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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 27 May 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 Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Pippa Coom

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Angela Dalton

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

 

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

 

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

 

Cr Richard Hills

 

 

Cr Tracy Mulholland

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Sarndra O'Toole

Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

 

21 May 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

27 May 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          Submission on freedom camping proposal to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment                                                                                                            9

10        Options for inclusion of General Rules in a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 51

11        Recommendation from the Regulatory Committee - Proposal to amend the Animal Management Bylaw                                                                                                     73

12        Recommendation from the Regulatory Committee - Proposal to make a new Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw                                                                         157

13        Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Enterprise Risk Update - May 2021                                                                                                                                     237

14        Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance                                                                         261

15        Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Review                                                                                                                         275

16        Regional Fuel Tax Variation Proposal (Covering report)                                      279

17        Review of the Auckland Council Elected Members Code of Conduct                281

18        Nomination to Alleva Animal Health Limited Animal Ethics Committee            405

19        Appointment of Heritage Advisory Panel member                                                409

20        Summary of Governing Body information memoranda, workshops and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) - 27 May 2021                                     423

21        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

22        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               435

C1       CONFIDENTIAL:  Nomination to Alleva Animal Health Limited Animal Ethics Committee                                                                                                                  435

C2       CONFIDENTIAL: Appointment to the Heritage Advisory Panel                           435


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:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 29 April 2021 and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 25 May 2021, 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

27 May 2021

 

 

Submission on freedom camping proposal to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

File No.: CP2021/05968

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the Auckland Council submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on proposed changes to support effective management of freedom camping in New Zealand.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is seeking public feedback on four proposed changes to support effective management of freedom camping in New Zealand, to:

·    make it mandatory for freedom camping in a vehicle to be done in a certified self-contained vehicle; or

·    make it mandatory for freedom campers to stay in a vehicle that is certified self-contained, unless they are staying at a site with toilet facilities (excluding public conservation lands and regional parks); and

·    improve the regulatory tools for government land managers; and

·    strengthen the requirements for self-contained vehicles.

3.       Staff seek a recommendation that the Governing Body approve the attached Auckland Council submission on the proposed changes. The submission:

·    supports Proposals One, Three and Four, noting their limitations and recommending amendments

·    does not support Proposal Two as the exception for regional parks is unworkable, and suitable sites with toilet facilities would need to be clearly defined and designated for the proposal to be effective and enforceable in urban areas such as Auckland

·    recommends the government clarify that the Freedom Camping Act 2011 is not intended to be used to manage homelessness, to support public understanding and to guide compliance and enforcement staff

·    notes that transition arrangements are not relevant for Auckland at this time, as council has not yet made a bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act 2011

·    considers that the use of general rules in freedom camping bylaws should be clarified in the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

4.       Elected member, local board and Independent Māori Statutory Board member views were sought on a draft submission in May 2021. Eleven local boards[1] and two elected members[2] provided a view. The submission was amended to include suggestions and to address concerns about defining homelessness for exclusion from the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and concerns that Proposal One would disadvantage lower-income campers.

5.       There are risks that some people or organisations may not agree with aspects of council’s submission. This is mitigated by the opportunity provided to any member of the public to provide their view on the proposals.

6.       Approval of the submission will enable council to contribute to the development of a more effective national approach to freedom camping. The council was granted an extension to lodge a submission by 28 May 2021. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will report and make recommendations to the Minister of Tourism on all feedback received.

7.       Timeframes for any changes to the Act have not been confirmed. The intention is for any changes to take effect before January 2022.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      approve the Auckland Council submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in Attachment A of this agenda report on proposed changes to support effective management of freedom camping in New Zealand.

b)      agree that staff can lodge the Auckland Council submission in Attachment A of this agenda report on proposed changes to support effective management of freedom camping in New Zealand with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment by 28 May 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Council submission on proposed changes to freedom camping

11

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Rebekah Forman - Principal Policy Analyst

Elizabeth Osborne - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

27 May 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

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

27 May 2021

 

 

Options for inclusion of General Rules in a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw

File No.: CP2021/03424

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek a decision on whether to include General Rules in the statement of proposal for a new Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw, and if Rules are to be included, the preferred settings.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In March 2021, the Governing Body agreed a preferred way forward for freedom camping regulation (GB/2021/19) and directed staff to begin work on a new statement of proposal for a bylaw to be made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 (the Act).

3.       To inform the new statement of proposal, staff advice was requested on the potential inclusion of ‘General Rules’, and possible settings for the Rules. The need for General Rules was a theme of public feedback and local board views received in 2019.

4.       ‘General Rules’ is a term used to describe standard rules which apply to all scheduled restricted areas, and/or to areas unscheduled in the bylaw, such as roads.

5.       The Regulatory Committee decided not to include General Rules in the draft bylaw in 2018, due to concerns about possible impacts on people experiencing homelessness. Council has however committed to a compassionate enforcement approach to protect vulnerable Aucklanders.

General Rules can reduce risk of harms and help manage generalised impacts

6.       General Rules can be a useful tool to manage general impacts from freedom camping, including environmental, health and safety and access impacts that would otherwise occur everywhere, and to the same extent. Individual areas that justify protection for specific, localised reasons can be individually scheduled in the bylaw.

7.       General Rules can also help prevent the displacement of harms from protected areas to nearby unregulated areas, particularly the road network.

8.       Scheduled restricted areas may have additional restrictions (over and above the General Rules that apply everywhere), such as limits on the number of vehicles.

Staff consider General Rules are permissible if made in accordance with the Act

9.       General Rules are not explicitly contemplated by the Act, which allows uncontrolled freedom camping by default, but staff consider that they are permissible as long as the same legislative requirements are met as for any other prohibition or restriction.

10.     The policy intent must be to legitimately protect areas from known harms, not to prohibit or restrict freedom camping in principle. Council must also consider the cumulative effect of all prohibitions and restrictions in the bylaw and other enactments, including the Reserves Act 1977, and ensure they do not create an effective ban.


 

 

Four possible rules identified to manage generalised impacts

11.     Following analysis, staff identified six generalised impacts, which:

·   are caused by freedom camping, specifically (staying in a vehicle overnight, not legally parking it during the day)

·   could be expected to occur to a similar extent across all areas

·   relate to the three statutory justifications for protecting areas in the Act

·   could be effectively and appropriately managed by General Rules.

12.     Staff identified four possible General Rules which could help to prevent or manage these six impacts, and following analysis, have recommended the most appropriate settings for each rule. The staff-developed package of General Rules and settings is:

1)    Freedom campers must use certified self-contained vehicles, unless staying in a scheduled restricted area identified as suitable for non-self-contained vehicles

2)    Freedom campers in vehicles may stay a maximum of two nights in the same street/off-street parking area

3)    Freedom campers in vehicles must vacate their parking space by 9am on the day of departure

4)    Freedom campers in vehicles may not return to stay in the same street/off-street parking area within a two-week period.

13.     Staff completed an overall comparative assessment of two options:

·   Option A: No General Rules

·   Option B: General Rules (staff-developed package).

Staff recommend Option B: General Rules as it reduces risk of harms

14.     Staff recommend Option B: General Rules (staff-developed package) for inclusion in a new statement of proposal for a Freedom Camping in Vehicles bylaw. In making this recommendation staff have considered the cumulative impact, key pros and cons, and the outcome of the comparative assessment.

15.     Option B would support responsible freedom camping, manage impacts efficiently and respond to community concerns. Staff also consider that Option B aligns with the Governing Body’s policy intent and the statutory justifications for protection in the Act and are satisfied it would not create an effective ban.

16.     The key trade-off if Option B is preferred is that Option A: No General Rules would enable freedom camping in non-self-contained vehicles to continue, which is more equitable. Lower-income campers are less likely to be able to afford self-contained vehicles, and under Option B may no longer be able to freedom camp in Auckland.

17.     The key risk of Option A: No General Rules is that it would not manage the identified environmental, public health and safety and access impacts, and the resulting harms would erode social licence for freedom camping in Auckland.

18.     The key risk of Option B: General Rules (staff-developed package) relates to compliance with the Freedom Camping Act 2011. Staff have looked closely at the requirements of the Act in developing this advice and will continue to monitor the cumulative impact as the bylaw is developed.

19.     Following a decision on the preferred option, staff will continue work on a new statement of proposal for public consultation in late 2021.

 


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      agree that Option B: General Rules is the preferred approach for inclusion in a new statement of proposal for a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw.

b)      agree that the following General Rules and settings should be proposed to apply to all unscheduled areas managed by a proposed Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw:

i)        Freedom campers must use certified self-contained vehicles, unless staying in a scheduled restricted area identified as suitable for non-self-contained vehicles

ii)       Freedom campers in vehicles may stay a maximum of two nights in the same street/off-street parking area

iii)      Freedom campers in vehicles must vacate their parking space by 9am on the day of departure

iv)      Freedom campers in vehicles may not return to stay in the same street/off-street parking area within a two-week period.

c)      note that the views of the Joint Political Working Group on preferred options were not available at the time of writing and will be provided as a supplementary paper for the Governing Body’s consideration.

Horopaki

Context

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

21.     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.

Freedom camping can impact other people and the environment

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

Table 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.

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.

Already regulated by other legislation/bylaws.

23.     As pressure on public space (and especially open space) increases in a growing and intensifying city, primary harms can cause widespread community concern. Perceptions of displacement and privatisation of scarce public space can erode social license for freedom camping, even where freedom campers are camping responsibly.

24.     Secondary harms are caused by people camping irresponsibly, with potentially serious impacts on the environment and public health and safety.

 

Research and compliance data shows that primary harms are the most common

25.     Council has data about freedom camping harms from a range of sources, including:

·   a People’s Panel survey undertaken in 2015

·   site monitoring during the freedom camping research pilot in 2017

·   public complaints about freedom camping, regionwide

·   site observations by council’s seasonal Responsible Camping Ambassadors.

26.     The People’s Panel survey completed by 4,185 Aucklanders in 2015 found 45 per cent of panellists had seen others freedom camping in the region. Of those:

·   57 per cent saw people freedom camping in an area where it was not permitted

·   55 per cent did not observe the freedom campers they saw causing any problems

·   Of the 45 per cent who did see problems:

o 30 per cent noticed littering

o 20 per cent saw large amounts of public space/parking made unavailable

o 17 per cent saw ‘unsanitary practices’.

27.     Regular compliance monitoring of 27 restricted areas designated as part of the freedom camping research pilot in 2017 identified a broadly similar pattern:

·   multiple breaches of self-containment requirements (at 11 out of 27 sites), and campers parking outside designated areas (15 out of 27 sites)

·   a small number of littering/rubbish dumping offences (3 out of 27 sites) and overuse/fouling of public toilets (2 out of 27 sites).

28.     Designated restricted areas are more likely to experience overcrowding and associated harms, compared with the unscheduled areas covered by General Rules.

29.     However, this trend is also found in regionwide public complaints data to council about freedom camping. Public complaints are more likely to be about illegal camping than irresponsible camping. Where irresponsible behaviours are observed, the most common complaints relate to littering, the leaving of toilet waste and noise.

Table 2: Public complaints related to freedom camping, July 2016 – May 2021

Time period

Total complaints*

Potentially homeless

Presence of campers

Littering

Toilet waste

Noise

Three years

Jul 2016 to Jun 2019

1479

37%

60%

9%

5%

4%

Jul 2019 to Jun 2020

574

25%

55%

16%

12%

4%

Jul 2020 to May 21

704

24%

49%

16%

14%

6%

Note: staff have had to manually categorise complaints data to identify freedom camping harms.

Percentages do not add up to 100% as a complaint may identify more than one issue.

30.     As shown in the table above, the total number of complaints has increased in the last year despite the lack of international visitors. Complaints relating to the leaving of litter and toilet waste have also increased as a proportion of the total.

31.     Staff note that a proportion of camping-related complaints are made about people who enforcement staff consider to be experiencing homelessness, not freedom campers.

 

32.     Responsible Camping Ambassadors also record any freedom camping harms they observe during site visits. In nearly all visits made during the 2020-21 summer period, popular freedom camping areas and their facilities were found in good condition:

·   Litter was observed in only 1 per cent of site checks

·   Rubbish dumping (both suspected freedom camping-related and not) was observed in 4 per cent of checks

·   Public bathroom facilities were in ‘good’ or ‘fair’ condition in 98 per cent of checks.

33.     Although there is some variation across these data sources, the evidence suggests:

·   many freedom campers do camp responsibly

·   freedom campers may be more likely to camp responsibly at designated freedom camping areas that are regularly monitored, although overcrowding can exacerbate problems

·   the focus of public concern is illegal camping, and the impacts freedom camping can have on shared public space.

The Freedom Camping Act 2011 is permissive by default, but provides for regulation

34.     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 council, except where it is already prohibited under another enactment.

35.     This default position means anybody can legally stay in a vehicle overnight on council land (excluding reserves), as long as they comply with:

·   any parking restrictions in the area

·   any general laws and bylaws that already apply in public places (such as appropriately disposing of rubbish, and obeying fire and liquor bans).

36.     This is the starting point, before any regulation of freedom camping at the local level.

37.     While the Act is permissive in intent, it does provide for councils to make bylaws to prohibit or restrict freedom camping in areas where certain statutory tests are met, including that:

·   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 need for the prohibition or restriction in an area must be supported by evidence, and/or justification for believing there will be a problem if the freedom camping bylaw does not regulate it

·   a freedom camping 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 cumulative prohibitions and restrictions (including any areas already protected under other enactments) don’t effectively create an Auckland-wide ban.

‘General Rules’ regulate freedom camping everywhere it is allowed

38.     ‘General Rules’ is a term used to describe standard rules which apply to all scheduled restricted areas, and/or to local authority areas unscheduled in the bylaw, such as roads.

39.     Scheduled restricted areas may have additional requirements over and above the General Rules, for example capping the number of freedom camping vehicles allowed at that site.

40.     General Rules wouldn’t apply in scheduled prohibited areas, as no freedom camping is allowed at those sites.

Including General Rules may help prevent and manage freedom camping harms

41.     General Rules can be a useful tool to manage broad scale and cumulative harms from freedom camping in vehicles, which also helps to ensure social license for freedom camping in Auckland is maintained or improved.

42.     These include both primary harms relating to access to public space, and those secondary harms relating to environmental damage and public health and safety which are strongly associated with freedom camping.

43.     General Rules can also help address displacement of harms from protected areas to unregulated areas, particularly the road network, which may otherwise occur where freedom campers:

·   want to camp at scheduled prohibited areas, including reserves, and park on directly adjacent roads to circumvent the prohibition

·   have been unable to find space at scheduled restricted areas (which limit vehicle numbers) and so overflow onto adjacent areas and roads, particularly near popular areas during the peak summer season

·   permanently live in vehicles (voluntarily, for lifestyle reasons), and may otherwise seek to stay long-term on unregulated roads in desirable residential areas.

44.     Staff note that if no General Rules are included, individual areas could still be added to the bylaw schedule as and when protection can be justified under the Act. This would however create a more reactive management approach with the bylaw requiring regular amendment.

General Rules must meet same legislative tests as other restrictions or prohibitions

45.     General Rules are not explicitly provided for by the Act and there is some ongoing ambiguity as to whether they are an appropriate form of restriction or prohibition in freedom camping bylaws.

46.     The Act is fundamentally permissive, but it does allow restriction or prohibition of freedom camping where it is appropriate to do so in accordance with the Act. General Rules have the effect of reducing the number of areas in a region that are available for unrestricted freedom camping.

47.     Many local authorities have made multiple attempts to find the balance between satisfying national legislative requirements and responding to local needs and concerns. Some freedom camping bylaws have been (or are) subject to legal action, challenging whether this balance has been achieved.

48.     Staff consider that General Rules are permissible under the Act provided:

·   the policy intent in setting Rules is to legitimately protect areas from known harms, not to prohibit freedom camping in principle or unjustifiably restrict it

·   the Rules meet the same legislative requirements as any other prohibition or restriction in the bylaw

·   the council considers the cumulative impact of the Rules alongside all other relevant controls, under the bylaw or other enactments (for example the Reserves Act 1977), to ensure the combined effect is not an effective ban.

49.     The larger and more disparate the area to be protected, the more difficult it is to justify protection in terms of the Act (refer paragraph 37).

50.     Council must therefore be reasonably satisfied that any General Rules it sets would help to prevent or manage generalised impacts that would otherwise occur to the same extent across all the areas covered by the Rules, meaning all areas would justify the same level of protection.


 

 

51.     A problem that might occur in one place covered by the Rules can’t be used to justify protection across the whole area. Individual areas where there is a risk of specific localised impacts – for example there are known access limitations, or sensitive ecology – should instead be individually scheduled in the bylaw.

General Rules were not included in the 2018 draft freedom camping bylaw because of concerns about the impact on people experiencing homelessness

52.     A draft Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka / Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw was developed in 2018 and released for public feedback and local board input in 2019.

53.     The Regulatory Committee discussed General Rules and decided not to include any in this statement of proposal, due to concerns about the potential impact on people experiencing homelessness (REG/2018/64).

54.     Council has however committed to a compassionate enforcement approach to ensure freedom camping bylaws are not used to manage homelessness.

Support for a general rule has been a key theme from engagement feedback

55.     Staff have conducted research and engagement activities throughout the bylaw development process to understand stakeholder views on freedom camping.

56.     The absence of General Rules to manage the impacts of freedom camping wherever it may occur was a theme of the feedback received on the 2018 draft bylaw.

57.     Of particular concern was the potential for freedom camping (and its associated harms) to be displaced from prohibited and restricted areas to nearby areas, including roads, where there would be no regulations.

58.     During public consultation and local board engagement:

·   2,711 submissions were received on the draft bylaw in 2019, of which 100 specifically commented on the need for General Rules

·   16 local boards gave formal feedback to a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw Panel (the Bylaw Panel), of which eight mentioned General Rules

·   Māori, although not discussing General Rules specifically, raised concerns about the:

o potential for environmental pollution from freedom camping

o need for sufficient dump stations for waste disposal

o potential impacts of freedom camping regulation on people experiencing homelessness.

59.     Typical examples of public feedback on General Rules are shown in the box below.

Figure 1: Sample of public feedback on General Rules for freedom camping in Auckland


 

 

 

60.     A majority of submitters on the 2018 draft bylaw supported a:

·   maximum two-night stay

·   mandatory departure time no later than 9am

·   requirement for vehicles to be certified self-contained in those areas without 24-hour access to toilet facilities.

61.     Although this feedback was given in relation to proposed restricted areas, not General Rules, it gives an indication of views on possible preferred settings for General Rules.

62.     In response to public and local board feedback, in August 2019 the Bylaw Panel recommended to the Governing Body that General Rules be reconsidered for inclusion in a new statement of proposal.

Most other local authorities include some form of ‘General Rules’ in their bylaws, but this does not mean Auckland Council should do so

63.     Staff surveyed the freedom camping bylaws of 17 local authorities, including Wellington, Christchurch and Hamilton, and found 14 contain General Rules.

64.     These include General Rules relating to:

·   Vehicle classification: whether vehicles must be certified self-contained (CSC), or can be non-self-contained (NSC)

·   Maximum length of stay: capping stays at a set number of consecutive nights

·   Morning departure time: setting a time that campers must vacate an area by

·   Prohibiting sites by category: applying rules to groups of places, like cemeteries

·   Parking: requiring campers to park within defined spaces where available

·   Non-return period: requiring campers not to return to the same site for a set time.

65.     Although this provides some useful context, the inclusion of General Rules – and which Rules other councils have included – is not a relevant consideration in determining whether General Rules are appropriate for Auckland.

66.     Because General Rules are not a concept derived from the legislation, each local authority has designed and applied them in different ways. This reflects that each authority has a different starting point in terms of the specific problems they face in their territory, what they are aiming to achieve with a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw, and relevant provisions contained in their existing bylaw framework.

67.     Further, the inclusion of General Rules by other local authorities does not mean that their bylaws are compliant with the Freedom Camping Act 2011, only that they have not been subject to challenge in the Courts.

68.     Staff note that the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association is in the process of challenging two other councils’ Freedom Camping Act 2011 Bylaws (Queenstown Lakes District Council and Marlborough District Council). It is not clear at this stage the extent to which those challenges relate to General Rules.


 

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Staff have identified nine generalised impacts of freedom camping and possible general rules to manage these impacts

69.     Following analysis, staff have identified nine generalised impacts, which:

·   are caused by freedom camping, specifically (staying in a vehicle overnight, not legally parking it during the day)

·   could be expected to occur to a similar extent across all restricted and unscheduled areas

·   relate to the three statutory justifications for protecting areas that are contained within the Act

·   could be managed by General Rules.

70.     For each generalised impact, staff have identified possible General Rules which could help to prevent or manage it.

71.     The table below outlines six of these impacts, four possible rules and alternative responses that were considered.

Table 2: Generalised freedom camping impacts that could be effectively managed by General Rules

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Three other potential impacts were identified but General Rules are not proposed

72.     Staff identified three further potential generalised impacts as shown in the table below. General Rules are not recommended to manage these impacts. Responsible camping behaviour can be reinforced as part of bylaw guidance and communications material.

Table 3: Generalised freedom camping impacts that would NOT be effectively managed by General Rules

Table

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Staff propose the following package of General Rules to manage regionwide impacts are included in the statement of proposal for a new Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw:

1)    a self-containment rule

2)    a maximum stay rule

3)    a set departure time rule

4)    a no-return period rule.

Options for settings for four General Rules to manage impacts

73.     The table below sets out the rationale and options for each proposed rule and outline the key pros and cons for each setting.

 Table 4: Analysis of possible settings for four proposed General Rules

Table

Description automatically generated

 

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Graphical user interface, text

Description automatically generated

 

Table

Description automatically generated

 

Table

Description automatically generated

Staff propose the following specific settings for the proposed General Rules are included in the statement of proposal for a new Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw:

1)   Freedom campers must use certified self-contained vehicles, unless staying in a scheduled restricted area identified as suitable for non-self-contained vehicles

2)   Freedom campers in vehicles may stay a maximum of two nights in the same street/off-street parking area

3)   Freedom campers in vehicles must vacate their parking space by 9am on the day of departure

4)   Freedom campers in vehicles may not return to stay in the same street/off-street parking area within a two-week period.

Staff have completed an overall comparative assessment of two options: Option A (No General Rules) and Option B (General Rules – staff-developed package)

74.     Staff have completed an overall comparative assessment of two options to support decision-making.

Table 5: Two options for the purpose of comparative assessment

Text

Description automatically generated

Staff have considered the cumulative impact of all prohibitions and restrictions, and advise neither option would constitute an effective ban

75.     In March 2021 the Governing Body agreed that the prohibited and restricted areas recommended by the Bylaw Panel (excluding reserves) would form the basis of a new statement of proposal for a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw (GB/2021/19).

76.     Whether to include General Rules (and if so, what Rules) is the only decision outstanding before staff develop the new statement of proposal.

77.     This enables staff to make a preliminary assessment of whether the net effect of:

·   Option A: General Rules or Option B: No General Rules (staff-developed package), plus

·   individual areas recommended by the Bylaw Panel to be scheduled as prohibited and restricted, excluding reserves (for inclusion in the statement of proposal), plus

prohibitions created through other enactments, would constitute an effective ban on freedom camping in Auckland.


 

 

 

78.     The table below represents an estimate of this net effect.

Table 6: Estimated cumulative impact of options on availability of freedom camping areas

 

79.     Staff take an ‘effective ban’ to mean that no, or effectively no, freedom camping could legally occur in Auckland once the bylaw was adopted.

80.     As most freedom camping in Auckland already occurs in self-contained vehicles, and even with General Rules in place most areas in Auckland would allow freedom camping in self-contained vehicles for up to two nights, staff are satisfied that neither option would constitute an effective ban.

81.     Staff note however that any draft bylaw will be subject to consultation and therefore is subject to change. Staff will continue to assess the overall impact of proposed restrictions and prohibitions as the process continues.


 

 

Option A enables more freedom camping; Option B better prevents/manages harms

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

Table 7: Key pros and cons of options

Key ‘pros’

Key ‘cons’

Option A: No General Rules

·  Avoids any need to deal with the ambiguity as to whether General Rules are an appropriate form of restriction or prohibition under the Act, which does not explicitly contemplate General Rules.

·  Provides areas for freedom camping in non-self-contained vehicles. These vehicles are more likely to be used by people on low incomes, and most non-self-contained campers camp responsibly.

·  Camping is allowed without restriction in all unscheduled areas, including most roads.

·  Reduces the potential for vulnerable Aucklanders to experience any additional stress or stigmatisation if they have no choice but to live in a vehicle.

·  Reduces the likelihood that the public will expect more responsive compliance monitoring and enforcement across all areas in Auckland.

·   Removes an opportunity to mandate responsible camping behaviour to prevent freedom camping harms.

·   Could have the effect of displacing freedom camping and associated harms onto unscheduled areas, including roads, that are near prohibited areas or near restricted areas that are already full.

·   Even where freedom campers camp responsibly, placing no limits on freedom camping in unscheduled areas may lead to perceptions of privatisation of public space and a loss of social licence for freedom camping in Auckland.

·   No effective enforcement tools if primary harms occur in unscheduled areas.

·   Regular reviews will be required to assess and schedule emerging ‘hot spot’ areas.

Option B General Rules (staff package)

·  Helps proactively prevent and manage freedom camping harms, including potential environmental contamination and public health and safety risks.

·  Proposed rules respond to generalised impacts (that can occur to the same extent in any area) which align with the statutory justifications for protection within the Act, and with typical camper behaviour.

·  Staff do not consider that the cumulative impact of the proposed package of General Rules, other bylaw prohibitions and restrictions and Reserves Act 1977 protections constitutes an effective ban. Self-contained camping (which presents the lowest risk) can still occur across most of Auckland, subject to reasonable restrictions.

 

·  Placing some reasonable restrictions on freedom camping in unscheduled areas to protect public access should ensure social licence is retained for freedom camping in Auckland.

·  Provides greater transparency and clarity in relation to council’s requirements for responsible freedom camping anywhere in Auckland, supporting clear communication to campers and the public.

·  Provides for enforcement if primary harms occur in unscheduled areas.

·   The cumulative impact of General Rules, other bylaw prohibitions and restrictions and Reserves Act protections would result in a very small number of areas (or potentially no areas), where non-self-contained camping can occur in Auckland.

·   Could increase the potential for vulnerable Aucklanders to experience additional stress or stigmatisation if they have no choice but to live in a vehicle, noting that enforcement officers will continue to take a compassionate approach, and not use the bylaw to manage homelessness.

·   The public may expect more responsive compliance monitoring and enforcement across all areas in Auckland, and there is no additional resource for higher service levels.

 

 

 

·   Freedom campers will need to identify, understand and comply with additional rules when visiting Auckland, compared with Option A.

 

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

83.     Staff used six assessment criteria to compare the options:

The assessment criteria consider:

The extent to which each option addresses relevant matters from the adopted policy intent (GB/2021/19) to:

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

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

3)   enable freedom camping to occur, but only in suitable areas (where protection is not justified).

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

4)   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

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

6)   be feasible to implement within statutory timeframes.

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


 

 

85.     The outcome of the comparative assessment is summarised in the table below.

Table 8: Results of assessment of Option A: No General Rules and Option B: General Rules (staff package)

Option B: General Rules (staff-developed package) is the recommended option

86.     Staff recommend Option B: General Rules (staff-developed package) for inclusion in a new statement of proposal for a Freedom Camping in Vehicles bylaw.

87.     In making this recommendation staff have considered the cumulative impact, key pros and cons, and the outcome of the comparative assessment. Staff consider that Option B would not constitute an effective ban on freedom camping in Auckland.

88.     Option B General Rules (staff-developed package) is recommended because it:

·   supports responsible freedom camping, manages impacts efficiently, and responds to community concerns

·   will only manage known and regionwide impacts aligned to the Act’s statutory protection criteria

·   imposes limitations that are justified to prevent or manage primary harms from responsible camping, and secondary harms from freedom camping in areas not suitable for non-self-contained vehicles

·   preserves social licence for freedom camping in Auckland, by managing displacement and privatisation of public space

·   allows self-contained vehicles to responsibly camp across most of the region

·   aligns with most camper preferences and does not unduly constrain the normal behaviour or movement of campers

·   supports the compassionate enforcement approach to vulnerable communities

·   allows enforcement action to occur where actual harms are observed

·   requires fewer bylaw changes in the future to manage ‘hot-spot’ areas.

Key trade-off is that Option A is the more equitable option, and better provides for the needs of lower income campers and vulnerable Aucklanders

89.     Option A: No General Rules would enable freedom camping in non-self-contained vehicles to continue, which is the more equitable policy position.

90.     Lower-income campers are less likely to be able to afford to rent or upgrade to certified self-contained vehicles. Under Option B lower-income campers may no longer be able to freedom camp in Auckland.


 

 

91.     Staff note there are other low-cost accommodation options for campers without self-contained vehicles, including council- and DOC-run campgrounds. It is acknowledged however that these campgrounds may still be too expensive for some Aucklanders and visitors, and that paid-for camping is not freedom camping.

92.     Option A could also reduce stress and stigmatisation for vulnerable Aucklanders. It reduces fear of enforcement action under the General Rules, regardless of the council’s stated intent to take a compassionate enforcement approach.

93.     Option A also allows campers to stay for longer periods in unscheduled areas, including the road network. This could support regional dispersal of freedom camping activity, and enable longer visits and higher spending by freedom campers.

Adopting General Rules may increase public expectations of compliance response

94.     Adopting Option B General Rules (staff-developed package) may increase public expectations of the council’s compliance response.

95.     The Governing Body has requested costed options for increasing enforcement service levels (GB/2021/19), and these will be provided with the new statement of proposal.

Implications of possible changes to the Freedom Camping Act 2011

96.     In April 2021 the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment Innovation (MBIE) released a discussion document outlining four proposals for changes to the Freedom Camping Act 2011, including:

·   Proposal 1: making self-contained vehicles mandatory for all freedom camping

·   Proposal 2: making self-contained vehicles mandatory for freedom camping except at sites with toilet facilities and in regional parks.

97.     Auckland Council’s draft submission is an item on the agenda for this meeting.

98.     A council General Rule relating to vehicle self-containment may or may not be required, depending on the government’s future decision making.

Timeframes for any changes to the Act have not been confirmed. The intention is for any changes to take effect prior to January 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

99.     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

100.   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.

101.   The council group, including the Licensing and Compliance and Auckland Transport, have provided input to the development of this advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

102.   In 2019, 16 local boards provided formal feedback on the proposed Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2018, following on from earlier engagement in 2017.

 

103.   Key concerns expressed by local boards relevant to General Rules were:

·   provision for unrestricted freedom camping in their area if there are no General Rules, including the loss of protection in the legacy bylaws for most roadsides

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

·   the potential effect on people experiencing homelessness.

104.   Three local board chairs participated in a joint political working group to provide views on the General Rule options. This meeting was held on 21 May 2021. The working party views will be provided as an addendum to the agenda.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

105.   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.

106.   Relevant matters raised by Māori during engagement included the need to ensure:

·   a compassionate approach to people experiencing homelessness

·   provision of sufficient dump stations to avoid environmental pollution.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

107.   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

108.   The key risks and possible mitigations for both options are outlined in the table below.

109.   As the bylaw development progresses, staff will work closely with Legal Services to review the draft bylaw for legal compliance.

Table 9: Risk assessment of options

 

* (Likelihood, consequence)

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

110.   The preferred option will be included in a new statement of proposal for a freedom camping bylaw, for consultation in late 2021.

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

 


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Rebekah Forman - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 

 


Governing Body

27 May 2021

 

 

Recommendation from the Regulatory Committee - Proposal to amend the Animal Management Bylaw

File No.: CP2021/05895

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive recommendations from the Regulatory Committee on the Proposal to amend the Animal Management Bylaw.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       At its meeting on 11 May 2021, the Regulatory Committee considered the item and resolved as follows:

“Resolution number REG/202130

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      note that this committee completed the review of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 in March 2020 and determined that a bylaw about animals is still the most appropriate way to address risks to public health and safety, nuisance, offensive behaviour and misuse of council-controlled public places caused by people interacting with animals.

b)      recommend the Governing Body adopt the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report for public consultation, and confirm that the proposed Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe / Animal Management Bylaw 2015:

i)       is the most appropriate form of bylaw

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

c)      recommend the Governing Body forward to local boards this agenda report and attachments for their information.

d)      recommend the Governing Body delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws the matters in clause g) ii).

e)      appoint a chair and two Bylaw Panel members, Cr Linda Cooper, Cr Cathy Casey, and IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox selected from the Governing Body and the Independent Māori Statutory Board, to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events and to deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the statement of proposal in clause b).

f)       delegate authority to the Regulatory Committee chairperson to make replacement appointments to the Bylaw Panel if a panel member is unavailable.

g)      delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws:

i)       to appoint staff to receive public feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events

ii)       to make any amendments to the proposal in clause b) to correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory Committee or the Governing Body.”

3.       The Regulatory Committee requested changes to the Statement of Proposal prior to it being presented to the Governing Body.  Those changes have been made and an amended Statement of Proposal with changes highlighted is appended at Attachment A.

4.       The original report provided to the Regulatory Committee, with attachments, can be accessed at the following link:

https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2021/05/REG_20210511_AGN_10503_AT.htm#PDF2_ReportName_79239

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      adopt the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of the original agenda report for public consultation, and confirm that the proposed Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe / Animal Management Bylaw 2015:

i) is the most appropriate form of bylaw

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

b)      forward the original agenda report and attachments to local boards for their information.

c)      delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws:

i)        to make any amendments to the proposal in clause a) to correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory Committee or the Governing Body.

d)      note Panel members, Cr Linda Cooper (chair), Cr Cathy Casey, and Independent Māori Statutory Board Member Glenn Wilcox will attend ‘Have Your Say’ events and deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the statement of proposal in clause a).

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Amended Statement of Proposal - Animal Management Bylaw

75

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

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

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

27 May 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

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

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

27 May 2021

 

 

Recommendation from the Regulatory Committee - Proposal to make a new Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw

File No.: CP2021/05897

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive recommendation from the Regulatory Committee on the Proposal to make a new Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       At its meeting on 11 May 2021, the Regulatory Committee considered the item and resolved as follows:

“Resolution number REG/2021/31

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      note that this committee completed the review of the Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 in October 2020 and determined that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address trading activities, events and filming in council-controlled public places.

b)      recommend the Governing Body adopt the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report for public consultation, and confirm that the proposed new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Tauhokohoko, Whakahaerenga me te Tango Kiriata Tūmatanui 2022 / Auckland Council Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022:

i)       is the most appropriate form of bylaw

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

iii)      is not inconsistent with the Reserves Act, Resource Management Act, Auckland Unitary Plan, Trespass Act, Fair Trading Act, Customer Guarantees Act, Road User Rule, Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, Electricity (Safety) Regulations, and Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw and Signage Bylaw.

c)      recommend the Governing Body forward to local boards this agenda report and attachments for their information.

d)      recommend the Governing Body delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws for matters in clause g) ii).

e)      appoint a chair and three Bylaw Panel members, Cr Linda Cooper, Cr Josephine Bartley, Cr Shane Henderson, and IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox, selected from the Governing Body and the Independent Māori Statutory Board to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events and to deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the Statement of Proposal in clause b).

f)       delegate authority to the Regulatory Committee chairperson to make replacement appointments to the Bylaw Panel if a panel member is unavailable.

g)      delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws:

i)       to appoint staff to receive public feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events

ii)       to make any amendments to the proposal in clause b) to correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory Committee or the Governing Body.”

3.       The Regulatory Committee requested changes to the Statement of Proposal prior to it being presented to the Governing Body.  Those changes have been made and an amended Statement of Proposal with changes highlighted is appended at Attachment A.

4.       The original report provided to the Regulatory Committee, with attachments, can be accessed at the following link:

https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2021/05/REG_20210511_AGN_10503_AT.htm#PDF2_ReportName_79314

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      adopt the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of the original agenda report for public consultation, and confirm that the proposed new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Tauhokohoko, Whakahaerenga me te Tango Kiriata Tūmatanui 2022 / Auckland Council Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022:

i) is the most appropriate form of bylaw

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

iii)      is not inconsistent with the Reserves Act, Resource Management Act, Auckland Unitary Plan, Trespass Act, Fair Trading Act, Customer Guarantees Act, Road User Rule, Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, Electricity (Safety) Regulations, and Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw and Signage Bylaw.

b)      forward the original agenda report and attachments to local boards for their information.

c)      note delegated authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws:

i)        to make any amendments to the proposal in clause b) to correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory Committee or the Governing Body.

d)      note Bylaw Panel members, Cr Linda Cooper (chair), Cr Josephine Bartley, Cr Shane Henderson, and Independent Māori Statutory Board Member Glenn Wilcox, will attend ‘Have Your Say’ events and deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the Statement of Proposal in clause a).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Amended Statement of Proposal - Trading Events and Filming Bylaw

159

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

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

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

27 May 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

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

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

27 May 2021

 

 

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

File No.: CP2021/05890

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.         The Audit and Risk Committee considered the Enterprise Risk Update – May 2021 at its meeting on 18 May 2021.

3.         The Audit and Risk Committee resolved as follows:

Resolution number AUD/2021/25

That the Audit and Risk Committee:

a)           note the Auckland Council Top Risk Quarterly Update

b)      refer the Auckland Council Top Risk Quarterly Update 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 – May 2021 report to the Audit and Risk Committee is appended as Attachment A.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      receive the Enterprise Risk Update – May 2021 (Attachment A of the agenda report).

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Original Enterprise Risk Update - May 2021 report to the Audit and Risk Committee on 18 May 2021

239

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

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

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

27 May 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


Governing Body

27 May 2021

 

 

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

File No.: CP2021/05892

 

  

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 18 May 2021.

3.       The Audit and Risk Committee resolved as follows:

Resolution number AUD/2021/23

That the Audit and Risk Committee:

a)           note the information provided and refer this report to the Governing Body.

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

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

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

b)      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 18 May 2021

263

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

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

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

27 May 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


Governing Body

27 May 2021

 

 

Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Review

File No.: CP2021/06043

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Review referred by the Audit and Risk Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Audit and Risk Committee considered the Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Review at its meeting on 18 May 2021.

3.       The Audit and Risk Committee resolved as follows:

Resolution number AUD/202124

That the Audit and Risk Committee:

a)      note the Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Review key findings.”

4.       The report is now being submitted to the Governing Body along with any commentary from the Audit and Risk Committee.

5.       The original Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Review report to the Audit and Risk Committee is appended as Attachment A.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      receive the Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Review report.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Review

277

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

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

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

27 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

27 May 2021

 

 

Regional Fuel Tax Variation Proposal (Covering report)

File No.: CP2021/06857

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To present consultation feedback and outline the process for finalising a variation to the Regional Fuel Tax scheme. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This is a late covering report for the above item. The comprehensive agenda report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be provided prior to the 27 May 2021 Governing Body meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

The recommendations will be provided in the comprehensive agenda report.


Governing Body

27 May 2021

 

 

Review of the Auckland Council Elected Members Code of Conduct

File No.: CP2021/04249

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To present a draft revised Auckland Council Elected Members Code of Conduct (Code) for adoption by the Governing Body, and appoint new Conduct Commissioners.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In November 2020 the Governing Body agreed the scope and process for a review of the Code. This was also agreed by local boards. 

3.       The content of the reviewed Code has been developed in line with the agreed scope and presented to local board workshops and formal business meetings. Local board feedback is considered in the report and some changes have been made to the Code as a result.

4.       Nineteen local boards support the proposed content, some with suggestions for changes. One local board received the report without feedback and the Kaipātiki Local Board feedback was pending at the time of preparing this report.

5.       In comparison to the current Code, the key changes are:

i)          succinct principles that guide conduct

ii)         a definition of material breaches of the Code – to separate out instances that are more serious in nature than others

iii)         a complaints procedure that:

a)   replaces the independent panel with a single Conduct Commissioner

b)   provides for additional sanctions for breaches of the Code

c)   requires those sanctions to be decided by the Conduct Commissioner

d)   provides for the publication of any findings following investigation of a formal complaint, to be decided by the Conduct Commissioner

iv)        the attachment of other existing documents relating to conduct

v)         a new policy and protocol on accessing and disclosing confidential information

vi)        new guidelines on social media.

6.       A sanction proposed in the reviewed Code is suspending an elected member from committees or other representative bodies to which they have been appointed. The power to implement a suspension cannot be delegated to an external person. Staff recommend that the Governing Body delegate to the Audit and Risk Committee the power to implement a suspension arising from a sanction determined by a Conduct Commissioner.

7.       Staff recommend that the operation of the Code is assessed following the 2022 elections.

8.       At this time, staff recommend appointing Conduct Commissioners who have been part of the current Conduct Review Independent Panel. Further work will be done on seeking a diverse range of conduct Commissioners, and these will be brought to the Governing Body for approval.

9.       The covering document of the Code is contained in Attachment A.

10.     The attachments to the Code are contained in Attachment B.

11.     A compilation of local board feedback is contained in Attachment C and a themed summary of their responses is included in Attachment D.

12.     A 75 percent vote is required to amend or adopt a code of conduct.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      receive the feedback from local boards as contained in Attachments C and D of the agenda report.

b)      adopt the covering document (not including attachments) as the Auckland Council Elected Members Code of Conduct, as contained in Attachment A of the agenda report, which includes:

i)        principles that guide conduct

ii)       a definition of material breaches of the Code

iii)      the complaints procedure

c)      adopt the following in Attachment B of the agenda report as attachments to the Auckland Council Elected Members Code of Conduct under which a complaint can specifically be made:

i)        Conflict of interest policy

ii)       Confidential information – policy and protocol

iii)      Working with staff policy

d)      adopt the following in Attachment B as attachments to the Auckland Council Elected Members Code of Conduct which give further policy and guidance relating to the conduct of elected members:

i)        Election year policy

ii)       Communications policy

iii)      Media protocols

iv)      Social media guidelines

v)      Governance roles and responsibilities

vi)      Legislation relevant to the conduct of members

e)      note that the Expense policy (which is included in attachments to the Code) is adopted separately as part of the process set by the Remuneration Authority

f)       recommend to the incoming Governing Body (following the 2022 elections) that it assess the operation of the Auckland Council Elected Members Code of Conduct

g)      agree that the newly adopted Auckland Council Elected Members Code of Conduct commence on 1 June 2021

h)      appoint as Conduct Commissioners those members of the current Conduct Review Independent Panel who have confirmed their availability:

i)        Professor Ron Paterson

ii)       Derek Firth

iii)      David McGregor

i)        note that a further report will be presented for the Governing Body to agree additional Conduct Commissioners who are appropriately qualified and who represent the diversity of Auckland

j)        delegate to the Audit and Risk Committee the power to suspend a member from committees or other representative bodies to which they have been appointed following a determination by a Conduct Commissioner

k)      authorise the Manager Governance Services and the Mayor, in finalising the document, to make minor amendments for the purpose of improving grammar or presentation or for clarifying meaning or for updating attachments that are amended by Governing Body resolution (such as the Expense policy).

Horopaki

Context

13.     The Local Government Act 2002 in schedule 7 clause 15 requires a local authority to adopt a code of conduct for members and:

“(2)         The code of conduct must set out—

(a)     understandings and expectations adopted by the local authority about the manner in which members may conduct themselves while acting in their capacity as members, including—

(i)         behaviour toward one another, staff, and the public; and

(ii)        disclosure of information, including (but not limited to) the provision of any document, to elected members that—

(A)    is received by, or is in the possession of, an elected member in his or her capacity as an elected member; and

(B)    relates to the ability of the local authority to give effect to any provision of this Act; and

(b) a general explanation of—

(i)     the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987; and

(ii)    any other enactment or rule of law applicable to members.”

14.     Each member must comply with a code of conduct, but a breach is not an offence under the Local Government Act 2002.

15.     The code of conduct adopted by the Auckland Council Governing Body applies to local board members (Schedule 7, Part 1A, clause 36B, Local Government Act 2002).

16.     There is no legal requirement to include a process for complaints.

17.     The current Code was last updated in 2013 by a political working party comprised of Governing Body and local board representatives which made recommendations to the Governing Body for adoption. A more recent review was commenced in 2018 but the amended Code was not adopted.

18.     In November 2020 the Governing Body received a report setting out the proposed scope and process to complete this review. That report set out the proposed areas for change and the reasons for change.

19.     The Governing Body resolved to:

a)    note the feedback from local boards provided in Attachment B

b)    agree that the scope of the review of the Auckland Council Code of Conduct will include consideration of:

i)     retaining and updating principles

ii)    retaining a process for complaints

iii)    appointing conduct commissioners

iv)   making reports of investigations by conduct commissioners public unless there are significant reasons to withhold them

v)    defining materiality

vi)   providing for sanctions which will be decided by conduct commissioners

vii)  providing policies on:

A)    conflicts of interest (including declarations on an interest register)

B)    confidential information access and disclosure

C)   election year

D)   communications

E)    media

F)    social media

G)   governance roles and responsibilities

H)   working with staff

I)     elected members expenses

c)    agree that the process for finalising the review includes a:

i)     draft Code being presented to a Governing Body workshop followed by local board workshops (February 2021)

ii)    second draft incorporating feedback from workshops being presented to the Governing Body / Local Board Chairs meeting for joint discussion (March 2021)

iii)    a final draft reported to local boards for formal feedback (April 2021)

iv)   a final draft reported to Governing Body for adoption (May 2021).

20.     The agreed process was undertaken except that the joint Governing Body / Local Board Chairs forum date did not fall at an appropriate time, so the final draft to local boards was presented to a local board chairs forum. Feedback has therefore been obtained through:

i)    a Governing Body workshop

ii)   local board workshops

iii)   local board business meetings.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21.     Feedback gathered from elected members and others on the first and second drafts included numerous suggestions for change, mostly to make the Code more robust rather than to make significant substantive changes.

22.     The formal feedback from local boards is contained in Attachment C. A themed summary of the feedback received and the response from staff is included in Attachment D. Nineteen local boards passed resolutions supporting the Code, some including suggestions for amendments. One local board passed a resolution receiving it and Kaipātiki Local Board had not finalised its feedback at the time of writing this report.

23.     The final draft Code that is attached reflects the feedback received. The following analysis sets out the key components of the final draft of the reviewed Code.


 

 

The Code as two documents

24.     The final draft Code consists of two documents:

·    the covering document contains the principles, a section on material breaches of the Code and a section on the complaint process

·    the attachments contain existing policies, protocols and guidelines that outline elected member conduct.

25.     A code of conduct is intended by the legislation to set out expectations and understandings of conduct, as adopted by a local authority. The proposal to bundle all documents that deal with conduct together is therefore sensible and has been agreed to as part of the scope.

26.     However, it is noted that some of these documents previously existed separately (for example, the Election year policy and the Expense policy). The question was raised of whether a breach of any of the attached documents leads to a breach of the Code of Conduct. This is clarified in the complaints section of the Code. Three of the attachments contain specific provisions leading to a breach of the Code, those being the Conflict of interest policy, the Confidential information – policy and protocol, and the Working with staff policy. The other documents can be used to inform an investigation into a breach under one of the principles.

27.     All attachments are to be adopted as part of the Code except the Expense policy which is adopted separately as part of the Remuneration Authority process.

Principles

28.     The revised Code proposes two principles – an ethical principle (‘trust’) and a relationship principle (‘respect’).

29.     There was no feedback suggesting further principles be added or that these should be changed substantively, but minor changes to wording have been made in response to feedback.

Application of the Code

30.     The Code applies to members of the Governing Body and local boards acting in their capacity as members. The final draft Code states (under “Application”):

“Although the Code does not apply to non-elected persons appointed to committees by the governing body or local boards the council expects their conduct to demonstrate the ethical standards described in the trust principle and the positive relationships described in the respect principle.”

31.     Conduct in meetings is governed by standing orders, which apply to all members of a committee, including appointed members. The Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968 applies to appointed members of committees. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets out further rules relating to the Independent Māori Statutory Board the management of interests and the disclosure of confidential information.

Material breaches

32.     A material breach relates to specific types of conduct which are in breach of the Code, and which meet a materiality threshold.  Material breaches of the code are referred to a Conduct Commissioner for mediation and/or full investigation.  The Code includes a list of the types of conduct that can be considered a material breach and things that can be considered when assessing this e.g. the conduct was not stopped on request.


 

 

33.     Under the ‘materiality’ section, bullets relating to complaints that cannot be resolved by an Investigator (whether staff or independent) or where facts are disputed have been removed (because these are not strictly “material”) and a provision has been added to the complaints process providing an Investigator with the option of referral to a Conduct Commissioner. An Investigator should have the option of referral to a Conduct Commissioner, even if the alleged breach is not material.

34.     The definition of bullying has been amended to include single significant incidents and references to definitions by Employment New Zealand and the Ministry of Education have been included in footnotes.

Complaints

35.     First and foremost, the Code sets out the agreed expectations and understandings about elected member conduct that elected members themselves have agreed on.  It is not just a mechanism for laying complaints, although it is well understood by elected members that having a clear process for complaints is important. 

36.     Also important is that the code can be used as a basis for discussing conduct with elected members as a first step towards resolution of complaints that are not material in nature.

37.     Questions were also raised about whether the Code would apply the rules of natural justice especially allowing for an elected member the right to see and understand the complaint made against them. The final draft Code recommends providing a full complaint to the respondent but allows for the possibility of an exception. It is possible that a complaint, or aspects of a complaint, might be protected by the Privacy Act 2020 or the Protected Disclosures Act 2000.

Public disclosure of complaints and outcomes

38.     Some feedback questioned whether a complaint that is not upheld should be a matter of publicly accessible record. Staff note that there may be cases where the complaint is already public and, if is not upheld, it may be in the interest of fairness for the outcome to be reported.

39.     Staff are aware that a code of conduct complaint may unfairly reflect on an elected member. Any responses to Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) requests about code of conduct complaints will clearly include the outcome of complaints (such as dismissed, not upheld or were satisfactorily resolved).

40.     Prior opinion from the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner is that privacy interests of elected members acting in their capacity as members should be given a relatively low weight when considering releasing information about complaints. Staff are seeking further advice on this matter. 

41.     Many elected members have raised legitimate concerns with staff about using the Code as a political ‘weapon’ for complaints between elected members.  The way complaints between members are assessed and processed will take this possibility into account and the way in which the outcomes are recorded will also. 

Investigator

42.     Some feedback suggested the Investigator should always be external. Under the current Code, when a complaint is lodged with the chief executive, it is investigated by staff and only escalated to the Conduct Review Independent Panel if it cannot be resolved.

43.     The revised Code provides the chief executive with the option of referring a complaint to an external investigator, but staff consider making this mandatory in all cases could be inefficient and potentially costly. Therefore, we propose that staff should still be involved in the investigation of some complaints.

44.     Importantly, the Code now states that a complaint laid by the chief executive on behalf of staff must be investigated by an external investigator.  This recognises the need for independence when assessing complaints on behalf of staff.

45.     The final draft Code has also been amended to note that an Investigator may consult with a Conduct Commissioner.

Conduct Commissioner

46.     All local boards except one agreed with the proposed scaling down from a panel of three to a single Conduct Commissioner so that change has remained. Some boards noted the need for diversity in the pool of Commissioners. Staff will undertake a search for appropriately skilled Conduct Commissioners who reflect the diversity of Auckland and will recommend additional Commissioners to the Governing Body in due course for approval.

Sanctions

47.     The Code now proposes a wider range of sanctions for breaches consistent with the Local Government New Zealand template.

48.     Some feedback suggested that the sanction relating to the suspension of elected member from committees or other representative bodies be reworded as “roles appointed to by the Governing Body or the Local Board.” The power to make appointments (and to un-appoint or suspend) rests with the Governing Body, and each local board in respect of their own appointments.

49.     The power of the Governing Body to appoint a member to a committee is provided by the Local Government Act 2002 (the Interpretation Act makes it clear that a power to appoint includes a power to suspend as well as remove). As it is a statutory power, if that power is to be exercised by anyone other than the Governing Body, it will require a delegation. The Governing Body’s power to delegate is contained in clause 32 of Schedule 7 of that Act.

50.     In March 2019 that clause was amended to remove the ability to sub-delegate to a “person”. The effect of the amendment is that the Governing Body is unable to delegate such statutory powers to persons outside council, including the Conduct Commissioner.

51.     Staff recommend the Governing Body delegate the power to suspend to its Audit and Risk Committee because this committee has an independent chair and independent members. As local boards mostly do not have committees, staff suggest not extending the Audit and Risk Committee suspension provision to local boards at this stage.    

52.     A suggested additional sanction was to restrict an elected member’s access to other elected members. Staff are reluctant to include this option as it would prove difficult to operate in practice and it may not be legally possible for a council, through an appointed Conduct Commissioner, to limit the interactions of elected members with each other.

Conflict of interest policy

53.     Some feedback conveyed suggestions relating to the Conflict of interest policy. The council does not have much discretion over the management of conflicts of interest as the rules are set by the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968 (in the case of financial interests) and by the courts (in the case of non-financial interests).

54.     Guidance and examples of conflicts of interest have been prepared and distributed to all elected members in a separate memo as requested at the Governing Body workshop on the Code.

Gift declarations

55.     Staff compared the required minimum threshold for gift declarations with other public organisations. Auckland Council’s current policy sets a threshold of $300. Some other councils have a threshold of $50 while Parliament has $500. Staff discussed lower threshold options at local board workshops. The final draft Code proposes a threshold of $100. Only one local board requested a lower threshold of $50 in their formal feedback.

56.     It was also suggested to add the option of using value bands if the exact value of a gift is unknown. The electronic system currently used for gift declarations requires a value amount to be entered, but staff are reviewing how the system might be improved.

Election year policy

57.     In an election year, the pre-election period (three months prior to election day) can be sensitive to accusations from candidates who are not sitting members that sitting members are using council resources and council events for election purposes. The Election year policy provides rules for mitigating that issue. 

External reviews of the draft Code

58.     Professor Ron Paterson and the Office of the Ombudsman have reviewed the draft and made some suggestions for change, none of which were of a substantive nature.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

59.     The content contained in the Code and its attachments do not have climate impacts, however the elected members Expense policy promotes public transport as a preferred option for members, which could contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

60.     There are aspects of the Code that have impacts on the wider council group. For example, the Election year policy is relevant to elected members in their interactions with council-controlled organisations (CCO).

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

Local impacts and local board views

61.     The views of local boards have been extensively canvassed through workshops and reports to business meetings as described in this report and detailed in Attachments C and D.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

62.     The Independent Māori Statutory Board has a purpose of promoting issues of significance to Māori. One of its functions is to appoint members to Governing Body committees. However, the Auckland Council Code of Conduct does not apply to Independent Māori Statutory Board members. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) expressly states that the Independent Māori Statutory Board is independent of Auckland Council.

63.     The LGACA provides separate rules in relation to the interests of members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.  Generally, a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board must act in the interest of the board’s purpose and no other interest.

64.     Nevertheless, an Independent Māori Statutory Board member acting as a member of a Governing Body committee is subject to the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968 in terms of the pecuniary interest rules in that Act that apply to committee members.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

65.     One of the changes proposed in the review is the reduction of the independent panel of three members to a single conduct commissioner. This provides a cost reduction when processing complaints under the Code.

66.     The costs associated with this review are covered within existing resources in the Governance Division of council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

67.     The list of members available to be called on as panel members has decreased to five due to withdrawals and retirements, which presents a risk for dealing with code of conduct complaints in the future.

68.     There are aspects of the Code which are relevant to risks to Auckland Council. The Conflict of interest policy, if complied with, reduces the likelihood of council decisions being challenged on the basis of a conflict of interest.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

69.     Following adoption of the revised Code, the new Code will enter into force on 1 June 2021 and will be published on the Auckland Council website.

70.     A report will be presented in due course to the governing body with recommendations for the approval of additional Conduct Commissioners.

71.     The Kura Kāwana programme will arrange workshops and amend some of its learning materials to reflect changes arising from the revised Code.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Council Elected Members Code of Conduct

291

b

Auckland Council Elected Members Code of Conduct - Attachments

313

c

Local board feedback

391

d

Local board feedback - themed summary and responses

401

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

27 May 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


Governing Body

27 May 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

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

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

27 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

27 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator



Governing Body

27 May 2021

 

 

Nomination to Alleva Animal Health Limited Animal Ethics Committee

File No.: CP2021/04178

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To convey a request for the council to make a nomination to the Alleva Animal Health Limited Animal Ethics Committee and to set out the process.

2.       Staff also seek a management delegation for future Animal Ethics Committees activities to free up time on future Governing Body agendas.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       The Animal Welfare Act 1999 requires Alleva Animal Health Limited (Alleva) to have an Animal Ethics Committee. It also requires one lay member of this committee to be appointed on the nomination of the council. Alleva makes the appointment once the nomination is received.

4.       Elected members were invited to express an interest for the nomination.

5.       The Governing Body will consider the nomination with the public excluded to protect the privacy of individuals.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note that it will consider expressions of interest for nomination to the Alleva Animal Health Limited Animal Ethics Committee, in the confidential section of this meeting

b)      agree that future nominations to animal ethics committees under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 are made by staff with elected members having the opportunity to submit suggestions or expressions of interest.

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       The Animal Welfare Act 1999 (the Act) requires all organisations which use live animals for research, testing and teaching to have both a Code of Ethical Conduct and an Animal Ethics Committee. Alleva is a code holder organisation. Alleva develops and supplies animal health products such as drenching.

7.       An Animal Ethics Committee is made up of at least four members, one of which needs to be nominated by Auckland Council (section 101(8)). All are appointed by the chief executive of the code holder organisation (Alleva).

8.       The requirements of the legislation in section 101 are:

“(8)    One member must be a person appointed by the code holder on the nomination of a territorial authority or regional council.

(9)     The person appointed under subsection (8) must not be —

(a)     a person who is in the employ of, or is otherwise associated with, the code holder; or

(b)     a person who is associated with the scientific community or an animal welfare agency.

(10)     The appointed members of each animal ethics committee hold office for such terms and on such conditions as are specified in the code of ethical conduct.”

 

9.       The functions and powers of committee members, and the procedures that they must follow, are outlined in the Act, but their overall responsibility can be summarised as ensuring that no unnecessary harm or distress is caused to animals because of research or captivity.

10.     A member of the committee is expected to:

·        review study applications (around 10-20 per year)

·        attend the committee meeting to discuss these applications (a meeting is held once or twice per year)

·        take part in formal monitoring of approved study protocols on an occasional basis which may involve attending site visits (approximately 12 hours per year) to animal-holding facilities (these are generally commercial farms).

11.     Members of the committee are paid for their time.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and adviceCurrent nomination to Alleva

12.     Further details of potential nominees are provided in the report in the confidential section of this meeting.

Future nominations to Animal Ethics Committees

13.     Whilst the existing practice of council is for these nomination decisions to be made by the Governing Body, staff now seek the ability to make future nominations to Animal Ethics committees.  This will free up time in Governing Body agendas. 

14.     Should there be more than one suggestion per nomination opportunity, staff will decide on the best candidate for the role with reference to the Act.

15.     Elected Members would still participate in this process by making suggestions for nominations or expressing interest.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

16.     There are no climate impacts in making the nomination.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17.     The legislation requires the council to make the nomination. There is no involvement, and no impact, on any of the group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

18.     This decision involves making an appointment to an animal ethics committee of a private company which has a national scope.

19.     Local board members participate in this process by making suggestions for nominations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20.     There is a requirement that an application to use native animals must receive Department of Conservation approval, which includes consultation with Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21.     There are no financial implications for the council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

22.     The council is required under the legislation to make a nomination only. The appointment itself is made by Alleva. The council is not exposed to any risk by making a nomination.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

23.     Once the Governing Body decides on a nomination, this will be confirmed with the nominee and Alleva. 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

27 May 2021

 

 

Appointment of Heritage Advisory Panel member

File No.: CP2021/05262

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To gain endorsement for the appointment of a student member to the Heritage Advisory Panel.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       At the Governing Body on 24 March 2020, the Heritage Advisory panel membership was endorsed (resolution number GB/2020/32), noting that student members were still to be identified.

3.       As a result of last year’s COVID-19 lockdowns, identifying an appropriate student has taken some time, and in particular identifying a Māori student to enable the panel to meet its requirement of having at least two members with lived experience in Te Ao Māori and knowledge of the contemporary issues facing Māori communities in Auckland.

4.       The skill set required for the Heritage Advisory Panel includes an understanding of a wide range of historic heritage issues. The membership aims to balance the knowledge of heritage experts and Auckland community advocates.  For this term, we have tried to ensure the composition of the panel includes new and diverse experiences, knowledge and perspectives while also retaining specialist heritage skills and knowledge.

5.       The existing members of the Heritage Advisory Panel were asked to help identify a potential student who would have appropriate skills and background to join the panel. More detail about the proposed new member is provided in the confidential report.

6.       A change to the panel’s terms of reference is also proposed so that if any members need to be replaced during the term, the mayor can make the appointment in consultation with the liaison councillor. This would allow the panel to follow the same process as the demographic advisory panels. This proposed change is outlined in Attachment A.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note the process for appointing a new student member to the Heritage Advisory Panel

b)      note that the confidential report presents the proposed candidate’s profile in detail

c)      endorse a change to the terms of reference to allow replacement panel members to be appointed by the mayor in consultation with the liaison councillor.

 


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Terms of Reference for the Heritage Advisory Panel

411

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Carol Hayward - Principal Advisor Panels

Noel Reardon – Manager Heritage

Authorisers

Kenneth Aiolupotea - General Manager Democracy and Engagement

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

27 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

27 May 2021

 

 

Summary of Governing Body information memoranda, workshops and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) - 27 May 2021

File No.: CP2021/04198

 

  

 

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 sent:

Date

Memorandum

27/4/21

Review into the Future for Local Government

7/5/21

Information from the Kaipātiki Local Board with regards to chip sealing

 

5.       The following workshops/briefings have taken place:

Date

Workshop/Briefing

3/5/21

DIA Briefing on Three Waters Reform CONFIDENTIAL

 

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 – 27 May 2021.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Forward Work Programme

425

b

Memo - Review into the Future for Local Government (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Information Only - Kaipātiki Local Board with regards to chip sealing (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

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

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

27 May 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

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

Update Report on workforce and full-time equivalents CONFIDENTIAL 25 March 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Report for March 2021 to Audit and Risk Committee 25 March 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Progress to Date:

Enterprise Risk Update – February 2021 25 March 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Ports of Auckland Limited will present progress to implement the CHASNZ report recommendations in July and October 2021.

 

Progress to Date:

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

Workshop held 12 April 2021

Final Report 29 April 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report from POAL

 

 

Report from POAL

 

 

Maori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework

 

Decision to agree to finalise the framework.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BYLAWS

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

Final decision report 29 April 2021
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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 in Vehicles

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.

 

Progress to Date:

Report on next steps 25 March 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

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, Events and Filming 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.

 

Progress to Date:

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

 

 


 

Completed

Area of work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Decision

Ark in the Park

Decision to appoint GB representatives to Ark in the Park.

Appointment of councillor representatives February 2020
Link to decision

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

 

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

Elected members expense policy

Responsibility to adopt expense policy rules for Remuneration Authority approval

Adoption of policy 30 July 2020
Link to decision

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.

Americas Cup 2021

Locations, infrastructure and funding

Decisions to approve locations, infrastructure and funding

Last decision December 2018.

 

Food Safety Information Bylaw Review

 

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.

Legislative requirement

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

Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014

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.

Legislative requirement

Statement of Proposal 24 September 2020
Link to decision

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

 

 

 

 


Governing Body

27 May 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:  Nomination to Alleva Animal Health Limited Animal Ethics Committee

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.

In particular, a discussion about a nomination is likely to disclose personal details.

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.

 

C2       CONFIDENTIAL: Appointment to the Heritage Advisory Panel

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.

In particular, the report contains a student's name recommended for the Heritage Advisory Panel. This information should not be made public until the governing body endorses the candidate.

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]    Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Franklin, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Ōrākei, Papakura, Puketapapa, Waiheke, Waitematā, and Whau Local Boards.

[2]    Councillors Desley Simpson and Greg Sayers.