Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday 20 February 2019

Time: 10.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Subject Page

1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 12 December 2018

4. Follow-ups from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings 3

5. Call for Minor Items of Business Not on the Agenda 7

Decision Items

6. Potential Tukituki Plan Change 9

Information or Performance Monitoring

7. Regional Three Waters Review 87

8. Tangata Whenua Remuneration Review Process Update 93

9. Resource Management Policy Projects Update 95

10. Statutory Advocacy Update 101

11. Discussion of Minor Items of Business Not on the Agenda 107

1pm Workshop – Members only.

Parking

There will be named parking spaces for Tangata Whenua Members in the HBRC car park – entry off Vautier Street.

Regional Planning Committee Members

Name	Represents
Karauna Brown	Te Kopere o te Iwi Hineuru
Tania Hopmans	Maungaharuru-Tangitu Incorporated
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
Jenny Nelson-Smith	Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust
Joinella Maihi-Carroll	Mana Ahuriri Trust
Apiata Tapine	Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa
Matiu Heperi Northcroft	Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum
Peter Paku	Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust
Toro Waaka	Ngati Pahauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts
Paul Bailey	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rick Barker	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Peter Beaven	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Tom Belford	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Alan Dick	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rex Graham	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Debbie Hewitt	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Neil Kirton	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Fenton Wilson	Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Total number of members = 18

Quorum and Voting Entitlements Under the Current Terms of Reference

Quorum (clause (i))

The Quorum for the Regional Planning Committee is 75% of the members of the Committee

At the present time, the quorum is 14 members (physically present in the room).

Voting Entitlement (clause (j))

Best endeavours will be made to achieve decisions on a consensus basis, or failing consensus, the agreement of 80% of the Committee members present and voting will be required. Where voting is required all members of the Committee have full speaking rights and voting entitlements.

Number of Committee members present Number required for 80% support

18 14

17 14

16 13

15 12

14 11

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 20 February 2019

Subject: Potential Tukituki Plan Change

Reason for Report

1. This report provides an assessment of the merits of proceeding with a plan change to ease the transition to the Plan Change 6 minimum flow regime for the Tukituki Catchment community, following a scoping process that sought preliminary stakeholder feedback.

2. A decision is now required on whether or not to initiate a proposed plan change to defer the application of the 2018 minimum flow regime for the Tukituki Catchment.

Executive Summary

3. Preliminary feedback has shown that the community has mixed views on the merits of making a plan change. Substantial issues have been identified that require resolution for any plan change to achieve the above objective.

4. It is unlikely that a plan change process can be undertaken quickly, and consequently staff recommend that no plan change is initiated.

5. However, if the Committee remains committed to undertaking a plan change, a preliminary options assessment is provided. Staff could also be requested to engage with all parties to find an agreeable path to enable a plan change, but this will take more time.

Background

6. In December 2018, in response to a request by the Tukituki Water Taskforce to defer application of the 2018 minimum flow regime subject to the public notification of Tranche 2 groundwater consent applications, and notwithstanding the concerns raised by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the Committee resolved ‘to scope and initiate a preliminary Tukituki plan change process’.

7. The primary objective of making such a plan change is to defer the 2018 changes to the minimum flow regime for the Tukituki Catchment. The Tukituki Water Taskforce consider that this will provide for community wellbeing and enable the Tukituki Catchment community to focus on achieving the best possible long term solutions for summer water security in the catchment.

8. Plan Change 6 (PC6) for the Tukituki Catchment became operative on 1 October 2015. PC6 amended minimum flow and allocation provisions in the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP), providing for the following progressive changes to the minimum flow regime.

8.1. Higher minimum flows for a number of rivers within the catchment to apply from 1 July 2018

8.2. A 2-stage increase in the minimum flow for the Tukituki River at Red Bridge, the first applying from 1 July 2018 and a higher flow applying from 1 July 2023

8.3. The final catchment minimum flow regime applying from 1 July 2023.

9. All relevant water permits in the Tukituki catchment include conditions that reflect these minimum flow requirements.

10. Late last year, a possible change to the RRMP was drafted as a starting point for seeking preliminary feedback. Table 5.9.3, in Chapter 5 of the RRMP could be changed so that references to when the minimum flows apply are deferred for a further two irrigation seasons, to 1 July 2021. This possible change is shown in Attachment 1: Possible proposal for deferral of Tukituki minimum flow regime.

11. Given the proposed plan change’s primary objective, a swift and efficient plan change process is essential. An elongated process or a process with significant opposition risks not changing the RRMP within sufficient time to have any benefit. To that end, it is fundamental to proceed on any such process with the support of all parties, or with only minimal opposition.

12. There has been some consternation about the proposed deferral period being two summers beyond the current 2018-19 summer. Staff determined that it would be practically impossible to make the plan change operative for the 2019-20 irrigation season alone as it would only provide relief for about half an irrigation season even if the plan change had no significant opposition. Accordingly, staff sought community feedback on the basis of a two year deferral from now (to 1 July 2021) so that the benefits could be reasonably balanced against the costs of undertaking a plan change. This issue is picked up again in the Discussion section that follows.

13. In order to ascertain support or opposition for the proposed change, a letter/email was sent to approximately 500 people and organisations in mid-January 2019, with a request for feedback by 1 February 2019 (refer to Attachment 2). Those contacted were:

13.1. Parties who participated in the 2013 Board of Inquiry proceedings for the Tukituki Catchment Proposal

13.2. Iwi authorities on behalf of tāngata whenua who may have an interest in the Tukituki catchment

13.3. All holders of water permits to take and use water in the Tukituki catchment, whether from ground or surface water bodies.

Preliminary Response

14. By Tuesday 12 February 2019, a total of 55 people and organisations had responded via letter, email or telephone call. Of those responses, 21 generally supported the proposal to defer, 29 generally opposed the proposal and 5 took a neutral position, neither in support nor opposition. Their responses are summarised in Table 1 following.

15. Note that responses from tāngata whenua representatives on this committee and taiwhenua leaders are discussed later in this report under Considerations of tāngata whenua (paragraph 34), and have not been included in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of responses

Position	Number of responses	Response by organisation or agency
Support deferral	18	Hawke’s Bay Vegetable Growers Association Environment Defence Society Central Hawke’s Bay District Council
Support deferral by 1 year (1 July 2019)	1
Support deferral by 2 years (1 July 2020)	1	Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers Association
Support with additional method	1	Hawke’s Bay Fish & Game Council
Neutral / neither in support nor opposition	2	Hastings District Council
Neutral, more information required	3	Department of Conservation
Oppose deferral	22	Te Taiao Environment Forum Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc.
Oppose deferral, or Taskforce to sign contract	1
Oppose deferral, additional method necessary	6	Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society: · Central Hawke’s Bay Branch · National Office
TOTAL RESPONSES	55

16. In support of the possible plan change, further comments provided by respondents addressed the following themes.

16.1. Benefits for the wider Central Hawke’s Bay community

16.2. Information on the nature of water resources available within the catchment is continuing to change

16.3. The need for more time to consider and implement appropriate individual or communal water management solutions

16.4. The need for an additional method setting out the implementation programme to meet the 2021 timeframe

16.5. The 2023 Tukituki minimum flow requirement remains unchallenged.

17. In opposition to the possible plan change, further comments provided by respondents addressed the following themes.

17.1. The need to treasure and protect the river and water resources, and avoid continuing degradation

17.2. The need for more information to justify any transition

17.3. There has been sufficient time to transition from 2013

17.4. The need to comply with the Board of Inquiry’s decision and give effect to the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management

17.5. The need to consider longer term and wider community benefits, including the impact on the people in Tikokino and Ongaonga

17.6. The cost and precedent set of changing the plan

17.7. Dissatisfaction about process including the scope and decisions of the Tukituki Taskforce.

18. Respondents’ other feedback that does not directly relate to the deferral proposal included requests for further commitments from the Council to enable the transition, and comments on resource consenting matters and communication modes.

19. Staff note the continued dissatisfaction of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society (locally and nationally) with the processes that have led to this plan change proposal.

20. A copy of all written responses is attached.

Discussion

21. Based on preliminary responses, there is serious doubt about whether the primary objective for initiating the plan change is achievable.

22. While a number of key stakeholders have indicated general or qualified support for deferral of the 2018 minimum flow regime (e.g. Hawke’s Bay Fish and Game Council, Environmental Defence Society, Hawke’s Bay Vegetable Growers Association, Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers Association), the position of other key stakeholders cannot be ignored (e.g. Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc, Te Taiao Environment Forum), nor can the requests to adhere to the Board of Inquiry decision be dismissed lightly.

23. While some hold the view that the Board of Inquiry decision should simply be left alone, others have indicated that a number of significant issues would need to be resolved prior to their supporting a plan change. These include requests to:

23.1. Include methods setting out an implementation programme describing in some detail how the transition to 2021 will be achieved and to obtain information about groundwater connectivity

23.2. Detail how the life-supporting capacity of freshwater will be safeguarded, and how adverse effects would be avoided, remedied or mitigated (over the deferral period)

23.3. Ascertain how biodiversity will be protected, how minimum flows will be complied with, and how water takes can be equitably shared between surface and groundwater users

23.4. Make public notification of Tranche 2 groundwater consent applications a condition of support for a proposed plan change to defer the 2018 minimum flow regime.

24. While these are all related resource management matters, such requests would extend the scope of the plan change considerably and require more work upfront to prepare any change for notification. Regarding Tranche 2 applications, resource consent notification decisions are a separate matter for plan implementation, not plan making.

25. Now that staff have had the opportunity to consider the response to the initial community consultation, in particular the position of those opposed, the prospects and merits of initiating a plan change for a deferral through to the 2020-21 irrigation season can be balanced against the likelihood of meeting the objectives of the proposed plan change.

Conclusions

26. Staff consider that notwithstanding the challenges of implementation, if the primary objective is to give time to focus on transitioning and implementing water management solutions by deferring the changes to the minimum flow regime, then:

26.1. A two year deferral is highly unlikely to achieve that objective, and

26.2. A one year deferral (2019-20 season only) will not achieve that objective.

27. Accordingly, staff do not recommend proceeding with the plan change as it is unlikely to achieve the primary objective, given the nature of opposition to the proposal.

28. If the Committee, based on other considerations, determines that it remains committed to undertaking a plan change, then a preliminary assessment of plan change options is attached (Attachment 4). The Committee should also identify the appropriate RMA plan-making process. The Ministry for the Environment provides a comparison summary of the planning tracks available (Attachment 5). Regardless of which track is chosen, more preparation is required in advance of presenting a proposal to either the Minister for the Environment (using the streamlined process) or prior to notification (using the standard process) if risks leading to a prolonged process are to be minimised.

29. Alternatively, prior to committing to progressing the proposed plan change, the Committee could direct staff to further engage with all parties to find an agreeable path to enable a plan change. However this additional step will in turn incur further delay and thereby jeopardise the objective of the exercise.

Strategic Fit

30. The proposal to make a plan change has arisen from the Committee’s consideration of a request by the Tukituki Water Taskforce. This proposal recognises that the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, as set out in section 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991, includes with respect to enabling people and communities to provide for their social and economic wellbeing alongside other specified matters.

31. The proposal relates to the Council’s first priority: ‘water quality, safety and certainty’, and contributes to the second and third priorities: ‘smart sustainable land use’ and ‘healthy and functioning biodiversity’.

32. The process for progressing the possible plan change is in accordance with the values ‘Partnership and Collaboration’, ‘Accountability’ and ‘Transparency’.

Considerations of tāngata whenua

33. Eleven iwi authorities and five marae considered to have an interest in the Tukituki catchment area were contacted as part of the preliminary consultation exercise in January 2019. A written response was received from Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc, who was in opposition.

34. Two Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea members sit on the Tukituki Taskforce and their continued support for the plan change can be inferred from Taskforce’s original letter to the Committee (contrasting that with the position of Forest and Bird at both a local and National level). Members of this Committee provided feedback in support of the proposed deferral: Toro Waaka and Jenny Nelson-Smith expressed their support to defer the commencement of the minimum flow regime by two years, as did Mike Mohi (Chair of Māori Committee).

35. Should the Council decide to further progress a plan change, statutory considerations and requirements must be completed (for example, consideration of relevant iwi planning documents, pre-notification consultation with tāngata whenua via iwi authorities, etc).

Financial and Resource Implications

36. There is no specific budget allocated in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan to develop and notify a plan change to revise the minimum flow regime for the Tukituki catchment. Either an additional source of funding would be required, or reprioritisation of the existing policy development work programme and supporting work programmes for other groups within the Council.

37. The earlier staff report to the RPC’s December 2018 meeting had indicated that a plan change to defer application of the 1 July 2018 regime could cost around $100,000 to $150,000, exclusive of staff time or any Court proceedings. For the streamlined plan path, upfront costs will be higher to satisfy the Minister for the Environment that the process proposed is sound, thereby minimising the risk of High Court judicial review of his decision.

38. The Science work programme (overseen by the Environment and Services Committee) over the next few years will not provide additional timely information to inform this possible plan change. Rather, the science work programme involves looking at more sustainable longer term options for taking groundwater over the Ruataniwha Plains, as part of a wider programme of work for regional water security. Scheduled projects are for:

38.1. New bores for Ongaonga and Tikokino to be installed summer 2018-19, to provide real time groundwater levels

38.2. By the end of 2019, an upgrade of the groundwater model and roll-out for collaborative solutions

38.3. A prefeasibility study for Managed Aquifer Recharge in April 2019, possibly followed by a staged development model to 2022

38.4. A SkyTEM airborne aquifer survey and modelling, assessing groundwater resources (2019-2022).

Decision Making Process

39. Council and its Regional Planning Committee 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:

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

39.2. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in management of the natural and physical resources for the Tukituki catchment.

39.3. Any decision to pursue a plan change would need to be within the overall budget for the 2018-28 Long Term Plan, however existing priorities and work programmes would be impacted.

Recommendations

That the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee:

1. Receives and notes the “Potential Tukituki plan change” staff report.

2. Recommends that Council:

2.1. Agrees that the decision to be made is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that the Committee can exercise its discretion and make this decision without conferring directly with the community in addition to the feedback already provided by stakeholders.

AND EITHER

2.2. Agrees to not progress a proposed plan change to defer the 2018 minimum flow regime until 1 July 2021

2.3. Agrees to progress a proposed plan change to defer the 2018 minimum flow regime by a further two years to 1 July 2021 using the standard or streamlined path (select one option) for plan making.

Authored by:

Dale Meredith

Senior Policy Planner

Approved by:

Gavin Ide

Manager Policy and Planning

Tom Skerman

Group Manager Strategic Planning

Attachment/s

⇩1	Possible proposal for deferral of Tukituki minimum flow regime
⇩2	Letter to various parties on Tukituki Minimum Flow Regime
⇩3	Written responses to Tukituki Jan 2019 proposal contact details redacted
⇩4	Preliminary assessment of plan change options
⇩5	Planning tracks summary comparison

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 20 February 2019

Subject: Regional Three Waters Review

Reason for Report

1. This item informs the Regional Planning Committee on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s work with the region’s four territorial authorities to develop a regional business case assessing options to improve the management of drinking water, stormwater and wastewater (Three Waters) in the region and, in doing so, address Central Government concerns associated with these activities.

2. This review will develop recommendations for performance improvements to our Regional Three Waters systems with a view to guiding Central Government’s Three Waters strategy.

3. It should be noted that this review is specifically looking at the service delivery functions of Three Waters and does not seek to review the resource management or regulatory frameworks.

Background Summary

4. The Government is investigating options to improve the management of drinking water, stormwater and wastewater (three waters) to better support New Zealand’s prosperity, health, safety and environment. Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta has announced a reform programme to transform drinking, storm and wastewater. It is focused on the challenges facing the sector, including funding pressures, rising environmental standards, climate change, seasonal pressure from tourism, and the recommendations of the Havelock North Inquiry. The review is in its second stage.

4.1. Stage One – This stage explored the issues and opportunities with three waters services by gathering and analysing information. This was completed at the end of 2017.

4.2. Stage Two – This stage commenced in March 2018. It is looking at options for improving the three waters system, including the management, service delivery, funding, and regulatory arrangements.

5. Central government has advised that they will work closely with councils, Iwi and all stakeholders with an interest in three waters services in order to develop options and recommendations.

6. There is an opportunity to provide the Hawke’s Bay’s perspective into the Central Government review on developing options to address the key concerns on how we can improve the management of drinking water, storm water and wastewater (Three Waters) to better support our community’s prosperity, health, safety and environment.

7. The Minister has advised she is supportive of our region’s proposal to complete this review and how it may be adopted as part of the wider government review.

8. The purpose of the Hawke’s Bay review is to have developed recommendations for regional performance improvements to our Three Waters systems to help guide Central Government’s thinking to deliver:

8.1. Safe, NZDWS compliant and reliable drinking water

8.2. Better environmental performance for our water services

8.3. Efficient, sustainable, resilient, and accountable water services

8.4. Achieving these aims in ways that are efficient and effective for our communities.

9. This review will need to address the following challenges for our water systems and communities:

9.1. Meeting community expectations for each of the Three Waters across quality, treatment and management

9.2. Meeting regulatory requirements for the Three Waters for quality, treatment and management

9.3. The ability to replace infrastructure as it ages, and or fund and manage new infrastructure to meet changing customer and regulatory requirements.

9.4. Declining rating bases in some areas, high growth in others

9.5. High seasonal demand in small tourism centres

9.6. Adapting for climate change and adverse natural events.

10. The review will identify and develops options for structure and governance models that:

10.1. Develops and confirms ‘Key Principles’ of approach that are shared and agreed by the respective council’s

10.2. Identifies service and delivery model opportunities through joint provision of all or some elements of the Three Waters services. In identifying a range of models these shall be compared to the status quo including clustering of sub-regional entities. The models must be flexible enough to future proof for the inclusion of private water suppliers.

10.3. Develops strategic capacity and resilience across the water network

10.4. Provides excellence in strategic and management capability to ensure safe, secure efficient drinking water, waste water and storm water service outcomes to our communities.

10.5. Provide economic value and be able to demonstrate how well and why the identified models meet each of the objectives including benefits analysis, cost of service delivery, funding requirements, how fees and charges are levied and where the costs are distributed, and processes.

10.6. Provides capital efficiency current and future Three Waters assets

10.7. Delivers operational and maintenance excellence through the most effective service delivery model

10.8. Improves customer service

10.9. Provides greater environmental, community and cultural focus

10.10. Recommend the next steps to enable the entire objectives to be met including a programme and cost/resource estimates to do this – this should also include transition plans/costs and timetables for such a transition.

11. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s service delivery functions of drainage and flood protection are not in the scope of this review, however, the involvement of HBRC will keep us informed on possible direction of Three Waters delivery in Hawke’s Bay. This is important in managing the interface between territorial authority and Regional Council drainage and stormwater schemes. It is also valuable for the Regional Council to be involved given our interests as regulator of Three Waters and the natural resources this infrastructure interacts with.

12. In order to undertake the review it will be necessary to engage the services of an external agency to support its delivery. We will be seeking a fixed cost engagement via our procurement process. It is proposed that costs will be attributed on the following basis:

12.1. NCC 35%

12.2. HDC 35%

12.3. HBRC 15%

12.4. WDC 7.5%

12.5. CHBC 7.5%.

Risk

13. Undertaking the review is considered the lowest strategic risk option. This option would contribute the Hawkes Bay regional perspective into the Central Government review on how we can improve the management of drinking water, stormwater and wastewater (Three Waters).

Approved Option

14. On the 19 December 2018 Council approved Option 1 which is repeated below. Option 2 (do not participate in the project) has been removed from this paper as it was not selected.

Option 1 – Council confirms its support for the project

15. Financial and Resourcing Implications

15.1. Additional funding will not be required to complete the review.

15.2. The review will be outsourced to an external consultancy to deliver the report, however the will be a moderate resourcing impact on council staff to provide information to complete the analysis and participate in workshops throughout the review process. The successful bid for the project was from Morrison Lowe supported by WSP Opus.

16. Risk Analysis

16.1. This option is considered the lowest strategic risk option. This option would contribute the Hawke’s Bay regional perspective into the Central Government review on how we can improve the management of drinking water, storm water and wastewater (Three Waters).

17. Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes

17.1. This review demonstrates our commitment to making sustainable investment in durable infrastructure that promotes smart growth and ensures we are environmentally responsible.

18. Statutory Responsibilities

18.1. The review will contribute towards meeting our statutory responsibilities through better territorial authority asset management and performance, and ultimately compliance.

19. Consistency with Policies and Plans

19.1. The project is not part of the latest LTP, and the budget available is from the existing budget provision.

20. Community Views and Preferences

20.1. This option has been identified as requiring specific engagement Māori. Any significant changes to activity arising from the review will involve future public engagement and consultation.

21. Advantages and Disadvantages

21.1. The advantages of this option are:

21.1.1. provision of the Hawke’s Bay’s regional perspective into the Central Government review to shape their thinking

21.1.2. working together as a region to develop the best regional model to deliver a strategic and sustainable approach to Three Waters.

21.2. There are no perceived disadvantages of this option relative to option 2.

Iwi Engagement

22. Māori advisory representatives contributed to the creation of criteria to assess experience in cultural competency as part of the procurement process for the engagement of a consultant to undertake the review.

23. Iwi Engagement will be guided and led by Troy Brockbank of WSP Opus. Troy is currently a tech advisor for Te Rarawa Iwi, deputy chairman of the Water NZ Stormwater committee and member of Ngā Aho, the Māori design panel.

24. Māori Committee Chairs and Council Senior Māori advisors were invited to a workshop of 21 January 2018 to contribute to the Key Objectives and Principles of the study.

25. Further engagement with through a workshop with RPC and Maori Committee is being scheduled for March 7^th to identify key objectives principles and values for the review:

25.1. What is important regionally to Iwi & Māori?

25.2. What are the problems or opportunities we are trying to address?

25.3. What are the key issues for Iwi & Māori?

25.4. What benefits are we seeking to gain for the region?

25.5. What are the risks and issues for the region?

25.6. What are the key issues for Iwi & Māori?

25.7. What are the key values/criteria to assess any options against?

Schedule

26. The project will be delivered in a structured series of phases to allow us to deliver our Hawkes Bay regional contribution to the Central Government led review of Three Waters by June 2019.

Phase 1 – Project initiation	December 2018 – January 2019
Phase 2 – Stocktake of current situation	January – February 2019
Phase 3 – High level review of options	January – March 2019
Phase 4 – Analysis of shortlist	March – April 2019
Phase 5 – Challenge workshop	April 2019
Phase 6 – Final report	May 2019

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendations

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Regional Three Waters Review” staff report.

Authored and Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 20 February 2019

Subject: Tangata Whenua Remuneration Review Process Update

Reason for Report

1. This item provides an update on the process to review tangata whenua representatives’ remuneration.

Background

2. Tangata whenua representatives’ remuneration was previously reviewed in 2017-18, with effect 1 July 2018.

3. Staff proposed, at the 12 December 2018 RPC meeting, that a further review of remuneration be undertaken, given the level of discontent with the previous review and its results, as well as to meet the requirements of the Terms of Reference for the Committee. That 12 December RPC meeting resolved:

3.1. instructs the Chief Executive to work collaboratively with the Regional Planning Committee Co-chairs to commission an independent review of the remuneration of RPC tāngata whenua members in accordance with the Regional Planning Committee Terms of Reference, as adopted by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 26 February 2014, for agreement by the Committee prior to any appointment(s) being made.

4. Clause 13.2 in the 2014 Terms of Reference for the Regional Planning Committee states:

4.1. The Tāngata Whenua Representatives and the Tāngata Whenua Co-Chair shall be remunerated for their services by the Council. The level of remuneration shall be determined promptly following each triennial election of Councillors by two independent persons (Appointees), one of which is appointed by the Council Co-Chair, and the other by the Tāngata Whenua Co-Chair. The Appointees must have regard to:

4.1.1. the need to minimise the potential for certain types of remuneration to distort the behaviour of the Tāngata Whenua Representatives and the Tāngata Whenua Co-Chair in relation to their respective positions on the Committee;

4.1.2. the need to achieve and maintain fair relativity with the levels of remune-ration received by elected representatives in RMA policy development roles; and

4.1.3. the need to be fair both:

4.1.4. to the persons whose remuneration is being determined; and

4.1.5. to ratepayers; and

4.1.6. the need to attract and retain competent persons.

Update

5. Subsequent to the 12 December 2018 meeting, the Chief Executive has approached two independent providers seeking their proposals to undertake a review. Both parties have responded and the next step is to provide these proposals to the co-Chairs for their feedback. Once feedback has been received from the co-Chairs, a paper seeking the Committee’s agreement to appoint the preferred provider(s) will be presented to the Regional Planning Committee at the first available opportunity.

Decision Making Process

6. 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 Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Tangata Whenua Remuneration Review Process Update” staff report.

Authored by:

Joanne Lawrence

Group Manager Office of the Chief Executive and Chair

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Item	Topic	Raised by
1.
2.
3.

Item	Topic	Raised by
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.