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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 25 March 2021

10.00am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Tira Kāwana / Governing Body

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

 

Deputy Mayor

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

 

Councillors

Cr Josephine Bartley

Cr Richard Hills

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

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 Alf Filipaina

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Sarndra O'Toole

Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

 

19 March 2021

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8152

Email: sarndra.otoole@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 



 

Terms of Reference

 

Those powers which cannot legally be delegated:

 

(a)        the power to make a rate

(b)        the power to make a bylaw

(c)        the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the Long-Term Plan

(d)        the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report

(e)        the power to appoint a chief executive

(f)        the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement

(g)        the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy

 

Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body:

 

(h)        approval of long-term plan or annual plan consultation documents, supporting information and consultation process prior to consultation

(i)         approval of a draft bylaw prior to consultation

(j)         resolutions required to be made by a local authority under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the appointment of electoral officer

(k)        adoption of, and amendment to, the Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct

(l)         relationships with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, including the funding agreement and appointments to committees

(m)      overview of and decisions relating to any CCO review including the implementation of any resulting changes to CCOs

(n)        oversight of work programmes of all committees of the governing body.

 

 


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.

 

 


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Affirmation                                                                                                                      7

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

5          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

6          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

7          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

8          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

9          Advice on next steps for a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw                           9

10        2021 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting 61

11        Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance                                                                           77

12        Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Enterprise Risk Update - February 2021                                                                                                                               93

13        Summary of Governing Body information memoranda, workshops and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) - 25 March 2021                                 103

14        Summary of Confidential Decisions and related information released into Open 117

15        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

16        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               149

C1       CONFIDENTIAL:  Recommendation from the Appointments and Performance Review Committee - Chief Executive Performance Objectives - update on workforce and Full Time Equivalent                                                                                          149

 

 


1          Affirmation

 

His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation.

 

 

2          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

 

3          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.

 

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Governing Body:

confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 25 February 2021 and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 11 March 2021, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Petitions

 

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

 

 

6          Public Input

 

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

 

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

 

 

7          Local Board Input

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

8          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.”

 

 

 


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

Advice on next steps for a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw

File No.: CP2020/04232

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek a decision on an option for developing a new statement of proposal for a bylaw to manage freedom camping in vehicles.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Freedom Camping Act 2011 sets a permissive national policy to enable freedom camping on public land (see Attachment A). This does not overrule other enactments, including a default prohibition on camping on land held under the Reserves Act 1977.

Draft Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw developed then set aside in August 2019

3.       In 2018 a draft Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw was developed, and in 2019 public consultation, local board engagement and deliberations were held by a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw Panel (the Bylaw Panel).

4.       In August 2019 the Governing Body resolved to set aside the draft bylaw and Bylaw Panel’s recommendations, and instead requested advice on ten possible elements of a new statement of proposal for a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (GB/2019/82).

Some new elements proposed by Governing Body not viable or require amendment

5.       Staff have analysed these elements and advise that although some would be straightforward to include in a new statement of proposal, others are not viable within available resources or would create legal risk. Privileged legal advice relating to this report has already been provided to the Governing Body.

6.       Using a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw to prohibit freedom camping on all residential reserves and on most urban and suburban roads through a general rule would be particularly problematic.

7.       To comply with the legislation, thousands of new area assessments would be required to implement these elements. This is not feasible prior to the expiry of the current bylaw, which would create a regulatory gap. Even if assessed, many areas may not meet the statutory criteria for protection.

More than one legislative lever can be used to achieve inferred broader policy intent

8.       Staff have inferred that the broader policy intent behind the Governing Body’s August 2019 resolutions includes protecting the environmental and recreational values of reserves and balancing competing demands on public space.

9.       The Governing Body can use more than one legislative lever to achieve these broader goals. It must ensure, however, that its policy intent in using a particular Act to manage public land closely aligns with the legislative intent of that Act:

·        the Freedom Camping Act 2011 requires freedom camping to be enabled by default, and controlled only in areas that meet statutory criteria for protection

·        the Reserves Act 1977 prohibits freedom camping by default, to protect the environmental and recreational values of reserves. 

10.     To move to a new statement of proposal the council must clarify its policy intent for managing freedom camping in vehicles and consider options for meeting that intent.

11.     Staff have had to amend the elements the Governing Body proposed for inclusion in a new Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw to ensure that they would comply with the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and be practicable to implement. This package of amended elements has been assessed in the report as Option one.

Reserves could be excluded from bylaw scope and default prohibition retained

12.     Staff have identified an alternative approach which would deliver the broader policy intent more simply and transparently: using more than one legislative lever to manage freedom camping in vehicles on public land.

13.     Reserves would continue to be protected using the Reserves Act 1977 and excluded from the scope of a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw. This approach is assessed as Option two.

14.     A third option is that the Governing Body revisit the Bylaw Panel’s recommendations. This option has been discounted however, as it would enable freedom camping at 82 reserves, which would not deliver the broader policy intent. In many respects Option one is similar to the Bylaw Panel’s recommendations, but with fewer restricted areas.

15.     This report assesses two options:

·        Option one: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (amended elements from August 2019 Governing Body resolutions)

Ö       would control freedom camping in vehicles on any public land that met the statutory criteria for protection through a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw

Ö       could include some residential reserves, roads and other areas put forward in public and elected member submissions

Ö       could potentially include a general rule.

·        Option two: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (excluding reserves)

Ö       would reduce the scope of Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw to exclude reserves and retain default camping prohibition under the Reserves Act 1977

Ö       would control freedom camping in vehicles on land held under the Local Government Act 2002 that met the statutory criteria for protection

Ö       could potentially include a general rule.

16.     The main difference between the options is the use of either a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (Option one) or the Reserves Act 1977 (Option two) to prohibit freedom camping on reserves.

Staff recommend Option two (excluding reserves) as it is simpler and reduces risk

17.     By removing reserves from the scope of the bylaw at the outset, Option two would likely achieve a similar or better outcome compared with Option one but would be easier to communicate, implement and administer.

18.     Option one would provide only the three restricted areas suggested by the public or elected members once residential reserves were removed. Option two would include the 21 restricted areas previously assessed and recommended by the Bylaw Panel remaining once all reserves were removed.

19.     Freedom camping could legally occur on roads under either option, except where a prohibition or restriction applied.

20.     Additional restricted areas could be created, including on roads, if a restrictive general rule was included in a statement of proposal under either option. However, the cumulative impact of prohibitions and restrictions, including any general rule, will need to be considered in more depth at the next stage.

21.     Although Option two would provide more restricted areas, there is a risk that neither option would adequately address issues with under-supply of desirable freedom camping areas, potentially worsening harms from overcrowding and illegal camping.

22.     This is partly mitigated by the government funding currently provided for the council’s compliance activities, although that funding is not guaranteed in future years.

23.     Staff recommend a new statement of proposal for a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw is developed based on Option two: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (excluding reserves).

24.     This option is simpler, clearer, presents less risk and transparently aligns the Governing Body’s broader policy intent with the legislative intent of the relevant Acts.

Next step: advice on potential general rule for inclusion in new statement of proposal

25.     Following a decision on the preferred option, staff will begin work on a detailed options paper on possible settings for a general rule and recommend a joint political working group be appointed to consider general rule options.

26.     Staff will also begin work on a new statement of proposal for consultation in late 2021. Limited new area assessments can be undertaken to implement either option if they are required.

27.     To avoid uncertainty and risk of a regulatory gap, staff also recommend that the Governing Body amend resolution GB/2015/112 to clarify that the expiry date for the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 will be 29 October 2022, as shown in Attachment C.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      confirm the specific policy intent and operational objectives for a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw, within the context of a broader policy intent and operational objectives that includes the protection of reserves, outlined in the table at paragraph 81.

b)      agree that the preferred option for progressing freedom camping regulation is Option two: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (excluding reserves), to:

i)     make a bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 to control freedom camping on land held under the Local Government Act 2002

ii)    retain the existing prohibition on freedom camping on land held under the Reserves Act 1977 and exclude all reserves from the scope of the bylaw.

c)      direct staff to develop a detailed options report to support a decision on whether to include a general rule and possible settings for that rule, for inclusion in a new statement of proposal.

d)      appoint a joint working group, comprised of three councillors, three local board chairs (or their delegate), and one Independent Māori Statutory Board member to consider options for a freedom camping in vehicles general rule.

e)      direct staff to also begin work on a new statement of proposal and draft freedom camping bylaw based on the option indicated in clause b) above, utilising previous site assessments and reflecting any further direction given in relation to clause c) and clause d) above.

f)       agree to amend part of previous resolution GB/2015/112 passed at the Governing Body meeting on 29 October 2015 (as amended by GB/2019/82) to clarify that the statutory expiry date of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 is 29 October 2022, as contained in Attachment C of the agenda report.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

28.     Freedom camping is when someone stays overnight on public land, including roadsides, in a vehicle or caravan.

29.     It doesn’t include vehicles parking legally during the day, or people staying overnight in tents or at camping grounds, resting/sleeping at the roadside to avoid driver fatigue, or living in a vehicle due to homelessness.

National legislation is permissive by default, but provides for some controls

30.     The Freedom Camping Act 2011 (the Act) set a national policy to enable freedom camping by default on all public land, including land controlled by local government, except where it is already prohibited under another enactment.

31.     While the Act is permissive in intent it does provide for freedom camping to be prohibited or restricted, but only by exception and only in areas that meet statutory criteria. The need for controls in an area must be supported by evidence in each case.

32.     As outlined in more detail in Attachment A, freedom camping can only be prohibited or restricted in areas scheduled in a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw if:

·   they are under the control of the council group

·   their location can be shown on a map and/or clearly described

·   the prohibitions and restrictions are necessary to:

-    protect the area (e.g. because it is environmentally or culturally sensitive), or

-    protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area, or

-    protect access to the area (e.g. for other users)

·   the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem in relation to that area, and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA)

·   the prohibitions and restrictions (including any areas already protected under other enactments) don’t cumulatively create an effective Auckland-wide ban.

33.     The Act is not specific about the use of ‘general rules’ (rules applying to all or multiple areas, both scheduled and/or unscheduled in the bylaw).

34.     Many other councils have included restrictive general rules in their freedom camping bylaws however, to control freedom camping in urban areas, set a maximum stay and/or require vehicles to be self-contained (i.e., have an onboard toilet and water storage).

35.     The council can issue infringement fines of $200 for breaches of a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw.

Freedom camping is still prohibited by default on reserves

36.       Despite the passage of the Freedom Camping Act 2011, freedom camping is still prohibited by default on land held under the Reserves Act 1977 (section 44).

37.       An exception can be made to allow freedom camping in an area if criteria in the Reserves Act 1977 are met. If the draft bylaw developed in 2018 had been adopted, the council would have needed to exercise its delegated Ministerial Consent under the Reserves Act 1977 to allow restricted freedom camping at 82 reserves.

38.       The ability to issue infringement fines was a key consideration in the decision, in 2018, to use a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw to control freedom camping on reserves rather than rely on the default prohibition.

39.       Following an amendment in late 2019, infringement fines of $800 can now be issued for breaches of the Reserves Act 1977, which would include unauthorised camping.

Limited supply of freedom camping areas leads to conflict

40.     Auckland is a key port of entry for international visitors, a campervan rental hub and a gateway to other popular holiday regions. The supply of suitable areas for freedom camping in Auckland hasn’t kept pace with growing demand:

·        an estimated 154,000 overseas visitors and 91,000 New Zealanders did some freedom camping in 2019, up from 123,000 overseas visitors in 2018 and 10,000 per year in the early 2000s

·        in 2018 it was estimated that there were 320 freedom camping vehicles on Auckland roads per day in the February peak season

·        Auckland’s 11 legal freedom camping areas can only accommodate 93 vehicles

·        overcrowding and illegal camping has become an issue at popular locations.

41.     Border closures due to Covid-19 will significantly reduce international visitor numbers for the foreseeable future. Domestic freedom camping could increase as New Zealanders holiday at home.

42.     Early indications are that overall freedom camping numbers were lower over the 2020/21 summer season compared with previous years, but complaints increased.

Freedom camping can impact other people and the environment

43.     Freedom camping in vehicles is associated with both primary and secondary harms.

Figure 1: Primary and secondary harms associated with freedom camping

‘Primary’ harms are intrinsic to freedom camping and can only be managed, not prevented.

Examples include blocked views, noise or smells from campsites, and displacement of other users of public space.

These are best regulated through a dedicated bylaw.

‘Secondary’ harms are preventable, and although popularly associated with freedom camping, they can be caused by anyone using an area.

Examples are littering, dumping of waste, vandalism, and environmental damage.

These are already regulated by other legislation/bylaws.

44.     Evidence from Auckland and other local authority areas shows that the frequency and severity of primary harms is largely driven by an under-supply of suitable freedom camping areas. Primary harms are much more likely where there is overcrowding, or where sites have not been well-designed to balance competing uses.

45.     As pressure on public space (and especially open space) increases in a growing and intensifying city, primary harms are more likely to cause community concern.

46.     Council received 1479 ‘camping-related’ complaints in the three years to 30 June 2019. Most were about people camping where they shouldn’t (60%) rather than secondary harms. Up to a quarter of ‘campers’ were actually homeless Aucklanders.

Draft Freedom Camping in Vehicles bylaw released for public consultation in 2019

47.     Auckland Council inherited a set of freedom camping bylaws from the legacy councils in 2010. These were collated into a single bylaw and confirmed in 2015.

48.     To avoid uncertainty, staff recommend that the Governing Body amend resolution GB/2015/112 to clarify that the expiry date for the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 will be 29 October 2022, as shown in Attachment C. If a bylaw is still required, a new bylaw would need to be adopted before then to avoid a regulatory gap.

49.     In 2018, a draft Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka / Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw was developed, which would have increased the number of desirable areas available for freedom camping. The Statement of Proposal and draft bylaw were released for public feedback and local board input in 2019.

50.     The problem definition and objectives that informed the development of the draft bylaw were confirmed as follows:

The problem was defined as:

·   the current under-supply of freedom camping sites leads to overcrowding

·   conflict between campers and other users [arises] due to overcrowding and designated areas being unsuitable for camping

·   offensive behaviours by campers include leaving rubbish, taking over public spaces, blocking views and making noise

·   [there is a] lack of tools that the council can use to manage freedom campers.

The policy intent (primary objective) was defined as:

·   ‘to address the harms from freedom camping by increasing the supply of sites in suitable areas and providing for improved enforcement’, and

·   not to use the bylaw to manage homelessness.

 (REG/2018/77)

51.     Key phases of work and governance decisions for a freedom camping in vehicles bylaw over the period 2010-2020 are shown in the graphic on the following page.

 Figure 2: Freedom camping bylaw development: Key phases of work and governance decisions

Support for controls, concern about harms and local impacts of permissive approach

52.     Staff conducted research and engagement activities throughout the bylaw development process in 2017 and 2018 to understand stakeholder views.

 

53.     During public consultation and local board engagement:

·        2,711 submissions were received

·        16 local boards gave formal feedback to a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw Panel (the Bylaw Panel)

·        of the 318 specific areas proposed as prohibited:

o   187 were supported by all or a majority of submissions

o   69 were preferred as restricted areas by a majority of submissions

o   62 did not receive any submissions

·        42 per cent of submissions were in favour, and 45 per cent against, an increase in restricted areas overall

·        of the 107 specific areas proposed as restricted:

o   62 were supported by all or a majority of submissions

o   33 were preferred as prohibited areas by a majority of submissions

o   12 did not receive any submissions

·        70 areas that were not included in the 2018 Statement of Proposal were the subject of public submissions:

o   61 were recommended as prohibited areas

o   seven were recommended as restricted areas

o   two areas were recommended as both prohibited and restricted areas in competing submissions

·        three per cent of submissions specifically opposed the use of delegated Ministerial Consent to allow freedom camping on reserves, on principle

·        a majority of submitters supported a maximum two-night stay and an exit time no later than 9am at restricted areas, and a requirement for vehicles to be certified self-contained in those areas without 24-hour access to toilet facilities.

54.     Several concerns were raised by the public and local boards. Key themes included:

·        opposing the legislative right to freedom camp rather than pay for accommodation

·        the perceived harms associated with increased freedom camping, especially impacts on community access and enjoyment of reserves, beaches and facilities

·        the suitability of allowing restricted freedom camping at parks, reserves and popular coastal areas

·        the lack of a general rule to restrict freedom camping everywhere, including roads

·        the council’s ability to monitor and enforce the current or the proposed bylaw

·        the need for additional resource for compliance and servicing to prevent harm, and the cost of this to ratepayers.

Mixed views among other key stakeholders reflect their primary interests

55.     Other key stakeholders have expressed views on freedom camping regulation.

56.     Focus areas for mana whenua include ensuring:

·   camping is prohibited at sites of significance to Māori, especially wahi tapu areas

·   provision for temporary bans on freedom camping, e.g. in areas under a rahui

·   provision of sufficient dump stations for the disposal of waste.

57.     The New Zealand Motor Caravan Association (NZMCA):

·   supports the permissive national legislation for freedom camping, and wants more areas provided in Auckland to reduce overcrowding and related issues

·   considers its members visiting the region obey the rules, camp responsibly and support local businesses.

58.     Businesses have mixed views, with stronger views related to direct benefit from freedom camping (e.g. campervan rental companies), or direct competition (e.g. commercial campgrounds, accommodation providers).

Bylaw Panel recommends additional prohibited areas and further consultation

59.     The Bylaw Panel considered public submissions and local board input and made its recommendations to the Governing Body in August 2019. These included:

·   a small net increase in the number of prohibited areas (from 318 to 322) and corresponding decrease in restricted areas (down to 94 for self-contained vehicles only, and nine allowing non-self-contained vehicles)

·   36 amendments to the status, boundaries and descriptions of specific areas prohibited or restricted in the schedules

·   further consultation to seek feedback on these changes and the inclusion of a new general rule for areas not scheduled in the bylaw.

60.     The Bylaw Panel was unable to make a recommendation on matters outside its scope, including whether to prohibit or restrict freedom camping in the 70 areas discussed in public submissions that were not included in the 2018 Statement of Proposal.

Governing body sets new direction in response to public feedback

61.     At its August 2019 meeting the Governing Body set aside the amended freedom camping bylaw and the Bylaw Panel’s recommendations and instead requested advice on possible elements of a statement of proposal for a new Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (GB/2019/82).

62.     The proposals outlined in the August 2019 Governing Body resolutions were to:

1.       Prohibit freedom camping in all areas recommended for prohibition by the Hearings (Bylaw) Panel

2.       Prohibit freedom camping in 61 additional areas proposed for prohibition in public submissions

3.       Prohibit freedom camping in all residential reserves held under the Reserves Act 1977 (through a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw)

4.       Prohibit or restrict freedom camping in two areas proposed in [competing] public submissions

5.       Restrict freedom camping at the seven areas proposed for restriction in public submissions

6.       Include any other proposals put forward by elected members prior to 30 September 2019

Include a general rule that would:

7.       prohibit freedom camping on roads directly outside homes (except where residents have given permission)

8.       prohibit freedom camping on roads directly outside commercial premises, educational and healthcare facilities, playgrounds, and swimming pools

9.       impose a maximum stay at any specific site

10.     endorse the compassionate enforcement approach to people experiencing homelessness which was included in the original Statement of Proposal.

63.     In relation to element (6) in the box above, proposals were received from individual councillors and local boards relating to 94 areas. This includes some areas which were also put forward as part of elements (1) through (5) above. All the areas referred to in the box are listed in Attachment B.

64.     The Governing Body also requested further information on a possible review of the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

65.     Staff have analysed the ten proposed elements of a new statement of proposal for a bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act 2011, as proposed by the Governing Body in August 2019 and outlined at paragraph 62 above.

66.     Staff also sought legal advice to inform the analysis. As this advice is legally privileged it has been provided separately to the Governing Body.

67.     In summary, of the ten separate elements proposed:

(A)  Three elements represent a continuation of the past approach. Any areas recommended for prohibition by the Bylaw Panel have already been assessed as meeting the statutory criteria for protection.

(B)  Four elements propose new prohibitions and restrictions in specified areas, which is straightforward in principle. However, most of these areas have already been assessed as not meeting statutory criteria, and some are too broadly defined to meaningfully assess. A small number of areas have not yet been assessed against the statutory criteria for protection and could feasibly be assessed. However, confirming the outcome of any new assessments across governance levels may be difficult within statutory timeframes.

(C)  Three elements concern new prohibitions in multiple areas (at all residential reserves, and on roads directly outside some property types), which is problematic in principle. In most cases, these areas have not been assessed against the statutory criteria for protection and cannot practically be assessed.

68.     Key findings for each group of proposals are outlined in the table below.

 

Element grouping

Element from August 2019 Governing body resolutions

Summary of analysis

Group A

Continuation of past approach

1.  Prohibit freedom camping in all areas recommended for prohibition by the Hearings (Bylaw) Panel

9.  Impose a maximum stay at any specific site

10. Endorse the compassionate enforcement approach to people experiencing homelessness which was included in the original Statement of Proposal

 

 

The areas recommended for prohibition by the Bylaw Panel have previously been assessed and meet the statutory criteria for protection under the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

All restricted areas recommended by the Bylaw Panel were to be subject to a maximum stay.

Staff will investigate Council’s ability to apply a general rule that includes a maximum stay in any location (regardless of whether it is a scheduled area in the bylaw) for fairness and/or public health reasons. Staff will provide additional advice on whether such a general rule can be used and possible settings for that rule in a future report to the Governing Body.

The compassionate enforcement approach is a continuation of the council’s prior position and can be carried over into the new statement of proposal.

Group B

New prohibitions/ restrictions covering specific areas

2.  Prohibit freedom camping in 61 areas proposed for prohibition in public submissions

4.  Prohibit or restrict freedom camping in two areas proposed in [competing] public submissions

5.  Restrict freedom camping at the seven restricted areas put forward in public submissions

6.  Include any other proposals put forward by elected members prior to 30 September 2019

(Proposals relating to 94 areas were received from councillors and local boards, of which:

·   17 areas overlapped with prohibitions already recommended by the Bylaw Panel

·   16 overlapped with areas also put forward in public submissions

 

Group B contains a net total of 131 further areas in addition to those already covered by Group A (the areas recommended for prohibition by the Bylaw Panel).

To be scheduled in a bylaw made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011, all prohibited and restricted areas must be individually assessed and found to meet the statutory criteria for protection, with supporting evidence.

Prohibitions

119 of the 131 areas were put forward for prohibition. (Four of these were also proposed as restricted areas.)

Of these 119 areas, 9 cannot practically be assessed against the statutory criteria for protection criteria because the areas are too broadly defined – for example ‘all public places in Manurewa’.

To schedule a broad area, the council must be reasonably satisfied that the problem extends across (or would be displaced across) the entire area and would impact all its constituent parts, and that all these parts would justify the same level of protection.

There would also be practical obstacles to creating local rule variations affecting broad areas – for example prohibiting camping outside sports parks only in Franklin – as local board boundaries are not marked.

85 of the remaining 110 areas put forward for prohibition are believed to be reserves.

These areas would be covered by any general prohibition on freedom camping under the Reserves Act 1977 but could not be prohibited under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 unless they individually met statutory criteria for protection.

90 of the 110 areas have previously been assessed as not meeting the statutory criteria for prohibition under the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

Of these 90 areas:

·   78 do not appear to have new circumstances to consider in relation to the statutory protection criteria, based on information provided

·   12 could justify further investigation into whether circumstances have changed since their original assessment, based on information provided.

The remaining 20 areas put forward for prohibition have not previously been assessed against the statutory criteria and can feasibly be assessed.

 

 

 

Restrictions

Of the 16 areas put forward for restriction:

·   4 were also proposed as prohibited areas

·   15 are believed to be reserves (or to include reserves) held under the Reserves Act 1977

·   5 have not previously been assessed against the statutory criteria and can feasibly be assessed.

Staff have assumed that any residential reserves put forward as restricted freedom camping areas in Group B should be removed from consideration, in line with the Governing Body’s preference not to allow any freedom camping at residential reserves. If these areas have previously been assessed as not justifying prohibition and there are no new circumstances to consider, they would remain unscheduled in the bylaw.

Any areas that are (re)assessed as meeting the statutory protection criteria for restriction or prohibition can be included in a new statement of proposal for a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw. However, confirming the outcome of any new assessments across governance levels may be difficult within statutory timeframes.

Group C

New prohibitions covering multiple areas

3.   Prohibit freedom camping in all residential reserves held under the Reserves Act (by scheduling them as prohibited in a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw)

7.   Prohibit freedom camping on roads directly outside homes (except where residents have given permission)

8.   Prohibit freedom camping on roads directly outside other specific property types: commercial premises, educational and healthcare facilities, playgrounds and swimming pools

To be scheduled in a bylaw made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 all prohibited areas must be individually assessed and found to meet the statutory criteria for protection, with supporting evidence.

Reserves would be covered by the general prohibition on camping under the Reserves Act 1977 but cannot be prohibited under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 unless they individually meet the statutory criteria.

Prohibiting freedom camping directly outside the specified property types would effectively cover most urban and suburban roads in Auckland.

Collectively, the elements in Group C would require thousands of new site assessments to be undertaken to comply with the legislation. Evidence would be needed to support a prohibition for each individual reserve, property, or road, proving (1) the desirability of the area to freedom campers and (2) the need for, and appropriateness of their protection through a bylaw.

 

 

 

 

 

These assessments would not be feasible to undertake within current resources prior to the statutory expiry date of the current bylaw. Even if assessment was undertaken, most areas would be unlikely to meet the Freedom Camping Act 2011 statutory criteria for protection.

Not doing area assessments – or prohibiting freedom camping in areas assessed as not meeting the statutory protection criteria – would create legal risk. Enacting prohibitions on this scale would also contradict the legislative intent and may be viewed as an effective ban.

There are also practical issues arising from these elements, for example implementing the ‘resident permission’ proposal in areas with higher density housing, and ensuring all prohibited property types could be clearly identified from the road.

Some elements must be amended to create a legally and practically viable option

69.     Following analysis and legal advice, staff have had to amend or remove some of the elements the Governing Body proposed for inclusion in a new statement of proposal.

70.     This is necessary to ensure that the council’s Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw would comply with the legislative intent and requirements of its enabling Act, and that the development of the new statement of proposal would be practicable to implement within current resources and statutory timelines.

71.     The table below shows which elements from the August 2019 resolutions are viable, viable with amendments, or not viable to include in a new statement of proposal.


Potential elements of a new statement of proposal

(August 2019 Governing body resolutions)

Viable to include in a statement of proposal for a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw

1.  Prohibit freedom camping in all areas recommended for prohibition by the Bylaw Panel

Yes, viable

2.  Prohibit freedom camping in 61 areas proposed for prohibition in public submissions

Viable if amended to up to 26 new prohibited areas

·   once areas already assessed (with no new circumstances to consider) are removed

·   subject to these areas being (re)assessed as meeting statutory criteria for prohibition

3.  Prohibit freedom camping in all residential reserves held under the Reserves Act (by scheduling them as prohibited in a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw)

Not viable – other than those residential reserves already assessed as justifying protection and recommended for prohibition by the Bylaw Panel

·   plus any additional reserves individually put forward for prohibition, if (re)assessed as meeting statutory criteria for prohibition

4.  Prohibit or restrict freedom camping in two areas proposed in [competing] public submissions

Viable if amended to (est.) 2 new prohibited areas, subject to these areas being assessed as meeting statutory criteria for prohibition (both areas are reserves, and therefore scheduling as restricted areas would not be considered)

5.  Restrict freedom camping at the seven restricted areas put forward in public submissions

Viable if amended to 1 new restricted area subject to this area being assessed as meeting statutory criteria (once residential reserves are removed from consideration)

6.  Include any other proposals put forward by elected members prior to 30 September 2019 (proposals for 77 areas received, excluding 17 already recommended for prohibition by the Bylaw Panel), constituting

a.  70 prohibited areas

b.  5 new restricted areas

c.  2 areas put forward as both prohibited and restricted areas

Viable if amended to:

a.  Up to 4 new prohibited areas once duplications, broad areas and areas already assessed (with no new circumstances to consider) are removed

b.  Up to 1 new restricted area once residential reserves are removed from consideration

… subject to these areas being (re)assessed as meeting statutory criteria

7.  Prohibit freedom camping on roads directly outside homes (except where residents have given permission)

Not viable – although a restrictive general rule applying to these roads may be achievable (this will depend on the details of the particular rule)

8.  Prohibit freedom camping on roads directly outside other specific property types: commercial premises, educational and healthcare facilities, playgrounds and swimming pools

Not viable – although a restrictive general rule applying to these roads may be achievable (this will depend on the details of the particular rule)

9.  Impose a maximum stay at any specific site

If applying to specific scheduled areas:

Yes, viable

If applying to unscheduled areas via a general rule:

May be viable (pending further staff advice)

10. Endorse the compassionate enforcement approach to people experiencing homelessness which was included in the original S. of Proposal

Yes, viable

72.     To move to a new statement of proposal the council must clarify its policy intent for managing freedom camping in vehicles and consider options for meeting that intent.

73.     The viable package of amended elements that remains from the Governing Body’s August 2019 resolutions is shown in the table on the following page.

74.     This package was assessed as Option one: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw.

 

Option one: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw

(Partial implementation of the August 2019 Governing body resolutions)

Prohibit freedom camping in up to 354 areas, made up of:

·    322 areas recommended for prohibition by the Bylaw Panel

·    Up to 26 further areas proposed for prohibition in public submissions, subject to these areas being assessed as meeting statutory protection criteria

·    Up to 4 further areas proposed for prohibition by elected members, subject to further investigation and these areas being assessed as meeting statutory protection criteria

Restrict freedom camping in up to 3 areas, made up of:

·    1 new area proposed for restriction in public submissions, subject to this area being assessed as meeting statutory protection criteria, and confirmation of reserve status

·    Up to 2 new areas proposed for restriction by elected members, subject to these areas being assessed as meeting statutory protection criteria, and confirmation of reserve status

Allow freedom camping on roads except where a scheduled prohibition or restriction applies

Impose a maximum stay at any specific site, and explore other possible settings for a general rule to potentially cover all areas or categories of area, including roads

Endorse the compassionate enforcement approach to people experiencing homelessness

Proposed elements suggest a broader policy intent for managing public land

75.     Staff note that the overall problem to be addressed and the outcomes sought from freedom camping regulation appear to be the same as when the Regulatory Committee gave direction for bylaw development in 2018.

76.     However, staff infer that several of the proposed elements in both groups B and C in the table at paragraph 68 above reflect concern with a broader problem that goes beyond the intent and remit of the Freedom Camping Act 2011: the need to maintain the environmental and recreational values of reserves, and to respond to public feedback to this effect.

77.     The council’s specific policy intent in formulating a bylaw must comply with the intent of its enabling legislation to be lawful. In the case of the Freedom Camping Act 2011, this means providing for freedom camping to occur where it can do so without causing harm.

78.     The council can however use more than one legislative lever to manage freedom camping in vehicles on public land.

Intent to protect reserves better addressed through the Reserves Act 1977

79.     As noted, prohibiting camping at all reserves without – or regardless of – an assessment of their individual need for protection would not comply with the legislative intent of the Freedom Camping Act 2011. However, continuing to prohibit camping at all reserves would comply with the legislative intent of the Reserves Act 1977.

 

80.     The Freedom Camping Act 2011 requirement to enable freedom camping by default on public land does not overrule the default camping prohibition on reserves. The council does not need to actively take a decision to maintain this prohibition, as this is the default state. Reserves can simply be excluded from the scope of a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw, and therefore from consideration as freedom camping areas.

81.     The graphic on the following page shows what staff have inferred to be the Governing Body’s broader policy intent for all land the council controls, including reserve land, and its specific policy intent (circled in red) for land held under the Local Government Act 2002 to be managed through a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw:

82.     Staff note that the previously adopted policy intent for freedom camping regulation included ‘[increasing] the supply of freedom camping areas’ (refer paragraph 50).

83.     If this is no longer the best way to express its specific intent, the Governing Body should formally replace this previous direction to guide future bylaw development.

Alternative option is simpler, more transparent way to deliver broader policy intent

84.     Staff have identified an alternative option based on the rationale outlined above. Staff consider it could deliver the Governing Body’s broader policy intent while clearly aligning its specific intent for a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw with that legislation.

85.     Staff advise that the Governing Body could achieve its broader policy intent more simply and transparently by:

·   explicitly reducing the scope of a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw to exclude all land held under the Reserves Act 1977

·   leaving only land held under the Local Government Act 2002 in scope for consideration for freedom camping in vehicles

·   prohibiting or restricting freedom camping in vehicles at any in-scope areas (i.e., on land held under the Local Government Act 2002) that meet the statutory criteria for protection, utilising previous assessments

·   retaining the default prohibition on camping at all reserves under the Reserves Act 1977, noting that under this Act infringement fines of up to $800 can now be issued for unauthorised camping.

 

 

86.     Managing freedom camping in vehicles on public land by using both Acts has been assessed as Option two: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (excluding reserves).

87.     Option two assumes that, once all reserves are removed, the remaining prohibited and restricted areas recommended by the Bylaw Panel would form the basis of a new statement of proposal.

88.     Areas referred to in the box on the following page are listed in Attachment B.

 

Option two: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (excluding reserves)

Through a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw:

·  Prohibit freedom camping in the (estimated) 55 areas held under the Local Government Act 2002 recommended for prohibition by the Bylaw Panel (i.e., those remaining after all reserves are removed, subject to confirmation of land status)

·  Restrict freedom camping in the remaining 21 specific areas recommended for restriction by the Bylaw Panel, after all confirmed reserves are removed

Allow freedom camping on roads except where a scheduled prohibition or restriction applies

Impose a maximum stay at any specific site, and explore other possible settings for a general rule to potentially cover all areas or categories of area, including roads

Endorse the compassionate enforcement approach to people experiencing homelessness

And through the Reserves Act 1977:

Retain default camping prohibition at Auckland’s estimated 3,250 reserves

 

Bylaw Panel recommendations identified but discounted as a third option

89.     Staff did consider assessing the Bylaw Panel recommendations as an additional (third) option. The Bylaw Panel had recommended that a new statement of proposal include a general rule, and that any areas put forward in public submissions that had not previously been assessed be assessed against the statutory criteria for protection.

90.     In these respects, Option one is similar to the Bylaw Panel recommendations, but with significantly fewer restricted areas as all reserves have been removed.

91.     The key ‘pro’ of this option is that if the Governing Body wished to develop a new bylaw based on the Bylaw Panel’s recommendations, this process is already at an advanced stage, and continuing it would be time- and resource-efficient.

92.     The key ‘con’ is that the issues that led to the Governing Body setting a new direction in August 2019 would remain. In particular, this option would enable freedom camping at 82 reserves, which clearly would not deliver the inferred broader policy intent. It has therefore been discounted.


 

 

Both options risk ongoing under-supply; Option two explicitly protects reserves while still complying with Freedom Camping Act 2011

93.     Staff have analysed the pros and cons of each option, with the key considerations summarised in the table below.

 

Option

Key ‘pros’

Key ‘cons’

1

FCA bylaw

·   Protects environmental and recreational values of some residential reserves and other sensitive or high-use public places through prohibitions and restrictions under a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw.

·   Provides a clear signal that community use and enjoyment of public space takes priority over freedom camping.

·   Likely significant overcrowding of restricted freedom camping areas would increase harms, non-compliance and complaints, increasing pressure on limited enforcement resource.

·   Potential for individual reserves to be assessed as not meeting statutory protection criteria in the Freedom Camping Act 2011, which could create confusion over the status of camping on these reserves.

2

FCA bylaw (excluding reserves)

·   Protects environmental and recreational values of all reserves by retaining default prohibition on camping under the Reserves Act 1977.

·   Enables other sensitive or high-use public places to be protected, while still aligning with the permissive intent of the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

·   Provides greater transparency and clarity in relation to the status of camping on reserves, supporting clear communication of the rules to campers and the public.

·   Protects all reserves without the need for additional assessments, evidence-gathering or maps, which is more administratively efficient.

·   Higher infringement fees under the Reserves Act 1977 (up to $800) compared with a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw ($200), may help incentivise compliance on reserves desirable to freedom campers.

·   Cumulative impact of bylaw and Reserves Act protections would result in a relatively small number of restricted areas, meaning some overcrowding and associated harms would likely continue at these desirable areas.

 


 

Staff have completed a multi-criteria analysis to support decision-making

94.     Staff developed seven assessment criteria to compare the options:

The assessment criteria consider:

The extent to which each option addresses the Governing Body’s inferred broader policy intent to:

1)   protect the environmental and recreational values of reserves.

And in accordance with the Freedom Camping Act 2011, the Governing Body’s specific policy intent to:

2)   protect sensitive areas, public health and safety, and public access from freedom camping harms

3)   address the perceived problems in these areas in the most appropriate and proportionate way

4)   enable freedom camping to occur at suitable areas (where protection is not justified).

And the extent to which each option addresses other operational objectives for managing freedom camping:

5)   to deliver sufficient capacity to cope with freedom camper numbers in terms of the overall supply of desirable freedom camping areas, minimising harms from overcrowding and illegal camping

6)   to provide for improved enforcement, minimise harm from freedom camping using non-regulatory tools and take a compassionate enforcement approach to people experiencing homelessness

7)   be feasible to implement within statutory timeframes.

95.     Staff completed a comparative assessment of the two options against the seven assessment criteria, with findings represented by the following scores:

Ö

O

X

Good

Average/neutral

Poor

96.     The outcome of the comparative assessment is summarised in the table on the following page.

 

Score against assessment criteria

Option

1

Protect reserves

2

Protect other sensitive areas

3

Appropriate/ proportionate

4

Enable       fr. camping

5

Increase supply

6

Other objectives

7

Feasibility

1

FCA bylaw   

O

Ö

Ö

Ö

X

Ö

Ö

2

FCA bylaw (excl. res.)

Ö

Ö

Ö

Ö

O

Ö

Ö

Option two: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (excluding reserves) is recommended

97.     Based on consideration of the pros and cons and the outcome of the comparative assessment, staff recommend a new statement of proposal is developed based on Option two: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (excluding reserves).

Both options protect reserves, but Option two does so more effectively and in line with the legislative intent

98.     By ensuring that all sensitive and high-use areas are protected, both options provide a clear signal that community use and enjoyment of public space is the council’s priority, responding strongly to public feedback.

99.     The main difference between the two options is the use of either a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (Option one) or the Reserves Act 1977 (Option two) to prohibit freedom camping on reserves.

100.   Freedom camping could be prohibited at individual reserves under Option one: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw if they justify protection under the Freedom Camping Act 2011’s statutory criteria.

101.   Freedom camping could be prohibited at all reserves under Option two: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (excluding reserves) by removing reserves from the bylaw’s scope at the outset, and instead relying on the Reserves Act’s default prohibition on camping to protect the environmental and recreational values of these areas.

102.   This means Option two: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (excluding reserves) would likely achieve a similar or better outcome compared with Option one: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw, but in a way that clearly aligns with the relevant legislation, is more transparent, and is easier to communicate to campers and the public.

103.   Option two: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (excluding reserves) would also be more efficient to implement and administer, by protecting all reserves – not only residential reserves – without the need for additional assessments, evidence-gathering or maps, although some additional signage may be required.

Neither option likely to address under-supply, but Option two would improve it and builds on existing public support for more restricted areas

104.   Increasing the supply of desirable freedom camping areas would support greater regional dispersal of campers, providing a more positive experience for all visitors and reducing the likelihood of primary harms.

105.   Restricted areas are those areas which are both desirable to campers, and which have been assessed as suitable to allow some freedom camping, within controls.

106.   Option two: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (excluding reserves) would propose more restricted areas (21 areas) than both Option one: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw (up to three areas) and the currently operative bylaw (11 areas).

107.   All areas the Bylaw Panel recommended be scheduled as restricted have already had assessments completed and met the statutory criteria for protection, and public feedback provided. This will give decision-makers an indication of likely community views on allowing restricted freedom camping in these areas.

108.   Overall, staff note that almost the same number of submitters supported increasing the overall number of restricted areas (42% in favour, versus 45% against). Of the 107 restricted areas in the 2018 statement of proposal, 62 were supported by all or a majority of submissions, and 12 did not receive any submissions (including objections).

109.   This suggests that there is public support for more provision than the three restricted areas that would be provided under Option one: Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw.

110.   Freedom camping could legally occur on roads under either option, except where a prohibition or restriction can be justified under the statutory criteria for protection.

A general rule could be included in either option, subject to further investigation

111.   In response to public and local board feedback, the Bylaw Panel recommended that a general rule be reconsidered for inclusion in a new statement of proposal.

112.   Regardless of which option is preferred, staff propose to provide a detailed options report giving advice on whether a general rule can be used, what form it could take, and the implications of possible general rule settings, for example in relation to:

·   imposing a maximum stay and/or a mandatory departure time at any location or at categories of location, including roads

·   requiring vehicles to be certified self-contained to freedom camp at locations that do not have 24-hour access to a public toilet, which would include most roads

·   restricting freedom camping in vehicles across larger areas or categories of area, where there is evidence to support this as a proportionate response to a known or likely problem.

113.   This advice would also consider the cumulative impact of all prohibitions and restrictions, including those imposed under a general rule, to ensure controls would not create an effective Auckland-wide ban.

Effective non-regulatory approaches could also be explored under either option

114.   Previous public and local board feedback expressed dissatisfaction with the level of compliance resource available and enforcement of the current rules.

115.   Non-regulatory approaches – e.g., proactive camper education, or providing improved facilities at popular sites – can help to reduce nuisance from freedom camping and improve public perception.

116.   The council’s Responsible Camping Ambassadors programme achieved good results during the 2019/2020 summer season, improving compliance and reducing complaints compared with either of the two previous summer periods. Government allocated the council $252,480 to fund the programme again for the 2020/21 summer season.

117.   Staff note that should this funding cease to be granted in future, further consideration could be given to the most effective ways to resource compliance with any bylaw.

Current land classification won’t be completed with bylaw development timeframes

118.   The council does not currently hold complete land classification data to establish definitive numbers of reserves. Parks and reserves can comprise multiple land parcels which may be held under different Acts.

119.   Classifications are being confirmed as part of the development of omnibus Local Park Management Plans. Five local board areas have completed this work, and an average of 94 percent of their parks were found to be held under the Reserves Act 1977.

120.   Ongoing land classification work will support bylaw implementation. It will not finish within the timeframe for bylaw development, so the status quo issues will remain.

Low likelihood of substantive changes to the Freedom Camping Act 2011

121.   The Governing Body requested an update on a potential review of the Freedom Camping Act 2011. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has previously advised that:

·   substantive changes to the Act were not going to be included in the review

·   the planned consultation has been delayed in order to focus on the government’s Covid-19 response

·   there are no plans to revisit the government’s freedom camping policy, which was confirmed by the Minister for Tourism in May 2020.

122.   Although there have been some informal comments from the Minister for Tourism about possible future changes to the Act, no formal advice or updated timeframes for the review have yet been provided.

 

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

123.   Staff note that this is a regulatory process to manage existing activities enabled by central government policy: it is not causing these activities to occur or affecting the likelihood that they will occur. The selection of either option contained in this report therefore has no specific climate impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

124.   The Freedom Camping Act 2011 allows the council to make a bylaw to cover any land it (or Auckland Transport) controls or manages under any enactment.

125.   The council group, including the Licensing and Compliance and Parks, Sport and Recreation departments, provided input at previous stages of bylaw development and will be re-engaged during the next phase.

126.   This could include developing costed options for different service levels, for example relating to the enforcement response, public messaging and signage.

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

Local impacts and local board views

127.   In 2019, 16 local boards provided formal feedback on the proposed Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2018. This follows on from early feedback given during engagement with local boards in 2017 and site-specific feedback in 2018.

128.   Some local boards supported a new bylaw with additional enforcement tools available.

129.   Local boards generally supported prohibited sites in their areas. Some did not agree with all proposed restricted sites. Some preferred no freedom camping in their area.

130.   Key concerns expressed by local boards related to:

·   the loss of protection in the legacy bylaws for most reserves and roadsides

·   provision for unrestricted freedom camping in their area (most want a general rule)

·   freedom camping at reserves and enforcement tools under the Reserves Act

·   freedom camping in inner-city areas, unsafe areas, and areas near sports fields, residential homes and campgrounds

·   council’s ability to enforce bylaws and the cost of enforcement and monitoring

·   the potential effect on people experiencing homelessness.

131.   Staff recommend the Governing Body invite three local board chairs (or their delegates) to join a joint working group to consider options for including a general rule in the bylaw to help manage freedom camping in vehicles.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

132.   Mana whenua and mataawaka were invited to provide feedback during earlier phases of the bylaw development work via dedicated hui and the public submissions process.

133.   Feedback received on specific prohibited and restricted areas identified in the 2018 Statement of Proposal was incorporated into the deliberations.

134.   Other matters raised by Māori during engagement included the need to ensure:

·   camping is prohibited at sites of significance to Māori, especially wahi tapu areas, with the ability add further sites to the bylaw as these are designated

·   provision for temporary bans on freedom camping, e.g., in areas under a rahui

·   a compassionate approach to people experiencing homelessness

·   provision of sufficient dump stations to avoid environmental pollution

·   clear communication of the rules in the bylaw and at freedom camping sites.

135.   Staff recommend the Governing Body invite a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board to join a joint working group to consider options for a general rule.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

136.   None, as both options described in this advice will trigger a new public consultation process, with all associated resource requirements being met within current budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

137.   Legal risks were discussed as part of the provision of legally privileged advice to the Governing Body at a confidential workshop in March 2021.

138.   The other key risks and possible mitigations are summarised in the table below.

Option

Risk

Risk type

Level

Possible mitigations

1

FCA bylaw

Insufficient freedom camping areas

Managing potentially significant increase in overcrowding, non-compliance, and harms

Public expectation of increased enforcement once bylaw adopted

Operations and service delivery

Reputational

High

Partially mitigated by:

·   the ability to legally stay overnight on most roads, although additional restrictions on roads may be imposed through a general rule

·   the ability to amend the bylaw in future to include new or expanded prohibitions or restrictions, if problems at overcrowded sites are displaced to the surrounding area

·   government funding for Responsible Camping Ambassadors, but if this is not renewed in future years, staff will provide costed options for increasing compliance capacity.

2

FCA bylaw (excl. res.)

Insufficient freedom camping areas

Managing potential increase in overcrowding, non-compliance, and harms over time

Public expectation of increased enforcement once bylaw adopted

Operations and service delivery

Reputational

Low to moderate

 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

139.   The preferred option will form the basis for the development of a new statement of proposal for a freedom camping bylaw, for consultation in late 2021.

140.   Staff are not intending to undertake new site assessments except where required, for:

·   any areas put forward by the public or elected members that:

have not previously been assessed against the statutory criteria and can feasibly be assessed, or

justify reassessment because further investigation finds their circumstances have changed.

·   to support the provision of advice on options for a general rule.

The next steps following this decision on the preferred option are as follows:

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - About the Freedom Camping Act 2011

33

b

Attachment B - Areas proposed to be scheduled in a freedom camping in vehicles bylaw

39

c

Attachment C - Clarification of Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 expiry date

59

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Rebekah Forman - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

2021 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting

File No.: CP2021/02005

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To appoint governing body members to attend the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) conference taking place from 15 to 17 July 2021 and appoint delegates to the Annual General Meeting (AGM).  This report also provides process information about LGNZ remits and awards associated with the conference and AGM.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The 2021 LGNZ Conference will be held at the ASB Theatre Marlborough, Blenheim from 15 to 17 July 2021. The conference programme is appended as Attachment A.

3.       Due to reductions in allocations for professional development in the Emergency Budget (current financial year) and risks associated with uncertainty of alert levels during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of members who will be able to attend the LGNZ conference this year is limited.

4.       After considering a number of options (detailed in attachment B), staff recommend an option that enables a representative Auckland Council delegation to be funded from the reduced budget as follows:

·    elected members with a formal role as Auckland Council representatives to LGNZ 

·    six additional local board members to be selected from the local board clusters.

5.       Governing Body can make decisions about the attendance of its members only. Local boards make decision about their attendance.

6.       The estimated cost of attending the conference (registration, travel and accommodation) is $2,410 per person, bringing the total for the recommended option to $38,560.

7.       As in previous years, elected members may use their Individual Development Budget (IDB) allocation to attend the conference. The IDB allocation has also been reduced under the Emergency Budget to $1,500 per member per electoral term. It is therefore not sufficient to cover the total cost of a member’s attendance. Members who wish to take up this opportunity would need to cover the shortfall themselves of approximately $900.

8.       Auckland Council is entitled to four delegates at the AGM. These delegates are appointed by the Governing Body. Staff recommend that the four delegates include Mayor Phil Goff (as presiding delegate), Chief Executive Jim Stabback, and up to two other Auckland Council conference attendees.

9.       The adoption of remits[1] at the AGM and the 2021 LGNZ Excellence Awards are elements of this event. This report outlines the Auckland Council process for deciding on remits and council positions on the conference remits, as well as a consolidated process for Auckland Council entries to the awards. The LGNZ Auckland Zone meeting, which is attended by representatives of local boards and the governing body is the forum that will coordinate these discussions.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      appoint up to six governing body members who hold formal representation roles with Local Government New Zealand to attend the the Local Government New Zealand 2021 Conference and Annual General Meeting in Blenheim from 15 to 17 July 2021, those being:

i)        Mayor Phil Goff

ii)       Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore

iii)      Councillor Pippa Coom

iv)      Councillor Richard Hills

v)      Councillor Alf Filipaina

vi)      Councillor Angela Dalton

b)      appoint Mayor Phil Goff as the Auckland Council presiding delegate to the 2021 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting

c)      appoint Chief Executive Jim Stabback and up to two other Auckland Council conference attendees as delegates to the 2021 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting

d)      delegate to the mayor, in the event he cannot attend the 2021 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting at short notice, the ability to appoint another governing body member to the role of presiding delegate

e)      delegate to the mayor, in the event an appointed member cannot attend the 2021 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting or conference at short notice, the ability to approve the attendance of another member

f)       agree that when exercising Auckland Council’s vote at the 2021 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting, the delegates have the discretion to determine the Auckland Council’s position on any matter on which the Auckland Council’s position is not otherwise known

g)      note that conference attendees can attend the 2021 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting as observers provided their names are included on the Annual General Meeting registration form, which will be signed by the mayor

h)      confirm that conference attendance including travel and accommodation will be paid for in accordance with the current Auckland Council Elected Member Expense Policy

i)        note that any member who wishes to attend the conference using their Individual Development Budget (IDB) allocation will need to subsidise the cost and must contact the Manager Governance Services by 15 April 2021 to make the necessary arrangements.

 

Horopaki

Context

10.     LGNZ is an incorporated society of local government organisations whose primary objective is to represent and advocate for the interests of local authorities in New Zealand. LGNZ champions policy positions on key issues that are of interest to local government and holds regular meetings and events throughout the year for members. The schedule of meetings includes an annual conference and meetings of local government geographical clusters (known as LGNZ zones) and sectors.

11.     LGNZ is governed by a National Council made up of representatives from member authorities as outlined in the constitution. Some of its work is conducted through committees and working groups which include representatives from member authorities.

12.     Elected members who have been formally appointed to LGNZ roles including members who are involved in advisory groups are:

Name

LGNZ role

Mayor Phil Goff

National Council representative for Auckland

Auckland Council representative on the Metropolitan Sector Group

Councillor Pippa Coom

 

Local Board Chair Richard Northey

National Council representative for Auckland (appointed by Governing Body) and co-chair of the Auckland Zone

National Council representative for Auckland (appointed by local boards) and co-chair of the Auckland Zone

Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore

Auckland Council representative on Regional Sector

Councillor Alf Filipaina

Auckland Council representative on Te Maruata Roopu Whakahaere

Local Board Member Nerissa Henry

Auckland Council representative on Young Elected Members

Councillor Angela Dalton

Local Board Deputy Chair Danielle Grant

Auckland Council representatives on Governance and Strategy Advisory Group

Councillor Richard Hills

Local Board Member Cindy Schmidt

Auckland Council representatives on Policy Advisory Group

 

Auckland Zone

13.     LGNZ rules were amended in 2019 to allow Auckland Council, with its unique governance arrangements, to be set up as its own Zone, rather than be part of LGNZ Zone 1 with Northland councils.

14.     Auckland Zone meetings are scheduled on a quarterly basis. These meetings are co-chaired by the two Auckland representatives appointed to the LGNZ National Council by the Governing Body (Councillor Pippa Coom) and local boards’ (Chair Richard Northey) and attended by appointed representatives of local boards and members of the Governing Body.

15.     The meetings of Auckland Zone are open to all elected members. The zone meetings receive regular updates from the LGNZ Executive as well as verbal reports from Auckland Council elected members who have an ongoing involvement with LGNZ.

16.     The zone meetings provide an opportunity for council to have discussions across governing body and local boards on joint advocacy issues including remits and other shared priorities that fall within LGNZ’s mandate.

LGNZ Annual conference and AGM 2021

17.     The 2021 LGNZ conference and AGM will be held at the ASB Theatre Marlborough, Waiharakeke Blenheim, from 15 to 17 July 2021.

18.     This year, the conference programme has the theme “Reimagining Aotearoa from community up”. The programme is available online on the LGNZ website and is appended as Attachment A.

 

 

19.     The AGM takes place on the last day of the conference from 9.30am to 12.30pm. The LGNZ constitution permits the Auckland Council to appoint four delegates to represent it at the AGM, with one of the delegates being appointed as presiding delegate.

20.     Due to the COVID-19 restrictions, the 2020 conference was postponed and Auckland Council only sent two delegates to the AGM. The two delegates who attended the AGM via remote/electronic attendance were Mayor Phil Goff and Councillor Pippa Coom.

21.     In addition to the official delegates at the AGM, LGNZ allows conference participants to attend the AGM as observers but requires prior notice. Nominated attendees to the conference will be invited to register as observers to the AGM.

Remits (for consideration at the AGM 2021)

22.     LGNZ invites member authorities to submit remits for consideration at the AGM on 17 July 2021.

23.     Proposed remits should address only major strategic ‘issues of the moment’. They should have a national focus, articulating a major interest or concern at the national political level.  They should relate to significant policy issues that, as a council, we have not been able to progress with central government through other means.

24.     On 2 March 2021, elected members were sent detailed information inviting proposals for remits to be discussed at the Auckland Zone meeting on 12 March 2021. Remits agreed on at the zone meeting will be submitted by the due date.

25.     The June 2021 meeting of the Auckland Zone will review all the remits that will be discussed at the AGM with a view to recommending a council position that the Auckland Council delegates will advocate at the AGM.

LGNZ Excellence Awards 2021

26.     LGNZ also invites member authorities to submit entries for consideration for the LGNZ Excellence Awards, to be announced at the conference dinner on 16 July 2021.

27.     The LGNZ Excellence Awards recognise and celebrate excellent performance by councils in promoting and growing the well-being of their communities. The awards are judged on a combination of general and specific criteria, incorporating best practice and components from the CouncilMARK™ excellence programme’s four priority areas. The awards categories for 2021 are:

·    Creative New Zealand EXCELLENCE Award for Cultural Well-being

·    Martin Jenkins EXCELLENCE Award for Economic Well-being

·    Air New Zealand EXCELLENCE Award for Environmental Well-being

·    Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities EXCELLENCE Award for Social Well-being

·    In addition, one or more individuals will be awarded the Te Tari Taiwhenua Internal Affairs EXCELLENCE Award for Outstanding Contribution to Local Government, and Fulton Hogan will also select the Local EXCELLENCE Award from among the finalists.

28.     The email to elected members on 2 March 2021 also outlined detailed information inviting potential awards entries to be discussed at the Auckland Zone meeting on 12 March 2021 so that entries from Auckland Council can be coordinated.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Overall costs per attendee

29.     The estimated total cost of attendance to the conference is $2,410 per person, distributed as follows (all costs are GST inclusive):

Registration (early bird)

$1,400

Accommodation* @ $190 per night x 3 nights

$570

Flights**

$280

Miscellaneous***

$160

Total

$2,410

 

* based on average cost of Blenheim hotels.

** flights may range from $49 one way (take on bag only) to $199 for a 5pm flight (with a checked bag). $280 is as per 2020 budgeting.

*** for travel to and from airport and reasonable daily expenses under the Elected Member Expenses policy

Options

30.     Staff considered several options (outlined in Attachment B) that ensure a fair balance of representatives across the governing body and local boards while keeping within budget. The key considerations that were applied to selecting the staff preferred option are:

a)   the available budget for the LGNZ conference attendance is only $40,000

b)   the cost of attendance per person (registration, travel, accommodation) is estimated at $2,410

c)   with the uncertainty to public events and gatherings posed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there is a possibility the COVID-19 alert levels may not be favourable in July 2021. If this is the case, cancellations will not recoup all monies spent. Staff consider that although this risk may be lower in July, it will continue to exist

d)   ensuring fair representation from local boards given the inability to accommodate 21 representatives

e)   empowering elected members who have a formal involvement with LGNZ to be prioritised for attendance to maximise their ongoing contributions on behalf of Auckland Council.

31.     Staff recommend Option B which will cost $38,560 and fund attendance of 16 elected members including:

·    all members who have been formally appointed or nominated to LGNZ National Council, subsidiary bodies and advisory groups (10 members)

·    a representative from each of the 6 local board clusters – North, South, West, Central, Islands and Rural (6 members).

32.     This is not the cheapest option but is the one that enables a wider representation from local boards. The more expensive options which allow for one representative per local board cannot be accommodated within the available budget.

33.     Governing Body can make decisions about the attendance of its members only. Local boards make decision about their attendance.

 

 

34.     Local boards have an existing method for choosing a limited number of representatives. This approach utilises informal cluster groups based on geographic locations and unique characteristics (North, South, West, Central, Island, Rural) and involves local board chairs liaising with and agreeing with others in their cluster on their representative.

35.     There is an opportunity to select local board representatives using this methodology at the Local Board Chairs’ Forum on 12 April 2021.

Use of IDB to fund additional attendees

36.     Elected members who wish to attend the LGNZ conference and are not nominated or appointed can still attend using their IDB. As IDB entitlements are $1500 per elected member per term and the cost of attendance is approximately $2410, these elected members will need to meet the cost difference.

37.     It is recommended that elected members who wish to attend and can pay the difference are included in the group booking for accommodation and travel. Any elected member who wishes to take up this opportunity is encouraged to liaise further with the Kura Kāwana team.

38.     LGNZ are working on introducing some form of virtual attendance to the conference but the details are still to be confirmed.

39.     As in previous years, LGNZ will make some session recordings available online after the conference.

Delegates for the Annual General Meeting

40.     In line with previous years, staff recommend that AGM delegates are appointed from within the attending members as follows:

·    Mayor Phil Goff as presiding delegate

·    Chief Executive Jim Stabback

·    up to two additional delegates.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

41.     This report is procedural in nature, however the key impact on climate is through supporting attendance at a conference by means of air travel. A conservative approach to conference attendance would help reduce this impact.

42.     Emissions associated with air travel to Blenheim can be offset through a verified carbon offset programme at a small cost.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

43.     LGNZ is an incorporated body comprising members who are New Zealand councils.  Council-controlled organisations are not eligible for separate membership. However, remits can cover activities of council-controlled organisations.

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

Local impacts and local board views

44.     LGNZ advocates for issues that are important to local government. Many of these issues are aligned with local board priorities. As such, there is a high degree of interest from local boards in contributing to the work of LGNZ and in identifying and harnessing opportunities to progress other advocacy areas that local boards may have.

45.     Each local board has a nominated lead who represents them at Auckland Zone meetings and is involved in discussions about LGNZ matters.

46.     Ideally, local boards would prefer to be have the attendance of one member from each local board funded. However, given budget constraints, those boards that have so far considered the issue have not objected to using the cluster model as the appropriate way to select a smaller number of delegates, so long as they have the option of nominating additional members to attend through using their individual development budget allocation. Where members are unable to subsidise the shortfall in conference costs due to hardship, the Kura Kāwana team will look at providing additional assistance on a case-by-case basis.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

47.     LGNZ advocates on a variety of issues that are important to Māori, including Māori housing, various environmental issues and Council-Māori participation and relationship arrangements. In addition, LGNZ provides advice including published guidance to assist local authorities in understanding values, aspirations and interests of Māori.

48.     The LGNZ National Council has a sub-committee, Te Maruata, which has the role of promoting increased representation of Māori as elected members of local government, and of enhancing Māori participation in local government processes. It also provides support for councils in building relationships with iwi, hapu and Māori groups. Te Maruata provides Māori input on development of future policies or legislation relating to local government. Councillor Alf Filipaina is a member of Te Maruata.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

49.     Staff considered options to reduce the financial impact of the attendance to the conference, in line with the budget restrictions imposed as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

50.     The total estimated cost associated of the recommended option to fund conference attendance, travel and accommodation for up to 16 members ($38,560) can be met within the allocated Kura Kāwana (Elected Member development) budget.

51.     Additional members’ attendance can be funded upon request using the $1,500 Individual Development Budget allocated per member per term, with the estimated $900 shortfall to be covered by individual members.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

52.     The key risk is of delayed decision-making which can impact costs and registration choices. The sooner the registration for the nominated members can be made, the more likely it is that Auckland Council can take advantage of early bird pricing for the conference, flights and accommodation, all done via bulk-booking.

53.     Although early booking will reduce costs, a resurgence of COVID-19 in the community and a change of alert level might prevent elected members from travelling to attend the conference at short notice.

54.     LGNZ is actively reviewing the COVID-19 situation and will update directly to registered participants should a change affect the delivery of the conference. LGNZ is still working through a number of scenarios and how these would affect their decision to proceed as planned, postpone, cancel or switch delegates to virtual attendance, with the final decision resting with the National Council on the basis of the information available at the time.

55.     In the current COVID circumstances, the reputational risk associated with any financial expenditure is heightened and there is high scrutiny from the public on the council’s expenses. The recommendation to limit the number of members attending the conference mitigates this risk to a certain degree.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

56.     Once representatives are confirmed to attend, the Manager Governance Services will coordinate all conference registrations, as well as requests to attend the AGM.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

LGNZ 2021 conference programme

69

b

Options for LGNZ 2021 conference attendance

75

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elodie Fontaine - Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator



Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance

File No.: CP2021/01738

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance referred by the Audit and Risk Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Audit and Risk Committee considered the Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance at its meeting on 22 February 2021.

3.       The Audit and Risk Committee resolved as follows:

Resolution number AUD/2021/9

That the Audit and Risk Committee:

a)      note the summary and organisational responses in the report and refer this report to the Governing Body of Auckland Council along with any commentary the committee thinks appropriate

b)      note that the committee is pleased to see renewed focus on health, safety and wellbeing performance and requests that the Governing Body increase focus on quarterly reporting and due diligence responsibilities

c)      forward the report to Local Boards for their information.”

4.       Clause a) of the resolution refers the report to the Governing Body for noting along with any commentary the Audit and Risk Committee feels is appropriate.

5.       Clause b) requests the Governing Body to increase focus on quarterly report and due diligence responsibilities.

6.       The original Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance to the Audit and Risk Committee is appended as Attachment A to this report.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note the Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance and any commentary from the Audit and Risk Committee

b)      note the Audit and Risk Committee’s request for the Governing Body to increase focus on quarterly reporting and due diligence responsibilities

c)      note that the report has been provided to all local boards for their information.

 

 

 


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Original Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance report to the Audit and Risk Committee on 22 February 2021

79

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Enterprise Risk Update - February 2021

File No.: CP2021/01739

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the Enterprise Risk Update – February 2021 referred by the Audit and Risk Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Audit and Risk Committee considered the Enterprise Risk Update – February 2021 at its meeting on 22 February 2021.

3.       The Audit and Risk Committee resolved as follows:

Resolution number AUD/2021/8

That the Audit and Risk Committee:

a)      note the risk update including progress made on the Auckland Council Top Risk reset and the risk champion’s programme

b)      refer the Enterprise Risk Update - February 2021 report to the Governing Body for information.”

4.       Clause b) of the above resolution refers the report to the Governing Body for information.

5.       The original Enterprise Risk Update – February 2021 report to the Audit and Risk Committee is appended as Attachment A to this report.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      receive the Enterprise Risk Update – February 2021.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Original Enterprise Risk Update - February 2021 to the Audit and Risk Committee on 22 February 2021

95

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authorisers

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

Summary of Governing Body information memoranda, workshops and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) - 25 March 2021

File No.: CP2021/01737

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A.

2.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memoranda, workshop and briefing papers that may have been held or been distributed to Governing Body members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to Governing Body members via memoranda/workshops and briefings or other means, where no decisions are required.

4.       The following memoranda/information have been forwarded:

Date

Memoranda/information

8/3/21

Auckland Council’s submission on the Waiheke Rahui by Ngāti Pāoa

 

5.       The following workshops/briefings have taken place:

Date

Workshop/Briefing

3/3/21

CONFIDENTIAL:  Freedom Camping

9/3/21

CONFIDENTIAL:  Ports of Auckland Limited

9/3/21

CONFIDENTIAL:  Three Waters Reform

 

6.       These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

at the top left of the page, select meeting/Te hui “Governing Body” from the drop-down tab and click “View”;

under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

7.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary.  Governing Body members should direct any questions to the authors.

 


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A of the agenda report

b)      receive the Summary of Governing Body information memoranda, workshops and briefings – 25 March 2021.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Forward Work Programme

105

b

Auckland Council’s submission on the Waiheke Rahui by Ngāti Pāoa

113

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

 

Tira Kāwana / Governing Body
Forward Work Programme 2021

The Governing Body deals with strategy and policy decision-making that relates to the environmental, social, economic and cultural activities of Auckland as well as matters that are not the responsibility of another committee.  The full terms of reference can be found here: Auckland Council Governing Body Terms of Reference

 

Area of work and Lead Department

Reason for work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Expected timeframes

Highlight the month(s) this is expected to come to committee in 2021

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Americas Cup 2021

Locations, infrastructure and funding

Decisions to approve locations, infrastructure and funding

As and when required

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chief Executive’s Performance Objectives

The Appointments and Performance Review Committee has the delegation to recommend performance objectives.

The Governing Body must then consider the recommendations and make a decision.

Decision to approve performance objectives

 

Progress to date:

Setting the Chief Executives 2020/2021 performance objectives – Open Process Report 26 November 2020
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Objectives

 

Review FY21/22

 

 

City Rail Link

Construction of the City Rail Link in the central city

Decisions to approve matter associated with City Rail Link

Decisions to note any matters raised by the Audit and Risk Committee about the project

 

Progress to date:

Appointments to board of City Rail Link 25 June 2020
Link to decision open process report
Link to restatement

Report on shareholder approval of major transaction 27 August 2020
Link to decision

As and when required

Review of council- controlled organisations

Overview of and decisions relating to any council-controlled organisations review including the implementation of any resulting changes to council-controlled organisations

Decision on appointment of a council-controlled organisations review panel

Consider draft report on the key issues, feedback from the community and stakeholders

Decision on final report and recommendations

 

Progress to date:

11 August 2020 – Confidential Workshop

19 August 2020 – Confidential Workshop

Decision on the CCO Review 27 August 2020
Link to decision

Report and proposal to merge Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) and Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) 27 August 2020
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10-year Budget (Long-term Plan)

Statutory requirement

Decision to approve consultation documents, supporting information and process prior to consultation

Decision to adopt the 10-year Budget (Long-term Plan)

 

Progress to date:

Various workshops being held January 2021 – June 2021

Agree items for consultation 9 December 2020
Link to decision

Agree other items for consultation 9 December 2020
Link to decision

Agree changes to urban rating and rating of farm and lifestyle properties for consultation 9 December 2020
Link to decision

Agree other Rates and Fees Issues for consultation 9 December 2020
Link to decision

Agree to consult on Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate 18 February 2021
Link to decision

Agree to consult on amendments to the Revenue and Financing Policy 18 February 2021
Link to decision

Adopt consultation material 18 February 2021
Link to decision

Adopt Communications and Engagement Plan 18 February 2021
Link to decision

 

Consultation documents

 

 

 

Adoption

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Report

Statutory requirement

Decision to adopt the Annual Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adoption

 

 

Committee Forward Work Programmes

Responsibility for oversight of work programmes of all committee of the Governing Body.

Decisions to note that all committee have adopted a forward work programme

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of Code of Conduct

The experience of working with the current Code of Conduct indicates that it could be further improved. In particular, it could be clearer about complaint, investigation and resolution processes, as well as available sanctions

Decision to adopt new Elected Members Code of Conduct

 

Progress to date:

Scope of the Review Report 26 November 2020
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

Adoption

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference enables the governing Body to delegate to committees those power necessary for them to carry out their responsibilities to the most efficient and effective levels.

Any changes to the Terms of Reference must be done by the Governing Body.

Decision to adopt the Terms of Reference

Decision to adopt changes to Terms of Reference

 

Progress to date:

Terms of Reference approved November 2019
Link to decision

Terms of Reference amended to include working parties November 2019
Link to decision

Terms of Reference amended to include the Emergency Committee March 2020
Link to decision

As and when required

Standing Orders

Statutory requirement under the Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, clause 27

Originally adopted 16/12/2010

Decision to amend standing orders

 

Progress to date:

Change in light of COVID-19 March 2020
Link to decision

Change for Attendance by Electronic Link 25 June 2020
Link to decision

 

As and when required

Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Operations Plan

Section 60 of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 requires the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (Tūpuna Maunga Authority) and Auckland Council to annually agree an operational plan as part of the annual or long-term plan process.

This requires the council to consult on a summary of the Draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Operational Plan (the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan).

The Governing Body is also required to adopt the final plan.

Decision to adopt Operations Plan and summary

 

Progress to date:

Adopt DRAFT Operational Plan and Summary for consultation 9 December 2020
Link to decision

 

 

Consultation

 

 

 

 

Adoption

 

 

 

 

 

Health, Safety and Wellbeing

The Governing Body has the role of the person or organisation conducting a business or undertaking.

Decision to receive quarterly Health, Safety and Wellbeing report

 

Progress to date:

Report for December 2020 to Audit and Risk Committee 8 December 2020
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alcohol Control Bylaw Review

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

 

Progress to date:

Statement of Proposal 24 September 2020
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Animal Management Bylaw Review

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Review

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

 

Progress to date:

Statement of Proposal 24 September 2020
Link to decision

Approve panel recommendations and adopt amended bylaw 25 February 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Construction Bylaw 2015

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Options

 

Freedom Camping

Explore the need for and options for regulating freedom camping in Auckland

Regulatory response may be required following completion of research and pilot

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

 

 

 

Direction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Navigation Safety Bylaw Review

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

 

Progress to Date:

Approve statement of proposal 29 October 2020
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

Recommendation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Maintenance Nuisance Bylaw Review

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

Signage Bylaw Review

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

 

 

Stormwater Bylaw

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

 

 

 

Trading and Events Bylaw Review

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traffic Bylaw Review

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

No decision required until 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

 

Progress to Date:

Approve statement of proposal 25 February 2021
Link to decision

 

 

Proposal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wharves Bylaw 2015

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Options

 

Auckland Council Top Risk Register

The Audit and Risk Committee will refer the risk register to the Governing Body every quarter.

Decision to note the top risk register and risk heat map

Decision to receive quarterly reports

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi

The Crown negotiates settlements with iwi on a confidential basis and from time to time invites Council to express its views.

The Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Working party is accountable to the Governing Body and reports its findings to the Governing Body.

Decision to approve submissions to the Crown as and when required

Decision to approve establishment and on-going implementation of co-management and other governance arrangements

 

As and when required

Governance Framework Review

The Joint Governance Working Party will make recommendations to the Governing Body on governance matters of mutual interest to the Governing Body and local boards

Decisions on Joint Governance Working Party recommendations

Decisions on Service Levels and Funding

Decisions on Governance Framework Review implementation as required

As and when required

National Three Waters Programme

The Minister of Local Government recently established a joint central-local government steering committee to provide oversight and guidance to support the reform, and to assist in engaging with local government, iwi/Māori, and other water sector stakeholders on options and proposals.

Decision to opt in to the first stage of the national three waters reform programmes

 

Progress to Date:

Report and decision on opt in 27 August 2020
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

Initial Stage

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent Review of Health and Safety at Port of Auckland

On 14 September 2020 the mayor announced that Auckland Council, as Ports of Auckland’s sole shareholder, would initiate an independent review of health and safety at Ports of Auckland

The proposed focus of the council’s independent review is to assess and comment on Ports of Auckland’s management of its critical risks for health and safety (including hazard identification, risk assessment, monitoring controls and resilience) and the health and safety culture at Ports of Auckland.

Decision to agree Terms of Reference.

Consider independent review.

 

Progress to Date:

Report to agree Terms of Reference for the review 24 September 2020
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework

 

Decision to agree to finalise the framework.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Completed

Lead Department

Area of work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Decision

Environmental Services

Ark in the Park

Decision to appoint GB representatives to Ark in the Park.

Appointment of councillor representatives February 2020
Link to decision

Democracy Services

Local government elections

Evaluation of 2019 election and preparation for 2022 election

Consider evaluation report of 2019 election

Decision on submission to Justice Select Committee Inquiry into 2019 election

Decision on voting system for the 2022 election and whether to establish Māori wards

Decision on evaluation and Māori wards February 2020
Link to decision

Decision on submission in Inquiry into 2019 election February 2020
Link to decision

 

Community and Social Policy

Food Safety Information Bylaw Review

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

Adoption of Food Safety Information Bylaw Review 30 April 2020
Link to decision

Finance

Emergency Budget/ Annual Budget (Annual Plan)

Statutory requirement

Decision to approve consultation documents, supporting information and process prior to consultation

Decision to adopt Emergency Budget

 

Decision on Emergency Budget and consultation given COVID-19 – 16 April 2020 in confidential and released on 7 May 2020
Link to decision

Decisions on Emergency Budget and consultation
14 May 2020 Confidential
Link to decision 21 May 2020 released 25 June 2020
Link to decision 28 May 2020 released 25 June 2020

Decisions on Emergency Budget feedback
Link to decision 16 July 2020

Final adoption of Emergency Budget
Link to decision 30 July 2020

Democracy Services

Elected members expense policy

Responsibility to adopt expense policy rules for Remuneration Authority approval

Adoption of policy 30 July 2020
Link to decision

People and Performance

Appointment of Chief Executive

Statutory requirement

Decision to appoint a new chief executive June 2020 in confidential

Chief Executive appointed July 2020
Link to announcement

 

Water Strategy

Monitoring drought situation.

 

Update from Watercare 25 June 2020
Link to decision

Update on water matters from Auckland Council 25 June 2020
Link to decision

Drought Restrictions Summer 2020/2021 24 September 2020
Link to decision

Review of Drought Restrictions for the 2020/2021 summer season 26 November 2020
Link to decision

Going forward this subject will be dealt with at the Environment and Climate Change Committee.


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

Summary of Confidential Decisions and related information released into Open

File No.: CP2021/02738

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To note confidential decisions and related information released into the public domain.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of confidential decisions made that can now be released into the public domain.

3.       The following decisions/documents are now publicly available:

Date of Decision

Subject

11/3/21

Regional Fuel Tax:  Adoption of consultation proposal

 

4.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary.  Governing Body members should direct any questions to the authors of the original item.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note the confidential decision and related information that is now publicly available:

i)        Regional Fuel Tax:  Adoption of consultation proposal.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

11/3/21 - Regional Fuel Tax:  Adoption of consultation proposal (Orginal repot from the Extraordinary Planning Committee meeting of 11 March 2021)

119

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 


Governing Body

25 March 2021

 

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Governing Body

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       CONFIDENTIAL:  Recommendation from the Appointments and Performance Review Committee - Chief Executive Performance Objectives - update on workforce and Full Time Equivalent

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, the report contains contains information that relates to the performance objectives for the chief executive, and the committee my discuss matters relating to the chief executive's current performance.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 



[1] Remits cover issues which direct LGNZ’s policy advocacy on behalf of member councils, to central government