Regional Governance

1. Regional Governance WCC Officer Presentation November 2012

2. Independent Wellington Local Government Review Panel A Two Tier Proposal

3. The Local Government Review Panel’s Recommended Structure

4. Greater Wellington Council – the Upper House Lord Mayor elected at large 10 Councillors - 4 in Central Wellington; 2 in Lower Hutt; 1 in Upper Hutt; 1 in Porirua; 1 in Kapiti; 1 in Wairarapa Four year-term, with a maximum of three terms CEO of Greater Wellington Council (GWC) provides overall administrative support for GWC and local councils Single rating system Rates freeze for three years with no increases beyond the level of inflation and those necessary to pay for already committed works in the LTP Responsible for: all functions not specifically identified as delegated to local councils funding and financial management budgetary control, asset and debt management and revenue raising

5. Local Area Councils – the Lower House Mayor elected by peers; 14 Central Wellington councillors; 12 in Lower Hutt; 10 in Upper Hutt; 10 in Porirua; 10 in Kapiti; 12 in Wairarapa. Same boundaries as currently in place Delegated budgetary authority Has a Local Area Plan setting out priorities and actions Manager and staff to provide administrative support and deliver local services Can choose to have Community Boards

6. Wellington’s Governance Priorities Democratic representation Efficiency of service delivery mechanisms Efficiency of decision-making Effectiveness of decision making and service delivery Mechanisms that enable Wellington to reach its potential Wellington has an opportunity to build on the experience of Auckland, and there is an alternative

7. Power distribution One tier offers residents - one way in, decisions made at one table Two tiers requires residents to engage with local boards and/or councillors on some issues – two ways in, two decision-makers. Upper House makes final decisions

8. Direct engagement One tier allows residents to engage with decision-makers who have both a local and regional perspective Two tiers requires residents to engage on some issues with local board members and councillors who may have differing perspectives

9. Accountability One tier offers residents an ability to engage directly with a decision-maker with power to influence outcomes but who is also directly accountable to them Two tiers requires councillors to make decisions with a regional focus but often relying on local boards for the local perspective

10. Areas of agreement with the Panel We agree that there are a range of matters that are best dealt with on a region-wide basis. These include: Transport Three Waters and Solid Waste Economic Development Planning Financial Governance and Management Leadership We also agree that it should be left to any new entity to decide whether or not to establish separate CCOs for these functions

11. Areas where we disagree But, the system the Panel recommends: spreads planning between two entities which will frustrate its drive for coordinated and cohesive planning across the region sets up a power imbalance between the Upper and Lower House that will come into sharp relief during the budget setting process requiring each LAC to negotiate their budgets with the GWC will be time consuming and it will be challenging for the two bodies to reach agreement the public will have to lobby both tiers creates conflict through having a second ‘local’ level of leadership The various ‘leaders’ will come into conflict when they hold different views on matters affecting them

12. Analysis of Panel’s Report The Panel assesses five options against the ‘characteristics of good governance’ and concludes that a two-tier governance model with an Upper and Lower House “is clearly superior to all other options” But the report does not clearly set out how it arrives at this conclusion The Panel rejects the single-tier model, because it “would involvean intolerable loss of local democracy; a fracturing of local sense of community; and the absence of a regional perspective for the entire region” but does not say why, and doesn’t appear to have included this model in its assessment and despite acknowledging some of the benefits of a single-tier model The Panel also rejects the Brisbane City Council type of solution because it “would not meet the requirements of the political culture in this region” although it does not explain the unique features of Wellington’s political culture and why the BCC model does not meet its requirements And does not discuss other examples of single tier governance which might meet the needs of the Wellington region The panel makes unequivocal statements But the analysis to support these findings is not always easy to find And the alignment with the government’s Better Local Government objectives for the sector - to deliver greater efficiencies and cost savings, productivity improvements and simplified planning systems in the most cost effective way for households and businesses - is not always clear

13. Conclusion The Panel recommends an ‘Upper’ and ‘Lower’ House which adds a layer of bureaucracy and confusion that: requires the arbitrary separation of local issues from strategic, network and regional issues when these things cannot be easily separated puts in place a range of administrative and financial mechanisms to allow the two bodies to do business with each other requires separate legislation to proceed appears to be out-of-step with the government’s objectives for the sector to deliver greater efficiencies and cost savings, productivity improvements and simplified planning systems

14. Conclusion Continued The Panel recommends a two-tier option and rejects the single-tier model of governance because it would lead to a loss of local democracy but does not explain its reasoning Our assessment of a Unitary Authority Single-tier Structure against the Panel’s ‘Characteristics of Good Governance leads us to believe that a single-tier model: is a simpler form of governance which is democratically responsive aligns with the Government’s objectives will allow the Wellington region to be better positioned to create an environment where local businesses and industry emerge and grow, and communities can flourish

15. Structure Single Tier and Two Tiers

16. Wellington Regional Governance Process WCC Cr Workshops Surveys Information Submissions CE Workshop 10/10 Wairarapa Working Party Local Government Review Panel Report 30/10 Other Councils working through processes CE Discussion Individual Council Workshops Regional Hui 21st Nov Mayoral Forum to discuss common ground Common View? Regional Submission to LGC Multiple submissions to LGC No Yes

17. One Tier or Two Tiers It’s said that: Two tiers keeps the “local” in Local Government and that the inevitable trade offs between one tier and two tiers is that: One tier offers efficiency of decision-making to the detriment of local democratic representation and engagement, and Two tiers can be more complex, confusing and costly but it means residents have a local aspect to engage with. Is this the case?

18. Starting propositions Former Local Government Minister Rodney Hide commented in 2009 that reform to Auckland’s local government structures was needed to achieve more effective governance for Auckland because intervention by Auckland councils and Government had gone as far as it could. He said there was a lack of vision, there was fragmentation, division and lost opportunity. (9 February 2009, Ministerial Presentation)

19. Auckland has two tiers The only example of post-reform local government structure in New Zealand currently is Auckland’s two tiered structure for 1.4m people: An Executive Mayor A three year electoral term A Unitary Authority for all of Auckland 21 Local Boards 20 Ward Councillors. Based on a principal of splitting functions between regional and local

20. In reality regional and local issues are interconnected Regional issues need to be informed by local views Local issues need to be considered within a regional framework Libraries can be thought of as a ‘local’ issue. However the placement of libraries depends on where other libraries are located, user behaviours, the quality & consistency of services, budgets, and the capability network – these are all regional level consideration. Transport policies can be thought of as a ‘regional’ issue from a network management perspective; but bus routes are local, roads are local. This regional issue needs to be informed by local views. 21

21. Two tiers - issues Two tiers can be complex, expensive and competitive: Local boards draw upon Auckland Council resources but derive no income Cannot act on local issues without Auckland Council appropriation and agreement. Tension between councillors on one hand and residents on the other. Highly resource intensive and potentially complex and confusing structure for residents.

22. Now, Wellington? Principles… Democratic representation Efficiency of service delivery mechanisms Efficiency of decision-making Effectiveness of decision-making and service delivery Mechanisms that enable Wellington to reach its potential.

23. Alternatives? There are apparent complexities and tensions between two tiers of local government. Auckland Council is currently undertaking a review of structures to address issues already emerging. Wellington has a chance to build on the experience of Auckland, but, there is an alternative.

24. One Tier – e.g. Gold Coast Gold Coast City Council has a single tier council for 500,000 people – similar to the population of the Wellington region with: An Executive Mayor elected at large 14 Ward Councillors “Independent” Councillors Directly resourced councillors A committee structure No local boards

25. One Tier – e.g. Brisbane Brisbane Council has a Unitary Authority. With about 1.1m people in the Council’s jurisdiction, this is what it looks like: An Executive Mayor elected at large 26 Ward Councillors A Civic Cabinet, Chaired by the Mayor, comprised of the Deputy Mayor and Committee Chairs A Council elected Council-Chairperson Directly resourced councillors (ward office, staff) No local boards.

26. Single tier Do ratios matter? Auckland c1:66,000 (+/- 10%) Brisbane c1:43,000 (+/- 10%) Gold Coast c1:38,000 (+/- 10%) Christchurch c1:28,000 (+/- 10%) Wellington c1:14,000 (+/- 10%) Porirua c1:4,000 (+/- 10%) MP c1:55,000 (+/-10%) A greater determinant of the quality of democratic representation is direct access to decision makers rather than arbitrary ratios.

27. Power distribution One tier offers residents - One way in, one way out, decisions made at one table. Two tiers requires residents to consider local boards and/or councillors – two ways in, two ways out, two decision-makers.

28. Democratic engagement One tier encourages residents to directly engage with decision-makers at both a local and regional level. Two tiers requires residents to engage with local board members as well as Councillors with potentially competing perspectives and priorities.

29. Direct accountability One tier offers residents an ability to engage directly with a decision-maker with power to influence outcomes but who is also directly accountable to them. Two tiers lets tier-one Councillors to make decisions with a regional perspective while being informed by / irrespective of local boards / local perspective.

30. Purpose of design then… The reform question for Auckland was about fixing something. The question for Wellington is about opportunity. To create a structure that maximises Wellington’s future success through leadership, vision and unity.

31. Achieving the purpose An approach to the structure of local government in Wellington that is: Democratic and unified Effective and efficient Agile and responsive Transparent and accountable Visible and accessible. An approach that is simpler, smarter and even more democratically responsive.

32. Key structural proposals 1 Council Wellington Council 1 Mayor Up to 29 Councillors Metropolitan Wellington (app. 450,000 popn.) C1:15-16,000 (currently c1:14,000)

33. One Council One Tier Council providing for efficiency of decision-making with a regional view from a local context. Focus is not on a complex functional split but on responsibility with increased direct accountability. High quality local democracy is about access to decision-makers who are directly accountable to residents. Unifying Wellington with one table of decision makers for all Wellington

34. Key structural proposals 2 Mayor Elected at large by the whole of Wellington The Voice of Wellington Empowered by the LGA02 Amendment Bill Appoints the Deputy Mayor Appoints Committee Chairs.

35. One Mayor “The need for effective leadership at the regional level is necessary particularly when dealing with strategic issues or where collaboration across city or district boundaries is required.” One Mayor for all of Wellington with a mandate to speak, act and advocate for the region.

36. Key structural proposals 3 Councillors Up to 29 Councillors Ward based (multi or single) c1:17,000 ratio (current in Wellington = c1:14,000) Free to work in collectives by area or by issue Supported by a visible community presence Supported by a staff resource. Decision makers who have more responsibility with matching accountability

37. Representation Projected Councillor: Resident ratios (29) Kapiti Coast (3 Wards) - 3 Councillors 1:16,597 (-7.65%) Porirua/Tawa (3 Wards) - 4 Councillors 1:16,887 (-9.53%) Northern/Onslow - 4 Councillors 1:15,500 (-0.54%) Lambton/Western - 4 Councillors 1:15,325 (+0.60%) Eastern/Southern - 4 Councillors 1:15,500 (-0.54%) Lower Hutt (3 Wards) - 7 Councillors 1:14,707 (+4.61%) Upper Hutt (3 Wards) - 3 Councillors 1:13,833 (+10.27%). Councillor: Resident ratio average 1:15,417

38. Possible wards Possible multi member ward boundaries under a single tier metro proposal. Note:These are estimated boundaries and are provided as an indication only.

39. Possible wards Possible single member ward boundaries under single tier metro proposal. Note:These are estimated boundaries and are provided as an indication only.

40. Key structural proposals 4 Committees formed on the basis of the decisions Wellington Council would make Chairs appointed by the Mayor, with Committees structured around: Planning decisions Finance and expenditure decisions Statutory and Regulatory decisions Managing assets, infrastructure and networks Environment, economic and social development decisions Council Administration and the Chief Executive.

41. Key structural proposals 5 Sub-Council bodies Established around priority areas of advice: Maori interests Pasifika interests Specialist business advice Community engagement and relationships (multiple) which would also provide for community boards where those are desired by residents consistent with future ward boundaries. Ad hoc: E.G. Major Events E.G. Major Issues.

42. Key structural proposals 6 One council organisation One Chief Executive Smart organisation development: Interactive Accessible Transparent Visible Responsive.

43. Key structural proposals 7 Council “Commissioners” Council Commissioner (Environment) Council Commissioner (Administrative Review) Council Commissioner (Maori). Council “Commissioners” would be semi-autonomous officers reporting to the Wellington Council with authority to consider appeals and make recommendations.

44. Key structural proposals - 8 Community boards Continue to be provided for Under multiple member ward approach, defined by the ward Under a single member ward approach, defined by criteria Functions continue: Advocate in the interests of their community to decision-makers Provide a collection point for views on broad community issues Provide advice and views to local decision makers to inform their decision-making Liaise with community organisations and special interest groups Undertake any agreed delegated responsibilities

45. Key structural proposals 9 Assets and resources Council Operated Business Units Council Committee Controlled Businesses Council Controlled Organisations. There is a role for a specialist business advisory group to assist a Committee and the Council. Regional assets are owned in trust by the Council, performance reviewed by Assets and Infrastructure committee.

46. Democratic engagement and service delivery Our approach is to focus on a simple governance approach supported by a smart customer service model. Strengthen local democracy and civic engagement Access and influence Directly accountable and accessible Design a customer service model that best fits the region and is appropriate for the 21st century Transparent and affordable High quality, value for money