Agenda of Extraordinary Council Meeting

Extraordinary Council Meeting item: 4.1

13 August 2018

TITLE:	Deliberations on submissions to the Representation Review 2018 Initial Proposal
ID:	A1088049
From:	Chris Taylor, Governance Support Manager and Jonathan Gibbard, Group Manager - Governance and Engagement

Executive summary

The purpose of this report is to provide background information and to convey staff advice and recommendations to support council’s deliberations on the submissions received on the Representation Review 2018 Initial Proposal (the Initial Proposal).

Council consulted on the Initial Proposal from 23 June to 24 July 2018. Five submissions were received which have been analysed in relation to the Initial Proposal. This report includes council officers’ recommendations in relation to each of these submissions.

Following deliberations, the 2018 Representation Review 2018 Final Proposal will be prepared to reflect the decisions made, with adoption of the Final Proposal scheduled to occur at the 21 August 2018 council meeting.

Recommendations

1. That the report ‘Deliberations on submissions to the Representation Review 2018 Initial Proposal’ by Chris Taylor, Governance Support Manager and Jonathan Gibbard, Group Manager - Governance and Engagement and dated 17 July 2018, be received.

Include the Oneriri Peninsula into Coastal South:

2. That council acknowledges the submission in relation to the Oneriri Peninsula being included in the Coastal South constituency but no change is made from the Representation Review 2018 Initial Proposal to the Representation Review 2018 Final Proposal.

Mangawhai and Kaiwaka to be transferred to Kaipara:

3. That council acknowledges the two submissions in relation to the transfer of Mangawhai and Kaiwaka into the Kaipara constituency but no change is made from the Representation Review 2018 Initial Proposal to the Representation Review 2018 Final Proposal.

That the status quo be retained:

4. That council acknowledges the submission to retain the status quo but no change is made from the Representation Review 2018 Initial Proposal to the Representation Review 2018 Final Proposal.

Constituencies to be aligned with tribal areas of Te Tai Tokerau:

5. That council acknowledges the submission in relation to the alignment of NRC constituencies with tribal areas of Te Tai Tokerau but no change is made from the Representation Review 2018 Initial Proposal to the Representation Review 2018 Final Proposal.

Background

The Representation Review Process

The Representation Review, which is required by law every six years looks at:

· The total number of councillors to be elected;

· The number, boundaries and the names of the constituencies where councillors will be elected;

· The number of councillors to be elected from each constituency; and

· The name of each constituency.

In doing so council must carefully consider three key factors:

· Regional communities of interest;

· Effective representation; and

· Fair representation (the “+/- 10% rule).

The NRC Representation Review 2018 Initial Proposal

Based on these considerations (above) the Northland Regional Council resolved (at the 21 June 2018 meeting) to propose four changes to the current constituency boundaries through the Initial Proposal. In summary, these changes were as follows (and illustrated in the map below):

· Shift the Te HIku boundary so communities around Mangonui Harbour are in the same constituency (1).

· Make the Coastal South constituency smaller to reflect that this constituency’s population has grown by almost 20% since the last Representation Review undertaken in 2012 (2).

· Adjust the Whangārei Urban boundary slightly so the semi-rural area in the north-west becomes part of the Coastal North constituency (3).

· Adjust the boundary between Coastal Central and Coastal North slightly for expected future population growth (4).

Council consulted on the Initial Proposal from 23 June to 24 July 2018. During the consultation period council conducted one public meeting in Maungatapere to reflect the area where the biggest change was proposed; making Coastal south constituency smaller.

Five submissions in total were received on the Initial Proposal and council heard the three submitters who wished to present their views in person on 31 July 2018.

Deliberations

The Local Government Commission’s ‘Guidelines for local authorities undertaking representation reviews’ nicely sums up the deliberations process as follows:

‘Each authority needs to consider all submissions received, and must be able to demonstrate that it has done this by providing reasons for the acceptance or rejection of submissions. Amendments in a local authority’s final proposal must be made in response to submissions, or else the initial proposal needs to be retained. Otherwise the community has not had an opportunity to give feedback on all aspects of the proposal, and community members may have grounds to submit appeals and/or objections.’

Furthermore ‘If a local authority receives submissions on its initial proposal, it must ensure that it acts in a legally ‘fair’ way in considering them. For instance if any person exercises the right to be heard…it is typically appropriate that only local authority members who hear the submissions participate in the decision-making on those submissions’.

Next steps following the adoption of the Final Proposal

Following deliberations, the 2018 Representation Review 2018 Final Proposal (the Final Proposal) will be prepared to reflect the decisions made, with adoption of the Final Proposal scheduled to occur at the 21 August 2018 council meeting.

In accordance with the requirements of the Local Electoral Act 2001, following the adoption of the Final Proposal the council will place a formal public notice detailing the reasons for any amendments and the rationale for the rejection of any submissions made on the Initial Proposal. A one month public appeal and objection period is scheduled from 25 August to 26 September 2018.

An appeal may be lodged against the council’s Final Proposal by any person or organisation that made a submission on the Initial Proposal. The matters raised in the appeal must relate to those matters raised in the original submission on the council’s Initial Proposal.

The right of objection exists only if the council’s Final Proposal differs from its Initial Proposal. Any person or entity may lodge an objection to any element of the council’s Final Proposal, regardless of whether they made a submission on the Initial Proposal or not. An objection must identify the matters to which the objection relates.

Where a council’s Final Proposal does not comply with the “+/- 10% rule”, the regional council must refer the proposal to the Local Government Commission. Such a referral is to be treated as if it were an appeal against the decision of the regional council. There is no provision in the Local Electoral Act 2001 for acceptance of late appeals or objections.

The Local Government Commission must consider all appeals and objections and other information forwarded to it and make a determination on the representation arrangements of a local authority by 10 April 2019. In making its determination, the Commission is able to make any enquiries that it considers appropriate and may, but is not obliged to, hold meetings with the parties.

The 2019 Northland Regional Council elections will be based on the final determination of representation arrangements.

Include the Oneriri Peninsula into Coastal South

Submission content:

Council received one submission (Howard) advocating that the Oneriri Peninsula be included with the proposed Coastal South constituency instead of the proposed Kaipara constituency. This was on the grounds that the people who live there identify with Kaiwaka given the peninsula was separated from Maungatoroto (and the rest of the Kaipara constituency) by water and could not travel there over land without passing through the Coastal South constituency.

Staff analysis:

Analysis highlighted the intricacy of this proposal, the complexity of the west/east delineation and ultimately that there is no easy solution. There is valid reasoning to include or not include the Oneriri Peninsula in Coastal South; as detailed in the Options Section overpage.

The submitter’s request to include the Oneriri Peninsula in Coastal South is highlighted in the map below in which the population estimate (2017) of each mesh block is displayed. The overall effect of this transfer would be 650 people shifting from the Kaipara constituency to the Coastal South constituency which would result in the estimated population for the two constituencies being 17,410 and 18,410 respectively.

The key point to note is that this proposal would result in Kaipara falling below the +/-10% population requirement of the LEA 2001 and thus an exemption would need to be sought from the Local Government Commission. The exemption would be on the basis that Kaipara is an isolated community of interest with unique characteristics and in order not to divide a community of interest. In terms of the former, this is potentially justified when we analyse the constituency profiles (as included in the Initial Proposal). In detail Kaipara has:

· The second highest proportion of population that indicate they are unpaid family workers (higher only in Hokianga-Kaikohe)

· The highest share working in primary industries (more than double the regional average)

· Equal highest proportion of population aged 15 years over with no educational qualifications (same as Te Hiku)

· The third lowest proportion of population with a total income over $70,000 per annum.

Kaipara District Council (KDC) has acknowledged the association the Oneriri Peninsula has with Kaiwaka/Mangawhai in its initial proposal for the review of representation arrangements. KDC has proposed the establishment of a new ‘Kaiwaka-Mangawhai Ward’ as detailed in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1

It should be noted that the Kaipara District Council initially sought to establish a ward specific to Mangawhai, to reflect the unique community of interest that exists here with a high proportion of transient population. However due the population requirements of the LEA the boundary of the ward needed to be shifted to the west to encompass sufficient population (hence including the Oneriri Peninsula).

Options:

No.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Retain the Oneriri Peninsula in Kaipara

· Kaipara’s estimated population complies with the population requirement of the LEA 2001.

· Keeps Coastal South’s estimated population near the lower bounds of the “+/- 10% rule” and future proofs it for further growth.

· Acknowledges the linkage the Oneriri Peninsula has with the Kaipara Harbour.

· Acknowledges the reasoning behind the delineation of constituency boundaries ascertained during the 2012 Representation Review; as supported by the LGC.

· Provides consistency for residents.

· Does not take into account the linkage between Oneriri Peninsula with Kaiwaka (a highlighted community of interest).

· Potential inconsistency with TLA boundaries.

Include the Oneriri Peninsula in Coastal South

· Takes into account the linkage between Oneriri Peninsula and Kaiwaka (a highlighted community of interest).

· Potentially aligns with TLA proposed ward boundaries (as per section 19U(c) of the LEA).

· Results in Kaipara no longer meeting the population requirement of the LEA 2001 and necessitates seeking an exemption from the LGC.

· Adds further population to the region’s fastest growing constituency.

· Ignores the link the Oneriri Peninsula has with the Kaipara Harbour.

· Ignores the reasoning behind the delineation of constituency boundaries ascertained during the 2012 Representation Review; as supported by the LGC.

The staff recommendation is Option 1 – that the Oneriri Peninsula be retained in the Kaipara Constituency. While there is no perfect solution, on balance it is recommended that constituents of the Oneriri Peninsula have a stronger association with the Kaipara Harbour; hence should be included in the Kaipara Constituency rather than being associated with the east coast/Mangawhai/Coastal South constituency.

Mangawhai and Kaiwaka to be transferred to Kaipara

3. That council acknowledges the two submissions in relation to the transfer of Mangawhai and Kaiwaka into the Kaipara constituency and no change is made from the Representation Review 2018 Initial Proposal to the Representation Review 2018 Final Proposal.

Submission content:

Council received two submissions (Hicks and Carr) advocating that Mangawhai and Kaiwaka be transferred into the Kaipara constituency. This was on the basis that they:

· Were not in the same geographical area as Bream Bay and Whangārei Harbour; in fact were more closely linked with Rodney;

· Did not sit in the same Territorial Local Authority district as Bream Bay and the Whangārei Harbour;

· Had a significant proportion of Auckland residents that did not have the same community involvement;

· Were not in the rohe of Patuharakeke;

· Were not included in the Northland telephone directory;

· Were a distinct community of interest whose issues were intrinsically linked to their Territorial Local Authority; the Kaipara District Council; and

· Kaipara Constituency had the capacity to absorb the estimated increase in population.

Staff analysis:

During the 2012 Representation Review, council considered a number of boundary options within the context of regional communities of interest, effective and fair representation before agreeing on a preferred option. At such time council adopted the 2012 Representation Review Initial Proposal it was noted:

‘Since the last nationwide review of local government in 1989, the regional council’s constituencies comprised the boundaries/areas of each of the region’s constituent district councils. It was considered that these boundaries do not materially reflect current regional communities of interest, and have been consistently “rolled over” by previous representation reviews for over 20 years. From a regional council perspective, these arrangements are out-dated, ineffective and due for an overhaul. Strengthening democratic representation at a more meaningful regional community of interest level will empower communities to serve their own needs and aspirations whilst also contributing to regional decision-making. In considering regional communities of interest, councillors considered a range of factors including:

· A sense of “community identity” and affiliations between towns and settlements;

· Similarities in demographic, socio-economic and/or ethnic characteristics;

· River catchments and distinctive topographical features;

· Land use and local history of the area;

· Similarities in economic or social activities carried out in the area; and

· Shared facilities such as schools, marae, shops and recreational facilities.

The LEA 2001 requires that “as far as practicable”, constituency boundaries should coincide with the boundaries of one or more territorial authority districts or the boundaries of wards. They must however follow current statistical meshblock areas determined by Statistics New Zealand.’

Based on these considerations Kaiwaka and Mangawhai were included in Coastal South. Following analysis of statistics and existing data, staff believe the arguments for this are just as strong, if not stronger today. Clear examples of the contrasting profiles between Kaipara and Coastal South are summarised below:

Kaipara	Coastal South
Based on the 2017 population estimate, Kaipara is growing at 15% which is just under the regional average.	Coastal South has experienced the highest growth rate (at 19%) across the region.
Kaipara has the second highest proportion (6.7%)of population being unpaid family workers (second to Hokianga-Kaikohe)	With regard to the proportion of population being unpaid family workers, Coastal South sits just below the regional average at 4.1%.
Kaipara has the highest proportion of population employed in primary industries at 31% which is more than double the regional average.	Coastal South has 13% of its population employed in primary industries which is about average for the region.
Kaipara has 28% of its population aged 15 years and over with no educational qualifications; which is the same as Te Hiku and highest in Northland.	Coastal South has 22% of its population aged 15 years and over with no educational qualifications, which is below the average for the region.
Only 7% of Kaipara’s population holds a degree; which along with Hokianga-Kaikohe is the lowest in Northland.	11% of Coastal South’s population hold a degree which is the regional average.
23% of Kaipara’s population have a total income over $70,000 per annum, the third lowest proportion in the region behind Te Hiku and Hokianga-Kaikohe.	30% of Coastal South’s population have a total income over $70,000 per annum; which is second highest in the region to Coastal Central.

To note, two submissions were received specific to this matter during the 2012 NRC Representation Review as follows:

· As a resident of Bream Bay I strongly object to having Mangawhai and Kaiwaka included in my new proposed rating area of Coastal South. After all it was the financial mismanagement of the Mangawhai Waste Water Treatment Scheme. That is reported to be the root cause of the Kaipara District Council’s unauthorised over spend.

Therefore Mangawhai and Kaiwaka must remain within the Kaipara boundaries. ^{^[1]}

· Historically the communities of Waipu, Kaiwaka, Maungaturoto were closely linked and consider these should go under Coastal South or ‘Two harbours’.

As mentioned earlier, the KDC 2018 Initial Proposal also recognises the distinct community of interest incorporating the east coast settlements of Kaiwaka and Mangawhai in the creation of a new Mangawhai-Kaiwaka ward (illustrated in Figure 1).

Options:

No.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Retain Kaiwaka and Mangawhai in Coastal South

· Takes into account communities of interest, similarities in demographic, socio-economic and ethnic characteristics, catchments and facilities shared between Kaiwaka / Mangawhai and other east coast communities.

· Partially aligns with TLA boundaries (as per section 19U(c).

· Satisfies the population requirement of the LEA 2001 (the +/- 10% rule)

· Retains a significant population in the strongest growth area in Northland.

Transfer Kaiwaka and Mangawhai back into Kaipara

· The Kaipara constituency is consistent with the KDC boundary.

· Confusion amongst residents as to which constituency they are in.

· Ignores communities of interest, similarities in demographic, socio-economic and ethnic characteristics, catchments, facilities shared between Kaiwaka / Mangawhai and other east coast communities.

· Potential inconsistency with TLA boundaries.

· Both the Kaipara and Coastal South constituencies no longer meet the population requirement of the LEA 2001 (the +/- 10% rule).

The staff recommendation is Option 1 – Retain Kaiwaka and Mangawhai in Coastal South. On balance, staff recommend that Kaiwaka and Mangawhai communities align more with the east coast communities than the west coast and Kaipara Harbour communities.

That the status quo be retained

4. That council acknowledges the submission to retain the status quo and no change is made from the Representation Review 2018 Initial Proposal to the Representation Review 2018 Final Proposal.

Submission content:

One submission (Carr) proposed that the status quo (or a variation of the status quo by re-establishing Mangawhai and Kaiwaka into the NRC Kaipara constituency – addressed in the previous section) be retained:

Key reasonings included:

1. The estimated population increase of the NRC Coastal South constituency was not based on empirical census data

2. The proposal did not address the Bay of Islands – Mangonui area which was currently inadequately represented

3. The proposal would ‘flood’ Coastal North with citizens who had an affiliation with Whangārei; further reducing the likelihood of having a councillor to represent the Bay of Islands – Mangonui and also including people with the least possible association with coastal Northland.

In response to these key points:

1. The Local Government Commission’s ‘Guidelines for local authorities undertaking representation reviews’ states: ‘When carrying out its representation review, the local authority must (s19X) apply the “ordinary resident population” figure derived from either:

· The most recent census; or

· Population estimates prepared by Stats NZ’

Given the time frames by which the regional council must complete its representation review the population estimates prepared by Stats NZ is the best available information available to council. It should be noted that population is estimated annually by Statistics New Zealand using multiple information sources, which means there is no need to rely on census data which, if used, could be theoretically up to five years old by the end of the council triennium. It should also be noted that these population estimates are commonly applied, for example the Remuneration Authority uses these as one of the key factors when measuring the relative size of councils when setting the remuneration for local government members.

2. Council was presented two initial proposal options at the June 2018 meeting with the principle difference being the option to split the existing Coastal North constituency from one larger constituency currently being represented by two councillors, into two smaller constituencies represented by one councillor each. One of the advantages noted of splitting was to improve effective representation by guaranteeing people in both the north and south of the Coastal North constituency have a dedicated councillor to represent their interests. Council elected not to split the Coastal North constituency.

3. Partly addressed above (by point 2). It is a valid comment that the area (including the settlements of Maungatapere, Kokopu and Whatatiri) being moved into the Coastal North constituency does not have strong associations with coastal Northland, however it is largely a ‘moot point’ when it currently is in Coastal South.

Options:

No.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Maintain the status quo

· Consistency for the community.

· Does not address the growth in Coastal South; hence does not comply with the LEA requirement for fair representation.

· Misses an opportunity to fine tune the representation model.

Proceed with proposed changes

· Makes the most of the opportunity to fine tune the current representation model to account for population growth and better reflect our communities of today.

· Addresses the legislative requirements of the LEA including, but not limited to fair representation (the +/- 10% rule)

· None identified.

The staff recommendation is Option 2 – Proceed with the proposed changes as detailed in the Initial Proposal.

Constituencies to be aligned with tribal areas of Te Tai Tokerau

Submission content:

Council received one submission (Taurua) advocating that the regional council’s constituency boundaries should align with the Māori council/tribal boundaries.

Staff analysis:

To note, there are three processes which (under the requirements of the Local Electoral Act (LEA) 2001) council is either required to, or may undertake in preparation for the local authority elections in 2019. These are:

· Whether or not a change was to be made to the First Past the Post system used in previous elections;

· Whether the council wished to introduce Māori constituencies; and

· Review of representation arrangements.

Council considered the matter of Māori representation including, but not limited to:

· Six workshops on Māori constituencies between February and August 2017. The purpose of these workshops being to:

- Fully understand the legislative framework within which Māori constituencies can be established;

- Investigate the options available to establish Māori constituencies; and

- Seek feedback from those involved in and affected by the creation of Māori constituencies for the Waikato Regional Council.

· A review of council’s existing procedures to provide for Māori participation in its decision making processes.

· Advice was sought from council’s two key Māori relationship groups; the TTMAC Working Party and Tai Tokerau Iwi CEOs, who both supported the creation of Māori constituencies.

Council formally resolved at its October 2017 meeting not to establish Māori constituencies for the 2019 local body elections.

It is noted that while section 19U(a) of the LEA stipulates that regional councils must ensure ‘that the number and boundaries of constituencies will provide effective representation of communities of interest within the region’ there is no legal definition of a community of interest. The LGC Guidelines states that a community of interest as having a sense of community identity and belonging, reinforced by a range of factors including, but not limited to, topographical features, local history, socio-economic, ethnic characteristics, rohe or takiwa [2]of local iwi and so forth.

At the time council considered the establishment of Māori constituencies (in 2017), the complexity and difficulty of aligning constituency boundaries with tribal areas and still meeting the other legislative requirements of the LEA, including the plus or minus 10 percent rule, was highlighted and noted by council.

Options:

No.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Constituency boundaries are amended to align with tribal areas.

· Gives full effect to Māori communities of interest.

· Would involve going ‘back to the drawing board’ and starting over.

· Would result in significant changes to the proposed boundaries which should be consulted on to ensure the community has the opportunity to provide feedback.

· Unable to meet the statutory timeframes of the LEA.

· Would be difficult to make the +/- 10% rule work.

No change is made from the Initial Proposal to the Final Proposal with regard to alignment with tribal areas

· Will assist meeting the statutory timeframes of the LEA.

· Consistency for the community given significant changes occurred in the 2012 Representation Review and the 2018 Review is simply fine tuning the boundaries.

· Does not fully address tribal areas as a community of interest.

The staff recommendation is Option 2 – that no change is made from the Initial Proposal to the Final Proposal with regard to the alignment of constituency boundaries with tribal areas.

Considerations

1. Significance and engagement

The report complies with council’s Significance and Engagement Policy which states ‘We will consult when we are required to by law. In this case, consultation on the Representation Review 2018 Initial Proposal has been carried out pursuant to sections 19M, 19N, 19O and 19P of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

2. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance

The activities detailed in this report are in accordance with council’s decision making process and the Local Electoral Act (LEA) 2001.

Further considerations

The process of consultation was carried out in order to inform the proposed changes as set out in the Representation Review 2018 Initial Proposal. This report addresses, in detail, each of the submissions received on this matter; including identification and assessment of all practicable options, community and Maori views, financial implications and implementation issues.

Authorised by Group Manager

Name:	Jonathan Gibbard
Title:	Group Manager - Governance and Engagement
Date:	01 August 2018

[1] It should be noted this submitter proposed the same transfer of Mangawhai and Kaipara as part of the 2018 Representation Review based on different grounds.

[2] It should be noted that currently there is a lack of definitive rohe boundaries.

TITLE:	Confirmation of Minutes - Representation Review Hearings
ID:	A1088058
From:	Chris Taylor, Governance Support Manager

Name:	Chris Taylor
Title:	Governance Support Manager
Date:	02 August 2018