Governing Body OPEN AGENDA

Transcription

1 I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the will be held on: Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue: Thursday, 9.30am Reception Lounge Auckland Town Hall Queen Street Auckland OPEN AGENDA MEMBERSHIP Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore Councillors Cr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Greg Sayers Cr Ross Clow Cr Desley Simpson, JP Cr Fa anana Efeso Collins Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM Cr Linda Cooper, JP Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE Cr Chris Darby Cr Wayne Walker Cr Alf Filipaina Cr John Watson Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO Cr Richard Hills Cr Penny Hulse Cr Mike Lee Cr Daniel Newman, JP Cr Dick Quax (Quorum 11 members) Tam White Senior Governance Advisor 8 December 2017 Contact Telephone: (09) tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contact the relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.

2

3 Terms of Reference Those powers which cannot legally be delegated: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) the power to make a rate the power to make a bylaw the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long term plan the power to adopt a long term plan, annual plan, or annual report the power to appoint a chief executive the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy. Additional responsibilities retained by the : (a) (b) approval of long-term plan or annual plan consultation documents, supporting information and consultation process prior to consultation approval of a draft bylaw prior to consultation (c) resolutions required to be made by a local authority under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the appointment of electoral officer (d) (e) (f) (g) adoption of, and amendment to, the Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct relationships with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, including the funding agreement and appointments to committees approval of the Unitary Plan overview of the implementation and refresh of the Auckland Plan through setting direction on key strategic projects (e.g. the City Rail Link and the alternative funding mechanisms for transport) and receiving regular reporting on the overall achievement of Auckland Plan priorities and performance measures.

4 Exclusion of the public who needs to leave the meeting Members of the public All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting. Those who are not members of the public General principles Access to confidential information is managed on a need to know basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role. Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role. Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items. In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final. Members of the meeting The members of the meeting remain (all members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting). However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room. All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders. Independent Māori Statutory Board Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain. Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role. Staff All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain. Other staff who need to because of their role may remain. Local Board members Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area. Council Controlled Organisations Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

5 ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 Affirmation 7 2 Apologies 7 3 Declaration of Interest 7 4 Confirmation of Minutes 7 5 Petitions 7 6 Public Input 7 7 Local Board Input 7 8 Extraordinary Business 7 9 Notices of Motion 8 10 America's Cup decision on location and infrastructure requirements (Covering report) 9 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Health, Safety and Wellbeing update Changes to committees Consideration of Extraordinary Items Page 5

6

7 1 Affirmation His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation. 2 Apologies At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received. 3 Declaration of Interest Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have. 4 Confirmation of Minutes That the : a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 11 December 2017, as a true and correct record. 5 Petitions At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received. 6 Public Input Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Governance Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker. At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received. 7 Local Board Input Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day s notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda. At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received. 8 Extraordinary Business Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states: An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if- Page 7

8 (a) (b) The local authority by resolution so decides; and The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,- (i) (ii) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting. Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states: Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,- (a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if- (i) (ii) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but (b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion. 9 Notices of Motion There were no notices of motion. Page 8

9 Item 10 America's Cup decision on location and infrastructure requirements (Covering report) File No.: CP2017/26248 Purpose 1. To report back on negotiations with the Government and Emirates Team New Zealand and to decide on the location for the America's Cup bases. Executive summary 2. This report follows on from the decisions made at the 23 November 2017 meeting. Based on the ongoing negotiations between the Government, Emirates Team New Zealand and the private sector, recommendations will be provided on location, funding and infrastructure requirements for the America's Cup Recommendation/s The recommendations will be provided in the comprehensive agenda report. Attachments There are no attachments for this report. Signatories Author Authoriser Tam White - Senior Governance Advisor Stephen Town - Chief Executive America's Cup decision on location and infrastructure requirements (Covering report) Page 9

10

11 Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate File No.: CP2017/22163 Purpose 1. To approve governance arrangements for decision-making over expenditure of the accommodation provider targeted rate. Executive summary 2. On 1 June 2017 the approved the accommodation provider targeted rate as part of the Annual Budget 2017/2018 (Resolution number GB/2017/57). The targeted rate was set at 50 per cent, or $13.45 million, of the visitor attraction and major events expenditure of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED). 3. At the same time, the asked staff to report back on a proposal to introduce alternative governance arrangements of ATEED that includes greater participation for commercial accommodation providers, as appropriate to their level of funding of ATEED s activities. 4. This report responds to that resolution and sets out six options. These options were developed and refined alongside a working group that included accommodation provider experts. 5. Wider feedback on a preferred option was sought from targeted rate payers and the accommodation sector. 6. Staff recommend option six in this report, which is two-fold: that a director with accommodation sector expertise is sought for a future ATEED board vacancy request that ATEED establishes a sub-committee with targeted rate payer representatives to make recommendations to its board on visitor attraction and major events activities. 7. The recommended option provides greater input for targeted rate payers into decisionmaking on relevant activities. The option leverages off current arrangements, the Board Appointment and Remuneration Policy for Board Members of Council Organisations, and current work programme. This means it is relatively low-cost and efficient. 8. The recommended option is supported by the working group, ATEED, and by feedback from targeted rate payers. Recommendation/s That the : a) approve option six which is to: i) appoint a director with accommodation sector expertise to fill a future Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development board vacancy ii) request that Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development establish a sub-committee to make recommendations on visitor attraction and major events activities and which includes representation for accommodation provider targeted rate payers b) request that Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development establish the sub-committee prior to the end of the 2017/2018 financial year. c) approve the key points for the sub-committee s terms of reference (Attachment F) that cover the following matters: Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 11

12 Item 11 establishment and authority purpose composition and organization meetings reporting and review d) request that Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development includes the key points in the sub-committee s terms of reference, noting that the Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development board must approve the final terms of reference e) request that Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development continues to work closely with Auckland Council staff and the sector to establish and implement its sub-committee. f) thank the members of the working group on governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate for their input, time, and expertise. Comments Background 9. On 1 June 2017 the resolution on the accommodation provider targeted rate (Resolution number GB/2017/57, Attachment A, page 3) included that: c) as part of the final Annual Budget 2017/18, [the ] agree to a targeted rate on commercial accommodation providers to fund a proportion of the visitor attraction and major events expenditure of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) as follows: i) the amount of the targeted rate is set at 50 per cent of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development s budgeted expenditure on visitor attraction and major events, being $13.45 million vii) staff report back on a proposal for the introduction of alternative governance arrangements of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development, including greater participation for commercial accommodation providers appropriate to their level of funding of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development s activities 10. ATEED s budgeted expenditure for visitor attraction and major events in 2017/18 covers: tourism i-sites major events Auckland Convention Bureau international education external relations brand and marketing Auckland festivals. 11. The targeted rate became effective on 1 July Application to online accommodation providers 12. The Mayor s Proposal for the 10-year budget includes that the targeted rate will be applied to online accommodation providers. 13. A criterion used to assess the options in this report includes flexibility of the model to incorporate input from future targeted rate payers. Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 12

13 Item 11 Process 14. In order to recommend options, including a preferred option, to the, staff: researched and considered existing governance models and best practice developed criteria based on best governance practice, the council s obligations and requirements, and the need to provide proportionate input for targeted rate payers on relevant activities established a working group consisting of accommodation experts, council and ATEED staff analysed the options against the criteria consulted targeted rate payers on their preferred option consulted the sector more widely on its preferred option. Each of those matters is set out below. Research 15. A full-range of governance options was considered. Staff looked at existing models, processes, and best practice. This included advisory bodies (such as the council s People s Advisory Panels and the City Centre Advisory Board), independent bodies funded by a targeted rate (such as business improvement districts, including international models), and best governance practice for matters such as board appointments. Criteria 16. A set of seven criteria were established to assess the options, as set out below. Criteria Transparency Oversight Ability for input Flexibility Wider Auckland perspective Cost and efficiency Proportionate Detail and why criteria are necessary Provides transparency of decision-making over targeted rate expenditure. Allows the council to maintain oversight. The council parent is ultimately accountable to all targeted rate payers for expenditure of the targeted rate. Targeted rate payers have input into decisions on relevant activities funded by the targeted rate. Provides input across the accommodation sector, noting that the interests of the targeted rate payers are diverse and varied. This includes flexibility of the option to incorporate future targeted rate payers. Enables an Auckland-wide perspective to be maintained. The option is cost- effective and will enable efficient decision-making. The option is proportionate to the level of funding of the targeted rate. Working group 17. Staff established a working group of accommodation experts, council and ATEED staff to inform the advice contained in this report. The terms of reference for the working group are at Attachment A. The purpose of the group was to develop, test and refine options, understand associated impacts, and assist with more detailed design of any preferred options. 18. Three sessions were held with the working group between September and November Options development 19. The working group reviewed, developed, and considered a full-range of options. It refined six options, as summarised in the table below. More detail on the options is at Attachment B. Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 13

14 Item 11 Option Option one Status quo Description ATEED receives targeted rate funding from the council and makes decisions on expenditure under the existing arrangements. Option two Advisory body to the council and/or ATEED An advisory body of targeted rate payers is established to provide advice to the council and/or ATEED. Option three Board appointment to ATEED with accommodation sector expertise Option four Accommodation sector members on an ATEED sub-committee Option five- Independent body Option six (preferred) Both options three and four An ATEED director with accommodation sector expertise is sought to fill a future ATEED board vacancy. This follows the current council board appointment policy and process, as overseen by the Appointments and Performance Review Committee. The skills matrix for a future board appointment is expanded to include accommodation sector expertise. The sector can have further input following the current policy and process. For example, by nominating candidates to be considered alongside other nominations, or sitting on the interview panel. An ATEED sub-committee is established to make recommendations to the board on visitor attraction and major events activities. Representation is proportionate to the level of funding of the targeted rate (three accommodation sector representatives and three ATEED representatives) and is flexible enough to incorporate at a later stage further targeted rate payers. ATEED staff support the sub-committee. This requires the sector to come together to establish an independent body. The council collects the targeted rate but the body is directly accountable to targeted rate payers for expenditure. It could operate similarly to the council s business improvement district model. A board appointment to ATEED (option three) together with representation for targeted rate payers on an ATEED subcommittee (option four). This provides targeted rate payers with input on relevant activities and representation at both the advisory and decision-making levels. Assessment of the options 20. A summary of the six options assessed against the seven criteria is set out below. A more detailed description of the options is at Attachment B. This includes advantages, disadvantages, and risks. Option one: Status quo Option two: Advisory body Option three: ATEED board appointment Transparency Ability for input Auckland perspective Cost & efficient Oversight Flexibility Proportionate Key considerations No input for targeted rate payers or transparency of decision-making so it is inadequate. Advisory only. Activities and decisions most relevant to targeted rate payers sit with ATEED, not the council. Input at the decisionmaking level. Inflexible, as one Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 14

15 Item 11 Option four: ATEED subcommittee Option five: Independent body Option six (preferred) Both options 3 and 4 appointment only. Includes decisions on matters wider than activities funded by the targeted rate. Appointment through the council s policy and process mitigates risk of an unsuitable appointee as a director. Advisory only. Membership is flexible enough to provide representation for a range of targeted rate payers and incorporate others in the future. Body is directly accountable to targeted rate payers. Requires the sector to come together to establish the body. Could duplicate or compete with ATEED s activities. Provides input at both advisory and decisionmaking levels on activities most relevant to targeted rate payers. Engagement with targeted rate payers and the wider sector 21. Staff engaged more widely on options two to six. Option one, the status quo, was excluded as it did not provide input for targeted rate payers. 22. The following were asked to identify a preferred option through a survey: targeted rate payers members of two large organisations representing members in the commercial accommodation sector, Hospitality New Zealand and Tourism Industry Aotearoa. 23. The number of responses was low. Sixty two responses were received from targeted rate payers. An analysis of the feedback is at Attachment C. Option six was preferred (24 people or 39 per cent). This was followed by option five (22 people or 35 per cent). Twenty five responses were received through Hospitality New Zealand and Tourism Industry Aotearoa. An analysis of the feedback is at Attachment D. The preferred option was option five (13 people or 62 per cent). This was followed by option six (11 people or 52 per cent). 24. Targeted rate payers were identified using the council s rating database. It was not possible to determine whether the feedback received from the sector organisations was from targeted rate payers. Accordingly, responses from both groups were kept separate. 25. Option six, an ATEED board appointment and sub-committee, was the preferred option of targeted rate payers. The next preferred option was an independent body. Recommended option 26. Option six, both an ATEED board appointment and sub-committee, is the recommended option. Further detail on how this works is set out below and has been tested with the working group. Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 15

16 Item 11 Appointment to ATEED board 27. Section 57 of the Local Government Act 2002 sets out the council s obligations in relation to board appointments to a council organisation. This includes that the council: must have a policy that sets out a transparent process for board appointments. This includes the process for identifying required skills, knowledge or experience of directors can only appoint a director if they have the skills, knowledge or experience to guide the organisation or contribute to its objectives. 28. To meet its obligations, the council adopted the Board Appointment and Remuneration Policy for Board Members of Council Organisations. An overview of the board appointment process, as set out in the policy, is at Attachment E. 29. The policy and the board appointment work programme are overseen by the Appointments and Performance Review Committee (as set out in its terms of reference). 30. Staff recommend that the ATEED board appointment follows the existing policy and work programme. This includes that: the skills matrix for a future ATEED board appointment includes accommodation sector expertise. The appointment would fill a future board vacancy further input from the sector can occur as part of the existing process. For example, the sector could put forward nominations, alongside others, into the process. The council could also invite members from the sector to sit on the interview panel. 31. It is not recommended that the ATEED board increases in size to accommodate this appointment. The current ATEED board is seven. In 2016 the board was reduced from eight to seven. An additional board member would also require additional director remuneration. 32. By following the existing policy, process, and work programme this ensures that: the council continues to meet its legislative obligations any appointee meets the wider core competencies required of an ATEED director targeted rate payers have a robust, transparent process the appointment is cost effective and efficient. ATEED sub-committee 33. ATEED s constitution (clause 10.5) allows its board to delegate powers to a committee of directors or others, although the board remains responsible at all times. 34. The sub-committee would make recommendations to the ATEED board on destination related activities which includes visitor attraction and major events. 35. Membership would be proportionate to the level of funding of the targeted rate. This would mean three targeted rate payer representatives and three ATEED representatives. The membership can be reviewed to include future targeted rate payers, such as online accommodation providers. 36. Staff recommend that the request that ATEED include the key points set out in Attachment F in terms of reference for tis sub-committee. The key points cover the following matters: establishment and authority purpose composition and organization meetings reporting and review Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 16

17 Item The final terms of reference will need to be approved by the ATEED board. Feedback on independent body 38. Consultation suggests there is also some support for option five, an independent body. 39. The advantages and disadvantages considered by the working group in relation to that option are set out in Attachment B. 40. The Mayor Phil Goff previously invited proposals for an independent body from the sector (Resolution number GB/2017/57 (Attachment A, page 4)): xii) note that the Mayor is open to discussing with the industry any proposals it wishes to put forward for an industry-led and funded regional tourism organisation as a partial or complete alternative to using a targeted rate to fund Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development s tourism promotion activities. 41. This option requires the sector to come together to form an independent body. Staff are not aware of any proposals put forward by the sector but it appears there is support for this. 42. Option six is still recommended and was preferred by targeted rate payers. Consideration Local board views and implications 43. Local board views were not sought. The is responsible for governance of its council-controlled organisations. The council parent is accountable to targeted rate payers for expenditure of the targeted rate. Māori impact statement 44. The council group does not hold data on Māori accommodation providers but all targeted rate payers were consulted on the options. 45. ATEED will engage further with the sector through the development of the Destination Auckland Strategy and as part of the proposed ATEED sub-committee. This is an opportunity to establish a closer relationship with any Māori in the sector and to grow the Auckland Māori business database. 46. The recommended option means that targeted rate payers sitting on the ATEED subcommittee will have input on matters such as the Tāmaki Herenga Waka Festival. Ensuring a Māori perspective is incorporated will be part of the work undertaken by staff in working alongside ATEED and the sector to establish and implement the ATEED sub-committee. 47. The ATEED board will make final decisions on visitor attraction and major events activities. The council will separately set out its expectations for ATEED to deliver on its commitments to Māori economic development through a range of other accountability mechanisms, such as the Statement of Intent process. Implementation 48. Staff will work with ATEED and the sector to implement the s recommendations. If the recommended option is approved, this would include to: provide advice to the Appointments and Performance Review Committee to implement an ATEED board appointment with accommodation provider expertise identify alongside the sector any further input within the current board appointment policy and process work with ATEED and the sector to establish the ATEED sub-committee. 49. The ATEED board appointment is likely to occur in 2018/2019 under the current board appointment programme. 50. The ATEED sub-committee is likely to be established in early 2018 after the Destination Auckland Strategy is completed. Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 17

18 Item 11 Attachments No. Title Page A Terms of reference for working group 19 B Governance options and considerations 25 C Engagement feedback from targeted rate payers 31 D Engagement feedback from sector organisations 35 E Board appointment process 39 F Key points for ATEED sub-committee terms of reference 41 Signatories Authors Authorisers Ella Kay - Senior Advisor - CCO Governance & External Partnerships Tania Winslade - Principal Advisor Strategy & Performance Phil Wilson - Governance Director Stephen Town - Chief Executive Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 18

19 Attachment A Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 19

20 Attachment A Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 20

21 Attachment A Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 21

22 Attachment A Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 22

23 Attachment A Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 23

24

25 Attachment B Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 25

26 Attachment B Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 26

27 Attachment B Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 27

28 Attachment B Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 28

29 Attachment B Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 29

30

31 Attachment C Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 31

32 Attachment C Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 32

33 Attachment C Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 33

34 Attachment C Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 34

35 Attachment D Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 35

36 Attachment D Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 36

37 Attachment D Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 37

38 Attachment D Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 38

39 Attachment E Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 39

40

41 Attachment F Item 11 Governance options for the accommodation provider targeted rate Page 41

42

43 Item 12 Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements File No.: CP2017/24242 Purpose 1. To finalise the process for conducting the review of representation arrangements in Executive summary 2. The council has to review its representation arrangements in The process in the Local Electoral Act 2001 requires public notification of initial proposals followed by the hearing of submissions and public notification of a final proposal. Objections or appeals against the final proposal are referred to the Local Government Commission for determination. 3. With the and 21 local boards, Auckland Council has more complex arrangements than other councils. An efficient means of developing the initial proposal and considering submissions needs to be decided. 4. On 28 September 2017, the endorsed the following process for consultation with the local boards. (i) A political working party comprised of governing body and local board members is established through the mayor calling for expressions of interest and appointing the members. (ii) The political working party developing the initial proposal and presenting it to local boards and the for comments prior to the making the statutory resolution that is publicly notified for submissions. (iii) The political working party hears submissions and reports its findings to local boards and the prior to the making the statutory resolution that is publicly notified for objections and appeals. 5. The proposed process has been reported to local boards for their comments. There is general support among local boards for the process endorsed by the. Three local boards have requested that the hearing of submissions is conducted by the relevant local board rather than the working party. Staff recommend that the Governing Body proceeds with the initial proposal but reviews the process for hearing submissions once the initial proposed changes are decided. 6. The is requested to finalise the process. Recommendation/s That the : a) receive the feedback from local boards b) note the mayor s appointments to the Joint Governance Working Party c) approve the draft terms of reference for the Joint Governance Working Party for inclusion in the Auckland Council Committee Terms of Reference d) approve the following process for conducting the review of representation arrangements i) The Joint Governance Working Party will develop Auckland Council s initial review of representation arrangements and present it to local boards and the for comments before the makes the statutory resolution for public notification for submissions. Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 43

44 Item 12 ii) iii) the Joint Governance Working Party will conduct the hearing of submissions and report its findings to local boards and the before the makes the final statutory resolution on any representation changes, which will then be publicly notified for objections and appeals. the will review the process for hearing submissions under (ii) at the time the initial proposals for change are known. Comments Requirement to conduct a review of representation arrangements 7. The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires all local authorities to undertake a review of representation arrangements at least once every six years. 8. Auckland Council was established in 2010 and was not required to undertake a review of representation arrangements for the 2016 elections, but is required to undertake a review for the 2019 elections. The review will take place during Auckland Council is required to undertake another review for the 2025 elections if it has not undertaken a review for the 2022 elections. What can be reviewed 9. It is possible to review the following for the : (i) (ii) whether members are elected at-large or by ward or by a combination if by ward, the number of members in each ward, the ward boundaries and ward names. 10. The number of members is set at 21 (the mayor and 20 councillors) in the Auckland Council legislation. Therefore, unlike for other councils the number of members cannot be reviewed. 11. It is possible to review the following for each local board: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) the number of members whether local board members are to be elected by subdivision or at large if by subdivision, the number of members in each subdivision and the subdivision boundaries and names the local board name. 12. It is not possible to review the boundaries or number of local boards; a reorganisation process is required to do this, which is a separate process under the Local Government Act Legislative timeframe 13. A representation review containing the council s proposals must be publicly notified by the council no later than 8 September Any member of the public can make a written submission on the council s proposals. The council considers all submissions and may change its proposals as a result. If a person who made a submission is not satisfied with the council s amended proposal they can appeal against it. 15. If the council receives any objections or appeals it must refer the whole representation review to the Local Government Commission (Commission). It must do this no later than 15 January The Commission has a quasi-judicial role to determine the best representation arrangements. It takes into account the original council decisions, the submissions, appeals and objections. It must issue its decision no later than 11 April A Commission decision can be appealed to the High Court on a point of law. Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 44

45 Item 12 Process supported by the 18. With a and 21 local boards, Auckland Council has more complex arrangements than other councils. It needs to identify an efficient and effective process for undertaking the review. 19. A report was represented to the meeting on 28 September 2017 setting out options. The made the following resolution, which included inviting feedback from local boards before making a final decision on the process [GB/2017/126]: That the : a) note that the statutory review of representation arrangements requires an initial proposal be developed, which is publicly notified for submissions b) note that the Governance Framework Review political working party has recommended that a new political working party, comprised of governing body and local board members, be formed to deal with governance issues, which could include the representation review c) endorse the staff recommendation that the new governance political working party, develop the initial proposal and present it to local boards and the for comments before the makes the statutory resolution to release the Auckland Council s initial proposal for consultation d) endorse the staff recommendation that the new governance political working party hear public submissions on the proposal, then report its findings to local boards and the before the makes the final statutory resolution on any representation changes, which will then be publicly notified for objections and appeals e) endorse the staff recommendation that the Mayor call for expressions of interest from all elected members to be on the new governance political working party and then appoint an equal number of governing body and local board members to the political working party f) agree that this report, together with the s resolutions, be presented to local boards for their comments, and that local board comments be reported back to the for a final decision on the process for conducting the statutory review of representation arrangements in December Local boards have provided feedback 20. Attachment A contains a schedule of the resolutions passed by the local boards. 21. A summary of the feedback on the individual aspects of the proposed process is as follows: Proposal A political working party develops an initial proposal and reports this to local boards and the Governing Body. The makes the statutory resolution which is publicly notified for submissions. Local board feedback Of the boards which commented on this aspect, there was general support. Additional comments: Mangere-Ōtāhuhu Submitted that views from Mana Whenua are considered by the political working party in developing the council s proposal for consultation Rodney At least one member of the working party should be a rural representative chosen by the Rodney and Franklin Local Boards. Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 45

46 Item 12 Ōrākei Does not support the political working party conducting the review Papakura The composition of the working party should include: one representative from rural boards one representative from the gulf islands boards at least one representative from each of the geographical clusters: o south o central o west o north The political working party hears submissions and reports its findings to local boards and the. The Governing Body makes the final statutory resolution which is publicly notified for objections and appeals. Those local boards that generally supported the total proposal or specifically supported this part of the proposal: Albert-Eden Franklin Henderson-Massey Howick Kaipātiki Manurewa Papakura Puketāpapa Waitākere Ranges Whau Alternative comments: Devonport-Takapuna The local board should hear the local submissions and provide feedback to the working party. Upper Harbour The local board should hear the local submissions and provide feedback to the working party. Orākei supports the individual local boards hearing local submissions from their respective local board area Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 46

47 Item 12 The mayor calls for expressions of interest from elected members and appoints an equal number of and local board members to the working party. Of the boards which commented on this aspect, there was general support. Additional comments: Upper Harbour The mayor and deputy mayor together make the appointments. Staff comments on issues raised by local boards 22. The Rodney Local Board has requested there is rural representation and noted the extensive geographical size of rural boards and wards. The proposed working party will not have representation from all wards and local boards. If a rural representative does not express interest in being appointed, or if the mayor does not appoint a rural representative to the working party, the terms of reference for the working party could allow for the working party to co-opt representatives of the area being considered if the working party feels it is not sufficiently knowledgeable about the area. The working party will have a programme of work which will include matters different to the review of representation and for which representation from particular areas may not be particularly relevant. 23. Three local boards have submitted that local boards should hear local submissions. The majority of boards have supported the proposal that the working party hears submissions and then reports its findings to the local boards and. 24. Key reasons in support of the political working party conducting the hearing of submissions include: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) some submitters will submit on both governing body representation and local board representation. It is easier on submitters to attend only one hearing there is only one hearing process to administer the scope of the review includes deciding the number of board members. It could help to have a consistent approach across the region all local boards will have the opportunity to comment on the findings of the political working party. 25. Key reasons in support of local boards conducting the hearing of submissions include: (i) (ii) decisions within the scope of the review may require an expert knowledge of the location of communities of interest (for example if there are proposals to create or change subdivisions) the scope of the review includes the option of changing the local board name. This would be of significant interest to the local board. 26. At this point in the process it is not known what proposals for change might be made by the council and notified for public submission. Staff recommend proceeding with the political working party hearing submissions, subject to reviewing this at the time the finalises the initial proposal for public notification. 27. One local board suggested that members of the working party be appointed by the mayor and deputy mayor together. The majority of boards supported the proposal that the mayor appoint the members. Political working party membership and terms of reference 28. The Committee Terms of Reference includes terms of reference for one political working party Te Tiriti o Waitangi Working Party. Other working parties are ad hoc formed for specific issues - and do not continue. Their terms of reference are agreed when they are set up. Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 47

48 Item Because the proposed working party is to be ongoing it is appropriate to include its terms of reference in the formal Committee Terms of Reference. 30. This political working party arises out of the wider programme of work relating to the Governance Framework Review and is not limited to the review of representation arrangements. The draft terms of reference reflect this wider context. 31. The draft terms of reference for the working party, to be known as the Joint Governance Working Party, are contained in Attachment B. 32. The mayor called for expressions of interest in the membership of the working party to be lodged by 6 December Some local boards made recommendations relating to the composition of the working party and these were passed on to the mayor for consideration. Consideration Local board views and implications 34. The Auckland Council is required to conduct the review of representation arrangements and make decisions in terms of an initial proposal followed by a final proposal after hearing submissions. The will make the decisions of Auckland Council, however the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires that the must: consider any views and preferences expressed by a local board, if the decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area. 35. All local boards have had the opportunity to comment on the proposed process for conducting the review of representation arrangements. There will be local board representation on the political working party. Māori impact statement 36. Council s representation arrangements that relate directly to Māori representation (the creation of a Māori ward) has been considered separately. The has resolved support in principle, subject to a change in legislation which gives the Governing Body the ability to increase the number of members. 37. The next opportunity for the to consider this will be in 2020, for the 2022 elections, subject to the legislative change being made. If the decides then to establish a Māori ward it will need to conduct another review of representation arrangements for the 2022 elections. Implementation 38. A meeting of the Joint Governance Working Party will be called early in the new year to consider the review in more detail. Attachments No. Title Page A Local board feedback on the proposed process for the review of representation arrangements B Draft Terms of Reference for the Joint Governance Working Party Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 48

49 Item 12 Signatories Author Authorisers Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services Phil Wilson - Governance Director Stephen Town - Chief Executive Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 49

50

51 Attachment A Item 12 Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 51

52 Attachment A Item 12 Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 52

53 Attachment A Item 12 Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 53

54 Attachment A Item 12 Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 54

55 Attachment A Item 12 Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 55

56 Attachment A Item 12 Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 56

57 Attachment A Item 12 Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 57

58

59 Attachment B Item JOINT GOVERNANCE WORKING PARTY DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE Context The governance of Auckland Council comprises the mayor and councillors together with twenty-one local boards. Purpose The Joint Governance Working Party meets as necessary to consider governance matters of mutual interest to the and local boards and to report its findings. Powers The working party does not have delegated decision-making powers but reports its findings to local boards and the for final decisions. The Working Party will generally determine its findings by consensus, but where there is division of opinion, this will be noted in its findings and it will be acceptable to record minority views. Matters are referred to the Working Party by resolution of the, or, if the matter is urgent, by the chairperson together with the Chief Executive (or nominee). Members and meeting procedure The Joint Governance Working Party has an equal number of governing body and local board members who are appointed by the mayor after calling expressions of interest. The Working Party may co-opt, or liaise, as it deems necessary on an issue basis. For example, if it is dealing with a rural issue and does not have rural representation, it may invite a rural elected member to participate in order to provide advice. Meetings will not generally be advertised or open to the public. All elected members who are not members of the working party have the right to attend and listen. They may participate if invited to by the chairperson. It may liaise with representatives of CCOs and co-governance entities. Chair and deputy chair The chairperson and deputy chairperson will be appointed by the mayor. They will not both be governing body members nor both local board members. If both the chairperson and deputy chairperson are absent for a meeting, the meeting will appoint a chairperson for that meeting. Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 59

60 Attachment B Item 12 Membership: Chairperson: Deputy chairperson: Members: Quorum: If the total membership is even, one-half of members and one-half of local board members otherwise a majority of each. Frequency of meetings: As required in order to conduct its business. Finalise the process for the review of representation arrangements Page 60

61 Item 13 Health, Safety and Wellbeing update File No.: CP2017/25964 Purpose 1. To consider an update on Health, Safety and Wellbeing referred by the Audit and Risk Committee. Executive summary 2. At a meeting of the Audit and Risk Committee on 6 December 2017 it was resolved as follows: Resolution number AUD/2017/70 MOVED by Chairperson S Sheldon, seconded by Member P Conder: That the Audit and Risk Committee: a) receive the update report on health, safety and wellbeing b) refer this report to the governing body for its consideration c) note that this report will also be provided to all local boards for their information. 3. Clause b) of the above resolution refers the report to the, in its role as the person or organisation conducting a business or undertaking. 4. The quarterly Health, Safety & Wellbeing Report is appended at Attachment A. Recommendation/s That the : a) receive the Health, Safety and Wellbeing update report. Attachments No. Title Page A Health, Safety & Wellbeing Report 63 Signatories Author Sarndra O'Toole - Team Leader Governance Advisors Authoriser Stephen Town - Chief Executive Health, Safety and Wellbeing update Page 61

62

63 Attachment A Item 13 Health, Safety and Wellbeing update Page 63

64 Attachment A Item 13 Health, Safety and Wellbeing update Page 64

65 Attachment A Item 13 Health, Safety and Wellbeing update Page 65

66 Attachment A Item 13 Health, Safety and Wellbeing update Page 66

67 Attachment A Item 13 Health, Safety and Wellbeing update Page 67

68 Attachment A Item 13 Health, Safety and Wellbeing update Page 68