Agenda of Regulatory and Safety Committee

27 June 2023

Approval to commence recruitment for independent hearing commissioners for the 2024-2026 term

File No.: CP2023/06496

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the recruitment process and appoint a selection panel for the independent hearing commissioner recruitment for the 2024-2026 term.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council contracts independent commissioners to hear and make decisions under delegated authority on a range of resource management matters. The contracts for commissioners are due to expire on 31 December 2023 and the following three-year term commences on 1 January 2024.

3. This report seeks approval to commence the recruitment process and appoint a selection panel comprising one councillor, one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board and two senior staff members to assess new and existing candidates and make recommendations to the Regulatory and Safety Committee for appointments.

4. Staff propose approximately 50-60 commissioners be appointed representing specialist knowledge and expertise.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the process for recruiting independent commissioners for the 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2026 term

b) kopou / appoint a selection panel comprising one councillor, one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board and any two of the following senior staff managers:

i) General Manager Plans and Places (or their delegate)

ii) General Manager Resource Consents or its equivalent (or their delegate)

iii) General Manager Democracy and Engagement (or their delegate)

iv) Manager Public Law (or their delegate)

to finalise a list of recommended commissioners back to the Regulatory and Safety Committee.

Horopaki

Context

5. Auckland Council independent commissioners sit on hearing panels and make decisions under delegated authority for a range of resource management matters including applications for resource consents, plan changes and notices of requirement.

6. A commissioner with Reserves Act experience may also be appointed by a local board to sit on a panel with elected members who make recommendations for matters under the Reserves Act.

7. In January 2020, 51 appointments were made to the commissioner pool and during the term two commissioners have left the pool. A smaller number of commissioners within the pool also act as duty commissioners and determine applications which do not necessitate a hearing.

8. This report seeks approval to recruit approximately 50-60 commissioners who meet the requirement of expertise in each specialist category and to allow for new appointments to join the panel.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9. Commissioners are recruited for their qualifications and experience in resource management matters and their specialised areas of expertise.

10. The categories of expertise in the existing pool that contribute to the decision making are:

· Air Quality

· Ecology

· Engineering

· Landscape

· Legal

· Planning

· Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi

· Urban Design

11. Staff propose two pathways that were used in 2020 that acknowledges previous interviews, tenure, experience and performance of the existing commissioners and ensuring that a robust interview process is in place for the recruitment of new commissioners.

Pathway A

12. Commissioners in the current pool may be reappointed if they choose to apply and they meet the council’s requirements for commissioner expertise and performance.

13. Existing commissioners would be asked to submit an application in the form of an expression of interest if they wish to continue in the commissioner role. In this pathway, the selection panel will finalise the selection criteria, examine and assess the applications, and confirm the names of candidates recommended for reappointment.

14. The rationale for this approach is that all current commissioners have been through at least one round of the established formal interview process.

15. Of the existing commissioners, 21 have served since 2010 and a further 18 have been successful in two or more interview rounds. The remaining ten commissioners were successful at interview and appointment in 2020.

Pathway B

16. Staff propose that new candidates are required to make an application and go through the shortlisting and interview process that is consistent with all new commissioner appointments.

17. The rationale for this approach is that it follows the established process for selecting suitable candidates for the role and appointing new people to the panel, and it ensures that the pool is continually refreshed.

Selection panel

18. The proposed makeup of the selection panel is four members including:

· one Councillor

· one representative from the Independent Māori Statutory Board

· two senior staff members.

Timeline

19. The proposed timeline is:

Dates (2023)	Activity
27 June	Decision of Regulatory and Safety Committee
Approx 6 July	Advertising: call for applications
Approx 20 July	Applications close
Late July	Shortlisting meeting
August - September	Interviews
Late September	Reference checks
Early October	Panel decides recommendations
7 November	Regulatory and Safety Committee makes appointments
November - December	Contracts issued and returned

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

20. There are no climate or environmental impacts arising from the decision-making processes relating to this report. The minor impacts from the greenhouse gas emissions relating to travel associated with appointments to hearing panels are minimised by holding hearings as close as possible to the site relating to the application.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. The proposed recruitment programme to select independent commissioners does not impact other parts of the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. Local Boards provide input and feedback to applications for resource management applications and able to appear at hearings to present community views and interests.

23. Local board members who are accredited resource management commissioners may be appointed to hearing panels.

24. The recommended appointments for the 2024-2026 term include people with experience in local reserve matters and knowledge of local board reserve management plans, who may be appointed by local boards to chair hearing panels.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. All resource management commissioners are expected to have an understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Te Ao Māori.

26. Iwi commissioners with expertise in matauranga Māori and tikanga Māori are appointed to panels for all matters where a matter covers areas of significance to Māori to ensure better and more informed decisions are made.

27. A member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board participates on the selection panel to ensure that the panel is guided when making decisions and that the interests and concerns of Māori communities are reflected in decisions.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. Applicants for resource consents meet the costs associated with the hearing when the work is completed. In a small number of applications, the applicant may be Auckland Council.

29. The hearing costs associated with private plan changes are met by the applicant. The hearing costs for notices of requirement are met by the requiring authority.

30. The hearing costs for a public plan change are met by council’s Democracy and Engagement Department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. Successful candidates will undergo Ministry of Justice checks, which is a standard requirement. As new appointments are subject to this check being satisfactory, all appointments are not made public until this process has been completed.

32. A robust recruitment process which includes reference checks ensures that qualified commissioners are recommended for appointment.

33. Each commissioner makes a conflict of interest declaration prior to each hearing.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. After approval on the recruitment process is granted, staff will commence the programme of work as set out in the timeline.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Julie McKee - Hearings Manager

Authorisers

Kenneth Aiolupotea - General Manager Democracy and Engagement

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Regulatory and Safety Committee - Recommendation for the appointment of District Licensing Committee chairs and members for 2023-2026, 4 April 2023

Regulatory and Safety Committee

27 June 2023

Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 27 June 2023

File No.: CP2023/07640

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update of all current resource consent appeals lodged with the Environment Court.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report provides a summary of current resource consent appeals to which the Auckland Council is a party. It updates the report to the Regulatory Committee on 14 April 2023.

3. If committee members have detailed questions concerning specific appeals, it would be helpful if they could raise them prior to the meeting with Robert Andrews (phone: 09 353-9254) or email: robert.andrews@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) in the first instance.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) whiwhi / receive the Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 27 June 2023

Horopaki

Context

4. As at 13 June 2023, there are 42 resource consent appeals to which Auckland Council is a party. These are grouped by Local Board Area geographically from north to south, as set out in Attachment A. Changes since the last report and new appeals received are shown in bold italic text.

5. The principal specialist planners - resource consents, continue to resolve these appeals expeditiously. In the period since preparing the previous status report on 14 April 2023, there has been one new appeal lodged and none resolved.

6. The new appeal from Gregory Victor Millar and others is to council’s grant of subdivision consent for conversion of three cross-lease titles to three fee-simple titles at 105 Tarawera Terrace, Saint Heliers, Auckland. The appeal is to conditions requiring the applicant to satisfy the council that the existing wastewater and stormwater drainage systems are in working order, as confirmed by CCTV inspection, and flow to approved outfalls.

7. The appellant has the same agent as other cross lease conversion appellants who seek the removal of conditions requiring inspection and upgrade of non-complying stormwater systems. It is argued that these are matters of existing use and that the change of tenure does not create additional adverse effects to which system upgrade conditions can be imposed. The appeal, with those appeals at 10 Albury Road Epsom, 86 Michaels Avenue, Ellerslie and 25 Belle Vue Avenue Northcote Point will be heard together.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. To receive the report as provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

9. The report provides an update of consent appeals and seeks no resolution or consideration of the merits associated with them.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

10. Not applicable.

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

Local impacts and local board views

11. Not applicable.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

12. The decision requested of the Regulatory and Safety Committee is to receive this progress report rather than to consider the relevance to Māori associated with each of the appeals at this time.

13. The Resource Management Act 1991 includes a number of matters under Part 2, which relate to the relationship of Tangata Whenua to the management of air, land and water resources. Maori values associated with the land, air and freshwater bodies of the Auckland Region are based on whakapapa and stem from the long social, economic and cultural associations and experiences with such taonga. These matters where relevant are considered with the resolution of the resource consent appeals.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

14. Not applicable.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

15. Not applicable.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

16. Not applicable.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Current Resource Consent Appeals as at 14 June 2023

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Robert Andrews - Principal Specialist Planning

Authoriser

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory and Safety Committee

27 June 2023

Findings from further investigation of regulatory options to reduce alcohol signage outside off-licence premises

File No.: CP2023/08030

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek a decision on the preferred regulatory option to reduce alcohol advertising outside off-licence premises.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Staff prepared a further investigation report to enable the committee to decide a preferred regulatory option to reduce alcohol advertising outside off-licence premises (Attachment A).

3. Key findings from the further investigation are:

· alcohol advertising outside off-licence premises may impact public health

· the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 allows councils (in their local alcohol policies (LAP)) and District Licensing Committees (DLC) to regulate alcohol advertising as a discretionary condition of an off-licence

· these powers contrast with general bylaw powers under the Local Government Act 2002

· twenty New Zealand councils have discretionary conditions in their local alcohol policies

· no New Zealand councils regulate alcohol advertising in a bylaw

· the Auckland DLC (ADLC) has since March 2023 applied a practice note to restrict external alcohol advertising as a condition on all new and renewed off-licences.

4. Staff recommend Option three (endorse ADLC Practice Note). Taking this approach would:

· be the most appropriate option to reduce community exposure to alcohol advertising signs outside off-licence premises compared to other options

· proactively respond to community concerns

· support the majority of the community feedback received, in particular restricting the number, size and content on signs

· use legislative powers provided to regulate alcohol advertising

· use existing resource, budget, processes and approaches to compliance.

5. While Option three will take up to three years to fully implement, it is still more effective and efficient than the other regulatory options:

· Option one (Auckland-based research to support amendment to Signs Bylaw) would take longer to come into force (if a bylaw is justified), would not inspect all off-licence premises, not use more appropriate regulatory tools, and could not be enforced by suspending trading hours or by issuing infringement notices.

· Option two (Use LAP review provisions to develop discretionary conditions) would take even longer to come into force, particularly if there are objections or appeals and may not be applied to all off-licence premises. Note, this option could be considered during the first statutory review of the LAP, if and when it becomes operative.

6. If approved, staff will inform key stakeholders, ADLC and local boards of the decision.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) whakaae / agree to the key findings in the ‘Report on further investigation of regulatory options to reduce alcohol advertising outside off-licence premises’ in Attachment A of this agenda report.

b) ohia / endorse the Auckland District Licensing Committee Practice Note on off-licence advertising as the most appropriate option to reduce alcohol advertising outside off-licence premises as detailed in Option three of this agenda report.

c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that including discretionary conditions about alcohol advertising outside off-licence premises can be considered during the first statutory review of the Auckland Local Alcohol Policy, if and when it becomes operative.

Horopaki

Context

The Regulatory Committee endorsed further investigation of suggested regulatory options

7. During the review of Auckland’s Signage Bylaw 2015, Aucklanders expressed concerns^{^[1]} about alcohol advertising outside off-licence premises.

8. After considering a high-level options report,^{^[2]} the Regulatory Committee (REG/2020/66) endorsed further investigation of a bylaw that would either:

· restrict the number and size of off-licence signs

· restrict the content of off-licence signs

· ban all off-licence alcohol advertising signs

· ban all alcohol advertising signs and require premises to use neutral colours.

The investigation aligns with the strategic directions in the Auckland Plan 2050

9. The investigation supports health and wellbeing outcomes in the Auckland Plan 2050.

Auckland Plan	Description
Outcome	Belonging and Participation
Direction 2	Improve health and wellbeing for all Aucklanders by reducing harm and disparities in opportunities.
Outcome	Māori Identity and Wellbeing
Direction 1	Advance Māori wellbeing for whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori communities to lead healthy and prosperous lives where their home heating and health needs are met.
Alignment	The investigation seeks to improve health and wellbeing outcomes by exploring options to reduce exposure to alcohol advertising signage outside off-licence premises.

The investigation forms part of a wider regulatory and strategic framework

10. This investigation focuses on one part of wider regulatory and strategic framework that addresses alcohol advertising. This includes central government legislation and local plans.

A close-up of several blue squares

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Staff prepared a report to help determine the most appropriate regulatory option

11. Staff undertook further research and engagement and identified and assessed options to complete a further investigation report (Attachment A). This included:

· an online council survey of Aucklanders (387 responses received)

· an online Alcohol Healthwatch Portal survey of Aucklanders (859 responses)

· interviews with staff in council’s Licensing and Regulatory Compliance department

· an environmental scan of how other New Zealand councils manage similar concerns

· a review of domestic and international literature and research

· analysis of public complaints and requests for service since 2015

· identification and assessment of three regulatory options.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

A picture containing text, screenshot, font, number

Description automatically generated Aucklanders have concerns about alcohol advertising outside off-licence premises.

12. A community survey in 2021 comprising of 1246 responses (387 to a council survey and 859 to a similar Alcohol Healthwatch (AHW) campaign) found:

· community is concerned about alcohol adverting at off-license premises

· responses to the AHW campaign were more supportive of the restrictions that the responses received to the council survey

· only about half of respondents to council’s survey supported restrictions compared to three quarters of AHW respondents.

Alcohol advertising outside off-licence premises can impact on public health

13. The findings from the 2020 Signage Bylaw High-Level Options Report confirmed based on national and international research that there is a causal link between high exposure to alcohol marketing and alcohol-related harm, especially for young people.

14. The 2018 University of Otago study^{^[3]} based on national research found that shop front advertising accounts for a high proportion of alcohol marketing exposures to children, particularly in Māori and Pacific communities:

· more than half (52 per cent) of children’s exposure to alcohol advertising was from advertising outside the home

· shop front signage accounted for up to 30 per cent of all alcohol marketing exposures, while alcohol signs (including billboards, sandwich boards, posters, etc.) accounted for nearly 10 per cent of exposures; and

· tamariki Māori experienced alcohol marketing exposures that was five times greater than European children, while Pacific children’ exposure levels were three times greater.

15. International research on signs and advertising at licensed premises found:

· the greater the number of off-licence alcohol outlets with exterior alcohol advertising around college campuses, the higher the prevalence of binge drinking among students^{^[4]}

· liquor stores are more likely than other retailers to have the most exterior advertisements (on average eight per store)

· the more alcohol advertisements visible outside off-licence outlets, the more violent crime in the local area.

The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 provides for the regulation of alcohol advertising

16. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (Act) allows for alcohol advertising restrictions in local alcohol policies (LAP).

17. Twenty local councils have discretionary conditions in their LAP’s to restrict alcohol signage.

18. Auckland currently has a provisional LAP that has no signage condition. It does however, have other conditions relating to closed-circuit television, exterior lighting, single sales, and the closure of premises in the afternoon near education facilities.

19. The powers in the Act are specific to alcohol in contrast to the general bylaw making powers under the Local Government Act 2002.

20. A review of the 65 local councils showed that no council has specific rules to regulate alcohol signage through a bylaw.

The Auckland District Licensing Committee applies conditions on off-licence advertising

21. The Act also allows the Auckland District Licensing Committee (ADLC) to regulate alcohol advertising as a discretionary condition of an off-licence.

22. In October 2022, the ADLC developed a practice note to restrict advertising of alcohol products outside off-licence premises.

23. The practice note was recently amended and has been applied since March 2023.

24. The ADLC will, as set out in the practice note apply conditions to all new and renewed licenses for off-licence premises unless there is a valid reason not to.

25. The practice note responds to concerns raised by community objectors during licensing committee hearings about the proliferation of signs in their communities by:

· banning advertising of prices of alcohol products, or promotion of a special price / discount of an alcohol product on the façade of the building

· banning advertising of alcohol products by way of flags, sandwich boards or bollard covers outside premises

· restricting alcohol-related lifestyle or branding images on the façade of premises to less than 25 per cent.

26. The ADLC is the only district licensing committee in New Zealand who has an operational practice note restricting alcohol advertising at off-licence premises.

Three regulatory options were identified and analysed against assessment criteria

27. Staff identified three regulatory options to reduce community exposure to alcohol advertising signs outside off-licence premises:

· Option one: Auckland-based research to support amendment to Signs Bylaw about off-licence advertising

· Option two: Use LAP review provisions to develop off-licence discretionary conditions on off-licence advertising

· Option three: Endorse Auckland District Licensing Committee Practice Note on off-licence advertising.

28. Staff completed a comparative assessment of the three options against criteria.

29. A full description of each option and analysis against assessment criteria is contained in Attachment A. For each option this includes a description, implementation, pros, cons, risks, risk mitigation and assessment against effectiveness, efficiency and validity criteria.

30. A summary of the comparative assessment of the options is shown in the table below. A classification system of ticks “ü” and crosses “û” was developed against each criterion with fewer ticks and crosses corresponding to weaker achievement against each criterion.

Summary of each option against assessment criteria

Options	Effectiveness	Efficiency	Validity
	… reducing community exposure to alcohol advertising signs outside off-licence premises and alcohol-related harm ..
Option one: Auckland-based research to support amendment to Signs Bylaw about off-licence advertising	ü	û	û
Option two: Use Local Alcohol Policy review provisions to develop off-licence discretionary conditions	üü	ûû	ü
Option three: Endorse Auckland District Licensing Committee Practice Note on off-licence advertising (Recommended)	üüü	ü	ü

31. Based on the analysis of each option, staff recommend option three (Endorse ADLC Practice Note). This option would:

· be the most appropriate option to reduce community exposure to alcohol advertising signs outside off-licence premises

· proactively responds to community concerns

· support the majority of the community feedback received, in particular restricting the number, size and content on signs

· use legislative powers provided to regulate alcohol advertising

· use existing resource, budget, processes and approaches to compliance.

32. While Option three will take three years to fully implement as part of the off-licence renewal process, it is still more effective and efficient than any other regulatory option.

· Option two (Use LAP review provisions to develop off-licence discretionary conditions on off-licence advertising) would take even longer to come into force, particularly if there are objections or appeals, and may not be applied to all off-licence premises. Note, this option could be considered during the first statutory review of the LAP, if and when it becomes operative.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33. The regulation of alcohol advertising does not directly impact climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

34. The regulation of alcohol advertising impacts the Auckland Council Regulatory and Licencing Compliance department, including the Alcohol Inspectorate.

35. Relevant technical experts have provided feedback on the proposed options and are aware of the impacts of options assessed and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36. Alcohol off-licence density and exposure is of high interest to local boards, particularly the southern local boards. While regulating alcohol advertising will not address density, it will reduce community exposure to alcohol advertising.

37. In accordance with agreed governance principles and processes^{^[5]}, local board views were not obtained for this further investigation report on the most appropriate regulatory option.

38. If the committee adopt recommended Option three (Endorse ADLC Practice Note), local boards will be informed of the decision. If the committee instead adopt Option one (Auckland-based research to support amendment to Signs Bylaw)) or two (Use LAP review provisions to develop discretionary conditions), local board views would be sought on any proposal and local public feedback.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39. The recommended Option three (endorse ADLC Practice Note), supports manaakitanga and whanaungatanga in the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and the Schedule of Issues of Significance by improving health and wellbeing through reducing exposure to alcohol advertising.

40. Māori suffer disproportionately from alcohol-related harm. The high levels of alcohol-related harm that Māori experience may be related to living in communities with saturated liquor outlets and in part with higher exposure to the alcohol advertising.

41. Ten per cent of the community feedback received was from Māori. The feedback is consistent with the overall feedback to support a ban or restriction on alcohol signage.

42. The 2018 University of Otago study[6] found that shop front advertising accounts for a high proportion of alcohol marketing exposures to children, particularly in Māori and Pacific communities. Tamariki Māori had experienced alcohol marketing exposures five times greater than European children, while Pacific children’ exposure levels were three times greater.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43. The implementation cost of the recommended option will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

44. The following risks have been identified:

If...

Then...

Mitigation

the decision does not meet the community expectations

there may be a negative perception of the council to address the issue.

Low reputational risk.

Public communication of the reasons for the decision, the council’s and ADLC roles under the Act, Committee’s endorsement of the ADLC practice note and possible future consideration of discretionary conditions about advertising at off-licence premises as part of a six-year statutory review of the Provisional Auckland Local Alcohol Policy if and when it becomes operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45. If approved, the next step will be for staff to inform key stakeholders^{^[7]}, the Auckland District Licensing Committee and local boards of the decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Further investigation of regulatory options to reduce alcohol signage outside off-licence premises: 2023 Findings Report

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kylie Hill - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki - General Manager - Community and Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory and Safety Committee

27 June 2023

Determination of objections to menacing dog classifications by Krystle Black

File No.: CP2023/07276

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To hear and consider Krystle Black’s objection to her dogs, Roxy and Rickie, being classified as menacing under section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Ms Black is the owner of a 3-year-old female entire Rottweiler called Roxy, and a 2-year-old male entire Rottweiler called Rickie.

3. On 15 June 2022 Roxy and Rickie escaped from her property and attacked a poodle that was being walked past the property. The attack was unprovoked. The poodle sustained serious injuries which necessitated urgent veterinary treatment.

4. Section 33A of the DCA provides that the Auckland Council may classify a dog as menacing when it considers that that dog may pose a threat to any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife because of any reported behaviour of the dog.

5. Where a dog is classified as menacing the owner of the dog must:

a) Not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place, or in any private way, without it being muzzled; and

b) Within one month after service of the notice provide a certificate by a veterinarian that the dog is or has been de-sexed. If the dog is not in a fit condition to be de-sexed within that time, the dog owner must provide a certificate by a veterinarian explaining the reasons for that and specifying the date by when the dog can be de-sexed.

6. On 17 June 2022 Animal Management classified Roxy and Rickie as menacing by deed because it considered that the dogs may pose a threat to the safety of people and domestic animals. Refer Attachments A and B. The notices of classification were served on Ms Black on the same day.

7. Ms Black objects to the classification on the following grounds (refer Attachment C):

a) At the time, the attacked dog was being walked off leash and was not under direct control of its owner. The dog would often come close to her property fence which made the dogs over-excited.

b) She wants to breed with the two dogs. Roxy was pregnant at the time pregnant with six puppies.

8. Roxy and Rickie may pose a threat to persons and specifically other dogs. This threat will be reduced if the dogs are:

a) muzzled when in public places because any attack on persons or domestic animals will be prevented,

b) de-sexed because it will temper their aggression and reduce the risk they may pose to public safety.

9. Clause 17 of the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2019 provides for the review and cancellation of a menacing classifications after 12 months if Ms Black:

a) provides a dog behavioural assessment report on the dogs,

b) has not been issued with infringement notices relating to Roxy or Rickie within the preceding 12-month period, and

c) has obtained a Responsible Dog Owner Licence.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) kohuki / consider Ms Krystle Black’s objection to her dogs, Roxy and Rickie, being classified as menacing under section 33A of the DCA and

b) tautīnei / uphold Roxy’s and Rickie’s menacing classification under section 33A of the DCA.

Horopaki

Context

Jurisdiction of the Regulatory and Safety Committee

10. The Governing Body of the Auckland Council has delegated to the Regulatory Committee (now the Regulatory and Safety Committee) the responsibility for regulatory hearings in Resolution No. GB/2019/109 which was adopted on 12 November 2019. The regulatory hearings which this committee is responsible include, amongst others, decisions under the DCA in relation to the consideration of objections under the DCA.

The Dog Control Act 1996

11. A dog may be classified as menacing under section 33A if the Auckland Council considers the dog may pose a threat to the safety of persons or animals because of any reported behaviour of the dog.

12. Where a dog is classified as menacing, then the owner of the dog:

a) must not allow the dog to be at large or in a public place or in any private way without been muzzled, and

b) must within one month after service of the notice provide a certificate by a veterinarian that the dog is or has been de-sexed. If the dog is not in a fit condition to be de-sexed within that time, the dog owner must provide a certificate by a veterinarian explaining the reasons for that and specifying the date by when the dog can be de-sexed.

13. It is an offence under the DCA if an owner fails to comply with these requirements. The maximum fine for this offence is $3,000. In addition, an animal management officer may seize and retain custody of the dog until the owner has demonstrated a willingness to comply with these requirements.

14. Section 33D(3) explains what the committee must take into account during their deliberations on whether the objection should be upheld or rescinded. These are:

a) The evidence which formed the basis for the classification,

b) Any steps taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of person or animals,

c) The matters relied on in support of the objection, and

d) Any other relevant matters.

Evidence which formed the basis for the classification

15. On 15 June 2022 the complainant was walking her poodle along Mantra Road in Massey, when the two Rottweilers escaped from Ms Black’s property in Jammen Drive and attacked her dog. Her dog was seriously injured. Refer to Attachment D for her report, and Attachment E for photos of the dog’s injuries.

16. An animal management officer, Mark Williams, investigated the complaint. He ascertained that the dogs had escaped through broken fencing at the rear of the property. Refer Attachment F for his statement and photos of the fencing.

17. Auckland Council had no record of Rickie because he was never registered. Roxy was not currently registered. Her last registration was for the financial year 2019 – 2020.

18. Ms Black has since registered both dogs. She was issued with infringement notices under section 42 of the DCA for failing to register Roxy and Rickie.

Steps taken by Ms Black to prevent any threat to persons or animals

19. Ms Black did not maintain the fencing of her property to ensure that her dogs cannot escape.

20. She has not informed Animal Management whether her dogs have since this incident been de-sexed, or whether they have attended any behavioural modification courses.

Matters relied upon in support of the objection

21. Ms Black objects to the classification on the following grounds:

a) Her dogs are not aggressive.

b) The poodle was not on a leash and was not under direct control of its owner.

The dogs attacked the poodle because they were able to escape from Ms Black’s property, not because the poodle was not on a leash.

c) The dogs were over-excited because the poodle would often pass the property close to the fence.

The poodle’s behaviour cannot be termed as aggressive or provocative. The dogs attacked the poodle because they were able to escape from Ms Black’s property.

d) Ms Black wants to breed with Roxy and Rickie.

The purpose of the DCA is to protect public safety, by ensuring that dogs do not cause harm. The financial benefit from breeding with the dogs cannot compete against public safety.

Other relevant matters

22. Ms Black may wish to address the committee on other relevant matters.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

23. The classification of dogs as menacing is to protect public safety from possible harm. The threat referred to in section 33A need not be shown to be real to classify a dog as menacing. It suffices if there is a potential of harm by the dog to persons and animals.

24. Ms Black’s objections to the menacing classifications are unsustainable. Refer paragraph 21 above.

25. Auckland Council considers that Roxy and Rickie may pose a threat to persons and domestic animals. This threat will be eliminated if they are muzzled when in public.

26. The threat will also be reduced if Roxy is de-sexed. One of the benefits of de-sexing a female dog is that it may reduce the dog’s unwanted aggressive behaviour when on heat or when she has puppies.

27. Rickie’s desire to roam and aggressive behaviour will decrease if he is de-sexed. This will reduce the likelihood of him getting involved in dog fights.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28. This section is not relevant to the subject of this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29. This is a report about an objection to the menacing classification of dogs. It does not require council group views.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30. This report has no local impact. We have not sought local board views.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. This is a report about an objection to the menacing classification of dogs which has no impact on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. The decision by the Regulatory and Safety Committee on the objection to the menacing classifications has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. There are no risks in upholding the classifications.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. The Regulatory and Safety Committee must give Ms Black written notice of its decision as soon as practicable.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Notice of classification for Roxy
b ⇨	Notice of classification for Rickie
c ⇨	Objection to menacing dog classifications
d ⇨	Complainant's report
e ⇨	Photographs of dog's injuries
f ⇨	Statement by Mark Williams, Animal Management Officer

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Chrisna Nortje – Principal Specialist Animal

Authorisers

Eleanor Waitoa – Manager Animal Management

Mervyn Chetty - General Manager Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory and Safety Committee

27 June 2023

Determination of an objection to a menacing dog classification by Ashley Williams

File No.: CP2023/07277

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To hear and consider Ashley William’s objection to her dog, Tane Williams, being classified as menacing under section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Ms Williams is the owner of a 3-year and 3-month-old male Mastiff, called Tane Williams. The dog is not de-sexed.

3. On 3 March 2023 Tane attacked a courier on the shared driveway leading to Ms William’s property. The attack was unprovoked. The courier sustained a bite wound to his inner thigh and sprained his wrist and lower back when he fell over during the attack. He received medical treatment at an accident and emergency clinic.

5. Where a dog is classified as menacing the owner of the dog must:

a) Not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place, or in any private way, without it being muzzled; and

6. On 8 March 2023 Animal Management classified Tane as menacing by deed because it considered that the dog may pose a threat to the safety of people and domestic animals. The notice of classification was served on Ms Williams on 9 March 2023. Refer Attachment A.

7. Ms Williams objects to the classification on the following grounds (refer Attachment B):

a) Tane has never shown any aggression or attacked anybody in the past,

b) There is a ‘Beware of the Dog’ sign at the front of her property,

c) The attack happened on her property.

8. A dog owner is obligated to keep their dog confined within their property, and under control on their property to prevent harm to persons who lawfully enter the property.

9. Tane’s behaviour in attacking a person under these circumstances may pose a threat to persons and domestic animals. This threat will be reduced if Tane is:

a) muzzled when in public places because any attack on persons or domestic animals will be prevented,

b) de-sexed because it will temper his aggression and reduce the risk he poses to public safety.

10. Clause 17 of the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2019 provides for the review and cancellation of a menacing classification after 12 months if Ms Williams:

a) provides a dog behavioural assessment report on Tane,

b) has not been issued with infringement notices relating to Tane within the preceding 12-month period, and

c) has obtained a Responsible Dog Owner Licence.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) kohuki / consider Ms Ashley William’s objection to her dog, Tane, being classified as menacing under section 33A of the DCA and

b) tautīnei / uphold Tane’s menacing classification under section 33A of the DCA.

Horopaki

Context

Jurisdiction of the Regulatory and Safety Committee

11. The Governing Body of the Auckland Council has delegated to the Regulatory Committee (now the Regulatory and Safety Committee) the responsibility for regulatory hearings in Resolution No. GB/2019/109 which was adopted on 12 November 2019. The regulatory hearings which this committee is responsible include, amongst others, decisions under the DCA in relation to the consideration of objections under the DCA.

The Dog Control Act 1996

12. A dog may be classified as menacing under section 33A if the Auckland Council considers the dog may pose a threat to the safety of persons or animals because of any reported behaviour of the dog.

13. Where a dog is classified as menacing, then the owner of the dog:

a) must not allow the dog to be at large or in a public place or in any private way without been muzzled, and

14. It is an offence under the DCA if an owner fails to comply with these requirements. The maximum fine for this offence is $3,000. In addition, an animal management officer may seize and retain custody of the dog until the owner has demonstrated a willingness to comply with these requirements.

15. Section 33D(3) explains what the committee must take into account during their deliberations on whether the objection should be upheld or rescinded. These are:

a) The evidence which formed the basis for the classification,

b) Any steps taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of person or animals,

c) The matters relied on in support of the objection, and

d) Any other relevant matters.

Evidence which formed the basis for the classification

16. On 3 March 2023 the complainant, a courier, walked down the shared driveway to deliver a parcel at Ms Williams’s property. He called out when he got to the front of the property. Tane was at the time lying in front of the house. Tane ran to the complainant and bit him on his inner thigh. The complainant fell over and hurt his wrist and lower back. He went to the White Cross Accident & Urgent Medical – Henderson 24/7 where the bite wound was disinfected and bandaged. He was also given painkillers and a prescription for antibiotics. Refer the Attachment C for the complainant’s statement and Attachment D for the witness’s statement.

17. Auckland Council had no record of Tane because it was unregistered. Ms Williams has since registered the dog.

18. Ms Williams was issued with an infringement notice under section 53 of the DCA for failing to control Tane.

Steps taken by Ms Williams to prevent any threat to persons or animals

19. There is a ‘Beware of the Dog’ sign near the entrance to Ms Williams’s property. The dog can leave the property freely because it is not gated.

20. Ms Williams has not informed Animal Management whether Tane has since this incident been de-sexed, or whether Tane has attended any behavioural modification courses.

Matters relied upon in support of the objection

21. Ms Williams objects to the classification on the following grounds:

a) Tane has never shown any aggression or attacked anybody in the past.

Animal Management cannot admit or deny that Tane has not been involved in any earlier aggressive incidents. This is because the dog was not registered until this attack.

b) There is a ‘Beware of the Dog’ sign at the front of her property.

This does not relieve a dog owner from the obligation to ensure that their dog does not injure a person who has lawfully entered their property. Refer to the analysis at paragraph [25] below.

c) The attack happened on her property.

According to the complainant, the attack happened before he entered the property. This is to an extent supported by the witness’s statement. It is in any event irrelevant where the attack happened. Refer to the analysis at paragraph [26] below.

Other relevant matters

22. Ms Williams may wish to address the committee on other relevant matters.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24. It matters not if a dog has not shown any aggressive behaviour in the past for it to pose a risk to public safety. The High Court remarked in Halliday v New Plymouth District Council HC NWP CRI 2005-443-011 (14 July 2005) at paragraph [44] that ‘once a dog has attacked it will be assumed it will attack again unless there are compelling reasons justifying an alternative view’. There are no facts in this case to warrant an alternative finding.

25. Section 5(1)(g) of the DCA imposes the obligation on a dog owner to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their dog does not injure any person. A sign warning a visitor to beware of a dog on the property merely informs that person to be on the lookout for a dog on the property. It does not prevent that person from entering the property and it does not excuse the dog owner if the dog attacks that person.

26. Moreover, it is an accepted legal principle that members of the public have an implied licence to enter onto private property on the condition that it is for a lawful purpose. In this case, the complainant had lawful business to enter Ms Williams’s property to deliver a parcel.

27. Auckland Council considers that Tane poses a threat to persons and domestic animals. This threat will be eliminated if he is muzzled when in public. His aggressive behaviour will be tempered and his desire to roam will be decreased if he is de-sexed. This will reduce the likelihood of Tane getting involved in dogfights.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28. This section is not relevant to the subject of this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29. This is a report about an objection to the menacing classification of a dog. It does not require council group views.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30. This report has no local impact. We have not sought local board views.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. This is a report about an objection to the menacing classification of a dog which has no impact on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. The decision by the Regulatory and Safety Committee on the objection to the menacing classification has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. There are no risks in upholding the classification.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. The Regulatory and Safety Committee must give Ms Williams written notice of its decision as soon as practicable.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Notice of classification
b ⇨	Objection to menacing dog classification
c ⇨	Complainant's statement
d ⇨	Statement from witness

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Chrisna Nortje, Principal Specialist Animal

Authorisers

Eleanor Waitoa - Manager Animal Management

Mervyn Chetty - General Manager Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory and Safety Committee

27 June 2023

Determination of an objection to a menacing dog classification by Selena Kingi

File No.: CP2023/07593

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To hear and consider Selena Kingi’s objection to her dog, Havoc, being classified as menacing under section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Ms Kingi is the owner of a 2-year and 5-month-old male Rottweiler, called Havoc. The dog is not de-sexed.

3. On 3 March 2023 the complainant, a property inspector from Kāinga Ora, was on his way to Ms Kingi’s rental property when Havoc escaped through the front door and attacked the complainant on the shared driveway. The attack was unprovoked. The complainant sustained a minor bite wound to his calf.

5. Where a dog is classified as menacing the owner of the dog must:

a) Not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place, or in any private way, without it being muzzled; and

6. On 9 March 2023 Animal Management classified Havoc as menacing by deed because it considered that the dog may pose a threat to the safety of people and domestic animals. The notice of classification was served on Ms Kingi on 10 March 2023. Refer attachment A.

7. On 20 March 2023 Ms Kingi objected to the classification with the request that he be given a chance as he is a much-loved dog. Refer attachment B. She later amplified her objection to explain that in terms of her rental agreement she would have to dispose of the dog if the menacing classification remained in place.

8. Animal Management has received three earlier reports about Havoc’s aggressive behaviour towards people.

9. Havoc’s aggressive behaviour may pose a threat to persons. This threat will be reduced if Havoc is:

a) muzzled when in public places because any attack on persons or domestic animals will be prevented,

b) de-sexed because it will temper his aggression and reduce the risk he poses to public safety.

10. Clause 17 of the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2019 provides for the review and cancellation of a menacing classification after 12 months if Ms Kingi:

a) provides a dog behavioural assessment report on Havoc,

b) has not been issued with infringement notices relating to Havoc within the preceding 12-month period, and

c) has obtained a responsible dog ownership licence.

11. Ms Kingi may consider for Havoc to live elsewhere until the classification has been cancelled.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) kohuki / consider Ms Selena Kingi’s objection to her dog, Havoc, being classified as menacing under section 33A of the DCA and

b) tautīnei / uphold Havoc’s menacing classification under section 33A of the DCA.

Horopaki

Context

Jurisdiction of the Regulatory and Safety Committee

12. The Governing Body of the Auckland Council has delegated to the Regulatory Committee (now the Regulatory and Safety Committee) the responsibility for regulatory hearings in Resolution No. GB/2019/109 which was adopted on 12 November 2019. The regulatory hearings which this committee is responsible include, amongst others, decisions under the DCA in relation to the consideration of objections under the DCA.

The Dog Control Act 1996

13. A dog may be classified as menacing under section 33A if the Auckland Council considers the dog may pose a threat to the safety of persons or animals because of any reported behaviour of the dog.

14. Where a dog is classified as menacing, then the owner of the dog:

a) must not allow the dog to be at large or in a public place or in any private way without been muzzled, and

15. It is an offence under the DCA if an owner fails to comply with these requirements. The maximum fine for this offence is $3,000. In addition, an animal management officer may seize and retain custody of the dog until the owner has demonstrated a willingness to comply with these requirements.

16. Section 33D(3) explains what the committee must take into account during their deliberations on whether the objection should be upheld or rescinded. These are:

a) The evidence which formed the basis for the classification,

b) Any steps taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of person or animals,

c) The matters relied on in support of the objection, and

d) Any other relevant matters.

Evidence which formed the basis for the classification

17. On 3 March 2023 the complainant, a property manager, walked down a shared driveway to collect a pet policy form from Ms Kingi. A man on the front deck of the house went inside to call Ms Kingi and shut the front door behind him. Someone opened the front door causing Havoc to escape from the house. Havoc ran out of the property through the front gate and bit the complainant on his calf. Refer attachment C for the complainant’s statement.

18. The complainant went to Counties Urgent Care in Papakura for medical treatment. Refer attachment D for a photo of the bite wound.

Previous reports on Havoc’s aggressive behaviour

19. On 8 June 2021 Animal Management received a complaint about a black dog living at Ms Kingi’s property showing aggressive behaviour to members of the public. This dog was later identified as Havoc who was at the time unregistered. Ms Kingi registered the dog and was given a formal warning under section 42 of the DCA for failing to register the dog. Refer attachment E for the job sheet Request for Service (RFS) 8100854315.

20. On 28 August 2021 Animal Management received a complaint about a large black dog having attacked a woman on 21 August 2021 near Ms Kingi’s property. Havoc was the only black dog living there. The complainant declined to provide a written statement about the incident. Ms Kingi was issued with a formal warning under section 53 of the DCA for failing to control Havoc. Refer attachment F for the job sheet RFS 8100896860.

21. On 10 December 2021 Animal Management received a complaint from the Police about a black Rottweiler from Ms Kingi’s property having attacked a neighbour. The animal management officer could not get hold of the victim to obtain a written statement about the incident. Ms Kingi informed the officer that Havoc attacked the neighbour during a physical altercation between the victim and an occupant at her property. No enforcement action was taken against Ms Kingi. Refer attachment G for the job sheet RFS 8100955286.

Steps taken by Ms Kingi to prevent any threat to persons or animals

22. At the time of the attack, Havoc was inside Ms Kingi’s house, but he nevertheless managed to escape through the opened front door and the open gate.

23. Animal Management is unaware of any steps Ms Kingi took to prevent Havoc from causing harm or posing threats to the public. She has not informed Animal Management whether Havoc has since this attack been de-sexed or attended any behavioural modification courses.

Matters relied upon in support of the objection

24. Ms Kingi does not dispute that Havoc attacked the complainant. She objects to the classification because in terms of her rental agreement she will have to rehome Havoc if his menacing classification remains.

Other relevant matters

25. Ms Kingi may wish to address the committee on other relevant matters.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

26. The classification of dogs as menacing is to protect public safety from possible harm. The threat referred to in section 33A need not be shown to be real to classify a dog as menacing. It suffices if there is a potential of harm by the dog to persons and animals.

27. Auckland Council considers that Havoc poses a threat to persons. This threat will be eliminated if he is muzzled when in public. His aggressive behaviour will be tempered and his desire to roam will be decreased if he is de-sexed. This will reduce the likelihood of Havoc getting involved in dogfights.

28. Ms Kingi’s objection is not a valid ground for the classification to be rescinded because the dog remains a threat to the public.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29. This section is not relevant to the subject of this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. This is a report about an objection to the menacing classification of a dog. It does not require council group views.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. This report has no local impact. We have not sought local board views.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. This is a report about an objection to the menacing classification of a dog which has no impact on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. The decision by the Regulatory and Safety Committee on the objection to the menacing classification has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34. There are no risks in upholding the classification.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. The Regulatory and Safety Committee must give Ms Kingi written notice of its decision as soon as practicable.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Notice of classification of menacing dog
b ⇨	Objection to the menacing dog classification
c ⇨	Statement by complainant
d ⇨	Photo of the bite wound
e ⇨	Job sheet Request for Service 8100854315
f ⇨	Job sheet Request for Service 8100896860
g ⇨	Job sheet Request for Service 8100955286

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Chrisna Nortje - Principal Specialist, Animal Management

Authorisers

Elly Waitoa - Manager Animal Management

Mervyn Chetty - General Manager Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

[3] Chambers T, Stanley J, Signal L, et al. Quantifying the Nature and Extent of Children’s Real-time Exposure to Alcohol Marketing in Their Everyday Lives Using Wearable Cameras: Children’s Exposure via a Range of Media in a Range of Key Places. Alcohol 2018; published online July 20. DOI:10.1093/alcalc/agy053

[4] Kuo M, Wechsler H, Greenberg P, Lee H. The marketing of alcohol to college students. Am J Prev Med 2003;25:204–11

[5] Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws Agreed Principles and Processes 2019

[6] Chambers T, Stanley J, Signal L, et al. Quantifying the Nature and Extent of Children’s Real-time Exposure to Alcohol Marketing in Their Everyday Lives Using Wearable Cameras: Children’s Exposure via a Range of Media in a Range of Key Places Alcohol2018; published online July 20. DOI:10.1093/alcalc/agy053

[7] Alcohol Healthwatch Trust, Auckland Regional Public Health Services and Communities Against Alcohol Harm

Chairperson	Cr Josephine Bartley
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Ken Turner
Members	IMSB Member Edward Ashby	IMSB Member Tony Kake, MNZM
	Cr Andrew Baker	Cr Kerrin Leoni
	Cr Julie Fairey	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM	Cr Wayne Walker
Ex-officio	Mayor Wayne Brown
	Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, JP

Author	Sam Riddiford - Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services