Agenda of Governing Body - Thursday, 28 October 2021

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	CHASNZ Recomendations update from POAL	13

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of Advice - CHASNZ review of POAL	27

Governing Body

28 October 2021

Greater Local Board Decision-making and Equity of Funding for Community Services

File No.: CP2021/15369

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to proposed increases in local board decision-making responsibilities over local community services for consultation as part of the Annual Plan 2022-2023.

2. To seek approval to develop an alternative service level equity and funding policy that improves the equity of funding allocated to local boards for local community services. The alternative policy will be reported back as part of the advice for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. In 2017, as part of the Governance Framework Review, the Governing Body resolved in principle that local boards be given more flexibility of decision-making over local operational funding and service levels.

4. The Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP), which consists of six Governing Body members and six local board members, was established as the vehicle to progress these proposals.

5. Staff have developed proposals in two workstreams which are outlined in the full report at Attachment A, which would:

i) increase local board decision-making over local community services

ii) address inequities in local board funding for local community services.

6. These proposals have been reported regularly through the JGWP, formally reported to local boards and workshopped with the Governing Body. Local board chairs and councillors have also attended the three JGWP meetings since 1 June 2021.

7. The JGWP resolved at their 21 September 2021 meeting proposals to increase local board decision-making, new multi-board services criteria, and minimum service levels. The JGWP also supported further investigation into an alternative service level equity and funding policy. These resolutions are outlined at Attachment B.

8. The Governing Body is being asked to make decisions and provide direction on both workstreams, each of which contain elements which need to be publicly consulted on at separate times. In each case, subject to Governing Body approvals on 28 October 2021 and further resource and implementation investigations, staff would aim to bring these proposals back to the Governing Body during its current term for a final decision to progress. Further discussion with the JGWP and local boards is anticipated as part of that process. The proposals would then be consulted on at separate times as part of Annual Plan or Long-term Plan programmes.

9. Staff considered a range of options to achieve increased local board decision-making and to address funding inequities as these proposals were developed. These are covered in detail at Attachment A. They are also included in the Options Analysis section of this report which covers:

i) the scope of decision-making and funding

ii) how, and the timeline to more equitably allocating funding between local boards

iii) new proposals for multi-board services.

10. Staff have also considered the risks and mitigations of these proposals as they have been developed. These are covered in detail at Attachment A and summarised at in the Risks and Mitigations section of this report which covers:

i) resource and cost implications of providing quality advice to local boards

ii) the impact of increased local board decision-making on the Governing Body’s role

iii) integration of decision-making changes with funding flexibility

iv) managing effective decision-making for multi-board services proposals

v) progressing when changes are possible under the proposed local government review

vi) risks of not proceeding with these proposals (in whole or in part).

11. Overall, staff consider that the options recommended best achieve the objectives of these proposals to provide local boards with the level of decision-making and funding over local community services, anticipated in the legislation. Having assessed the risks and concerns identified during discussions, staff also consider that these can be managed, noting that these will be monitored and can be altered as needed as implementation evolves.

12. These proposals support and seek to give effect to the findings of the Local Government Commission’s 2018 report Enhancing Local Governing for Aucklanders which made specific recommendations on allocations, delegations and service deliver. This is detailed further below under Context.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

Increasing local board decision-making over local community services

a) support the proposal to increase local board decision-making responsibilities to all local community services within the funding envelope allocated to each local board, including decisions on local service assets.

b) adopt the proposed changes to local board decision-making responsibilities for public consultation as part of the Annual Plan 2022-23.

c) note that increasing local board decision-making will transfer responsibility for most local community services decisions currently made by the Governing Body or committees of the whole to local boards.

d) note that most of these responsibilities can be conferred under existing policy by removing operational constraints but that amendments to the Allocation of Decision-making Responsibility Policy will be required through annual plan consultation because decisions on local service assets are currently made by the Governing Body.

e) note the proposal to create a multi-board services category which covers services located in one local board area which attract more than 50% of users from other local board areas, as a new mechanism to address how decisions on these services are made and funded.

f) support a revised proposal that decision-making over multi-board services be shared between the Governing Body (or relevant Committee) and host local boards, with decisions being made in consultation with other local boards representing the views of expected users of the proposed service.

g) support the minimum service levels as outlined in the Equity of Service Levels and Funding report, including the maintenance of community assets to a safe and healthy condition.

h) note the proposal to publish minimum service levels under each Long-term Plan.

i) note the preliminary staff assessment of resourcing implications, at an estimated annual operating cost of $2.0m - 2.8m per annum (excluding implementation costs).

j) note the staff assessment that risks associated with these decision-making proposals can be managed and that more detailed advice on these matters will be provided as part of further reporting during this political term.

k) note the staff proposals that developing and agreeing service level changes occur as part of the local board plan development process and are implemented through long-term plan, annual plan, local board agreement and annual work programme processes to manage the resource implications of these changes.

l) acknowledge that further work will continue as part of the development and implementation of service level changes, to explore relationships with Māori and identify opportunities for early involvement in decision making.

Addressing inequities in local community services funding

m) support in principle the proposal to establish an alternative service level equity and funding policy as outlined in the Equity of Service Levels and Funding report, which has the following scope and key elements:

i) funding scope of Long-term Plan funding for local community services, excluding slip remediation and coastal renewals funding, and which excludes:

A) Locally Driven Initiatives funding, which is already allocated to local boards

B) regional community service decisions and funding, which would remain the responsibility of the Governing Body

ii) a transition seeking to achieve funding equity for most local boards within a 10 - year timeframe and all local boards within a 15-year timeframe by prioritising Long-term Plan outer year funding for growth and future renewals to local boards with the largest funding gaps, noting the Joint Governance Working Party’s support for achieving funding equity for all local boards within 11 years

iii) a funding allocation approach based on the balanced scenario, 80% population, 15% deprivation and 5% land area

iv) a fixed funding amount or percentage for the Gulf Islands based on that used in Locally Driven Initiatives funding

v) a hybrid approach to multi-board service funding and further development of principles, criteria and firmer proposals on which services would be included.

n) note the objective of this proposal that no local board would lose funding and further investigation is proposed to validate that no additional funding would be needed to bring all local boards to funding equity within a 15-year timeframe.

o) note the proposed implementation under the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, subject to consultation and a resolution to proceed under that plan, and the strong preference of the Joint Governance Working Party for earlier implementation under Annual Plan 2022/23.

p) note that staff will report back on proposals to address funding inequities to the Governing Body during its current term as resource and costs aspects are further investigated.

Horopaki

Context

13. In 2018 the Local Government Commission made a series of recommendations to Auckland Council in its report Enhancing Local Governing for Aucklanders. This report was in response to the Commission declining applications for separate unitary councils from interests in North Rodney and Waiheke.

14. In assessing these applications and hearing from these communities, the Commission heard sufficient concern about how Auckland Council addressed local communities needs to make a series of recommendations to Auckland Council. Its recommendations included:

i) continue the work done so far on the Governance Framework Review

ii) further explore ways to balance regional and local needs without losing the benefits of being part of a large organisation including:

· keeping delegations and/or allocations of functions to local boards under active review; and

· considering where people benefit from service delivery standardisation and where service delivery could be tailored to different areas

iii) consider whether the current funding allocation method for locally-driven initiatives, on a largely per-capita basis, is the best way to meet the different needs of local areas

iv) consider ways to deal with different service levels across the region due to decisions of legacy councils, for example, an increase to the road sealing budget in Rodney

v) continue to look for ways to improve service delivery for customers and communicate those improvements to the public.

15. The Commission requested that Auckland Council provide a written response to these recommendations by 22 June 2018 and a progress update by 1 November 2018. The responses noted the ongoing work of the Governance Framework review under the leadership of the Joint Governance Working Party.

16. Staff consider that the proposals in this report are well aligned with, and seek to give effect to, the recommendations of the Local Government Commission.

17. At its 21 September 2021 meeting, the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) passed resolutions on both the decision-making and funding equity matters to:

18. support an increase in local board decision-making over local community services

i) support the proposed criteria for multi-board services and consultation among local boards on associated service level decisions

ii) support the proposed minimum service levels

iii) support further investigation into an alternative service level equity and funding policy.

19. Initial discussions with elected members had focused primarily on the service level funding aspects of these proposals. These had anticipated some local boards funding decreasing to support increased funding for other local boards that had historically been underfunded. Opposition to this approach has led to the current proposal which sees no local board funding being reduced. This has resulted in broad elected member support.

20. More recently, discussion has turned to the increased decision-making aspect of the proposal. A number of concerns and issues have been articulated during these discussions with members seeking:

i) more analysis of the options that were considered in reaching preferred options

ii) more discussion and analysis of the implications of local boards having increased decision-making, including on Governing Body decisions, local board workloads and staff resourcing to implement the proposals

iii) further consideration of decision-making over the multi-board services proposals

iv) provision of a simplified outline of what is proposed using examples.

21. The Analysis and Advice section of this report covers the following matters under headings numbered A-E:

A. summarises the current roles and responsibilities regarding community services

B. summarises the key changes being proposed

C. outlines and analyses the options developed by staff to inform the direction proposed at Attachment A and supported by JGWP resolutions

D. presents a series of examples at Attachment C to support understanding of these proposals and to demonstrate how key aspects are intended to work in practise

E. addresses the issues and concerns articulated during recent JGWP, local board and Governing Body meetings and workshops such as costs, resourcing, and changes in elected member roles.

22. The report presents resultant recommendations, based on the JGWP resolutions at Attachment B for consideration by the Governing Body and confirms next steps for the decision-making and service level equity workstreams which are on different timelines.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

A. What are the current responsibilities regarding community services?

23. The Governing Body and local boards have separate statutory roles and responsibilities under legislation that are relevant to decisions about service levels.

24. Governing Body decisions which cannot be allocated to local boards of relevance here include:

i) establishing and maintaining the capacity to provide services and facilities

ii) the decision-making around the funding and financial management of the council activities

iii) reviewing the cost-effectiveness of current arrangements in meeting the needs of communities in Auckland.

25. Decisions which are the responsibility of the Governing Body can be delegated to local boards, noting that in doing so the Governing Body remains ultimately responsible for the decision. In comparison where a decision is allocated to local boards, the local board is ultimately responsible for the decision.

26. The Governing Body is responsible for allocating decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities between itself and local boards, reviewed under each LTP and documented under the Allocation of Decision-making Responsibilities for Non-regulatory Activities table^{^[1]}. This process includes the analysis required under the legislation to support decision-making sitting with local boards.

27. Most of these additional decision-making proposals are already allocated to local boards and this process is simply giving effect to this. In contrast, decision-making over local community service assets currently sits with the Governing Body and requires allocation to local boards through this process and through public consultation under the coming annual plan.

28. Decision-making on services that might be considered multi-board services are also already allocated to local boards. Proposals for multi-board services would not change this treatment but extend the obligation of the host local board to consider the views of other local boards, in line with the intention for local boards to collaborate and co-operate with other local boards on service decisions where this better serves the interests and preferences of each local board^{^[2]}. This is discussed further from paragraph 0.

29. Under legislation, any decision to ‘significantly’ alter the intended level of service for any ‘significant activity’ should be provided for in the council’s LTP. The nature of local service levels changes that local boards might make are not expected to reach this threshold of significance. However, local board plan developments would need to consider the significance of proposed changes and whether they should be provided for in the subsequent LTP.

30. It is important to also note that where further decision-making is allocated to local boards, the relevant budget is also given to them to manage in accordance with the Local Boards Funding Policy. This policy would also need to be amended as part of the later proposal to allocate additional funding to local boards to address funding inequities.

B. What is the scope of the decision-making proposal – what’s in, out and changing

31. The scope of the proposal is local community services only.

32. The Governing Body currently makes decisions relating to community services assets such as local libraries, art and culture services, parks, community centres and venues for hire. These are called Asset-based Services (ABS) and represent around 90% of total local community services funding. The remaining 10% funds Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) over which local boards have full decision-making responsibility.

33. The objective of these proposals is to give local boards the level of authority and accountability over local community services anticipated in the legislation and previous Governance Framework Review recommendations by:

i) increasing local board decision-making over community services, primarily by including community service assets under local board authority

ii) adjusting funding to address inequities in local community services funding between local boards.

34. This represents an overall local board responsibility for around $4.9 billion of local community in the LTP 2021-2031. Local boards currently have some responsibility over $1.6 billion, or approx. one third of that funding.

35. In general, under these proposals local boards would now make decisions within their allocated budget on, for example:

i) new local services, e.g., a new community facility or park

ii) land sales and exchanges

iii) local community service levels

iv) funding transfers between services.

36. These proposals would also remove operational constraints under current policies and confirm existing local board responsibilities for decisions such as:

i) changing local service fees and charges and the amount of funding available for community access grants and community leases

ii) setting local service level targets including discontinuing some services

iii) changing how local services are delivered

iv) the role of assets in delivering services, including optimisation, renewals and maintenance service levels.

37. The Governing Body would continue to:

i) fund and make decisions on regional services such as regional parks, library heritage and research, library collections and digital lending and membership services

ii) set minimum service levels for local community services

iii) retain decision-making for overall budget allocation and funding increases for local community services

iv) retain decision-making over slip remediation and coastal renewals decisions, typically allocating funding to local boards, based on regional priorities

v) make decisions on non-service assets such as land sale or rationalisation for different uses.

38. Staff advice on local board proposals would integrate local priorities with Auckland-wide service opportunities. Local board priorities are reflected through their local board plans and Auckland wide opportunities are reflected through regional policy and service planning documents such as the Parks and Open Space Provision Policy (parks and reserves) and the Community Facilities Network Plan (community service facilities), which are in turn aligned with the Auckland Plan 2050.

39. Advice to local boards will consider local service opportunities, their cost-benefits, regional perspectives and the local community priorities. To support good outcomes and provide structure around these decisions, staff advice would primarily support consideration of these opportunities as part of local board plan development, which reflect assessment of opportunities under these regional plans.

40. The proposed increase in local board decision-making will more closely align the incentives of the Governing Body and local boards regarding service quality, local outcomes and cost effectiveness, as local boards will be accountable for decisions at a level not seen before. This is anticipated to better incentivise local boards to consider value-for-money outcomes and the longer-term implications of service decisions, and advice provided to local boards will need to reflect this.

41. Apart from decisions on community services assets, many of the decisions currently made by the Governing Body could already be made by local boards under the Auckland Council legislation and its Allocation of Decision-making Responsibilities Policy. This hasn’t occurred primarily because Auckland Council hasn’t operationally enabled it. This proposal removes these operational constraints and enables local boards to do things like re-prioritising capital expenditure (capex) and operating expenditure (opex) across programmes and between services, disposing of assets and re-allocating budgets.

C. Options analysis

42. In recommending these proposals, staff considered a range of options to achieve increased local board decision-making and to address funding inequities. These options are summarised here and outlined in full at Attachment A. A detailed analysis of options was previously provided in the Service Levels and Funding Discussion Paper provided to members in September 2020.

The scope of decision-making and funding

43. In the initial stages of this project staff considered a range of options, from those with the least impact to those with the greatest impact on asset networks. Options included community service delivery opex only; all community service opex; all funding (opex and capex) for network community services (like libraries and pools); through to including all local community services funding.

44. The JGWP initially approved the scope of community service delivery opex for phase one. This phase identified that a much broader scope would be required to materially improve service equity and manage the risk of unintended outcomes of narrow scope, such as including funding of services provided by community groups, while excluding costs of similar services provided by council.

45. Including all local community services was the only option that adequately met the intention of the proposal, which is to maximise the extent to which local boards make local community services decisions. The lesser options also failed to offer significant benefits over the status quo because assets which have a major impact on service levels, were excluded.

46. This opex and capex funding for all local community services in scope is referred to as the ‘local community services funding pool’.

47. The possible inclusion of asset values in the consideration of funding options was considered but discounted as outlined further below from paragraph 0.

What are the options to more equitably allocating funding between local boards?

48. Staff reviewed several comparable funding allocation approaches locally and internationally. The approach most likely to deliver a more equitable allocation of community services funding to local boards was Auckland Council’s current LDI funding formula. This uses three factors, each with a weighting of: population (90%), deprivation (5%) and land area (5%). This formula has been thoroughly tested following development of the Local Board Funding Policy in 2014, has stood the test of time, is well known, well understood and reasonably simple. The JGWP also indicated its preference to use this approach.

49. Staff looked at variations on allocation factors and weightings for possible improvement against a range of criteria including service need, service costs and other funding options.

50. Other allocation factors, such as land values and numbers of visitors, were also considered but ultimately discounted for a range of reasons discussed at Attachment A.

51. Increasing the weighting for deprivation from 5% to either 15% or 25% to reflect the levels of deprivation in some local board areas to address social outcomes was also considered. In recognition of the critical importance of this issue to addressing inequities, a balanced approach using a 15% weighting for deprivation, an 80% weighting on population and a 5% weighting on land area is recommended.

52. Options to recognise the special characteristics of funding gulf island local board services were considered, including funding for high visitor levels and higher service costs. These options introduce their own challenges, including how to accurately measure the impacts to be addressed. Staff have recommended a fixed funding approach for gulf islands similar to the current LDI approach.

53. These approaches will be investigated further and reported back as part of the wider funding equity workstream.

How quickly can funding inequities be addressed?

54. Three options were initially identified to fund local boards, based on the above formula, to address community services funding inequities by:

i) reallocating all existing funding immediately

ii) transitioning to the proposed funding model over several years

iii) using new funding as it becomes available to “top up” those boards that have the greatest deficit.

55. Option i) has been ruled out as unacceptable to those boards which would see significant reduction in funding.

56. Options ii) and iii) were initially considered with existing asset values included in the funding scope. This approach is not recommended for two reasons. Firstly, Option ii) would require significant reallocation between local boards and very challenging funding reductions for some local boards. Secondly Option iii) would take many years to achieve equity, a ‘multi-generational' transition and isn’t supported by the JGWP.

57. Assessment of options ii) and iii) over a funding scope that excluded asset values was expected to achieve similar results in a 10-year period, however option ii) was recommended on the basis that no local board’s funding would be reduced.

58. Based on this analysis the JGWP resolved that staff investigate how funding inequities could be addressed in 10-15 years, under this alternative proposal that:

i) considers funding within an LTP, and does not include existing asset values

ii) does not require an allocation based on land value

iii) would prioritise the allocation of funding in each LTP based on funding equity.

59. Central to this alternative proposal is prioritising new funding to local boards with the largest gaps between existing funding and the more equitable allocation of funding under the proposed allocation model. This new funding is primarily funding for growth and future renewals funding provided in the out-years of the LTP. It is intended that local boards be empowered under the proposed decision-making framework to reallocate and reprioritise funding as needed.

60. Charts previously presented to local boards and the Governing Body, and included at Attachment A, show how this would work. Staff advice has been that most local boards would reach funding equity within 10 years and all boards within 15 years if this approach were applied under the funding of LTP 2021-2034 (and subject to subsequent LTP funding level decisions). This is the officer recommendation.

61. At its 21 September 2021 meeting the JGWP resolved to seek a transition approach which would achieve funding equity within an 11 - year timeframe. Regardless of final agreed timeframes to achieve equity, allocating LTP out-year funding to achieve funding equity has implications for funding not being available for other purposes. Staff will work on these matters for report back during this term, noting that implementation of funding changes requires consultation under the LTP 2024-2034 process.

New proposals for multi-board services – a revised approach

62. Some services in a local board area attract users from other local board areas and in doing so deliver sub-regional service outcomes. Tailoring specific decision-making and funding approaches for multi-board services will ensure continued delivery of highly valued sub-regional benefits and still increase local board input to the service decisions.

63. Staff had proposed that if more than 50% of users come from outside the host board area and the service costs more than $200,000 annually to operate, these be defined as ‘multi-board’ services with funding shared between the “host” and “other user” boards. Funding from other local boards would be assigned to each multi-board service from the local community service funding pool (discussed at paragraph 46) before the bulk of funding is distributed to local boards based on the funding allocation approach discussed above.

64. The final report has identified examples of services which meet these criteria such as the Central City Library, Te Manawa Multi-purpose facility at Westgate, the Wallace Arts Centre in Hillsborough, Barry Curtis Park in Flat Bush and some swimming pools. For example, in a 2014 study, a third of large destination pools like Newmarket, Parnell, Pt Erin, Tepid Baths and Westwave saw more than 50% of users came from outside the host local board.

65. Staff have considered which board(s) might make decisions on these services and how funding might be shared. In terms of decision-making, four options were investigated:

i) the host board makes decisions, as presently

ii) decisions are made by the host board in consultation with other user boards

iii) decisions are made collaboratively between boards

iv) the Governing Body makes the decision.

66. Staff had recommended Option ii) as the most sound and practical. It would not be fair for just the host board to make decisions when other boards are impacted. A collaborative approach might present challenges and probably wouldn’t fairly reflect the role of the host board. A decision by the Governing Body wouldn’t reflect the purpose of these proposals.

67. Likewise, four options were considered for funding multi-board services:

i) the host local board funds the service, as presently

ii) all funding comes from the community services funding pool

iii) 50% of funding comes from the host board and the rest from the local community services funding pool

iv) a pro-rata approach where funding is based on percentages of users per board.

68. Staff had recommended Option iii). Option i) was seen as unfair and Option iv) was seen as too complex. Option ii) was not considered to give enough “skin in the game” to the host board.

69. Despite multi-board services making up less than 10% of the local community services funding pool, these proposals have generated considerable debate. This is in part because the suggested decision-making and funding proposals are relatively complex and could make consultation challenging. Concerns have also been raised about whether there should be a decision-making role for the Governing Body through the Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) Committee, given that multi-board services or facilities might potentially be quite large, have a wide catchment and be potentially closer to regional than local in nature.

70. As a result, staff consider that new thinking is required. In terms of decision-making, staff recommend a revised approach which sees decision-making now being shared between the PACE Committee and the host board, in consultation with other user boards. While this change would require more consultation between the parties it is considered to be manageable and can be factored into the work programme.

71. In terms of funding for multi-board services, the proposed 50% host/50% pooled funding approach would see Governing Body representing sub-regional interests in the 50% of pooled funding and manage this funding on behalf of all local boards. This approach would see a proportion of the local community services funding pool which is sufficient to meet all Governing Body’s pooled funding contributions retained in the funding pool and not allocated to local boards. This will be quantified and included in a final schedule of multi-board services would be developed and updated through each long-term plan.

72. The option of multi-board services decision-making and funding sitting solely with the Governing Body is not recommended as this is not seen as adequately giving effect to local decision-making principle which is guiding these proposals.

73. These proposals are intended to recognise the important role of multi-board services in local service networks. If the proposals do not have sufficient support to proceed, a decision on multi-board services could be postponed without impacting the timeline or intent of the wider proposed decision-making changes. In that case, decisions on multi-board services would continue to be made as currently and resolution sought through deliberations on funding proposals.

How were minimum service levels developed?

74. Current decision-making policy provides for the Governing Body to set minimum service levels over local community services. Minimum service levels are proposed to apply to local board decisions, where alignment or integration with regional decisions is required or where regional benefits of Governing Body decisions outweigh the benefits of local decisions. Local boards would still set their own level of service above the minimum, subject to being able to fund it.

75. Several options were considered for the development of possible minimum service levels:

i) Current service levels (status quo) for some or all services, which was discounted as inconsistent with the Governing Body resolution to provide local boards greater responsibility over their service levels

ii) No minimum service levels, which was discounted as it did not recognise Auckland-wide expectations or benefits from local services

iii) Service by service assessment based on legislative principles, which was more reflective of greater local decision-making and the alignment with legislation and was endorsed by the working party.

76. A range of activities were considered against the principles above to determine which services should have minimum service levels set, as outlined at Attachment A. Only seven service areas were identified as requiring minimum service levels. Of these:

i) three relate to libraries (minimum opening hours, response times for regional collections and qualified librarian availability)

ii) two relate to pool services standards and the Governing Body policy decision on free swimming for under 17-year-olds

iii) one relates to the availability of citizenship ceremonies

iv) the seventh applies to the health and safety of staff and customers across all services, and the maintenance of community assets to a safe and healthy condition.

77. Any change to the number or extent of minimum service levels can be addressed through the Long-term Plan process. It is anticipated that as the increased decision-making role of local boards takes effect, different local service levels to better reflect the divergent needs of local communities will emerge.

D. Scenarios and examples

78. As these proposals have developed and been increasingly socialised with elected members, it has become clear that specific examples will better demonstrate how some of these processes are intended to work in practice.

79. The following scenarios have been developed:

i) Three examples of projects that a local board might pursue under these new proposals

ii) A description of the process that is proposed to enable local boards to advance their ideas, based around the local board plan, a local board agreement, annual plan and work programmes. This outlines both staff and elected member roles.

iii) An example of how a multi board service proposal might be advanced based on the staff recommendation that this be shared between the Governing Body and local boards as per paragraph 0.

80. Each scenario is shown graphically in Attachment C. These have also been provided to elected members ahead of the 28 October Governing Body agenda close to build understanding of these proposals ahead of their decision-making.

E. Issues and concerns raised by members during the process

81. A range of issues and concerns have been articulated by members as these proposals have been developed and socialised. Some concerns have increased as understanding of the implications of the proposals have been better understood, while others have diminished. These matters have been responded to in recent workshops and are discussed here.

Cost and resource implications

82. Staff estimate that a resourcing increase of 16-22 additional Full-time Equivalents (FTE) will be required to support this change across those parts of the organisation that will support local board community service discussions. This increase is estimated to cost $2.0-2.8m per annum including overheads. These are estimates based on an analysis of current work processes and reporting compared to the future state and actual resource implications will only become clear as these proposals are implemented.

83. Resourcing requirements in key business areas such as Local Board Services, Finance and Community and Customer Services are expected to peak at key times in the process, particularly during development of local board plans. Additional but lesser peaks are expected around a local board agreement/annual plan and long-term plan development processes. Note that the resource requirement does not include an assessment of additional resources to support for greater Māori involvement in governance decision making, which require further investigation.

84. Following final decisions on these proposals detailed design and implementation will commence at a cost of less than $500k per year for 2021/2022 and 2022/2023, covering project and change management, communications and consultation, and staff recruitment and training.

85. Ongoing discussions with local boards on these matters will occur as part of normal local board workshops and business meetings and are not anticipated to require significant additional resourcing. Some reduction in the resources required to support local board advocacy is expected over time as some advocacy is replaced by decision-making.

The need for quality advice

86. As well as resource capacity, quality staff advice to elected members on service and asset decisions is critical to success. Internal capability will need to be increased to reflect the amount and complexity of advice required and discussions to build this into pre-planning work are already underway.

87. Decision-making will be focussed on the development of local community services sections of local board plans, and will include local and regional perspectives, funding availability, resource implications and risks. This will help provide certainty for all parties and allow communities to fully engage on proposed changes.

88. The increased significance of local board plans in local decision making would be supported by greater financial detail of current services, future priorities and service targets across a three-year period. Local board plans are also proposed to take on a more significant role in the development of Long-term Plans.

Impacts on elected member roles and workloads

89. While an increase in decision-making over local community services will require additional staff support, in general it is not anticipated to significantly increase local board member workloads. There may be peaks and workload increases on a board-by-board case as they look across their assets and facilities to advance particular outcomes. This will not become clear until these changes are implemented and is identified as a risk.

90. Staff advice demonstrated that local boards already provide input to Governing Body on most significant local decisions that are proposed to transfer to local board responsibility. Local board roles in decision-making will shift from advocacy and input to Governing Body decisions on local services to making those decisions themselves. Staff will however monitor this aspect as the process moves forward.

91. These proposals are expected to result in slight reductions in the Governing Body workload with fewer local community service matters coming before the Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) and Finance and Performance Committees. This would be partially offset by increased activity in sub-regional services and funding allocation. In particular the PACE Committee would retain a role in decision-making on multi-board services.

Potential increasing inconsistency

92. Concerns have been raised that these proposals will increase variation in service levels among local boards.

93. Analysis of existing service levels across all local boards show significant existing differences that reflect variable levels of legacy council investment and different communities across Auckland and these are expected to continue under these proposals.

94. This proposal does not seek to create service level uniformity as increasing decision-making is specifically aimed at allowing local boards to tailor local service decisions to best meet their community needs.

95. Concerns have also been raised that these proposals would erode the Auckland-wide benefits of amalgamation with increased local service variation.

96. The bulk of council services are regional services, such as transport, stormwater and regulatory services, would be unaffected by these proposals.

97. Regional community services would continue to be governed by the Governing Body, including the revised proposal for multi-board services recognising the sub-regional nature of some services.

98. Regional policy settings, expressed through open space and network plans, and minimum service levels remain the tools that support regional effectiveness and the identification of regional priorities.

99. Advice on local service decisions will reflect these Auckland-wide priorities alongside local priorities.

100. Local performance is predicated on local boards making decisions on local matters, underpinned by efficient service infrastructure and support such as through the full facilities contract for operations and maintenance and an Auckland wide workforce approach for libraries and recreation services.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

101. The matters discussed in this report do not have a direct impact on climate change. Changes made to local community services as a result of the proposed policy may however have a climate impact. These will be assessed on a case-by-case basis and included in subsequent reporting to local boards.

102. Advice provided to local boards should also consider Auckland’s commitments under Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri, Auckland's Climate Plan^{^[3]}. Auckland-wide climate actions might also be reflected in local board plans or climate action plans, potentially supported by minimum service levels.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

103. Development of these proposals has involved staff from Customer and Community Services, Finance, Governance, Ngā Mātārae, Legal, Risk and Assurance and Strategy to understand and agree resource requirements, risks and mitigations. An implementation plan will be developed to guide the process.

104. Each area has different roles and responsibilities under these proposals and will participate in implementation of these changes in different ways, and at different stages in the process. All are expected to provide quality advice as part of the development of local board plans which are proposed as the key vehicle to implement these changes.

105. A critical workstream is ensuring these areas have sufficient resources to meet advice needs and are upskilled to deliver this quality advice. Work is already underway on these aspects, subject to decisions regarding additional resourcing capacity.

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

Local impacts and local board views

106. Over time, these proposals have the potential to fundamentally and positively change community service delivery in local board areas as local boards make service changes in response to their community needs. Local communities will have much greater opportunity to work with local boards to improve service outcomes and reduce expenditure on undervalued services through local board plan developments.

107. Local boards have been extensively engaged with and involved in the development of these proposals via multiple workshops, business meetings and inclusion in JGWP meetings. All local boards have provided informal and formal feedback through these processes, and this has been included in JGWP reports.

108. Most local board feedback, presented at Attachment A, has been very supportive of the proposed decision-making changes with boards recognising the opportunities that can arise from these changes. The alternative funding proposal which sees no boards losing money has addressed the major concerns expressed with earlier proposals, although some boards still have concerns around their individual funding and aspirations.

109. Included in that feedback are concerns around effective operational change and resourcing for increased advice, as discussed in Paragraphs 82-88. Some boards also raised the impacts of increased accountability and how long it will take to deliver change.

110. Local boards currently advocate on local service matters outside of their decision-making through their local board plans, annual plan and long-term plan processes. These proposals are expected to replace much of that local board feedback and advocacy activity with local board planning and decision-making activity.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

111. Council is committed to a treaty-based partnership with Māori. Effective Māori participation is listed as a priority in council’s long-term Māori Outcome framework and is a core element of this work.

112. These proposals support the outcomes identified by Māori and articulated in the Auckland Plan 2050 and in Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau. In particular, proposals will enhance delivery against the outcome Kia Ora te Hononga (Effective Māori Participation), that:

“Mana whenua and Māori are active partners, decision-makers and participants alongside Auckland Council Group. Mana whenua are partners under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and exercise rangatiratanga in Tāmaki Makaurau. Establishing partnerships with Mana Whenua and Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau allows the council to meet its commitments under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”

113. The mechanics and processes for Māori involvement in these processes will vary across local boards, as does Māori involvement in existing local board processes. These proposals present a range of enhanced opportunities for greater Māori involvement in governance decision making commensurate with the increased local board decision-making and funding that these proposals represent.

114. There hasn’t been any formal engagement with mana whenua or mataawaka on these proposals yet, however this will occur following Governing Body approval to proceed.

115. The Independent Māori Statutory Board has developed a Schedule of Issues of Significance (IoS) that guides its advocacy to Auckland Council and supports the developing partnerships between mana whenua, mataawaka and council, to help improve outcomes for Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau. The following areas identified in the IoS schedule are at the heart of these proposals:

i) access to infrastructure services

ii) inclusion in decision-making, and

iii) including Māori design principles in public spaces.

116. Provided there is ongoing commitment and investment in relationships and early involvement in decision making, these proposals are expected to assist outcomes for Māori.

117. Critical to the success of these proposals is careful attention being paid to Māori interests in any given local board area as well as the significant mataawaka voice in local communities. Intentional design and investment in Māori participation in decision making is needed as part of the implementation of these proposals.

118. A core aspect of these proposals is addressing local board funding inequities, which particularly effects Māori in communities where needs are greatest. Proposals for enhanced local board planning will enable early and meaningful engagement with Māori in local governance which contributes to:

i) a greater understanding of one another’s expectations and aspirations

ii) increased opportunities to establish shared projects and joint ventures

iii) improved processes based on an understanding of one another’s priorities, expectations, and available resources

iv) more efficient and effective use of council and Māori resources

v) supporting Māori expectations and aspirations in order to promote the well-being of Māori and the wider community

vi) ensure our services are relevant to, and accessible by, Māori communities.

119. In the council context, this will strengthen our delivery of Treaty based commitments to a partnership relationship with Māori and strengthen planning and funding for delivery of Māori outcomes well beyond the scope of asset-based services.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

120. The introduction of the proposed policy will have a significant impact on how Council funding for community services is allocated and spent and this is outlined in detail in Attachment A.

121. If service level inequities are to be addressed in a 10–15-year timeframe funded primarily by Long-term Plan outer-year capex growth and renewals budgets, this will direct these funds substantively to local boards according to current inequity levels. Those funds would then not be available to allocate for other growth or renewal purposes, and Local Boards will be required to make greater investment trade-off decisions.

122. Greater demand for local quality integrated service advice is expected. Some of this increased demand is expected to be met as benefits are realised from organisational changes currently underway. Additional resourcing will be required to support these changes in local decision making. Initial investigations have suggested an increase in ongoing resourcing of between 16 and 22 FTE at a cost of $2.0 to $2.8m.

123. Following final decisions on these proposals detailed design and implementation will commence at a cost of less than $500k per year for 2021/2022 and 2022/2023, covering project and change management, communications and consultation, and staff recruitment and training.

124. Greater local decision-making would lead to increased demand for support for financial management, reporting and compliance activities. This increase would depend on the extent of decision-making transferred to local boards and further advice on resource implications will be provided prior to implementation decisions being made.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

125. The following risks associated with these proposals have been identified and staff proposals to address, minimise or remove these risks are outlined here.

Auckland Council isn’t adequately resourced to provide quality advice to local boards and assessed costs of these changes will need to increase

126. The resources, systems and processes needed to support implementation and then delivery of these changes have been considered and are outlined in this report and in the illustrative scenarios prepared alongside this report. Additional staffing of service and financial analysts has been proposed, noting that these skills are currently in high demand.

127. Staff from all parts of council which will be involved in establishing and delivering these proposals including Finance, Customer and Community Services and Local Board Services are already working together on these matters. This work will include process re-design workshops and documentation, staff development to ensure consistent analysis, planning and reporting template development and possible changes to financial structures and business data tools.

128. Resource and costs assessments are based on current advice delivery and the projected impacts of these proposals. Subject to final decision on these proposals, a full implementation plan, detailed design and costings will be developed and monitored.

Increasing local board decision-making will diminish the Governing Body’s role and create regional inconsistency

129. Staff have analysed Governing Body and local board reports to identify those matters which remain under Governing Body responsibility if these decision-making changes proceed. This analysis suggests only minor reduction in the key matters the Governing Body considers and makes decisions on through its committees, though it will see less involvement in local community services decision-making.

130. Regional consistency is primarily enabled by the region wide plans, policies and processes which are in place which staff use to deliver outcomes for Auckland. These remain unchanged under these proposals. Staff will work with local boards within these frameworks.

131. As with any new processes, progress will be monitored and reported, and changes can be considered if issues that undermine the benefits of regional consistency become evident. In any case the minimum service levels will be reviewed by the Governing Body at each Long-term Plan or more frequently if required.

Integration of decision-making changes with funding flexibility

132. Enabling changes that local boards wish to make within their responsibility will require flexibility of asset-based services funding to be made available for use by local boards once the annual plan 2022-23 is confirmed.

133. This is separate to additional funding intended to be allocated to local boards through subsequent long-term plans to remove current funding inequities. This is anticipated to happen over the 10–15-year timeframe outlined in this report.

The need for collaboration in decision-making and the sharing of responsibilities between associated local boards and the Governing Body may make multi-board services proposals unworkable

134. Local boards and the Governing Body already collaborate on a wide range of matters and well-established processes support this engagement.

135. While proposals for multi-board services are a relatively minor aspect of these overall proposals, they have attracted disproportionate attention through discussions.

136. If multi-board services proposals do not have sufficient support to proceed, decisions on multi-board services could be postponed without impacting the timeline or intent of the wider proposed decision-making changes. In that case decisions on multi-board services would remain with the host local board, as currently, and resolution sought through deliberations on funding proposals.

The proposals are premature in the light of possible significant changes under the local government review and might subsequently need to be further changed, or prove unnecessary

137. In October 2021 the Independent Future for Local Government Ministerial Review Panel^{^[4]} which is looking into the future for Local Government in New Zealand, released its interim report Ārewa ake te Kaupapa, Raising the Platform.

138. The review is broad and wide ranging and includes all aspects of local government except the Resource Management Act (RMA) and Three Waters reforms which are currently underway. The review will consider local government:

i) functions, roles, and structures

ii) relationships with all entities that contribute to local wellbeing

iii) authentically embodying the Treaty partnership

iv) current funding arrangements

v) what might need to change to give effect to these matters.

139. The Review is a two-year process taking place in three stages:

i) Stage 1. Initial scoping and early engagement mainly with local government organisations (the interim report)

ii) Stage 2. Broader public engagement, research and policy development. A report with draft findings and recommendations by September 2022

iii) Stage 3. Formal consultation on the draft recommendations, including public submissions ahead of a final report in April 2023.

140. The Interim Report notes that existing local authority structures, functions, roles, and boundaries may not necessarily be the best fit for the future. As the interim report is only signalling possible scope and direction, which will not become clear until 2023, it is too early to say what its implications might be for Auckland Council, and the community services work that this proposal is progressing.

141. The review process is also seeking input from parties that are currently progressing change within local government and these proposals would seem to potentially provide a good test case to support that enquiry.

Risks if these proposals don’t proceed

142. These proposals seek to address local community services funding inequities between local boards that council has not addressed in the 11 years since amalgamation, which were clearly outlined in the 2016 Governance Framework Review (“Stiven”) report.

143. Existing patterns of investment continue to perpetuate these inequities and local boards continue to hear communities calls for these issues to be addressed. Staff working with local boards consistently hear their frustration with these matters. Not addressing these concerns risks local board dissatisfaction growing, creating additional unhelpful operational and governance impacts and adversely affecting the organisations reputation.

144. Not progressing with these proposals forgoes the opportunity for local services to better align with local priorities, and for local boards to align their incentives across the full costs of their service portfolios. Given the extent of investigation into addressing these matters, staff have not identified any obvious alternative mitigations.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

145. Proposals related to increased local board decision-making responsibilities and funding equity will be progressed in two parts and along different timelines.

146. Under this recommendation, the decision-making proposals will be consulted on as part of the Annual Plan 2022/23 as the proposals impact on the Allocation of Decision-making Responsibility Policy. A change to this policy would be required to enable local boards to make decisions around assets as this currently sits with the Governing Body.

147. The Governing Body would undertake public consultation on its draft decisions on changes to the Local Board Funding policy under the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

148. Proposals adopted by the Governing Body would be progressively implemented from 2022 to 2024.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Equity of Service Levels and Funding, Final Report	49
b ⇩	Joint Governance Working Party Resolutions 21 September 2021	119
c ⇩	Scenarios and Examples of Decision-making Changes	121

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

John Nash - Programme Manager

Gary Pemberton - Programme Change Lead

Authorisers

Justine Haves - General Manager Regional Services Planning, Investment and Partnership

Phil Wilson - Director, Governance & CCO Partnerships

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

Governing Body

28 October 2021

Submission on the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill

File No.: CP2021/15346

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve a submission on the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill (Bill).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Although Auckland Council maintains a register of elected member interests as required in its Conflict of Interest policy, attached to the Code of Conduct, a number of councils do not do this.

3. The Bill creates a requirement under the Local Government Act 2002 for all councils to maintain such a register and makes it an offence if a member fails to make a pecuniary interest return.

4. Staff recommend that the council generally support the Bill and that its submission should recommend that the Bill be strengthened to bring it into line with the requirements in Auckland Council’s Code of Conduct. These include:

· clarifying that the provisions apply to local board members

· requiring the disclosure of the interests of spouses, gifts over $100, contracts, and debtors and creditors

· requiring elected members to update the register as new interests arise.

5. The Bill affects the council’s Code of Conduct and so a submission should be considered by the Governing Body. As submissions close on 23 November 2021, prior to the Governing Body’s November meeting, the submission is being brought to this October meeting.

6. At the time this report was prepared feedback from local boards was still being canvassed. In the likely event that all feedback has not been received in time to present to this meeting, staff recommend a delegation to the mayor and the chair of the Finance and Performance Committee, to approve the final submission. All feedback received from local boards will be collated by staff and sent to members a few days before the meeting.

7. A copy of the Bill is provided in Attachment A.

8. Council’s draft submission is provided in Attachment B. It is intended that local board feedback will be attached to the submission when it is sent.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the feedback from local boards that has been provided and note that this feedback will be attached to the final submission

b) approve the draft submission on the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill provided in Attachment B, subject to any amendments arising from feedback from local boards and the discussion at today’s meeting

c) authorise the mayor and chairperson, Finance and Performance Committee, to approve the final submission

d) advise the Government and Administration Committee that Auckland Council does not wish to speak to its submission.

Horopaki

Context

9. The Bill is a member’s bill, introduced to the House on 1 July 2021 and is now before the Governance and Administration Committee with submissions closing on 23 November 2021. As this is a matter which affects the Code of Conduct, the approval of a submission on the Bill would normally be a decision of the Governing Body. The meeting of the Governing Body in November 2021 is after the closing date for submissions and so the draft submission is being reported to this October meeting.

10. The Bill amends the Local Government Act 2002 to require all local authorities to maintain registers of interests. The Bill notes:

Currently, the information collected and publication of members’ interests for the purposes of managing conflicts of interest is inconsistent across local authorities. While some authorities have registers which collect information required by this Bill and make them available to members of the public, the vast majority of local authorities do not.

This Bill will provide greater transparency of interests of members of local authorities, improve public trust and confidence, and contribute to more robust decision-making by local authorities.

11. Auckland Council maintains a register of interests, being required by its Conflict of Interest Policy attached to the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members.

12. The Bill’s requirements for declarations includes directorships, business interests, employment, property, and gifts (amongst other things). The full list of interests is found in clauses 42C and 42D of the Bill. Members must make a pecuniary interest return by 90 days after the date of making the member’s statutory declaration at the inaugural meeting, and by the last day of February in each year.

13. The Bill provides that it is the responsibility of each member to ensure that they fulfil their obligations under this part of the Bill. It will be an offence to fail to make a pecuniary interest return in accordance with clause 42B of the Bill, which is punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. The main effects of the Bill on current Auckland Council practice will be to:

i) change the declaration dates to February annually

ii) require a different threshold for declaring gifts

iii) not require some interests to be declared which are currently required by Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy

iv) not require members to update the register when new interests arise.

Declaration dates

15. Auckland Council’s Conflict of Interest Policy requires declarations as at 30 June. For a person newly elected, a declaration must also be provided within two months of election.

16. The Bill proposes declarations to be made within 90 days from making the statutory declaration after an election and then prior to the end of February.

17. The change of declaration date does not create any difficulties and avoids a member making a declaration following election and then another following 30 June. Staff recommend supporting this provision.

Interests to be declared

18. Under the council’s Conflict of Interest Policy, elected members are required to declare some interests which are not currently required under the Bill, including the interests of spouses, gifts over $100, contracts, and debtors and creditors. These requirements are consistent with the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968 (LAMIA) and ensure that the interests disclosed reflect the likely interests that could give rise to a conflict of interest in relation to a particular decision. The policy also requires elected members to update the register throughout the year as new interests arise.

19. The Bill requires gifts over $500 to be declared whereas the council’s current policy sets the threshold at $100. This threshold was a specific subject of discussion in the recent review of the Code of Conduct.

Submission

20. To reflect the local authority context, and the obligations on local authority elected members (as contained in LAMIA, the Code of Conduct and Conflicts of Interest policy), staff propose that the council submission should recommend that the Bill be strengthened to bring it into line with the requirements in Auckland Council’s Code of Conduct. These include:

· clarifying that the provisions apply to local board members

· requiring the disclosure of the interests of spouses, gifts over $100, contracts, and debtors and creditors

· requiring elected members to update the register as new interests arise.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. A requirement on councils to maintain registers of members’ pecuniary interests does not in itself have an impact on climate. The transparency of expenditure on travel may assist awareness of impacts on climate when using transportation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. There are no group impacts. The legislative changes only affect the members of a local authority.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. All local board members must comply with the council’s Code of Conduct, including the requirement to declare interests in the Conflict of Interest Policy. One of the proposed recommendations in the submission is that the Bill should be clear that its requirements apply to local board members.

24. Local boards have been invited to give feedback, but because of the timing of the submission closing date, their feedback had not been received when this report was being prepared. However, staff will collate all local board feedback received and send it to Governing Body members ahead of the meeting.

25. Staff recommend that the meeting delegate authorising the final submission so that local board feedback can be considered in the discussion and be attached to the final submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. Feedback from the Independent Māori Statutory Board has been invited however the Independent Māori Statutory Board are not affected by the provisions in the Bill as its members are not members of a local authority.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27. There are no financial implications arising from this report.

28. There may be audit implications. Audit New Zealand already enquire about compliance with the requirement to declare interests when they conduct their annual audit on behalf of the Auditor-General. There may be increased scrutiny if the declaration of interests becomes a legal requirement with a failure being an offence.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29. The council already publishes a register of members interests. Transparency of interests helps to reduce the risk of members of the public suspecting decisions are not being properly made.

30. With the creation of an offence a new risk is created for individual members should they not furnish a return as required. The practice at Auckland Council is to remind members and to provide an easy online method for submitting declarations.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. Following approval of the submission, it will communicated to the Government and Administration Committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill	131
b ⇩	Draft submission on the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill	139

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Phil Wilson - Director, Governance & CCO Partnerships

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

Introduction

Auckland Council is pleased to have the opportunity to submit on the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill (Bill).

The Mayor and the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee are designated signatories of this submission, under delegated authority from the governing body. Local board feedback is incorporated into this submission and attached.

The council supports the general intention of the Bill to improve transparency and strengthen public trust and confidence in the decision-making of local authorities, by requiring local authorities to maintain and publish a register of pecuniary and other specified interests for members of local authorities and requiring members to make pecuniary interest returns annually.

The proposed process for maintaining a pecuniary interests register reflects the process that the council currently follows as set out in the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Conflicts of Interest Policy. The council considers that the requirements in the Bill should be strengthened to reflect the requirements of the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968 (LAMIA) and to ensure that the return requirements reflect the full scope of interests that may arise for an elected member.

Executive summary

Auckland Council supports the intention of the Bill to improve transparency and strengthen public trust and confidence in the decision-making of local authorities.

To reflect the local authority context council submits that the Bill should be strengthened by:

1. Clarifying that the provisions apply to local board members.

2. Requiring the disclosure of the interests of spouses, gifts over $100, contracts, and debtors and creditors.

3. Requiring elected members to update the register as new interests arise.

Auckland Council also proposes other minor clarifications to the Bill.

Tāmaki Makaurau context

Auckland Council was established as a territorial authority in 2010 by the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. The council is made up of a governing body and 21 local boards. The governing body comprises a mayor and 20 councillors. The number of members of a local board can be between 5 and 12 members. Together, the mayor, councillors and local board members make up the elected members.

Decision-making is shared between the governing body and the local boards. The governing body is responsible and democratically accountable for the decision making of Auckland Council in relation to its regulatory functions and those non-regulatory functions that have been allocated to the governing body (amongst other things). Local boards are generally responsible and democratically accountable for the decision making of Auckland Council in relation to its non-regulatory activities (amongst other things).

Decision making of both the governing body and local boards is highly scrutinised by the public. If elected members participate in decisions where they have a conflict of interest or a closed mind, public confidence in those decisions will be diminished and the decisions themselves may be exposed to challenge. Elected member conflicts of interest pose a reputational, legal and financial risk to the individual elected member and to the council.

Robust policies are required to ensure that elected members do not participate in decision making where there is a conflict of interest, or they have a closed mind, so that public confidence in decision making is maintained. The maintenance of a register of interests is a key tool to ensure transparency, the integrity of decisions, and to ensure that the public can have trust and confidence in decision-making.

Auckland Council Elected Members Code of Conduct and Conflicts of Interest Policy

On 27 May 2021 the Governing Body of Auckland Council unanimously adopted a new Elected Members Code of Conduct (Code of Conduct) and Conflicts of Interest Policy (Policy). It followed an extensive review process and was adopted with the support of twenty local boards (one did not submit feedback).

All elected members must comply with the Code and the Policy, including Governing Body members and local board members.

A key requirement of the Policy is that a register of interests must be maintained by Auckland Council. Elected members are required to make a declaration of interests annually, and to advise the Registrar as soon as practicable during the year if any new interests arise. The declaration requirements are robust, and in addition to the requirements as set out in clauses 42C and 42D of the Bill, each annual declaration must notify the council of the nature and extent of any interest, including spousal interests, contracts, gifts over $100, and debtors and creditors.

Key submission points

Clarify application to local board members

The Bill applies to “members of a local authority” or “members of the local authority”. While this captures Governing Body members, it does not clearly include local board members. This is because pursuant to s 5 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), a “member in relation to a local authority, means a member of the governing body of the local authority elected under the Local Electoral Act 2001”.

As decision making in Auckland is shared between the governing body and local boards, and in the interests of ensuring transparency and public trust and confidence in all the council’s decision-making, the council currently requires all elected members to declare their financial and other interests.

The council suggests amending the Bill to refer to “members of a local authority or local board”.

Require elected members to update the register as interests arise

The Bill requires elected members to make an annual pecuniary interest return. Pecuniary and other interests arise throughout the year. The council considers that an ongoing obligation to update the register would better meet the purpose of the Bill in improving transparency and strengthening public trust and confidence in local decision making. Members of the community could be confident that elected members are not influenced by an interest that may have arisen between the dates that elected members make a return.

Therefore, the council submits that in addition to the annual pecuniary interest return, the Bill should require elected members to advise the Registrar as soon as practicable during the year if any new interests arise.

Require disclosure of other interests

The council supports the requirements to declare the pecuniary and other specified interests in clauses 42C and 42D, but considers that further interests should be included in a pecuniary interest return to reflect the requirements of LAMIA and the full range of interests that are likely to arise for elected members.

Specifically, the council submits that the Bill should also require the declaration of the following interests:

1. Spouse / partner interests

2. Contracts

3. Debtors and creditors

4. Gifts over $100

b) Spouse / partner’s pecuniary interests

The Bill does not require elected members to declare their spouse or partner’s pecuniary or other specified interests in a pecuniary interests return.

However, s 6 of LAMIA makes it an offence for a member of a local authority to discuss or vote on a question in which they have a pecuniary interest, including some pecuniary interests of their spouse. In addition, a disqualifying contract under s 3 of LAMIA, includes contracts with the member’s spouse. To reflect these requirements, the council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy requires elected members to declare the interests of their spouse/ partner in property, as a beneficiary of a trust, in a company or business, contracts with Auckland Council, or in respect of any debtor or creditor.

For consistency with LAMIA, and to reflect the full range of interests that may arise for a member, the council submits that cl 42C of the Bill should be amended to require each pecuniary interest return to contain information about the interests of the member’s spouse/ partner in property, as a beneficiary of a trust, in a company or business, contracts with Auckland Council, or in respect of any debtor or creditor.

d) Contracts

The Bill does not require an elected member to declare any contracts with the local authority that they or their spouse/ partner are involved in and under which they receive payments from the council.

However, s 3 of LAMIA disqualifies any person from holding the position of an elected member if the total of all payments made or to be made by or on behalf of the local authority in respect of all contracts made by it in which that person is concerned or interested exceeds $25,000 in any financial year. This also includes contracts that exceed $25,000 which that person’s spouse/ partner is interested in, or contracts that a company or business that the member or their spouse/ partner are interested in.

To reflect the requirements of s 3 of LAMIA, the council submits that cl 42C of the Bill should be amended to require each pecuniary interest return to contain the following information:

1. any contracts with the local authority that the member is involved in (or a company or business that is member is interested in), and under which they receive payments from the council;

2. the general nature of the contract;

3. the nature of the member’s rights; and

4. whether the combined value of payments by the local authority under the contracts is worth more or less than $25,000 in any financial year.

e) Gifts

The Bill currently requires a pecuniary interest return include information about gifts that have an estimated market value of more than $500.

However, a number of gifts that elected members receive are within the value range of $100 to $500. As such, a threshold of $500 for gifts is unlikely to accurately reflect the people, companies or organisations that are sending gifts to elected members.

To ensure that there is transparency and confidence that elected members are not influenced by gifts when participating in the decision-making of the council, the council submits that the threshold for declaring gifts in cl 42D(1)(b) should be set at $100.

f) Debtors and Creditors

The Bill does not currently require an elected member to include information relating to their debts or credits to be included in their pecuniary interest return. However, a financial interest may arise when an elected member is a debtor or a creditor.

To ensure that member’s declare all interests that are likely to arise, the council submits that cl 42C of the Bill should be amended to provide that the pecuniary interest return should contain the following information:

· Debtors: any debtors of the member, including the name of the debtor, a description of the debt owed and the interest rate, and whether the debt is worth more or less than $50,000.

· Creditors: any creditors of the member, including the name of the creditor, a description of the debt owed and the interest rate, and whether the debt is worth more or less than $50,000.

Clarify the role of the Registrar where an elected member fails to make a pecuniary interest return

The Bill amends section 235 of the LGA, to make it an offence for an elected member to fail to make a pecuniary interest return in accordance with cl 42B. However, the role of the Registrar is not clear, including what duty (if any) a Registrar has if an elected member fails to comply with the requirements in cl 42B.

If the intent of the Bill is to require the Registrar to take action in response to a failure by an elected member to comply with cl 42B, including for example, by reporting the failure to the Police, the council submits that this should be specifically stated in the Bill. A relevant comparison is the duties of the Electoral Officer as set out in s 138 of the Local Electoral Act.

Define “location” in clause 42C(3)

Clause 42C(1)(g) of the Bill requires a pecuniary interest return to include information about “the location of real property:” in which the member of a local authority has a legal interest. However, the Bill does not define “location”.

The council submits that “location” be clarified or defined as the suburb of the property, rather than the street address. This information should be sufficient to identify interests in relation to decisions such as unitary planning or upgrading road for example. Publishing the home address of elected members is likely to cause an issue for privacy.

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Forward Work Programme	155
b ⇩	Memorandum: Future of Local Government Review	171

Governing Body

28 October 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
Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	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 Chief Executives Performance Objectives for FY22-24 CONFIDENTIAL 24 June 2021 released 29 July 2021 Link to decision							New Objectives			Review FY21/22
City Rail Link	Construction of the City Rail Link in the central city	Decisions to approve matter associated with City Rail Link Decisions to note any matters raised by the Audit and Risk Committee about the project Progress to date: Appointments to board of City Rail Link 25 June 2020 Link to decision open process report Link to restatement Report on shareholder approval of major transaction 27 August 2020 Link to decision Report on Targeted Hardship Fund for C3 Works CONFIDENTIAL 26 August 2021	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
Annual Budget (Annual Plan)	Statutory requirement	Decision to approve consultation documents, supporting information and process prior to consultation Decision to adopt Annual Budget												Consultation Material
Annual Report	Statutory requirement	Decision to adopt the Annual Report Progress to date: Adoption 27 September 2021 Link to decision									Adoption
Committee Forward Work Programmes	Responsibility for oversight of work programmes of all committee of the Governing Body.	Decision to note that all committee have adopted a forward work programme
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 Change to membership of Appointments and Performance Review Committee 24 June 2021 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
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 8 December 2020 Link to decision Report for March 2021 25 March 2021 Link to decision Report for May 2021 27 May 2021 Link to decision Report for September 2021 23 September 2021 Link to decision
Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Review	The Auckland Council conducted a Hauora (Wellbeing) review for its staff in early 2021.	Decisions and reporting as and when required. Progress to date: Initial review report 27 May 2021 Link to decision Update Report 23 September 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 Enterprise Risk Update – May 2021 27 May 2021 Link to decision Enterprise Risk Update – September 2021 23 September 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 Feedback on Governments Reform proposal 23 September 2021 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 Progress with implementation 29 July 2021 Link to decision							Report from POAL			Report from POAL
Maori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework		Decision to agree to finalise the framework. Progress to Date: This was reported to Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee 8 July 2021 Link to decision
BYLAWS
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. Progress to date: Approve Statement of Proposal 27 May 2021 Link to decision						Recommendation
Construction Bylaw 2015	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Decision to approve statement of proposal # Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Progress to date: Findings and Options Report 23 September 2021 Link to decision Note: Bylaw will lapse											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 Options Report 27 May 2021 Link to decision Approve Statement of Proposal 23 September 2021 Link to decision			Direction		Options
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. Progress to Date: Approve Statement of Proposal 23 September 2021 Link to decision											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. Progress to Date: Approve statement of proposal 26 August 2021 Link to decision									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. Progress to Date: Approve statement of proposal 26 August 2021 Link to decision								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. Progress to Date: Approve statement of proposal 27 May 2021 Link to decision						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. Progress to Date: Findings and Options Report 23 September 2021 Link to decision Note: Bylaw will lapse											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.
Review of Code of Conduct	Decision to adopt new Elected Members Code of Conduct	Scope of the Review Report 26 November 2020 Link to decision Final report for adoption 25 May 2021 Link to decision
Decision-making Responsibilities of the Governing Body and Local Board	Decision to approve the policy and confirm any changes.	Report to approve 24 June 2021 Link to decision
Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031)	Statutory requirement Decision to approve consultation documents, supporting information and process prior to consultation Decision to adopt the 10-year Budget (Long-term Plan)	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 Agree Recovery Budget Mayor’s Final Proposal 25 May 2021 Link to decision Agree Recovery Budget: Other Proposals 25 May 2021 Link to decision Agree Changes to the Urban Rating Area and Rating of Farm and Lifestyle Properties within the Urban Rating Area 25 May 2021 Link to decision Agree Other Rates and Fees Issues for the Recovery Budget 25 May 20217 Link to decision Independent Maori Statutory Board Funding Agreement 24 June 2021 Link to decision Adoption of Revenue and Financing Policy 29 June 2021 Link to decision Adoption of the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) 29 June 2021 Link to decision Rates Setting 2021-2022 29 June 2021 Link to decision
Group Remuneration Policy	Decision to approve the policy.	Report to approve policy 24 June 2021 Link to decision
Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Operations Plan	Decision to adopt Operations Plan and summary	Tango (adopt) DRAFT Operational Plan and Summary for consultation 9 December 2020 Link to decision Report to agree to Operational Plan and include in the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget) 29 Jun 2021 Link to decision
BYLAWS
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
Alcohol Control 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.	Statement of Proposal 24 September 2020 Link to decision Final decision report 29 April 2021 Link to decision
Navigation Safety 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.	Approve statement of proposal 29 October 2020 Link to decision Bylaw Panel Report to adopt bylaw 24 June 2021 Link to decision

Tira Kāwana / Governing Body
Forward Work Programme 2022

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 2022
Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	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
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 Report on Targeted Hardship Fund for C3 Works CONFIDENTIAL 26 August 2021	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
Annual Budget (Annual Plan)	Statutory requirement	Decision to approve consultation documents, supporting information and process prior to consultation Decision to adopt Annual Budget		Consultation Material				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.	Decision to note that all committee have adopted a forward work programme
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 Change to membership of Appointments and Performance Review Committee 24 June 2021 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
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
Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Review	The Auckland Council conducted a Hauora (Wellbeing) review for its staff in early 2021.	Decisions and reporting as and when required.
Auckland Council Top Risk Register	The Audit and Risk Committee will refer the risk register to the Governing Body every quarter.	Decision to note the top risk register and risk heat map Decision to receive quarterly reports
Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi	The Crown negotiates settlements with iwi on a confidential basis and from time to time invites Council to express its views. The Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Working party is accountable to the Governing Body and reports its findings to the Governing Body.	Decision to approve submissions to the Crown as and when required Decision to approve establishment and on-going implementation of co-management and other governance arrangements	As and when required
Governance Framework Review	The Joint Governance Working Party will make recommendations to the Governing Body on governance matters of mutual interest to the Governing Body and local boards	Decisions on Joint Governance Working Party recommendations Decisions on Service Levels and Funding Decisions on Governance Framework Review implementation as required	As and when required
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.
BYLAWS
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. Progress to date: Statement of Proposal 27 May 2021 Link to decision						Recommendation
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 Options Report 27 May 2021 Link to decision			Direction		Options
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. Progress to Date: Approve statement of proposal 26 August 2021 Link to decision									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. Progress to Date: Approve statement of proposal 26 August 2021 Link to decision								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. Progress to Date: Approve statement of proposal 27 May 2021 Link to decision						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

Mayor	Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP
Deputy Mayor	Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore
Councillors	Cr Josephine Bartley	Cr Richard Hills
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Tracy Mulholland
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Pippa Coom	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Angela Dalton	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr John Watson
	Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Paul Young
	Cr Shane Henderson

Committees of the Whole	Reporting and Other Committees
Environment and Climate Change	Appointments and Performance Review
Finance and Performance	Auckland Domain (Joint Committee)
Parks, Arts, Community and Events	Audit and Risk
Planning	Civil Defence and Emergency Management
	Council Controlled Organisation Oversight
	Regulatory
	Strategic Procurement

Date	Memorandum
8/10/21	Future of Local Government Review

Authors	Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors
Authorisers	Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

Author	Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors
Authoriser	Jim Stabback - Chief Executive