HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Wednesday 25 July 2018
SUBJECT: Representation Review for the 2019
Local Government Elections
Reason for Report
1. Provides Council with two options for
consideration and adoption of an initial
representation arrangement proposal for public notification and consultation as
required by the Local Electoral Act 2001.
Background
2. Council is required to review its representation
arrangements at least once every six years; that being this year (to take
effect for the 2019 local body elections). The last review was carried out in
2012 for the 2013 elections.
3. In conducting the representation review the key components
Council must determine by resolution are:
3.1. The proposed number of constituencies –
having given consideration to, and
identified, communities of interest.
3.2. The proposed name and the proposed boundaries of
each constituency – ensuring,
as far as practicable, constituency boundaries coincide with the boundaries of
one or more territorial authority districts or the boundaries of wards.
3.3. The number of members proposed to be elected by
the electors of each constituency –
a regional council is required to have between 6 and 14 members.
4. At the 20
September 2017 Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting, staff advised the
Committee of the need for the representation review and asked that
consideration be given to a proposed timeline for that. That meeting resolved:
4.1. The Corporate and Strategic Committee recommends that, in
principle, Council retains the current representation arrangements; being five
constituencies represented by 9 elected representatives as the basis for the
representation Review process subject to further advice from the Māori
Committee on behalf of the Māori community on the subject of Māori
constituencies.
5. The subsequent 27 September 2017 Council meeting
resolved the Corporate and Strategic Committee’s recommendation without
change.
6. Following a
series of hui-ā-iwi held with taiwhenua
throughout the region, Council considered the establishment of one or more Māori
constituencies at a special meeting held on 15 November 2017, resolving:
6.1. In accordance
with s.19Z of the Local Electoral Act 2001, to not establish Māori
constituencies for the Hawke’s Bay Region for the 2019 local body
elections.
7. In relation to
the Council’s ability to resolve the establishment of one or more Māori
constituencies, this opportunity is available at any time, but
to apply for the next election the resolution must be made within the timeframe
described in the Local Electoral Act 2001 (2 years before the
election). The next opportunity for Council to make such a resolution will
therefore be in September-November 2020.
8. If such a
resolution is made (and not overturned by a poll of electors) and the region is required to be divided into Māori constituencies at the next
election, Council is required to undertake a representation review (whether or
not it conducted a review before the previous election).
9. The other means
by which Māori constituencies can be established is through the favourable outcome of a poll of electors, either demanded by
electors or the result of a Council resolution. Again, a
Council resolution to hold a poll, or a valid poll demand (by 5% of electors)
may be made at any time, but to apply for the next election they must be made
within the timeframes described in the Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA).
10. LEA
timeframes for electoral matters have been set to ensure the correct processes
are followed, in the correct order, with those being:
10.1. the choice of electoral
system, which may influence
10.2. a decision on the
establishment of Māori constituencies, preceding
10.3. a representation review.
11. At the
Regional Council meeting held on 27 June 2018, Council passed the following
resolutions to initiate the Representation Review and provide staff with
direction in relation to representation arrangement options for consideration.
11.1. That Council initiates
the review of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s representation
arrangements as required by the Local Electoral Act
2001 (LEA) and the Local Government Act 2002
11.2. Council requests that
staff present a proposal for Council’s consideration and resolution of
the HBRC initial proposal for public notification to the 25 July 2018 Regional
Council meeting, based on the Council’s current representation
arrangements with the inclusion of the meshblock changes from the Ngaruroro
Constituency to the Hastings Constituency as aligned with the Hastings District
Council ward boundary changes.
12. As a
result of previous Council and Committee resolutions, the following two options
are presented for Council to consider as its preferred representation
arrangement for public notification and open for submissions.
Option 1
13. The
proposal is for retention of nine councillors representing the five
constituencies of:
13.1. Central Hawke’s Bay; the constituency boundary being
the same as that for the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council area.
13.2. Hastings; the constituency boundary being that area which encompasses the wards
of Flaxmere, Hastings-Havelock North and most of Heretaunga within the Hastings
District Council area.
13.3. Napier; the constituency boundary being the same as that for the Napier City
Council area.
13.4. Ngaruroro;
the constituency boundary being that area which
encompasses the wards of Mohaka, Kahuranaki and parts of Heretaunga within the
Hastings District Council area as well as area units within the regional
boundary belonging to Rangitikei and Taupo District councils.
13.5. Wairoa; the
constituency boundary being the same as that for the
Wairoa District Council area.
14. The boundaries of the current Hastings and Ngaruroro
constituencies have been altered to align with Hastings District Council ward
boundary changes in accordance with LEA s.19U(b).
15. The constituency population statistics for this option are
shown following.
Table 1.
Option 1 Constituency Population Statistics
|
Constituency
|
Population
|
Reps
|
Population per Rep
|
Difference from average
|
Percentage difference
|
|
Central Hawke's Bay
|
13,850
|
1
|
13,850
|
-4,380
|
-24.03%
|
|
Hastings
|
59,150
|
3
|
19,700
|
+1,470
|
+8.06%
|
|
Napier
|
62,000
|
3
|
20,700
|
+2,470
|
+13.37%
|
|
Ngaruroro
|
20,850
|
1
|
20,850
|
+2,620
|
+14.4%
|
|
Wairoa
|
8,220
|
1
|
8,220
|
-10,010
|
-54.91%
|
|
Total
|
164,070
|
9
|
18,230
|
|
|
* The
populations used are the estimated resident population as at 30 June 2017
provided by Statistics NZ.
The % difference column shows the calculation applied when
determining whether an area complies with the +/-10% rule in section 19V(2) of
the LEA. Where this difference falls outside the +/-10% range it is shown
in bold.
Option 2
16. This proposal has been developed to enable Council to
consider whether increasing or decreasing the total number of elected
representatives will achieve compliance with LEA s19V(2) +/- 10% to the
greatest extent possible, and therefore better provide for “fair
representation” as defined by the legislation.
17. Staff calculated the population statistics for a reduction
of the number of Councillors to 7, with the resulting figures representing
significantly more non-compliance with LEA s19V(2) +/- 10%, with all 5 of the
Hawke’s Bay constituencies being non-compliant. Therefore staff are not
proposing the reduction as a viable proposal for Council’s consideration.
18. The calculation for an increased total number of
councillors to 11 does result in better compliance with LEA s19V(2) +/- 10% and
“fair representation” as defined in the legislation, with exemption
required for only 2 constituencies, and forms the basis of Option 2 following.
19. Option 2
is for eleven councillors representing Hawke’s Bay’s five
identified communities of interest; those being the constituencies (same as for Option 1) of:
19.1. Central Hawke’s Bay; the constituency boundary being
the same as that for the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council area.
19.2. Hastings; the constituency boundary being that area which encompasses the wards
of Flaxmere, Hastings-Havelock North and most of Heretaunga within the Hastings
District Council area.
19.3. Napier; the constituency boundary being the same as that for the Napier City
Council area.
19.4. Ngaruroro;
the constituency boundary being that area which
encompasses the wards of Mohaka, Kahuranaki and parts of Heretaunga within the
Hastings District Council area as well as area units within the regional boundary
belonging to Rangitikei and Taupo District councils.
19.5. Wairoa; the
constituency boundary being the same as that for the
Wairoa District Council area.
20. As with Option 1, the
boundaries of the current Hastings and Ngaruroro constituencies have been
altered to align with Hastings District Council ward boundary changes, and Option 2 constituency population statistics are
shown following.
Table 2. Option 2
Constituency Population Statistics
|
Constituency
|
Population
|
Reps
|
Population per Rep
|
Difference from average
|
Percentage difference
|
|
Central Hawke's Bay
|
13,850
|
1
|
13,850
|
-1,066
|
-7.15%
|
|
Hastings
|
59,150
|
4
|
14,788
|
-128
|
-0.86%
|
|
Napier
|
62,000
|
4
|
15,500
|
584
|
+3.92%
|
|
Ngaruroro
|
20,850
|
1
|
20,850
|
+5,934
|
+39.78%
|
|
Wairoa
|
8,220
|
1
|
8,220
|
-6,696
|
-44.89%
|
|
Total
|
164,070
|
11
|
14,916
|
|
|
* The
populations used are the estimated resident population as at 30 June 2017
provided by Statistics NZ.
The % difference column shows the calculation applied when
determining whether an area complies with the +/-10% rule in section 19V(2) of
the LEA. Where this difference falls outside the +/-10% range it is shown
in bold.
Considerations for Council
21. The Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA), together with the Local
Government Act 2002 (LGA), specify the requirements for representation arrangements,
including:
21.1. LEA Part 1A states “…
the paramount consideration that local authorities, elected officers and other
electoral officials must, in making decisions under the Act, adhere to is
''fair and effective representation for individuals and communities'.”
21.2. LGA Section 3 states
“The purpose of this Act is to provide for democratic and effective
local government that recognises the diversity of New Zealand
communities…”
22. Fair representation is
defined as a democratic model where there is a reasonable ratio of elected
members per head of population to assure elected members are in reasonable
geographic proximity to their constituents for easy contact, and that there is
sufficient opportunity for the representation and involvement of communities of
interest. There should be a strong link between elected representatives and
their constituencies so as to promote a healthy democracy, protect
citizens’ rights and ensure that their views and opinions are heard.
23. As relates to the number
of elected representatives considered to represent “fair and effective
representation” and the requirements of LEA s19V(2), Council is also
required to consider whether increasing the number of councillors is warranted
to achieve representation that is as close as possible to the +/- 10%, as the
benchmark set by the legislation as being “fair”.
Communities of Interest for Constituencies
not Compliant with LEA s19V(2)
24. The Guidelines identify
three dimensions for recognising communities of interest, being:
24.1. Perceptual – a
sense of belonging to an area or locality
24.2. Functional – the
ability to meet the community’s requirements for services
24.3. Political – the
ability to represent the interests and reconcile conflicts of the community.
25. Staff considered the key factors of effective and fair
representation, and the previous LGC determinations for acceptance as
communities of interest and have concluded that the applications for
‘community of interest’ exemptions for Ngaruroro and Wairoa (Option
2) will allow the key factors to be met.
Ngaruroro
26. The
constituency was created to recognise the distinct communities of interest
within Hastings District as subdivided into urban, and plains and rural, and
aligned with the Hastings District Rural Community Board boundaries, to provide more effective representation for these communities. The
Commission’s (2013) determination ruled:
26.1. “…we
have decided to adopt the urban-rural split proposed by the Hastings District
Council. This also entails the addition of some meshblocks around the three
urban wards which the Council identified as having commonalities in community
of interest with the proposed Hastings Urban Constituency, such as Whakatu with
its large industrial focus. We note the Hastings Rural Constituency (now Ngaruroro) does not comply with the
‘+/-10% rule’ but, as argued above, we believe this to be necessary
for achievement of effective representation for the community of interest in
this constituency.”
Wairoa
27. The
Wairoa constituency was previously accepted by the Local Government Commission
in 2007 and 2013 as a ‘community of interest’, with the size and
diversity of the constituency and reasonable access to representation having
been proved. In releasing their 2012 decision, the Commission specifically
ruled:
27.1. “We
first addressed the issue of the proposed Wairoa Constituency and its
non-compliance with the +/- 10% rule. After carefully considering the points
raised by the Council and also those made by the Mayor of Wairoa and the Wairoa
Constituency Councillors, as set out earlier in this determination, we agree
that a separate Wairoa Constituency is necessary to ensure effective
representation of this community of interest. In summary we agree that:
27.2. Wairoa has a
community of interest distinct from the rest of the region, both physically and
socio-economically, and this presents particular challenges for community
consultation and provision of services;
27.3. The physical
realities of the area give rise to particular issues not experienced elsewhere
including hill country erosion, pressure on coastal development, pest
management, transport infrastructure, biodiversity protection, wetland
enhancement, flooding and other natural hazards;
27.4. Effective
representation is most unlikely to be achieved by merging Wairoa into another
constituency in order to comply with the +/- 10% rule as this would result in a
very large area (70% of the land area of the region) with few commonalities of
interest and still eligible for only one councillor;
27.5. Effective
representation would be compromised in terms of both access to a councillor and
representation of the diversity of the constituency; and
27.6. The demands on a
councillor servicing an enlarged area would be unreasonable.”
28. Staff also considered the previous LGC determinations
accepting ‘community of interest’ exemptions for Central
Hawke’s Bay and Napier as reflected in Option 1 and outlined following.
Central
Hawke’s Bay
29. The
Central Hawke’s Bay constituency was previously accepted by the Local
Government Commission in 2012 as a ‘community of interest’, as
opposed to the 2007 decision which determined that “the arguments were not strong for an exception to the +/-10%
rule” and accordingly added some areas of
Hastings District to the Central Hawke’s Bay Constituency to ensure
compliance with the ‘+/-10% rule’.
30. In
releasing their 2012 decision, however, the Commission considered:
30.1. that
the addition of areas of Hastings District to the Central Hawke’s Bay
Constituency had caused confusion for residents living relatively close to the
Hastings urban area but voting within Central Hawke’s Bay Constituency.
Those within Hastings District identified with Hastings District Councillors,
and had no significant connections with Central Hawke’s Bay; as
demonstrated by a Council consultation process on potential off-river water
storage for the Ngaruroro River.
30.2. The
area of Central Hawke’s Bay Constituency, based on Central Hawke’s
Bay District, is already a significantly large area for one councillor to
service, and given the long distances having to
be travelled to have face to face meetings with constituents, or to attend
public meetings throughout the area.
30.3. The
physical realities of the area give rise to
particular issues of concern like hill country erosion, pressure on coastal
development, biodiversity protection, flooding and other natural hazards.
31. Specifically, the
Commission ruled:
31.1. We
were satisfied, on the basis of the arguments put to us by the Council and
supported by all of the objectors, that there was a case for reducing the size
of Central Hawke’s Bay Constituency to coincide with Central
Hawke’s Bay District, consistent with section 19U(c), notwithstanding it
would not comply with the section 19V(2) fair representation requirement.
We endorse the Council proposal in this respect accordingly.”
Napier
32. The
Napier constituency was also previously accepted by the Local Government
Commission in 2007 and 2012 as a ‘community of interest’, with the
2012 Commission commenting that:
32.1. Given
the numbers involved and the predominantly urban nature of the Napier
Constituency, we note that a large segment of the outlying area of Napier City
would have to be transferred to the adjoining Hastings Constituency. We
also note that the neighbouring parts of the Hastings Community are primarily
rural or semi-rural in nature. While it is guided by the principle of fair
representation defined in the Act by the +/-10% rule, the Commission considers
it is also appropriate to be guided by the requirement to ensure, so far as is
practicable, constituency boundaries coincide with territorial authority
boundaries. The Commission sees this as important as territorial
authorities reflect communities of interest based on the delivery of a wide
range of day-to-day services. Territorial authority districts are also
areas that electors closely identify with which in turn encourages
participation in local government such as by voting or standing as a candidate
at local elections.
33. Accordingly, the 2012
Commission specifically ruled:
33.1. The situation
remained very similar at this review in terms of the numbers needing to be
transferred out of Napier Constituency in order to comply with section 19(V)(2)
although the variation at +11.64% is less than in 2007 and even more marginal.
Accordingly we also endorse the Council proposal in relation to this
constituency.
Conclusions
34. The details providing the
basis for the proposals presented are contained in the attached “Details of basis for Representation Arrangement proposals”
document.
35. It is the staff view that both options provided for Council
to consider ultimately allow the key factors for ‘fair
representation’ and ‘communities of interest’ to be met. The
balance, for Council to decide and test through the submissions process,
appears to staff to be which option is considered to provide the most
“effective” representation arrangement for the Region.
Timelines
36. In order to meet legislative requirements for the
Representation Review, the Council is required to adopt its initial proposal at
this meeting.
37. Once that decision has been made, the proposed
representation arrangements will be publicly notified (Saturday 4 August)
and the public invited to make submissions. The submission period must remain
open for at least one month after public notification as required, and is
proposed to close on Monday
17 September.
38. If submissions are received on Council’s initial
proposal, the Corporate and Strategic Committee will consider those on
3 October before recommending a final proposal (which may be different in
light of any submissions received) to the 24 October Council meeting.
Council’s final proposal must then be publicly notified by Saturday
27 October, allowing those who submitted on the initial proposal a period
of at least one month to submit an appeal or objection. If any objections or
appeals are lodged (public appeals period proposed to close Monday
26 November), they are referred directly to the Local Government Commission
for hearing and determination along with Council’s final proposal.
39. Regardless of whether any appeals are received,
Council’s final proposed representation arrangements must be referred to
the Local Government Commission for determination as any arrangements that
include ‘community of interest’ considerations must be determined
by the Commission in accordance with LEA 19(V)(4). Staff intend to lodge
Council’s final proposed representation arrangements, including any
appeal documentation, prior to the 2018 Christmas break.
40. The upcoming timelines for representation matters and decisions are
as follows.
|
Key Project Milestone
|
Description
|
Due date
|
|
1.
Council resolves Initial Proposal
Within
14 days -
|
Council selects preferred option as Initial Proposal for
notification
|
25
July 2018
|
|
Public notice of Initial Proposal and open submissions
|
4
Aug 18
|
|
Close
of submissions on Initial Proposal
|
17 Sept
18
|
|
2.
Respond
to Submissions
|
If submissions received, C&S to consider those and
recommend Final Proposal to Council
|
3
Oct 18
|
|
If no submissions received, the proposal becomes final
and Council gives public notice to that effect and forwards
|
29
Sept 18
|
|
3
Final Proposal
|
If
submissions received, Council to Resolve Final Proposal as recommended by
C&S
|
24
Oct 18
|
|
Public
Notice of Final Proposal
|
On
or before Sat 27 Oct 2018
|
|
4.
Appeals/Objections
|
Period
of 1 month allowed for s19O appeals /19P objections
|
Close
26 Nov 18
|
|
5.
Lodge Final Proposal with LGC
|
- If no appeals/objections –
Council confirms as final
+
gives public notice of final proposed arrangements
|
28 Nov 18
1
Dec 18
|
|
Forward all documentation to LGC for final
determination (not all constituencies meet +/-10% rule)
|
By 21 Dec 18
|
|
- If appeals/objection are received,
advise 28 November Council meeting and forward all documentation to LGC for
determination
|
By 21 Dec 18
|
Decision Making Process
41. Once Council has made a decision on what the proposed representation
arrangement will be, that proposal will be subject to the consultative
procedures under the Local Electoral Act (LEA) sections 19M and 19N, which
include a full public notification process and then the opportunity for
submissions to be received from any member of the public on the proposal, with
an ultimate right of appeal to the Local Government Commission. Therefore the
specific requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in respect to decision
making are fully accounted for through the process specified in the LEA.
|
Recommendations
That the
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:
1. Receives and notes the “Representation Review for the 2019
Local Government Elections” staff report.
2. Acknowledges the consultation procedures required for
Representation Reviews under the Local Electoral Act (sections 19M and 19N).
And either
3. Agrees to (Option 1) retain five constituencies, as the
identified communities of interest in Hawke’s Bay, the
proposed names and boundaries of each of the five being:
3.1. Central Hawke’s Bay; the constituency
boundary being the same as that for the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council
area.
3.2. Hastings; the constituency boundary being
that area which encompasses the wards of Flaxmere, Hastings-Havelock North
and most of Heretaunga within the Hastings District Council area.
3.3. Napier; the constituency boundary being
the same as that for the Napier City Council area.
3.4. Ngaruroro; the constituency boundary being
that area which encompasses the wards of Mohaka, Kahuranaki and parts of
Heretaunga within the Hastings District Council area as well as meshblocks
within the Regional boundary belonging to Rangitikei and Taupo District
councils.
3.5. Wairoa; the constituency boundary being the same as that for the Wairoa District Council area.
4. Agrees to include the following meshblocks from the Ngaruroro
Constituency into the Hastings Constituency in order to align with Hastings
District Council ward boundaries in accordance with LEA, and resulting in an
increase in population in the Hastings Constituency (350) and a decrease in
population in the Ngaruroro Constituency (-350):
4.1. 1465506 and 1465601 (100)
4.2. 1466710 (250).
5. Agrees to retain the number of elected members at nine (9), those being:
5.1. One (1) member elected by the Central Hawke’s Bay
Constituency
5.2. Three (3) members elected by the Hastings Constituency
5.3. Three (3) members elected by the Napier Constituency
5.4. One (1) member elected by the Ngaruroro Constituency
5.5. One (1) member elected by the Wairoa Constituency.
6. Notes that this proposal does not fully comply with the Local
Electoral Act 2001 section 19V(2), but that the proposal is
considered the most appropriate solution for Hawke’s Bay.
7. Applies to the Local Government Commission for approval to retain
the Central Hawke’s Bay, Napier, Ngaruroro and Wairoa constituencies as
“communities of interest” with effective representation
warranting non-compliance with the LEA, section 19V(2) +/-10% fair
representation requirement as shown following.
Constituency
Population Statistics
|
Constituency
|
Population
|
Reps
|
Population per Rep
|
Difference from average
|
Percentage difference
|
|
Central Hawke's Bay
|
13,850
|
1
|
13,850
|
-4,380
|
-24.03%
|
|
Hastings
|
59,150
|
3
|
19,700
|
+1,470
|
+8.06%
|
|
Napier
|
62,000
|
3
|
20,700
|
+2,470
|
+13.37%
|
|
Ngaruroro
|
20,850
|
1
|
20,850
|
+2,620
|
+14.4%
|
|
Wairoa
|
8,220
|
1
|
8,220
|
-10,010
|
-54.91%
|
|
Total
|
164,070
|
9
|
18,230
|
|
|
* The populations used are the estimated resident population as at
30 June 2017 provided by Statistics NZ.
The % difference column shows the
calculation applied when determining whether an area complies with the +/-10%
rule in section 19V(2) of the LEA. Where this difference falls outside
the +/-10% range it is shown in bold.
OR
8. Agrees to (Option 2) retain five constituencies, as the
identified communities of interest in Hawke’s Bay, the
proposed names and boundaries of each of the five being:
8.1. Central Hawke’s Bay; the constituency
boundary being the same as that for the Central Hawke’s Bay District
Council area.
8.2. Hastings; the constituency boundary being
that area which encompasses the wards of Flaxmere, Hastings-Havelock North
and most of Heretaunga within the Hastings District Council area.
8.3. Napier; the constituency boundary being
the same as that for the Napier City Council area.
8.4. Ngaruroro; the constituency boundary being
that area which encompasses the wards of Mohaka, Kahuranaki and parts of
Heretaunga within the Hastings District Council area as well as meshblocks
within the Regional boundary belonging to Rangitikei and Taupo District
councils.
8.5. Wairoa; the constituency boundary being the same as that for the Wairoa District Council area.
9. Agrees to include the following meshblocks from the Ngaruroro
Constituency into the Hastings Constituency in order to align with Hastings
District Council ward boundaries in accordance with LEA, and resulting in an
increase in population in the Hastings Constituency (350) and a decrease in
population in the Ngaruroro Constituency (-350):
9.1. 1465506 and 1465601 (100)
9.2. 1466710 (250).
10. Agrees to increase the number of elected members to eleven (11),
to better comply with LEA s19V(2)
+/- 10% and “fair representation” as defined in the legislation,
those being:
10.1. One
(1) member elected by the Central Hawke’s Bay Constituency
10.2. Three
(4) members elected by the Hastings Constituency
10.3. Three
(4) members elected by the Napier Constituency
10.4. One
(1) member elected by the Ngaruroro Constituency
10.5. One
(1) member elected by the Wairoa Constituency.
11. Notes that this proposal does not fully comply with the Local
Electoral Act 2001 section 19V(2), but that the proposal is considered
the most appropriate solution for Hawke’s Bay.
12. Applies to the Local Government Commission for approval to retain
the Ngaruroro and Wairoa constituencies as “communities of
interest” with effective representation warranting non-compliance with
the LEA, section 19V(2) +/-10% fair representation requirement as shown following.
Constituency
Population Statistics
|
Constituency
|
Population
|
Reps
|
Population per Rep
|
Difference from average
|
Percentage difference
|
|
Central Hawke's Bay
|
13,850
|
1
|
13,850
|
-1,066
|
-7.15%
|
|
Hastings
|
59,150
|
4
|
14,788
|
-128
|
-0.86%
|
|
Napier
|
62,000
|
4
|
15,500
|
584
|
+3.92%
|
|
Ngaruroro
|
20,850
|
1
|
20,850
|
+5,934
|
+39.78%
|
|
Wairoa
|
8,220
|
1
|
8,220
|
-6,696
|
-44.89%
|
|
Total
|
164,070
|
11
|
14,916
|
|
|
* The populations used are the estimated resident population as at
30 June 2017 provided by Statistics NZ.
The % difference column shows the
calculation applied when determining whether an area complies with the +/-10%
rule in section 19V(2) of the LEA. Where this difference falls outside
the +/-10% range it is shown in bold.
And
13. Agrees to publicly notify the initial
proposal on 4 August 2018 to comply with the Local
Electoral Act 2001.
|
Authored by:
|
Leeanne
Hooper
Principal Governance Advisor
|
|
Approved by:
|
Liz Lambert
Group Manager Regulation
|
|
Attachment/s
|
⇩1
|
Details of
Basis for Representation Arrangement Proposals
|
|
|
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL
COUNCIL
Wednesday 25 July 2018
Subject: Kahutia Memorandum of
Understanding with Ngati KAHUNGUNU
Reason for Report
1. To provide the Council with the draft Kahutia Accord Memorandum of
Understanding with Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (NKII) for consideration
and feedback.
Background
2. In
the development of the Council’s 2018-2028 Long Term Plan it was
identified that the Council held a vision for accelerated activity in regional
reforestation that was strongly shared by regional tangata whenua, including
Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated.
3. Like the Council, NKII sees the imperative for forest cover to be
significantly increased in the Hawke’s Bay region, in response to poor
water quality from hill country and stream bank erosion and consequential
sedimentation, low levels of indigenous biodiversity, and a lack of climate
change resilience to increased frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall
events.
4. Both Council and NKII have identified that regional reforestation
can also bring social, cultural and economic benefits by creating new
employment, recreational and investment opportunities. These opportunities have
also been identified by Central Government and are being promoted through the
One Billion Trees Policy led by the newly formed Te Uru Rakau and funded
through the Provincial Growth Fund. The proposed partnership with NKII presents
an opportunity to strengthen the case for funding and support from Central
Government.
Proposed Partnership
5. Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated has expressed their intention to
promote reforestation, particularly but not exclusively on Maori-owned land,
which is disproportionately represented in the region’s erosion prone
hill country. Much of this land will be on interest to the Council’s
Integrated Catchment Management teams and the focus of regulatory and
non-regulatory effort in time. A partnership with Ngati Kahungunu Iwi
Incorporated presents an opportunity to assist the Council in working with
Maori landowners.
6. Staff consider Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated’s objectives
to be well aligned to the Council’s, and therefore there is considerable
scope to identify opportunities for collaboration that can assist both parties
to achieve more together than they might alone. The attached Memorandum of
Understanding sets out a framework for this collaboration and a programme of
technical work exploring these opportunities is presently being initiated.
7. Staff
consider Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated’s objectives to be well aligned
to the Council’s, and therefore there is considerable scope to identify
opportunities for collaboration that can assist both parties to achieve more
together than they might alone. The attached Memorandum of Understanding sets
out a framework for this collaboration and a programme of technical work
exploring these opportunities is presently being initiated. This technical work
programme is aimed at providing advice back to Council and the Board of Ngati
Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated on where both parties can apply resources to achieve
the shared vision and objectives. The work will also form the basis of an
investment case for the Council to consult the community on increased
commercial forestry investment by Council. This investment may occur alongside
Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and central government, but this will be
determined once the analysis is complete.
8. The
programme of work will explore a wide range of afforestation types, both
commercial and non-commercial, and aims to quantify the opportunities, barriers
and priorities for accelerated reforestation of the region. A consortium of
technical advisors is presently being assembled including the Crown Research
Institute Scion, the University of Canterbury Forestry School, PF Olsen
Limited, Comvita and the Dryland Forestry Research Consortium, of which Council
is already a key player. The aim is to draw upon existing knowledge and
research and this advice will be tested with an advisory group of local
forestry experts.
9. The
current timeline seeks to build a regional, spatially specific view of the
investment opportunity by the end of the 2018 calendar year. It is proposed that
staff report back to the Council’s Environment and Services Committee
with an update on this programme of work in early September.
10. The
Board of Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated will be considering the draft
Memorandum of Understanding in the same week as Council, and should it be
approved a signing ceremony is proposed for early August.
Financial and Resource Implications
11. There are
no direct financial costs arising from this Memorandum of Understanding. The
Kahutia Accord involves expenditure already allocated under the 2018-2028 Long
Term Plan and anticipates further investment activity, which will be the
subject of further advice and public consultation in due course.
Decision Making
Process
12. 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:
12.1. The decision
does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
12.2. The use of
the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
12.3. The decision
does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.
12.4. The decision
is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
12.5. 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
Hawke’s Bay Regional 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 and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in
the decision.
2.
Receives and notes the “Kahutia
Memorandum of Understanding with Ngati Kahungunu” staff report.
3.
Authorises the Council Chairman to sign the
attached memorandum of understanding, as presented or with minor amendments,
on behalf of the Council.
4.
Requests staff report back to the
Council’s Environment and Services Committee on 5 September with
an update on the programme of work that gives effect to the intent of the
Kahutia Accord.
|
Authored and Approved
by:
|
James Palmer
Chief Executive
|
|
Attachment/s
|
⇩1
|
Draft Kahutia
Memorandum of Understanding
|
|
|
