Agenda of Governing Body - Thursday, 23 June 2022

Governing Body

23 June 2022

Auckland Council's submission on the Water Services Entities Bill

File No.: CP2022/08467

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse development of Auckland Council’s submission on the Water Services Entities Bill consistent with previous resolutions of the Governing Body and the Mayor’s Minority Report, and to seek a delegation to approve the final submission.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Water Services Entities Bill (the Bill) (Attachment A) was introduced to Parliament on 2 June and referred to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee on 9 June 2022. Submissions on the Bill close on 22 July 2022.

3. The Bill establishes four publicly-owned water services entities, including the Northern Water Services Entity which will service the areas of Auckland Council, the Far North District Council, Kaipara District Council and Whangārei District Council. It contains the ownership, governance and accountability arrangements relating to those entities and provides for transitional arrangements during an establishment period.

4. Further legislation will follow providing more detailed implementation arrangements, specific powers and functions, economic regulation and consumer protection regimes as well as any changes to Treaty settlement legislation that may be required.

5. A memo outlining the changes made to the Bill since the exposure draft was released in December 2021 was distributed to elected members on 10 June (Attachment B). Notable changes include:

· the allocation of population-based shares to territorial authority owners (which do not provide typical ownership that shareholding normally brings)

· a requirement for unanimous support from territorial authority owners for a divestment proposal to proceed to a public poll

· the introduction of regional advisory panels

· funding by the water services entities (WSE) of the work of the Regional Representative Group (RRG), regional advisory panels, territorial authority owners and mana whenua

· a single constitution that applies to the RRG, the regional advisory panels and the WSE board

· a requirement for the statement of strategic and performance expectations to include how the WSE will give effect to Te Mana o te Wai

· the strategic elements of the statement of intent to be approved by the RRG

· enabling an individual iwi or hapū or group of iwi or hapū to provide Te Mana o te Wai statements

· a requirement for the Minister to consult with the RRG and Taumata Arowai in the preparation of a Government policy statement

· a review of governance and accountability arrangements after five years, and legislation after 10 years.

6. In addition, the legislation requires that each local government organisation will be required to provide the Department of Internal Affairs with information about intended decisions during transition that relate to the provision of water services.

7. The Governing Body and the Environment and Community Committee have passed resolutions on the Three Waters reform at key points in the reform programme since 2018 (Attachment C). Resolutions from the Governing Body meeting of 23 September 2021 were communicated directly to the Minister of Local Government.

8. The Representation, Governance and Accountability Working Group established by the Minister of Local Government, in response to concerns from local government on these matters, reported back to the Minister in March 2022. Mayor Goff, representing Auckland Council on the Working Group, issued a Minority Report outlining key issues for Auckland and opposition to some of the group’s recommendations.

9. This report sets out the key submission themes identified from the resolutions of the Governing Body and the Mayor’s Minority Report. These will be used as the basis for developing the council’s submission.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) endorse the development of Auckland Council’s submission on the Water Services Entities Bill consistent with resolutions of the 23 September 2021 Governing Body meeting (Attachment C) and the Mayor’s Minority Report (Attachment D).

b) delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Governing Body, and the Watercare Liaison Councillor, the authority to amend and approve the submission, including any amendments that might mitigate the negative impact of the Bill on Auckland.

c) delegate to the Mayor the authority to speak to the submission on behalf of the Governing Body at the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee.

Horopaki

Context

10. The Government has, over the last four years, been working to address a complex set of issues relating to the regulation, financing, funding and provision of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater services – the Three Waters Reform Programme. The programme has four key outcomes:

· safe, reliable drinking water

· better environmental performance of our water services

· efficient, sustainable, resilient and accountable water services

· making it affordable for future generations

11. The catalyst for this reform was the Havelock North drinking water contamination event in 2016. The Government Inquiry that followed led to the establishment of a dedicated drinking water regulator, Taumata Arowai, to address the human health issues associated with water quality.

12. However, the Government believes that regulatory reform on its own is unlikely to be successful unless the nationwide infrastructure deficit is also addressed. The reform programme therefore has two prongs: a new regulatory framework and a new service delivery model.

13. The regulatory framework includes:

a) Taumata Arowai: oversees and administers the drinking water regulatory system and oversees, from a national perspective, the environmental performance of wastewater and stormwater networks.

b) Regional councils: primary regulators of wastewater and stormwater.

c) Economic regulator: potentially oversees areas such as information disclosure and price-quality regulation, and consumer protections.

14. Parts a and b of the framework are in place. The approach to economic regulation is still under development and legislation is expected later this year.

15. The service delivery model includes the establishment of four publicly-owned entities to take responsibility for drinking water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure across New Zealand.

16. Auckland Council has previously passed resolutions on the reform programme (Attachment C), most recently on 23 September 2021 (Res GB/2021/110) in response to Government proposals.

17. Initially councils were offered an opt-in approach to the reforms. In October 2021, the Minister for Local Government confirmed the reforms were mandatory. At the same time, the Minister established three independent working groups to refine elements of the Three Waters programme and to inform the proposals in the Bill:

· Representation, Governance and Accountability (reported to Minister March 2022)

· Planning Technical Working Group (in progress)

· Rural Supplies Technical Working Group (reported to Minister May 2022).

18. The Mayor was a member of the Representation, Governance and Accountability Working Group and released a Minority Report, alongside the Working Group’s report to the Minister. The key points of the Minority Report are discussed later in this report.

19. The Water Services Entities Bill establishes the new entities and their purpose, and the boundaries and constituent local authorities. Auckland Council is included in Entity A, Northern Water Services Entity.

20. This Bill is one component of the legislative package needed to implement the reforms and will be followed by further legislation (expected later this year) in relation to:

· detailed implementation arrangements including transfer of assets and liabilities

· specific powers, functions and responsibilities of the new entities and pricing and charging arrangements

· economic regulation and consumer protection regimes

· any changes to Treaty settlement legislation that are required

· detailed changes to the Local Government Act 2002, the Water Services Act 2021 and other legislation.

21. Auckland Council is developing a submission on behalf of the Auckland Council Group to respond to the Bill. The deadline for submissions is 22 July 2022.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22. The Bill establishes four publicly-owned water services entities that will provide water services in place of local authorities. It contains the ownership, governance and accountability arrangements relating to those entities, and provides for transitional arrangements during an establishment period.

23. The entities will commence delivery of services on 1 July 2024.

Establishment and ownership of new water services entities

24. The Bill establishes Northern Water Services Entity’s service area as the districts of Auckland Council, Far North District Council, Kaipara District Council and Whangārei District Council.

25. A water services entity is a body corporate, a legal entity separate from board members, employees, the Crown, the Regional Representative Group (RRG), or the territorial authority owners.

26. The entities will be “co-owned” by the territorial authorities in their service area with shares allocated to a territorial owner based on the population of its district. One share will be assigned per 50,000 people in the territorial authority’s district (or one share if fewer than 50,000 people).

27. The allocation of shares is intended to strengthen community ownership of the new entities and add a layer of protection against privatisation. However, the shares cannot be sold or transferred and do not carry any financial interest. The constitution cannot confer decision-making rights weighted by shares

Governance arrangements

28. Water services entities will have a two-tier governance arrangement comprising:

· a regional representative group (RRG), which provides joint oversight of an entity by an equal number of representatives of the territorial authority owners and mana whenua from within the entity’s service area

· corporate governance by an independent, competency-based, professional board.

29. The RRG appoints and removes the entity’s board members and approves the remuneration and appointment policy (through its board appointment committee).

30. The RRG also participates in setting the entity’s strategic direction and performance expectations and reviewing the entity’s performance.

31. Each WSE will have a binding constitution that includes how appointment of representatives to the RRG will occur and the maximum number of its members. The first constitution will be set out in regulations. Any subsequent amendments must be approved by the Minister.

32. While the Bill provides that each RRG will consist of no fewer than 12 and no more than 14 regional representatives, the final composition of for each entity will not be included in legislation but in the entity’s constitution.

33. The Representation, Governance and Accountability Working Group recommended bespoke arrangements for Entity A (Northern Water Services Entity) RRG:

· 14 members with 50:50 council and iwi/hapū composition

· the 14 members comprised of four Auckland Council representatives, four Tāmaki Makaurau iwi/hapū representatives, one representative each from the Northland councils and three iwi/hapū representatives from Te Tai Tokerau.

34. It is understood there has been agreement by the Government that the first constitution for Northern Water Services Entity will provide for the Working Group’s proposed representative arrangements.

35. Appointments to the RRG are made by:

· territorial authority owners – representatives must be elected members or chief executives or senior managers

· mana whenua whose rohe or takiwā are within the service area.

36. The Bill enables the constitution to include the appointment of co-chairpersons and deputy co-chairpersons to an RRG. If included in the constitution, one co-chairperson and deputy must be elected or appointed by the group’s territorial authority representatives and one by the group’s mana whenua representatives. If this is not included in the constitution, the RRG elects or appoints its own chairperson and deputy chairperson.

37. A regional representative or a member of a territorial authority may not be a member of the WSE board.

38. Board members of the WSE are accountable to the entity’s RRG for performing their duties as board members. The board appointment committee must appoint board members who, collectively, have knowledge, experience and expertise in relation to performance monitoring and governance, network infrastructure industries, the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi and perspectives of mana whenua, mātauranga, tikanga, and te ao Māori.

39. The Bill requires governance and accountability arrangements to be reviewed after five years. The review must consider:

· governance structures

· interaction of the RRG with the WSE board, territorial authority owners, mana whenua and communities

· interaction of the WSE with territorial authority owners, mana whenua and communities

· each WSE’s relationships with financiers and financing arrangements

· accountability, strategic direction, or planning or reporting mechanisms including the Government policy statement, the RRG’s statement of strategic and performance expectations, Te Mana o te Wai statements, statement of intent

· the WSE’s constitution.

Financial independence

40. The Bill sets out that a territorial authority owner, a RRG, or a regional representative has no rights or interests in the assets, security, debts or liabilities of a WSE, and must not receive any equity (including profits, distributions or other benefits) from a WSE. They must not give any financial support or capital, lend money or provide credit to a WSE.

Regional advisory panels

41. The Bill also provides for the constitution to include the establishment of one or more regional advisory panels. These must be based on regional or geographic areas with equal representation from mana whenua and councils in the geographic area. This change arises from a recommendation of the Representation, Governance and Accountability Working Group.

42. The role of a regional advisory panel is to provide advice to the RRG. In doing so, the panel must consider all communities in the entity’s service area.

43. A regional advisory panel member may not be a member of the WSE board.

Constitutions of water services entities

44. The Bill provides for a single constitution for each WSE that addresses the composition and internal procedures of the RRG, the regional advisory panels and the WSE board. The constitution will also set out the funding and remuneration arrangements for the RRG and any regional advisory panels.

45. The first constitution is set in regulations. In making the regulations, the Minister of Local Government must first engage with the territorial authority owners and mana whenua of the service area.

46. The RRG may subsequently amend that constitution or adopt a new constitution. This would require the Minister’s approval.

Divestment proposals

47. Every territorial authority owner will have a veto over divestment with respect to its WSE, and a WSE must refer any divestment proposal to the RRG.

48. The RRG must consult territorial owners, mana whenua and the Minister on the proposal. It may, on a majority vote of 75 per cent, refer the proposal to territorial authority owners.

49. Territorial authority owners may refer the proposal to a poll of electors. This requires a unanimous decision of all territorial authority owners.

50. A proposal must not be implemented unless greater than 75 per cent of votes of a poll of electors are in favour.

Strengthening Te Tiriti o Waitangi

51. In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, all persons performing or exercising duties, functions and powers under this Act must give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

52. Where there is inconsistency between the legislation and a Treaty settlement obligation, the Treaty settlement obligation prevails.

Function, objectives and operating principles

53. The function of a water services entity is to provide safe, reliable, and efficient drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater services.

54. Six objectives are proposed in the Bill:

· deliver water services and related infrastructure in an efficient and financially sustainable manner

· protect and promote public health and the environment

· support and enable housing and urban development

· operate in accordance with best commercial and business practices

· act in the best interests of present and future consumers and communities

· deliver water services in a sustainable and resilient manner that seeks to mitigate the effects of climate change and natural hazards.

55. And seven operating principles:

· developing and sharing capability and technical expertise with other water services entities and across the water services sector

· being innovative in the design and delivery of water services and infrastructure

· being open and transparent, including in relation to calculation and setting of prices, determining levels of service delivery to consumers and communities, and reporting on performance

· partnering and engaging early and meaningfully with Māori, including to inform how the water services entity can give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, and understand, support and enable the exercise of mātauranga, tikanga, and kaitiakitanga

· giving effect to Treaty settlement obligations, to the extent that the obligations apply to the duties and functions of an entity

· partnering and engaging early and meaningfully with territorial authorities and their communities

· co-operating with, and supporting, other water services entities, infrastructure providers, local authorities, and the transport sector.

Statement of strategic and performance expectations

56. The RRG must issue a statement of strategic and performance expectations for the entity that relates to at least three financial years, and must review the statement at least once every year. The WSE board must give effect to this statement.

57. The purpose is to state the RRG’s objectives and priorities for the WSE and to inform and guide decisions and actions of the board.

58. The statement must include expected outcomes, how the RRG expects the WSE to meet its objectives and how it expects the WSE to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, to the extent that Te Mana o te Wai applies to the entity’s duties, functions and powers.

59. The statement must require the WSE to give effect to the objectives in an efficient and financially sustainable manner.

Te Mana o te Wai

60. All persons performing or exercising duties, functions and powers under the legislation must give effect to Te Mana o te Wai to the extent it applies.

61. Mana whenua whose rohe or takiwā includes a freshwater body in the service area of a WSE may provide the WSE with a Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services. Mana whenua includes an individual iwi or hapū or group of iwi or hapū. The statement may relate to one or multiple freshwater bodies.

62. The WSE must respond to the statement and include a plan that sets out how the entity intends to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai.

63. A Te Mana o te Wai statement may be reviewed and replaced at any time and expires after 10 years.

64. Te Mana o te Wai encompasses the interconnection with, and the health and wellbeing of, all water bodies affected by the three waters system. The Government is carrying out further work as part of the second bill (expected later this year) to identify how a whole of system view can be achieved. This includes:

· ensuring new relationships between the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and any new concepts in the resource management reforms (for example, Te Oranga o Te Taio) and the water services legislation is aligned

· ensuring integration of new concepts with the Water Services Act 2021 and Taumata Arowai

· considering any intersections with the National Adaptation Plan and the Emissions Reduction Plan.

Reporting and accountability

65. The WSE will be required to prepare and adopt an annual statement of intent that sets out the entity’s strategic intentions and provides a basis for assessment of performance.

66. The statement of intent must set out how the WSE intends to give effect to the Statement of Strategic and Performance Expectations and the Government policy statement.

67. The strategic elements of the statement of intent must be approved by the RRG, with or without changes agreed with the entity’s board.

68. The board must also consider any comments by the RRG on operational and financial elements.

Consumer and community engagement

69. A WSE will have certain obligations in relation to consumer and community engagement. This includes:

· a requirement to establish one or more consumer forums

· prepare an annual consumer stocktake to capture feedback on performance

· engage with consumers and communities on the entity’s asset management plan, funding and pricing plan, and infrastructure strategy

70. Engagement will be guided by a set of principles.

Government Policy Statement

71. The Minister is enabled but not required to make a Government policy statement which must be considered by the RRG in setting the strategic objectives of the WSE and the WSE must give effect to it.

72. A Government policy statement must include:

· Government’s overall direction with a multi-decade outlook

· priorities for water services

· expectations of the role of other agencies to support that direction and priorities

· expectations in relation to Māori interests, partnering with mana whenua and giving effect to Te Mana o te Wai.

73. The Government policy statement may include the Government’s expectations in relation to the contribution of WSEs to outcomes of public health, the environment, housing and urban development, climate change mitigation and adaptation, water security and resilience to natural hazards.

74. When preparing or reviewing a Government policy statement, the Minister must consult the WSEs, the RRG of each WSE, Taumata Arowai, and other persons or groups that have an interest in water services.

Crown monitoring and intervention

75. The role of the Minister is to oversee and manage the Crown’s interest in and relationships with the WSEs. The Bill provides for the Minister to appoint a department as a Crown monitor and includes a Crown intervention framework based on a graduated risk regime.

76. The Minister’s powers of intervention are based on existing powers in the Local Government Act 2002 and include the appointment of a Crown review team, a Crown observer or, as a last resort, a Crown manager.

77. A review of water services legislation is required within 10 years of the establishment date.

Transition and establishment arrangements

78. The Bill contains a number of transition and establishment arrangements including the Minister appointing establishment boards, statutory oversight powers of the national transition unit, and provisions relating to employment of the water services workforce. An establishment chief executive will be appointed for a period of two years.

79. The WSE establishment chief executive must prepare an allocation schedule that specifies assets, liabilities and other matters that either wholly or partly relate to the provision of water services by relevant local government organisations. The allocation schedule must specify assets or liabilities that should not transfer to the entity.

80. This schedule should not be inconsistent with the water services plan the Department chief executive may also produce. In approving the establishment water services plan, the Department chief executive must consult with the WSE.

81. The Bill also provides the Department of Internal Affairs with oversight powers. During the establishment period, each local government organisation must provide the Department of Internal Affairs with information about intended decisions that relate to or may affect the provision of water services. This includes a decision to adopt an annual plan, amend a long-term plan, or any policy or plan required under the Local Government Act 2002, or to purchase or dispose of assets with a material impact on the provision of water services or the financial wellbeing of the organisation. The chief executive of a local government organisation must ensure that, before implementing a decision, the Department has confirmed the decision in writing.

Key submission themes

82. The Governing Body and the Environment and Community Committee have passed resolutions on the Three Waters reform at key points in the reform programme since 2018 (Attachment C). Resolutions from the Governing Body meeting of 23 September 2021 were communicated directly to the Minister of Local Government.

83. As a member of the Representation, Governance and Accountability Working Group established by the Minister, Mayor Goff released a Minority Report (Attachment D).

84. The key points from these resolutions and the Minority Report are summarised below. It is intended that these points form the basis of the council’s submission on the Bill, together with any further direction from the Governing Body.

85. It is important to note that since the September 2021 Governing Body resolutions, the reforms have been made mandatory and an exposure draft of the Bill was released to support the work of the Representation, Governance and Accountability Working Group. This has resulted in some changes to the Bill which partially or fully address some of Auckland Council’s concerns. These areas are noted against the relevant resolution.

86. In making these changes, the legislation comes closer to the Auckland CCO model than previous government proposals. However, the key issues remain, in particular:

· lack of appropriate level of control over Auckland’s assets

· lack of representation at a governance level proportionate to investment in assets by Aucklanders

· the strong connection between the three waters reform and the resource management reforms and the future for local government review, and the significant risk and unintended consequences of these proceeding without full information as to how they will work together.

Summary of Governing Body resolutions of 23 September 2021

Support:

a. the need to reform the water sector and lift standards of water supply quality and wastewater treatment across Aotearoa

b. an economic regulator to help to improve efficiency and productivity and provide appropriate oversight of the new WSE (or to Watercare without amalgamation) [NOTE: legislation on economic regulation is expected later this year]

c. the need to develop alternative funding and financing arrangements to enable greater investment in water services infrastructure

d. the need outside Auckland, to achieve greater scale and capability

e. a WSE model like our current CCO model where real ownership continues to reside with councils and the WSE must give effect to relevant aspects of Auckland Council’s long-term plan and growth strategies

f. consideration of alternative governance and financial models which will achieve most of the Government’s water reform outcomes

g. the same accountability mechanisms for WSEs as for Auckland Council’s CCOs (e.g. ability to approve and modify statements of intent and directly appoint and remove directors) [NOTE: The Bill includes the following: the strategic elements of the WSE’s statement of intent must be approved by the RRG; appointments to and removals from the board will be made by a board appointment committee that is part of the RRG].

Do not support:

a. ownership and governance arrangements which remove democratic accountability and direct control by Auckland Council over the WSE

b. governance arrangements that do not reflect, through majority control, proportionate investment in assets made by the people of Auckland.

In addition, seek further information and work on integration with other local government reform processes and spatial and local planning processes, the benefits and disbenefits of stormwater integration and the transfer of assets and functions, prioritisation of investment decision making processes, and transition arrangements around workforce, information sharing and due diligence for asset transfers.

Mayor Goff’s Minority report of the Representation, Governance and Accountability Working Group

Support:

a. the Government’s desire to achieve change in the delivery of water services and in particular the need for water quality and economic regulation to ensure that the goals are achieved

b. the urgent need to reform the sector, achieve economies of scale outside Auckland and enable increased investment in infrastructure to achieve these outcomes

c. proportional shareholding model by individual councils which emphasises and entrenches community ownership of assets [The Bill provides for one share per 50,000 people but these shares cannot be sold or transferred and do not carry any financial interest]

d. retention of our current CCO model (with some refinement) since Auckland has already achieved most of the size, scale and efficiency benefits the reforms are seeking, it has proven to be effective and would provide for our continued control and accountability.

Do not support:

a. Auckland being a minority voice on the RRG leading to loss of direct accountability and control for Aucklanders through their elected representatives, despite providing 93 per cent of the new water services entity’s assets

b. Removal of existing accountability to Aucklanders through elected representatives.

Seek:

a. Deferral on the inclusion of stormwater in the new WSE until further work is undertaken, including the benefits and costs of transferring stormwater functions and the implications of this function being separated from the land use planning function of council.

Note:

a. consultation and polling indicate the public strongly supports the council’s position, with more than 80 per cent of those submitting agreeing council should have majority control of a new water entity

b. we are committed to work in partnership with mana whenua and believe existing accountability to Aucklanders through elected representatives should be retained

c. Auckland needs to deliver coordinated and timely planning and infrastructure investment – dilution of council’s role will exacerbate piecemeal planning and infrastructure provision and add to the complexity

d. there is insufficient evidence that establishing the four new entities will deliver the efficiency gains the Government is expecting, due to increasing bureaucracy and compliance, the cost of debt which might act as a deterrent to the WSEs, the lack of benefit to Auckland Council from any increased debt headroom, and a fragmented planning and infrastructure delivery environment

e. there is a strong connection between the water reform and the reform of the resource management system and the future for local government review, and the potential for unintended consequences in how these reforms work together.

87. Overall, the Bill has changed from the exposure draft version and has, at least partially addressed some of Auckland Council’s previous resolutions. However, it is still recommended that the council’s previous resolutions and the Mayor’s Minority Report form the basis for the submission along with other suggestions to get the best possible outcome for Auckland and its communities.

Developing Auckland Council’s submission

88. The Auckland Plan Strategy & Research Department will lead the development of Auckland Council’s submission, working with staff across the council organisation and the relevant CCOs, including Watercare.

89. Local boards will be provided with an opportunity to provide input into the council’s submission and/or append formal feedback to the council’s submission.

90. A communication has been sent to all iwi entities advising them of the introduction of the legislation and seeking feedback to inform the council’s submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

91. The decision to delegate approval of the submission does not have direct climate impacts.

92. One of the six objectives of the new water services entities will be to deliver water services in a sustainable and resilient manner that seeks to mitigate the effects of climate change and natural hazards.

93. However, there is no hierarchy provided for in the Bill to address potential conflicts across other objectives, for example, supporting and enabling housing and urban development and delivering infrastructure in an efficient and financially sustainable manner.

94. The Minister may issue a Government policy statement on water services which would state the Government’s overall direction and priorities and inform and guide agencies involved in, and the activities necessary or desirable for, water services. This statement may also include the Government’s expectations in relation to the contribution of water services entities to the outcomes sought by Government in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

95. Relevant council departments and CCOs have been identified and contributions will be sought from them in developing the council group’s response to the Bill. A communication has been sent to CCO chairs and chief executives advising them that the legislation has been introduced and inviting their staff to input into the process.

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

Local impacts and local board views

96. Local boards were briefed, and 19 boards provided input into Council’s feedback on the government’s initial engagement with local authorities on the reform proposal in August and September 2021.

97. Local boards’ views will be sought during the development of the council group’s submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

98. Under the Bill, a water services entity is required to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai to the extent that it applies to the duties and functions of the entity. This is consistent with the approach across all legislation relating to water services, including the Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulator Act 2020, and those who perform or exercise functions, powers and duties under the Water Services Act 2021.

99. Mana whenua whose rohe or takiwā includes a freshwater body in the service area of an entity can make a Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services. The board must respond to the statement within two years, and the response must include a plan for how the entity intends to perform its duty to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai.

100. To ensure that Treaty settlements are enduring, the Bill provides that where there is inconsistency between the legislation and a Treaty settlement obligation, the Treaty settlement prevails. An operating principle of entities is to give effect to Treaty settlement obligations, to the extent that the obligations apply to the duties and functions of an entity.

101. The legislation does not create or transfer any proprietary right or interest in water, or extinguish or limit any customary right of interest any iwi or hapū may have in water.

102. The Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum (TMMWF) provided feedback on the Three Waters reform programme to the Mayor and councillors on 21 September 2021. This feedback was subsequently shared with the Minister and some of the issues raised have now been addressed to a greater or lesser extent in the Bill.

103. The Forum hoped that the proposed reform programme would offer opportunities to strengthen the Treaty partnership between mana whenua and Kaunihera. The Three Waters Reform is a high priority in the Forum’s Annual Plan (FY22).

104. The TMMWF agreed that reform is required, including to enable greater investment in water infrastructure to benefit all who reside in Tāmaki Makaurau, and to enable iwi rights and interests.

105. The Forum raised three key issues.

a. That the Regional Representative Group proposed falls well short of co-governance and co-ownership and would not provide effective oversight and accountability.

b. There is not a clear interrelationship between the range of interconnected reform processes currently underway, and that the resulting siloes need to be addressed.

c. Lack of priority shown by successive Governments on the issue of recognising iwi rights and interests in freshwater including allocation concerns which are fundamental to te mauri and to mana o te wai.

106. A number of further issues were raised:

· appear to be a direct line of influence, in particular there is a concern that WSE responses to Te Mana o te Wai statements will not be meaningful.

· Consideration should be given to the consolidation of Te Mana (me te mauri) o te Wai and the statement of intent into a single document.

· A monitoring strategy by mana whenua would help to ensure that the outcomes agreed on within the Te Mana o te Wai statements come to fruition.

· Equity concerns around iwi/hapū participation across such a large geographic area for the RRG resulting in inadequate representation of Mana Whenua of Entity A; also concerns re the criteria and process for appointment.

· Proposed structure disconnects Mana Whenua, Te Mana o te Wai, and the WSE response from the RRG and is not partnership.

· Resourcing of Mana Whenua to enable adequate participation in a new model.

· If the WSE is run comparable to a company, with its purpose to return the best result to shareholders, then the reliance on economic outcome and ‘balance sheet’ elements will not achieve the bests outcomes for Mana Whenua.

107. All iwi entities have been contacted to advise them of the introduction of the legislation and seeking feedback to inform the council’s submission

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

108. This submission can be developed within existing budget provision and as part of business as usual central government advocacy activity.

109. It is noted that around 28 per cent of Council’s existing assets are water, wastewater and stormwater assets, and that in the 2021-31 Budget, around 25 per cent of Council’s total funding is going to water, wastewater and stormwater.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

110. Significant risks and financial implications of the Three Waters reform have been identified in previous advice to the Governing Body in September 2021, including:

· strategic direction of Northern Water Services Entity may not reflect Aucklanders’ interests

· higher costs and poor community outcomes from fragmented and uncoordinated planning and provision of infrastructure

· levels of service determined by an economic regulator or the WSE which could see Auckland deprioritised to meet obligations outside Auckland

· insufficient industry capacity to undertake all the investment required

· the costs of the reform to council

· the decoupling of stormwater and land management functions making developing and implementing efficient and effective responses to big challenges such as climate change, hazards and growth more challenging.

111. As part of developing the council’s submission, staff will consider whether provisions in the Bill mitigate these risks to any extent. Legislation expected later this year may play a mitigation role.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

112. Staff will develop Auckland Council’s submission consistent with the resolutions of the 23 September 2021 Governing Body meeting (Attachment C) and the Mayor’s Minority Report (Attachment D), and will include any amendments to mitigate the negative impacts of the Bill on Auckland.

113. A draft of the submission will be circulated to the delegated members for amendment and approval.

114. Submissions on the Water Services Entities Bill close on 22 July 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Water Services Entities Bill	23
b ⇩	Memo to elected members on Water Services Entities Bill 10 June 2022	187
c ⇩	Previous resolutions of council	197
d ⇩	Mayor Goff's Minority Report	201

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

Governing Body

23 June 2022

Decision on proposed new Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw

File No.: CP2022/05615

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the proposed new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable a decision on whether to adopt a proposed new Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022, an appointed Bylaw Panel has deliberated and made recommendations on public feedback to the proposal and on local board views.

3. The proposal protects sensitive areas, public health and safety and access to council-controlled areas from freedom camping impacts.

4. The Governing Body adopted the proposal to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022 for consultation in September 2021. Feedback was received from 1,572 people and 46 organisations.

5. The Bylaw Panel recommends the Governing Body adopt the proposal with amendments in response to matters raised (Attachments A and B). Taking this approach will more effectively manage freedom camping impacts. Key Panel-recommended changes include adopting the proposal with amendments to:

· remove two proposed prohibited areas that were confirmed as out of scope for the Bylaw (Becroft Park Reserve, Forrest Hill and Waitakere Central / Central One, Henderson)

· prohibit freedom camping from 13 additional areas because of evidence provided in the feedback and the 2018 site assessments that justifies their protection:

o Glenesk Road (eastern end), Piha	o Piha Wetlands and adjacent part of Seaview Road, Piha
o Karekare Road Carpark, Karekare	o French Bay Carpark, French Bay
o North Piha Strand / Marine Parade North, Piha	o South Piha Strand / Marine Parade South, Piha
o Little Huia, Huia Road	o Vellenoweth Green, St Heliers
o Colonial Road, Birkenhead	o Opou Road end, Titirangi
o Milford Reserve, Milford	o Te Henga Park, Bethells Beach
o roadside parking adjacent to St Heliers Bay reserve on Tamaki Drive.

· amend the restrictions at Hingaia Reserve, Hingaia to reduce the number of vehicles allowed from eight to five to better protect public access

· reclassify two restricted areas as prohibited areas to better protect public access to these areas (Anderson’s Beach Reserve, Glendowie and Trusts Arena, Henderson)

· clarify provisions relating to the definition of ‘certified self-contained vehicle’, no return period, maximum stay on Waiheke Island, and temporary rule changes.

6. There is a reputational risk that some people or organisations may not feel council has addressed their feedback. This can be mitigated by communicating the reasons for the decisions to those who gave written feedback.

7. If adopted, staff will publicly notify the decision and publish the Bylaw when changes come into force on 1 September 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) whakaae / approve the Bylaw Panel’s recommendations on the new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022 in Attachment A and Attachment B of the agenda report.

b) whakaū / confirm that it is satisfied that the new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022 in Attachment C of the agenda report:

i) is necessary to protect the areas covered by the Bylaw, the health and safety of people who may visit those areas, and/or to protect access to those areas

ii) is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problems associated with freedom camping in those areas covered by the bylaw

iii) is the most appropriate form of the bylaw

iv) is not inconsistent with the Freedom Camping Act 2011 or the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

c) whai / adopt the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022 in Attachment C of the agenda report, with effect from 1 September 2022.

d) whakakore / revoke the Auckland Council Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 on 1 September 2022.

e) whakaae / approve the distribution of this agenda report and associated minutes to local boards for their information.

f) tautapa / delegate authority through the Chief Executive to the manager responsible for bylaws to make any amendments to the Bylaw in Attachment C of the agenda report to correct errors or omissions.

Horopaki

Context

The Governing Body adopted a proposal to make a new Bylaw for public consultation

8. Auckland’s current Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2015 is a consolidation of pre-2010 legacy bylaw provisions developed before the Freedom Camping Act 2011 was passed.

9. A new bylaw must be made that aligns with the national legislation before the current bylaw expires in October 2022.

10. Work to develop a freedom camping bylaw began in 2016. Council assessed more than 1,000 areas for their suitability for freedom camping and need for protection under the Freedom Camping Act. This process included extensive engagement with local boards.

11. In late 2018 and early 2019 public feedback and formal local board views were sought on a proposal for a draft Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw. A Bylaw Panel deliberated on all feedback and made recommendations to the Governing Body. The Panel recommended scheduling 322 prohibited areas and 103 restricted areas, including a number of reserves.

12. In August 2019 the Governing Body set aside the recommendations of the Bylaw Panel and instead requested advice on a new direction for the bylaw.

13. On 23 September 2021, the Governing Body adopted for public consultation a proposal to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022 and revoke the legacy bylaws about freedom camping.^{^[1]}

14. The proposal arose from a Governing Body decision in August 2019 to set aside the 2018 proposal, and two further key decisions:

· in March 2021, to exclude land held under the Reserves Act 1977 from the scope of the Bylaw, but otherwise to base the new proposal on previous assessments^{^[2]}

· in May 2021, to develop general rules to manage freedom camping in all areas where freedom camping is not otherwise prohibited or restricted, and to consult the public on settings for each rule.^{^[3]}

15. The proposed new Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022:

· aligns with the Freedom Camping Act 2011

· helps council to prevent freedom camping impacts in sensitive areas, and to protect public health and safety and manage access in all areas of land held under the Local Government Act 2002 (including roads controlled by Auckland Transport)

· forms part of a wider regulatory framework of Acts, regulations and other bylaws^{^[4]}.

16. The table below summarises the main proposals:

Proposal	Reasons for proposal
To schedule 67 specific areas as follows:
Prohibit freedom camping in 45 specific areas in Schedule 1 of the proposed Bylaw (places where freedom camping is not allowed).	To protect areas that have been identified as being environmentally or culturally sensitive, or where freedom camping would impact public health and safety and access in ways that cannot be adequately managed through restrictions. These are the prohibited areas recommended by the Bylaw Panel in 2019, with all reserves removed.
Restrict freedom camping in 22 specific areas in Schedule 2 of the proposed Bylaw (places where freedom camping is allowed subject to site-specific restrictions).	To better manage areas that have been identified as needing additional regulation due to factors such as popularity, current use by others, demand for parking and the size of the parking areas. These are the restricted areas recommended by the Bylaw Panel in 2019, with all reserves removed.
To include general rules for all other areas as follows:
Require freedom campers to use certified self-contained vehicles.	To prevent impacts from the depositing of toilet waste and wastewater into the environment, and the use of unsuitable areas for cooking.
Allow freedom campers to stay a maximum of two nights in the same road or off-road parking area.	To prevent impacts from the depositing of toilet waste and wastewater into the environment and ensure fair access to limited shared parking and amenities.
Require freedom campers to vacate their parking space by 9am on the day of departure.	To ensure fair access for shared parking and amenities for other campers and users of public space.
Require freedom campers to not return to stay in the same road or off-road parking area within a two-week period.	To ensure fair access to limited shared parking and amenities for other campers and users of public space.

17. Public feedback on the proposal was received by 1,572 people and 46 organisations and 20 local boards provided views on the feedback. An appointed Bylaw Panel^{^[5]} held deliberations and made recommendations contained in this report on the feedback and local board views.

18. More information about the review, proposal and public feedback can be viewed on councils have your say and hearings webpages.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Bylaw Panel considered feedback and views in accordance with legislative requirements

19. The Bylaw Panel considered and made recommendations on all public feedback and local board views in accordance with relevant statutory requirements, including that council:^{^[6]}

· must receive public feedback with an open mind and give it due consideration

· must provide the decisions and reasons to people who provided feedback

· must ensure all meetings are open to the public

· may consider or request comment or advice from staff or any other person to assist their decision-making

· is satisfied that the new Bylaw is necessary to protect areas covered by the Bylaw, protect the health and safety of people who may visit those areas, or protect access to those areas

· is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing perceived problems associated with freedom camping in those areas

· is the most appropriate form of bylaw

· is not inconsistent with the Freedom Camping Act 2011 or the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

20. The Bylaw Panel structured its deliberations by topic. Each topic and recommendations are summarised in the table below and contained in full in Attachment A.

21. Key recommendations include adopting the proposal with amendments to:

· remove two prohibited areas that were confirmed as out of scope of the Bylaw (Becroft Park Reserve, Forrest Hill and Waitakere Central / Central One, Henderson)

· prohibit freedom camping from 13 additional areas, because of evidence provided in the feedback and the 2018 site assessments that justify their protection

· amend the restrictions at Hingaia Reserve to reduce the number of vehicles allowed from eight vehicles to five to better protect public access for other users

· reclassify two restricted areas as prohibited areas to better protect public access to these areas (Anderson’s Beach Reserve, Glendowie and Trusts Area, Henderson)

· clarify provisions relating to the definition of ‘certified self-contained vehicle’, no return period, maximum stay on Waiheke Island, and temporary rule changes.

Summary of key Bylaw Panel recommendations

Topic

Summary of key Bylaw Panel recommendations

1: Include general rules in areas we manage where freedom camping is not otherwise prohibited or restricted

Adopt proposal as publicly notified.

Reasons include that general rules:

· are necessary to meet the criteria set out in Section 11 of the Act (to protect the environment, public health and safety and/or access to public places)

· will address community concerns while giving effect to Parliament’s intent to enable freedom camping in areas where this has not been specifically prohibited or restricted.

2.1: Use a certified self-contained vehicle

Adopt proposal with an amendment to clarify the definition of ‘certified self-contained vehicle’.

Reasons include that:

· the rule is necessary to manage environmental and public health risks associated with freedom camping in non-self-contained vehicles

· the amended definition will align with changes to the Freedom Camping Act 2011 signalled by central government, which will strengthen the self-containment requirements for vehicles staying in un-serviced areas.

2.2: Stay a maximum of two nights in the same road or off-road parking area

Adopt proposal as publicly notified.

Reasons include that this rule is necessary to manage environmental, public health, and access risks associated with freedom camping.

2.3: Depart by 9am on the third day

Adopt proposal as publicly notified.

Reasons include that this rule is necessary to protect public access to areas used by freedom campers.

2.4: Not return to the same road or off-road parking area within two weeks

Adopt proposal with an amendment to clarify that the two-week no-return period begins at 9am on the day of departure (irrespective of whether the stay was for one or two nights).

Reasons include that:

· this rule is necessary to prevent vehicles from occupying parking in one area for long periods and to protect wider public access to that area

· the amendment provides more certainty.

2.5 Other general rule-related topics

That other general rule-related requests be rejected.

Reasons include that:

· varying rules could create additional complexity and confusion for campers, especially where area boundaries are not marked or area characteristics are not obvious, increasing the risk of non-compliance

· some areas requested for prohibition are already managed in other ways, for example under the Reserves Act 1977, or through parking restrictions

· there is insufficient evidence to justify varying rules between suggested areas, categories of area or seasons at this time and would likely require further consultation.

3.1 to 3.45: 45 proposed prohibited areas

Adopt proposal with amendments as follows:

· adopt 43 of the 45 proposed prohibited areas as publicly notified

· remove two proposed prohibited areas (Becroft Park Reserve, Forrest Hill and Waitakere Central / Central One, Henderson).

Reasons for adopting 43 of the 45 areas include that:

· the prohibitions align with criteria set out in Section 11 of the Act, in protecting the area, protecting the health and safety of people who may visit the area, and protecting public access to the area

· the prohibitions are necessary and the most appropriate and proportionate way to manage impacts in those areas.

Reasons for removing two proposed prohibited areas include that:

· Becroft Park Reserve is held under the Reserves Act 1977 and is therefore out of scope for the Bylaw.

· Waitakere Central / Central One is now privately owned and is therefore out of scope for the Bylaw.

3.46 Requests for additional prohibited areas

That requests for additional suggested prohibited areas be accepted in part to prohibit freedom camping from 13 additional areas:

· Glenesk Road (eastern end), Piha	· Piha Wetlands and adjacent part of Seaview Road, Piha
· Karekare Road Carpark, Karekare	· French Bay Carpark, French Bay
· North Piha Strand / Marine Parade North, Piha	· South Piha Strand / Marine Parade South, Piha
· Little Huia, Huia Road	· Vellenoweth Green, St Heliers
· Colonial Road, Birkenhead	· Opou Road end, Titirangi
· Milford Reserve, Milford	· Te Henga Park, Bethells
· roadside parking adjacent to St Heliers Bay reserve on Tamaki Drive

Reasons for accepting the requests for 13 additional prohibited areas include that:

· new evidence was provided of risks to public safety from flash flooding in two areas in Piha (Glenesk Road (eastern end) and Piha Wetlands and adjacent part of Seaview Road, Piha)

· the other 11 areas are directly adjacent to, and provide parking for, areas held under the Reserves Act 1977 which were assessed and consulted on in 2018 and recommended for protection under the Freedom Camping Act, but which are no longer in scope for the Bylaw

· feedback in 2021 identified that these adjacent carparking areas are held or partially held under the Local Government Act or as legal road and therefore remain in scope for this Bylaw

· allowing freedom camping in these areas may not adequately address the risks identified in 2018 which informed the Panel’s recommendation to prohibit camping at their adjacent reserves in 2019

· further consultation in relation to these additional prohibited areas is not considered necessary.

Reasons for rejecting all other requests for additional prohibited areas include that:

· some areas suggested for prohibition are already managed in other ways, for example under the Reserves Act 1977, or through parking restrictions

· there is insufficient evidence to justify the protection of some areas and/or that a prohibition would be the most appropriate and proportionate response to perceived or potential problems in those areas

· many of the requests would likely require further consultation

· general rules may be sufficient to manage any problems that could arise once freedom camping is allowed in these areas.

4: 22 proposed restricted areas

Adopt proposal with amendments as follows:

· adopt 19 of the 22 proposed restricted areas as publicly notified

· amend the restrictions for one area to reduce the maximum number of vehicles allowed to freedom camp at Hingaia Reserve, Hingaia from eight to five

· reclassify two restricted areas as prohibited (Anderson’s Beach Reserve, Glendowie and Trusts Arena, Henderson).

Reasons for adopting 19 of the 22 proposed restricted areas include:

· the restrictions are necessary and the most appropriate and proportionate way to manage impacts in those areas, while still allowing for some freedom camping

· the restrictions align with criteria set out in Section 11 of the Act, in protecting the area, protecting the health and safety of people who may visit the area, and protecting access to the area.

Reasons for amending the maximum number of vehicles allowed to freedom camp at Hingaia Reserve include to better protect access to the area for other users of the area.

Reasons for reclassifying two restricted areas as prohibited include to better protect public access to the area for other users of the area, as:

· Andersons Beach Reserve provides limited unrestricted parking in an area where parking is otherwise prohibited, the parking area is narrow meaning large vehicles would further reduce availability and is used in the evening

· Trusts Arena regularly hosts large events in the evenings with high demand for parking and the parking area is frequently gated to restrict access.

Other matters

Amend proposal to improve clarity as follows:

· update clause 5(4) to reference current legislation

· amend and reverse the order of clause 6(2)(c) and (d) to clarify that general rules apply only where no other rules apply

· amend clause 6(4)(b) and (d) and add an example relating to Waiheke Island, to clarify the area to which the maximum stay rule applies, and the obligation to leave the Island to dump waste before returning to freedom camp

· replace clause 6(7) and 6(8) relating to areas where freedom camping rules have been temporarily changed with a new clause 6(5)

· amend clause 6(5)(d) (now clause 6(6)(d)) and add an example to clarify the commencement of the no-return period

· add a related information note to clause 7 to clarify that council can make temporary prohibitions or changes to restrictions initiated by external parties (such as Fire and Emergency New Zealand, or major events organisers)

· amend clause 8 to clarify that council can set additional conditions when granting temporary approvals, for example ensuring access for emergency vehicles and requiring evacuation plans for large events.

22. The net effect of the recommended changes to Bylaw Schedules 1 and 2 outlined above is that 58 areas would be designated as prohibited (Schedule 1), and 20 areas would be designated as restricted (Schedule 2). All other local authority areas in scope for the Bylaw would be subject to the general rules set out in clause 6 of the Bylaw.

23. Where Bylaw Panel recommendations in Attachment A amend the proposal, the recommended changes are shown in a comparison table in Attachment B. The changes:

· are necessary to protect the area, public health and safety, and access to areas within Auckland

· are authorised by the Freedom Camping Act 2011, and are not inconsistent with other legislation, including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

· improve the Bylaw form

· are not inconsistent with other regulations including council bylaws and the wider regulatory framework that governs freedom camping in Auckland.

Bylaw Panel recommends the Governing Body adopt the proposal with amendments

24. The Bylaw Panel recommends that the Governing Body make the necessary statutory determinations to adopt the new Bylaw as set out in Attachment C.

25. The Bylaw in Attachment C incorporates recommended amendments to the proposal as set out in Attachments A and B. Adopting the Bylaw as recommended will protect the areas covered by the Bylaw, protect the health and safety of people who may visit those areas, and protect access to those areas.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26. The proposal manages existing activities enabled by central government policy. It is not causing these activities to occur or affecting the likelihood that they will occur. The decision sought in this report therefore has no specific climate impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. The proposal impacts the operations of several council departments and council-controlled organisations, including Licensing and Regulatory Compliance, Community Facilities, Parks, Sport and Recreation and Auckland Transport.

28. The Licensing and Regulatory Compliance unit are aware of the impacts of the Bylaw and their primary role in implementing and managing compliance with the Bylaw.

29. Council’s 86 park rangers help to manage compliance with council Bylaws, the Reserves Act 1977 and the Litter Act 1974 by carrying out education and monitoring on parks and reserves. However, rangers are not currently being warranted or renewing warrants, and Licensing and Regulatory Compliance will continue to carry out any enforcement required.

30. Relevant staff are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. The Bylaw impacts on local boards’ governance role as it affects decision making over local assets, particularly parks and other council-controlled public places. There is also high community interest in freedom camping regulation in many local board areas.

32. Three local board representatives participated in a joint political working group on 21 May 2021 to provide views on options for including general rules in the Bylaw. The working group unanimously supported the inclusion of general rules in the Bylaw, and five out of six members supported the recommended settings included in the proposal. A summary of the working group’s views was reported to the Governing Body on 27 May 2021.

33. In August 2021 staff sought local board views on a draft proposal for public consultation. The draft proposal was supported by 11 local boards with eight noting concerns or requesting changes, partly supported by six local boards noting concerns or requesting changes, and not supported by three local boards. A summary of those local board views can be viewed in the 23 September 2021 Governing Body agenda, page 257 (Attachment B to Item 13).

34. In February 2022, all local boards had the opportunity to provide formal views by resolution on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal. In addition, local boards could also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel at a meeting on 22 April 2022.

35. Twenty local boards provided their views by resolution (pages 447 – 465 of the Deliberations Agenda Report). In addition, 12 local boards presented their views to the Bylaw Panel.^{^[7]}

36. The Bylaw Panel considered all local board views during deliberations as shown in Attachment A.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

37. The Bylaw has relevance to Māori as kaitiaki of Papatūānuku. The proposal supports the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau. In particular wairuatanga (promoting distinctive identity) in relation to valuing and protecting Māori heritage and Taonga Māori and kaitiakitanga (ensuring sustainable futures) in relation to environmental protection.

38. The proposal also supports the Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance by ensuring that sites of significance to Māori are identified and protected from freedom camping harms.

39. Mana whenua and mataawaka were invited to provide feedback during the development of the 2018 proposal via dedicated hui and again through the public consultation process.

40. Feedback received on specific prohibited and restricted areas identified in the 2018 proposal was incorporated into the deliberations in 2019. This included the identification of sites of significance to Māori, such as wahi tapu areas.

41. General matters raised by Māori during past engagement included the need to ensure:

· the ability to add further sites of significance to the bylaw as these are designated

· provision for temporary bans on freedom camping, including in areas under a rāhui

· a compassionate approach to people experiencing homelessness

· provision of sufficient dump stations to avoid environmental pollution

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

42. The 2021 proposal addresses these matters by proposing to prohibit freedom camping at sites of significance to Māori (such as Maraetai Foreshore and Onetangi Cemetery), provision in the Bylaw for temporary bans, and confirming council’s commitment to a compassionate enforcement approach to people experiencing homelessness.

43. Mana whenua and mataawaka were notified of the 2021 proposal and given the opportunity to provide any additional feedback through face-to-face meetings, in writing, online and in-person. No additional feedback was received from iwi and mataawaka organisations.

44. Eight percent of people who provided feedback via the Have Your Say consultation and eight percent of research survey respondents identified as Māori.

45. The Have Your Say consultation identified that Māori had similar support for the use of general rules in principle, have similar mixed support on the four specific general rules and similar opposition to the specific restricted and prohibited sites compared to non-Māori.

46. The research survey identified that Māori had similar support for general rules and feel more strongly about the benefits and problems of freedom camping compared to non-Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

47. There are no financial implications arising from decisions sought in this report. The cost of public notification of the decision and implementation will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48. The following risks have been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
Some people or organisations feel their feedback was not addressed.	There may be a negative perception about the appropriateness of the deliberations / recommendations of the Bylaw Panel.	Communicating the reasons for the decisions to those who provided feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

49. If adopted, staff will notify the public and people who provided feedback on the proposal of the decision and publish changes to the Bylaw when they come into force on 1 September 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Bylaw Panel recommendations	219
b ⇩	Comparison of proposed Bylaw and Panel-recommended changes	243
c ⇩	Recommended new Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022	253

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Councillor Linda Cooper (Chair)

Councillor Angela Dalton

Independent Māori Statutory Board Member Glenn Wilcox

Governing Body

23 June 2022

Increased local board decision-making responsibilities for local community services - Six-monthly progress report, consultation feedback and changes to Allocation of Decision-making for Non-regulatory Activities Policy and the Local Board Funding Policy

File No.: CP2022/08436

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update on the progress of the implementation of increased local board decision-making responsibilities for local community services.

2. To provide a summary of the consultation feedback, received through the Annual Budget 2022/2023 consultation, on increased local board decision-making proposals.

3. To recommend that the proposed changes to the Allocation of Decision-making for Non-regulatory Activities Policy and the Local Board Funding Policy be approved, as these give effect to increased local board decision-making.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4. The Governing Body meeting of 28 October 2021 resolved to support the proposal to increase local board decision-making responsibilities for local community services (GB/2021/137).

5. Proposed changes to local board decision-making responsibilities, reflected in the Allocation of Decision-making for Non-regulatory Activities Policy and the Local Board Funding Policy, were adopted for public consultation as part of the Annual Budget 2022/2023 (refer to attachments A and B). The majority of public feedback on this consultation item supported the proposed policy changes.

6. The increased local board responsibilities mean the Governing Body maintains decision-making over budget allocation and minimum service levels, but that local boards have greater ability to make service and asset decisions within their local board area and within their approved funding envelope.

7. Any significant service level changes to local community services will be identified and consulted as part of the Local Board Plan process and implemented through subsequent Long-term Plans. Preparation for these changes to the 2023 Local Board Plans, including content of plans and Māori involvement, to support the proposed changes is underway.

8. Options to share responsibility for decisions over services that deliver sub-regional benefits across multiple local board areas (Multi-Board Services) between the Governing Body and local boards, will be reported to the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP). The JGWP will provide direction on the preferred option to be presented to local boards for their feedback, prior to reporting to Governing Body for decisions post-election.

9. The Governing Body has also provided in-principle support for proposals to address local board funding inequities, subject to further analysis which will be reported back to the Governing Body in the new term and consulted as part of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

10. Resourcing of 16-22 FTE and $2.0m - 2.8m per annum, for the implementation of increased local board decision-making is included in the Annual Budget 2022/2023, as agreed by the Finance ad Performance Committee on 7 June 2022.

11. The Allocation of Decision-making for Non-regulatory Activities Policy must be included in the Annual Budget 2022/2023. Therefore, any changes to the Allocation of Decision-making for Non-regulatory Activities Policy agreed will be reflected in the Annual Budget 2022/2023 which will be presented to the Governing Body for adoption on 29 June 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the update on the progress of implementation of increased local board decision-making responsibilities on local community services

b) receive the summary of the consultation feedback, received through Annual Plan 2022/2023 consultation, on increased local board decision-making proposals

c) approve the changes to the Allocation of Decision-making for Non-regulatory Activities Policy and the Local Board Funding Policy to give effect to increased local board decision-making (as per attachments A and B to the agenda report).

Horopaki

Context

12. On 28 October 2021, the Governing Body resolved to support the proposals to increase local board decision-making over local community services and to adopt the proposals for consultation under the Annual Plan 2022-23 (resolution GB/2021/137).

13. The changes will:

· increase local board decision-making responsibilities for all local community services within the funding envelope allocated to each local board, including decisions on local service assets

· transfer responsibility for most local community services decisions currently made by the Governing Body to local boards

· establish minimum service levels to be provided by some local community services, as provided for under the current decision-making allocation policy

· require significant local community service level changes to be made under local board plans and reflected in Long-term Plans.

14. Further analysis and decisions are required on Multi-Board Services, defined as services hosted by one local board that service more users from other local board areas than from the host local board area. It is proposed that decision-making over Multi-Board Services is shared between the Governing Body (or relevant committee) and host local boards.

15. To implement these proposals, changes are required to the Allocation of Decision-making for Non-regulatory Activities Policy (to be included in the Annual Budget 2022/2023) and the Local Board Funding Policy, which were consulted on through the Annual Budget 2022/2023 consultation process (as per attachments A and B).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Public feedback on the proposed increase to local board decision-making for local community services

16. Proposed changes to local board decision-making responsibility were consulted on through the Annual Budget 2022/2023 consultation process. A summary of the public feedback was provided to the Finance and Performance Committee at a workshop on 4 May 2022 and to the Governing Body at a workshop on 1 June 2022. Subsequently, the resourcing required to implement the changes is included in the Annual Budget 2022/2023 as agreed by the Finance and Performance Committee on 7 June 2022.

17. A total of 120 submissions were received in response to “Q6. Local board decision-making over community services” as follows:

· 62 supported increased decision-making for local boards over their local community services. Supporters noted that increased local board decision-making will make council more responsive to the diverse needs of communities.

· 10 provided feedback that was partly supportive of the proposal. Feedback either supported only parts of the proposal or agreed in principle noting some concern.

· 15 did not support the proposals. Responses noted concerns about financial impacts and/or inequality and disparity across regions.

· 33 responses were unclear on respondents’ support or opposition to the proposals.

Response	Individuals	Māori entities	Organisations	Total	%
Support	56	1	5	62	52%
Partly Support	6		4	10	8%
Do Not Support	13	1	1	15	12%
Other	29	1	3	33	25%
Total	104	3	13	120	100%

Table 1 - Summary of consultation feedback

18. Of the 75 feedback responses clearly expressing a position, 71 per cent supported, 12 per cent partially supported and 17 per cent did not support the proposals.

19. Submissions were received from seven respondents identifying as Māori individuals and three from Māori Enterprises. Responses from four Māori individuals supported the proposal and none objected. One response from a Māori Enterprise supported and one did not support.

Changes to Allocation of Decision-making for Non-regulatory Activities Policy and the Local Board Funding Policy

20. Under an existing delegation, local boards can dispose of underperforming or underutilised local service properties and use the sale proceeds to reinvest in approved projects or activities on a cost neutral basis, as long as this is consistent with the Long-term Plan. The delegation to local boards was designed to enable local boards to make the final decisions on local asset disposal and reinvestment, providing all policy criteria have been met (known as Service Property Optimisation). This delegation remains.

21. The increased local board decision-making for local community services means the Governing Body maintains decision-making over budget allocation and minimum service levels, but that local boards have greater ability to make service and asset decisions within their local board area and within their approved funding envelope. The change better enables local boards to optimise their local community asset portfolios.

22. Changes to the Allocation of Decision-making for Non-regulatory Activities Policy and the Local Board Funding Policy are required to give effect to increased local board decision-making.

23. The proposed changes to the Allocation of Decision-making include giving increased decision-making to local boards by enabling them to make decisions on existing and new service assets, their specific location, design, build and fit out within budget parameters agreed with the Governing Body through the local board agreement process. This change better incentivises local boards to manage their services and costs to best local benefit and creates a consistent long-term view of local and network development shared by the Governing Body and local boards.

24. These policy changes were consulted through the Annual Plan 2022/2023 consultation.

25. Two submissions commented on the proposed changes to the Local Board Funding Policy, with neither expressing a position on the changes. No feedback was received on the proposed changes to decision-making responsibility policy.

26. The proposed changes are detailed in Attachments A and B to this report.

Resourcing for implementation and increased provision of advice to local boards

27. The preliminary assessment of the resource required to implement the changes was estimated in the Governing Body report on 28 October 2021 at 16-22 FTE and $2.0m - 2.8m per annum. This funding for this resourcing is included in the budget for 2022/2023 as agreed by the Governing Body on 7 June 2022.

Multi-board Service governance structures

28. The Governing Body supported a revised proposal to create a Multi-board Services category that delivers sub-regional benefits across several local boards. The revised proposal shares responsibility for these decisions between the Governing Body (or relevant committee) and host local boards.

29. Several options for Multi-board Service governance structures have been assessed by staff, considering factors such as representation, mandate, efficiency, and alignment with other decision-making processes. These options recognise that it will be up to local boards to opt-in to the Multi-Board Services programme. The local board plan development process will support local boards to consider the application of Multi-board Services in their area.

30. A short list of these options will be reported to the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) for consideration and approval for local board engagement. The views of the JGWP and local boards will help inform a subsequent report to Governing Body.

Local Board Plan development

31. The Local Board Plan development process has been identified as the appropriate vehicle by which local boards would make decisions under these increased decision-making proposals. This will result in Local Board Plans which are more meaningful to their communities, as local boards will have the ability to make decisions on matters their communities have been asking for, but which to date have remained as advocacy items. Over time this is expected to increase community engagement with the Local Board Plan process.

32. Planning for the necessary changes to the Local Board Plan development process is underway and will be in place for 2023 Local Board Plans. Adequate resourcing of quality advice to local boards and early engagement and participation of Māori to support delivery on a range of areas including Māori outcomes will be critical to the success of this work.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33. The climate impact of the proposed changes was included in the report considered by the Governing Body at its 28 October 2021 meeting.

34. The sustainability team acknowledge that with increased local board decision-making, local boards may be better incentivised to consider investments and/or alternative service delivery models that provide long-term efficiencies, both financially and environmentally.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35. Council group input to the development of these proposals and the resourcing of implementation were included in the report considered by the Governing Body at its 28 October 2021 meeting.

36. Local Board Services, Finance and departments from Customer and Community Services are supporting the further development of proposals outlined in this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

37. Local boards have been involved throughout the development of these proposals and their feedback on the proposals was reported to the Governing Body on 28 October 2021. Local boards will also be invited to provide further feedback on multi-board service and equity of funding proposals.

38. The JGWP, which has local board membership, has had oversight of the Governance Framework Review programme and supported the proposals for increased local board decision-making. The JGWP will continue to be involved in the implementation of these proposals and in future discussions on multi-board service and equity of funding proposals.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39. The report considered by the Governing Body on 28 October 2021 noted the potential for improved outcomes for Māori from greater involvement in local decision-making processes.

40. A summary of submissions received from individual respondents identifying as Māori and Māori Enterprises is provided in this report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41. The ongoing financial implications of the proposed changes were included in the report considered by the Governing Body at its 28 October 2021 meeting and included estimated resourcing costs of increased and integrated service advice to local boards. The budget for resourcing the implementation of the proposed changes is included in the Annual Budget agreed by the Governing Body on 7 June 2022.

42. Impacts on local board funding allocations under proposals for funding equity were also reported to the Governing Body in October 2021. These proposals will be developed further and reported back to the Governing Body for final decision in the new term, prior to consultation and implementation through the next LTP.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. The risks of the proposed changes, and mitigations, were included in the report considered by the Governing Body at its 28 October 2021 meeting.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44. If the proposed changes to the Allocation of Decision-making for Non-regulatory Activities Policy and the Local Board Funding Policy are agreed:

(i) the updated Allocation of Decision-making for Non-regulatory Activities Policy will be included in the Annual Budget 2022/2023 that will be presented to Governing Body for adoption on 29 June 2022

(ii) the updated Local Board Funding Policy will be made publicly available on the Council’s website

(iii) the JGWP will receive an update on the Multi-board Service Governance Approach and the Funding Allocation Implementation, followed by local board engagement

(iv) the Governing Body will receive a report covering the Multi-board Service Governance Approach and the Funding Allocation Implementation in quarter three of the 2022/2023 financial year.

(v) the next six-monthly implementation update will be provided to the Governing Body in December 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Allocation of Decision-making for Non-regulatory Activities	317
b ⇩	Local Board Funding Policy	337

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jestine Joseph - Project Implementation Lead

Authorisers

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

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Phil Wilson - Director, Governance & CCO Partnerships

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

Governing Body

23 June 2022

Grant to Auckland Returned Services Association

File No.: CP2022/08762

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek the Governing Body’s consideration of a funding request from the Auckland Returned and Services Association.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Each year Anzac Day services at the Auckland Cenotaph in the Auckland Domain are organised and delivered by way of a partnership between Auckland Council, Auckland Returned and Services Association (RSA), New Zealand Vietnam Veterans Association and the Auckland War Memorial Museum. The partnership is formalised through a Memorandum of Understanding.

3. This year, while the services were planned and held, they had to be modified and scaled down to comply with the Ministry of Health’s Covid Protection Framework.

4. Funds normally generated by the Anzac Day services, Poppy Day and other fundraising activities have been significantly reduced this year due to the COVID-19 environment.

5. The Auckland RSA has approached Auckland Council and requested a grant to enable it to undertake welfare activities for their veterans.

6. While there are unspent funds in the Regional Events budget for Anzac Day, Events staff do not have the delegation to make a grant to the Auckland RSA, as these are subject to the expenditure being budgeted for.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) note that COVID-19 gathering restrictions caused reduced Anzac Day services, resulting in an underspend of the Regional Anzac Day Services budget.

b) note that the Auckland Returned and Services Association report significant impacts on fundraising activity as a result of the COVID-19 environment.

c) consider the request from Auckland Returned and Services Association for a grant of $25,000 to support veterans and their families.

Horopaki

Context

7. The impact of COVID-19 in the community and the ongoing changes made to the Covid Protection Framework gathering levels up until mid-April 2022 led to low levels of attendance at Anzac Day services on 25 April 2022. Further, there has been reduced response to Anzac Day fundraising appeals.

8. In a letter to the council, dated 5 May 2022, Graham Gibson, President of the Auckland RSA, states that this has resulted in the Auckland RSA receiving much lower donations from the public from both the annual Poppy Day Street Appeal on Friday 22 April and from Anzac Day poppy sales and donations at the Auckland Domain dawn service. See Attachment A.

9. The Auckland RSA states that its total collection from Poppy Day 2022 in the CBD was $53,514 compared to over $100,000 in a normal year, and only $1,224 collected at the dawn service compared to $9,418 collected in 2021.

10. The Auckland RSA has subsequently written to Auckland Council seeking a grant of $25,000 to assist with their welfare activities to support veterans.

11. Because financial delegations are subject to the expenditure being budgeted for, staff cannot repurpose Regional Events budget for Anzac Day underspend to meet this request without a committee decision.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. The organisation and delivery of Anzac Day services at the Auckland Cenotaph in the Auckland Domain are undertaken in partnership with the Auckland Council, Auckland RSA, New Zealand Vietnam Veterans Association (NZVVA) and the Auckland War Memorial Museum. The partnership is formalised through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

13. Planning for the Anzac Day services at the Auckland Cenotaph in the Auckland Domain was difficult this year due to the changing levels and requirements of the Ministry of Health’s Covid Protection Framework (CPF). Initially the dawn service was planned to be an invitation only service. In the days before Anzac Day, changes in the CPF enabled the service to be opened up to the public. However, the decision had already been made to cancel the 11.00am civic service and only proceed with the dawn service and insufficient time remained to change these plans. Attendance numbers were negatively impacted with approximately 3,000 attending, when in a normal year 15,000 could be expected.

14. Under the MOU Auckland Council plans all logistics and largely finances the costs associated with logistics, traffic management, public safety, lighting, catering, entertainment and so on. The Auckland RSA and NZVVA organise the parade and all military and ceremonial elements of the service.

15. As a consequence of the CPF framework, plans for the dawn service were significantly reduced this year. The event was televised by Māori Television but there were no large viewing screens provided for the public, no television camera and lighting towers, and traffic management restrictions were only implemented in the immediate roads around the Auckland War Memorial Museum, not the full Domain Drive. Carparking was not provided on the sports fields and the entertainment programme of vocalists, choirs and bands were reduced.

16. As a result of the reduced Auckland Domain service, the allocated budget was not fully utilised. Further savings have also been realised in other elements of the Regional Events budget for Anzac Day, resulting in a surplus of $51,672 as at 30 May 2022. This underspend is in the 2021/2022 financial year budget.

17. With Governing Body approval, a portion of the remaining funds from the Regional Events budget for Anzac Day could be repurposed to a grant meet the Auckland RSA’s request for support for its veteran welfare activities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. There are no direct climate impacts associated with a proposed grant payment and climate change will not affect the distribution of funding for Auckland RSA welfare purposes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. The provision of funding for Auckland RSA welfare purposes is not expected to be associated in a significant way with any other group activities.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. Auckland RSA welfare activities are driven by individuals’ need for support and therefore no specific local impacts have been identified.

21. There are a number of Returned and Services Associations operating within Auckland. The Auckland Domain Anzac Day service provides a more regional focus, which the Governing Body may consider to be a key point of difference when considering the grant request.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. Māori are represented amongst veterans and will benefit according to need from any Auckland RSA welfare activities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. The Governing Body may choose to fund a grant to the Auckland RSA using a portion of the underspend from the 2021/2022 budget for regional Anzac Day services. This will reduce any potential contribution to budget overspends in other areas, or to savings targets.

24. It is possible to reallocate $25,000 of Regional Events budget for Anzac Day underspend from the current FY21/22 financial year as a one-off grant for the Auckland RSA for the purpose of supporting Auckland veterans and their families.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. There are no significant financial risks associated with the payment to the Auckland RSA. A standard funding agreement will be entered into specifying the purposes for which any approved grant is to be used, and appropriate reporting conditions may be established.

26. There is a minor risk that reallocating budget in this way may create a precedent or expectation of funding in future years. This can be mitigated through clarifying that this is a one-off grant, funded through the reallocation of unspent budget.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27. The Governing Body may choose to reallocate some of the regional events budget underspend into a grant for the Auckland RSA to support veterans and their families. Staff would then prepare a funding agreement with the Auckland RSA to enable payment.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Letter from Auckland RSA	347

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

David Burt – Head of Events

Authorisers

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Governing Body Forward Work Programme	353
b ⇩	Governance Framework Review – Increased decision-making for local boards, 1 June 2022	363

Governing Body

23 June 2022

Tira Kāwana / Governing Body
Forward Work Programme 2022

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	Pūnga / Reason for work	Committee role (whakatau / decision and/or tika / direction)	Expected timeframes Highlight the month(s) this is expected to come to committee in 2022
Area of work and Lead Department	Pūnga / Reason for work		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 whakaae / 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 Decisions made at the Appointments and Performance Review Committee CONFIDENTIAL 28 September 2021 Link to decision / restatement Link to released report and attachments Update Report to 31 December 2021 28, April 2022 Link to decision
Chief Executive Remuneration Review	The chief executive’s remuneration will be reviewed annually.	Decision to whakaae / approve a remuneration change. Progress to date: Report from the Appointment and Performance Review Committee CONFIDENTIAL 16 December 2021 Link to decision / restatement Report releasing decision from 16 December 2022 into open 24 February 2022 Link to decision
City Rail Link	Construction of the City Rail Link in the central city	Decisions to whakaae / approve matters associated with City Rail Link Decisions to tuhi / 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 Link to restatement Report on C9 Works Update CONFIDENTIAL 24 February 2022 Link to restatement	As and when required
Auckland Light Rail	Heads of Terms of the Sponsor’s Agreement	Decisions to whakaae / approve matter associated with Auckland Light Rail Progress to date: Report on Detailed Planning Phase 28 April 2022 Link to restatement
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 Whakaaroaro / 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 whakaae / approve consultation documents, supporting information and process prior to consultation Decision to tango / adopt Annual Budget Progress to date: Mayoral Proposal Items for Consultation 8 December 2021 Link to decision Kerbside Refuse Charging Policy Review 8 December 2021 Link to decision Other Rates and Fees Issues 8 December 2021 Link to decision Rating of Whenua Maori Changes to Financial Policies 8 December 2021 Link to decision Adoption of Consultation Material 8 February 2022 Link to decision Risk management approach for the Annual Budget 2022/2023 7 June 2022 Link to decision Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023 7 June 2022 Link to decision Annual Budget 2022/2023: Mayoral Proposal 7 June 2022 Link to decision Annual Budget 2022/2023: Kerbside refuse charging policy review 7 June 2022 Link to decision Annual Budget 2022/2023: Other Fees and Charges 7 June 2022 Link to decision Rating of Whenua Māori: Adoption of Rates Remission and Postponement policies 7 June 2022 Link to decision		Consultation Material				Adoption
Rating of Whenua Māori Changes to Financial Policies		Decision to whakaae / approve consultation documents, supporting information and process prior to consultation Decision to tango / adopt any changes Progress to date: Adoption of Consultation Material 8 February 2022 Link to decision Rating of Whenua Māori: Adoption of Rates Remission and Postponement policies 7 June 2022 Link to decision		Consultation Material				Adoption
Annual Report	Statutory requirement	Decision to tango / adopt the Annual Report Progress to date:									Adoption
Independent Māori Statutory Board – Funding Agreement	Statutory requirement	Decision to approve funding agreement Progress to date: Report to approve funding agreement 26 May 2022 Link to decision					Approval
Committee Forward Work Programmes	Responsibility for oversight of work programmes of all committee of the Governing Body.	Decision to tuhi / note that all committee have adopted a forward work programme Progress to date: Report noting all committee forward work programmes 28 October 2021 Link to decision Update Report 16 December 2021 Link to decision Update Report 28 April 2022 Link to decision				Six-monthly Review
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 tango / adopt the Terms of Reference Decision to tango / 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 tīni / 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 tūtohi / receive quarterly Health, Safety and Wellbeing report Progress to date: Report for February 2022 24 February 2022 Link to decision Report for May 2022 26 May 2022 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.		As and when required
Auckland Council Enterprise Risk Report	The Audit and Risk Committee will refer the enterprise risk report to the Governing Body every quarter.	Decision to tuhi / note the enterprise risk report and risk heat map Decision to tūtohi / receive quarterly reports Progress to date: Report for February 2022 24 February 2022 Link to decision
Audit and Risk Committee Performance Report	The Audit and Risk Committee will provide an annual report on its performance.	Decision to tuhi / note the Annual Report on the Performance of the Audit and Risk Committee.
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 whakaae / approve submissions to the Crown as and when required Decision to whakaae / 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
BYLAWS
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 whakaae / approve statement of proposal # Decision to whakapūmau/tīni/takahuri / 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
Signage Bylaw Review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Decision to whakaae / approve statement of proposal # Decision to whakapūmau/tīni/takahuri / 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 Bylaw Panel Report to adopt bylaw 26 May 2022 Link to decision					Recommentation
Stormwater Bylaw	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Decision to whakaae / approve statement of proposal # Decision to whakapūmau/tīni/takahuri / 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 Bylaw Panel Report to adopt amendments 28 April 2022 Link to decision				Recommendation
Traffic Bylaw Review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Decision to whakaae / approve statement of proposal # Decision to whakapūmau/tīni/takahuri / 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.

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
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
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
Annual Report	Decision to adopt the Annual Report	Adoption 27 September 2021 Link to decision
Maori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework	Decision to agree to finalise the framework.	This was reported to Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee 8 July 2021 Link to decision
Significance and Engagement Policy	Decision to adopt a significant and engagement policy.	Report for decision 24 February 2022 Link to decision
BYLAWS 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
Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014		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		Statement of Proposal 24 September 2020 Link to decision Final decision report 29 April 2021 Link to decision
Navigation Safety Bylaw Review		Approve statement of proposal 29 October 2020 Link to decision Bylaw Panel Report to adopt bylaw 24 June 2021 Link to decision
Construction Bylaw 2015		Findings and Options Report 23 September 2021 Link to decision Note: Bylaw will lapse
Wharves Bylaw 2015		Findings and Options Report 23 September 2021 Link to decision Note: Bylaw will lapse
Property Maintenance Nuisance Bylaw Review		Approve statement of Proposal 23 September 2021 Link to decision Bylaw Panel Report to adopt amendments 28 April 2022 Link to decision

[1] GB/2021/112 23 September 2021, Item 13.

[4] Freedom Camping Act; Reserves Act; Litter Act; Resource Management Act; Fire and Emergency NZ Act; Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw; Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw; Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw; Alcohol Control Bylaw; Dog Management Bylaw

[5] Councillors Linda Cooper (Chair) and Angela Dalton and Independent Māori Statutory Board Member Glenn Wilcox.

[6] Sections 82(1)(e), 82(1)(f), 83(3), 147A(1)(a) and 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 and sections 46 and 47 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

[7] Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōrākei, Puketāpapa, Papakura, Rodney, Waiheke and Waitākere Ranges Local Boards.

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, MNZM	Cr John Watson
	Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Paul Young
	Cr Shane Henderson

Date	Workshop/Briefing
1/6/2022	Governance Framework Review – Increased decision-making for local boards

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