Agenda of Policy and Regulatory Committee

19 11 July 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

03 July 2018

File: (18/1160)

Report no: PRC2018/3/17

Representation Review - Draft Proposal for Public Consultation

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Committee recommendation to Council on a Draft Representation Proposal for community consultation.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) for Council elections:

a) Status Quo; OR

b) Mixed – six ward councillors and six elected at large

(ii) for second tier representation:

a) Status quo: OR

b) Community Boards disestablished, 6 Ward Community Panels established and appointed by an independent appointment panel of three members appointed by Council; OR

c) Community Boards disestablished, 6 Ward Community Panels established and elected by ward;

(iii) agrees to the final Draft Representation Proposal attached as Appendix 1 to the report; OR

(iv) agrees to the final Draft Representation Proposal attached as Appendix 1 to the report, with amendments to reflect the Committee’s decision on recommendations (i) and (ii) ;

(v) directs officers to make any changes to the final Draft Representation Proposal attached recommended by the Committee; and

(vi) recommends to Council that it consult on the Draft Representation Proposal as agreed to and recommended by the Committee.

For the reason that Council is required to consult on a final Draft Representation Proposal no later than 8 September 2018.

Background

2. Section 19H of the Local Electoral Act (LEA) requires Council to review its representation arrangements, develop a proposal for public consultation that complies with the requirements of sections 19M and 19N of the LEA, and publicly notify that proposal no later than 8 September in the year before an election.

3. Workshops have been held with Council (on 27th March 2018) and Community Boards and Community Panels (9^th April 2018) to ensure their views can be considered when making their recommendations to Council on the draft proposal final the draft proposal for public consultation. Seven Community Board, ten Community Panel members and three Councillors attended the Representation Review workshop held on 9 April 2018.

4. Two surveys have been undertaken to gauge the community’s views – an on line Citizen's Panel survey from 31 May to 4 July 2018 and a telephone survey by Peter Glen Research during the same period - on a number of issues including:

a. remaining with the status quo for Councillor representation (wards), or a move to the election of Councillors ‘at large’, or a mix of ‘wards’ and ‘at large’; and

b. whether the City should continue with boards and Panels or make a change and if a change is made what that change should look like

5. The Citizen's Panel survey was publicised on line through Neighbourly and Hutt City Council’s Face Book page and web site. Supporting information was made available on Council’s website and libraries. The digital noticeboards in Council’s Administration Building, Walter Nash, Stokes Valley and Wainuiomata Community Hubs were used to publicise the survey and posters were put up in the libraries without digital noticeboards in the week beginning 18 June.

6. Of the respondents, 432 were self-selected, 158 were from the random sample and 67 responded on Facebook or Council’s web site.

7. Press releases were sent to all newspapers including Hutt News however unfortunately none of the papers chose to pick up this press release which meant that the surveys did not receive publicity via this medium. However, the Eastbourne Herald publicised the consultation its 26 May and 25 June editions and the Wainuiomata News 20 June. Both the Eastbourne and Petone Community Boards expressed dissatisfaction with the publicising of the survey and the supporting information.

Discussion

Citizen's Panel survey

8. The on line Citizen's Panel survey attached as Appendix 2 to the report, ran from 31 May to 4 July 2018. It received 657 completed responses. Of the respondents 49% male and 49% female with 57% of respondents being 59 years of age under. Below is a brief outline of the key results from the Citizen's Panel.

Council Elections

9. Forty five per cent of respondents want to keep ward representation and 44% want a mix of at large and ward. The support for at large only is small at 7%. As the age of respondents increase they are more likely to prefer ward only.

	Ward	Mixed	At large
Overall – all survey channels	45%	44%	7%
Facebook	48%	37%	9%
Random sample	52%	41%	3%
Self-selected	43%	46%	9%

10. Those who support a continuation of the status quo are mostly concerned about having adequate representation for their ward. Local representation and fairness come through as key drivers for people who supported the status quo.

11. Those people who support a change to mixed are focused on getting a balance between ward interests and city wide. Again fairness was a key driver as well as the ability to have a more diverse range of candidates because six of the councillors would be elected city wide.

Second tier representation

12. People are keen to retain a form of second tier representation with 50% preferring this option although over a third (38%) of respondents did not think it was necessary.

	Yes	No	Don’t know
Overall – all survey channels	50%	38%	12%
Facebook	65%	35%	5%
Random sample	42%	29%	20%
Self-selected	51%	38%	11%

13. Those supporting the status quo for second tier do so for much the same reason as those who support the status quo for Council – local representation. Respondents from the Harbour (62%) and Wainuiomata (66%) wards are more likely to prefer second tier representation than other wards by a considerable margin.

14. The position on Community Panels is mixed. Many of the comments focus on the non-elected status of Community Panels while others think that the Mayor and Councillors know what they are doing in terms of appointing the right people in the interests of the community. There is little support for Community Panels across the city from the Harbour (7%) and Wainuiomata (2%) Wards.

Type of second tier representation

	Face Book	Random	Self-selected
Status quo – a mix of Community Boards (in Petone, Eastbourne and Wainuiomata) and Community Panels (Northern, Eastern, Western and Central wards)	43%	51%	37%
Community Boards only across the city – elected representatives	45%	17%	32%
Community Panels only across the city – appointed representatives	10%	13%	14%
Don't know	3%	19%	16%

Peter Glen Research

15. Peter Glen Research also carried out a telephone survey among a stratified random sample of 400 Hutt City residents attached as Appendix 3 to the report. Sample quotas were set to ensure that the survey was broadly representative of Hutt City’s adult population (18+) by age, gender and ethnicity. Below is an outline of the key results from the telephone survey.

Council elections

16. The overall objective was to gather information from the public 18+ years of age that would add insight to the attitudes and opinions held by Hutt City residents regarding their views on community representation.

17. The majority of residents interviewed are in favour of continuing with the current system of electing two Councillors per ward (55%). The other option that has a considerable level of support is the mixed model at 29%. However, its level of support is only half that of the status quo. These results were consistent across the wards.

Status quo	Mixed	At large	Unsure
55%	29%	9%	7%

18. The results indicate a marginally higher preference for the ‘current system’ among women, and residents under 30 years of age and those over 50. Conversely, ‘mixed representation’ has slightly higher support among men and residents in the middle age band.

Second tier representation

19. Two-thirds (67%) of the Hutt City residents interviewed expressed the view that second-tier representation should continue with 17% saying it should go and 16% being unsure. The results indicate a reasonable degree of consistency across the wards, with the majority of residents in each ward stating they would like Hutt City to continue with second-tier representation. Results were also consistent by age and gender.

Second tier continue	No second tier	Unsure
67%	17%	16%

Type of second tier representation

20. The respondents were also asked which options they would prefer for second-tier representation. The key point from these results is that the majority of respondents would like to have the same type of second-tier representation in all areas (i.e. either all Community Boards or all Community Panels).

Status quo – mix of Community Boards and Community Panels	Community Boards across city	Community Panels across city	Unsure	None of these
20%	48%	21%	8%	3%

21. Currently, the majority opinion across the six wards is to have Community Boards across the city. The level of support for the option of Community Panels across the city is comparable with that of the status quo.

22. The status quo has marginally more support among women, and residents under 30 years of age and those over 50. Community Boards and Community Panels had slightly higher support among men and residents in the middle age band.

23. Cross-analyses were completed to test participant’s preferred option for Council representation by their response to the question regarding whether Hutt City should continue with second-tier representation. The results reveal that regardless of which of the three Councillor electoral systems is preferred, two-thirds of the Hutt City residents believe that second-tier representation should continue.

Options

24. The overriding principles to be considered when looking at representation are:

a. Fair and equal representation;

b. Equal opportunity to vote and to stand as a candidate; and

c. Public confidence in and understanding of the local electoral processes^{^[2]}

25. Local authorities must take these principles into account when making decisions the Local Electoral Act 2001. The options should be considered as a package – Council and second tier.

Option One

26. Option one is the status quo for both Council and second tier representation. That is:

a. Mayor elected at large.

b. Council elected by ward

c. Community Boards in Eastbourne, Wainuiomata and Petone – elected.

d. Community Panels in the Western, Eastern, Northern and Central wards – appointed.

Option Two

27. Option two consists of the following:

a. Mayor elected at large.

b. Council elected by ward.

c. Community Boards are disestablished.

d. Six Ward Community Panels are established with Ward Community Panel members being:

i. nominated by their community - they would have to have at least two community sponsors to be considered for appointment;

ii. appointed by an independent panel of three members appointed by Council

Option Three

28. Option three consists of the following:

a. Mayor elected at large.

b. Council elected by ward.

c. Community Boards are disestablished.

d. Six Ward Community Panels are established.

e. Ward Community Panel members are elected. Under section 8 of the Local Electoral Act (LEA), Council can direct the Electoral Officer to conduct an election that is not required to be held under this or any other Act. Such an election can be held separately or in conjunction with other elections and would be subject to the provisions of the LEA. There is some legal risk attached to this.

29. The numbers in the Citizen's Panel surveys for those respondents preferring to continue with the status quo for Council elections and those preferring a move to a mixed model (wards and at large) were close. In contrast there is a clear preference for the status quo in the telephone survey results.

30. Both the status quo and the mixed model meet the criteria for fair and effective representation. The following table provides an analysis of some of the pros and cons of each model.

Wards or Mixed (wards and at large)

Status quo – wards

Mixed model – wards and at large

Pros

· allows equal geographical representation

· local councillors understand local needs/wants and local issues are advocated for

· gives all legitimate groups, especially those with a geographic base, a better chance of being represented on the city council

· ward Councillors are more attuned to the unique problems of their constituents, such as crime levels, small lot development, trash pick-up, potholes, and recreation programs

· ward elections may improve citizen participation because councilmembers who represent a specific district may be more responsive to their constituency

· wards enable Councillors to stay in touch with community grass roots

· ward system makes standing for a local area more accessible for the average person

· allows for diverse opinion from all areas of the town to be considered

· reduces the possibility of special interest groups and large campaign contributors influencing city government

· greater accountability to the residents of each ward

Pros

· can help to facilitate a balance of viewpoints – a ward perspective and a city wide perspective

· has potential to increase diversity of candidates standing

· ward council members will be advocates for the ward in which they live

· reduces potential for parochial decision making and could encourage Councillors to think more about the good of the entire community and less about the interests of their ward and of their own re-election prospects

· ward Councillors can be supported by second tier representatives bringing a stronger focus to ward issues from a larger number of people

Cons

· ward system may encourage parochial decision^{^[3]} making i.e. ward Councillors not considering the entire city when making their decisions

· ward system means that means people only have a vote for 2 out of 12 councillors i.e. all Councillors vote on issues that are local and specific to other wards yet people in those specific wards do not get to vote for all Councillors

· those areas with Community Boards have greater level of elected representation – ward Councillors and a Community Board

· lack of diversity of candidates

· vote trading between Councillors on different decisions to ensure they get decisions favourable to their ward

Cons

· has potential to create “A and B grade” candidates – at large candidates might be viewed as better than ward councillors as they are elected by the whole city, this could affect the culture of council and how councillors relate to each other;

· multiple representatives can be elected from the same geographical area and/or economic group

· may increase the likelihood of political tickets

Options analysis against fair and effective representation criteria – second tier representation

Criteria	Current situation	Option 1	Option two
Effective representation Effective representation means representation that reflects “significant characteristics of the electorate such as gender, ethnicity, socio-economic class, locality and age” and “encourages close links and accountability between individual elected members and their constituents”	Currently each ward is represented by two ward councillors. There is little ethnic diversity. In 2013, Lower Hutt’s population was 67.2% European, 16.2% Maori, 11.1% Asian and 10.4% Pacific Peoples	This option enables people from diverse ethnic backgrounds to be nominated by their community. The ethnic diversity of the current Community Panels illustrates the success of this approach. Survey respondents supporting Community Panels generally thought there was a greater diversity of people on the Panels.	This option requires an election. A number of comments from survey participants noted that this may put some people who have good skills and want to help their community off from putting themselves forward.
Fair representation Fair representation relates to the number of persons represented per elected member.	Those wards with Community Boards have more elected members per the number of persons represented than those with Community Panels. This option does not address the concern that some communities are treated differently to others.	All communities have the same level and type of second tier representation – addresses the concern about equal treatment of all communities.	Each ward would have additional elected members on Community Panels - addresses the concern about equal treatment of all communities. This would mean that no ward had more elected members per the number of persons represented.
Communities of Interest · Distinctiveness Are there communities with a distinct interest separate from the rest of the city? Isolated communities? · Access Physical proximity to the territorial authority offices, staff and elected members may be an important consideration · Effective governance Are more devolved forms of decision-making desirable in order to provide effective governance	There are no isolated communities in Lower Hutt. Each community in Lower Hutt believes that their particular area of the city is distinct from the other areas of the city and offer unique aspects that go to making up the whole city. 85% of people living in Lower Hutt have access to one of more vehicles. Public transport is widely available. This option retains the current working relationship between Councillors, Community Boards and Community Panels.	This option would not increase or affect the isolation of any community in the city or impinge on access to territorial authority offices and staff. This option supports a close working relationship between ward Councillors and the Ward Community Panel.	This option would not increase or affect the isolation of any community in the city or impinge on access to territorial authority offices and staff. This option supports a close working relationship between ward Councillors and the Ward Community Panel.

Criteria

Current situation

Option 1

Option two

Effective representation

Effective representation means representation that reflects “significant characteristics of the electorate such as gender, ethnicity, socio-economic class, locality and age” and “encourages close links and accountability between individual elected members and their constituents”

Currently each ward is represented by two ward councillors. There is little ethnic diversity. In 2013, Lower Hutt’s population was 67.2% European, 16.2% Maori, 11.1% Asian and 10.4% Pacific Peoples

This option enables people from diverse ethnic backgrounds to be nominated by their community. The ethnic diversity of the current Community Panels illustrates the success of this approach. Survey respondents supporting Community Panels generally thought there was a greater diversity of people on the Panels.

This option requires an election. A number of comments from survey participants noted that this may put some people who have good skills and want to help their community off from putting themselves forward.

Fair representation

Fair representation relates to the number of persons represented per elected member.

Those wards with Community Boards have more elected members per the number of persons represented than those with Community Panels.

This option does not address the concern that some communities are treated differently to others.

All communities have the same level and type of second tier representation – addresses the concern about equal treatment of all communities.

Each ward would have additional elected members on Community Panels - addresses the concern about equal treatment of all communities.

This would mean that no ward had more elected members per the number of persons represented.

Communities of Interest

· Distinctiveness Are there communities with a distinct interest separate from the rest of the city? Isolated communities?

· Access Physical proximity to the territorial authority offices, staff and elected members may be an important consideration

· Effective governance

Are more devolved forms of decision-making desirable in order to provide effective governance

There are no isolated communities in Lower Hutt. Each community in Lower Hutt believes that their particular area of the city is distinct from the other areas of the city and offer unique aspects that go to making up the whole city.

85% of people living in Lower Hutt have access to one of more vehicles. Public transport is widely available.

This option retains the current working relationship between Councillors, Community Boards and Community Panels.

This option would not increase or affect the isolation of any community in the city or impinge on access to territorial authority offices and staff.

This option supports a close working relationship between ward Councillors and the Ward Community Panel.

This option would not increase or affect the isolation of any community in the city or impinge on access to territorial authority offices and staff.

This option supports a close working relationship between ward Councillors and the Ward Community Panel.

Other issues to consider

Not enough people standing for election to a Community Board

31. This has happened twice in Eastbourne in 2010 and 2013. This meant that those who had stood for election were appointed as Board members without an election. There is no difference between this occurring and appointing Community Panels.

By-elections

32. By-elections are needed if a member of the Community Board stands down during a term. This would not occur with an independently appointed Community Panel.

Poor vs rich in representation

33. Wealthier constituents are usually substantially better represented in local democracies than their poorer counterparts. In fact, often the poorest third of the population is not represented at all. There are many reasons for this – wealthy people are more attentive to local politics and more likely to vote, they understand “the system better” and how they can work in it to achieve the outcomes they are seeking, they are generally better educated and engaged because they have the time to be engaged.

34. Research shows that poorer people and those from diverse ethnic backgrounds and minorities are less likely stand for election. First because many cannot afford the time or the cost and secondly because they are from a minority group and lack the confidence to stand. A rigorous appointment process can address these concerns by ensuring that people from diverse backgrounds and their communities are encouraged to put themselves forward or nominate someone for consideration.

Consultation

35. Workshops have been held with Council (on 27th March 2018) and Community Boards and Community Panels (9^th April 2018) to ensure their views can be considered when making their recommendations to Council on the draft proposal final the draft proposal for public consultation. Seven Community Board, ten Community Panel members and three Councillors attended the Representation Review workshop held on 9 April 2018.

36. An online Citizen's Panel survey ran from 31 May to 4 July 2018. Peter Glen Research Ltd carried out a telephone survey of 400 over the same period.

37. The Remuneration Authority was consulted with regard to the setting of remuneration for Community Panels.

Legal Considerations

38. Legal advice, attached as Appendix 4 to the report, was sought regarding the election of Community Panels and their remuneration. That advice is that:

a. The Remuneration Authority is not required to, nor does it have the power to, set the remuneration for individuals elected to a Community Panel. This is because members of a Community Panel are not one of the classes listed in clause 6 of Schedule 7 of the LGA for which the Remuneration Authority must or can set remuneration. The members of a Community Panel are not 'members' as defined in section 4 of the Local Government Act (LGA).

b. The functions for Community Panels are consistent with the role of the Community Board as they involve undertaking responsibilities that are delegated to it

c. Community Panels are Council created and not regulated by statute

d. There is no legal requirement in the LGA as to what payment (if any) should be provided to Community Panels members.

e. When setting any remuneration for Community Panel members, the Council should act in accordance with the principles set out in section 14 of the LGA, including taking account of the communities' interests in making decisions.

39. A separate issue is whether a Community Panel member can be elected under the Local Electoral Act (LEA) as a matter of law. Section 8 Of the LEA provides that Council can direct the electoral officer to conduct an 'election' not required under any Act. This could include the election of a member of a Community Panel, which is not an entity under the LGA and for which no election is required by law.

40. The position of a Community Panel member is not 'required by law' to be filled by election, and the only potential category within the definition of “election” which a Community Panel member may fall within is an 'office…in connection with any local authority'. It is a matter of interpretation whether a member of a Community Panel is an office 'in connection with' the Council or not^{^[4]}.

41. There is a legal risk that a Community Panel member is not an office in connection with the Council, and thus no election could be held for that position under the LEA (even if requested under section 8 of the LEA). The risk is that if an election was held on the basis that 'election' in the LEA can include a Community Panel, that election could be the subject of judicial review. There is no definition of 'office' in the LGA or LEA and it is a matter of interpretation whether the members of a Community Panel can be considered to be holding an 'office'.

42. It is arguable that a Community Panel member is an office in connection with the Council for which an 'election' can be properly directed under section 8 of the LEA. In our view this interpretation is tenable and defensible, albeit a legal risk of challenge remains.

43. The legal advice is that there is some legal risk (primarily of judicial review) associated with directing an election for Community Panel members under section 8 of the LEA.

44. Section 19H of the LEA requires Council to review its representation arrangements, develop a proposal for public consultation that complies with the requirements of sections 19M and 19N of the LEA, and publicly notify that proposal. The decision must be made by Council therefore officers have not made a recommendation on the options available.

Financial Considerations

45. Appointing six ward Community Panels will result in slightly higher transaction costs than at present as there are currently four Community Panels. The increased costs relates to the appointment process for the Panels and the involvement of an independent panel.

46. Holding six ward Community Panel elections would result in higher election costs than at present as there are currently elections for three Community Boards. This will change to six ward Community Panels if Council decides to choose the option of elected Community Panels. The additional cost will be approximately $20,000. This is not significant as the fixed costs such as postage and special voting, which are a large component of the costs, do not change.

Other Considerations

47. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it proposes a formal draft proposal for representation arrangements for Lower Hutt city. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it ensures that Council meets its obligations under Sections 19H, 19M and 19 N of the Local Electoral Act.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Draft Representation Proposal 2018 Community Boards and Community Panels	20
2 ⇩	Representation Review Survey of Options 2018	24
3 ⇩	2018 Hutt City Representation Research Report Peter Glen	56
4 ⇩	03072018_ Advice on Community Panels and Remuneration.DOCX	79

Author: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Reviewed By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Approved By: Tony Stallinger

Chief Executive

Attachment 3

2018 Hutt City Representation Research Report Peter Glen

RESEARCH TO ASSIST THE 2018

HUTT CITY REPRESENTATION REVIEW

Preliminary research report

prepared for Hutt City Council

Wendy Moore

July 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

			Page No.
1.	Introduction		3
2.	Research objectives		4
3.	Method		5
4.	Timing		5
5.	The Research Results		6
5.1.		Election of Councillors	7
5.2.		Second-tier representation	10
5.3.		Preferred system of second-tier representation	13
5.4.		Does the need for second-tier representation differ according to respondents’ preferred option for Council representation?	15
6.	Questionnaire		16 - 22

1. INTRODUCTION

Hutt City Council is governed by a Mayor and twelve Councillors, all elected by Hutt City residents. The Councillors are elected across six wards (Northern, Eastern, Western, Wainuiomata, Central and Harbour Wards). Currently each ward has two elected Councillors, to ensure that each part of the city is represented in the Council.

Hutt City Council also has second-level representation. At present there are seven second-level community boards and panels, with a total of approximately 30 - 35 members that represent local communities.

There are currently three elected Community Boards, these being in Eastbourne, Petone and Wainuiomata, which were set up under the Local Government Act following amalgamation of local boroughs in 1989. Boards are elected every three years along with all other elected members. Community Board members are paid for their service. If a vacancy occurs during the three-year term, a by-election is required to appoint a new representative.

The areas not served by Community Boards (Central, Eastern, Northern and Western) are represented by four Community Panels, which were established in July 2017. Each panel consists of up to five appointed community representatives, who serve on a voluntary basis, along with two ward councillors. As there are no salary costs, the equivalent amount is put into a Community Projects Fund to assist and support local community events and initiatives. Representatives are appointed through an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process with appointment decisions made by the Mayor and relevant ward councillors.

These groups meet every six weeks, with most of the meetings being open to the public, except for items considered under ‘public excluded’ business.

The role of the Community Boards and Community Panels is very similar. It is to:

- Represent and act as advocate for their local community on citywide issues on which the Council has called for consultation, including the Long-Term and Annual Plan consultations.

- Allocate funding specifically relating to the Community Engagement Fund and, in the case of Community Panels only, to allocate and manage the Local Community Projects Fund.

Community Boards have an additional responsibility under council delegation, to exercise some decision-making powers, including tasks such as the naming of streets, parks reserves, sports grounds, the removal and planting of street trees, granting of leases and licences to voluntary organisations, granting some easements and right of ways.

The law requires Hutt City Council to review, on a six-yearly basis, the way its Councillors are elected. It also has to decide, at the same time, whether the city should have second-level representation.

To assist with the 2018 Representation Review, Hutt City Council has commissioned Peter Glen Research to undertake a survey of residents as part of the preliminary community engagement work, to help guide the decisions that are made. This report presents the results of the research study.

2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The overall objective was to gather information from the public 18+ years of age that would add insight to the attitudes and opinions held by Hutt City residents regarding their views on community representation.

The specific issues that were explored in the survey included:

(a) Whether the public would prefer the status quo for councillor representation, or a move to the election of councillors ‘at large’, or a mix of ‘wards’ and ‘at large’.

(b) Whether the city should continue with second-tier representation and, if so, whether Hutt City residents have a preference for Community Boards or Community Panels.

(c) To analyse whether the need for second-tier representation differs according to the respondent’s preferred option for Council representation. (For example, if residents prefer the options of all or some councillors being selected ‘at large’, does this flow through to a stronger need for second-tier representation? Conversely, if residents select the ‘status quo’ for Council Representation, is the need for second-tier representation less important?)

(d) To explore the reasons/thinking behind Hutt City residents selecting their preferred options.

3. METHOD

The survey was undertaken among a stratified random sample of 400 Hutt City residents.

The survey participants were recruited using random selection procedures, but sample quotas were set to ensure that the survey was broadly representative of the Hutt City adult population (18+ years of age) by age, gender and ethnicity.

The interviews were spread over the six geographic areas (wards) within the city, to ensure that a proper cross-section of the community was represented. The sample was therefore structured as follows:

wards		survey sample		population
		No.	%	%

	Northern Ward	63	15.7	15.6
	Harbour Ward	70	17.5	17.6
	Western Ward	51	12.8	12.7
	Wainuiomata Ward	70	17.5	17.6
	Eastern Ward	69	17.3	17.3
	Central Ward	77	19.2	19.1


	total interviews	400	100.0%	100.0%

It is estimated that this provides a sampling variance of +4.1% at the 90% confidence level.

The survey was conducted using a combination of contact approaches and interviewing procedures. The majority of interviews were undertaken by way of telephone interviewing (landline and mobile), with some face-to-face, where necessary, to meet stratified sample quotas and to ensure that a proper cross-section of the community was engaged.

At enrolment, the purpose of the survey was outlined and an appointment arranged to call back, if the selected respondent was unable to complete the interview at the time of initial contact.

Fieldwork for the survey was undertaken by an experienced team of interviewers employed by Peter Glen Research. The interviews were administered by way of a structured questionnaire (see copy attached in Section 6).

Peter Glen, the principal of Peter Glen Research, personally managed all aspects of the research project, from questionnaire design, through fieldwork set-up and supervision, to the analysis and reporting of results.

4. TIMING

Fieldwork for the research was undertaken from 12 – 30 June 2018.

5. THE RESEARCH RESULTS

5.1. ELECTION OF COUNCILLORS

5.1.1. INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERVIEW

The research participants were initially introduced to the interview, by explaining:

“Every six years, the law requires Hutt City Council to review the way its Councillors are elected – and at the same time, decide whether we should have community boards and panels as second-level representation.”

“Hutt City Council has developed some initial ideas and we are conducting this survey to obtain the opinions of Hutt City residents.”

“Currently Hutt City has 12 Councillors plus the Mayor. The Councillors are elected for a three-year term by the community and are spread across six wards. The wards are Northern, Eastern, Western, Central, Wainuiomata and Harbour. There are two elected councillors per ward.”

5.1.2. PREFERRED METHOD OF ELECTING COUNCILLORS

Respondents were then asked which of the following electoral systems they would like to see Hutt City adopt for electing its Councillors.

The majority of the residents interviewed were in favour of continuing with the current system of electing two Councillors per ward.

The other option that had a considerable level of support was the one based on ‘a combination of ward and citywide representation’. However, its level of support was only half that of the status quo.

5.1.3. PREFERRED METHOD OF ELECTING COUNCILLORS – RESULTS BY WARD

Further analysis of the results confirms that the majority support for the ‘current system’ appears to be fairly consistent across the wards, as does the level of support for the other options.

It should be noted, however, that base sizes for this subgroup analysis are relatively small. Therefore, the results should be regarded as indicative only, rather than statistically absolute. The average sampling variance across the individual wards is estimated at +10% at the 90% confidence level.

This cautionary note also applies to the other subgroups shown throughout the report.

5.1.4. PREFERRED METHOD OF ELECTING COUNCILLORS – RESULTS BY AGE & GENDER

Results by age and gender also reveal a consistency in the order of preference across the sub-groups.

It can be noted that the results indicate a marginally higher preference for the ‘current system’ among women, and residents under 30 years of age and those over 50. Conversely, ‘mixed representation’ has slightly higher support among men and residents in the middle age band.

5.2. SECOND-TIER REPRESENTATION

5.2.1. INTRODUCTION TO SECOND-TIER REPRESENTATION

The research participants were introduced to this section of the interview with the following explanation:

“At present there are seven second-level community boards and panels, with a total of approximately 30 - 35 members that represent local communities.

There are currently three elected Community Boards, these being in Wainuiomata, Eastbourne and Petone, which were set up under the Local Government Act following amalgamation of local boroughs in 1989.

Boards are elected every three years along with all other elected members. Community Board members are paid for their service. If a vacancy occurs during the three-year term, a by-election is required to appoint a new representative.

The areas not served by Community Boards (Central, Eastern, Northern and Western) are represented by four Community Panels, which were established in July 2017. Each panel consists of up to five appointed community representatives, who serve on a voluntary basis, along with two ward councillors. As there are no salary costs, the equivalent amount is put into a Community Projects Fund to assist and support local community events and initiatives. Representatives are appointed through an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process with appointment decisions made by the Mayor and relevant ward councillors.

These groups meet every six weeks, with most of the meetings being open to the public, except for items considered under ‘public excluded’ business.

The role of the Community Boards and Community Panels is very similar. It is to:

- Represent and act as advocate for their local community on citywide issues on which the Council has called for consultation, including the Long-Term and Annual Plan consultations.

- Allocate funding specifically relating to the Community Engagement Fund and, in the case of Community Panels only, to allocate and manage the Local Community Projects Fund.

Community Boards have an additional responsibility under council delegation, to exercise some decision-making powers, including tasks such as the naming of streets, parks, reserves, sports grounds, the removal and planting of street trees, granting of leases and licences to voluntary organisations, granting some easements and right of ways.”

The interviewers were informed that if the respondent enquired about:

- the salary cost of Community Board members, or the amount of funding for the Community Projects Fund, they should inform them that ‘the total amount is approximately $150,000 annually. This is the total of all salaries for all three boards’.

- the cost of by-elections, they should inform them that ‘by-elections are rare, but the total cost over the last 10 years has been $130,000 and the most recent one about to occur in Wainuiomata will cost $45,000’.

Blank Page

5.2.2. SHOULD HUTT CITY CONTINUE TO HAVE SECOND-TIER REPRESENTATION?

After the research participants had considered the introductory explanation, they were asked whether Hutt City should continue to have second-tier representation (that is Community Boards and/or Community Panels) or not.

Two-thirds of the Hutt City residents interviewed expressed the view that second-tier representation should continue. That is:

5.2.3. RESULTS BY WARD

The results by ward again indicate a reasonable degree of consistency across the wards, with the majority of residents in each ward stating they would like Hutt City to continue with second-tier representation.

5.2.4. RESULTS BY AGE & GENDER

Results were also consistent by age and gender.

5.3. PREFERRED SYSTEM OF SECOND-TIER REPRESENTATION

5.3.1. PREFERRED OPTION

The respondents were next asked to indicate which of the following options they would prefer, if Hutt City continues to have second-tier representation. As was mentioned earlier, an outline of the Community Boards and Community Panels, and their role, had been provided in the introduction to the previous section.

5.3.2. RESULTS BY WARD

The following results reveal that the majority of residents would like to have the same type of second-tier representation in all areas (i.e. either all Community Boards or all Community Panels). Currently, the majority opinion across the six wards is to have ‘Community Boards in all areas’. Interestingly, the level of support for the option of ‘Community Panels in all areas’ is comparable with that of the ‘current system’.

5.3.3. RESULTS BY AGE & GENDER

‘Community Boards in all areas’ was the preferred option across the age bands and by gender.

However, it is interesting to note that the ‘current system’ had marginally more support among women, and residents under 30 years of age and those over 50. ‘Community Boards’ and ‘Community Panels’ had slightly higher support among men and residents in the middle age band.

5.4. DOES THE NEED FOR SECOND-TIER REPRESENTATION DIFFER

ACCORDING TO RESPONDENTS’ PREFERRED OPTION FOR

COUNCIL REPRESENTATION?

The following table cross-analyses the research participant’s preferred option for Council representation by their response to the question regarding whether Hutt City should continue with second-tier representation.

SHOULD HUTT CITY HAVE SECOND-TIER REPRESENTATION?	COUNCILLOR SYSTEM PREFERRED
SHOULD HUTT CITY HAVE SECOND-TIER REPRESENTATION?	Current system, 2 Councillors per ward	Elect from city as a whole	Elect using combination of ward & citywide	Unsure
	(n=218)	(n=36)	(n=116)	(n=30)
	%	%	%	%
Continue with second-tier representation	66	67	67	77

Do not have second-tier representation	18	33	13	3

Unsure	16	-	20	20


TOTAL	100%	100%	100%	100%

The results reveal that regardless of which of the three Councillor electoral systems is preferred, two-thirds of the Hutt City residents believe that second-tier representation should continue.

Although the base size is relatively small, it is interesting to note that a greater percentage of the respondents who favoured electing Councillors ‘from the city as a whole’ were inclined to reject second-tier representation.

6. THE QUESTIONNAIRE

HUTT CITY REPRESENTATION SURVEY

June 2018

APPROACH.

“Good morning/afternoon/evening. I am …… from Peter Glen Research, a market research company. We are conducting a survey on behalf of Hutt City Council to check residents’ opinions about Council representation in the city. For this interview, I need to speak to a Hutt City resident, 18 years of age or over.”

“Are you/is there somebody in your household who would be able to help me with the interview please?”

if more than one person qualifies, ask to speak to the person whose birthday falls next. repeat introduction if necessary.

if appropriate person is unavailable, arrange time to call back.

Respondent Name:__________________________ Phone number:____________

Time/day to call back: _______________________

“The interview will take approximately ( … ) minutes. Is it convenient to complete the interview now, or is there a more convenient time I should call you back?

if necessary, record call back details.

Respondent name: ____________________________ Phone number: _________

Time/Day to Call Back: ________________________

Introduction to the interview

“Hutt City Council has developed some initial ideas and we are conducting this survey to obtain the opinions of Hutt City residents.”

Election of Councillors

Q.1 (a)

“Which of the following electoral systems would you like to see Hutt City adopt for electing its Councillors?”

The current system to continue, whereby two councillors are elected by each ward

Councillors to be elected by, and represent, the city as a whole

Councillors to be elected using a combination of ward and (citywide/at large) representation.

(b)	“Why do you prefer that option? Are there any other reasons?” PROBE UNTIL ‘NO’ & POINTS ARE CLEAR

Second-tier representation

“At present there are seven second-level community boards and panels, with a total of approximately 30 - 35 members that represent local communities.

These groups meet every six weeks, with most of the meetings being open to the public, except for items considered under ‘public excluded’ business.

The role of the Community Boards and Community Panels is very similar. It is to:

- Represent and act as advocate for their local community on citywide issues on which the Council has called for consultation, including the Long-Term and Annual Plan consultations.

- Allocate funding specifically relating to the Community Engagement Fund and, in the case of Community Panels only, to allocate and manage the Local Community Projects Fund.

INTERVIEWER NOTE;

If the respondent enquires about:

- the salary cost of Community Board members, or the amount of funding for the Community Projects Fund, inform them that ‘the total amount is approximately $150,000 annually. This is the total of all salaries for all three boards’.

- the cost of by-elections, inform them that ‘by-elections are rare, but the total cost over the last 10 years has been $130,000 and the most recent one about to occur in Wainuiomata will cost $45,000’.

Q.2 (a)

“In your opinion, do you think Hutt City should continue to have second-tier representation (that is, community boards and/or community panels), or not?”

Continue with second-tier representation____

Do not have second-tier representation______

DO NOT ASK

Unsure_______________________________

(b)	“Why should Hutt City (continue/not continue) with second-tier representation? Are there any other reasons?” PROBE UNTIL ‘NO’ & POINTS ARE CLEAR

Q.3 (a)

“If Hutt City continues to have second-tier representation, would you prefer it to have … ?”

The current system of three Community Boards and four Community Panels

Community Boards in all areas

Community Panels in all areas

(b)	“Why have you selected that option? Are there any other reasons?” PROBE UNTIL ‘NO’ & POINTS ARE CLEAR

Q.4	“Can I please check, did you vote in the 2016 local body elections?”

Yes____________________

No ____________________

Q.5	“Are there any other comments you would like to make, or questions you would like to ask Hutt City Council about city representation?” PROBE UNTIL CLEAR

DEMOGRAPHICS

“In order to help us analyse our survey by statistical categories, can I please check … “

D.1.	CODE GENDER	Male ____________________________	01
		Female___________________________	02

D.2.	“Into which of the following age groups do you come?”

		16 - 19 years___________________________	01
		20 – 29 years __________________________	02
		30 – 39 years __________________________	03
		40 – 49 years __________________________	04
		50 – 59 years __________________________	05
		60 – 69 years __________________________	06
		70 years and over_______________________	07

D.3.	“Which of the following ethnic groups do you belong to? One or several groups may apply to you.”

		NZ Maori___________________________	01
		NZ European ________________________	02
		British______________________________	03
		Other European ______________________	04
		Pacific Island ________________________	05
		Chinese_____________________________	06
		Indian______________________________	07
		Other Asian _________________________	08
		Other (specify) ______________________	09

D.4.	“In which suburb do you live?”

write suburb: _______________________________________ then code:

1. Northern Ward:	2. Harbour Ward:	3. Western Ward:	4.Wainuiomata Ward	5. Eastern Ward:	6. Central Ward:
Stokes Valley	Petone	Haywards	Glendale	Naenae	Hutt Central
Pomare	Korokoro	Manor Park	Parkway	Fairfield	Woburn North
Taita	Eastbourne & Bays	Kelson	Fernlea	Epuni East	Boulcott
Wingate	Seaview	Belmont Hill Belmont Flat	Arakura	Waterloo	Park Avenue/Avalon
	Gracefield	Tirohanga	Homedale West	Waiwhetu	Naenae West
	Moera	Harbourview Normandale Maungaraki Alicetown	Homedale East	Residential areas of Eastern Hills	Epuni West Waterloo West

“Thank you very much for your help with this survey. The company I work for is Peter Glen Research and if you have any queries you can contact Peter Glen on 564-4525 or (025) 914-330”.

“My name is ______________________________________” (Interviewer’s Name)

Attachment 4

03072018_ Advice on Community Panels and Remuneration.DOCX

Our ref: 1023954

5 July 2018

Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager Strategy and Planning

Hutt City Council

By email

Dear Wendy,

Advice on community panels and remuneration

1 The Hutt City Council (Council) is currently undertaking a Representation Review^{^[6]} that includes considering the options available to Council for second tier representation. You have asked for our advice on the following questions related to the setting of remuneration:

1.1 As the position of Community Panel member is not required by law to be filled by an election, does this mean that the Remuneration Authority would not be required to set the base remuneration of Community Panel members?

1.2 Will the elected individuals on Community Panels be 'members' of the local authority, and if they are then does that mean the Remuneration Authority would set their remuneration (as it currently does for Community Board members)?

1.3 Does Schedule 7, clause 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) mean that the Remuneration Authority would not set the remuneration for Community Panel members?

2 You have also asked us to identify any other legal issues relevant to the proposal that the Council is considering - being the election of Community Panel members.

3 In summary, the answer to your questions is that the Remuneration Authority is not required to, nor does it have the power to, set the remuneration for individuals elected to a Community Panel. This is because members of a Community Panel are not one of the classes listed in clause 6 of Schedule 7 of the LGA for which the Remuneration Authority must or can set remuneration. The members of a Community Panel are not 'members' as defined in section 4 of the LGA.

4 We set out our advice in detail below, including our analysis of other legal risks created by the proposal to elect Community Panel members.

Nature of a Community Panel

5 In order to understand what legislative provisions may apply to a Community Panel, it is important to understand how a Community Panel fits with other bodies that are regulated by the LGA and Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA).

6 A 'Community Panel' is not specifically provided for, mentioned, or regulated by the LGA or the LEA. We understand that the Council has created four Community Panels which essentially operate as an alternative to a Community Board in those areas^{^[7]}. These Community Panels are currently appointed by the Council (rather than being elected), and the members are paid an honorarium of $750 per year after tax.

7 The purpose of Community Panels is to represent and act as an advocate for the interests of their communities. Their functions are^{^[8]}:

7.1 Representation - discuss, debate and provide feedback to Council on all important local issues, city wide matters of significance, Annual Plans and policy setting;

7.2 Allocate and manage a Local Community Projects Fund;

7.3 Allocate and manage the local Community Engagement Fund for the Central, Eastern, Northern and Western wards to assist and support local community events and initiatives.

8 We note that these functions are consistent with the role of a Community Board under section 52 of the LGA as they involve undertaking responsibilities that are delegated to it, and the consideration of all matters referred to the Board by the Council (section 52 of the LGA)^{^[9]}.

9 A 'Community Board' is a particular type of governance body, which specific provisions in the LGA and LEA apply to^{^[10]}. A Community Board is established under section 49 of the LGA by a resolution made by the Council or by Order in Council. The LGA establishes the membership, status, role, and powers of a Community Board (Subpart 2 of Part 4). Part 2 of Schedule 7 of the LGA sets out requirements in terms of administration and requires that the expenses of Community Boards must be paid.

10 The Community Panels the Council has created are not a Community Board as created and regulated by statute^{^[11]}.

Remuneration of Community Panel members

11 You have asked whether the Remuneration Authority is required to, and/or could, set the remuneration for the members of a Community Panel.

12 The Remuneration Authority is established under section 4(1) of the Remuneration Authority Act 1977. The functions of the Remuneration Authority include carrying out 'other such functions as may be conferred or imposed on it by any other enactment', which includes those functions it has under the LGA. The Remuneration Authority must operate within the functions and powers it has pursuant to legislation.

13 Schedule 7 of the LGA applies to 'local authorities, local boards, community boards, and their members'. Clause 6 of Schedule 7 of the LGA provides that:

(1) The Remuneration Authority must determine the remuneration, allowances, and expenses payable to—

(a) mayors, deputy mayors, chairpersons, deputy chairpersons, and members of local authorities:

(b) chairpersons of committees of local authorities:

(d) chairpersons of committees of community boards:

(e) chairpersons and members of local boards:

(f) chairpersons of committees of local boards.

(2) The Remuneration Authority may also determine the remuneration, allowances, and expenses payable to the following persons, if requested to do so by a local authority:

(a) members of the local authority with specified responsibilities other than those listed in subclause (1):

(b) members of community boards of the local authority with specified responsibilities other than those referred to in subclause (1):

14 In our view it is not mandatory for the Remuneration Authority to determine the remuneration of members of Community Panels, because they are not one of the classes listed in clause 6(1).

15 'Members of a local authority' in clause 6(1)(a) refers to a specific position^{^[12]}. 'Member' is defined in section 4 of the LGA as:

member,—

(a) in relation to a community board, means a member appointed to that board or elected to that board under the Local Electoral Act 2001:

(b) in relation to the Commission, means a member of the Local Government Commission:

(c) in relation to a local authority, means a member of the governing body of the local authority elected under the Local Electoral Act 2001:

(ca) in relation to a local board, means a member appointed to that board or elected to that board under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the chairperson:

(d) in relation to a regional council, means a member of the governing body of the regional council elected under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the chairperson:

(e) in relation to a territorial authority, means a member of the governing body of the territorial authority elected under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the mayor

16 A member of a Community Panel is not a 'member' of the Council according to this definition. They are not a member of the governing body of the local authority.

17 The Remuneration Authority could not be asked to determine the remuneration of a Community Panel member under clause 6(2) for the same reason - specifically because the members of a Community Panel are not 'members of the local authority' in clause 6(2)(a) in terms of the definition of 'member' in the LGA. Members of a Community Panel are also not members of a Community Board or local board.^{^[13]}

18 The Remuneration Authority therefore does not have the power to set the remuneration of a Community Panel member^{^[14]}. We note that, consistent with this view, the Remuneration Authority does not appear to have previously set remuneration for a Community Panel^{^[15]}.

19 There is no legal requirement in the LGA as to what payment (if any) should be provided to Community Panel members, fundamentally because Community Panels do not exist in terms of the LGA^{^[16]}. When setting any remuneration for Community Panel members, the Council should act in accordance with the principles set out in section 14 of the LGA, including taking account of the communities' interests in making decisions. In saying that, there is no statutory obligation to ensure that payments to members of a Community Panel (which essentially is creation of the Council) is 'fair'. The Council may wish to consider what pay would be 'fair' in order to ensure that the function of the Community Panel can be achieved by its members, and that the Community Panel has sufficient membership.

Electing Community Panel members

20 We understand that the Council is considering whether Community Panels should be elected rather than appointed (as Community Board members are). In this context you have asked whether the elected individuals on Community Panels may have their remuneration set by the Remuneration Authority.

21 As set out above, the definition of 'member' in section 4 of the LGA includes 'in relation to a local authority, means a member of the governing body of the local authority elected under the Local Electoral Act 2001'. In our opinion, even if a Community Panel member could be elected under the LEA they would still not be a 'member of the local authority' as they are not a member of the 'governing body' of the Council under section 19A of the LEA.

22 Even if a Community Panel Member was elected under the LEA, the Remuneration Authority would not have the power to set their remuneration.

23 This question also raises the issue of whether a Community Panel Member can be elected under the LEA as a matter of law.

24 Section 7 of the LEA sets out what that Act applies to. This does not explicitly include the election of a Community Panel (but does include members of a Community Board and territorial authority). The LEA applies to 'any other election conducted as a consequence of a direction under section 8' (section 7(i) of the LEA).

25 Section 8 of the LEA provides that the Council can direct the electoral officer to conduct an 'election' not required under any Act. This could include the election of a member of a Community Panel, which is not an entity under the LGA and for which no election is required by law.

26 The definition of 'election' in the LEA is:

election means election to any office in, under, or in connection with any local authority, local board, community board or other body required by law to be filled by the election of the electors of any local government area

27 The position of a Community Panel member is not 'required by law' to be filled by election, and the only potential category within this definition which a Community Panel member may fall within is an 'office…in connection with any local authority'. It is a matter of interpretation whether a member of a Community Panel is an office 'in connection with' the Council or not^{^[17]}.

28 There is a legal risk that a Community Panel member is not an office in connection with the Council, and thus no election could be held for that position under the LEA (even if requested under section 8 of the LEA). The risk is that if an election was held on the basis that 'election' in the LEA can include a Community Panel, that election could be the subject of judicial review. There is no definition of 'office' in the LGA or LEA and it is a matter of interpretation whether the members of a Community Panel can be considered to be holding an 'office'.

29 It is arguable that a Community Panel member is an office in connection with the Council for which an 'election' can be properly directed under section 8 of the LEA. In our view this interpretation is tenable and defensible, albeit a legal risk of challenge remains.

Other legal risks

30 In our view there is some legal risk (primarily of judicial review) associated with directing an election for Community Panel members under section 8 of the LEA. This is due to the legal interpretation issue set out above.

31 In addition the question arises why the Council has not created Community Boards for the four relevant areas rather than creating Community Panels.

32 We are concerned that having a Community Panel (rather than a Community Board) may not be consistent with the LGA, in particular section 49(1): 'A community board must be established for each community constituted, in accordance with Schedule 6'. While we are not aware of what communities have been created under Schedule 6 of the LGA, it seems likely that the four wards which currently have Community Panels should (in terms of the LGA) have Community Boards (or at least one Community Board). Whether this is the case will need to be confirmed with reference to the 'communities' which have been established for the district in accordance with Schedule 6 of the LGA.

33 If the Council prefers Community Panel members to be elected rather than appointed, and for their remuneration to be set by the Remuneration Authority, the Council should simply make them Community Boards rather than Community Panels. If the entity was a Community Board then all of the relevant provisions for Community Boards in the LGA and LEA would apply (including those applicable to elections, remuneration, delegations and functions/powers). There would be no issue of legal interpretation (and associated legal risk) in the directed election of those Community Panels or in the setting of their remuneration (which would be done by the Remuneration Authority if the entity was a Community Board). This approach may also be more consistent with the principles of the LEA to provide representation to communities^{^[18]}.

34 We also note that the Community Panel's functions seem to be consistent with those of a Community Board, and they appear to represent a community in the same way as a Community Board - but without being elected and without having the remuneration that a Community Board would have.

35 We are happy to provide further advice on any matter raised in this advice, or discuss it with you if that would be of assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Kierra Krumdieck

Senior Associate

Direct +64 4 474 3228

kierra.krumdieck@dlapiper.com

Stephen Quinn

Partner

Direct +64 4 474 3217

stephen.quinn@dlapiper.com

[1] When acting in this capacity the committee has a quasi-judicial role.

[3] In the 2001 Lower Hutt City Representation Reviews a one submitter even pointed out the benefits of parochialism through wards as a way of ensuring that Councillors were intimately aware of local issues, were accessible to residents, and reflected the city’s communities of interest so ensuring a range of views on council

[4] Interpretation Act 1999, section 5: The meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose.

[5] The population figures used are the estimated resident population as at 30 June 2017 provided by the Statistics NZ.

[7] Central, Eastern, Northern and Western are represented by Community Panels, whereas Petone, Eastbourne and Wainuiomata all have Community Boards.

[8] Council document 'Central, Eastern, Northern and Western Community Panels - Delegations, Guidelines and Criteria', dated 20 September 2017, at 'General Functions'.

[9] Community boards can be delegated responsibilities, duties or powers of the Council under clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the LGA.

[10] Sections 49-54 of the LGA and sections 19F-19E of the LEA.

[11] For example a Community Board must be called '[name of the community] Community Board', section 49(2) of the LGA.

[12] To which requirements of the LGA apply: members must make a declaration set out in clause 14 of Schedule 7 of the LGA, comply with the code of conduct and standing orders, and attend meeting in accordance with clause 19 of Schedule 7 of the LGA.

[13] In clause 6 'local boards' has the meaning given in sections 4(1) and 10 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2010 which must be elected and are specific to Auckland Council: Sections 3 and 11 the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2010.

[14] We note that the Determination definition of member which you mention in your email does not change this advice. The Determination is subordinate as it is made under the LGA and Remuneration Act 1977, and can be made only if the Remuneration Authority has the power to make it in the first place.

[15] 'Remuneration Setting for Local Authorities' document published by the Remuneration Authority in July 2017 only covers the mandatory categories in clause 6(1) of Schedule 7 of the LGA; existing determinations only apply to the mandatory categories for example the Local Government Members (2017/18) (Local Authorities) Determination 2017.

[16] The members of the Community Panels are not likely to be subject to the Remuneration and employment policy required by clause 36A of Schedule 1 of the LGA.

[17] Interpretation Act 1999, section 5: The meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose.

[18] Section 4(1)(a) of the LEA: the principle of fair and effective representation for individuals and communities.

Deputy Mayor D Bassett	Cr L Bridson
Cr C Barry	Cr J Briggs
Cr T Lewis	Cr M Lulich
Cr C Milne	Cr L Sutton
Mayor W R Wallace (ex-officio)

Proposed community name	Boundaries	No. of members
Northern Community Panel	The existing boundary of the Northern Ward including Tawhai, Holborn, Delaney and Manuka area units (Stokes Valley) and the Taita South, Taita North area units	Six – four appointed community members and two Councillors
Eastern Community Panel	The existing boundary of the Eastern Ward including the Naenae North, Naenae South, Epuni East, Waiwhetu North and Waterloo East area units	Six – four appointed community members and two Councillors
Western Community Panel	The existing boundary of the Western Ward including the Normandale, Maungaraki, Belmont, Kelson, Tirohanga, Haywards-Manor Park, Melling and Alicetown area units plus all of Wakefield St, Alicetown	Seven – five appointed community members and two Councillors
Central Community Panel	The existing boundary of the Central Ward including the Avalon East, Avalon West, Boulcott, Hutt Central, Woburn North, Waterloo West, Epuni West area units	Seven – five appointed community members and two Councillors
Petone Community Board	The existing boundary of the Harbour Ward including the Korokoro, Petone Central, Esplanade, , Moera, Waiwhetu South, Gracefield and Wilford, area units	Eight – six elected members and two Councillors
Eastbourne Community Board	Eastbourne area unit	Seven – five elected members and two Councillors
Wainuiomata Community Board	The existing boundary of the Wainuiomata Ward including the Fernlea, Homedale West, Glendale, Homedale East, Parkway, Arakura and Pencarrow area units	Seven – five elected members and two Councillors

Proposed ward name	Boundaries	No. of Councillors
Northern Ward	The existing boundary of the Northern Ward including Tawhai, Holborn, Delaney and Manuka area units (Stokes Valley) and the Taita South, Taita North area units	Two
Eastern Ward	The existing boundary of the Eastern Ward including the Naenae North, Naenae South, Epuni East, Waiwhetu North and Waterloo East area units	Two
Western Ward	The existing boundary of the Western Ward including the Normandale, Maungaraki, Belmont, Kelson, Tirohanga, Haywards-Manor Park, Melling and Alicetown area units plus all of Wakefield St, Alicetown	Two
Central Ward	The existing boundary of the Central Ward including the Avalon East, Avalon West, Boulcott, Hutt Central, Woburn North, Waterloo West, Epuni West area units	Two
Wainuiomata Ward	The existing boundary of the Wainuiomata Ward including the Fernlea, Homedale West, Glendale, Homedale East, Parkway, Arakura and Pencarrow area units	Two
Harbour Ward	The existing boundary of the Harbour Ward including the Korokoro, Petone Central, Esplanade, Eastbourne, Moera, Waiwhetu South, Gracefield and Wilford, area units	Two