|
Mr Mike Adye explained that the updated version of the Risks
includes revisions made after Council’s input at the March meeting, and
provided an overview of the amendments. The current risks were developed out
of the Strategic Plan and so it is envisaged that they will be re-structured
and revised through the upcoming Long Term Plan processes.
In relation to Risk Appetite, it was queried whether the
definitions in the individual risks are accurate. The purpose of the
inclusion of this section is for Council to provide a statement of how much
risk Council is willing to accept – or not – and its
understanding of what the risks are.
Suggested inclusion of Risk Profile and defining what an
acceptable level of risk is for each of the risks – reflected on the
Risk Register. Suggested that the heading ‘Risk Appetite’ be
changed to ‘acceptable level of risk’.
There was discussion on how the proposed Audit and Risk Committee
functions could best be served through the overall Committee review to be
undertaken shortly. There was a suggestion that a ‘smaller’ Audit
and Risk Committee could comprise the Chairs of the standing committees along
with an independent appointment with the appropriate skill set. It was
further suggested that a workshop be organised for Councillors, maybe
provided by Institute of Directors, about the role and functions of an Audit
& Risk Committee prior to finalising a Terms of Reference.
Discussion of the
risks covered:
·
Definition of the term ‘limited scope
plan change’.
·
Additional Risk Mitigation measures to be
captured, for example Taharua Stakeholder Group mitigating the risk of
declining water quality in the Taharua/Mohaka catchment. It was also
suggested the wording of the ‘risk appetite’ section be
‘strengthened’ in terms of economic development not
‘compromising’ water quality.
·
Suggested amendments to align Water Quantity
with RMA requirements and definitions. Clarify low flow periods and
environmental flows. Acknowledge increased pressure on fully allocated
catchments.
·
Self-assessment of effectiveness – check
that statements reflect whether or not the mitigation is effective, or not.
·
Development of a position paper setting out
regional council functions and whether or not that should be initiated before
resolution of the issue, i.e. amalgamation referendum.
·
Levels of risk associated with various
investments, and how that might be portrayed.
·
Clarify difference between risks to HBRIC Ltd
and to HBRC.
·
Include opportunity costs in investigations of
significant new investment projects.
·
More emphasis or recognition of Biosecurity
risks.
·
In relation to new technologies, Council needs
to be working with industry to be aware of industry best practice standards
and developments. Suggestion that more new technologies, like biochemical, be
raised.
·
Health and Safety risks and the possibility of
Council having a ‘zero harm’ policy like Napier Port.
· Rolling reviews of Council’s activities through an Audit Committee
suggested.
|
