Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 July 2017

Subject: Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda

Reason for Report

1. Standing order 9.12 states:

“A meeting may deal with an item of business that is not on the agenda where the meeting resolves to deal with that item and the Chairperson provides the following information during the public part of the meeting:

(a) the reason the item is not on the agenda; and

(b) the reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Items not on the agenda may be brought before the meeting through a report from either the Chief Executive or the Chairperson.

Please note that nothing in this standing order removes the requirement to meet the provisions of Part 6, LGA 2002 with regard to consultation and decision making.”

2. In addition, standing order 9.13 allows “A meeting may discuss an item that is not on the agenda only if it is a minor matter relating to the general business of the meeting and the Chairperson explains at the beginning of the public part of the meeting that the item will be discussed. However, the meeting may not make a resolution, decision or recommendation about the item, except to refer it to a subsequent meeting for further discussion.”

Recommendations

1. That Council accepts the following “Items of Business Not on the Agenda” for discussion as Item 14.

1.1. Urgent items of Business (supported by tabled CE or Chairperson’s report)

Item Name

Reason not on Agenda

Reason discussion cannot be delayed

1.2. Minor items for discussion only

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.

Leeanne Hooper

GOVERNANCE & CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION MANAGER

Liz Lambert

GROUP MANAGER
EXTERNAL RELATIONS

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 July 2017

Subject: Joint Committee on Drinking Water

Reason for Report

1. This report seeks a decision from the Council on a proposal to establish a governance Joint Committee to provide oversight of drinking water matters within the Hawke’s Bay region.

Summary

2. This proposal arises from discussions between the councils in the region and other stakeholders following on from the Havelock North water contamination event, and the establishment of an officer level joint working group (JWG) by the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board (HBDHB), the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) and the Hastings District Council (HDC), joined more latterly by the Napier City Council (NCC), and a Drinking Water- Assessor (DWA) from the Central North Island Drinking Water Assessment Unit. The JWG has focused on normalising collaboration and working together between the parties aimed at ensuring drinking water safety.

3. The proposal for a governance Joint Committee is designed to provide joined up governance oversight of drinking water safety and the work of JWG. It is intended to provide a focus on collaboration in drinking water safety work beyond the life of the Government Inquiry into Havelock North Drinking Water, which is currently taking a strong interest in the work of the JWG.

4. The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

5. The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of local government is to provide governance arrangements that support and provide oversight to the collaborative work necessary to promote and help ensure safe drinking water.

6. This report concludes by recommending that, subject to the agreement of the other participating agencies, Council resolve to establish the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee and that the Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee be adopted.

Background

7. The Havelock North water contamination event highlighted the need for greater collaboration between health, environment and water supply agencies in work to ensure drinking water safety. This is particularly important with the ‘multiple barrier’ approach required by legislation, and which is international best practice, where multiple agencies need to work together to ensure multiple risks are comprehensively managed. At the initiative of the Chief Executive of the HBDHB, a JWG was established between the HBDHB, the HBRC and HDC to help normalise and drive greater collaboration on drinking water safety matters. NCC and a DWA from the Central North Island Drinking Water Assessment unit also joined the group once it was established.

8. The JWG has been working effectively since late 2016 under the leadership of Mr Chris Tremain, the independent chairperson appointed by the parties. The JWG has overseen implementation of Government Inquiry recommendations, and is addressing a number of policy and coordination matters relating to drinking water safety, agency collaboration, catchment protection and effective use of statutory policy and planning tools.

Current Situation

9. The JWG currently exists on the agreement of the chief executives of the participating agencies. It has also been tasked with various activities by the Government Inquiry. It formally reports to the chief executives and, in effect, to the Government Inquiry.

10. The chief executives agree that the JWG has added significant value in systematising and resourcing collaborative work between the agencies that contributes to drinking water safety, and therefore this momentum should not be lost.

11. The Government Inquiry is due to complete its work in December 2017. While the JWG will continue to operate and operationally report to respective chief executives, it is also considered desirable in terms of focus and accountability for there to be an ongoing level of governance oversight of the activities of the JWG, particularly when the oversight focus brought to bear by the Inquiry is no longer present.

12. Discussions between a number of the governance and management leaders of stakeholder organisations has led to the development of a proposal to establish a Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee.

Proposed Joint Committee

13. Attachment 1, is the proposed terms of reference for the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee.

14. The Joint Committee will be established between the HBDHB, HBRC and those territorial authorities that wish to participate in the Joint Committee. The geographic jurisdiction for the Joint Committee will be across the area of the territorial authorities that elect to participate in the Joint Committee and such other land and catchment areas within the jurisdiction of HBRC that have an impact on drinking water matters within the regional boundaries.

15. The Joint Committee will focus on drinking water matters, including in particular drinking water adequacy, quality and safety. The Joint Committee will be able to consider other network infrastructure matters (e.g. stormwater and wastewater) and other freshwater matters to the extent that they impact on drinking water. The Joint Committee will be able to make decisions within its own terms of reference, but will also be empowered to make recommendations to its member organisations’ other decision making and policy fora as appropriate (e.g. TANK, the Regional Planning Committee).

16. During discussions over the form and function of this Committee it was unclear as to whether iwi wished to participate as members of the Joint Committee. Iwi representatives engaged noted the statutory provisions that allow them to input into and challenge decision making in relation to water matters.

17. Iwi participation in the Joint Committee has therefore been left open within the terms of reference and can be revisited if iwi organisations determine they do wish to participate within the joint committee structure.

Options Assessment

18. Establishing the Joint Committee and adopting the Terms of Reference will enable a regional approach to governance over drinking water matters and drinking water safety to be established, and will further reinforce and systematise the interagency collaboration that is desirable to ensure a strong focus on drinking water safety and adequacy. By overseeing drinking water management collectively as a region a more consistent and mutually reinforcing approach can be taken to the management of shared water resources. Furthermore the experience of larger and better resourced parts of the region can be shared with all.

19. The financial implications of establishing the Joint Committee are not significant and will largely be met from within Council’s existing budgets. Policy and technical work to support the Joint Committee work programme is already being carried out under the auspices of the Joint Working Group and is funded by the agencies involved.

20. The comments made in 19 and 20 above also apply to any modified proposal in respect of a Joint Committee governance arrangement.

21. Not resolving to establish the Joint Committee would mean that the Council forgoes the opportunity to establish regional governance to reinforce collaboration in respect of drinking water matters. While this course is open to the Council, this is seen as neglecting an opportunity to strengthen desirable inter agency collaboration in this area.

Conclusion

22. The preferred option is establishment of the Joint Committee and adoption of the attached terms of reference. This will enable a regional approach to governance over drinking water matters and drinking water safety to be established, and will further reinforce and systematise the interagency collaboration that is desirable to ensure a strong focus on drinking water safety and adequacy.

Strategic Fit

23. Ensuring freshwater is managed in a manner that supports community needs and values is core business for the Council. The proposed Joint Committee’s focus on partnership and collaboration aligns to the Council’s strategy.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

24. In recognition of the strong interests of Tangata Whenua in the management of freshwater resources, representation on the Joint Governance Committee is provided for should it be desired. Should the Council agree to participation in the Joint Governance Committee the Chief Executive will discuss representation with Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation, as well as the Tangata Whenua representatives on the Maori Standing and Regional Planning committees.

Financial and Resource Implications

25. HBRC participation in the Joint Governance Committee will be met from existing governance, planning and science budgets.

Decision Making Process

26. 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:

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

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

26.3. The options available to Council are to either proceed to establish the proposed Joint Committee on the basis of the proposed Terms of Reference (attached), seek to modify the form and/or terms of reference for the Joint Committee, or to choose not to establish the Joint Committee.

26.4. The proposal recommended in this report relates to governance and administrative arrangements and as such does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

26.5. The persons affected by this decision are all persons in the region supplied by public drinking water supplies.

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

26.7. 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. Receives and notes the “Joint Committee on Drinking Water” 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. Agrees, subject to the agreement of the other participating agencies, to establish the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee in accordance with clause 30 and clause 30A of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

4. Appoints Councillor(s) __________ and __________ to the Committee for the current Triennium.

5. Endorses the attached Terms of Reference for the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee.

Authored by:

Rina Douglas

Senior Planner

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

⇩1

Proposed Terms of Reference

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 July 2017

SUBJECT: Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga (Ahuriri Estuary Committee)

Reason for Report

1. This report updates Council on the establishment of Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga or Ahuriri Estuary Committee (te Komiti) and seeks the nomination of a governor to represent Council on that body.

Background

2. In November 2013 Council approved its commitment to engage with the Treaty Entity - Mana Ahuriri Trust, the Crown and other parties in the development of Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga.

3. The Ahuriri Estuary (Te Muriwai O Te Whanganui ā Orotu) is a remnant of a 3,840 hectare area of water which, prior to 1931, Europeans called the Napier Inner Harbour or the Ahuriri Lagoon. The lagoon was separated from the sea by a narrow sand and shingle bank. Two main rivers discharged into the lagoon, the Waiohinganga (Esk) and the Tutaekuri. Periodically, the Ngaruroro and Tukituki Rivers flowed north to join the Tutaekuri.

4. The earthquake of 3 February 1931 lifted the bed of the lagoon between 1.5m and 3.4m and exposed about 1300 ha of the bed of the lagoon. Various reclamations since 1931 have reduced the estuary by a further 1700ha to its present size.

5. The Hapū have a long-standing cultural connection with Te Whanganui a Orotu (of which Ahuriri Estuary is a part) where they resided since well before European settlement. Historically this area was a main source of food for the hapu. There are also a large number of wahi tapu in the area.

Cultural Redress

6. The cultural redress within the Ahuriri Hapū Deed of Settlement, signed 21 November 2016, recorded the Crown acknowledging that this area is of prized taonga to the hapu and recognised the role of Ahuriri Hapu as Kaitiaki of Te Muriwai o Te Whanga.

7. In recognition of this settlement, the legislation will also establish a permanent statutory committee called Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga, which will be tasked with the role of promoting the protection and enhancement of the environmental, economic, social, spiritual, historical and cultural values of Te Muriwai o Te Whanga for present and future generations.

Draft Clauses for te Komiti

8. The key points of the Clauses are:

8.1. Te Komiti will be established as a permanent, stand-alone, multiparty, statutory body by settlement legislation

8.2. The purpose of te Komiti is to provide guidance and coordination in order to promote the protection and enhancement of the environmental, economic, social, spiritual, historical and cultural values of the Te Muriwai o Te Whanga for present and future generations

8.3. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will have one representative on te Komiti

8.4. The functions of the Komiti include (but are not limited to) identification of values, vision, objectives and desired outcomes; advocacy; stakeholder engagement and communication; and promotion of support for the ongoing health and wellbeing of Te Muriwai o Te Whanga.

8.5. Te Komiti is also responsible for preparing and approving a management plan for Te Muriwai O Te Whanga. The deed of settlement and legislation will provide the Plan with a statutory weighting of “have regard to” in relation to Council RMA documents (Regional Coastal Environment Plan and Regional Resource Management Plan).

8.6. The Management Plan will:

8.6.1. Identify the significant issues for Te Muriwai O Te Whanga

8.6.2. Identify management elements that may enhance the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of people and communities

8.6.3. Consider the integrated management of the water and lands of Te Whanganui ā Orotu for the benefit of the health and wellbeing of Te Muriwai o Te Whanga

8.6.4. Make recommendations on the integration and coordination of Te Muriwai o Te Whanga management

8.7. The onus for preparation of the Plan will fall on the local bodies (NCC, HDC and HBRC) and the Department of Conservation.

Nomination request

9. Currently the Ahuriri Hapu Settlement Bill is awaiting its first reading in Parliament.

10. At a recent meeting held with Mana Ahuriri Trust members, the Council Chairman, Rex Graham, Clr Neil Kirton, HBRC CE James Palmer and staff, the following was agreed.

10.1. that this Komiti should commence meeting and developing the Management Plan

10.2. that the seat held by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council should be held by a governance representative, with staff also attending to provide the operational context

10.3. that Councillors from both Napier City and Hastings District councils would be also be approached to nominate a Governor representative on te Komiti.

11. Once the Bill has been passed as Settlement, this appointment will be formailsed accordingly.

Options Assessment

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

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

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

Strategic Fit

15. Ensures that the Council is operating in the framework of partnership and effectively enacting its responsibilities to those requirements set out in the Ahuriri Hapū Deed of Settlement.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

16. The Deed of Settlement requires the Council to enact those requirements which have been agreed by the Crown and the respective Iwi/ Hapu.

17. The establishment of te Komiti and its work programme will ensure the Treaty obligations are acknowledged, and also enables representation by those significant leaders who can ensure that commitment to promoting the protection and enhancement of the environmental, economic, social, spiritual, historical and cultural values of Te Muriwai o Te Whanga for present and future generations does occur.

Financial and Resource Implications

18. Te Komiti will be formally established as a statutory body, once members have been appointed. Preparation of the development of the Management Plan for Te Muriwai o Te Whanga will commence and it is anticipated that both science and planning staff from HBRC will contribute time to the preparation of the Plan.

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

19.5. 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 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community or persons who have an interest in the decision.

2. Appoints Councillor __________ to Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga as the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council representative.

3. Approves the Draft Clauses for the Establishment and Operation of Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga and advises the Office of Treaty Settlements of this approval.

4. Authorises the Chief Executive to represent the Council in negotiations on the final details for setting up Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga.

Authored by:

Joyce-Anne Raihania

Senior Policy and Strategic Advisor- Maori

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 July 2017

Subject: Recommendations from the Environment and Services Committee

Reason for Report

1. The following matters were considered for approval by the Environment and Services Committee meeting on 12 July 2017, and are now provided for Council consideration.

Decision Making Process

2. These items were specifically considered at the Committee level, and the following proposed recommendations from the Committee have been amended in line with the additional information provided by staff.

Recommendations

The Environment and Services Committee recommends 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 these issues without conferring directly with the community.

Business Investment in Biodiversity In Hawke's Bay

2. Agrees that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will partner an investment with OMV New Zealand Ltd with an initial investment of $50,000 pa for up to four years, provided from existing biosecurity budgets.

3. Seeks additional leveraged funding from Predator Free NZ 2050.

4. Agrees that these resources are to support a community partnership directed towards achieving the vision of a predator free Mahia.

Staff Policy and Protocol for LGOIMA Requests Made for Councillor Communications

5. Refers the matter to the 26 July Regional Council meeting for reconsideration and decision.

Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme Options

6. Agrees that staff should suspend work on the joint declaration to the Environment Court with Environmental Defense Society, Fish and Game New Zealand and HBRIC Ltd.

7. In noting that staff will be providing advice to the Regional Planning Committee on 2 August 2017 on matters relating to HBRC’s ongoing and stand-alone work programmes for Tukituki Plan Change 6 implementation, agrees that staff should suspend work with HBRIC Ltd on the “River First” Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme environmental condition precedent.

8. Requests that HBRIC Ltd advises Council, as soon as practicable, on the merits or otherwise of further investment in the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme by HBRIC Ltd, and any steps, if any exist, it considers remain available to progress the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme in light of the recent Supreme Court Decision.

9. Requests that HBRIC Ltd reports to Council, as soon as practicable, on the revisions it considers are required, and implications thereof, to amend the HBRIC Ltd Statement of Intent for the year ending 30 June 2018, should Council, as shareholder, resolve to direct HBRIC Ltd to shelve the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme indefinitely.

10. Confirms the view that HBRC would not support obtaining the DoC land through compulsory acquisition under the Public Works Act.

Reports Received

11. Notes that the following reports were provided to the Environment and Services Committee on 12 July 2017:

11.1. Havelock North Government Inquiry Stage 2

11.2. Climate Change Adaptation

11.3. Catchment Management White Paper (resolved: That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Catchment Management White Paper” staff report; and encourages staff to further develop the concept.)

11.4. Freshwater Improvement Fund Update

11.5. Stormwater Update

11.6. Electric Vehicle Working Group Update

11.7. July 2017 Public Transport Update

11.8. Land Management Operational Outcomes

11.9. Myrtle Rust

11.10. Regulation and Operational Update

11.11. Clive River Dredging

11.12. Verbal Gravel Management Update

11.13. Verbal - HBRC Disposal Sites.

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Governance Manager

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 July 2017

Subject: Protocol for Chief Executive Response to Requests for Councillors' Communications

Reason for Report

1. The Chief Executive is seeking Council’s adoption, by resolution, of the Protocol he will follow when assessing and responding to Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) requests for the communications to, from and/or between elected representatives acting in their official capacity.

2. The Protocol has been developed specifically to provide clarity and assurance to Councillors, that any such requests will be received and appropriately assessed by the Chief Executive in accordance with the Act’s requirements.

LGOIMA Roles and Responsibilities

3. The Chief Executive is required under his employment contract, and delegated under LGOIMA, to comply with the LGOIMA and ensure the Council remains compliant at all times.

4. The purposes of the LGOIMA as set out in section 4 are—

(a) to increase progressively the availability to the public of official information held by local authorities, and to promote the open and public transaction of business at meetings of local authorities, in order—

(i) to enable more effective participation by the public in the actions and decisions of local authorities; and

(ii) to promote the accountability of local authority members and officials, and thereby to enhance respect for the law and to promote good local government in New Zealand:

(b) to provide for proper access by each person to official information relating to that person:

(c) to protect official information and the deliberations of local authorities to the extent consistent with the public interest and the preservation of personal privacy.

5. The Act has a presumption in section 5 of the legislation that official information “shall be made available unless there is good reason” under the Act for withholding it.

6. Official information is defined as “any information held by a local authority”; except information in a library or museum, information held for the sole purpose of safe custody, or information contained in any communications between the Office of the Ombudsman or the Privacy Commissioner and any local authority relating to an investigation conducted by an Ombudsman or Privacy Commissioner. Information is not limited to documentary materials and includes:

6.1. written documents, reports, memoranda, letters, notes, emails and draft documents

6.2. text and telephone messages

6.3. Twitter, Facebook or other social media posts and comments

6.4. non-written documentary information, such as material stored on or generated by computers, including databases, video and/or audio recordings

6.5. Electronic and/or hand written diary notes

6.6. Photographs and maps

6.7. information which is known to an agency, but which has not yet been recorded in writing or otherwise (including knowledge and/or personal recollections of a particular matter held by an officer, employee or member of an agency in their official capacity)

6.8. documents and manuals which set out the policies, principles, rules or guidelines for decision making by an agency

6.9. the reasons for any decisions that have been made about a person.

7. Any information held by an elected representative in their official capacity is deemed to be held by the agency itself [s.2(3)], irrespective of where that information is stored.

8. It does not matter where the information originated either, or where it is currently located. For example, the information could have been created by a third party (consultant, solicitor) and sent to the Council. Council contracts with private individuals, companies or other organisations to carry out particular work on its behalf and any information held by a contractor in that capacity is also deemed to be held by Council.

9. Information held by members, officers and employees in their personal capacity will not be official information. However, it is worth noting that such information may become official information if it is subsequently used for official purposes.

10. LGOIMA s.13(5) requires ‘the decision on [a] request shall be made by the chief executive of that local authority or an officer or employee of that local authority authorised by that chief executive’. This means that elected councillors are not lawfully enabled to be make determinations under the Act on what information may be supplied or withheld. In his letter to the Council Chief Executive dated 22 December 2016 the Ombudsman states “Elected councillors have no role to play in responding to a LGOIMA request”.

11. The attached proposed Protocol sets out the process steps that the Chief Executive intends to follow in relation to requests the communications to, from and/or between councillors acting in their official capacity. The Protocol recognises the potential sensitivity of councillor communications and therefore confinement of any assessment or application of the LGOIMA to the Chief Executive alone, in consultation with the relevant councillor(s).

12. In recognition of the rights of councillors to natural justice the Protocol involves the relevant councillor(s) being advised of the receipt of a LGOIMA request, being consulted on what information they hold, being advised of the Chief Executive’s preliminary determination with an opportunity to comment, and then being advised of the Chief Executive’s final determination with an opportunity to refer the matter to the Ombudsman for a ruling.

13. When a request is first received by the Council an important first step is to determine whether the request has been made with “due particularity”. However, the fact that a request is for a large amount of information does not of itself mean that the request lacks due particularity. If the information requested is duly specified, the request cannot be refused simply on the basis that it is so large as to be considered to be a ‘fishing expedition’. If there are genuine administrative concerns with processing the request or making the information available, then the reasons for refusal under section 17, along with other mechanisms for managing broad requests may need to be considered.

14. Where there is any significant time and effort required by a councillor in searching and compiling information pertinent to a LGOIMA request it is proposed that this time is to be recorded and may be charged to the requestor. In the same way as staff time charged for is not remunerated to the staff member in question, remuneration for the concerned councillor(s) covers their official duties, including complying with the Act. However, costs incurred and on-charged to a requestor of a particularly burdensome request are returned to the Council in recognition of the opportunity cost of the time and effort that might otherwise be spent on other Council business.

15. In determining whether there are grounds for withholding any official information the Chief Executive must exercise his or her judgement under sections 6 and 7 of the Act. There are relatively extensive provisions that enable information to be withheld. These include in section 6 if the making available of that information would be likely—

(a) to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial; or

(b) to endanger the safety of any person.

Section 7 enables the withholding of information if necessary to:

(a) protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons; or

(b) protect information where the making available of the information—

(i) would disclose a trade secret; or

(ii) would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information; or

(ba) in the case only of an application for a resource consent, or water conservation order, or a requirement for a designation or heritage order, under the Resource Management Act 1991, to avoid serious offence to tikanga Maori, or to avoid the disclosure of the location of waahi tapu; or

(c) protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information—

(i) would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied; or

(ii) would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest; or

(d) avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public; or

(e) avoid prejudice to measures that prevent or mitigate material loss to members of the public; or

(f) maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through—

(i) the free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to members or officers or employees of any local authority, or any persons to whom section 2(5) applies, in the course of their duty; or

(ii) the protection of such members, officers, employees, and persons from improper pressure or harassment; or

(g) maintain legal professional privilege; or

(h) enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities; or

(i) enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations); or

(j) prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

16. Each request for official information must be considered on its merits; there is no precedent set in relation to subsequent or additional LGOIMA requests made, or responses to or decisions made on requests.

17. The proposed Protocol also recognises that the Chief Executive, or authorised staff member, cannot in any practical manner obtain councillor communications that are not physically held by the Council without the cooperation of the councillor in question. The Protocol therefore provides for instances where a councillor chooses not to provide information held in their possession to the Chief Executive for consideration, and in such instances the matter is to be referred to the Ombudsman.

Decision Making Process

18. 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:

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

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

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

18.4. The persons affected by this decision are members of the public requesting official information, those subject to official information requested under LGOIMA s.10 including elected representatives, and HBRC staff processing and responding to LGOIMA requests.

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

18.6. 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

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the “Protocol for Chief Executive Response to Requests for Councillors' Communications” staff report.

3. Adopts the “Protocol for Chief Executive Response to Requests for Councillors' Communications” either as attached or including agreed amendments.

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Governance Manager

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

⇩1

Protocol for CE response to LGOIMA request

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 July 2017

Subject: Affixing of the Common Seal

Reason for Report

1. The Common Seal of the Council has been affixed to the following documents and signed by the Chairman or Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive or a Group Manager.

Seal No.

Date

1.1

Leasehold Land Sales

1.1.1 Lot 470

DP 11559

CT C1/1470

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.2 Lot 111

DP 11999

CT D1/1452

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.3 Lot 291

DP 11258

CT B3/588

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.4 Lot 118

DP 13111

CT E3/559

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.5 Lot 2

DP 11523

CT J1/797

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.6 Lots 19-20

DP 921

CT B3/1140

- Transfer

1.1.7 Lot 1

DP 16975

CT J3/71

- Transfer

1.1.8 Lot 36

DP 14223

CT F4/147

- Transfer

4124

4130

4125

4126

4127

4128

4134

4129

4131

4132

4133

22 June 2017

5 July 2017

29 June 2017

4 July 2017

12 July 2017

4 July 2017

5 July 2017

10 July 2017

Decision Making Process

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

2.1 Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided

2.2 That the decision to apply the Common Seal reflects previous policy or other decisions of Council which (where applicable) have been subject to the Act’s decision making requirements.

Recommendations

That Council:

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

2. Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

Authored by:

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 July 2017

Subject: HBRC's Social Media Policy

Reason for Report

1. This paper explains the Council’s policy relating to social media management.

Background

2. The Council advocates free-flowing, transparent communication in keeping with the Council’s values.

3. The Council has 2,291 Facebook ‘Likes’ - 1,700 of these in the past 2 years. Staff are working hard to increase this form of digital engagement with 50-100 posts each month.

4. Social Media enables a more open and responsive conversation than traditional media channels between the Council and members of the wider community.

4.1. 42.8% of the regional community cite Facebook as a source of HBRC information (SIL Research 2017, n = 682).

5. Public social media posts are given the rights of ‘free speech’ but deemed to be unacceptable if they contain content that is profane, obscene, sexual, discriminatory, racist, defamatory, threatening, or perceived as harassment.

Monitor and Moderate

6. Staff continually monitor Facebook, as with other digital and print media.

7. Staff monitor and moderate comments relating to business promotion and confidential or non-public information.

8. Staff only moderate or remove posts by exception. Opinionated and negative comments towards the council and its services normally remain in the stream of public posts. Unacceptable posts are rare as content is generally self-moderating, subject to its own external public criticism and/ or author edits.

9. Considerations before the removal of unacceptable comments includes:

9.1. Does the post unreasonably contravene an acceptable communication standard? - refer to the HBRC Social Media Policy

9.2. The number of views and/ or shares has the post received

9.3. Interpretation of meaning and effect is often subjective

9.4. Removal may elicit criticism and draw further negative attention to an issue

9.5. Removal may lead to additional similar comments

9.6. Censure may escalate the issue into other media and wider public debate or exposure.

10. Questionable comments will, after consideration, receive the following treatment.

10.1. No action taken – the comment remains (most common)

10.2. Answer/ Response – a clarifying post by the Council answers, gives context to and/or justifies the comment

10.3. Moderate/ Delete – the comment contravenes HBRC Social Media Policy and is removed; a personal message/contact.

11. Staff monitor a small number of social media users who post regular comments about the Council’s work. Negative comments have reduced in June 2017.

12. Previously, the Council had not developed or published a ‘House Rules’ or Moderation Policy for its Facebook page, and other Council social media pages are inconsistent; some have a policy and others do not.

Facebook Moderation Guidelines

13. Staff have recently published new Moderation Guidelines in the ‘About’ section of the HBRegionalCouncil Facebook page, attached and also published at hbrc.govt.nz.

14. This gives the Council’s Facebook visitors ‘house rules’ to follow and the ability for the Council to quote and uphold these guidelines as needed. This is consistent with the Council’s current social media staff policy.

Decision Making Process

15. 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.

Recommendation

That the Council receives and notes the “HBRC’s Social Media Policy” staff report.

Authored by:

Drew Broadley

Community Engagement and Communications Manager

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager External Relations

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

⇩1	HBRC Staff Social Media Policy
⇩2	HBRC Facebook Moderation Guidelines

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 July 2017

SUBJECT: Significant HBRC Staff Projects/Activities through August 2017

Reason for Report

1. The table below is provided for Councillors’ information, to provide them with an indication of significant issues and activities over the next couple of months.

Project	Team /Section	Description	Activity Status Update
TANK (Greater Heretaunga Plan Change)	Groundwater Science	Aquifer wide Heretaunga groundwater ageing study - to provide the authoritative view on water age in the aquifer & support groundwater modelling programme and TANK policy work.	1. Draft water age and tracer report from GNS is expected by end of July 2. Results of Groundwater flow modelling for predicting effects from various management scenarios will be delivered at July and August TANK stakeholder meetings 3. The eWater SOURCE surface water flow and scenario modelling will proceed during July and August. Constituent transport calibrations are underway, to enable nutrient fate and transport scenarios to be modelled during August.
	Water Quality & Ecology	Identfiying major sources, pathways and fate of contaminants Using shading to manage instream weed growth trials	4. Tile/artificial drain sampling this winter to assess whether these provide a major contaminant transport pathway to waterways 5. Continued input into stormwater working group 6. Marine and freshwater input into stakeholder working group continues 7. Ahuriri ‘hotspot’ action plan being developed 8. Infilling at shading trial sites. Difficult spring/summer for plants for 16-17.
	Policy	Stakeholder Engagement for Policy Development	9. Update to be presented to Regional Planning Committee meeting on 2 August.
	Engagement & Comms	Stakeholder engagement	10. TANK Group, community paper and Tāngata Whenua newsletters
Tukituki (PC 6) Plan Change Implementation	Land Science	Monitoring of vulnerable wetlands. Sediment and riparian modelling and advice to Land Management and policy/planning	11. Continuing monitoring of 10 wetlands in Tukituki catchment. 12. Ongoing
	Regulation	Farm Environmental Management Plans required by 1 July 2018	13. Compliance section not yet resourced for additional work required under PC6. 14. FEMP monitoring is not user funded and requires resourcing from the general rate
	Water Quality & Ecology	Using shading to manage instream weed growth trials Priority Subcatchment in Tukituki continues to provide snapshot overview of likely hotspots for contaminants	15. Poor survival of Miscanthus used in Papanui shading trials during the dry spring and summer conditions of 16/17. Planting much earlier this year to give roots more time to establish. 16. Monitoring in the Kahahakuri has recorded very high nitrate levels. Potential sources being investigated by Compliance.
	Engagement & Comms	Farm Plan promotion along- side Tukituki action plan	17. Community paper newsletter, billboards and radio promotion
Strategic Plan Refresh	Programme Leader		18. Finalising the Strategy to include feedback from tangata whenua with intention of seeking Council adoption 30 August 2017
Strategic Plan Refresh	Engagement & Comms		19. Document design and pre-LTP engagement strategy
2018-28 Long Term Plan	Community Engagement		20. Development of Pre-LTP engagement strategy
2018-28 Long Term Plan	Programme Leader		21. Project Management Team formed
2018-19 Representation Review	Governance	Council Representation Review required ahead of the 2019 Local elections	22. Attended Representation Review Forum as training/update on legislative requirements, timelines, expectations of the LGC 23 June 2017. 23. 30 August 2017 Council to consider Electoral System and resolve to change if desired – by 12 September
2018-19 Representation Review	Electoral Officer in liaison with - Senior Policy & Strategic Advisor- Māori	Representation Review – consideration of whether to establish Maori Ward(s)	24. Initiate pre-engagement with RPC tangata whenua and Maori Committee re consideration of Maori Wards – Council resolution required by 23 November 2017
Clifton to Tangoio Coast Hazards Strategy 2120	Asset Management	Developing coastal hazard options and solutions priority cells, along with funding considerations for consultation	25. The two assessment panels (Napier Port to Tangoio; Clifton to Napier Port) are prioritising solutions for the hazard cells under each panel, ahead of further community update sessions scheduled for September
IT Systems Integration	Regulation	IRIS	26. Compliance and Consents staff heavily involved with this project for the duration of the project. 27. Backfill cover for staff has been resourced.
Freshwater Improvement Fund Projects	Water Quality & Ecology	Ahuriri Estuary, Tutira and Whakaki applications	28. Awaiting announcement on funding decision from MFE
Freshwater Improvement Fund Projects	Open Spaces	Lake Tutira	29. Te mana o Te Wai Tutira mai Nga Iwi project action plan draft in final stages. This is a key milestone for this project and formally plans out physical works to be completed over the next 12 months. Planting commencing July 2017. Tree felling works commencing October 2017. 30. FIF funding application for Te Waiu o Tutira outcome expected any day.
Havelock North Water Safety Inquiry	Regulation	Recommendations and/or changes required.	31. Depending on what the final outcome of the Inquiry is, Council will need to determine what changes might be made to the current BAU and resource accordingly.
Coastal Research Strategy	Water quality and ecology	Working with coastal stakeholders to identify values and the workstreams required to understand threats and opportunities	32. Looking at habitat/epibenthos assocaitions throughout Hawke’s Bay 33. Trialling new underwater remotely operated vehicle (ROV) 34. Investigating dissolved oxygen concentrations throughout Hawkes Bay in wake of large flood deposits
Swimmability	Water quality and ecology		35. Reviewed swimmability grading for Hawke’s Bay as estimated from MFE modelling 36. Continued work with LAWA and the ‘Can I swim here module’.
Review of CDEM Funding: LTP 2018	Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group	Review of current funding model to take into account new shared service structure	37. Information gathered on current funding by each council 38. Review of budgets to identify savings and more effective expenditure. 39. Funding options identified and paper to all councils being developed for approval of Coordinating Executive Group (CEG) and CDEM Joint Committee. 40. Funding paper will seek agreement to include approved funding model in each council’s draft LTP 2018.
Resource Consents	Consents	Significant applications in progress or pending	41. Te Mata Mushrooms Air discharge notified 232 submissions. On hold to lodge consent with HDC – s91 42. HBRC Gravel extraction Ngaruroro – information pending 43. PanPac coastal discharge to be notified in July 44. Whakatu WoolScour - received 30 June 45. CHBDC Otane waste water discharge – prehearing resolution likely. 46. HBRIC Tranche 2 water takes- on hold pending further information 47. Landcorp Ahuriri stormwater discharge – application pending 48. HDC Omahu Road stormwater – application pending 49. Port of Napier wharf extension and dredging –application pending

Decision Making Process

2. 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.

Recommendation

That Council receives the Significant HBRC Staff Projects/Activities through August 2017 report.

Authored by:

Drew Broadley

Community Engagement and Communications Manager

Steve Cave

Asset Manager Open Spaces

Sally Chandler

Community Engagement Coordinator

Gary Clode

Manager Regional Assets

Nathan Heath

Acting Manager – Land Management

Dr Andy Hicks

Team Leader - Water Quality and Ecology

Leeanne Hooper

Governance Manager

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Dr Kathleen Kozyniak

Principal Scientist Climate & Air

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Dr Barry Lynch

Principal Scientist / Team Leader - Land

Anne Redgrave

Transport Manager

Dr Jeff Smith

Team Leader/Principal Scientist – Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Thomas Wilding

Senior Scientist

Anna Madarasz-Smith

Senior Scientist - Coastal Quality

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Charlotte Drury

Senior Land Management Advisor – Implementation

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager External Relations

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Tom Skerman

Acting Strategic Development Group Manager

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.