HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
27 October 2021
Subject: Hawke’s Bay
Regional Council Representation Arrangements Review
Reason for Report
1. This agenda item provides the means for Council to deliberate on the submissions received on its initial proposal and
resolve Council’s final proposed Representation Arrangements for the 2022
and 2025 Local Government Elections. The final proposal will then be notified,
open for appeals and ultimately referred to the Local Government Commission for
determination.
Officers’ Recommendations
2. Council officers recommend that Councillors consider the views
expressed by written submissions received and verbal submissions heard on 13
October in conjunction with the information in this report in making decisions
on a final proposal for the Council’s Representation Arrangements for the
2022 and 2025 local elections.
Executive Summary
3. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is required to review its
Representation Arrangements in accordance with the Local Government Act (LGA)
and Local Electoral Act (LEA) as a result of the May 2021 resolution:
3.1. Agrees to establish one or more Māori constituencies in accordance with Schedule 1, Part 1, 2(2) of the Local
Electoral Act, for voters on the Māori electoral roll to elect
councillors on to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in the 2022 and 2025 local
elections.
4. Through the Representation Review the Council must ensure, in
accordance with the LEA:
4.1. Section
19U(a) that the number and boundaries of constituencies will provide effective
representation of communities of interest within the region, and
4.2. Section
19U(b) that constituency boundaries coincide with the boundaries of the current
statistical meshblock areas determined by Statistics New Zealand and used for
parliamentary electoral purposes, and
4.3. Section
19U(c) that, so far as is practicable, constituency boundaries coincide with
the boundaries of 1 or more territorial authority districts or the boundaries
of wards.
5. The key
requirement for fair representation is to comply with the basic principle of
population equality unless there are good reasons not to. In the case of
regional councils:
5.1. Section
19V(2) states – for the purposes of giving effect to subsection 1, the
regional council and, where appropriate, the Commission must ensure that the
population of each constituency, divided by the number of members to be elected
by that constituency, produces a figure no more than 10% greater or smaller
than the population of the region divided by the total number of elected
members.
5.2. Section
19V(3)(b) states – despite subsection 2, if the regional council or the
Commission considers that effective representation of communities of interest
so requires, constituencies may be defined and membership distributed between
them in a way that does not comply with subsection 2.
5.3. A decision
not to comply with section 19V(2) must be referred to the Commission for
determination. That referral is treated by the Commission as an appeal under
the Local Electoral Act 2001. Referral to the Commission is required whether or
not appeals or objections have been lodged against the Council’s final
proposal.
6. After determining whether the written and verbal submissions
received warrant changes to the proposed Representation Arrangements, the
decisions required of the Council are:
6.1. The total number of councillors
6.2. Whether to establish one or two Māori constituencies
6.3. The boundaries and names of the Māori constituency(ies)
6.4. The boundaries and names of the General constituencies
6.5. The number of representatives to be elected by each constituency.
Consultation
7. Following Council’s initial proposal being resolved on 25
August 2021, the proposals contained in the resolution were publicly notified
in HB Today and on the HBRC website in accordance with consultation
procedures required for representation reviews under the Local Electoral Act
(section 19M).
8. Consultation opened on Wednesday 1 September 2021. Notification and
subsequent promotion included a public notice, media release, social media, HB
Today advertisements, emails targeted to previous submitters on the Māori constituencies consultation
undertaken earlier in the year, the region’s territorial local
authorities’ and a dedicated page on HBRC’s website.
9. Consultation closed on Sunday, 3 October 2021, and staff are
confident that the consultation undertaken was compliant with the requirements
for representation reviews under the Local Electoral Act.
Submissions received
10. A total
of 36 written submissions were accepted, and 15 refused due to being outside
the scope of the consultation. Submitters outside scope
were responded to and invited to resubmit on points within scope.
11. The
number of submitters supporting Council’s initial proposal, either in
part or in full, was 25 (70%).
12. The
breakdown of the constituencies where the submitters are registered to vote is
as follows.
|
Constituency
|
No. of submitters
|
% of submitters
|
|
Central Hawke’s Bay
|
4
|
11%
|
|
Hastings
|
10
|
28%
|
|
Napier
|
9
|
25%
|
|
Ngaruroro
|
2
|
5.5%
|
|
Wairoa
|
9
|
25%
|
|
Region wide*
|
2
|
5.5%
|
* Federated
Farmers and Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust
Themes of submissions
13. There
were three main themes arising from the consultation process. These were:
13.1. support
for Māori representation
13.2. opposition
to extending the Wairoa Constituency boundary south to include the Esk Valley
and Tutira, and
13.3. opposition
to increasing the total number of councillors from 9 to 11.
Theme: Māori representation
14. Submission
comments in the “support for Māori
representation” theme included:
14.1. Increasing Maori
representation is to be encouraged and the changes support that goal. (sub #15 D Lewis)
14.2. Tangata whenua of this
region have waited more than 180 years to be enabled at this opportune time to
be represented in the decision making forums around the HBRC. I fully support
the 2 Māori constituency north and south arrangement. (sub #25 M Apatu)
14.3. Whilst it falls short of
Co Management as Treaty partners it improves the representation of Maori in
voting for individuals who can articulate Maori issues. (sub #23 T Waaka)
14.4. I am for all six of the
Regional Council's proposed changes, as it seeks to offer natural justice and
equity to our region’s governance makeup. It also moves the entity far
closer to its commitment to honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. (sub #28 J Crow)
15. Because
submissions in this theme are generally supportive of the establishment of two
Māori seats it is the staff view that no changes to the Council’s
proposed representation arrangements in respect of Māori seats need to be
considered.
Theme: Mohaka-Wairoa boundary
16. Submission
comments in the “opposition to the proposed
extension of the Wairoa Constituency boundary south to include the Esk Valley
and Tutira” theme included:
16.1. The Mohaka-Wairoa ward
shouldn't include Tūtira and Bay View as this is an entirely seperate
community with seperate issues and therefore representation. You've based it on
voting numbers as opposed to environmental issues and opportunities. Bay
view and Tūtira are closer to Ahuriri than Wairoa, Waikaremoana and Mahia
and should be represented by such. Wairoa needs its own representation seperate
from Bay view. Follow the PSGE boundaries they are closer aligned, leave it at
Waikare river and leave ngaruroro to also still have 1 rep. The 10% rule
disadvantages the environmental rural communities for representation. (sub #39 S Walker)
16.2. The predominant
extensive sheep & beef farming land uses, steep terrain, unique resource
management issues and solutions, connection to Wairoa as the main town, limited
transport connections, and the Wairoa District Council, all mean this area is
unique and deserves its own local councillor. We would like to hear why the Council thinks the Esk Valley has
common values and should be part of the Mohaka-Wairoa constituency.
Mohaka-Wairoa members are very doubtful that Esk Valley residents have much to
do with Wairoa. They are justifiably worried that their next councillor may
even come from the Esk Valley and will not be accessible to them, nor
understand their unique issues. The extension of the Mohaka-Wairoa boundary
down to the Esk Valley means that this constituency will have a
vast land area of 689,310 km2, which is an enormous
constituency for a single councillor to effectively represent. Is it worth the
risk of combining the Esk Valley that doesn’t have much in common with
the rest of Mohaka-Wairoa? Maybe it would be better to go the whole hog and
keep the current boundary, and apply for the exemption anyway. (sub
#45 Federated Farmers)
16.3. Larger land area means
dilution of Wairoa’s voice and isolation of our community. Loss of Wairoa
as a community of interest and diminished representation. Representation should
not be based on population and land mass and water catchment should be considered.
Our community and its uniqueness must not just be thrown into
another area to make the numbers work. We know legislatively that population is
the driver, but the Wairoa district makes up 29% of Hawke’s Bay’s
total land mass with Wairoa comprising 4,118 km2 and the total Hawke’s
Bay land mass 14,111 km2. Surely this must be taken into account. Under this
proposal Wairoa’s voice will be blended with a population north of
Napier, our democratic right will be weakened because the needs and opinions of
constituents in Tutira/Esk Valley will be very different to the needs and
opinions of Wairoa’s growing population. … manage the boundaries to
ensure our isolated, but very much part of Hawke’s Bay, community of
interest is protected (sub
#49 Wairoa District Council)
16.4. We recommend that the
status of the Wairoa district be considered as a ‘community of
interest’ and ask that the HBRC re-consider the proposed constituency
boundaries (sub #50
WDC Māori Standing Committee)
16.5. The new constituency for
Wairoa is now 1.7 million acres, all for one person to represent in the
sensitive area HBRC is focusing on to halt erosion and improve water quality.
One governor will be responsible for half the region and a big chunk of the
Council spend as the organisation pursues its vital environmental program. The
notion it gets closer to the +/- 10% is flawed as a reason to change. Even
before the proposed change the differential was well outside this threshold. We
can’t rely on others to front our local issues at the HBRC table …
discuss issues with local constituents. (sub #52 F Wilson)
17. Because
submissions in this theme request that the Council changes the proposed
representation arrangements to retain the current Wairoa Constituency boundary,
staff recommend that the Council:
17.1. Either accepts the arguments made for the retention of the Wairoa
Constituency as previously established as a distinct community of interest
requiring representation and amends the Final Proposal to reflect that;
17.2. Or rejects the arguments made for the retention of the Wairoa
Constituency as previously established and confirms the Wairoa-Mohaka
Constituency as detailed in the Initial Proposal.
Theme: Total number of
Councillors
18. Submission
comments in the “opposed to the increase of the
total number of councillors to 11 (from 9)” theme included:
18.1. In our view the formula
set out for proportional represetation in the LEA is not consistent with the
principle of partnership under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Instead, we consider that
principle requires Māori and non-Māori be elected in equal numbers
rather than merely in proportion to the number of voters registered on the
Māori and general electorates. Therefore, HBRC shoud ensure that the
proportion of Māori councillors is as high as possible within the limits
of the LEA to better reflect that true partnership ... On that basis we prefer
the number of councillors remains at 9 rather than increasing the number of
councillors to 11 so as to avoid further diluting the influence of Māori in
local government. (sub #51 Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust)
18.2. I think overall there
could have been a reduction of councillors and just the addition of Māori.
This would have made it more equitable. (sub #22 A Taylor)
18.3. I do support having 2
Māori councillors. I don’t support having more councillor numbers.
Should not have 2 extra they (Māori constituency councillors) should be
voted in from the 9. (sub #42 K Taotahi)
19. Under
this option (9 Councillors in total, 7 from General and 2 from Māori constituencies),
the resulting councillor:constituent population ratios are as shown following.
|
Constituency
|
General
Electoral Population
|
Reps
|
Population
per Rep
|
Difference
from average
|
%
difference from average
|
|
Tamatea-CHB
|
11,955
|
1
|
11,955
|
-7,586
|
-39%
|
|
Ahuriri-Napier
|
53,940
|
2
|
26,970
|
7,429
|
38%
|
|
Wairoa (current)
|
4,320
|
1
|
4,320
|
-15,221
|
-78%
|
|
Heretaunga-Hastings
|
47,928
|
2
|
23,964
|
4,423
|
23%
|
|
Ngaruroro
|
18,618
|
1
|
18,618
|
-923
|
-5%
|
|
Total
|
136,785
|
7
|
Av=19,541
|
|
|
20. Because
submissions in this theme request that the Council changes the proposed
representation arrangements to retain the current total number of councillors
at 9:
20.1. Either accepts the arguments made for the retention of the total of 9
councillors and amends the Final Proposal to reflect that;
20.2. Or rejects the arguments made for the retention of the total of 9
councillors and confirms the total number of councillors will be 11 as detailed
in the Initial Proposal.
Other
21. Several
submissions expressed opposition to the inclusion of Māori place names in
the names of the General constituencies, some submitting:
21.1. We do not need Maori
place names incorporated into constituencies, when 85% of the population do not
read, write or understand the language, normal English is absolutely fine, and
has been for many years. (sub
#17 P Cadwallader)
21.2. I do not agree to all
constituencies being given Maori names as well as English unless the new Maori
constituencies have English names as well as Maori. (sub #30 A Scott)
22. Because
those submissions requested that the Council change the proposed representation
arrangements by removing the Māori place names staff recommend that the
Council:
22.1. Either accepts the arguments made for the removal of the Māori place
names in the names of the General constituencies and amends the Final Proposal
to reflect that;
22.2. Or rejects the arguments made for the removal of the Māori place
names in the names of the General constituencies and confirms the General
Constituencies’ names as detailed in the Initial Proposal.
23. Submitter
5, R Morrison, sought reconsideration of the General Constituencies “to
make the representation fairer to Ahuriri/Napier and in line with the Electoral
Act 2001”, suggesting:
23.1. One solution would be to
increase the number of representatives from Ahuriri-Napier to 4, making a total
of 12 on the HBRC. This would give an average per representative of
13,676 over the whole Council and Ahuriri/Napier would be very close to that
average (13,485-13,676). However, this solution would have the effect of
increasing the difference from the average in the Ngaruroro Constituency.
24. Under
this option, the resulting councillor:constituent population ratios are as
shown following.
|
Constituency
|
General
Electoral Population
|
Reps
|
Population
per Rep
|
Difference
from average
|
%
difference from average
|
|
Tamatea-CHB
|
11,955
|
1
|
11,955
|
-1,724
|
-12.60%
|
|
Ahuriri-Napier
|
53,940
|
4
|
17,980
|
4,302
|
31.45%
|
|
Wairoa (current)
|
4,320
|
1
|
4,320
|
-9,359
|
-68.42%
|
|
Heretaunga-Hastings
|
47,928
|
3
|
15,976
|
2,298
|
16.80%
|
|
Ngaruroro
|
18,618
|
1
|
18,618
|
4,940
|
36.11%
|
|
Total
|
136,785
|
10
|
Av=13,679
|
|
|
25. Because
the submission requests that the Council changes the proposed representation
arrangements to increase the total number of councillors to 12 by increasing
the number of councillors elected in the Ahuriri-Napier constituency staff
recommend that the Council:
25.1. Either accepts the suggestion made for the number of councillors elected
by the Ahuriri-Napier Constituency to increase to 4 and the total number of
councillors to increase to 12, and amends the Final Proposal to reflect that.
25.2. Or rejects the suggestion made for the number of councillors elected
by the Ahuriri-Napier Constituency to increase to 4 and confirms the total
number of councillors will be 11 as detailed in the Initial Proposal.
Significance and Engagement Policy
Assessment
26. It was due
to the significance of this decision that Council undertook consultation with
the community to ascertain their views.
Engagement with Tangata Whenua about
Māori constituencies
27. The Regional Council
decided to establish one or more Māori constituencies on 19 May 2021. This
followed Community consultation during which 89% of submitters expressed their
support.
28. In line with the
preferences of tangata whenua as expressed by representatives of Taiwhenua and
Post Settlement Governance Entities on the Māori and Regional Planning
committees, Council proposed, in its Initial Proposal, to establish two
Māori constituencies using the Ngaruroro River as the North-South boundary
for the election of one councillor from each Māori constituency.
29. To receive suggestions for the names of the Māori
Constituencies the Māori Partnerships team held two zoom hui. One of the
zoom hui was during the day and the second, on 18 October, was an evening
hui to allow greater participation. The invitations to those hui were sent to a
range of tangata whenua participants. Among those that participated in the hui
were kaumātua from Ngāti Hineuru, Heretaunga and Te Wairoa.
30. After much discussion the following names for the Hawke’s Bay
Māori constituencies were decided and are recommended to Council.
30.1. Te
Matau a Māui – if there is one
Māori Constituency
30.2. Māui
ki te Raki – for a Northern Māori
Constituency
30.3. Māui
ki te Tonga – for a Southern Māori
Constituency.
31. Council
officers recommend that Council resolves a Final Proposal that includes the two
Māori constituencies detailed in the initial proposal, named as suggested
by Hawke’s Bay kaumātua above.
Options Assessment
32. When deciding its initial
proposal for consultation, the Regional Council worked to strike a balance
between:
32.1. past decisions of the Local
Government Commission
32.2. retaining communities of
interest that electors identify with
32.3. populations that meet a +/-10%
requirement
32.4. practical considerations such
as the size of the area councillors will be expected to serve
32.5. sufficient Council members to
share the governance workload and provide for good governance.
33. Staff offer the following for
Council’s consideration of the representation arrangement options
available for the General constituencies, bearing in mind the LGC will make the
final determination of what those arrangements will be.
Constituencies will provide effective representation of
communities of interest within the region
34. 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. Where a region comprises communities of differing sizes and geographic
extent it is necessary to balance a range of representation objectives.
35. Council
is required to adopt an arrangement that reflects and recognises local identity
and interests, however consideration of communities of interest at a regional
scale can be challenging given the significant areas and variation in
communities of interest involved.
36. The Representation Review Guidelines
identify three dimensions for recognising communities of interest, being:
36.1. Perceptual
– a sense of belonging to an area or locality
36.2. Functional
– the ability to meet the community’s requirements for services
36.3. Political
– the ability to represent the interests and reconcile conflicts of the
community.
37. Common features of a
community of interest are geography and social, economic and cultural
connections, all of which contribute to the development of a shared identity.
38. As far as practicable,
Council must also consider:
38.1. not splitting recognised
communities of interest
38.2. not grouping together
two or more communities of interest that have few common interests
38.3. factor in the
accessibility, size, and configuration of the area concerned, including:
38.3.1. reasonable access to elected
members and vice versa
38.3.2. the elected members’
ability to effectively represent the views of their electoral area and provide
reasonably even representation across the area including activities like
attending public meetings and opportunities for face-to-face meetings
38.4. whether each identified
community of interest needs separate representation in a constituency, or
whether some communities of interest can be grouped together to achieve
effective representation.
So far as is practicable, constituency boundaries
coincide with TLA or ward boundaries
39. The LEA
requirement to align constituency boundaries with territorial authority
boundaries where possible acknowledges that these smaller local authority areas
are deemed to already recognise and group together communities of interest.
Section 19V(2) Exemptions
40. Staff
consider that applications to the Local Government Commission for exemptions
from s.19V(2) for the
Tamatea-Central Hawke’s Bay, Ahuriri-Napier, Ngaruroro and
(Mohaka)-Wairoa constituencies are necessary to ensure that effective representation is not limited
by the requirement to group together communities of interest with few
commonalities of interest, or by grouping together two or more
communities of interest that have few common interests, to
meet the population requirements.
Table 2: Initial Proposal General Constituencies’
Populations
|
Constituency
|
General Electoral Population
|
Reps
|
Population per Rep
|
Difference from Average
|
% Difference from Average
|
|
Tamatea-Central
Hawke’s Bay
|
11,955
|
1
|
11,955
|
-3,243
|
-21.34%
|
|
Ahuriri -
Napier
|
53,940
|
3
|
17,980
|
2,782
|
18.3%
|
|
Mohaka-
Wairoa
|
5,691
|
1
|
5,691
|
-9,507
|
-62.55%
|
|
Heretaunga-Hastings
|
47,928
|
3
|
15,976
|
778
|
5.12%
|
|
Ngaruroro
|
17,271
|
1
|
17,271
|
2,073
|
13.64%
|
|
Total
|
136,785
|
9
|
15,198
|
|
|
Table 3: General Constituencies’ Populations with retained Wairoa
Constituency
|
Constituency
|
General Electoral Population
|
Reps
|
Population per Rep
|
Difference from Average
|
% Difference from Average
|
|
Tamatea-Central
Hawke’s Bay
|
11,955
|
1
|
11,955
|
-3,243
|
-21.34%
|
|
Ahuriri -
Napier
|
53,940
|
3
|
17,980
|
2,782
|
18.3%
|
|
Wairoa
|
4,320
|
1
|
4,320
|
-10.878
|
-71.58%
|
|
Heretaunga-Hastings
|
47,928
|
3
|
15,976
|
-778
|
-5.12%
|
|
Ngaruroro
|
18,618
|
1
|
18,618
|
-3,420
|
-22.5%
|
|
Total
|
136,785
|
9
|
15,198
|
|
|
41. Staff considered the key factors of effective and fair
representation, and previous LGC determinations and have concluded that the
applications for ‘community of interest’ exemptions supported by
the information following will allow the key factors for s19V(2) exemption to
be met.
Tamatea-Central Hawke’s Bay
Constituency
42. The
Tamatea-Central Hawke’s Bay Constituency should be exempted from the
s19V(2) requirement as a distinct community of interest warranting
representation based on:
42.1. 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.
42.2. The
physical realities of the area give rise to particular issues of concern like
water security, pressure on coastal development, biodiversity protection,
flooding and other natural hazards.
43. The
representation arrangement for the Central Hawke’s Bay Constituency in
place for the 2007 and 2010 elections combined parts of the Hastings District to
the west and north of Napier (including Havelock North) with CHB. This arrangement was changed by the Local Government
Commission after Council’s 2012 representation review, which received
feedback from residents of
those areas (now contained within the Ngaruroro and Hastings constituencies) that they felt they lacked representation on the regional council because they had a different community of
interest from those in the CHB district.
Wairoa Constituency
44. In
Wairoa, previous Local Government Commission determinations have concluded:
44.1. A
separate Wairoa Constituency is necessary to ensure effective representation of
this community of interest due to:
44.1.1. 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
44.1.2. 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
44.1.3. The
predominant extensive sheep and beef farming land uses, steep terrain, unique
resource management issues and solutions, connection to Wairoa as the main
town, and limited transport connections
44.1.4. The Wairoa
District makes up 29% of Hawke’s Bay’s total land mass and an enormous constituency for a single
councillor to effectively represent
44.2. 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.
44.2.1. Effective
representation would be compromised in terms of both access to a councillor and
representation of the diversity of the constituency; and
44.2.2. The demands
on a councillor servicing an enlarged area would be unreasonable.”
Ngaruroro Constituency
45. In the
case of the Ngaruroro Constituency, it 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:
45.1. “…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.”
Napier Constituency
46. The
Napier Constituency was also previously accepted by the Local Government
Commission as a ‘community of interest’, with the Commission
commenting that:
46.1. 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 from the adjoining Ngaruroro Constituency.
We also note that the neighbouring parts of the Hastings Community are
primarily rural or semi-rural in nature.
46.2. While
it is guided by the principle of fair representation defined in the Act, 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.
Financial and Resource Implications
47. The
Remuneration Authority has advised that the ‘remuneration pool’ for
the Council will not increase with an increase in the total number of
councillors. This means that other than any incremental increase the
Remuneration Authority chooses to make, it is expected that the cost to
ratepayers for ‘governance’ remuneration will remain broadly the
same whether there are 9, 11 or 13 councillors total.
48. Should
the total number of councillors increase, the Governance costs would increase
in the areas of administration and allowances for the provision of hardware
(iPad), travel reimbursements and communications (home office). These costs are
not considered to be significant and can realistically be accommodated within
current forecast budgets.
Next Steps
49. The
remaining steps in the Representation Review process are as shown in the
following table.
|
Milestone
|
Date
|
Description
|
|
1. Regional Council meeting
|
27 October 2021
|
Final
proposal (as amended from submissions if appropriate) to be resolved
|
|
2. Public Notice of Final Proposal
|
30 October
2021
|
Public
notice of Council’s final proposed representation arrangements
|
|
3. Appeals/Objections period
|
30 November
2021
|
Appeals and
objections (limited to those who submitted on Council’s initial
proposal) period closes
|
|
4. Regional Council meeting
|
15 December
2021
|
If no
appeals/objections received by 30 November, Council confirms proposed
representation arrangements as Final, by resolution
|
|
5. Lodge Final Proposal with LGC
|
17 December
2021
|
Staff
forward all documentation, including any appeals/objections, to LGC for
determination
|
|
6. LGC Determination
|
By 15 Jan
2022
|
LGC to
advise Determination to Council by 10 April 2022
|
Decision Making
Process
50. Council
and its committees are 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:
50.1. The
decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic
asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
50.2. The use
of a special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
50.3. The
decision is significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted
Significance and Engagement Policy and so has been the subject of a one month
public consultation process and hearing of submissions.
50.4. The persons directly affected by this decision are the electors and
ratepayers of the region.
Recommendations
That
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:
1. Receives and considers the “Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
Representation Arrangements Review” staff report in conjunction with the written submissions received and provided to Council, as well as
verbal submissions heard on 13 October 2021.
2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are significant, and acknowledges the consultation procedures required for Representation
Reviews under the Local Electoral Act.
And either
3. accepts the arguments made in submissions for the removal of the
Māori place names in the names of the General constituencies and amends
the Final Proposal to reflect that.
Or
4. rejects the arguments made in submissions for the removal of the
Māori place names in the names of the General constituencies and confirms
the General Constituencies’ names as detailed in the Initial Proposal.
And either
5. accepts the arguments made in submissions for the retention of the
Wairoa Constituency as previously established and amends the Final Proposal to
reflect that.
Or
6. rejects the arguments made in submissions for the retention of the
Wairoa Constituency as previously established and confirms the Wairoa-Mohaka
Constituency as detailed in the Initial Proposal.
And either
7. accepts the suggestion made by submission for the number of
councillors elected by the Ahuriri-Napier Constituency to increase to 4 and the
total number of councillors to increase to 12, and amends the Final Proposal to
reflect that
or
8. accepts the arguments made in submissions for the retention of the
total of 9 councillors and amends the Final Proposal to reflect that.
Or
9. rejects the arguments made in submissions for the retention of the
total of 9 councillors and confirms the total number of councillors will be 11
as detailed in the Initial Proposal. And
10. rejects
the suggestion made by submission for the number of councillors elected by the
Ahuriri-Napier Constituency to increase to 4 and confirms the total number of
councillors will be 11 as detailed in the Initial Proposal.
AND
11. In accordance with
sections 19H and 19J of the Local Electoral Act 2001, adopts the following as
its final proposal for public notification and submissions to the Local
Government Commission.
12. In accordance with
sections 19H and 19J of the Local Electoral Act 2001, adopts the following as
its final proposal for representation arrangements for the 2022 and 2025 local
elections.
13. Hawke’s
Bay Regional Council comprising eleven councillors elected as
follows:
13.1. One (1)
member elected by the Māui ki te Raki Constituency
13.2. One (1)
member elected by the Māui ki te Tonga Constituency
13.3. One (1)
member elected by the Tamatea-Central Hawke’s Bay Constituency
13.4. Three
(3) members elected by the Heretaunga-Hastings Constituency
13.5. Three
(3) members elected by the Ahuriri-Napier Constituency
13.6. One (1)
member elected by the Ngaruroro Constituency
Either
13.7. One (1)
member elected by the Mohaka-Wairoa Constituency
Or
13.8. One (1)
member elected by the Wairoa Constituency.
14. Two
Māori constituencies, as shown on the attached
“Māori Constituencies” map, the
proposed names and boundaries of each being:
14.1. Māui
ki te Raki - the
constituency boundary being that area which encompasses the Wairoa District
Council and Napier City Council areas, parts of the Hastings District Council
area north of the Ngaruroro River, as well as meshblocks within the Regional
boundary belonging to Taupō District council.
14.2. Māui
ki te Tonga - the
constituency boundary being that area which encompasses the Central
Hawke’s Bay District Council area, parts of the Hastings District Council
area south of the Ngaruroro River, as well as meshblocks within the Regional
boundary belonging to Rangitikei District Council.
Table 1: Proposed Māori
Constituencies’ Populations
|
Constituency
|
Māorl Electoral Population
|
Reps
|
Population per Rep
|
Difference from Average
|
% Difference from Average
|
|
Māui ki
te Raki
|
12,519
|
1
|
12,519
|
-1,494
|
-10.66%
|
|
Māui ki
te Tonga
|
15,507
|
1
|
15,507
|
1,494
|
10.66%
|
|
Totals
|
28,026
|
2
|
Av = 14,013
|
|
|
15. Notes
that the proposal for the Māori Constituencies 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, and
applies to the Local Government Commission, clearly identifying the grounds for
the proposed non-compliance as being:
15.1. the
boundary between the two constituencies is formed by the Ngaruroro River as
requested by tangata whenua due to its cultural relevance and being how iwi and
hapū traditionally set boundaries
15.2. the
+/-10% threshold exceedance is less than 1%.
16. Five
General constituencies, the proposed names and
boundaries of each of the five to be:
16.1. Tamatea-Central Hawke’s Bay; the constituency
boundary being the same as that for the Central Hawke’s Bay District
Council area.
16.2. Heretaunga-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.
16.3. Ahuriri-Napier; the constituency boundary being the same as
that for the Napier City Council area.
16.4. Ngaruroro;
the constituency boundary being that area which
encompasses the Kahuranaki ward and parts of Heretaunga and Mohaka wards within
the Hastings District Council area as well as meshblocks within the Regional
boundary belonging to Rangitikei District Council.
Either
16.5. Mohaka-Wairoa;
the constituency boundary being the same as that for
the Wairoa District Council area as well as meshblocks within the Regional
boundary belonging to Taupō District Council and meshblocks in the
Hastings District Council areas of Tūtira, Puketitiri and Esk Valley in
the Mohaka ward
Table 2:
Proposed General Constituencies’ Populations
|
Constituency
|
General Electoral Population
|
Reps
|
Population per Rep
|
Difference from Average
|
% Difference from Average
|
|
Tamatea-Central
Hawke’s Bay
|
11,955
|
1
|
11,955
|
-3,243
|
-21.34%
|
|
Ahuriri -
Napier
|
53,940
|
3
|
17,980
|
2,782
|
18.3%
|
|
Mohaka-
Wairoa
|
5,691
|
1
|
5,691
|
-9,507
|
-62.55%
|
|
Heretaunga-Hastings
|
47,928
|
3
|
15,976
|
778
|
5.12%
|
|
Ngaruroro
|
17,271
|
1
|
17,271
|
2,073
|
13.64%
|
|
Total
|
136,785
|
9
|
Av: 15,198
|
|
|
Or
16.6. Wairoa; the
constituency boundary being the same as that for the
Wairoa District Council area.
Table 3: General Constituencies’
Populations with retained Wairoa Constituency
|
Constituency
|
General Electoral Population
|
Reps
|
Population per Rep
|
Difference from Average
|
% Difference from Average
|
|
Tamatea-Central
Hawke’s Bay
|
11,955
|
1
|
11,955
|
-3,243
|
-21.34%
|
|
Ahuriri -
Napier
|
53,940
|
3
|
17,980
|
-2,782
|
-18.3%
|
|
Wairoa
|
4,320
|
1
|
4,320
|
-10.878
|
-71.58%
|
|
Heretaunga-Hastings
|
47,928
|
3
|
15,976
|
-778
|
-5.12%
|
|
Ngaruroro
|
18,618
|
1
|
18,618
|
3,420
|
22.5%
|
|
Total
|
136,785
|
9
|
Av: 15,198
|
|
|
AND
17. Notes
that the proposal for General Constituencies 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, and applies to
the Local Government Commission, clearly identifying the grounds for the
proposed non-compliance being:
17.1. Tamatea-Central
Hawke’s Bay: The constituency boundary coincides with the Central
Hawke’s Bay District Council territorial authority boundary as being
representative of an area that electors closely identify with. Moreover, the
Council considers that extending the boundary to achieve the population
increase needed to comply with s.19V(2) would limit effective representation by
requiring the grouping together of communities of interest with few
commonalities across an extensive area.
17.2. Ahuriri-Napier:
The constituency boundary coincides with the Napier City Council
territorial authority boundary as being representative of an area that electors
closely identify with, which in turn encourages participation in local
government. Moreover, changing the boundary would require
grouping together communities of interest with few commonalities.
17.3. Wairoa:
The Council considers that further extending the boundary to achieve the
population increase needed to comply with s.19V(2) would limit effective
representation for several communities of interest isolated from each other
across geographically challenging landscapes and require the grouping together
of communities of interest with few commonalities across an extensive area.
17.4. Ngaruroro:
The Council considers that changing the boundary to achieve the
population decrease needed to comply with s.19V(2) would limit effective representation
as it would require further splitting this mostly rural community of interest,
which shares the Hastings District Council’s rural community board area
that electors closely identify with.
18. That as
required by section 19N of the Local Electoral Act 2001, public notice of the
proposals contained in this resolution be given.
Authored by:
|
Leeanne
Hooper
Team Leader Governance
|
|
Approved by:
|
Desiree Cull
Strategy & Governance Manager
|
James Palmer
Chief Executive
|
Attachment/s
|
1⇩
|
National
Context for Representation Review
|
|
|
|
2⇩
|
Hawke's Bay
Maori Constituencies Map
|
|
|
|
3⇩
|
Initial
Proposed General Constituencies Map
|
|
|
