local Alcohol Policy.

9.       Recommended terms of reference for a working party are in Attachment A. These provide:

·    The membership of the Proposed Local Alcohol Policy Appeals Working Party would consist of:

the Deputy Chair of the Regulatory Committee

the Deputy Mayor

a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board This membership will ensure that issues relating to Māori health and welfare are considered when considering an appeal

·    Decisions would only be on urgent matters about the court proceedings including whether to appeal

·    When making decisions, the working group must have regard to:

the merits of a decision including appeal

likelihood of success

potential timeframes and delay

previous views expressed by local boards

any other statutory decision-making requirements in the Local Government Act 2002

·    Any decision is required to be reported to the full committee at the next reasonable opportunity.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      establish the Proposed Local Alcohol Policy Appeals Working Party to make urgent decisions relating to court proceedings involving the Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy within the Terms of Reference included in Attachment A of the agenda report, which consists of:

i)        the Deputy Chair of the Regulatory Committee

ii)       the Deputy Mayor

iii)      a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Terms of Reference for Proposed Local Alcohol Policy Appeals Working Party

327

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Ben Brooks - Team Leader Community Policy

Tara Leota-Seiuli – Graduate Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

17 March 2020

 

Terms of Reference
Working party for urgent decisions or directions relating to court proceedings involving the Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy 
Established by the Regulatory Committee: March 2020

watermark flowerlogo


Regulatory Committee

17 March 2020

 

1.      Introduction

1.1.1    The Terms of Reference for the working party outlines the structure, purpose, scope, decision-making requirements and processes for the working party. 

1.1.2    The working party members are expected to act within and abide by the Terms of Reference and the Regulatory Committee Policy as well as the Code of Conduct for Elected Members of the Auckland Council.

2.      Purpose

2.1.1    The purpose of the working party is to make urgent decisions or provide directions on urgent matters relating to the court proceedings involving the Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy:

(1)   on whether to appeal a decision to the higher court (i.e. High Court to Court of Appeal) including any required interlocutory steps; and/or

(2)   on other court related matters that are outside the scope of the authority delegated to the General Manager, Community and Social Policy and the Manager, Litigation and Regulatory i.e. outside the approved parameters; and

(3)   where time does not allow for formal decision-making by the Regulatory Committee.

2.1.2    Attachment A provides for a summary of the court proceedings as at March 2020 involving the policy.

3.      Scope and authority

3.1.1    Where time does not allow for formal decision-making by the Regulatory Committee or any relevant subsequent committee, the working party may make decisions about the following matters:

(1)   whether, after receipt of legal advice, to bring an appeal against a decision issued by:

(a)   the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority; or

(b)   the High Court; or

(c)   the Court of Appeal

(2)   on other court related matters that are outside the scope of the authority delegated to the General Manager, Community and Social Policy and the Manager, Litigation and Regulatory.

3.1.2    In making any decisions under the above authority, the working party must have regard to the following matters:

(1)   merits of the appeal; and

(2)   likelihood of success; and

(3)   likely timeframes and whether further delay would occur; and

(4)   previous views expressed by local boards; and

(5)   decision-making requirements pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002.

 

4.      Membership

4.1    Working party members

4.1.1    The working party comprises three members, including one each of the following:

(1)   the Deputy Chair of the Regulatory Committee or any relevant subsequent committee; and

(2)   the Deputy Mayor; and

(3)   a member of the Independent Maori Statutory Board.

4.2    Vacancies

4.2.1    Should a position on the working party become vacant, the chairperson of the working party has the authority to approve a replacement member.

5.      Governance

5.1    Chairperson

5.1.1    The chairperson of the working party is the member that is the Chair or Deputy Chair of the Regulatory Committee or any relevant subsequent committee.

5.2    Decision-making

5.2.1    Decisions must be made by majority.

5.2.2    Decisions may be made following discussions held either:

(1)     orally, at an informal meeting of the working party; or

(2)     by way of email.

5.2.3    Decisions made by the working party must be reported to the Regulatory Committee or any relevant subsequent committee as soon as reasonably practicable.

5.2.4    The working party may request advice from any council officer before making a decision.

6.      dissolution of WORKING PARTY

6.1.1    The working party will cease to exist once the Auckland Council Provisional Local Alcohol Policy is no longer subject to any court proceedings and has been brought into force in accordance with the provisions of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.


Attachment A – summary of court proceedings as at March 2019 involving the Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy

 


Regulatory Committee

17 March 2020

 

Initiation of Gambling Policy Reviews in 2020

File No.: CP2020/03049

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval to start the review of the Class 4 Gambling (pokie) Venue and the Racing Board (TAB) Venue policies required by the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Act 2003.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This is a process report to seek approval to start the review of the Class 4 Gambling (pokie) Venue and the Racing Board (TAB) Venue policies. The policies are due for three yearly review by June 2020 under the Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Board Act 2003.

3.       In October 2019, Council approved a new regional policy initiation process. As required in this process, a scope for approval to start the review has been completed. The scope addresses matters in the initiation process and aligns to meet co-governance and statutory requirements.

4.       Staff assessed the reviews and found they have no local governance impact but are of high interest to local boards. If Council proposes to make any changes to the policies local board input will be sought at statement of proposal and deliberation stages.

5.       Staff recommend the Regulatory Committee approve the start of the Class 4 Gambling (pokie) Venue Policy and the Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy reviews in 2020 to ensure:

·    the legislative review timeframes are met, and the policies remain fit for purpose

·    appropriate local board input is sought

·    appropriate engagement is undertaken with Māori, stakeholders and the public.

6.       Engagement may reveal a strong message to take further action against pokie gambling harm. Council does not have the power to strengthen the current sinking lid policy or to regulate casinos and online gambling. Staff can only aggregate this feedback and advocate to central government. Staff will communicate this clearly during engagement.

7.       If approved, staff will start the policy reviews.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      approve the start of the Class 4 Gambling (pokie) Venue Policy and the Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy reviews in 2020 with the scope and timeframes outlined in the agenda report.

 

Horopaki

Context

Council is required to have two gambling policies and to review them every three years

8.       The Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Act 2003 (the Acts) regulate gambling in New Zealand. The Acts require territorial authorities to have policies on Class 4 Gambling (pokie) venues and NZ Racing Board (TAB) venues.

9.       Pokie venue policies:

·    must state whether class 4 venues may be established and, if so, where they may be located

·    may specify a maximum number of gaming machines at class 4 venues

·    may allow venues to move

·    may allow venues to merge.

TAB venue policies must state whether new venues may be established and where they may be located.

10.     The Acts require the policies to be reviewed every three years. Auckland Council (Council) first adopted these policies in 2013. Council reviewed them in 2017, found they were generally effective and retained both with no changes.

11.     The next reviews are due 15 June 2020. The Acts do not prescribe a process for review except that:

·    policies will not cease to have effect if due for review or are being reviewed.

·    the special consultative procedure is required if Council proposes to change or replace the policy

·    whenever Council considers allowing venues to move, it must consider the impacts of this for high-deprivation communities.

Current policies aim to minimise harm with a ‘sinking lid’ and ‘capped’ approach

12.     The objectives of both current venue policies in Attachments A and B are to control the growth of gambling in Auckland and to minimise the harm caused by gambling.

Sinking lid pokie venue policy

·      No new class 4 venues.

·      No consent for any increase in the number of machines in an existing class 4 venue.

·      Consent for two club venues to merge if:

both venues have a class 4 venue licence

the place where the two venues are merging holds a current class 4 venue licence

the number of machines in the merged club will be no more than 5/6ths of the sum of the merging venues.

·      No relocation.

Capped TAB venue policy

·      No more than 43 Racing Board venues across the region.

·      No consent for new Racing Board venues to be located within 50 metres of a church, marae or school.

·      Consent authority for Racing Board venues is delegated to the Manager Alcohol Licensing.

 

The new regional policy initiation process includes assessing local board relevance

13.     In October 2019, Auckland Council introduced an initiation process for regional policy as part of its co-governance approach. This process gives the committee ability to approve the scope for the review and its relevance to local boards.


 

Table 1: Local Board input to bylaw reviews

Relevance to local boards

Level of local board input on

Options

Proposal

Deliberations

Impacts local governance[8]

ü

ü

ü

High interest[9]

û

ü

ü

Low interest[10]

û

û

ü

14.     Statutory requirements and the new co-governance initiation process determine the steps for regulatory policy review (refer Figure 1).

Figure 1: Regulatory policy review steps

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15.     The reviews are required by the Gambling Act 2003. This also provides an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the policies and address any changes since 2017. Staff will conduct desktop research, gather data and seek stakeholder feedback to determine whether the policies are still fit for purpose.

16.     Table 2 provides an overview of what is in and out of scope for this review.

Table 2: In and out of scope

Review

In Scope (ü) / out of scope (û)

Pokie venue policy

ü Research and stakeholder engagement about current and new non-casino pokie venues.

ü Impacts of current policies

ü Statutory findings report due June 2020.

ü Public consultation – if Council proposes to change the policy. This will require the Special Consultative Procedure.

û Casino based pokie machines.

û Online pokie machines.

TAB venue policy

ü Research and stakeholder engagement about current and new Racing Board TAB venues.

ü Statutory findings report due June 2020.

ü Public consultation – if Council proposes to change the policy. This will require the Special Consultative Procedure.

û Non-racing board TAB self-service machines in bars.

 

17.     The reviews have no local governance impact because they do not impact assets or services for which the local board has a decision-making role. They are classed as high interest because the issues are of major interest to one or more local communities. Several local boards, central and southern have reduced gambling harm in their Local Board plans.

18.     The last time the policy was reviewed no changes were made. If no changes need to be made as part of these reviews, then no statement of proposal or consultation will be undertaken. If the Regulatory Committee decides to amend or replace either policy, local boards will be asked to provide feedback on that proposal and receive deliberations information. Table 3 shows the timeframes for review.

Table 3 Review timeframes

Phase/

Timeframe

2020

2021

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Initiate

 

 

 

 

No Regulatory Committee meeting

 

 

 

 

No Regulatory Committee meeting

 

 

 

Discovery

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft findings and develop options

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decide whether to retain or change policies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If proposing changes

Draft Statement of proposal

 

 

 

 

 

LB

input

LB

input

LB

input

 

 

 

Public Consultation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deliberate and decide

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LB

input

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19.     This is a process report. Climate impact will be assessed as part of the reviews.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20.     This is a process report. Views and impact will be sought as part of the reviews.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

21.     The reviews do not impact local governance. Gambling is an issue of high interest, particularly to the southern local board areas. These areas experience higher deprivation, concentrations of pokie venues and more gambling harm.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22.     This issue is of significance to Māori who have higher rates of problem gambling and experience the effects of problem gambling disproportionately.As this is a process report, staff will undertake Maori impact assessment as part of the reviews. This includes input from Mana whenua, Māori health organisations.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23.     Cost will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24.     Engagement may reveal a strong message to take further action against pokie gambling harm. Council does not have the power to strengthen the current sinking lid policy or to regulate casinos and online gambling. Staff will communicate this clearly during review engagement.

25.     Council has had a strong position on minimising gambling harm Stakeholders may perceive the review outcome as predetermined. To mitigate this staff will ensure a diverse range of stakeholders are heard and included in the findings.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26.     If approved, staff will progress the reviews. Findings will be reported in July 2020.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Class 4 Gambling (Pokie) Venue Policy 2013

337

b

Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy 2013

341

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Bonnie Apps - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

17 March 2020

 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

17 March 2020

 


 


 

    

    



[1]     Section 155 Local Government Act 2002

[2]     Section 155, 156 Local Government Act 2002 and section 33M Maritime Transport Act 1994

[3]     Full stakeholder list in Attachment A – Appendix B.

[4]    Section 160(1) and (2), Local Government Act 2002.

[5]    Section 160(3), Local Government Act 2002.

[6]    Section 160(A), Local Government Act 2002

[7]    New Zealand Companion Animal Council’s “Companion Animals in New Zealand 2016”

[8]        Governance means review impacts assets or services that a local board has a decision-making role.

[9]        High interest means review is of major interest to one or more local communities

[10]       Low interest means review does not impact local governance and is not high interest