Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 09 November 2016

Subject: Proposed Governance Structure for the 2016-19 Triennium

Reason for Report

1. Council’s governance structure needs to enable it to effectively discharge its responsibilities under the Biosecurity Act 1993, Building Act 2004, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, the Land Transport Management Act 2003, the Local Government Act 2002 and Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2015, and the Resource Management Act 1991, to name a few, over the next three years. This paper proposes a structure and associated delegations for Council to consider to enable efficient and transparent decision-making to meet its responsibilities.

Governance Principles

2. The Local Government Act defines the governance principles as:

“39 Governance principles

A local authority must act in accordance with the following principles in relation to its governance:

(a) a local authority should ensure that the role of democratic governance of the community, and the expected conduct of elected members, is clear and understood by elected members and the community; and

(b) a local authority should ensure that the governance structures and processes are effective, open, and transparent; and

(c) a local authority should ensure that, so far as is practicable, responsibility and processes for decision-making in relation to regulatory responsibilities is separated from responsibility and processes for decision-making for non-regulatory responsibilities; and

(d) a local authority should be a good employer; and

(e) a local authority should ensure that the relationship between elected members and management of the local authority is effective and understood.”

3. Section 39(c) above has a direct bearing on the committee structure.

Background

4. Appropriate governance structures are vital to enable Council to function effectively as an organisation. As part of the ongoing process of working to improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of Council there has been discussion around appropriate Committee arrangements for this triennium.

5. There are numerous statutory issues related to committees of Council but some of the more relevant issues include:

5.1. Council may appoint committees, sub-committees and other subordinate decision making bodies that it considers appropriate

5.2. Council may establish a joint committee with another local authority or other public bodies

5.3. Committees may appoint sub-committees it considers appropriate unless prohibited from doing so by the Council

5.4. A committee or other subordinate decision making body is subject to the control of the local authority and must carry out all general and specific directions of the Council

5.5. Council has the unfettered right to appoint or remove any member of a committee or sub-committee

5.6. A joint committee has the sole power to appoint and remove its own chairperson or deputy chairperson

5.7. Council may appoint to committees or sub-committees, people who are not members of the Council if, in the opinion of the Council, those people have the skills, attributes or knowledge that will assist the work of the committee or sub-committee

5.8. At least one member of a committee must be an elected member of a local authority and employees of a local authority cannot be a member of a committee but may be a member of a sub-committee

5.9. The minimum number of members for a committee is three and sub-committee two.

6. Council can, at any stage, review its committee structure to ensure that it is appropriate and operating as intended.

7. Council’s most recent structure has been operating since 2015, with the establishment of the Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee. Prior to that there had been no significant changes to the Committee structure since 2012.

8. At the end of the 2013-16 triennium, the structure operating was:

9. Council is required by statute to have the Regional Transport Committee and the Regional Planning Committee. The Civil Defence Emergency Joint Committee is required under section 12 (1) of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (2002).

10. The Environment and Services Committee and the Corporate and Strategic Committee consider and make recommendations to Council on wide-ranging matters related to the undertaking of Council’s business.

11. Other committees cover specific issues, such as selection of tenders (Tenders Committee) in excess of staff financial delegations, and resource consent hearings (Hearings Committee). These committees both meet when required.

12. The Māori Committee is made up of representatives of four taiwhenua within Hawke’s Bay, as well as three councillors, and makes recommendations to the Council on matters of relevance affecting the tangata whenua of the region.

13. The functions of Council, broadly, across the Committees are:

Corporate and Strategic	Environment and Services	Finance, Audit & Risk
Strategic Planning, including scenarios planning	Asset management	Annual Report financial auditing
Annual Plan development	Biosecurity	Quarterly key initiatives reporting
Investment Portfolio	Environmental compliance and enforcement – policies and procedures	Six-monthly risk assessment of Council activities
External relationships, including strategic partnerships	Resource Consents – operational policies (applications heard by Hearings Committee appointed Hearing Panel)	Programme of Internal Audits
Marketing and communications including community engagement and environmental education	Engineering	Service Delivery Reviews
Environmental science – development and review of science strategies, and funding implications	Environmental science – presentation of reports, and State of the Environment monitoring
Infrastructure development	Land Management
Water Information Services	Water Advisory Services
Economic development and tourism including reporting by HB Tourism and Business HB	Maritime Navigation & Safety
Information services	Open Spaces
	Reporting including: · Clean Heat · Public transport

Comments on Specific Committees

Regional Transport Committee (RTC)

14. This Committee is a requirement under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA), and Section 105 states that the regional council must appoint (as the minimum membership) to its regional transport committee:

14.1. Two regional councillors

14.2. One representative from each Territorial Authority in the region; and

14.3. One representative of the New Zealand Transport Agency.

15. The 2013-16 Regional Council chose to also exercise its powers under clause 31(3) of Part 1 of Schedule Seven of the Local Government Act 2002, relating to membership of committees to appoint additional representation.

“(3) The members of a committee or subcommittee may, but need not be, elected members of a local authority, and a local authority or committee may appoint to a committee or subcommittee a person who is not a member if, in the opinion of the local authority, that person has the skills, attributes, or knowledge that will assist the work of the committee or subcommittee.”

16. The membership of the Regional Transport Committee (including appropriate sector and objective representatives) in accordance with the 2016 Terms of Reference as adopted by HBRC was:

16.1. Two regional councillors (voting members)

16.2. One representative from each Territorial Authority in the region (voting members)

16.3. One representative of the New Zealand Transport Agency (voting member)

16.4. One representative from the NZ Police (non-voting member)

16.5. One representative from the Road Transport industry (non-voting member)

16.6. One representative from the Automobile Association (AA) representing access and mobility, including private motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users (non-voting member)

16.7. One representative for Port and Coastal Shipping (non-voting member)

16.8. One representative from KiwiRail (non-voting member)

16.9. One cultural interests representative, also representing environmental issues (non-voting member).

17. The Terms of Reference for the RTC is attached (Attachment x), and letters seeking representation from the territorial authorities and those representative organisations will be sought, once membership has been agreed.

18. One of the major functions of the RTC is now to prepare a Regional Land Transport Plan for the region which will set out our transport priorities, objectives and measures across all modes of land transport. It is therefore suggested that if advisory representatives are appointed to the committee, that the views and interests of a range of land transport stakeholders should be represented as suggested above.

Environment and Services Committee

19. It is proposed that the Environment and Services Committee be retained with its current Terms of Reference and that 4-5 meetings are scheduled in any calendar year.

20. This committee considers and recommends policies, regulations and other methods to Council with regard to the HBRC responsibilities or involvement with Land Drainage and River Control under the Local Government Act 2002, Land Drainage and Rivers Control Act 1941 and Land Drainage Act 1908; Biosecurity under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Biosecurity Act 1993; and maritime and navigation safety under the Maritime Transport Act 1994.

Biosecurity Working Party (as a sub-committee of Environment and Services)

21. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Plan was last reviewed in 2013 and is due for review again by March 2018. HBRC are required under the Biosecurity Act 1993 to maintain a Pest Management Plan for the Region. The HB Pest Management Plan identifies a range of plant and animal pests with the potential to impact on the HB economy, environment, and/or on public health, and which HBRC believes can be cost effectively managed or controlled.

22. The previous Council received a briefing paper on this issues at its meeting on 24 August 2016 and recommended the establishment of a Biosecurity Working Party, made up of 2 or 3 elected members and an equal number of representatives from Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Groups, as a subcommittee of the Environment and Services Committee.

23. It is proposed that the Terms of Reference for this sub-committee be developed through the Environment and Services Committee in 2017.

Hearings Committee

24. This committee considers and recommends to Council processes, policies and guidelines to ensure effective management of RMA Resource Consent processes. In addition, in late 2017 or early 2018 there will need to be a hearings process to consider submissions on the Regional Pest Management Plan.

25. Pursuant to Section 34(1) of the Resource Management Act (RMA) Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has delegated functions, powers and/or duties under the RMA as detailed in the Terms of Reference for the Committee (attached).

Corporate and Strategic Committee

26. This Committee is responsible for considering and recommending to Council strategic planning initiatives including development of the Council’s Strategic Plan and other strategic initiatives with external stakeholders. It also deals with a number of operational issues outside of the Environment and Services remits.

27. With the establishment of the Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee in 2015 some of the Corporate and Strategic Committee workload has been diverted, and generally speaking, the Corporate and Strategic Committee agendas have dealt with fewer items and been of shorter duration.

28. The Corporate and Strategic Committee remains an important vehicle for dealing with a range of Council’s business. It is recommended that the Chair of this committee also be appointed as chair of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee to provide a comparable workload to the Environment and Services Committee Chair role.

Finance, Audit and Risk Committee

29. The Finance Audit and Risk Committee is responsible for examining the robustness of Council’s risk management systems, of appropriate controls to safeguard the Council’s financial and non-financial assets, and the independence and adequacy of internal and external audit functions. It meets four times each calendar year.

30. It is recommended that the committee, retains the membership of four councillors and one independent member, and reports directly to Council, and the Terms of Reference have been amended accordingly.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee (RPC)

31. In August 2015 the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act (RPC Act) came into effect – four years after the Council had initially established the RPC. The RPC Act’s purpose is to improve Tāngata Whenua involvement in the development and review of documents prepared in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 for the Hawke’s Bay region. The RPC Act also establishes the Regional Planning Committee as a joint committee of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

32. Given the workload to be undertaken by the Regional Planning Committee it is proposed to increase the meeting frequency for this committee as part of the drafting of the Meeting Schedule for 2017. Previously, the RPC’s meetings have been at approximately two monthly intervals.

33. Enactment of the RPC Act prompts at least two matters which both require further consideration by the incoming Council:

33.1. the future respective roles of the RPC and the HBRC Maori Committee; and

33.2. appointment of an additional member to retain equal numbers with Tāngata Whenua RPC membership.

Appointment of an Additional Council member to the Regional Planning Committee

34. The RPC Act provides for an equal number of Tāngata Whenua members and Council members. With Pare Hill having been recently appointed by the trustees of Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua as its RPC representative, there will be ten Tāngata Whenua RPC members. Section 11(1)(j) of the RPC Act anticipates ten council members appointed by the Council, but does not prescribe any parameters or process for making such an appointment. Given there are only nine councillors, the tenth position will require an appointment in accordance the Local Government Act 2002.^{^[1]} That clause requires Council to be satisfied that the person appointed “has the skills, attributes, or knowledge that will assist the work of the committee.”

35. For the avoidance of doubt, any such appointment is ultimately for the Council to make – not the wider membership of the RPC.

36. The RPC’s work focusses on overseeing the review and development of documents prepared in accordance with the Resource Management Act. Principally, those documents are the Regional Policy Statement and regional plans (i.e. the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan and the Regional Coastal Environment Plan).

37. Given the scope, purpose and matters involved in the RPC’s work, staff consider the key skills, attributes and knowledge required for the role would include (in no particular order):

37.1. Understanding of the Regional Council’s policy development and decision-making roles and responsibilities under the RMA.

37.2. Understanding of the difference in governance role and operational/management roles as it relates to plan and policy making under the RMA.

37.3. Understanding of typical meeting protocols and processes used by local authorities.

37.4. Understanding of the relevant legal frameworks for the preparation and review of the Regional Policy Statement and regional plans/plan changes under the RMA.

37.5. Current certification as a RMA hearings commissioner through ‘Making Good Decisions’ programme.

37.6. Familiarity of land, freshwater, coastal and air quality management issues in Hawke's Bay.

37.7. Availability to prepare for, and participate in regular meetings of the RPC on an ongoing basis (neither the use of short-term replacements nor a short-term appointment is considered desirable) given the RPC’s work programme overseeing a number of policy projects spanning several months, or in some instances years.

38. Staff do not consider it is essential for the appointee to have technical or scientific expertise given the role is not an operational technical role, but rather a governance-oriented role.

39. Assuming the Council agrees with the assessment of desirable competences outlined above, staff welcome any suggestions of names of persons who could be approached to enquire about their interest, availability and skills to become a member of the RPC.

40. It is considered premature to appoint a specific named individual to the Committee at this time. This is largely due to interest, availability (and Council’s affordability) of any such person not yet being known. Furthermore, potentially some would-be candidates could be conflicted given the RPC’s role and foreseeable work programme.

41. Until revisions to the RPC’s Terms of Reference are confirmed, staff do not recommend trying to second-guess what the future work of the committee will (or won’t) entail and therefore what skills, attributes and/or knowledge the tenth member should have to suit the unknown future role of the RPC relative to work of HBRC’s other committees during the 2016-19 triennium.

Options for additional member appointment

42. There are a number of options how the Council might approach the task of appointing a tenth member to the RPC. The key options which staff have identified are outlined below. There may be slight variations on any of these options, but the fundamental processes are as follows.

42.1. A - Expressions of interest: Council calls for expressions of interest, then follows a selection process to identify most suitable candidate.

42.2. B - Role-based selection: Council appoints a person based on a role that person currently holds (or previously occupied) in a related field, profession or organisation.

42.3. C - Next highest polling council candidate: Council appoints a person based on their relative ranking (being 10th place) based on the October 2016 results for HBRC elections, but this is not as straightforward as it might seem due to HBRC’s elections being constituency-based and not ‘at large.’ Either way, this option would require further consideration of the candidate’s “skills, attributes and knowledge to assist the RPC’s work” as per the LGA’s requirements.

43. By way of example for another region, the Government must appoint up to six people as members of the Environment Canterbury transitional governing body. The responsible Ministers “must appoint members who will complement the knowledge and expertise of [Environment Canterbury’s] elected members so that, collectively, the members of the transitional governing body will have knowledge of, and expertise in relation to, the following matters: (a) the management of freshwater; and (b) local authority governance and management; and (c) tikanga Maori, as it applies in the Canterbury region; and (d) the Canterbury region and its people.”^{^[2]}

Financial and resource implications of appointing a tenth member to RPC

44. Governance and committee meeting expenses are provided for in Project 840 (Community Representation and Regional Leadership).

45. The tenth member’s attendance at future RPC meetings will incur additional costs. Those costs will include payments for the member’s travel and attendance at RPC meetings. For equity reasons, staff consider the tenth member would be entitled to the standard meeting fee ($400 per meeting day) plus mileage. The fee of $400 per meeting day is recommended by the State Services Commission and is already in place for the RPC’s tangata whenua members. However, it should be noted that there is a likelihood for some persons who have the skills, attributes and/or knowledge to assist the work of the RPC will have normal day jobs payable at hourly rates in excess of a member’s standard meeting fee.

Māori Committee

46. During the last Council term, the Māori Committee consisted of twelve Māori members and three Council representatives. There were three Māori members elected by the iwi in their respective districts representing Wairoa, Napier (Ahuriri), Hastings (Heretaunga) and Central Hawke’s Bay (Tamatea). These three members represented the Māori Executive, the Taiwhenua and a kaumatua, from each district.

47. The current Maori Committee Charter (dated June 2011) is being reviewed with a number of amendments having been recommended.

48. During the RPC Tāngata Whenua workshop in August, discussions covered the role and interaction between both these committees. It was agreed that both committees had an integral role in ensuring Māori are included within decision making processes and consideration was given for some RPC Tangata Whenua members to attend the Māori Committee meetings. The actual numbers, representation and a communication strategy of membership is expected to happen, once confirmation of the Māori Committee is made by the Councillors.

49. Staff recognise that the following needs to occur:

49.1. Council needs to fulfil statutory responsibilities to engage in planning, resource consents and with its operational activities.

49.2. The Pātaka tool (an online resource of Tāngata Whenua information in Hawke's Bay) provides the connection with key contacts and staff within their daily work programmes have established strong relationships with Tāngata Whenua which includes local marae and whanau groupings.

49.3. With the majority of the Treaty settlement groups having now settled with the Crown, the Council has a larger number, and depth, of relationships with tāngata whenua that needs proactive management.

49.4. Council needs to develop greater cultural competency and staff awareness of obligations and expectations.

49.5. Recent Māori Committee hui in Wairoa and Tamatea have highlighted the benefits of reaching out to the community. Greater structure and regularity to this would be desirable.

50. In relation to the future role of the Māori Committee, it is expected that this committee will reflect the proposed amendments to the current Māori Committee Charter and will include the interaction between themselves and the RPC’s Tāngata Whenua membership, to ensure that Māori are present and effective in the decision-making process in accordance to the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991.

Tenders Committee

51. This committee considers and make decisions on Tenders which exceed the financial delegations of staff. Membership of this committee comprises the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Regional Council, the Chairperson of the Environment & Services committee and the Chairperson of the Corporate & Strategic Committee. The Committee’s Terms of Reference is attached for reference.

Joint Committees

Joint Civil Defence Emergency Management Committee

52. This Committee is required by Statute under the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002. The current Terms of Reference have been established in conjunction with the other Members of the Committee (attached).

53. This Committee is a joint committee of all local government organisations that are within the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group area, i.e. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Wairoa District Council, Hastings District Council, Napier City Council and Central Hawke’s Bay District Council. The Committee was formed in March 2004 in accordance with the requirements of the CDEM Act 2002.

54. The Act requires that each local government organisation, as a Member of the Group, is represented by the Chairperson of that local authority or an elected person from that authority who has delegated authority to act for the Chairperson.

55. Accordingly, over the past triennial term, each of the Territorial Local Authorities has been represented by their mayor, and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council by Council’s Chairman.

56. It is anticipated that the Group will meet two times annually.

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

57. This Committee was established in 2014, and Terms of Reference (attached) established in conjunction with the other Members of the Committee.

58. The committee is tasked with the development of a Strategy for the Hawke’s Bay coastline between Clifton and Tangoio, up to 2120, which will provide a framework to guide and direct the assessment and implementation of preferred options for the long term management of the coast

Decision Making Process

59. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

59.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

59.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

59.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

59.4. The persons affected by this decision are incoming councillors and those members of staff and the public participating in and contributing to Council and Committee meetings.

59.5. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

59.6. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

1. That Council receives and notes the “Proposed Governance Structure for the 2016-19 Triennium”.

2. Establishes the following committee structure and adopts the Terms of Reference, membership, meeting frequency and Council Executive responsible for each committee as detailed following.

3. diagram to be inserted

3.1. Regional Transport Committee (RTC)

3.1.1. Terms of Reference being:

3.1.2. Appoints Councillor xx as Chairperson, and Councillor xx as Deputy Chairperson

3.2. Environment and Services Committee

3.2.1. Terms of Reference being:

3.2.2. Appoints Councillor xx as Chairperson, and Councillor xx as Deputy Chairperson

3.3. Biosecurity Working Party (as a sub-committee of Environment and Services)

3.3.1. Terms of Reference to be developed and confirmed by Environment and Services Committee

3.3.2. Appoints Councillors x, y and z as members of the sub-committee

3.4. Hearings Committee

3.4.1. Terms of Reference being:

3.4.2. Appoints Councillor xx as Chairperson and Councillor xx as Deputy Chairperson

3.4.3. Appoints Councillors x and y as members of the Committee

3.5. Corporate and Strategic Committee

3.5.1. Terms of Reference being:

3.5.2. Appoints Councillor xx as Chairperson and Councillor xx as Deputy Chairperson

3.6. Finance, Audit & Risk Committee

3.6.1. Terms of Reference being:

3.6.2. Appoints Councillor xx as Chairperson and Councillor xx as Deputy Chairperson

3.7. Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee (RPC)

3.7.1. Terms of Reference to be adopted by March 2017

3.7.2. Appoints Councillor xx as Co-Chairperson and Councillor xx as Deputy Co-Chairperson

3.8. Māori Committee

3.8.1. Terms of Reference to be confirmed by Council by March 2017, including membership

3.8.2. Appoints Councillors x, y and z as representatives on the Committee

3.9. Tenders Committee

3.9.1. Terms of Reference being:

3.9.2. Confirms that the Committee membership is made up of Councillor xx as Chairperson of the Environment and Services Committee, Councillor xx as Chairperson of the Corporate and Strategic Committee, the Deputy Chairman of Council (Rick Barker) and Chairman Rex Graham.

3.10. Joint Civil Defence Emergency Management Committee

3.10.1. Terms of Reference to be confirmed at the first meeting of the Committee, scheduled 28 November 2016.

3.10.2. Confirms Chairman Rex Graham as HBRC’s representative on the Committee.

3.11. Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

3.11.1. Terms of Reference being:

3.11.2. Appoints Councillor xx and Councillor xx as HBRC’s representatives on the Joint Committee.

4. Considers the Options for additional member appointment to the Regional Planning Committee outlined in the report and identifies a preferred option; being:

4.1.

5. Notes that, based on the council’s preferred option, staff will prepare a preliminary shortlist of potential candidates for further consideration by the Council at its meeting on 14 December 2016.

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Governance & Corporate Administration Manager

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Joyce-Anne Raihania

Senior Planner
Maori Policy Advisor

Anne Redgrave

Transport Manager

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Approved by:

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1	Proposed 2016 Regional Transport Committee Terms of Reference
2	Proposed 2016 Environment and Services Committee Terms of Reference
3	Proposed 2016 Hearings Committee Terms of Reference
4	Proposed 2016 Corporate and Strategic Committee Terms of Reference
5	Proposed 2016 Finance Audit & Risk Committee Terms of Reference
6	Proposed 2016 Tenders Committee Terms of Reference
7	Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Joint Committee Terms of Reference adopted March 2015

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 09 November 2016

SUBJECT: Appointment of Members to Outside Groups/Boards

Reason for Report

1. Stakeholder groups provide HBRC with valuable input into policy, plan and strategy development processes.

2. Councillors are also appointed to various external bodies where representation from the HBRC has been requested, or and/or where HBRC has a financial interest.

3. The role of councillors on these various organisations is not to direct or lead the group (except where appointed by the group to do so) but instead it is to inform the group of Council’s view and to act as a conduit for the group back to Council.

4. This paper covers appointments to current groups/organisations. The need to make additional appointments to other groups invariably arises through the three-year term of Council.

Entity Representation

Cycling Governance Group

5. There is a network of cycle/walkways across the Heretaunga Plains, in Central Hawke’s Bay and Wairoa, that is well used by local residents and increasingly visitors to Hawke’s Bay. Of the 200+ km of pathways throughout the region, approx. 100km are on land owned or administered by HBRC. Both Napier City and Hastings District Councils are also responsible for significant lengths of cycleway within their Districts.

6. The Cycle Governance Group was formed to ensure a level of coordination between the various Councils, to consider potential enhancement opportunities for the network that will add to the enjoyment of its users.

7. Over the next three years there is expected to be a focus on the promotion of the network to maximise the benefit to the Hawke’s Bay economy. This will require agreement between the three councils who own the majority of the network, on standards to which the pathways should be maintained, working collaboratively with pathways owners and other stakeholders to identify potential improvements to the network and how those may be funded, and linking to central government through Nga Haerenga the NZ Cycle Trails.

8. The Group meets approximately once every three months.

9. It is recommended that one councillor be appointed to the Cycling Governance Group.

Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation Working Group

10. This Working Group comprises two Councillors each from Napier, Hastings and Hawke’s Bay Regional councils. Ex officio members are the respective CEOs from the three councils, plus Chair of HBRC and mayors of Napier and Hastings councils. It meets quarterly or more frequently as required.

11. It was established in 2011 to oversee the implementation of the findings of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy. The strategy takes a long term integrated view of urban land use and infrastructure. It provides an overall framework for aligning plans and strategies of organisations that deal with urban planning, including the Regional Transport Strategy.

12. It is recommended that two councillors be appointed to the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation Working Group.

TBfree Hawke’s Bay Committee

13. This Committee is TBfree New Zealand’s (previously known as the Animal Health Board) link to the local community. OSPRI is the parent company of TBfree, with responsibilities to eradicate Bovine Tb from domestic herds in New Zealand. Their funding is sourced from Government and the dairy, beef and deer sectors.

14. This Committee provides advice on the programme for the eradication of Bovine Tuberculosis from domestic herds in Hawke’s Bay. HBRC has, in the past, worked closely with the TBfree Committee when providing vector management services under contract to OSPRI. This is no longer the case, and for the past several years coordination with OSPRI has been largely handled at a staff level.

15. Council is, however able to appoint a political representative to the Committee if they choose to do so. It is recommended that Council considers whether or not they wish to have political representation on the TBfree HB Committee, and if so appoint one councillor representative.

Hawke’s Bay Drought Committee

16. The Drought Committee is activated at times of severe drought in HB to enable a coordinated response to the situation. Participants include District Councils, East Coast Rural Support Trust, Ministry of Primary Industries, and many stakeholders involved in the primary productive sector.

17. This Committee is facilitated by HBRC as part of its overview of natural hazards for Hawke’s Bay and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Joint Group.

18. During the 2012-13 summer drought the Committee was chaired by the Regional Council Chairman.

19. It is recommended that the Chairman of Council be appointed to the Hawke’s Bay Drought Committee.

Upper Tukituki Facilitation Group

20. The Upper Tukituki Facilitation Group is part of the community engagement structure established by HBRC to manage phosphorous (P). Its membership includes landowners, Tamatea taiwhenua, Fish and Game, Forest and Bird, DoC, CHBDC and HBRC. It brings together industry good practice and HBRC’s implementation plan for reducing P.

21. It is recommended that one councillor be appointed to the Tukituki Facilitation Group.

Hawke’s Bay Tourism

22. Tourism Hawke’s Bay is the official Regional Tourism organisation (RTO) for Hawke’s Bay. It is governed by a Board, which includes a representative from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

23. HB Tourism is a membership based organisation and offers two partnership programme models.

23.1. Industry Partner – for businesses with a direct relationship to the visitor industry e.g. accommodation, transport operators, attractions, retailers, hospitality industry and wineries.

23.2. Support Partner – for support service businesses, industry and sector associations and those with a genuine desire to support economic development in Hawke’s Bay through tourism initiatives.

24. The Board of HB Tourism meets approximately every six weeks and undertakes:

24.1. Governance of HB Tourism, including progress towards achieving key performance indicators

24.2. Extensive stakeholder engagement with tourism operators, central and local government and other agencies

24.3. Consideration of new initiatives for tourism in Hawke’s Bay (for example, F.A.W.C! Food and Wine Classic)

25. Tourism Hawke’s Bay is jointly funded by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the local tourism industry through the Hawke’s Bay Tourism Industry Association.

26. It is recommended that HBRC appoints a Director to the Board of Tourism Hawke’s Bay.

Hawke’s Bay Sports Council

27. The Hawke’s Bay Sports Council is a forum of members directly involved in the provision of sport and active recreation opportunities for the people of Hawke’s Bay. It exists to ensure that those organisations with fundamental roles in the provision of sport and active recreation opportunities, engage in a collaborative, structured, transparent and strategic manner to ensure a successful regional model for sport and active recreation provision.

28. The Council meets on a quarterly basis at Sport Hawke’s Bay’s offices.

29. It is recommended that one councillor be appointed to the Hawke’s Bay Sports Council.

Local Government New Zealand

30. Council is a member of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) which is the national body representing the interests of all Local Authorities in New Zealand.

31. The Country is divided into 6 ‘Zones’ which meet periodically. The Chairman has traditionally represented Council at these meetings and other Councillors may attend when relevant items of interest appear on the agenda.

32. The Chairman also attends, as the Council’s representative, the Regional Sector Group which is a Committee of LGNZ representing all Regional and Unitary Authorities.

33. It is necessary to formalise Council’s representation on the various bodies of Local Government New Zealand.

34. There are usually 4 sector group meetings held each year, and one 3-4 day LGNZ conference.

35. The Council pays $40,280 per year to LGNZ for membership fees, and travel and accommodation costs associated with elected representative meeting attendance are covered by Council as well.

Decision Making Process

36. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded:

36.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

36.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

36.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

36.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the Council’s management of regional resources.

36.5. Options that have been considered include not making any appointments to any groups or organisations listed.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community or persons who have an interest in the decision.

2. Appoints Councillor representatives to the following organisations or groups:

2.1. One representative on the Cycling Governance Group; being Councillor ...

2.2. Two representatives on the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation Working Group, being Councillors ...

2.3. One representative on the TBfree Hawke’s Bay Committee; being Councillor ...

2.4. One representative on the Hawke’s Bay Drought Committee; being Councillor ...

2.5. One representative on the Tukituki Facilitation Group; being Councillor ...

2.6. One representative on the Hawke’s Bay Tourism Board of Directors, being Councillor …

2.7. One representative on the Hawke’s Bay Sports Council; being Councillor ...

2.8. Confirms the Chairman of Council, or his substitute delegate, as the Hawke's Bay Regional Council’s representative at Zone 3 meetings of Local Government New Zealand.

2.8.1. Authorises the Chairman, as HBRC delegate, to vote at those meetings on behalf of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council.

2.8.2. Appoints the Chairman as Council’s representative on the Regional Sector Group of Local Government New Zealand.

2.8.3. Delegates to the Chairman of HBRC, the authority to respond to and provide input into matters relating to Local Government New Zealand, reporting as necessary to Council.

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Governance & Corporate Administration Manager

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Anne Redgrave

Transport Manager

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Approved by:

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 09 November 2016

Subject: Review of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme

Reason for Report

1. At the workshop of newly-elected councillors on 26 October 2016 a request was made for staff to provide advice on options available to councillors to commission a review of a number of key elements of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS). Advice was also sought on options available to councillors to provide direction to the Board of Directors of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company (HBRIC) to cease committing further expenditure or to any other obligation related to the RWSS during the period in which the aforementioned review is undertaken and considered by councillors.

Proposed Review

2. The RWSS involves significant interrelated commercial, economic, social and environmental considerations for the Hawke’s Bay Region and for the Council. The scheme also has strong dependencies with Plan Change 6 of the Regional Resource Management Plan. A decision to either proceed or withdraw from the scheme requires careful consideration of a number of interdependent matters. Councillors have identified of these issue which they would like assessed and brought back for further consideration.

3. The matters proposed by some Councillors for review include aspects of the business case, the operation of the scheme’s resource consents, and an assessment of impacts on land users in the catchment and the HBRC in implementing Plan Change 6 in the absence of the RWSS.

4. Over the course of the last 6 years a large number of reports have been prepared for councillors on economic and environmental aspects of the RWSS. Some of the issues that councillors have identified for further review have already been canvassed and it may be reasonably simple to update this work and present it as part. In other areas further work will need to be undertaken, including by independent parties.

5. It is proposed that staff report back to the Council meeting of 30 November 2016 with detailed advice on the packages of work to be included in a review, resource implications, expected timeframes for delivery and whether commissioning external advice on any particular aspects is likely to be required. It is anticipated at the time of writing that the review could be completed by the end of February 2017 and reported to the Council in March 2017. It is further proposed that the Group Manager Strategic Development lead this review on behalf of the Council.

A moratorium on further work by HBRIC Ltd

6. HBRIC is a wholly-owned council controlled trading organisation constituted as a limited liability company under the Companies Act. An independent Board of Directors have been appointed to govern the company and give effect to the Statement of Intent (attached) issued by the Council, the shareholder.

7. Section 5 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 sets out the process whereby the Council may issue direction to the Board by amendment to the Statement of Intent and is set out below.

Modifications of statements of intent by resolution of shareholders

(1) Despite any other provision of the Act or of the constitution of any council-controlled organisation, the shareholders of a council-controlled organisation may, by resolution, require the board to modify the statement of intent by including or omitting any provision or provisions of the kind referred to in clause 9(1)(a) to (i), and any board to whom notice of the resolution is given must comply with the resolution.

(2) Before giving notice of the resolution to the board, the shareholders must consult the board concerned as to the matters to be referred to in the notice.

8. Staff understand that HBRIC have a number of obligations for which there may be implications if new direction is given to the company by the shareholder that is contrary to existing direction under the Statement of Intent. The detail of these obligations and implications are not known to HBRC staff and therefore it is recommended that councillors consult with the HBRIC Board on 9 November to understand the Board’s view of the options available to the shareholder, and the nature of commitments they consider HBRIC needs to fulfill.

9. If, following this discussion, councillors wish to provide further direction to the Board by way of a resolution to modify the Statement of Intent then it is recommended that councillors seek independent legal advice on the associated implications of this. Depending on the views offered by the Board on 9 November it is possible that any direction may be at odds with the Board’s responsibilities under the Companies Act 1993 to act in “what the director believes to be the best interests of the company”. In these circumstances the relationship between the Local Government and Companies acts may require expert legal review. It will also be important to ensure that risks related to councillors becoming ‘deemed directors’ are understood.

10. This advice could be provided to the Council meeting on 30 November, or to the first meeting of the Corporate and Strategic sub-committee (likely to be in the new year), or to a workshop at some intervening period.

Financial and Resource Implications

11. In order to undertake the proposed RWSS review work programme staff will be required to deprioritise existing work programmes and there may be consequences for the delivery of some of these. Unbudgeted expenditure will also be required to procure external legal, commercial and technical advice as well. Staff will provide more detailed advice on these resource implications in the report back to Council on 30 November 2016.

12. There may also be financial implications for HBRIC Ltd arising from any modification to the company’s Statement of Intent by resolution of the Council. It is recommended that these matters to be discussed with the Board of Directors of HBRIC Ltd.

Decision Making Process

13. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

13.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

13.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

13.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

13.4. The persons affected by this decision are all ratepayers in the region.

13.5. Options that have been considered include taking no action, but given the concerns of some councillors and the significance of the issues for the region the benefits of undertaking a review of the scheme at this time outweigh the costs.

13.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

13.7. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

2. Agrees to commission of review of key commercial, economic and environmental elements of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, including the impacts and consequences of implementing Plan Change 6 with and without the Scheme.

3. Requests the Group Manager Strategic Development reports back to the Council meeting on 30 November 2016 with detailed advice on the packages of work to be included in a review, resource implications, expected timeframes for delivery and whether commissioning external advice on any particular aspects is likely to be required.

4. Consults the Board of Directors of HBRIC on the issues arising from any direction to suspend all expenditure and work related to the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme by way of a shareholder’s resolution to modify HBRIC Ltd’s Statement of Intent.

Authored by:

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Approved by:

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 09 November 2016

Subject: Issues Arising from Local Body Elections

Reason for Report

1. During the local body election process a number of newly-elected councillors indicated their intention to progress several policy matters upon becoming elected. This paper suggests processes that the Council could adopt to consider these proposals.

Public Notification of Water Bottling Consents

2. Staff are proposing a staged approach to addressing this issue.

3. Staff have engaged Matthew Conway a partner with Simpson Grierson to provide an opinion on the special circumstances provisions of the RMA as they relate to notification of water bottling consents.

4. The proposed approach is to consider firstly whether the recent case law has altered how special circumstances could be considered for notification of bottling consents. If the advice is that this does not provide the relief Council seeks then staff will bring back a paper that details how the delegations for consent processing for water bottling could be called in and managed by councillors.

5. In the longer term Council may also want to consider the development or refinement of policy to change the way that water, including water for bottling, is prioritised. This could logically sit within existing processes such as the TANK or be considered as a whole of region revision in the future.

Feedlots

6. Feed pads and feedlots are winter activities. This allows a period of time for staff to work with the primary sector to resolve matters of non-compliance ahead of the winter of 2017.

7. Staff are currently working with a South Island based consultant who has a great deal of experience in the operation of feedlots on a process for reviewing these operations within a Hawke’s Bay context. The process is intended to develop a decision support tool for land owners to assist them in seeking consents for those who require them. We are also looking to provide guidance for expected standards for operations that fall outside the current rules, i.e. they do not need consent.

8. It is proposed that details of this work will be bought back to Council in the New Year once the guidance material is available.

9. Staff are working on having provided clear guidance to feedlot/feed pad operators well in advance of winter 2017 so that operators who require resource consent are aware of this and have sought appropriate consents ahead of their operations recommencing.

Moratorium on drilling for oil and gas within the region’s aquifers

10. The Resource Management Act has no statutory provisions that enable the Council to impose a moratorium or temporary prohibition on any activity regulated under the Act merely by passing a resolution. However, the Act does enable certain activities to be designated as prohibited activities by way of a change to the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) and such prohibitions can, and indeed must, be periodically reviewed.

11. Such a plan change requires that council first consider the options and alternatives and their respective benefits and costs for achieving the outcome sought (i.e. a section 32 evaluation). The Council must consult a number of statutory agencies, iwi authorities and any other persons it considers appropriate regarding any plan change prior to public notification. Depending on what emerges from that consultation and s32 evaluation, the Council may then notify a proposed change for formal submissions and hearings. To justify such a prohibition within the RRMP the Council will at least need to demonstrate that the prohibition is necessary to manage the potential adverse effects on the environment and that the prohibition is consistent with the purpose of the Act.

12. As advised to the previous Council earlier in 2016 staff consider that proposing a prohibition on drilling for oil and gas within the region’s productive aquifers is likely to be uncontroversial. This cannot be guaranteed but it is noteworthy that central government, via New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals, has previously agreed to exclude the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha aquifers from exploration permit block offers and industry participants have informally indicated that they are comfortable with such exclusions.

13. Given the inherent risks involved in the drilling for oil and gas and the potential impacts on regionally significant ground water resources staff consider a prohibition may not only be uncontroversial but also readily justifiable under the Act. The inclusion of surface water bodies, including lakes, rivers and estuaries may also be reasonably uncontroversial and may also be justifiable given the risks of containing contaminants in the event of well casing or well head failure.

14. However, proposing a prohibition on drilling within all catchments or aquifer recharge zones may be more difficult to justify as the risks are likely to be more readily managed at greater distance from groundwater or surface water resources, and the extent of any proposed prohibition is more likely to be legally challenged given the geographic extent of the relevant catchments. Staff recommend seeking an opinion from expert RMA legal counsel on the extent to which such a prohibition might be justifiable under law. A Queens Counsel has been identified and is available to undertake this work at a cost of between $10,000 and $15,000 should councillors wish to seek this.

15. As also advised to the previous Council earlier in 2016 a prohibition on drilling for oil and gas within the Heretaunga Aquifer is likely to be supported by the members of the TANK Group who are working with Council staff to prepare a plan change for the Heretaunga/Ahuriri catchment area by the end of 2017. This plan change could include region wide rules although the implications of including region wide provisions in a catchment specific plan change will require further analysis. Using the TANK plan change would greatly reduce the cost but may take longer to notify.

16. The process to prepare the required legal and technical advice, particularly for the section 32 analysis on costs and benefits of a proposed plan change, undertake a first round of statutory agency consultation, and to receive and analyse submissions and to undertake the public hearings is estimated to cost between $100,000 and $150,000, including staff and hearings commissioners’ time, and is likely to take 6 – 9 months. $145,000 remains unspent in funds borrowed by the previous council in the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan to consider oil and gas regulatory matters.

17. As this is a planning matter the Council is required by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015 to refer this matter to the Regional Planning Committee for advice and recommendations. The Committee is due to meet on 23 November and should councillors wish the matter could be placed on the agenda for further discussion and decisions on procuring further advice, including the procurement of expert legal advice.

Financial and Resource Implications

18. A proposed plan change to make the drilling of oil and gas a prohibited activity in some parts of the region is estimated to cost between $100,000 and $150,000, including staff and hearings commissioners’ time. $145,000 remains unspent in funds borrowed by the previous council in the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan to consider these matters.

Decision Making Process

19. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

19.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

19.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

19.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

19.4. Options for Council’s consideration are provided in the body of this report.

19.5. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

19.6. Given the nature and significance of the issues to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the “Issues Arising from Local Body Elections“ staff report.

2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

3. Requests the Regional Planning Committee consider proposing a plan change to the Regional Resource Management Plan to prohibit the drilling for oil and gas within the region’s productive aquifers and surface water bodies.

Authored by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Approved by:

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 09 November 2016

Subject: Update on Havelock North Water Contamination Inquiry

Reason for Report

1. Prior to the Local Body Elections Council staff undertook to keep the Council briefed on its science and Resource Management Act compliance investigations in relation to the August 2016 Havelock North water contamination event, as well as its participation in the Government Inquiry into the same event.

Background

2. Following the public announcement by the Hastings District Council (HDC) and the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board (HBDHB) of suspected contamination of the Havelock North drinking water supply in August 2016, the Interim Chief Executive and the Group Manager Resource Management both contacted the District Council and offered the Council’s assistance in responding to the event.

3. During the discussion on the morning of 15 August 2016 comments made to the Council’s Group Manager Resource Management by the HDC Water Services Manager led him to believe that the aquifer underlying Havelock North’s water supply bores on Brookvale Road may have become contaminated. Based on this understanding, Council’s science team launched an immediate investigation of surface and groundwater, and of the conditions surrounding the water supply, to determine whether contamination had actually occurred. These science investigations have been continuing and are still yet to conclude. Further comment on this is made in relation to the Government Inquiry.

4. During the early stages of Council’s science investigations into the possibility of aquifer contamination evidence was identified that suggested possible breaches of HDC’s resource consent conditions for the Brookvale bores. On 25 August 2016 the Council’s Compliance Team launched a formal investigation into these matters, with further detail following.

5. In response to the contamination incident the Attorney-General launched a Government Inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2013 to determine the cause of the contamination event and any fault or wrong doing by any party, and to make recommendations back to the Government. This Inquiry was gazetted on 15 September and directed to report back to the Attorney General by 31 March 2017. Further detail on the Inquiry also follows.

HBRC’s RMA Investigation

6. In 2008 the Council granted HDC replacement resource consents for the Brookvale Bores, specifically a bore consent and a ground-water take and use consent. These consents are subject to various conditions, in particular, the standard condition in the HBRC’s Regional Resource Management Plan that:

6.1. The bore shall be cased and sealed to prevent aquifer cross connection, and leakage from the ground surface into ground water.

7. The ground-water consent (consent WP070080Tb) also provides:

7.1. To minimise the risk of contaminants entering groundwater, well head works are required to be constructed to ensure that there are no openings through which contaminants might enter the well. This would include ensuring that there are no gaps around pipework and cables at the wellhead.

8. Evidence collected during the science investigation and subsequent formal compliance investigations suggests that one or both of these conditions may not have been complied with. The Council has statutory duties to investigate possible breaches of resource consent conditions when presented with evidence that this may have occurred.

9. It is Council policy that such investigations are conducted under delegation and are kept at arms-length from political influence. This is consistent with the approach adopted nationally by regional councils and is recommended by the Auditor-General. At the time of writing, Council’s compliance staff are continuing to work with legal counsel to review the evidence and determine whether any breach of the resource consents has taken place, and whether any further action should be undertaken. Any action and the basis for this will be notified to the Hastings District Council. A further verbal update on this investigation will be provided at the Council meeting on 9 November.

The Government Inquiry

10. On 27 October 2016 the Inquiry convened its initial hearing at the Hastings District Court. The hearing was attended by the Chief Executive and senior staff working on matters relevant to the Inquiry. During the hearing the Inquiry sought to confirm those parties who wish to be heard by the Inquiry and which parties sought to be designated ‘core participants’. The Inquiry has subsequently confirmed that the Council is a core participant.

11. At the hearing the Inquiry also sought views on whether its investigations should be broken into two stages, the first focussed on the specific contamination event in Havelock North in August 2016, and the second stage to review the systemic issues and lessons to be learned around the management of public drinking water supplies. This two stage approach was agreeable to all parties present at the hearing and has subsequently been confirmed by the Inquiry in its Minute No. 2 (attached).

12. The Inquiry has wide ranging powers to compel the provision of information and to summon persons to appear before it for questioning and cross examination. All documentation and evidence relevant to the Inquiry is discoverable. The Inquiry has stressed that the Inquiry is not an adversarial court case and their approach will be inquisitorial with participants encouraged to provide succinct and factual evidence and to leave interpretations and judgements to the Inquiry panel itself. This is consistent with approach staff are taking to the Council’s investigations and preparation of evidence.

Stage one

13. The first stage of the Inquiry is to attempt to establish the precise facts of the August 2016 contamination event and any historical actions or events that are relevant to the 2016 event. This stage may be completed by the end of 2016 and a report of this stage may be issued ahead of the conclusion of stage 2. The Inquiry is presently collecting evidence from the parties for stage one and will commence public hearings on this evidence in the week beginning 28 November 2016. A further week of hearings is expected through the week beginning 12 December.

14. The Inquiry is collating a ‘common bundle’ of information and material that is not disputed, particularly in relation to the statutory roles and responsibilities of all parties and what were the facts of the campylobacter outbreak in the community. Parties have until 11 November to provide this.

15. Council staff are currently completing and reporting on their science investigations and a final report on this is currently being compiled by the Council’s Science Manager, Dr Stephen Swabey. This report, along with any relevant material arising from the Council’s RMA compliance investigation, will form the basis for the Council’s statement of evidence for the Inquiry that is due to be lodged prior to 18 November 2016.

16. The Council’s statement of evidence will be entirely factual in nature and not include any comment or opinion on the fault or wrongdoing of any party, as this will be for the Inquiry to determine. The Inquiry has stated that these statements of evidence are to be treated “as confidential and not for any distribution or publication outside that party and its advisors, until the relevant evidence has been given in a public hearing of the Inquiry.”

17. A range of documents, photographs, video and supporting information have already been sought the Inquiry under its section 20 powers of the Inquiries Act and these have been provided in confidence. Again, no documents or statements making any assertion of wrong doing or fault have been provided.

18. Also attached is an outline of the contents of the staff’s report that will form the basis of the Council’s statement of evidence. Subject to agreement from the Inquiry it is proposed that staff will provide a confidential briefing to councillors on this brief of evidence following its submission on 18 November 2016.

Stage two

19. This phase will involve HBRC making a submission on the systemic public law and policy matters relevant to the management of drinking water generally. While the primary responsibility for the supply of public drinking water lies with drinking water suppliers and public health officials under the Health Act, the Council has interests in the intersection of these responsibilities with resource management and has an interests in a clear, efficient and effective statutory framework.

20. As these are matters of policy it is proposed that staff, with the assistance of ChenPalmer public law specialists, will provide a draft of this submission to councillors for their comment. The timing of the provision of this draft is uncertain at this point as the Inquiry has yet to indicate its process and timeline for stage two, and the Council, along with all other parties, will need to take stock of the findings of stage one in order to inform thinking on future statutory arrangements.

Financial and Resource Implications

21. The previous Council agreed that the external costs incurred by Council that relate to the investigation stage of the Havelock North contamination event would be funded from Council’s current year budget provisions of legal and consultancy up to $135,000, and the remaining to be funded from the surplus operating position for the 2015-16 financial year. The previous Council also agreed that the external costs relating to the Government Inquiry would be funded from Council’s Regional Disaster Reserve.

22. The majority of external costs expected to be incurred have not yet been invoiced and therefore staff will provide advice on the costs incurred up until mid-October, as well as revised forecast costs, at the Council meeting on 30 November 2016.

Decision Making Process

23. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the “Update on Havelock North Water Contamination Inquiry” report from staff.

2. Notes that staff will consult councilors on a proposed submission to stage two of the Government Inquiry in due course.

Authored by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Approved by:

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1	Inquiry Minute No.1
2	Inquiry Minute No.2
3	Contents of Staff Statement of Evidence for Inquiry

[2] Refer section 12(4) of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016.

Office	Annual Salary $
Chairperson (after deduction for full private use of a vehicle)	116,943 *
Deputy Chairperson	61,838
Committee Chairperson (5)	61,838
Councillor	49,470