Agenda of Extraordinary Council Meeting

Extraordinary Council Meeting item: 6.1

5 October 2021

TITLE:	Deliberations on submissions to the Representation Review 2021 Initial Proposal
ID:
From:	Chris Taylor, Governance Specialist and Ben Lee, GM - Strategy, Governance and Engagement
Authorised by Group Manager:	Ben Lee, GM - Strategy, Governance and Engagement, on 30 September 2021

Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga

This report provides background information, analysis of issues raised through submissions, options and recommendations to support council’s deliberations on the 33 submissions received on the Representation Review 2021 Initial Proposal (the Initial Proposal).

Following deliberations, the 2021 Representation Review Final Proposal will be prepared to reflect the decisions made, with adoption of the Final Proposal scheduled to occur at the 19 October 2021 council meeting. A public notice will then be issued detailing the final arrangements on Friday 22 October 2021 in accordance with the Local Electoral Act 2001.

Recommendations:

1. That the report ‘Deliberations on submissions to the Representation Review 2021 Initial Proposal’ by Chris Taylor, Governance Specialist and Ben Lee, GM - Strategy, Governance and Engagement and dated 30 September 2021, be received.

2. That council acknowledges and appreciates all submissions received on the Representation Review 2021 Initial Proposal.

3. That pursuant to section 19N of the Local Electoral Act 2001 and having considered and deliberated on submissions received on the Representation Review 2021 Initial Proposal, the Initial Proposal be adopted as the Representation Review 2021 Final Proposal with no changes.

4. That the submissions opposed to the Initial Proposal be declined on the following grounds:

(a) The total number of nine elected members (seven general councillors and two Māori councillors) is the best balance of providing effective representation, balancing workload, encouraging diversity and effective decision making.

(b) A single constituency with one general councillor to represent the Whangārei urban area is preferred over:

a. a larger Whangārei urban area constituency with two general councillors (which would be the result if the constituency was expanded to include the fringe urban areas), or

b. two Whangārei urban area constituencies with a general councillor from each,

because, while it would provide better representation for people in the Whangārei urban area, there would be a larger negative impact on the rest of Northland (because there would be one less general constituency so each general constituency would cover a larger area). On balance, it is considered that the initial proposal provides the best net representation for the region.

(c) The Maungatapere community is better reflected in the communities of interest captured by the Kaipara general constituency compared to the Mid North general constituency.

(d) Determining the areas for two or more Māori constituencies is complex and can be reviewed in the term of the next council when council has a better understanding of how Māori representation is working in practice.

(e) The dividing of the region into general constituencies with a single councillor from each constituency (as compared to a single constituency for the region) better represents communities of interest and better promotes effective and fair representation.

(f) The decision to establish Māori constituencies, the electoral system used and the ability for non-Māori candidates to stand in Māori constituencies cannot be considered as part of this review.

5. That the Acting GM – Governance and Engagement be authorised to make any necessary minor drafting, typographical, rounding or presentation corrections to the Representation Review 2021 Final Proposal (including the correction of Te Reo headings) prior to being published.

6. A public notice detailing the final representation arrangements be issued on Friday 22 October 2021.

Considerations:

1. Environmental Impact

Not directly applicable.

2. Community views

Council undertook a one-month formal consultation period (10 August to 10 September 2021) and conducted formal hearings on 28 September 2021 to hear from submitters that wanted to speak to their submissions.

While representation reviews tend to get low engagement from our community, councils 2020 decision to establish one or more Māori constituencies has created higher interest in council representation arrangements.

Recognising this higher interest, council ran a multi-channel campaign to both encourage submissions and reinforce the relevance of representation (so even if people did not submit, they might be more inclined to engage with the local government elections next year).

The campaign included video content, social media advertising and, radio advertising including Māori radio networks in Te Taitokerau, media releases and print advertising.

Originally it was planned to hold five pop-up stalls at local markets (Waipū, Whangārei, Kaitaia, Dargaville and Kerikeri). However, due to the Covid-19 restrictions only two of the five pop-ups went ahead. To compensate the amount of online and offline promotion was increased.

A virtual hui was also held on 19 August 2021 which generated some good questions and discussion. The recording of the hui as well as four short videos were available for viewing after the event and became part of the social media campaign.

3. Māori impact statement

There was considerable consultation and engagement with Māori in the earlier part of the representation review process when council made the decision to establish Māori constituencies. As well as hearing from a range of subject experts, advice was sought from the Northland Iwi Chairs (Te Kahu o Taonui) and the Te Taitokerau Māori and Council Working Party (TTMAC) on the establishment and proposed make-up of Māori constituencies in Northland.

There was clear direction from the iwi leaders and TTMAC that the establishment of Māori constituencies represented the Treaty partnership and was their preferred option.

TTMAC also provided the following advice:

1. That three Māori seats on an 11-member council is preferable over an alternative of two Māori seats on a nine-member council.

2. That a single Māori constituency, with all Māori councillors elected from a region wide constituency, is preferable at this stage over multiple Māori constituencies. The option for geographically separate Māori constituencies to be explored in detail after the 2022 elections.

3. That the name of the Māori constituency be “Te Raki Māori”.

Furthermore, careful consideration was given during the development of the communications plan to specifically engage Māori to hear their views on the proposed representation arrangements as detailed in council’s Initial Proposal.

4. Financial implications

There are no financial implications.

5. Implementation issues

There are no implementation issues.

6. Significance and engagement

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

7. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance

The 2021 Representation Arrangements Review process was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Local Electoral Act 2001 and council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

The biggest risk at this time would be for council to make consequential changes to the Representation Arrangements proposal and for staff to be able to commission the necessary GIS work, the revised statistical information and amend content in time for the Final Proposal to be adopted at the 19 October 2021 council meeting. The adoption cannot be delayed as otherwise it would mean not meeting the Local Electoral Act 2001 time restrictions.

Background/Tuhinga

The Representation Review process

In accordance with the Local Electoral Act 2001 council is required to review its representation arrangements at least every six years. Council last undertook a representation review in 2018. However, council’s decision to establish Māori constituencies (on 20 October 2020) triggered the need to review its representation so that new arrangements are in place for the next local government elections in October 2022.

A representation review specifically considers:

· The total number of councillors; and

· The number, boundaries and names of the areas from which councillors will be elected (constituencies).

In doing so council must carefully consider three key factors:

· Regional communities of interest;

· Effective representation; and

· Fair representation (the +/- 10% rule)^{^[1]}.

The Northland Regional Council Representation Review 2021 Initial Proposal

Based on the considerations (listed prior), council resolved at the 28 July 2021 meeting to propose nine councillors comprising of two Māori councillors elected from one region-wide Māori constituency and seven general councillors elected from seven general constituencies. This new arrangement is summarised in the following graphic.

The reasons for the changes to the representation arrangements for the Northland region are:

· To ensure new arrangements are in place for the 2022 local government elections following council’s decision to establish one or more Māori constituencies;

· To better reflect communities of interest;

· To improve effective representation; and

· To provide for fair representation in determining the number of general councillors to be elected by the electors of each general constituency, satisfying section 19V of the Local Electoral Act.

Deliberations

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

‘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 under section 19M(3), Local Electoral Act 2001 it is typically appropriate that only local authority members who hear the submissions participate in the decision-making on those submissions.’

Furthermore ‘Each local 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 should 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.’

Next steps following the adoption of the Final Proposal

Following deliberations, the 2021 Representation Review Final Proposal (the Final Proposal) will be prepared to reflect the decisions made, with adoption of the Final Proposal scheduled to occur at the 19 October 2021 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/objection period is scheduled from 22 October 2021 to 26 November 2021.

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.

The right to object 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.

In the event a council’s Final Proposal does not comply with the ‘+/- 10% rule’, the council must refer the proposal directly to the Local Government Commission. Such a referral is 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 2022. In making the determination, the Commission is able to make any enquiries that it considers appropriate and may, but is not obliged to, hold meetings with parties.

The 2022 Northland Regional Council elections will be based on the final determination of representation arrangements.

Analysis of submissions

1. That the Whangārei Central Constituency be expanded to include Whangārei’s outer fringes/suburbs or there be two constituencies to represent Whangārei

Submission content:

· Council received five submissions (Alves, Marchant, Scott, King, Polamalu) that did not support Whangārei’s outer fringes/suburbs being shifted into the surrounding constituencies. There was a repeated theme that due to their proximity to Whangārei, these areas affiliated with and were collectively a community of interest with Whangārei.

· One submission (Mickelson) proposed that for the same reason ‘there should be two constituencies to represent Whangārei and surroundings, being Whangārei Central North and Whangārei Central South’.

· One submission (Alves) made specific reference to Maungatapere’s proximity to Whangārei and also that the Initial Proposal placed it in the Kaipara Constituency whereas it should be in the Mid North; the same as Maunu.

· One submission (Hazelton) supported the proposed Whangārei Central Constituency as one elected member ‘will be able to fairly represent the needs of the city’.

Staff analysis:

The proposed change to a Whangārei Central general constituency that was smaller, confined to the city centre and represented by one councillor was a fundamental consideration for council when reviewing its representation arrangements.

During a series of investigative workshops council thoroughly discussed the pros and cons relating to this change and the content of submissions address many of the issues raised in these discussions. However, council decided on balance (and as articulated in the Initial Proposal) that the proposed Whangārei Central general constituency recognises that people living in Whangārei have easy access to the Northland Regional Council main office, its services and its councillors, whereas this is not typically the case in more remote areas of the region. Furthermore, a greater spread of councillors across the region would ideally make its governance arrangements more effective.

Options

No.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Retain the Whangārei Central general constituency as proposed.

· Provides a greater spread of councillors across Northland to allow more effective representation of all of Northland’s diverse communities.

· The ‘rural lens’ to the representation arrangements better reflects the regional council’s environmental focus.

· Splits Whangārei in its entirety as a community of interest.

Revert to the status quo, or a version thereof, with all of Whangārei included in one or two constituencies.

· Retains Whangārei in its entirety as a community of interest.

· Misses an opportunity for improvement as identified by council.

· Council would need to reconsider all the general constituency boundaries.

· Council would be progressing with governance arrangements significantly different from what it consulted on and not offering the public to have its say.

The staff recommendation is Option 1 - retain the Whangārei Central general constituency as proposed. While Option 2 it would provide better representation for people in the Whangārei urban area, there would be a larger negative impact on the rest of Northland (because there would be one less general constituency so each general constituency would cover a larger area). On balance, it is considered that the initial proposal provides the best net representation for the region.

2. That the Northland Regional Council be configured differently from the proposed nine councillors (consisting of two Māori councillors and seven general councillors)

Submission content:

Council received 10 submissions proposing a different configuration of council (as detailed in Table 1). All but one of these submissions supported more than the proposed nine elected members.

Table 1: Alternative configurations of council proposed through submissions

Submitter	Total council size	Māori councillors	General councillors
Ratana	14	3	11
Connor Kingi	14	3	11
Johnston	12	3	9
Hicks	11	2 (Note - this is not a legal option)	9
Marchant	11	3	8
Rawson	11	3	8
Polamalu	11	3	8
Savill	10	2	8
Hazelton	10	2	8
Walsh	8	1 (Note - this is not a legal option)	7

· Six submissions (Walker, Martinovich, Morris, Kepa, Young, Miller) indicated the proposal was a good balance of representation.

· Key themes for a greater number of councillors included that:

- Māori representation should better reflect the proportion of the Northland population that were Māori (36%). This was a particular point made by those in support of three Māori councillors and eight general councillors – which was the configuration which provided the greatest proportion of Māori councillors versus general councillors.

- Some of the proposed general constituencies were too large for one councillor to represent.

- The geographic size of Te Raki was too large for two Māori councillors to represent.

- That the Northland region, being geographically large with diverse communities would be better represented by a larger number of representatives.

- It would allow a more manageable workload for councillors.

· On a related matter, two submissions (Rawson, Johnston) stated that being a councillor was not a career option, it was a service to the community and representation should not be compromised by remuneration.

Staff analysis:

The number of general and Māori councillors is determined by legislation. It depends on the total number of councillors to be elected for the region, and the latest available general electoral population and Māori electoral population statistics (June 2020). The following table (Table 2) shows the options for Northland based on the formula.

Table 2: Council size options for the Northland Regional Council

*Total council size*	*Māori councillors (population / councillor)^{^[2]}*	*General councillors (population / councillor)^{^[3]}*	*Annual remuneration per councillor^{^[4]}*
6	1 (47,610)	5 (29,380)	$118,000
7	2 (23,805)	5 (29,380)	$101,000
8	2 (23,805)	6 (24,483)	$88,000
9	2 (23,805)	7 (20,985)	$78,000
10	2 (23,805)	8 (18,363)	$71,000
11	3 (15,870)	8 (18,363)	$64,000
12	3 (15,870)	9 (16,322)	$59,000
13	3 (15,870)	10 (14,690)	$54,000
14	3 (15,870)	11 (13,354)	$51,000

Council’s consideration of the appropriate size of council and the number of Māori councillors extends back to 2020 through a series of investigative workshops to initially consider the introduction of Māori constituencies. Following council’s decision in October 2021 to establish Māori constituencies the preferred size of council became a key issue to be resolved as it underpinned the entire governance arrangements review.

During a series of workshops council thoroughly discussed all the pros and cons relating to a larger or smaller size council. However, council decided on balance (and as articulated in the Initial Proposal) that the current size of council, being nine councillors, was working well.

However, there was also support for a phased approach; not only in terms of initially having Māori constituencies at large but also starting with nine elected members (with two Māori councillors and seven general councillors). Council would then investigate the options for introducing individual Māori constituencies and also review the appropriate size of council with the benefit of having the input of the Māori councillors.

Arguably the second-best alternative is 11 councillors (with three Māori councillors and eight general councillors), because it provides better representation for Māori, while retaining some of the benefits of a nine-member council. This was the preference for TTMAC (and three of the submitters). Refer Appendix 1 for maps showing two options for eight general councillors (assuming the three Māori councillors are elected at large).

Options

No.	Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
1	Proceed with nine councillors (consisting of 2 Māori councillors and 7 general councillors)	· Adequate numbers to spread workload while maintaining a complete overview · Small enough that “subgroups” are not formed enabling a more cohesive decision making group. · Ability to be inclusive, collaborative, agile and make decisions quickly. For example, members can be involved in a broader range of operations meaning less rehashing of issues already discussed by a subgroup. · Ability to build a tight knit team with strong working relationships. · Level of remuneration is at a sufficient level to make it a viable career option and attract people from all backgrounds. · Enabling voting by majority (odd number of councillors).	· Result in some constituencies covering large geographic areas and whether this will be a manageable workload for councillors and allow sufficient public access to their local councillor. · Requires more commitment from members as effectiveness can be negatively impacted if everyone not present (compared to a larger sized council). · Greater risk of inadequate representation, diversity of views and mix of skills around the decision making table (compared to a larger sized council). · Is not supported by TTMAC
2	Proceed with a larger size council (more than nine elected members).	· More councillors to spread the workload. · Greater access by constituents to their local councillor (represent smaller area and population). · Smaller constituency sizes. · Greater opportunity for diversity of views and perspectives, and mix of skills around the decision-making table by virtue of having more seats. · Can provide the opportunity for members to “specialise” based on their particular skills and experience as there are a number of others to share the remaining workload (compared to smaller sized council). · Less opportunity for “group think” as more councillors to hold each other to account. · Better ability to cope with absences as there are more people left to carry on with the work.	· The larger the council the less flexible it is and potentially the longer it takes to make decisions. · Remuneration falls to a point that the role of a councillor is a part time role and often needs to be juggled with other forms of employment. This not only reduces commitment to the role but potentially limits to those who can financially afford to stand. · Council will need to reconsider all constituency boundaries. · Potential for subgroups or factions to develop which can make it more difficult to keep a team working effectively together. · Workload may be light or become uneven between members – leading to a lack of engagement of some members. · If members specialise and are not involved in everything, it may take more time overall to bring all members up to date with potential for re-litigating issues. · Higher workload for staff to support additional councillors (compared to status quo)
3	Proceed with a smaller size council (less than nine elected members).	· Potentially a smaller, close knit unit that is quicker making decisions. · The remuneration pool is split across fewer councillors so will increase.	· Fewer councillors to spread workload. · Reduces public access to their local councillor. · The geographic size of constituencies becomes untenable. · High risk of inadequate representation, diversity of views and mix of skills around the decision making table · High risk of “group think” as less councillors to hold each other to account

The staff recommendation is Option 1 - Proceed with nine councillors (consisting of 2 Māori councillors and 7 general councillors) as it provides the best balance of advantages and disadvantages.

3. That individual Māori constituencies be developed (as opposed to one region wide Māori constituency with Māori councillors ‘elected at large’)

Submission content:

Council received six submissions (Rawson, King, Ratana, Connor-Kingi, Hazelton, Johnston) that either proposed that council develop individual Māori constituencies, supported a specific configuration for Māori constituencies (for example North and South) or suggested that council should work with Māori to determine whether individual constituencies were appropriate and if so where the boundaries should be drawn.

Key themes through submissions to support individual Māori constituencies included:

- Representing the whole of Northland was too difficult.

- There was the risk that two Māori councillors could be elected from the same vicinity.

- Māori don’t go by lines they are seen to be working within their rohe/whakapapa.

Staff analysis:

The proposed governance arrangements are a starting point.

As stated in the Initial Proposal, while establishing individual Māori constituencies may be the better approach, council recognised it was a complex matter that needed time to get right. Therefore, it was proposing to start with one region-wide constituency to be reviewed during the next triennium when there was Māori representation on council and there was a better understanding how the new governance arrangements were working in practice. This approach reflected the advice from TTMAC.

Support for this approach was also reflected in submissions from Te Rangi, Ratana and Hazelton who respectively stated:

‘It seems appropriate that Māori themselves should determine whether or not they wish to be represented through Māori wards or constituencies, rather than that option being determined by a majority of existing councillors and challengeable by a poll of all voters.’

‘How Māori in Te Tai Tokerau are represented should be decided by the Māori in Te Tai Tokerau. This includes adequate consultation with local Māori at all levels of society.’

‘It is however suggested that consultation with Iwi is undertaken to ensure that two distinct wards could not be more effective than the at large ward.’

Options

No.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Proceed with one region-wide Māori constituency.

· Creates a starting point/platform for future discussions.

· Consistent with advice from TTMAC.

· Prevents drawing lines on a map without adequate consultation or consideration.

· Māori councillors could be elected within close vicinity of each other and doesn’t ensure representation of the whole region.

Proceed with multiple Māori constituencies

· Ensures there is Māori representation for all of the region.

· Council has not consulted with Māori about where the appropriate boundaries might lie; which is critical.

· There needs to be sufficient time for Tai Tokerau Māori to determine how Tai Tokerau Māori should be represented.

The staff recommendation is Option 1 - Proceed with one region-wide Māori constituency. Determining the areas for two or more Māori constituencies is complex and can be reviewed in the term of the next council when council has a better understanding of how Māori representation is working in practice.

4. That the seven general councillors be elected ‘at large’ across Northland (the same as the two Māori councillors).

Submission content:

Council received one submission (Krollman) proposing that the seven general councillors be elected ‘at large’ from all of Northland; in the same manner that it is proposed for the two Māori councillors. This was based on the use of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system and was to provide electors a choice. The submission stated, ‘This would allow me to pick and rank candidates that stand for what I care about and make me feel properly represented’.

Staff analysis:

Council’s decision to conduct the 2022 local body elections using the First Past the Post (FPP) electoral system as opposed to the Single Transferrable Vote (STV) system has already been made and is not a decision that can be revisited or reversed by council through the representation review process.

Council's proposal to have seven general constituencies, as detailed in the Initial Proposal is based on the three key principles; regional communities of interest, effective representation and fair representation. If council had seven general councillors ‘elected at large’ from all of Northland, there is high risk the elected members could be dominated by Northland's urban centres and representation of Northland's smaller and more remote communities could be lost.

Options

No.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Proceed with seven general councillors being elected from seven general constituencies.

· Better meets the key principles underpinning a representation review (communities of interest, effective representation and fair representation)

· Prevents the election of councillors being dominated by Northland’s urban centres.

· Potentially limited options of candidates for voters.

Proceed with seven general councillors being elected ‘at large’ from all of Northland (using the FTP electoral system)

· Potentially compromises representation of communities of interest, effective representation and fair representation.

· Potentially the election of candidates could be dominated by Northland’s urban centres.

· Broader choice of candidates for voters.

The staff recommendation is Option 1 - Proceed with seven general councillors being elected from seven general constituencies. The dividing of the region into general constituencies with a single councillor from each constituency (as compared to a single constituency for the region) better represents communities of interest and better promotes effective and fair representation.

5. Council’s decision to establish one or more Māori constituencies

Submission content:

Council received 20 submissions that directly addressed the establishment of Māori constituencies (Clouston, Hicks, Ashton, Kepa, Dealy, Alves, Marchant, Rawson, King, Harding, Polamalu, Doel, Walsh, Miller, Ratana, Te Rangi, Hazelton, Johnston, Collins, Reilly) and others indirectly.

While council and staff appreciate the feedback, the decision to establish Māori constituencies has already been made by council and cannot be revisited or reversed through the representation process.

6. Non- Māori candidates standing in Māori constituencies

Submission content:

Council received four submissions (Hicks, Kepa, King, Rātana) that specifically addressed or opposed the ability for those of non-Māori descent to stand in Māori constituencies. While council and staff appreciate the feedback, this is a matter of law and not in council’s discretion to change.

7. Use of Te Reo in headings

Submission content:

Council received one submission (Barua) identifying errors in the Te Reo headings used in the Initial Proposal. All headings in the Representation Review 2021 Initial Proposal have been reviewed and amended as required.

8. Confusing graphics within the Initial Proposal

Submission content:

Council received one submission (Clouston) that stated the graphics used to summarise the proposal for the representation arrangements, within the Initial Proposal, as confusing. The submitter did not provide any suggestion on how the information could be better presented. The graphic is a summary and detailed maps are included in Appendix 1 of the Initial Proposal.

Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga

Nil

Appendix 1

The following maps show two options for constituencies for eight general councillors (assumes Māori councillors would be elected at large).

Eight constituencies option (option “D”)

One councillor elected from each general constituency.

Map

Description automatically generated

Eight constituencies (option “D”) compared to Initial Proposal

Map

Description automatically generated

Seven constituencies option (option “I”)

Note – two councillors elected from the Whangārei central general constituency, otherwise one councillor elected from each general constituency.

Map

Description automatically generated

Seven constituencies option (option “I”) compared to Initial Proposal

Map

Description automatically generated

[1] In accordance with the Local Electoral Act the council, where appropriate, must ensure that each councillor represents approximately the same number of people. This is referred to as the ‘+/- 10% rule’.

[3] Based on the average of the Stats NZ 2020 estimate of the general electoral population of 146,900 for the Northland region and

[4] The total remuneration for NRC councillors is approximately $707,000 (Local Government Members (2021/22) Determination 2021). The annual remuneration reported in the table is this total divided by the number of councillors. This does not reflect actual remuneration which varies depending on the councillor’s role. Figures are rounded to nearest 1000.

TITLE:	Confirmation of Minutes - Representation Review Hearings
From:	Chris Taylor, Governance Specialist
Authorised by Group Manager/s:	Chris Taylor, Governance Specialist, on 30 September 2021