Meetings are not everyone’s cup of tea … especially when you’re not being paid to be there! So what does this mean for the collaborative governance processes which are now an important part of freshwater planning around New Zealand?

There are people like my father who just want to plant the plants, weed, and trap pests. He doesn’t want to have to organise volunteer days, go to meetings, or fill out funding applications. Luckily he has an ex-school teacher friend who does all that for him.

Then there are people like me — self-employed and interested in environmental issues, who would like to contribute but can’t afford a lot of time away from their business to attend meetings.

The people who can, and want to, attend meetings are either paid to be there, have a personal stake in the outcome, or have the time available to meet. At the moment, these tend to be the only people involved in freshwater collaborative governance groups.

I recognise that face to face, kanohi ki te kanohi, discussions are really important for building trust and relationships and working through problematic issues. But I wonder if there is scope to broaden the invitation for involvement to other interested people in a catchment and wider community.

One way to do this would be to use a Facebook group. I recently participated in a Facebook challenge which included these potentially transferable elements:

• a knowledgeable leader of the group, who responds in a timely way, and takes every comment and idea on board
• a defined period of time (no scope creep leading to more commitment than you originally signed up for)
• valuable information provided to the group
• questions can be asked at any time
• it's an easy and comfortable environment for sharing ideas, and receiving timely feedback on them
• conference calls occur at set times (using Zoom) which are recorded and made available for anyone who can’t make the live discussion.
  
  

The benefits of including this type of process within a collaborative process would be to gain more representative input and achieve wider awareness of the local freshwater issues and solutions. It also has the potential to speed up the collaborative process, as recommended in the OECD review of New Zealand’s environmental performance.

The 'OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: New Zealand 2017' recognises the value of collaborative processes for securing support for reforms, raising awareness about water risks and costs, and increasing users' willingness to pay and to handle conflicts. However, the report (from pages 191-192) also states:
​
“… there are concerns that the New Zealand collaborative governance approach in some cases may minimise, or at least delay, change for the following reasons:

• Change is predicated on consensus, which can be expensive and time-consuming.
• An imbalance of vested interests in collaborative groups and technical advisory groups can reduce the potential of collaborative governance groups to achieve ambitious water quality limits. Community members have to dedicate considerable time to the collaborative process. Added to this, collaborative group members are often exposing themselves to their community by fronting difficult conversations and solutions.
• There is variable capacity of community members to understand and assimilate information that includes complex biophysical, cultural, social and economic data.
  
  

The success of collaborative planning processes will depend on many factors, including how well they are resourced, the range of skills and views held by the collaborative group and the timeframe of the process.”

I lived in Hamilton for six years (four at university and two working as a journalist at the Hamilton Press) and I loved my time there. At first I missed the sea (after growing up near Waihi Beach), but I came to appreciate the Waikato River, the Hamilton Gardens and how easy it was to get around on a bike (no hills and much less wind than Waihi!)

The Waikato is rapidly growing in response to Auckland's population pressures and its proximity to that market place. A plan to set the region's course over the next 30 years has recently been released, and is open for submissions until 10 April. 

Draft Waikato Plan
The Draft Waikato Plan is a collaboration between local government, Iwi/Maori, central government, the private and community sectors and the Waikato people. 

On first glance, it looks like it should create significant efficiencies for councillors and staff in each of the participating councils, and save a lot of time for Iwi, central government agencies and other stakeholders who won't need to make submissions on similar issues in a whole lot of different plans.

Priorities and actions
The Waikato Plan includes these priorities and actions.

Priority 1: Planning for population change
1. Collaborate on a regional development strategy.
2. Identify the regional priorities for service and technical infrastructure.
3. Identify how central government services can be provided to match community need.

Priority 2: Connecting our communities through targeted investment
4. Advocate on behalf of regional transport priorities.
5. Integrate Auckland and Waikato transport networks.
6. Encourage development of a nationally significant cycling and walking experience.
7. Establish a freight and logistics action group.

Priority 3: Partnering with Iwi/Māori
8. Work collaboratively to develop and encourage enduring partnerships that enable Iwi/Māori aspirations to be achieved.

Priority 4: Addressing water allocation and quality
9. Develop the Waikato as a Waters Centre of Excellence.

Priority 5: Advancing regional and economic development
10. Assist in implementing the Waikato Economic Development Strategy (Waikato Means Business).

Implementation
A Waikato Plan Leadership Group will be responsible for overseeing implementation of the 10 actions listed above. The Group will consist of representatives from:

• local government (5)
• Iwi (6)
• the business/community (4)
• NZ Transport Authority (1)
• the Waikato District Health Board (1).
  
  

Two people will represent the following group of public sector agencies: the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the National Infrastructure Unit, the Ministry of Social Development, Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Education and any other public sector agencies.

An Independent Chair will either be appointed from the business/community members or as a separate appointment outside of any committee membership.
​
Waikato Regional Council will be the administration agency for the initial three-year implementation period. The implementation advice arrangements, contracts and budget administration will be run through Waikato Local Authority Shared Services Ltd, which is a council-controlled organisation. 

The five big trends could increase inequality here
We’ve been hearing a lot about inequality lately, as the fuel behind the referendum outcome in Britain and the election results in America. So it’s alarming to realise that many of the trends outlined in the LGNZ paper 'The 2050 challenge: future proofing our communities' have significant potential to increase inequality in New Zealand.
 
The LGNZ paper identifies more urbanisation, changing demographics and employment, automation and climate change as the five big issues we are likely to be tackling over the next 30 years.

Trend 1 - urbanisation
Large cities will expand and populations in many regional centres and rural areas will contract.
 
Trend 2 - changing demographics
In just over 30 years, four out of every 10 people will be at least 65 years old - including almost everyone who is reading this article! If most of us stay in our existing homes there is likely to be even more pressure on housing.
 
As well as being older, there will also be a much higher proportion of Maori, Asian and Pasifika people in New Zealand.

Trend 3 - more flexible employment arrangements
Our communities are increasingly moving away from ‘9 to 5’ permanent employment. One third of New Zealand’s working population now work in jobs that are not salaried full time employment

For half of these people, this is a great outcome because it offers them freedom and flexibility. For the other half it’s just a big dose of uncertainty and financial stress.

Trend 4 – automation of existing jobs
Parents are even less likely to understand what their children do at work than is currently the case. Automation of up to 46 percent of existing jobs has been predicted by some, meaning people will need different skills in order to find work.

The impact of these changes is likely to be felt much more severely by people in lower-skilled, lower-paid jobs. It will also have an uneven impact across the country, depending on the industries which become the most automated.

Trend 5 - climate change
Individuals and communities will be differently affected by climate change, particularly sea-level rise, changes in rainfall, and the occurrence of natural disasters.

Council responses to these trends
What roles will local government have in addressing these uneven impacts, and helping people to adapt to the new reality?
 
Councils have a clear mandate to be involved in planning and infrastructure provision related to urbanisation, as well as adaption to climate change. They will need to decide whether communities as a whole contribute to managing these impacts or whether a direct user pays approach should apply.
 
It is less clear what role councils could have in helping people to adapt to more flexible working conditions and automation of existing jobs. It may be that the main role for councils will be as a strong voice to central government on the impacts of the changing work environment on their communities.
 
As demographics change, there’s even more risk that the interests of the 40% of people over 65 years’ old will carry more weight around council tables than the concerns of younger people. After all, older people have more time to make submissions, attend meetings, and will be a significant proportion of the home-owning ratepayers of an area.
 
The LGNZ paper notes that conventional consultation models are unlikely to capture representative input and new engagement strategies are needed.
 
I imagine social media will become increasingly important and provides an opportunity for councils to be more connected to people whose concerns would not otherwise be represented.

What do you think?

• How will councils engage differently with their communities over the next 30 years?

Introduction
David McMahon is an accredited Independent Hearing Commissioner and resource management consultant at RMG with particular expertise in statutory planning and process. He has been a Commissioner since 2001, and has worked on a large number of plan change, resource consent and designation hearings in Wellington, the lower North Island and across the South Island.

In this article (the final one of a three part series), David identifies areas for improvement in how councils work with commissioners, and some of the challenges commissioners face.

In part one David discusses the increasing trend for councils to use independent commissioners, and in part two he discusses the decision making process.

What can council officers do to help independent hearing commissioners, to ensure a smooth hearing and decision making process?

The most important things are early engagement and separation of functions.
The sooner the Commissioner or panel is engaged, the sooner they can establish the pre-hearing process and timetable to be followed; for example pre-hearing meetings, expert conferencing/caucusing and further information requests.

Providing sufficient time for those actions to occur, whilst potentially delaying the commencement of the hearing, can usefully serve to narrow the issues in contention and therefore shorten the actual hearing duration or even in some (albeit limited) cases can completely resolve issues without the need for a hearing. The written directions to parties that a Commissioner can provide once appointed can readily assist in providing the scope and space for such conferencing/resolutions.

Although it is difficult for smaller councils without the luxury of large planning teams, it’s also essential that wherever possible a council maintains a separation between their administrative and reporting functions when dealing with hearing commissioners and panels.

Quite often the reporting officer is handling administrative arrangements, including commissioner liaison, and this is not appropriate. A reporting officer is no different from a submitter or an applicant. It is not okay for the hearing panel to be liaising directly and individually with any individual party to the proceedings, whether submitter, applicant or reporting officer because there’s the risk of influence, or a perception of influence.

What are some of the challenges independent hearing commissioners face?

• Timeframes

The statutory time frames for limited notified and fully notified consents mean that if a large proportion of the time is used up in processing, it constrains the time available for deliberations and decision-making. In this respect, pre-circulation of evidence (including the section 42A report) has been the biggest game changer due to the impact on timeframes. This is particularly so for resource consent hearings, whereas plan hearings have fewer time constraints.

Accommodating pre-circulation requirements into the time frames set down for limited and fully notified resource consent hearings is now mandatory but it does put pressure on all parties. Expert witnesses, whilst conscious of meeting the expectations of commissioners and working in the spirit of the code of practice, understandably have an eye on the ticking clock which means that they will still need to produce a brief of evidence following conferencing and have it circulated as per the due dates.  Commissioners need to be cognisant of these tensions and pressures when setting their own timeframes. The quid pro quo for experts is that if they are successful in narrowing the issues during conferencing this will reduce the scope and length of their evidence.

There is more opportunity for resolution of issues through a prehearing process for plan reviews and plan changes because the time frames are more liberal. So, whilst prehearing discussions enable a narrowing of the issues to be considered at the hearing, this can only effectively be done for plan changes and plans, unless in the case of resource consents the applicant agrees to put the application process on hold to accommodate pre-hearing conferencing. Otherwise, there isn’t much time for talking and everyone becomes locked into pre-circulation of evidence.

Early engagement is critical for this to be successful. For example, I have been engaged to assist with the decision making on a plan change at Tasman District Council. I have known this for 18 months, which means I can make sure I have the time available to do it, and I can be across all aspects of the process as soon as the official delegation has been made by the Council. This usually occurs prior to notification.

Once submissions close, I issue directions through a minute. This goes out to all parties involved in the hearing. It provides certainty about the process and gives a likely timeframe. In the minute, I outline the key issues raised in submissions and indicate I want parties to get together to resolve as much as possible before the hearing.
​

• Role separation

Working with councillors who are less experienced as hearing panel members can be challenging if they are finding it difficult to separate their roles as a hearing commissioner and as a councillor. In addition, some panel members are less willing to be advised on processes governing deliberations and outcomes. Fortunately, this is a rare occurrence.  Overall, and as discussed in Article 1 of this series, I firmly believe mixed panels are a good idea.

• Out of scope submissions

Sometimes submitters raise matters that are not relevant to the proceedings. I don’t enjoy having to explain to the submitter that the issue is ‘out of scope’ or outside the RMA jurisdiction. I do allow some latitude for submitters to address such issues but it’s usually on the basis that they are best advised to use their speaking time more effectively on matters that I can control as opposed to matters that are outside my jurisdiction.

• Categorisation of submissions

As discussed in Article 2, I like to take an issues approach to deliberations, which can be assisted or impeded by the way submission points are categorised, and reported on in the section 42A report. In this respect, having reporting officers group a whole range of submission points in a ‘general’ category in the section 42A report is not helpful.

• Voluminous material

One of the noticeable trends under the RMA is the massive amount of written material produced by its statutory instruments and associated processes. This is very prevalent in RMA hearings, particularly with the amount of pre-circulated material that is produced and needs to be read prior to the hearing commencement. While this essentially shortens the hearing process, it places a huge demand on panel members to read the material beforehand and to assimilate the content.

Concluding comment
This is the final in this series of articles on decision making under the RMA. I’ve enjoyed contributing to it and hope it has been of interest to all participants in RMA hearings.  Hopefully it has stimulated some discussion even if you don’t agree with all that has been canvased.

Finally, I would like to thank Debra Bradley for initiating this series and getting me motivated to contribute under her editorial tutelage. Her grasp of these matters is impressive and I would commend her services to councils throughout the country.

In part three (the final one of a three part series), David identifies areas for improvement in how councils work with commissioners, and some of the challenges commissioners face. 
Introduction
David McMahon is an accredited Independent Hearing Commissioner and resource management consultant at RMG with particular expertise in statutory planning and process. He has been a Commissioner since 2001, and has worked on a large number of plan change, resource consent and designation hearings in Wellington, the lower North Island and across the South Island.

In this article (which is part two of a three part series), David discusses the decision making process.

In part one David discusses the increasing trend for councils to use independent commissioners, and in part three he identifies areas for improvement in how councils work with commissioners, and some of the challenges commissioners face.

In part three (the final one of a three part series), David identifies areas for improvement in how councils work with commissioners, and some of the challenges commissioners face. 

What happens during the decision making process?

• After the hearing

As a general rule, we don’t close the hearing on the day the submitters or applicant/proponent finish speaking. We usually adjourn the hearing for two reasons.

Firstly, we often do a follow up site and locality visit. In many instances there are particular properties or places we want to visit a second time based on material we have heard during the course of the hearing; usually from submitters.

Secondly, an adjournment provides an ideal opportunity to collate the information in front of the Panel to ascertain whether there are any material gaps that should be plugged by one or more of the parties. Nine times out of ten I have usually flagged these information requirements to the parties during the hearing but the immediate post-hearing point is an ideal time to perform this form of 'stock take'.

Actually there is a third reason for an adjournment; that is to give either (or both) the Reporting Officer and the Applicant some time to prepare their respective ‘closings’. For the Reporting Officer this is usually giving them adequate time to reflect on what they have heard (from the applicant and submitters) during the course of the hearing and to reduce that to a written update to their section 42A report. For the applicant this is an opportunity to provide their traditional right of reply in writing.   

I usually minute the above process so everyone knows what is expected and the timeframe involved. Normally we reconvene at another time to hear those ‘closings’, but sometimes it’s possible to just consider the papers without reconvening.

• Making the decision

Where I am acting as the Chair, I have a role to educate the hearing panel, and ensure all views are considered. At the commencement of deliberations, I go around the room to see where everyone sits on the matter we are deciding – whether a plan change or a resource consent – what they are happy with and what bugs them, and we get those things up on the whiteboard. Once people see their issues listed, they feel less obliged to keep bringing up the same points.

These things are not necessarily taught in the commissioner training – but they are what I can offer.

Councillors are generally receptive to working through how we make a decision first, before arriving at the actual decision. We look at the issues and the context before reaching a decision.

Sometimes councillors want to jump immediately to a decision; that is inevitable and what they are often used to in LGA forums. But my role is to promote a logical decision making process and ensure we have addressed all issues that are relevant to arriving at a decision. This is important as the reasons for the decision need to be clearly stated in the formal determination.
​
I use two whiteboards to structure the decision making process. One for the decision outline and one to develop each section in that outline. The first is the broad structure of the decision and helps provide context for the decision-making process. The second represents the ‘skeleton’ of the write up of each section (topic or issue) of the decision. At each stage in the process the notes on the boards are photographed and this informs the creation of a decision report covering:

Part 1 – Introduction – background and proposal
Part 2 – Issue definition and a summary of what we heard
Part 3 – Evaluation – what we make of what we heard
Part 4 – Statutory considerations
Part 5 – Recommendations.

• Decision writing

Independent commissioners (ICs) bring decision writing skills to a Panel. ICs can either write their own decisions or delegate to a decision writer, or use a combination of both.  I employ both methods depending on the complexity of the matter being considered. However, on complex proceedings, working with a hearings adviser can be more efficient than the panel creating this decision report. It’s ideal for the hearing adviser to attend the hearing, to hear the submissions first hand. Writing up can be done remotely, but it is more difficult.

Even though councils no longer have to make decisions on individual points on district and regional plan matters, I still use a table to record individual decisions on every submission and further submission point to make sure everything is covered. I encourage councils to adopt this table approach in the submission summary and in the section 42A report (usually as an appendix) as it allows the decision to focus on the issues in contention rather than become a prolonged narrative on submitter points.

• Issues approach

I like to take an issues approach. This decision report example relating to the delisting of a heritage building in Wellington (Plan Change 81) covered 11 issues. The decision report clearly states how evidence was weighed and balanced. It’s clear why the decision was made. It also notes why a different decision could arise at appeal stage if other evidence which was tabled (but not tested) was considered in a different forum.

What is the role of local knowledge in the decision making process?

Local knowledge is both useful and a hindrance.

In a hearing, you can only know what you’re told in the written/verbal material placed in front of you at the hearing (a bit like a jury). Commissioners are there to hear, to weigh and to balance the evidence. Whilst a Panel Member’s technical knowledge may assist them in testing certain evidence, it is not appropriate for Panel Members to substitute their own knowledge for the absence of evidence.

Local knowledge can also be very useful, for example being able to advise the other Panel Members that a council has decided to address heritage issues through Long Term Plan funding and non-regulatory education rather than through the district plan.  Local knowledge of the good spots for a decent coffee is also critical.

What is your process for reaching a decision when the independent commissioners on a Panel don’t agree?

I try and break down the issue – is it limited to a particular component of the decision or is it the total decision?

I also attempt to isolate the reasons for the disagreement – are they valid; are they RMA related; and are they capable of being addressed through the addition or deletion of a particular provision (on a plan matter) or conditions (in the case of a resource consent)?
​
Really, it’s a case of exploring all possible solutions to the disagreement, and if there’s still no consensus then accepting that a dissenting or alternate view/decision may be the outcome. In this case it’s important that Panels either have an uneven number of members, or if it is an even number, that the Chair has a casting vote.

Will use of independent commissioners increase decision making consistency across New Zealand?

I hope so. It can’t help but increase awareness of how best practice is evolving around the country. In this sense I really hope this series of articles generates some interest in the use of ICs around the traps and in particular the use of Mixed Panels, and also helps share some of my thoughts with other Commissioners.

What do you like most about working as an independent hearing commissioner?

​Achieving an efficient and effective outcome is immensely satisfying, as is having opportunities to train others.
​
I also enjoy meeting a diverse range of people with a variety of skills, and travelling to places like Ohakune in summer when it is very quiet (out of the ski season), and Alexandra in the middle of a very cold hoar frost. Every hearing is different.

Introduction
David McMahon is an accredited Independent Hearing Commissioner and resource management consultant at RMG with particular expertise in statutory planning and process. He has been a Commissioner since 2001, and has worked on a large number of plan change, resource consent and designation hearings in Wellington, the lower North Island and across the South Island.

In this article (which is part one of a three part series), David discusses the increasing trend for councils to use independent commissioners.

In part two David talks about the decision making process, and in part three he identifies areas for improvement in how councils work with commissioners, and some of the challenges commissioners face.

Have you noticed a trend towards councils using independent hearing panels more often?

Yes. This is definitely a trend, which began in earnest around 2005 when the Making Good Decisions course commenced and independent commissioners needed to be officially accredited. It has been ramping up ever since, following law changes in 2009 requiring a proportion of all hearing panels to be accredited, and in 2013, requiring accredited Chairs of hearing panels.
​
In particular, I’ve noticed a trend to use independent commissioners in a mixed panel arrangement, made up of some councillors with one or two independent commissioners.  This reflects the need for panels to be made up of accredited commissioners and Chairs, as not all councillors are accredited.

Another reason for this trend is general pressure on councillors to focus on other Council responsibilities under the LGA and portfolios. It can be difficult for councillors to commit significant amounts of time to long hearings.

Are hearings becoming longer?

As a general rule yes. There has been a noticeable increase in the complexity of hearings, which require a diverse range of technical knowledge. This has particularly been the case with regional consent applications (and joint regional/district hearings such as quarry/landfill applications) where scientific evidence often predominates. Also, now that second generation district plans are being developed, with resource consent hearings we are returning to the situation of having to consider the relative weightings of provisions in existing and proposed plans.
​
Small hearing reports are a thing of the past. There is often a requirement for multiple technical assessments by reporting officers and applicants. For example, in addition to the typical traffic, noise, and landscape assessments, the rise of the geotechnical assessment has occurred since the Christchurch earthquakes. So there is more technical information for panels to absorb.

The counterbalance to this – and a recent trend since the 2013 amendment – is the increase in pre-circulation of hearing reports and expert evidence. Avoiding the need to have evidence read verbatim at hearings is helping to keep hearings to manageable lengths.

Even though hearings are longer and more complex, there are fewer resource consent hearings because the vast majority of resource consent applications are non-notified following legislation changes to speed up resource consent processes.

This change means there is more reason for people to get involved in plan hearings, which means these hearings are likely to be longer, and involve more people.

In what circumstances are councils most likely to use an independent hearing panel?

Independent commissioners (ICs) are used in both resource consent and District/Regional Plan hearings. However, in my experience, ICs are most likely to be involved in resource consent applications, either exclusively or as part of a panel.

Councils use independent hearing panels where the council is the applicant, for example, applications related to a roading designation, a community centre or a waste water treatment plant. They are also used for resource consents where there is potential for conflict due to lobbying of councillors, or if councillors know the applicant.

Another factor leading to the use of ICs – and a more recent trend under the RMA – is that both applicants and submitters can now request independent decision makers on resource consent applications.

In what circumstances do you think it is better for councillors to hear submissions and make decisions?

It’s good for councillors to be involved at a plan making level.  That’s because if they get the policy right, the “right” decisions will be made on resource consent applications.

However, mixed panels of independent commissioners and councillors are even better, and are now the accepted norm. Mixed panels can be very effective because they combine councillors’ local knowledge and governance role with the technical expertise and legislative know-how of the independent commissioners.
​
Queenstown District Council is using a pool of commissioners in the decision making process for its Proposed District Plan. The same Chair is involved in all the hearings, alongside one councillor per hearing and two other commissioners (from the pool). Kapiti Coast District Council is using a mixed panel of two ICs, two councillors and one Iwi commissioner for its Proposed District Plan hearings.

Next year the Wellington Regional Council’s Proposed Natural Resources Plan hearings will be heard by a panel of three independent commissioners.

How do councils find out about the independent commissioners available to assist them?
There are a variety of ways to select independent hearing commissioners. There is a centralised list on the Ministry for the Environment’s Making Good Decisions web page.

Many councils are now either calling for nominations from independent commissioners for their register of accredited decision makers (usually for resource consent hearings) or requesting specific registrations for plan reviews (from which either a pool or a panel is constituted).

Word of mouth plays an important part too.

Commissioners can also advise on the best mix of skills and personnel for a particular hearing panel. When I am asked to be a commissioner on a hearing panel I ask who I will be sitting with. I take into account skills and personalities, and whether it will be a strong team. I’m a generalist who understands process and policy. Technical experts are often needed, and involvement of a councillor with local knowledge can also be important.
​
It is a great privilege when councils approach me and ask who I would recommend including on the panel, giving me the opportunity to choose a strong team.

​It's nearly that time of year again, when councils will be seeking feedback from the public on a wide range of plans, policies and bylaws.
​
I've read thousands of submissions. In my experience, the most effective submissions:

• provide a concise summary at the beginning of the submission of the changes requested
• are reasonable and logical rather than overly emotive, but say why the issue matters
• explain why the requested change is better, for both the council and the wider community
• consider the point of view of the council and what the objections could be to what the submitter is requesting
• make it easy for the council to say yes to their proposal — one way to do this is to provide alternative wording for inclusion in the plan
• recognise the constraints the council is working within, and propose solutions that can be achieved within those constraints
• say what the submitter supports as well as what they are seeking to change. 

The Auditor General has published a report on the first round of LTP consultation documents to be produced since the legislation requiring them came into effect last year. The full report is available here  http://www.oag.govt.nz/2015/ltp-consultation-documents/docs/ltp-consultation-documents.pdf

Three key themes of the Auditor-General's report are:

• what worked best in consultation documents
• issues with supporting documents, including the mandatory infrastructure and financial strategies
• some innovative consultation methods being used by some councils around New Zealand, including increasing use of social media to receive submissions.

Consultation documents
Some of the best consultation documents were concise. They often:

• used the main elements of the proposed financial and infrastructure strategies to introduce issues; and
• clearly explained the significant issues for the local authority, including the relevant options and implications.
  
  

Issues with some consultation documents were they:

• included too much background or other unnecessary information, leading to a loss of focus;
• contained poor discussion of the infrastructure and financial strategies, so it was difficult to understand what the strategies were and how they related to the significant issues;
• were unclear about which issues the local authority had already consulted on and which were new issues for consultation; and
• had poorly written consultation questions.

A consultation document needs to be clear about matters a local authority:

• has already consulted on;
• is currently consulting on; and
• will consult on in the future through a separate consultation process.

Supporting documents
Making it easy to find the supporting information is important.

In Federated Farmers’ view, the consultation process was not improved by the need to consider multiple documents and to search for information that had previously been contained in a consistent and coherent order in the LTP.

SOLGM’s recommendation to all local authorities is to complete a full draft LTP to support the consultation document.

Innovative consultation methods - Auckland, New Plymouth and Dunedin.

In Auckland, people could make verbal or written submissions and use social media. Digital promotion included banners on websites such as MetService, TradeMe, The New Zealand Herald, and Stuff. The Council also used Facebook and Twitter to request and receive consultation.

The website also provided two tools the Audit Office considered to be particularly useful. These were a budget calculator and a rates calculator.

• The budget calculator allowed users to experiment with different funding levels for Council activities, reflecting the options proposed in the consultation document. It calculated the effect of the options on total Council debt levels, total Council spending, and average household rates.
• The rates calculator allowed users to enter a specific address and get details of the rates applicable to that property based on the proposals in the consultation document. It was also possible to enter the different levels of Uniform Annual General Charge that were provided as options in the consultation document to understand the effect on household rates.

New Plymouth District Council launched an interactive website called MyRates. This website provided ratepayers with an innovative way to see the effect of including or excluding the main proposals on their rates. Users could then submit their preferences to elected members.

The Council also produced this video, “What has the Council ever done for us?”

This was a novel and light-hearted approach to highlighting the various services that the Council provides with ratepayer funds. The video had received more than 3300 views at the time the Audit Office wrote this report.

The Council also used social media extensively to raise public awareness of the consultation process and to encourage members of the community to have their say.

Dunedin City Council considers that changes to the Act provided it with more freedom to engage with the community and consider feedback than had previously been the case. Residents were made aware that they could provide feedback through social media, which would be provided to councillors for consideration. This was a change from the Council’s previous approach of using social media to tell the community how to provide feedback, but not actually to receive and collate feedback.

The Council also used its “People’s Panel” to provide feedback. This email-based panel includes members of the public from a range of backgrounds who provide views on topical issues that are before the Council. 
​
The Mayor hosted two online chats during the consultation period. Interested residents were able to lodge questions or provide comments, and the Mayor then responded online. Transcripts of the chats were made available on the Council’s website.

Auckland's Long Term Plan Consultation Document (2015) includes some features which are likely to be of interest to other councils.

Clear issues
The consultation document includes four key issues:
1.How much are people willing to pay to make Auckland better?
2. Fixing Auckland's transport - and two options for paying for it. Option 1 is a motorway user charge of about $2 per trip and option 2 is additional annual 1% rates rise and a 1.2 cents per litre fuel tax).
3. Should the Council take a more active role in improving the quality of urban living?
4. Rates - how should rates be shared across ratepayers?
In addition, local funding priorities for 2015-16 are listed on pages 51 to 54.

Efficient consultation
Responses to the transport aspects of the document will inform both the Regional Land Transport Plan and the Long Term Plan.

Useful Infographics, that other councils may wish to adapt:
Page 26 shows spending in each activity area, and the proportion of funding from rates and other sources of income
Page 41 shows the rates impact of different Uniform Annual General Charges on houses valued at $500,000, $750,000, $1 million and $1.5 million.
​
A three page summary
This is a separate document, called a Draft 10-year budget - summary of key decisions which provides information on the average rates increase (3.5%) and the other key financial proposals.