I hereby give notice that an extraordinary meeting of the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

 

Venue:

Thursday, 10 September 2020

1.00pm or at the conclusion of Environment & Climate Change Committee meeting whichever is later

Reception Lounge

Level 2, Auckland Town Hall

 

Kōmiti Whakarite Pārae, Mahi Toi, Hapori, Kaupapa

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson

Cr Alf Filipaina

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

 

Members

Cr Josephine Bartley

IMSB Member Tony Kake

 

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Tracy Mulholland

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Pippa Coom

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Angela Dalton

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr John Watson

 

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

 

Cr Richard Hills

 

 

IMSB Member Terrence Hohneck

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

Maea Petherick

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

 

7 September 2020

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8136

Email: maea.petherick@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 



 

Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

 

This committee deals with the development and monitoring of strategy, policy and action plans associated with community, social and cultural activities. The committee will establish an annual work programme outlining key focus areas in line with its key responsibilities, which include:

 

·         The Southern Initiative and The Western Initiative

·         sports and recreation, including parks and reserves

·         community facilities and community services

·         acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and in accordance with the LTP

·         grants for regional events, arts and cultural and heritage organisations, indoor sports and leisure and for the regional community development programme

·         economic development

·         arts and culture

·         community safety

·         community engagement

·         community development

·         homelessness

·         working with the six demographic advisory panels to give visibility to the issues important to their communities and help effect change

·         working with the Auckland Domain Committee to give visibility to the issues important to the Domain and to help effect change.

 

Powers

 

(i)         All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a)        approval of a submission to an external body

(b)        establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii)        The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii)       If a policy or project relates primarily to the responsibilities of the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee, but aspects require additional decisions by the Planning Committee and/or the Environment and Climate Change Committee, then the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee has the powers to make associated decisions on behalf of those other committee(s). For the avoidance of doubt, this means that matters do not need to be taken to more than one of these committees for decisions.

(iv)       The committee does not have:

(a)        the power to establish subcommittees

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

 

 

 


 

 

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.

 

 

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Petitions                                                                                                                          7

4          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

5          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

6          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

7          Community Facilities Regional Work Programmes 2020 - 2023                              9

8          Final report of Stage 2 of the Auckland cultural heritage institutions review      81

9          Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Apologies

 

An apology from Cr D Newman 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          Petitions

 

There is no petitions section.

 

 

4          Public Input

 

            There is no public input section.

 

 

 

5          Local Board Input

 

There is no local board input section.

 

6          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.”


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 

Community Facilities Regional Work Programmes 2020 - 2023

File No.: CP2020/12451

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the 2020-2023 Community Facilities Regional Work Programmes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report sets out the proposed Community Facilities regional capital work programmes, including:

·        programmes for parks and facilities for which the Governing Body is the decision maker, including Regional Parks, Holiday Parks, Auckland Botanic Gardens, Auckland Domain and active Cemeteries

·        regional programmes that the Governing Body allocate budget to specific projects for which local boards may be the decisions maker, including coastal renewals, slips prevention, and local parks and sportsfields development (growth).

3.       This report recommends approval of the Community Facilities regional work programmes and associated budgets for the 2020/2021 financial year and approval in principle for the subsequent two financial years of 2021/2022 and 2022/2023.

4.       The council’s financial position has been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Council’s Emergency Budget for the 2020/2021 financial year has reduced the capital budgets from those anticipated prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The reduction in anticipated budgets has required the reprioritisation of projects and activities that can be accommodated within the revised budgets.

5.       The work programmes provided in Attachments A - F reflect the projects that were presented at a workshop with the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee in June 2020.

6.       Projects that form the local and sports field development (growth), coastal, and slips prevention programmes will be incorporated into local board work programmes. Local boards have provisionally approved these projects in their work programmes and provided feedback for consideration of the committee.

7.       Several projects have been identified in the work programme as “risk adjusted programme (RAP)” projects. These are projects that have budget allocated beyond the 2020/2021 financial year. Approval is sought for staff to commence work on these projects in the 2020/2021 year so that they can be delivered early if other approved projects are delayed for any reason.

8.       To expedite delivery of the work programme, and to manage changes that may be required in a timely way, staff recommend that the committee delegate decision making for amendments to the approved programme to the General Manager Community Facilities (for authorisation within delegated financial authority).


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee:

a)      approve the 2020/2021 financial year Community Facilities Regional Work Programme and approve in principle the subsequent two financial years of 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 as detailed in the following attachments to the agenda report:

i)        Attachment A – Regional Renewals and Development Work Programme

ii)       Attachment B – Cemeteries Work Programme

iii)      Attachment C – Commercial and Residential Leases Work Programme

iv)      Attachment D – Coastal Renewals Work Programme

v)      Attachment E – Slips Prevention Work Programme

vi)      Attachment F – Local Parks and Sportsfields Development Work Programme

b)      approve the Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP) projects identified in the work programme (Attachments A - F to the agenda report) as projects that will commence and may be delivered in advance of the expected delivery year, if required to meet expected financial expenditure for the 2020/2021 financial year.

c)      note that approval of budget allocation in the 2020/2021 year for multi-year projects implies the Committee’s support for the projects in their entirety.

d)      note that council’s financial position has been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and Council’s Emergency Budget for the 2020/2021 financial year has reduced the capital budgets from those anticipated prior to the pandemic.

e)      note that where budget is allocated to a project in the regional work programme that falls within a local board decision making allocation (e.g. a local park), that project is included in the local board work programme and the local board then has decision making responsibility for that project, within the parameters set by the Governing Body, namely location, scope and budget.

f)       note the feedback provided by local boards in relation to the projects funded from the coastal renewals, slips prevention and local parks and sportsfields development (growth) budgets are in Attachment H to the agenda report.

g)      note that budget allocations for all projects in the Community Facilities work programme are best current estimates, and amendments may be required to the work programme to accommodate final costs as the year progresses.

h)      delegate to the General Manager Community Facilities authority to approve amendments to the 2020-2023 Community Facilities Regional Work Programme.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

9.       Local work programmes are presented to local boards and regional work programmes are presented to the Governing Body for approval each year. The 2020 – 2023 Community Facilities Work Programme, detailed in the attachments, sets out the proposed regional work programmes to be delivered by Community Facilities.

10.     The projects identified in the work programmes have been prioritised for investment based on a combination of local board and Governing Body feedback through a series of workshops, staff assessments of assets and key stakeholder input.

11.     The Community Facilities regional work programmes include:

·        Regional renewals and development

Regional Parks (including farming and holiday places)

Holiday Parks

Botanic Gardens

Auckland Domain

·        Cemeteries

·        Residential and commercial leases

·        Coastal renewals

·        Slips prevention and remediation

·        Local parks and sportsfields development (growth).

12.     The Governing Body (or relevant committee) has two distinct decision-making roles for these programmes:

·        For the regional parks and cemetery programme, the Governing Body is allocated full decision making and is responsible for both budget allocation to specific projects and subsequent governance decision making regarding the delivery of those projects.

·        For coastal renewals, slips prevention and remediation and local and sportsfields development budgets, the Governing Body is responsible for the prioritisation and allocation of budget to specific projects. Where specific projects relate to assets within the local park network, subsequent governance decision making regarding the delivery of those projects is allocated to the relevant local board, who are responsible for delivery within the location, scope and budget defined by the Governing Body.

13.     The programmes and related budgets considered in this report relate only to those for which the Community Facilities department is responsible and accountable. Budgets where responsibility and accountability lie with other parts of the organisation are not included in these regional programmes.

14.     It should be noted that the Auckland Domain Committee has decision making regarding the Auckland Domain with funding being allocated from the above regional budgets. The regional work programme was endorsed by the Auckland Domain Committee on 17 August 2020 (ADC/2020/18).

15.     The COVID-19 pandemic has exerted considerable pressure on the council’s financial position, which has had flow on effects for the budget for the 2020/2021 financial year. Given the new financial realities facing Auckland, council has adopted an Emergency Budget 2020/2021, which has reduced both capital and operating budgets from those anticipated prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, some activity that was previously proposed for 2020/2021 has been deferred or removed from the proposed work programme through a reprioritisation exercise.

16.     The COVID-19 pandemic occurred part way through the planning cycle for the development of the 2020/2021 work programme. This resulted in a disruption to the work programme development process, including requiring a reprioritisation exercise for all proposed activity. 

17.     Staff engaged with the committee regarding the draft programme at a workshop in June 2020, and adjustments were made as a result of the Emergency Budget decisions in July 2020.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18.     The proposed work programmes are made up of activities continuing from previous financial years and new initiatives.

Regional renewals and development programme

19.     The regional renewals and development programme includes all asset investment relating to parks, facilities and activities for which the Governing Body is the allocated decision maker, apart from active cemeteries, which are considered as a separate work programme.

20.     These include the Auckland wide network of Regional Parks including areas allocated to farming activities, the Auckland Botanic Gardens, Auckland Domain, three council operated Holiday Parks, and street gardens.

21.     Staff have prepared the recommended programmes through an iterative process, in consideration of service outcomes sought, the condition of existing assets and demands for new assets. The process of prioritisation has included engagement with staff responsible for delivering both assets and services ‘on the ground’.

22.     Pressures facing this programme include:

·    balancing demands across the regional portfolio

·    increasing visitation/use and changing visitor profile and expectations

·    addressing the impact of historic deferred maintenance.

Regional Parks

23.     The Regional Parks programme includes the renewal of existing assets across the region, with a focus on track renewals and infrastructure to support farming activities in Long Bay, Tawharanui and Shakespear Regional Parks.

24.     The 2020/2021 Emergency Budget resulted in a reduction of the anticipated Regional Parks development budget for the 2020/2021 financial year from $2,163,202 to $1,108,089. As a result, the only development funded projects that are proceeding in this financial year are the purchase of stock for the farming sector and projects that are contractually committed such as the renewing of the accommodation portfolio equipment.

Botanic Gardens

25.     The Botanic Gardens programme focuses on general small-scale renewal of assets such as glasshouses, roading and car park lighting.

26.     Due to funding restrictions, the interpretive signage project at the Botanic Gardens has been reduced in scope to only include the repair of damaged signage as opposed to renewing all signage and the glasshouse replacement has been delayed by one year.

Auckland Domain

27.     The Auckland Domain programme includes significant investment for the renewal and seismic remediation of the Wintergardens and reconfiguration of the sports fields, both of which are contractually committed projects.

28.     The Waitematā Local Board has resolved to fund three projects in the Auckland Domain. The projects involve improving pathway connections, which is funded by the Local Board Transport Capital Fund, the installation of trial gates at Titoki Street and the development of a new carpark at Kiosk Road, using the Parnell Parking Fund.

 

 

Holiday parks

29.     Priorities for the holiday parks programme include several general renewal projects to address historic deferred maintenance. These include the renewal of the amenities blocks at Martins Bay Holiday Park and the northern amenities block at Orewa Holiday Park.

30.     The renewal of the fourteen cabins and the southern amenities block at Orewa Holiday Park, which had been anticipated prior to the Emergency Budget has been deferred until the 2022/2023 financial year.

Regional street gardens

31.     The budget allocation is proposed to renew street gardens infrastructure and planting and to renew tree pits across the region, as part of an ongoing programme. The need for street garden improvements has become apparent following feedback from local boards and the community.

Consolidated budget and proposed allocation

32.     The budget for regional parks has been impacted by the Emergency Budget and COVID-19, reducing the proposed renewals budget for the 2020/2021 financial year from $11.7 million to $8.4 million and the development budget from $2.1 million to $1.1 million.

33.     The regional parks programme budget and proposed allocation is summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Regional parks programme budget and allocation

Regional park

2020/2021

2021/2022

2022/2023

Consolidated regional renewal budget

$8,430,000

$8,920,000

$5,320,000

Consolidated regional development budget

$1,108,089

$2,353,229

$1,300,000

Proposed allocation – Regional Parks

$2,908,030

$6,853,898

$4,053,795

Proposed allocation – Holiday Parks

$1,658,881

$1,819,170

$1,873,016

Proposed allocation – Botanic Gardens

$260,229

$1,350,931

$466,706

Proposed allocation – Auckland Domain

$4,084,682

$1,000,818

$200,000

Proposed allocation – Street Gardens

$500,000

$200,000

$0

Total proposed allocation

$9,412,822

$11,224,817

$6,593,517

Balance available

$125,267

$48,412

$26,483

 

Cemeteries programme

34.     The cemeteries work programme (Attachment B) deals with the renewal and development of active cemeteries. Closed cemeteries form part of the local park network and are addressed within local board work programmes. The programme is driven by the intended service outcomes such as demand for lawn burials, as well as asset condition and input from operational staff.

35.     Pressures on this programme include the growing demand for burial plots, the modest budget provision available for renewals, and heritage constraints and implications for some projects.

36.     It should be noted that a separate budget is allocated for new cemetery land purchase and development, and that this is not included in the budget table below.

37.     Key priorities in the cemeteries programme include renewal of roading and furniture, fixtures and fittings.

38.     Only the contractually committed development projects are proceeding this financial year, including the development of cremation berms and walls throughout the region. The remainder of the actions originating from the Waikumete Master Plan that are not included in the current contract have been deferred, with $970,000 being deferred to financial year 2022/3023.

39.     The cemeteries budget and proposed allocation summarised in Table 2.

Table 2 – Cemeteries programme budget and allocation

Cemeteries Renewal and Development

2020/2021

2021/2022

2022/2023

Budget

$1,755,329

$1,866,500

$6,440,000

Proposed allocation

$1,644,821

$1,682,080

$6,433,138

Balance available

$110,508

$184,420

$6,862

Commercial and residential leasing renewals programme

40.    The commercial and residential leasing renewals programme (Attachment C) includes the properties that were formerly maintained by Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) and are now the responsibility of Community Facilities to maintain. These properties have either a commercial or residential lease and are situated on either regional or local parks.

41.    This programme has an allocated budget which was transferred from Panuku to Community Facilities. As well as necessary renewal work to maintain these assets, the programme will incorporate works required to meet the Healthy Homes Standards 2019.

42.    As these buildings are considered non-service assets, the Governing Body is the allocated decision maker over these assets.

43.    This budget is summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 – Leasing renewals programme budget and allocation

Residential and Commercial Leasing

2020/2021

2021/2022

2022/2023

Consolidated residential and commercial leasing renewal budget

$1,582,475

$0

$0

Proposed allocation residential

$1,200,000

$0

$0

Proposed allocation commercial

$382,475

$0

$0

Total proposed allocation

$1,582,475

$0

$0

Balance available

$0

$0

$0

Coastal renewals programme

44.    Projects within the coastal programme (Attachment D) have been identified and prioritised based on asset condition, coastal hazard mitigation and the nature of the use or function of existing assets. 

45.    Current pressures on this programme include the budget availability and the scale of work required, continued community expectation for coastal protection structures and mitigating climate change impacts.

46.    The proposed programme is made up of renewals of coastal protection structures such as seawalls, and access structures e.g. boat ramps, wharfs and stairs.

47.    In future, the programme will be guided by Coastal Compartment Management Plans.

48.    The budget for coastal renewals has been impacted by the Emergency Budget and COVID-19, reducing the proposed budget for the 2020/2021 financial year from $6.8 million to $4.4 million. To accommodate this reduction, the focus of the programme is to firstly meet contractual obligations, and then address the most urgent health and safety work. Any renewals work that can be deferred without undue risk to the public or to other assets, has been deferred.

49.    The coastal renewals budget and proposed allocation is summarised in Table 4.

Table 4 – Coastal renewals programme budget and allocation

Coastal renewals

2020/2021

2021/2022

2022/2023

Budget

$4,464,957

$7,667,551

$10,000,000

Proposed allocation

$4,464,957

$7,653,645

$9,999,451

Balance available

$0

$13,906

$549

Slips prevention and remediation programme

50.    The focus in the slips prevention and remediation programme (Attachment E) is split between remediating existing slips, prioritised according to risk and use, and preventing future slips based on assessments by the Geotechnical team.

51.    The current slips programme includes projects arising from previous storm events and needs to remain responsive to possible future events. The focus is on completing priority projects that have already commenced. The programme is under pressure from a general expectation for repair/remediation in all circumstances, the cost and technical challenge for some slips, and mitigating climate change impacts.

52.    The slips budget has been impacted by the Emergency Budget and COVID-19, reducing the proposed budget for the 2020/2021 financial year from $2 million to $1.1 million. To accommodate this reduction, the focus of the programme is to firstly meet contractual obligations, and then address the most urgent health and safety risks. Any new development works that can be deferred without undue risk to the public or to other assets, have been deferred.

53.    The slips budget and proposed allocation is summarised in Table 5. There is a small amount of unallocated budget in the 2022/2023 financial year which permits some flexibility to respond to storm events as they occur.

Table 5 – Slips prevention and remediation programme budget and allocation

Slips prevention and remediation

2020/2021

2021/2022

2022/2023

Budget

$1,167,669

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

Proposed allocation

$1,167,669

$2,000,000

$1,831,974

Balance available

$0

$0

$168,026

 


 

Local parks and sportsfields development (growth)

54.    The 10-Year Budget 2018-2028 (LTP) includes the ‘Local Parks and Sportsfield Development’ budget. This budget is often referred to as the ‘growth’ budget, and the projects funded from this budget are often collectively referred to as the ‘growth programme’ (Attachment F).

55.    The local parks and sportsfield development (growth) budget is 75% funded by development contributions and 25% funded by rates. This funding mix means that the programme delivered by this budget must meet the requirements of the Local Government Act for the use of development contributions.

56.    The Local Government Act specifies the type of project that development contributions can be used for and requires that projects can only be funded by the development contribution portion of the budget to the extent that the ‘cause’ and ‘benefit’ from the project is attributable to “new and future communities” (i.e. residential growth only).

57.    Development contributions also part fund other specific projects in the 10-Year Budget 2018-2028. The local parks and sportsfield development (growth) budget, however, provides a general budget source that allows council more flexibility in allocating budget to projects that meet the changing demands arising from growth.

58.    Projects to be funded from the local parks and sportsfield development budget are prioritised (i.e. included in the programme) based on the:

·    alignment with the requirements of the Local Government Act, including assessment of cause and benefit of projects attributable to growth

·    alignment with approved Governing Body or local board priorities

·    delivery of agreed service outcomes

·    assessment of current provision and existing capacity to meet future need

·    projects currently committed or with high expectation for delivery.

59.    The amount and timing for budget allocation of prioritised projects (i.e. how much budget is allocated when) is based on:

·    the appropriate design to meet the needs of new and future communities

·    the area in which residential growth is occurring

·    delivery dependencies (e.g. third-party development, other funding sources)

·    project readiness

·    overall budget availability.

60.    Where and when future growth will take place is predicted based on:

·    projections from the Auckland Plan, the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and the i11 Auckland Transport (AT) growth model

·    analysis of resource consent and building consent applications granted

·    ‘on the ground’ knowledge of staff.

61.    There are several pressures on this programme, including:

·    the scale and phasing of the budget in the short/medium term, which limits the number and extent of projects proposed

·    the expectation for growth investment from developers, local boards and the community

·    the challenge of adequately meeting additional need generated by dispersed growth

·    providing for the development of new open space in an appropriate timeframe following acquisition.

 

62.    The local parks and sportsfields development budget has been impacted by the Emergency Budget and COVID-19, reducing the proposed budget for the 2020/2021 financial year from $37 million to $5 million. The only projects proposed to progress in the 2020/2021 year are those that are already contractually committed, with a small allocation for uncommitted but anticipated costs relating to obtaining the resource consent for the Te Whau pathway. This work is critical in order to be ready to proceed with the project and obtain the funding which has been provided by central government under the ‘shovel ready’ projects.

63.    Local boards were asked to provide their formal feedback relating to the growth programme at their June business meetings. A copy of all resolutions is included as Attachment H to this report, along with an initial staff responses.

64.    Key themes from local board feedback include:

·    support for those projects included in the programme

·    a desire for bringing proposed projects forward for earlier delivery

·    a concern that projects that were to be funded in FY2021 have been deferred beyond the current three year programme to FY2024, and a request that these be restored as soon as possible

·    a concern that historic variation in levels of service is not being addressed through the growth programme.

65.    Staff have provided an initial response to feedback received. Staff will undertake further and ongoing refinement of the programme, which will include responding to the relevant local board proposal for new or expanded projects, and additional funding allocations.

66.    The local parks and sportsfields development budget and proposed allocation is summarised in Table 6.

Table 6 – Local parks and sportsfields development programme budget and allocation

Local parks and sports field development

2020/2021

2021/2022

2022/2023

Budget

$5,402,847

$12,361,040

$5,020,000

Proposed allocation

$5,402,847

$12,360,700

$5,019,980

Balance available

$0

$340

$20

Other development projects

67.     For completeness, Attachment G to this agenda report, shows those projects which have been previously approved by the Governing Body as part of the LTP, the One Local Initiatives (OLIs) and projects which may be funded through development contributions.

68.     There is no decision making required from the committee in relation to these projects arising from this report. 

Capital programme delivery

Cost estimates subject to change

69.     Budget allocations within the work programme are best estimates only. Project costings are subject to change and refinement as projects progress through the design and delivery process. Greater clarity will be determined around the specific work required and the cost of delivery of that work once the details are defined.

70.     The delivery of individual projects is managed within the overall work programme budget. Where significant changes to project budgets may need to be considered, or if new projects are added to the work programme, changes may be required to the programme to accommodate final project costs as the year progresses.

 

Risk adjusted programme

71.     A number of projects have been identified in the work programme as “risk adjusted programme (RAP)” projects.

72.     Approval is sought for these projects to commence at the beginning of the 2020/2021 financial year so that they can be delivered early in the event that projects approved for delivery in 2020/2021 are delayed for any unforeseen reason.

Delegation for approval of changes to the work programme

73.     The delivery of the proposed work programme in an efficient and timely manner may require amendments to be made to the agreed work programme during the year. Such amendments could include:

·    changes to project scope, budgets, timing

·    addition of new projects within available budget

·    cancelling or putting approved projects on hold

74.     Any changes to the approved work programme would normally require approval from the committee by resolution at a business meeting. However, the committee can delegate authority to approve some or all amendments to the work programme to the chairperson, to another member of the committee, or to staff. Such delegation would allow changes to be made without the timeframes required to provide formal reports and would support the efficient delivery of the work programme.

75.     It is requested that the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee delegate authority to staff to approve changes to the work programme, in this case the General Manager Community Facilities (authorisation within delegated financial authority).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

76.     Many of the activities in the 2020/2021 work programme will have impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and contribute towards climate change adaptation. The sorts of impacts to be considered include:

·        Maximum upcycling and recycling of old material

·        Installation of energy efficiency measures

·        Building design to ensure the maximum lifetime and efficiency of the building is obtained

·        Lifecycle impacts of construction materials (embodied emissions)

·        Exposure of building location to climate change hazards (sea level rise, flooding (floodplains), drought, heat island effect)

·        Anticipated increase in carbon emissions from construction, including contractor emissions

·        Lifecycle impacts of construction materials.

77.     These impacts will be considered as projects progress and will be reported at future reporting opportunities.

 

 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

78.     The 2020 - 2023 Community Facilities regional work programme has been developed in consultation with other council departments such as Parks, Sports and Recreation, Service Strategy and Integration, the Development Programme Office and Engineering and Technical Services. The intent is to improve the integration of our advice to the committee and overall to improve the quality of advice through collaboration and understanding across departments.

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

Local impacts and local board views

79.     The Community Facilities regional work programme has been considered by the local boards in a series of workshops from November 2019 to July 2020. The views expressed by local board members during the workshops have informed the recommended work programme.

80.     Community facilities and open spaces provide important community services to the people of the local board area. They contribute to building strong, healthy and vibrant communities by providing spaces where Aucklanders can participate in a wide range of social, cultural, art and recreational activities. These activities improve lifestyles and a sense of belonging and pride amongst residents.

81.     All relevant regional work programme projects have been included in local board work programmes for approval, subject to committee approval. Formal feedback on the regional programmes has also been sought from local boards. A copy of all resolved feedback has been included in Attachment H to this report created.

82.     The feedback has been discussed in Attachment H and in the Analysis and Advice section of this report, and any necessary changes as a result have been incorporated into the recommendations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

83.     The Community Facilities Work Programme ensures that all facilities and open space assets continue to be well-maintained assets that benefit the local community, including Māori.

84.     When developing and delivering work programmes consideration is given to how the activities can contribute to Māori well-being, values, culture and traditions.

85.     Karanga Atu! Karanga Mai! relationship approach responds to Māori aspirations and delivers on council’s statutory obligations and relationship commitments to Māori. It guides staff to deliver on agreed work programme activities.

86.     Where aspects of the proposed work programme are anticipated to have a significant impact on activities of importance to Māori, then appropriate engagement will be undertaken.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

87.     Financial implications of COVID-19/Emergency Budget have resulted in reduced budgets for renewal activities and significantly impacted on development budgets, such as growth.

88.     It should be noted that the budgets for the Botanic Gardens and Auckland Domain are being treated as a part of the regional parks network programme.


 

 

89.     Table 7 outlines the overall budget summary:

Table 7: Budget

Programme  

2020/2021

2021/2022

2022/2023

Regional parks – developments

$1,108,089

$2,353,229

$1,300,000

Regional parks – renewals

$8,430,000

$8,920,000

$5,320,000

Auckland Cemeteries – developments

$1,032,329

$1,106,500

$5,840,000

Auckland Cemeteries – renewals

$723,000

$760,000

$600,000

Coastal asset renewals

$4,464,957

$7,667,551

$10,000,000

Slips remediation and prevention

$1,167,669

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

Local parks and sports fields development

$5,402,847

$12,361,040

$5,020,000

 

90.     The proposed work programme can be accommodated within the revised available budgets. Approval of the work programme does not have significant financial implications, unless projects experience a significant overspend or underspend.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

91.     Where a work programme activity cannot be completed on time, due to unforeseen circumstances, this will be signalled to the committee via an update. This risk is mitigated by utilising the risk adjusted programme (RAP) to progress those projects identified as ready to proceed under the RAP at the beginning of the financial year.

92.     If the proposed Community Facilities work programme is not approved at the business meeting, there is a risk that the proposed projects may not be delivered within the 2020/2021 financial year.

93.     The COVID-19 pandemic could have a further negative impact on the delivery of work programmes if the COVID-19 Alert Level changes (New Zealand’s 4-level Alert System specifies measures to be taken against COVID-19 at each level). The deliverability of some activities will decrease if there is an increase to the COVID-19 Alert Level.

94.     Staff believe that the proposed work programme is deliverable within existing resources. Delivery progress will be monitored through the year. Any resourcing challenges arising will be brought to the Committee’s attention alongside consideration of implications and options to address challenges.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

95.     Delivery of the activity in the approved work programme will commence once approved and continue until 30 June 2021.

96.     Where the work programme identifies further decisions and milestones for each activity, or should there be any changes to regional programmes that affect local board work programmes, these will be reported to the relevant local board when appropriate.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Regional Renewals and Development Work Programme

23

b

Cemeteries Work Programme

41

c

Commercial and Residential Leases Work Programme

43

d

Coastal Renewal Work Programme

45

e

Slips Prevention Work Programme

53

f

Local Parks and Sportsfields Development Work Programme

59

g

Existing LTP and OLI Projects

69

h

Local Board Feedback on Regional Programmes

71

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kathryn Martin – Manager Work Programmes, Community Facilities

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

 



Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10/09/2020

 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

10 September 2020

 

Final report of Stage 2 of the Auckland cultural heritage institutions review

File No.: CP2020/10577

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To present the findings of Stage 2 of the Auckland cultural heritage institutions review and seek agreement to implement key recommendations. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland cultural heritage institutions review began in 2017 to consider the governance and funding arrangements of the major Auckland Council-funded museums and galleries: Auckland Art Gallery, New Zealand Maritime Museum (both part of Regional Facilities Auckland), Auckland War Memorial Museum, Museum of Transport and Technology, and Stardome Planetarium and Observatory (all independent and funded through different mechanisms).

3.       The diverse governance structures have made it difficult for Council to exercise a genuine strategic guidance role for these institutions, despite its funding role for each of them.

4.       The first stage of the Review was the commissioning of the Stafford report. This and other reports have strongly argued the need for change to the sector’s governing arrangements.

5.       “Stage 2” of the Review was established in May 2019, with two key aims:

·    collaboratively develop a strategy with and for the cultural heritage institutions and

·    agree changes to governing arrangements to ensure the strategy could be implemented.

6.       Stage 2 has not proceeded as originally envisaged when Council signed off its terms of reference in May 2019.  Existing sector structures make agreeing a strategy very difficult. 

7.       On 27 August 2020, Governing Body considered the recommendations of the CCO Review Panel. It agreed in principle to implement the Panel’s recommendations, including negotiating with Auckland Museum and MOTAT on their future governing arrangements, and also that Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) and Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) be merged.

8.       A major opportunity is created by the agreed merger of RFA and ATEED. The merger means MOTAT is willing to discuss greater integration with the council group. Stardome has also indicated its willingness to consider greater alignment with any council strategy that is established.

9.       Auckland War Memorial Museum’s limited accountability to the council, particularly given its large annual funding needs to be addressed. Council’s negotiations with the Museum should seek to achieve genuine strategic alignment of the Museum with the council group, through new accountability and funding mechanisms. This will ultimately require legislative change. 

10.     It has also not been possible to explore the potential for mana whenua governance roles, as the Stage 2 terms of reference indicated. This should be further pursued both with the merged RFA/ATEED, and in negotiations with Auckland Museum, alongside the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum. 

11.     The key findings and recommendations of Stage 2 are summarised in the box below. They are discussed in detail in this report. Auckland Museum has different perspectives, which are presented separately in the report. 

Key findings and recommendations of Stage 2

1.       There is a strong case for change to the governance arrangements of the cultural heritage sector, to achieve strategic alignment across institutions funded by Council. Council and the cultural heritage sector can do much better in terms of outcomes for Aucklanders.

2.       A strategy for the bigger institutions is not going to be possible without closer integration of the institutions but remains an urgent need. This reflects the many competing interests in the current context. Only by having a formal commitment to a strategy will ensure that organisations work towards defined outcomes for the region and can be judged against those outcomes. 

3.       Integrated governance does not need to be one size fits all. There are a range of mechanisms which should be considered for more formal integration, from formal agreements through to partial and full integration. This acknowledges that individual institutional identities which have been developed over time remain valuable, especially given the disparate size of organisations in the sector.

4.       MOTAT has indicated it is willing to consider a pathway towards greater integration and potentially legislative change, alongside the merged RFA/ATEED, where such integration can assist with achieving MOTAT’s long term vision of the outcomes it can deliver for Auckland.

5.       Auckland Museum’s governing arrangements are recommended to change so that it is accountable to Auckland Council as its primary funder. The Museum should be invited to negotiate changes so that it is aligned to an integrated structure in a formal way. There are options which can be considered, but the status quo blocks the council’s ability to deliver better outcomes in this sector.

6.       Advisory boards with specific cultural sector expertise are seen as an integral part of a new way forward. Within a CCO structure, there is a need to allow for specialist expertise. An Art Gallery advisory committee was a recommendation of the Stafford report, and is being established.  A complementary science/technology/environment committee for the Zoo, Maritime Museum, MOTAT and possibly Stardome should also be considered.

7.       Mana whenua governance in the cultural heritage sector institutions remains an issue to be pursued. Enhancing the minimal current roles for mana whenua of Tāmaki as governors was a key challenge in the Stage 2 terms of reference. With the prospect of a new merged entity, and negotiations with Auckland Museum, discussions alongside mana whenua, consistent with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum’s terms of reference to partner “on all region-shaping decisions that require a collective voice” should be progressed. 

8.       Auckland Council needs to develop specific capability for managing cultural heritage and visual arts institutions. This capability will enhance its relationship with the cultural heritage institutions and allow it to play a lead role in developing an overarching strategy for this sector. This need to significantly develop capability also applies to any CCO which has an ongoing or expanded role in the sector.

9.       Sector funding should be directed through the unified structure and judged against the strategy, particularly for capital bids.

10.     There are several small-medium institutions in Auckland that were outside the review, which could benefit from the opportunity to join or be supported by a bigger entity. For these organisations there should be the option to align formally or integrate with the new unified organization over time.

 

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee:

a)      note that there is a clear case for changes to the governance and funding of Auckland’s major cultural institutions, in order to achieve better outcomes for Aucklanders, based on an overarching strategy for all the council-funded organisations

b)      note that agreeing a strategy for the institutions is not possible without governance changes

c)      note that the merger of Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) and Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) provides an opportunity for the development of an overarching strategy for the cultural institutions, which in turn could lead to governance changes so that the institutions become more integrated and aligned to the council’s expectations

d)      note that Governing Body agreed in principle with the CCO Review recommendation that the council should “explore with the Auckland War Memorial Museum and MOTAT bringing both institutions into the merged [RFA/ATEED] entity and seeks such legislative change as necessary” (GB/2020/89, 27 August 2020), and requested the Auckland Council chief executive to implement the recommendation

e)      note that MOTAT is willing to consider a pathway towards integration and that at an appropriate time following its establishment, the merged RFA/ATEED should be requested to work closely with MOTAT on developing a pathway towards potential integration

f)       note that the cultural heritage institutions review considers that the council should explore options with Auckland Museum to achieve greater integration with the Auckland Council group, an improved accountability process, and an enhanced role for mana whenua in Museum governance

g)      agree to establish a Governing Body-led team to undertake discussions with Auckland Museum on a rangatira to rangatira basis

h)      note that options for mana whenua governance for cultural heritage sector organisations remain an issue to be examined, through both negotiations with Auckland Museum, and in the post-establishment phase of RFA/ATEED.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

12.     The Auckland cultural heritage institutions review began in 2017 to consider the governance and funding arrangements of the major Auckland Council-funded museums and galleries. The context in which the review has taken place is set out in considerable detail below. This is important for understanding the findings of Stage 2.

Summary of sector structure and history

13.     Auckland Council invests more than $60 million each financial year in the region’s major cultural heritage institutions and facilities.  It does this through a variety of governance and funding mechanisms.


 

14.     At amalgamation in 2010, Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) was established as a council-controlled organisation (CCO) with a purpose to promote (among other things) cultural well-being through engagement of Aucklanders in arts, culture and heritage activities (RFA Deed of Trust, p.4). At establishment it incorporated within it the Auckland Art Gallery and Auckland Zoo.  The New Zealand Maritime Museum joined RFA in 2018.

15.     Three pre-amalgamation pieces of legislation remain in force: 

·    Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996

·    Museum of Transport and Technology Act 2000

·    Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. Stardome receives operational funding through this mechanism.

16.     These pieces of legislation responded to a situation prior to amalgamation where regional organisations were not funded equitably by the councils of the Auckland region.  Each of the statutes provided a mechanism that enabled the institutions to levy the multiple councils for annual funding, in specific proportions according to council size and property values.  Central government also instituted similar (but less prescriptive) levy systems for Otago and Canterbury Museums. 

17.     At amalgamation, these systems were transferred into the unified Auckland Council structure, despite one of their main purposes having disappeared.  Both Auckland Council and Government recognised that this was an issue. In his ‘Briefing Paper to the Incoming Government’ of 2011, Mayor Len Brown noted that:

“Governance and funding arrangements for the Auckland War Memorial Museum, MOTAT and for the ten Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act entities need to be reviewed and aligned with the new governance structure for Auckland.  This has previously been acknowledged by Cabinet (CAB (10) 332).”

18.     Furthermore, the intention of the Auckland Transition Authority (ATA) was that the establishment of RFA was only the first step towards regionalisation of the cultural heritage sector. The ATA advised that for RFA to be successful it must be able to influence the funding and appointments to Auckland Museum, MOTAT and Stardome. Beyond an advisory capacity, this has not happened, and RFA’s influence has been fundamentally limited. 

19.     In 2015, the council approved Toi Whītiki – Auckland’s Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan. This strategy set out six high-level strategic directions, and was agreed after a process of development which both RFA and several other cultural heritage institutions participated in.  The strategy had a wide focus and operated on the basis that organisations would work towards its aims, even though they could not be held accountable for its implementation.

20.     Toi Whītiki contains some important strategic directions that are of relevance to the cultural heritage institutions of Auckland:

·    Ensure governance and funding arrangements of council-funded institutions enable them to operate sustainably and collaboratively (2.1.1)

·    Investigate demand for facilities and meet gaps in provision, potentially including conservation and storage facilities and other operational needs of the museum sector (3.1.1)

·    Celebrate Māori and their culture as a point of difference (5.1) and in particular establish mana whenua co-governance and partnership models consistent with the Treaty (5.1.5).


 

Walker report 2015 – A strategic framework

21.     In April 2015, at the request of Auckland Council’s chief executive, Auckland Museum and RFA jointly commissioned a report on a strategic framework for thinking about the current and future needs of the current and future Auckland cultural heritage sector (“the Walker Report”). The Walker Report arose out of ongoing discussions between the council, RFA and the institutions about the governance and funding mechanisms.

22.     The Walker Report contains a very useful description of the new strategic context for cultural institutions in post-amalgamation Auckland.  The three primary elements of this were:

·    the Auckland Plan, which was the spatial plan mandated to be prepared by Auckland Council by s.79 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009

·    an explicit recognition of the importance of the mana whenua world view

·    rapid changes in demography and technology. 

23.     The Walker Report outlines a series of strategic outcomes which should underpin ongoing and new council investments.  It also identified gaps in current infrastructure, and key investment opportunities for the council and the cultural institutions. It stressed that to make progress, change would be needed:  “To unlock current and future value, it is imperative that Auckland considers a more integrated approach to governance and funding. Auckland has a plethora of cultural infrastructure but the way they are governed and funded results in a fragmented outcome… (p.53).

24.     The Walker Report was accompanied by a letter from Auckland Museum and RFA promoting a strategic governance review (Roy Clare and Chris Brooks, 16 November 2015). This was one of the originating points for the cultural heritage review work. 

Stage 1 of the cultural heritage institutions review:  the Stafford report, October 2018

 

25.     In 2017 Auckland Council’s governing body endorsed the idea of initiating a comprehensive review process, so that it could receive independent advice on a way forward.  The agreed focus for the review was: (ENV/2017/64)

·    To clearly set out current governance arrangements, and the advantages and disadvantages of those, for the institutions, for the council as major funder, and the public who benefit from cultural investments.  It should examine the degree to which arrangements allow for transparency and accountability to Aucklanders and the achievement of cultural outcomes for Auckland.

·    To make recommendations about the key strategic goals the cultural heritage sector in Auckland should be seeking to achieve, building on previous consultant reports, and taking into account the Auckland Plan and Toi Whītiki.

·    Clearly identify what structural and governance changes should be made to achieve the strategic goals of the institutions and the council through greater coherence, accountability, and value for money. 

26.     The initial cultural institutions review report was commissioned in 2018 from Stafford Strategy, a consultancy based in both Australia and New Zealand. Stafford Strategy (pp.31-2) considered there was a “strong case for change” based on (among other things):

·    The significant complexity in the existing sector governance arrangements

·    The lack of clear accountability mechanisms over the culture and heritage organisations which the council directly and indirectly funds

·    Specifically, the lack of ability for the council to influence the amount of funding to Auckland Museum, MOTAT and ARAFB [Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board], because of the legislation governing those organisations

·    The lack of direction from the council of its annual priorities for culture and heritage organisations

·    The lack of robustness in the current Museums of Auckland collaboration, given its simple “goodwill” basis. 

27.     The Stafford Report proposed a unified statutory body through which funding would be channelled to each of the organisations.  This would have required a devolution of RFA and legislative change for Auckland Museum and MOTAT.  The institutions considered that the Stafford Report was flawed and feared that change was about to be imposed upon them which would have poor outcomes for their organisations.

28.     The Stafford Report was workshopped with councillors in October 2018. Councillors’ advice to staff was that the Report’s key recommendations should be taken forward in a collaborative process with the institutions to identify the key issues that needed to be focussed on and resolved. 

29.     Some of the Stafford Report’s recommendations remain highly relevant in 2020. For example, the 2020 CCO Review has endorsed changes to RFA, and also identified a lack of strategic direction delivered by Auckland Council. The Museums of Auckland collaboration is now considered an ad hoc and informal mechanism. This loose coalition of the institutions was initiated by Auckland Museum when the council established the review.

Terms of reference for stage 2 of the review

30.     To work towards practical implementation of a strategy and potential governance and funding changes, the council on 30 May 2019 agreed a terms of reference for a second stage of the cultural heritage review process (GB/2019/1). The objectives of Stage 2 were to work collaboratively with the institutions towards an agreed strategy for the major cultural heritage institutions, and then to consider structural and other changes to support achievement of this strategy.

31.     The terms of reference set out the case for change in this way:

·    a lack of clear vision and strategy for the Tāmaki Makaurau cultural heritage sector that embraces Toi Whītiki aspirations and is inclusive of mana whenua

·    a need for clear performance expectations and indicators enabling councillors and the public to have a transparent understanding of the value received for the investment

·    lack of a genuine cultural ecosystem between institutions, exacerbated by diverse governance structures

·    lack of confidence by the council to invest in what is currently a fragmented cultural heritage sector/

Process

32.     Stage 2 of the cultural heritage institutions review involved:

·    Auckland Council

·    Auckland Art Gallery

·    Auckland War Memorial Museum

·    Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum

·    Museum of Transport and Technology

·    New Zealand Maritime Museum

·    Regional Facilities Auckland

·    Stardome Observatory and Planetarium.

33.     Four formal meetings of this group took place (9 May, 28 June and 26 November 2019; 31 March 2020), with additional group and bilateral meetings between council staff and the institutions as required, including several updates to the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum. The speed at which the work progressed was limited by resourcing at the council.  All meetings were scheduled at times to accommodate all the institutions and attendance was consistent. 

34.     Some governance changes have been made since Stage 2 was initiated, and another is under discussion.  In 2018 the Maritime Museum elected to leave the ARAFA system and join RFA. In addition, RFA has recently decided to establish an advisory committee for Auckland Art Gallery, as recommended by the Stafford Review. In 2019, MOTAT and RFA started to investigate greater strategic integration especially in relation to the development of Western Springs.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

35.     The key objectives of Stage 2 were to develop and agree an overarching strategy and subsequent structural and funding changes (if any) to ensure the strategy could be implemented.

36.     Stage 2 of the cultural heritage review has been a slow and difficult process. While the institutions have attended meetings and engaged, their differing perspectives have meant that genuine collaboration has not been possible. In the current institutional environment, achieving a strategy has proved impossible. The mechanisms do not exist in which to produce agreement across organisations which have their own boards, their own imperatives and contexts, and their own strategic outcomes.

37.     Auckland Museum has consistently stated that governance change is not a priority for it. Its views are set out separately in the report. Staff consider that Auckland Museum’s current governing arrangements, and its reluctance to consider change, has been a significant barrier both to progress being made through this Review, and to better strategic outcomes across the council’s investment in cultural heritage. 

38.     The findings of Stage 2 are set out in detail below. The cultural heritage review institutions have reviewed these and are largely in agreement, except for Auckland Museum.

Key findings of Stage 2 of the Review

Finding 1: There is a case for change to the governance arrangements of the cultural heritage sector 

 

39.     While there has been widespread agreement that a sector wide strategy is required, there remains disagreement about how to achieve this. The majority of the institutions (staff from RFA, the council, MOTAT, Auckland Art Gallery, Maritime Museum and Stardome) agree that structural change is required to achieve better outcomes long-term.

40.     Stage 2 of the review undertook an analysis of options for greater integration of the institutions.  The analysis was done against the following criteria:

·    Governing arrangements should maximise achievement of cultural heritage outcomes

·    Accountability to the council, which sets strategic direction

·    Sector has sufficient independence to take advantage of opportunities, be innovative and respond to societal changes; is independent in making cultural decisions; and can access and generate other sources of funding effectively

·    Access to specialist governance skills – cultural, political, commercial

·    Flexible to future change – to bring in additional institutions if there is a case to, and to be reconfigured internally as required over time

·    Value for money – economies of scale, efficiencies, better outcomes

·    Māori role in governance –arrangements allow mana whenua in particular to take a strong governance role.

41.     Against these criteria the status quo arrangements for the cultural heritage sector perform poorly, and there is a clear case for change.  Governance structures currently do not encourage collaboration at a strategic level, offer the council mixed accountability, are inflexible to change, and have poor involvement of Māori in governance.  The status quo performs well in terms of independence of the institutions to make cultural decisions (about programming for example), and each of the organisations deliver strong programmes delivering value to Aucklanders.

42.     More specifically:

·    There is a lack of genuine collaboration across institutions, rather than consideration of how issues can be addressed sector-wide. This in turn makes it difficult for Auckland Council to feel confident to respond to investment proposals, because it is not clear that such proposals relate to a broader strategic purpose or will be used to enhance multiple outcomes. An example was the effort some years ago to develop a joint storage facility to provide quality care for Auckland’s collections, which failed to reach agreement, leading to the current mix of storage solutions across the institutions. 

·    One cause of this lack of coordination is the absence of a sector strategy. Such a strategy has long been sought by the sector, but little progress has been made, largely because of the diverse governance and funding structures, though also due to an undeveloped strategic policy capability at the council in this area.  This means that different organisations have different imperatives and little incentive to bind themselves to a strategy which is essentially unrelated to their funding. There is little sense of everyone being on the same ‘team’.

·    The current arrangements do not allow a coherent revision of how mana whenua governance roles, focus and outcomes can be enhanced.  The Auckland Plan requires that Auckland Council and the organisations which it funds are responsive to and work in partnership with mana whenua of Tāmaki. There is a strong need to fulfil the commitments made by the council to mana whenua, so that mana whenua are in a position to influence the direction of the sector and its institutions, and its spending priorities.

·    There is a low level of visibility of the value and impact of the institutions within the sector. While councillors have good visibility of the performance of the cultural organisations within RFA through RFA’s accountability mechanisms, the legislation for Auckland Museum, MOTAT and Stardome mean that opportunities for direct contact with council would be simply one-way information sharing, and not fundamentally relevant to decision-making.  The price of independence for those organisations is a distant relationship, which makes it difficult to do significant work together.  It does not work for either council or the institutions.

·    The annual dispute over the Auckland Museum levy is a symptom of the poor relationship which the Museum’s legislation creates. Despite receiving more than $32m of ratepayer funding a year, the Museum has often commented that it is “directly accountable to Aucklanders” and “statutorily independent”. This leaves the Museum isolated, both geographically and strategically, from the other institutions in Auckland and from Council.  This is discussed further under Finding 5.

·    The current legislative and structural arrangements also place significant restrictions on council’s ability to distribute money across the sector to where pressures or opportunities may arise. By way of example, the Museum is soon to unveil a redeveloped offering which has cost the council around $70m. In a constrained funding environment, choices cannot be made about whether some of that investment could have been used across the sector to seed new projects. The same applies to the Museum’s typical $800,000 annual increase – the council is unable to make informed trade-off choices about whether other parts of the sector might better use that funding in any given year.  Without legislative change, these opportunity costs are reinforced.

Finding 2:  a strategy for the bigger institutions is not going to be possible without closer integration of the institutions, but remains an urgent need

43.     It has long been agreed by all the key actors in the Auckland cultural heritage sector that a broader strategy is needed, to supplement the high-level directions of Toi Whītiki. Such a strategy would also identify gaps in provision and key investment moves.

44.     However, Stage 2 has not been able to achieve an agreed strategy.  In the current situation, each organisation has its own strategy, approved by its own board, which takes precedence.  Some of these plans may happen to be aligned to council plans and strategies such as the Auckland Plan or Toi Whītiki, but they are not driven by council priorities.

45.     The process for Stage 2 has revealed the variety of competing organisational interests, and the absence of genuine incentives to formulate a strategy, which also undermined previous attempts such as the Walker Report. This unstable dynamic also played out in the Museums of Auckland coalition, which was abandoned as a forum for developing formal collaboration in August 2020. 

46.     However, preparing a strategy remains be an urgent task, once a more integrated sector with a reasonable critical mass is achieved.

47.     Furthermore, the broad outlines of priority areas for a cultural heritage sector strategy are relatively clear, building on the Walker and Stafford Reports, and the discussions thus far in the Stage 2 process.  These would likely reflect an Aotearoa New Zealand / Tāmaki Makaurau lens on big global trends:

·    Building a te ao Māori  and mana whenua perspective into all the sector does, and as an associated theme, promoting the indigenisation and decolonisation of institutions

·    Responding to the challenges of climate change and environmental sustainability.

An example of the type of investment which might respond to the trends above is the development of the Western Springs area as a science, technology and ecological precinct. 

Finding 3:  Integrated governance does not need to be one size fits all

48.     The terms of reference for the review made it clear that the council was seeking greater integration, reflecting the broader regional amalgamation in 2010.  Toi Whītiki identified the need for a “network of complementary institutions”.  As noted above, this has not happened, and the status quo needs to be changed.


 

49.     It is also clear is that the Auckland cultural heritage sector (both within and outside the council group) is composed of a range of organisations of different sizes, purposes, and with quite different histories and approach. This means there is not one model into which all organisations should or could be shoe-horned; a range of different mechanisms should be contemplated by Auckland Council to achieve the desired alignment to strategic outcomes.

50.     A spectrum of options have been considered by the Stage 2 process, based on those previously identified by the 2018 Stafford Report.  These range from most integrated with the council and with the least amount of independence, to the greatest degree of independence and least integration. 

1.   a standalone business unit within council or a council department.

2.   a wholly integrated governance model, with one board overseeing all the institutions.

3.   a partially integrated model, whereby one board oversees funding and strategy, with some organisations fully integrated, while other institutions may retain their own boards or advisory boards and align through formal agreements.

4.   Status quo, with several wholly independent organisations funded through council but accountable to their boards. 

51.     A standalone business unit within council has been analysed and is not favoured. This would likely involve loss of charitable status for the organisations, and a loss of operating independence. The organisations might lose identity and visibility.  This option would require wholesale legislative repeal which would be very difficult to achieve at present. Neither council staff nor the current organisations are in favour of this option and it would therefore be very difficult to achieve. Council itself would also have to significantly increase its staff capability in this option. 

52.     A wholly integrated model has been analysed and delivers a range of positive benefits.  However, it is likely to be difficult to achieve in the short term, given the need for legislative change.

53.     In relation to a partially integrated option, on 27 August 2020, Council’s Governing Body agreed a merger of RFA and ATEED, which was a recommendation of the 2020 CCO Review.  The decision to merge these two entities makes change in the cultural heritage sector more achievable than it has been previously, because it improves some of the existing weaknesses of the current CCO model (as identified by both the CCO Review Panel, and in the Stafford Report). This makes it a more attractive option for institutions such as MOTAT to make the ‘leap of faith’ required to contemplate governance change.  The potential benefits of a merged CCO overseeing the council’s major arts, culture and heritage institutions are:

·    Council, the CCO, and the institutions would be able to develop an umbrella strategy that (i) is aligned to the council’s other strategies, plans and policies and (ii) the institutions can align their strategies and objectives to (noting that the CCO would have to significantly improve its governance and operational knowledge of the sector to provide effective support, compared to RFA’s existing capability)

·    The CCO will be able to communicate the council’s expectations to the institutions, and monitor and report back to the council on how the institutions collectively and separately meet those expectations

·    The structure will enable the sharing of resources, take advantage of the economies of scale and facilitate new offerings

·    The CCO could use its resources to support the institutions (e.g. the promotion of events and exhibitions via Auckland Live)

·    It will enable the institutions to be clustered in a way that provides a better offering and outcome for the residents and communities of Auckland and facilitates mana whenua/iwi engagement and outcomes

·    The CCO and the institutions could identify and advocate for projects and other initiatives that benefit the sector as a whole (e.g. joint storage) as part of the LTP process

·    The CCOs and the institutions would work together to ensure that the region’s and nation’s heritage and collections are preserved, developed and properly cared for.

54.     The partial integration option could have some of the following features, which are canvassed in more detail in other findings of this report.

·    Some institutions fully integrated as separate business units, as Maritime, Zoo and Art Gallery are within RFA at present

·    Advisory committees within the merged RFA/ATEED would be very useful to provide specialist expertise and support (e.g. Art Gallery, and science, technology and environment)

·    The merged RFA/ATEED to work with the institutions and the council to develop a cultural institutions strategy (sitting beneath Toi Whītiki) and could monitor and report on its implementation

·    MOTAT would be invited to consider a partial integration with the merged RFA/ATEED.  This would be subject to agreement by MOTAT’s Board

·    Stardome has indicated it would also consider strategic alignment but is more cautious about a greater degree of governance change at this time.  This is an example of how a smaller organisation may elect to stay at arms length but still play a role contributing to wider council priorities

·    Continue to negotiat with Auckland Museum about its future structural arrangements, with one option being as a separate business unit of the merged RFA/ATEED (see Finding 5)

·    Sector capital bids will be expected to go through the new organisation, including any from Auckland Museum, even if it stays outside the council family

·    A number of smaller organisations, assets or collections could be invited into the merged entity over time (see Finding 9), or to have formal agreements with it to align on strategy and funding.

55.     Assessed against the criteria outlined above, the partial integration option performs strongly.

·    Achievement of outcomes:  Partial integration will reduce barriers to alignment with overall strategy but retain individual differences between organisations. This will enhance collective outcomes while allowing for specialist programmes.

·    Proportionate accountability:  The model would have the key features of the CCO model in terms of accountability, but with improved strategic policy making from the council and a renewed purpose following CCO Review. 

·    Cultural independence:  The CCO model with cultural organisations as business units retains a strong degree of operational independence, as shown by the Maritime Museum and Art Gallery experiences.  Advisory committees would assist in maintaining the ability of organisations to make operational/cultural decisions.

·    Access to specialist governance skills: The advisory committee model would specifically be designed to encompass specialist skills and perspectives and promote innovation.

·    Flexible to future change:  The model is specifically designed to be flexible for future organisations to join. Once within the organisation, would be relatively easy to restructure different parts, but this ability would be counterbalanced by the strong brands involved.

·    Contribution to enhanced Māori governance roles:  The advisory committee model could make a major difference if it created specialist positions of Māori governance in the cultural sector.  Council’s broader CCO appointment policy would be critical at the level of the board of the merged entity. 

·    Achievability:  While the model is relatively complex on paper, it will be easier to achieve than attempting to move directly to a wholly integrated model which would require immediate legislative change.  In this proposed model, legislative change can occur if and when there is a desire for it, and there is a legislative vehicle (such as a wider Auckland Governance Bill).  Cultural organisations are more likely to agree with the proposed model, as it provides interim steps which build confidence for them through the partial integration step. 

Finding 4:  MOTAT has indicated it is willing to consider a pathway towards greater integration

56.     Supporting the model outlined in Finding 3, MOTAT has indicated a willingness to discuss a pathway towards greater integration. This acknowledges that the current arrangements are a barrier to achievement of key opportunities, and to achieving a broader sector strategy.  It represents a leap of faith by MOTAT, which has thus far been content to exist within its legislation, though recently has played a role sharing expertise and other non-financial resources to support other institutions in the region and elsewhere.

57.     From MOTAT’s point of view, key elements of a strategic structural solution in which it sees that it could more closely integrate in future would be:

1.   Auckland Council establishes a CCO that oversees, amongst other things, arts, culture and heritage (as recommended by the CCO Review Panel)

2.   The council and the CCO ensure that (a) the CCO has sufficient expertise and resource to oversee and support the institutions that it wants to work with and (b) the CCO develops the synergies and support between the other areas of the CCO’s business (e.g. tourism, promotion (Auckland Live), joint ticketing and packages).

3.   Council and the CCO set up and chair a panel (which includes representatives of the institutions which are committed to greater integration) to (a) develop an overarching arts, culture and heritage strategy that any arts, culture and heritage entity in the region can align their activities to and factors in the expectations and requirements of the council (b) identify the areas/institutions that the council needs to develop/invest in under the LTP to achieve the strategy and to have the biggest impact on the city including financial, educational, wellbeing, reputational, cultural, ecological and sustainability outcomes.

4.   The CCO works with the relevant institutions to secure the requisite financial and other resources for the projects from the council, the Government, corporates and any other stakeholders.

5.   Any financial and other support for the projects could be conditional on the institution(s) supporting the amendment or repealing of its legislation and they become part of the CCO on the basis that that was in the best long term interest of the institution. In could also be agreed that some of the financial security that the institution(s) enjoyed under the legislation could be ring fenced for its benefit for a set period of time to assist the institution(s) and the CCO with the transition. 


 

58.     If greater financial integration as envisaged in point 5 were to be achieved, MOTAT’s Board may continue in the short to medium term for funding and annual plan purposes, but strategic alignment would happen through the advisory committee, and an agreement to pursue capital development through the new organisation, and be assessed on performance and accountability through it. The pathway ultimately is for MOTAT to move out of its legislation and integrate fully, in order to access long-term capital commitment from council to develop its site (probably as part of a Western Springs precinct opportunity).

59.     This report recommends that at an appropriate time post-establishment, the merged RFA/ATEED be requested to engage with MOTAT on a pathway to closer integration and alignment with the Council group over time. 

Finding 5:  Auckland Museum’s governing arrangements need to change so that it is accountable to Auckland Council as its primary funder

60.     The Museum’s current arrangements were put in place in 1996. These arrangements were driven by the Museum itself and reflected a desire to address an overcomplicated governance system and underfunding, by requiring all councils in the region to contribute. 

61.     Almost a quarter of a century later, arrangements which were appropriate at the time are no longer fit for purpose given the current operating context, most notably: 

·         Local Government Act 2002 and its requirements for councils to meet cultural wellbeing goals, as well as prepare ten-year plans

·         the amalgamation of Auckland’s former seven councils, which the Museum’s legislation was set up to ensure contributions from

·         the renewed commitment to mana whenua in Tāmaki Makaurau through the Auckland Plan and the Tāmaki Collective settlement

·         COVID-19 and the pressure which that is putting on museums nationwide.

62.     Just as the Museum sought a governance change in 1996, the council now needs to actively pursue a refresh to the Museum’s governing arrangements, so that its board and executive can respond appropriately to Auckland Council priorities, given that the council is the Museum’s primary funder.  The Museum should arguably also play a greater play a role as a leader for the museums of the Auckland region, and holder of national collections. In particular:

·    Auckland Museum receives over half of council’s annual investment in major cultural heritage institutions. This affords the Museum the opportunity to play a much greater strategic role in the Auckland sector than it currently does.

·    A range of opportunities are opened up by greater integration, but these are limited as long as Auckland Museum remains a standalone member of the cultural heritage sector.

·    Auckland Museum’s legislation has some significant defects which do not reflect the modern Tāmaki Makaurau governance context, particularly the levy system, lack of true accountability provisions, and the mana whenua governance provisions.

63.     The legislation established a ten-person board, with Auckland Council having the right to appoint five board members. Board members are required to act ‘in the best interests of the Museum’, and not those of their appointing body. In addition, there is no ability for the council to remove council-appointed directors once appointed (except in limited circumstances). Unlike a CCO, board members are therefore not bound to deliver on council’s broader strategic priorities, despite the majority of the Museum’s revenue coming from council (around 80 per cent in the last decade). 


 

64.     The legislation also included the establishment of the Taumata-a-iwi, a Māori governance board consisting of five members, appointed by the board, which then appoints one member back to the board. The composition of the Taumata was left to the Museum, and it was determined that representatives of Ngāti Whatua Orakei, Ngāti Paoa and Tainui would constitute the Taumata.  Council has a wider responsibility to mana whenua iwi in Auckland and a discussion should be had about whether the Taumata provisions remain fit for purpose in 2020. 

65.     RFA has the specific task, through an Advisory and Management Agreement with council, of being council’s agent in the Auckland Museum annual planning process. The key features of the annual planning process are as follows:

·    The Museum prepares a draft annual plan, including a levy request, and during its preparation a number of informal meetings take place between RFA and the Museum.

·    Once the Museum has prepared its draft annual plan and published it, it calls for public submissions.  RFA/council is specifically allowed to provide a submission as part of the public submissions process, but its submission has the same status as that of any other submitter from the public.

·    The Museum then finalises the draft plan and refers it to Auckland Council for approval of the levy.

·    Auckland Council may approve or reject the levy. In that latter case, if the levy cannot be agreed with the Board, the levy is referred to an arbitration process for a determination, “taking into account the minimum obligations placed on the Board”. 

·    The annual plan is adopted by the Board no later than 30 April each year.

66.     The legislation assumes there will be a cooperative exchange throughout the process, whereby the Museum takes on board the feedback of the council and adjusts its plan accordingly. However, the legislation does not actually provide a framework which guarantees the council’s influence, because council has no ultimate role in approving the plan, beyond being able to reject the levy and enter arbitration. This is a blunt instrument, and potentially expensive given arbitration would be a quasi-judicial process. Neither Council nor the Museum has favoured this as a way of resolving differences between organisations supposed to have a cooperative relationship with each other, though arbitration has come close to being initiated on several occasions. 

67.     This has produced an essentially one-sided relationship, where the Museum provides visibility of its plan, but does not enter into a genuine conversation about the council’s priorities. In the pre-amalgamation context (1996 to 2010), this may have been a useful and appropriate way in which to avoid complex negotiations with multiple councils, but post-amalgamation there is little barrier to an effective strategic conversation with council or its representative (RFA).

68.     The levy provisions of the legislation are also problematic. These allow the Museum to claim an amount which is no more than a specified proportion of the value of properties in the Auckland region.  In 2019, the levy cap for Auckland Museum was around $146m, reflecting the large increases in the value of residential property in the region. This growth has rendered the cap essentially meaningless, and has allowed Auckland Museum to make the argument that it is being prudent because it only requests a small proportion of what it could actually claim (e.g. Letter from Dr William Randell to Cr Penny Webster, 6 April 2016), or that its reliance on the levy is going down because the rate of increase is minimally declining. The reality is large ongoing increases in the levy requests each year (typically $800,000 to $900,000, or 2.5-4 per cent), over the period of a decade.


 

69.     In recent years, the process has resulted in exchanges of written correspondence between the Museum and the council, which contest the two bodies’ respective roles. Council has often sought further information through the levy process about the Museum’s planning, in order that the council might determine whether the levy request was in accordance with the council role to fund only the “minimum obligations” of the Board. These requests have often been resisted on the grounds that the Museum is ‘statutorily independent’. For example, an asset management plan has never been provided despite regular requests, which would allow the council to assess the Museum’s capital programme.

70.     The Museum also provides its broader five-year strategic plan to the council, to give greater transparency of its medium-term planning horizon. This plan is not agreed with the council. If it was, the council may have had the opportunity to ensure the Strategic Plan was an appropriate response to Auckland’s unique requirements (the current plan is largely copied from that of an English museum), or analyse the indicated quantum of money projected for funding by the council – and what the opportunity costs of such investment are for the council. 

71.     Altogether, this indicates a relationship that is structurally flawed. Council has long sought from the Museum not only visibility and transparency, but genuine accountability and the ability to provide strategic input to the Museum about its plans and priorities, particularly around capital works. In standing so firmly on its independence, and sense of itself as a national institution as much as an Auckland one (despite the source of its funding), the Museum has become increasingly disconnected from the council as representatives of the region, and from its fellow cultural institutions.

The way forward

72.     Stage 2 of the cultural heritage review process recommends that Auckland Council formally invites Auckland Museum’s board to engage in negotiations about how its governing arrangements can be changed, to achieve:

·    Greater strategic coordination of Auckland Museum with the rest of the Auckland cultural heritage sector

·    Appropriate accountability to ratepayers for the funding received through council

·    An enhanced role for mana whenua governance, whether directly at the Museum or in a wider cultural heritage sector organization (such as an umbrella CCO)

·    Ongoing operational independence for Auckland Museum, and protection of the long-term historic functions of the Museum, including the war memorial.

73.     A separate conversation with the Museum and central government could seek clarity about whether central government is willing to consider a funding contribution. This should not distract or be used as a diversion from the simple fact that the council is the Museum’s main funder and is likely to remain so. Central government has never in the past indicated a desire to fund the operations of museums other than Te Papa and the service museums (Army, Navy, Air Force, Police). A coordinated approach with other metropolitan museums and art galleries may be more successful than the premise used in the past, namely that Auckland Museum holds important national taonga, therefore it should receive Crown funding. 

74.     A specific structural solution is not recommended in this report. However, the experience of the last decade has shown that if greater integration at the strategic level is to be achieved, and a fundamentally oppositional relationship is to be fixed, change must include formal changes to governing arrangements, and how funding is provided to the Museum. This means seeking at least some degree of legislative change. 


 

75.     Nonetheless, to give a sense of how the future could look, some of the models which staff consider as viable options for the council-Museum relationship are:

·    Auckland Museum becoming a separate business unit within the merged RFA/ATEED, potentially with its own specific advisory board (see Finding 6), recognizing its importance as a cornerstone of the Auckland cultural heritage sector. This would be consistent with the model which is being moved towards by MOTAT (discussed elsewhere in this report).

·    Auckland Museum remaining as a statutorily independent organization, but with its ongoing funding and strategic priorities determined by the council through the long-term plan processes. In this regard, the Museum could be similar to Auckland Transport, which is specifically identified in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act.

·    A binding agreement, whereby the Museum opts out of the levy provisions of Act and to be funded through council’s long-term plan (which would provide long-term visibility of council’s commitment to fund). This would avoid the immediate need for legislative change, though this would not solve the many issues with the statute. 

76.     This is a sector which is slowly integrating, as has been recommended in various past reports. This report about Stage 2 continues to recognise the importance of arriving collaboratively at solutions that will maximise the benefits for the city and protect the strengths which exist, while looking to the future roles of the institutions. In this regard, the Museum’s concerns and perspectives need to be engaged with directly.

77.     However, there needs to be a clear time limit to such engagement, so that the negotiations remain focussed. This conversation has been postponed for over a decade since amalgamation. Four reports have been written, all recommending change; the cultural heritage review process has been undertaken; and all parts of the cultural heritage sector recognise and welcome the necessity of change, with the exception of Auckland Museum.  With the merger of RFA and ATEED being agreed by Governing Body on 27 August 2020 there is an opportunity for progress to finally be made. We recommend that another report on progress with negotiations is made to the council in December 2020. 

78.     Finally, aside from directly engaging with the Museum’s board about governance change, the council should also consider what interim steps can be taken to address shortcomings in the levy and annual plan process, consistent with the legislation.

Finding 6:  advisory boards with specific cultural sector expertise are seen as an integral part of a new way forward

79.     In May 2020, the RFA board approved the establishment of a “Gallery Advisory Committee” for the Auckland Art Gallery.  This Committee will “support the progress and development of a long-term vision and plan for Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tāmaki and will inform the strategic growth and associated planning for an expanded role in the community”. The Committee will (among other things):

·    Advise on and support the development of the Gallery’s long-term vision

·    Support the Director in their stewardship and strategy direction of the Gallery

·    Advise and make recommendations to the RFA Board on the Gallery’s high-level strategies

·    Assist the Gallery in forming and developing appropriate stakeholder networks and frameworks, including for fundraising

·    Support the Gallery’s advocacy role for visual arts, and the Gallery’s role in Auckland and Aotearoa.

80.     The Committee is a positive development by the RFA Board to enhance the Gallery’s role as one of the pre-eminent cultural institutions in Auckland.  It will provide the Gallery with specialist expertise and advocacy which is difficult to provide for on the seven-person RFA Board.

81.     Such an advisory committee model has a number of benefits which could be extended into other areas of the cultural heritage sector.  For example, a board encompassing expertise in science, technology heritage, and natural environment could be a critical part of enhancing a coherent strategic approach to the activities of the Maritime Museum and Auckland Zoo, but also MOTAT and Stardome, which currently sit outside the Auckland Council group. The latter two organisations have indicated a willingness to cooperate more closely with the other council-funded organisations, including participating within an umbrella which could be formed by such an advisory committee.

82.     Such a committee structure would fit neatly underneath a CCO structure and provide a CCO board with appropriate expertise. It would also have the following three benefits:

·    Given the likely size of the merged RFA/ATEED organization, it will be important for cultural organisations to have access to specialist expertise and be visible. Advisory committees could be a very useful adjunct.

·    An advisory committee could be specifically provided for Auckland Museum, if it ultimately comes into the council family.

·    Although not governance roles, such committees may provide additional opportunities for mana whenua and mataawaka roles and involvement in the strategic direction and networks of Auckland’s cultural heritage organisations. 

Finding 7:  Mana whenua governance in the cultural heritage sector institutions remains an issue to be pursued

83.     Enhancing the minimal roles for mana whenua of Tāmaki as governors was a key challenge in the Stage 2 terms of reference. In particular, this was to ensure that Auckland’s cultural heritage sector was one that could “model the Treaty of Waitangi partnership and genuinely reflect a mana whenua and te ao Māori world view, with Māori having an integral governance role”. To support this, staff engaged with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum on several occasions, and members of the Forum were part of several of the Review meetings. 

84.     This involvement of the Forum is consistent with its purpose (as set out in its Terms of Reference) to partner “on all region-shaping decisions that require a collective voice, with a focus on Mana Whenua and mataawaka thriving and leading in Tāmaki Makaurau.” 

85.     The Forum received a report on mana whenua governance in the sector as part of its involvement. This report was provided to the Forum in 2019 and it concluded that:

·    that there is no sector-wide Māori governance in Tāmaki, and there is a lack of adequate levels of, or appropriately structured, Māori governance within any part of the sector (including the limited mana whenua governance arrangements at Tāmaki Paenga Hira Auckland Museum).

·    significant advances were made in cultural heritage sector governance in the 1990s to develop relationships with iwi Māori, with Te Papa and Auckland Museum’s legislation being two key examples. There have not been advanced since that time.

·    there is a major opportunity for further progress and leadership in Tāmaki, reflecting key changes in the governance context, such as the Auckland Council amalgamation and Auckland Plan (reflecting a responsibility to all 19 iwi of the region), the conclusions of the Wai 262 report in 2011, and the 2012 Tāmaki Collective Settlement.

 

 

86.     This Stage 2 report reaffirms the importance of enhancing mana whenua roles in the cultural heritage sector. However, as with other areas of the review, it has not yet been possible to determine specific proposals for achieving this. 

87.     However, as a result of the CCO Review, there is now the prospect of a new merged RFA/ATEED, which will encompass most of the major cultural heritage institutions, and also opens the possibility for future integration of others.  As the establishment of the merged RFA/ATEED proceeds (particularly past the immediate phase of creating the new legal entity), the Kaitiaki Forum should continue to be involved with a specific view to how its priorities can be incorporated into the purposes and functions of that entity.  This is likely to include consideration of opportunities to provide for stronger mana whenua representation in the governance and/or operations of the cultural institutions. 

88.     This report has also indicated the need for discussions with Auckland Museum, including on its mana whenua governance arrangements. This is not to cut across established relationships at the Museum, but to explore how the Museum as a regional institution can formally be responsive to the wider group of iwi to which the council, as it primary funder, has a responsibility. 

89.     We note that Auckland Museum in its response to this Stage 2 report (see below) that co-governance with mana whenua is a priority for it and has initiated discussions with its Taumata-a-iwi governance board.  At an early stage following this report, it would be useful for the Taumata (and the Auckand Museum Board itself) to meet with the Kaitiaki Forum to discuss this process.  This report has made the point that Auckland Council has a wider responsibility to mana whenua iwi of and mataawaka in the Auckland region.  It is important that those internal discussions do not take place in isolation.

Finding 8:  Auckland Council needs to develop specific capability for managing cultural heritage and visual arts institutions

90.     The CCO Review Panel’s report of July 2020 commented (albeit in a broader context) that the council’s strategic efforts are weak in areas in which significant ratepayer resources are expended, such as transport, water and economic development. The same applies to the major cultural heritage institutions. 

91.     The Stafford Report also noted the lack of clear direction given by Auckland Council to the cultural heritage institutions. As noted above, development of a strategy remains an urgent need, which has not been fulfilled by Stage 2. An associated need is for a comprehensive strategy for visual arts, recognising that much of this sector is not necessarily within the ambit of ‘cultural heritage’. 

92.     Therefore, in order that a new, unified sector can work appropriately, Auckland Council and the merged RFA/ATEED need to ensure they have appropriate policy and strategy capability and resource to monitor and guide organisations in the cultural heritage sector. This does not mean these staff have to be experts in museums or galleries, but they do have to have sufficient knowledge to be the interface between elected members and specialist staff at the institutions.

Finding 9:  Sector funding should be directed through the unified structure and judged against the strategy

93.     This finding endorses the view set out in the Stafford Report in 2018 that all culture and heritage funding for Auckland institutions be progressively amalgamated into a single funding stream. This is already taking place to a degree, through Regional Facilities Auckland, but over time this should be the goal.


 

 

94.     In the short term, while diverse funding and governance mechanisms are still in place, the one area in which this can most obviously be applied is for additional capital funding for new projects (as opposed to routine maintenance). In the case of capital funding, organisations (whether they are formally in the council group or not) should demonstrate the degree to which projects align with the approved strategy before funding is approved. As the strategy is likely to have elements in it which require demonstrating how projects deliver on several outcomes at once, this will likely mean over time that increasing collaboration and cooperation develops.

Finding 10:  There are several small-medium institutions in Auckland that were outside the review, which could benefit from the opportunity to join a bigger entity 

95.     The cultural heritage review took the approach from the outset of focusing on Auckland’s bigger cultural heritage organisations. This was both for reasons for manageability, and also because this was where it was felt the greatest opportunities (and biggest current risks) existed. Necessarily, this meant that a wide range of other, small and medium sized organisations have been left on the outer of the work, wondering what it might mean for them. Through the process, staff have maintained occasional discussions with these organisations, some of which are enthusiastic about the RFA/ATEED merger and the related recommendations in this report, and the opportunities it may open for them. 

96.     These organisations include (but are not limited to):

·    Contemporary Art Foundation/Te Tuhi – a CCO of Auckland Council

·    Te Uru (contemporary art gallery in Titirangi)

·    Corbans Estate

·    Howick Historical Village.

97.     As the next stages of integration begin to take shape, active conversations should take place with these organisations about the potential benefits for them of joining a unified regional organization, and on what basis. While many of these organisations have a significant regional function and reach, they are also clearly embedded in local communities in their particular parts of the Auckland region. This means that these such conversations will be of specific interest and relevance to the local boards in those areas. 

98.     Consideration of the role of these organisations also means considering the leadership role of the bigger organisations at the same time. This is another significant benefit to a network approach, as originally envisaged by Toi Whītiki.  Council’s investment in the larger entities can be leveraged to ensure that investment is not only used in central locations, but around the region. At present, cooperation in this regard tends to take place on an ad hoc basis, but its capability and expertise (for example, in appropriate care, conservation and cultural handling of objects) could be a specified role for Auckland’s lead institutions – especially the Art Gallery and Museum. 

99.     Finally, in the longer-term, if there is legislative change contemplated for MOTAT and Auckland Museum, then policy consideration for the future of the Auckland Regional Amenities Fund and the organisations within it should be given.  It is possible that some of the arts organisations within the ARAF regime (Auckland Theatre Company, Auckland Arts Festival, Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra) could also benefit from being aligned with a bigger council organization, rather than operating independently. 

Auckland Museum perspective (supplied for inclusion)

100.   This section has been supplied by Auckland Museum. It is included without amendment. 

 

101.   The Museum supports some of the recommendations in this report. The Museum has consistently supported the Council developing a sector strategy and continues to strongly endorse the need for this. This must be a priority as it would resolve the lack of sector long-term direction and coordination the report identifies. The report preferences managerial models over questions of strategy or even funding.

102.   The Museum strongly supports the Council developing and investing in cultural sector policy capability. It is the Museum’s view that the Council’s lack of commitment of resources, not current sector structure or governance, is the primary reason such a strategy has not been developed, and is also the reason this review did not make the progress that Council and the sector sought. The Museum agrees that there is significant expertise in sector organisations; it is the role of Council to draw on this expertise and develop a strategy. The Museum supports the recommendation that the Council invest in capability in this area.

103.   The Museum has concerns about Council’s decision-making combining two unrelated Review processes.  The Cultural Heritage Review process and Terms of Reference that the Mayor and Councillors publicly approved, and which the Museum strongly supported, have not been delivered. The CCO Review and the Cultural Heritage Review have been artificially conflated, with both reviews making simultaneous recommendations on significant structural realignment of the Museum with no policy analysis, consultation or consideration of what is in the best interests of Aucklanders. The two reviews are linked solely by the presence of RFA, an Auckland Council construct. Considering both reviews at the same time jeopardises good decision-making and may affect the Museum’s ability to engage with fellow sector institutions on strategic sector issues. The Museum disagrees that immediate structural and governance change is the sector’s overwhelming priority need; it however supports those institutions who seek greater structural integration with the Council.

104.   The Museum believes that due to the lack of a direct line of communication the relationship between the Museum and the Council has become difficult and needs improvement. However, the Museum is concerned with the way the report characterises it negatively.

105.   Auckland Museum acknowledges and notes the issues raised by Council with respect to funding, accountability, and governance policy issues. The Trust Board will give serious consideration to these issues and commits to consider options for policy change in these three areas, and to engage with the Council in authentic and direct discussions on solutions.

106.   The Museum agrees that current governance arrangements in the sector do not reflect the aspirations of Māori or provide appropriate governance opportunities, and that there needs to be a shift to co-governance models. The Museum Trust Board has already acknowledged this and is currently exploring the opportunities for co-governance with its Taumata-a-iwi. Co-governance of the Museum is the Museum’s priority for governance reform, before other structural or governance changes.

107.   Consideration of new sustainable funding models is also a Museum priority. The Museum strongly believes that policy development and exploration of new models must include Central Government, recognising the fact that Tāmaki Paenga Hira Auckland Museum plays wider regional and national roles, and holds collections and expertise of national significance. The future sustainable funding of the major Metro museums in New Zealand is a national, not just a local government question. This consideration should be undertaken as a matter of priority. We welcome Council involvement in and support of that discussion.

108.   The Museum acknowledges Council officials’ concerns about accountability mechanisms. The Museum will consider its position on these issues in the coming months as it prepares to engage with Council.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

109.   There are no specific climate change impacts from the recommendations of this report.

 

110.   However, one of the aims of the Review is to ensure that the sector is integrated in such a way that the council can ensure its broader strategic goals are being met by all the organisations which it funds. This includes the council’s climate change goals. At present, the lack of sector integration makes this difficult. In addition, as noted earlier, any comprehensive sector strategy is likely to include a recognition of and response to climate change as one of its broader drivers.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

111.   The views of Regional Facilities Auckland have been incorporated within this report. 

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

Local impacts and local board views

112.   Issues related to the funding and governance of major cultural institutions are fundamentally regional ones, and therefore within the decision-making sphere of the Governing Body. The findings of Stage 2 do not relate specifically to specific local boards, and do not at this stage affect the relationships which local boards may have with institutions in their areas.

113.   Had the Review been successful in agreeing a draft strategy, this would have been subject to local board consultation. As noted earlier, the intention is still to produce a strategy for cultural heritage institutions.  Once that is achieved, we expect to have an appropriate programme of engagement with local boards as part of agreeing the final strategy.

114.   Many of the findings in this Stage 2 report relate to the merger of RFA and ATEED. Local boards have had the opportunity through the CCO Review to provide views about these CCOs, and the proposed merger option.  Many boards have also taken the opportunity to comment on the CCO Review’s recommendation about legislative change and integration for Auckland Museum and MOTAT.

115.   However, it is clear that future decisions following this review will likely have significant interest and impact for particular local boards.  This is particularly the case if some of Auckland’s smaller institutions seek a closer relationship with the merged RFA/ATEED, which will more clearly see those institutions straddling both regional and local roles.  In these cases, local boards will need to be specifically consulted on their perspectives. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

116.   The key aspects in relation to impact on Māori relate to governance roles.  This is discussed in Finding 7, above. 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

117.   There are no specific financial implications from this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

118.   The cultural heritage review process has always depended on the goodwill of the institutions involved in it, reflecting the fact that some of them are in independent governance arrangements. The proposals in this report do not change that fact.  Council will still need to work alongside these institutions to deliver changes to create a more cohesive and strategically aligned sector.  The major risks are described below.


 

 

119.   As Finding 4 has noted, MOTAT is willing to consider closer alignment with the council group. Negotiations with MOTAT will need to be handled sensitively, reflecting the history of MOTAT and its many volunteers and supporters. The risk that the negotiations will not be successful can be mitigated by proceeding slowly and being careful about ensuring that there is an intersection between the best interests of MOTAT and the council.  It is important to note that there is considerable goodwill, as indicated by a recent letter provided to council by the chair of MOTAT indicating support for the conclusions of the CCO Review.  If MOTAT’s legislation is to be changed, it will need to be with the support of MOTAT, as the current legislation is a private Act. 

120.   Negotiations with Auckland Museum may be more difficult. As indicated by the Museum’s perspective included in this report, change to governing arrangements as sought by the council is not regarded as a priority for the Museum.  The Museum’s legislation is a local Act, meaning that the council could promote a new local bill to replace it.  However, a majority in Parliament would still (of course) be required in order for this to be enacted. It would be far preferable to approach legislative change with at least some agreement with the Museum about the direction of change.  This can be achieved by careful negotiation so that the Museum’s concerns are understood.  However, time may also need to be taken to build a significantly closer relationship with the Museum’s Board, of which council appoints half of the members. There is no avoiding the fact that the relationship is currently a poor one, as reflected in the tone of much of the correspondence exchanged annually through the levy process. 

121.   Finally, there is the risk that the aspirations of the RFA/ATEED merger are not realised, or that in the establishment of this new entity, the cultural elements are overwhelmed by other concerns.  This risk will be mitigated through the programme being put in place by the establishment process for that entity. 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

122.   There are a number of key steps which arise from this report.

123.   First, now that the RFA/ATEED merger has been agreed, discussions will be required with MOTAT about its future alignment to the council group. Once the new entity is established, discussions can also take place about how to develop a cultural heritage strategy, advisory committees, and appropriate capability to provide advice to council on cultural heritage sector issues (such as Auckland Museum’s planning, advice on which is currently provided by RFA). 

124.   Second, as part of the CCO Review recommendations, the council will need to consider its own strategic and policy capability to maintain relationships with these institutions.  Both the CCO Review and this report have identified weak capability in this area as a contributing factor to poor outcomes in the status quo.

125.   Third, the council will need to consider how it wishes to negotiate with Auckland Museum on future governance options for the Museum. The CCO Governance team will work with the Mayor on this issue, but the first step will be to formally invite the Museum to the table. 

126.   Fourth, consideration should be given how conversations with smaller institutions should take place. It is recommended that these discussions begin in 2021 and may involve representatives from both council and also the merged RFA/ATEED, and where relevant, local boards.  CCO Governance team should lead this in the first instance. 

127.   Finally, the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum needs to be re-engaged with this process, so that the ongoing need for greater involvement of mana whenua in this sector can be pursued.  This should take place at the earliest opportunity following consideration of this report by the PACE Committee. 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Edward Siddle - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services