 Who wants to be the person to front up and tell Mr Bloggs he can't divert a stream that’s undermining his bridge, build a high fence for which he has already bought the timber, or put in a fireplace to heat his cold house? Not me.
I’m not suited to it — I avoid conflict situations wherever possible. But we all need the people who are prepared to deliver the unpalatable but important messages, and to take action against people who ignore environmental standards. In ‘Last Line of Defence’ Marie Brown identifies a number of issues related to compliance, monitoring and enforcement in New Zealand, including the work carried out by councils. Here are nine issues councils face, and some potential solutions. 1. Different powers that apply under different legislation (bylaws are one example I have come across, where the enforcement powers are hugely variable). Here's a link to my earlier blog about how bylaw enforcement powers vary from strict to toothless. 2. Most environmental legislation does not provide councils with the ability to impose instant fines for lower level offences. 3. There is often no feedback loop between compliance monitoring and consent processes. Marie Brown’s suggestions include: - incentivising compliance by reducing the number of ongoing site visits required where compliance is occurring - being able to cancel resource consents (or refuse further consent applications) where non-compliance is serious or ongoing. 4. More than 40 councils have one or fewer than one FTE staff member to carry out their compliance, monitoring and enforcement responsibilities. Lack of time and resources for this work can result in lower quality investigations, and failed enforcement actions that waste time and ratepayer money. Marie Brown recommends: - an accreditation system for compliance, monitoring and enforcement, similar to New Zealand’s building consent accreditation process - access to a national or regional pool of expertise, for complex investigations. 5. Many councils don’t have a clear policy on how decisions about enforcement will be made, which can lead to an inconsistent approach. Marie Brown recommends that all local government agencies produce, and make publicly available, clear and up-to-date policies on environmental enforcement. She refers to Waikato Regional Council’s enforcement policy as a good example. 6. Councils are significant resource users on behalf of their communities, for example taking water for water supply services, and discharging stormwater into freshwater and coastal waters. They also carry out instream works for flood protection purposes. Where councils also have responsibility for monitoring and enforcing compliance of their own activities there is potential for perceived or actual conflicts of interest. 7. Limited information about enforcement actions is made available to the public, other than by local news agencies. Marie Brown suggests that “instances of public offending, particularly successful cases against offenders, can build valuable public support for the role of environmental enforcement agencies.” 8. IT infrastructure for tracking what enforcement action has been taken is essential. It is especially needed if the offender was only given a warning — to track whether compliance occurred in response to the warning. Small councils with limited resources can benefit from collaborating with other councils to commission the IT systems they need. 9. More independent auditing (for example by the Office of the Auditor-General) is needed, in the same way as occurs for other council functions such as the development of Long Term Plans. Marie Brown concludes with the following statement: “What is abundantly clear is that CME [compliance, monitoring and enforcement] is the poor cousin of other stages of the policy and planning cycle, despite its vital importance to achieving the aspirations of law and policy. If law and policy is about behaviour change, then it must be recognised that the on-the-ground efforts of agencies to procure that behaviour change deserve greater focus and priority.”
0 Comments
 I love the beginning of the year when everything seems possible. It feels like a clean slate to do things so much better than during that messy, overly busy year that's just finished! Back in 2014, councils had to scramble to get their first ever 30 year infrastructure strategies together. There was very little time between the Government adopting the legislative requirement in August 2014 and the main points having to be ready for inclusion in the 2015 LTP consultation documents. Councils were perfectly justified in deciding to take a ‘compliance only’ approach, given the tight time frames. In many cases the focus needed to be on getting the strategies over the line by ticking all the boxes of section 101B of the Local Government Act 2002, with a plan to do a much better job by 2018. This was especially the case for the long-term strategic issues and assumptions included in the strategies. So, now it's time to pick up those 2015 documents and decide how to go about updating and rewriting these strategies, to meet that commitment. Feedback from the Office of the Auditor-General Sarah Lineman (Acting Assistant Auditor-General, Local Government) made the following comments in the January 2017 Perspectives magazine (page 14): “Expect to see our auditors focusing slightly differently than they did in 2015, with an increased emphasis on the quality of, and explanation for, the assumptions used to build your strategies and forecasts. We will expect that highly uncertain assumptions — and their implications — will be clearly explained to your communities. “We encourage councils to also think carefully this year about what you’ve learnt from previous LTP cycles and bring all these learnings to the 2018 round. We hope to see a real consolidation and improvement in key areas, such as financial and infrastructure strategies, and the presentation of consultation documents.” Here are some suggestions for your review process.
 Introduction
Opus Senior Planner David Jackson has worked in central and local government, as well as consultancy. He has a strong interest in urban planning and design, neighbourhood and centres development planning, as well as how to develop longer term plans that work and are useful. In this article he shares his thoughts on the potential for more joined up planning in New Zealand. Celebrated cities Melbourne, Curitiba, Vancouver and Singapore are all densely populated cities which are celebrated for their high quality urban environments. Something these cities all have in common is long term, consistent implementation of solutions to their challenges. The requirement for New Zealand councils to develop thirty year infrastructure strategies and the Proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity are promising first steps in enabling New Zealand cities to plan the creation of higher quality urban environments here,. However, lack of an integrated approach to this long term planning is a risk. Upcoming challenges Many of the issues identified in the 2015 NZ Thirty Year Infrastructure Plan will also need to be addressed at a local level:
All of these are good things to be considering, but whether they get translated into infrastructure plans will come back to the range of disciplines addressing them. For example, our large ageing population is a medium term issue, but we don’t want to permanently plan our cities around this somewhat temporary demographic issue. One solution could be to think about adaptive uses such as making it easy to live in half the home and convert the other half for renting out and getting some income from that. Or temporary granny flats, which can be taken away once it’s no longer needed on a property. I do worry that, notwithstanding the above list of issues, many thirty year infrastructure strategies will just be about roads, sewers, drains and the like. While they are important, and indeed critical, you cannot plan properly for them without considering the land uses that will drive the demand on infrastructure. It seems obvious to me that you cannot work out your infrastructure needs without considering the activities on the surrounding land. But this does not seem to be universally accepted – much asset management planning gets done in isolation from other planning or strategic visioning. Legislative backing is needed A lack of non-partisan buy in to a strategic direction can hold us back. This, and a three year election cycle, has led to a lot of unpicking of projects and longer term plans. Another challenge has been that the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act don’t talk to each other very well. There is still a lack of clarity on how everything relates. Most councils have interesting strategies gathering dust on shelves. This ends up devaluing public input, which can be given enthusiastically with an expectation that it will make a difference. However, if strategies aren’t mandatory they tend to be ignored over the longer term. This is an argument for urban development legislation. Medium to long term strategies that address neighbourhood development and sustainability need legislative backing. We should focus on refreshing these strategies over time rather than reinventing them on a regular basis. Higher density living increases the need for quality urban environmentsThe thirty year infrastructure strategies are only required to address one angle of longer term planning. Likewise, the Proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity focuses on providing more housing, but not on the experience of living in these places. We also need to think about the quality of the urban environments. The higher the density of housing, the more quality matters. For example, if there’s no outside yard, local parks become more important. Integrate infrastructure, zone rules and project fundingCouncils have a choice when developing their infrastructure strategies. They can be basic, only focusing on the roads and pipes we need. Or they can become the starting point for a long term growth plan/spatial plan. This would be just as useful for areas experiencing depopulation as for growth areas, for example to make decisions on abandoning a certain area of the town. An urban development plan could bring together statutory plans with zone rules, infrastructure and the funding for actions. Only Auckland currently has a mandatory requirement to do a spatial plan (required as part of the development of the Unitary Plan). Dunedin has developed a spatial plan which is not too over the top, but addresses growth, hazards, neighbourhood centres and a range of other issues. I see it as a good example of a very useful plan – useful in the sense of providing the platform for their new district plan, and for a bunch of actions that get funded through the Long Term and Annual Plans. Examples of high quality cities These cities didn’t just accept the problems they faced, but instead did something about it. Melbourne has a development plan, and the council has paid a lot of attention to urban design. The city has great transit, with just one card needed to go on all transport, making it easy to move around. The combination of good accessibility, design flair and vibrancy means that Melbourne has to be up there as a world class city. Curitiba, in Brazil, solved its transport woes, which were significant in the 1950s and 60s. Its mayor (who incidentally, or perhaps significantly, was a planner) led a plan to create an integrated transit-based city. It was so successful that Curitiba’s council now has a whole department for hosting all the people from around the world who come to learn how to achieve similar outcomes. It is interesting to reflect on the different paths Curitiba and Auckland took over the last 50 years, with vastly different results. Vancouver has incorporated the concept of ‘gentle density’ in its spatial plan. I love this term, as it’s not threatening, and it works at various levels:
Portland created something different as a result of being steadfast in their approach rather than chopping and changing. Singapore doesn’t have many natural features, but has invested in design to create great public spaces and art, and gardens. It also has brilliant transit and free events. Paradoxically, for a place that depends on fossil fuels for its very survival, it is very green in many respects.  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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.  The Government will soon provide more national direction on managing risks associated with natural hazards through a National Disaster Resilience Strategy.
This strategy will be influenced by the international Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction. This is a United Nations agreement which New Zealand signed in 2015. It has four priorities for action: 1. Understanding disaster risk. 2. Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk. 3. Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience. 4. Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. New Zealand’s National Disaster Resilience Strategy The National Disaster Resilience Strategy is being developed by the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management (MCDEM), and will replace the current National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy. The MCDEM website states the Ministry will consider where efforts could be better targeted to yield the greatest benefit across the four priority areas of the Sendai Framework (listed above). Strategy development processCouncils are key stakeholders in the National Disaster Resilience Strategy, alongside property managers and owners, lifeline utilities, insurers and reinsurers, and the NZ Insurance Council. There are multiple opportunities for local government to take part in the MCDEM’s development of the National Disaster Resililence Strategy, which is due for completion in 2017 – the timeline for that process is available here. National Policy Statement or National Environmental Standard?At a recent Resource Management Law Association meeting, Tonkin + Taylor Director Marje Russ said one of the outcomes of the Strategy is likely to be national guidance on resilience for councils in the form of a National Policy Statement (NPS) or a National Environmental Standard (NES). Marje is currently working on a report for the Government on this topic. Marje said the resilience NPS or NES is unlikely to be developed until after the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 has taken effect, so the upcoming changes related to national instruments can apply to that process. The natural hazards page of the Ministry for the Environment website states: “Managing significant risks from natural hazards is a Government priority. The Minister has stated a preference for a National Policy Statement (NPS) with an indicative date for completion of 2018. Consultation on the development of a NPS would commence following the enactment of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill.” NPS or NES? At the Resource Management Law Association meeting I attended in Nelson (on 28 April 2016), the indication from participants was that a National Environmental Standard for managing natural hazards would be more welcome than a National Policy Statement. The general view was that a NES would more effectively and efficiently overcome many of the difficulties many councils have faced when the community has opposed natural hazard mapping and rules in resource management plans. Do you agree? Or do you think a National Policy Statement would provide what councils need to manage natural hazards in New Zealand?  Here are Anne Churcher's responses to questions about the change from a hazard to a risk management focus in the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, and the implications for councils and council-funded organisations. Anne Churcher (www.acaudit.co.nz) has over 20 years’ experience as an internal auditor and risk manager. She provides risk management and health and safety advice to the health and local government sectors.
1. What is the difference between a hazard and a risk? There is a subtle difference between the two concepts. A hazard is a source of harm, whereas risks refer to the chance of something happening. For example, an uneven footpath is a hazard. However, the risk related to an uneven surface would be of someone tripping and breaking their leg. A risk assessment would consider the likelihood and impact of this happening, and this will be different on a footpath than on a staircase. All hazards can be viewed as risks but not all risks are hazards. 2. Why do you think the concept of risk management has been included in the new Act? I don’t know what was in the mind of the legislators and I’m certainly not a lawyer. Risk management provides the framework to go beyond identification of a physical hazard to consideration of what might happen and how likely it is. This may vary greatly in different organisations. Not all risks are created equal – so it allows the organisation to focus on those with the greatest likelihood of occurrence and/or those with the potential to cause the greatest harm. 3. Are hazards mentioned at all in the Act? Yes, the wording throughout the Act talks about “hazards and risks”. Notably the definition of a hazard in the Act narrowly defines a hazard as including “a person’s behaviour where that behaviour has the potential to cause death, injury, or illness to a person…” 4. What should organisations be thinking about? An organisation needs to have a systematic, ongoing risk management programme. Risks must be identified, assessed and where necessary managed to an acceptable level. Processes need to be in place to monitor the key controls that ensure risks are kept at a tolerable level. An organisation may wish to independently audit their existing health and safety or risk management programmes to identify any necessary improvements. Many guidance and information resources are available online, including those on the WorkSafe and ACC websites. 5. What are the implications of these changes for local government generally? Chief executives and senior managers with decision making roles have more personal responsibility for health and safety, with the potential for large personal fines, which can’t be insured against. Councillors are exempt from personal liability, but chief executives are not. I expect most councils will have a risk management function in place that may already work closely with their Health and Safety team. These may need some minor adjustments to ensure the council is meeting its health and safety obligations. There is a requirement for organisations to work together to manage health and safety. Council officers will need to work closely with their contractors, volunteers and funded community groups to ensure health and safety is managed. 6. What are the implications for small-medium sized organisations owned or funded by councils? The management team will need to check their policies and procedures meet the requirements of the new Act. It should just be a matter of tweaking what they already have, but the council which funds the organisation will want more assurance that health and safety risks are being well managed. Small organisations with fewer than 20 workers, and which are not in a high risk sector or industry (as defined by the Act), don’t have to have health and safety representatives or a health and safety committee, but can choose to do so voluntarily. Museums, art galleries, and council funded events often involve a lot of volunteers. Most volunteers are also considered workers, within the context of the Act. See section 19 (3) for more details. Councils will need to work together with organisations they fund to be sure that health and safety compliance is in place. This will include looking at their risk assessments and their policies. This responsibility will also apply when Council contracts out the running of an event. The general principle is that responsibility goes up to the chief executive. However, this has not yet been tested through the courts. 7. What steps can senior management teams and chief executives take to make sure their organisation is meeting the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015?
8. How can councils assist the organisations they own or fund to comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act?
 New animal welfare regulations are being proposed for New Zealand, which would enable instant fines to apply for actions adversely impacting on animals. This is a great step forward, as it means immediate action can be taken, rather than requiring costly prosecutions.
Fines would apply for causing heat stress in dogs by leaving them in hot cars, or failing to provide fully shaded and dry areas for resting and sleeping in areas where dogs are confined. Infringement fines would also apply for:
In addition, dogs on moving vehicles on public roads would have to be secured in a way that prevents them from falling off, except for working dogs which could be unsecured on a vehicle while working. The regulations related to dogs are to be enforced by the SPCA’s animal welfare inspectors, while Ministry of Primary Industries will be responsible for animal welfare enforcement for farm animals (see page 20 of the consultation document). The police will also be deemed to be animal welfare inspectors. However, the consultation document notes their involvement is usually limited to where animal welfare offending is connected to other crimes. Given dog control officers employed by councils are often at the sharp end of dog-related issues, why not deem them to be animal welfare inspectors, with the power to impose infringement fines directly, rather than by contacting the SPCA? More details about the proposed regulations are available here. Submissions close on 19 May 2016, and can be provided by email to Animal.WelfareSubmissions@mpi.govt.nz.  The Productivity Commission is considering whether New Zealand needs to have so many different Acts influencing urban planning. The Acts under scrutiny in the Better Urban Planning issues paper are:
Looking at this list, it's not surprising the Commission found (in 2015) that the current planning system is complex, and suffers from poor integration. Issues are:
From my experience, this lack of legislative integration creates real challenges for local government even when staff have the best intentions to work together across RMA, asset management and long term planning disciplines. What do you think? Could your council deliver better urban planning outcomes if the legislation was changed? Submissions on the issues paper are due by 9 March 2016 and they will be made available on the Commission’s website soon afterwards, at www.productivity.govt.nz. Next steps in the process
 While the finer details of the proposed National Environmental Standard (NES) for Plantation Forestry will be ironed out with the stakeholders, I support the overall proposal because of the efficiency it offers New Zealand councils and forestry companies. I recently attended a talk by Giles Day, of Training Management Solutions, who helps businesses become more efficient. He gave the group an exercise:
The first pigs took the longest time to draw, and they were all wildly different. The second pigs still took a fair bit of time, and different interpretations of the instructions resulted in considerable variation. The third pigs were quick to do, and all looked the same. Thinking about those pigs and the NES on Plantation Forestry:
One of the first steps to developing an infrastructure strategy is choosing a structure that will meet the requirements of section 101B of the Local Government Act.
The Department of Internal Affairs has prepared an updated version of its fictional infrastructure strategy to help councils identify a structure that will work for them. This is available at: http://www.dia.govt.nz/vwluResources/BLG-15d/$file/BLG-Fact-Sheet-October-2014-Makowhero-District-Council-Infrastructure-Strategy-Mk3.pdf All local authorities must identify their significant infrastructure issues for the period covered by the strategy (at least 30 years). The document must identify the principal options for managing those issues and the implications of those options.
Here are some useful links. I found the first document (the fictional Matawhero District Council example) particularly useful for understanding what the strategy needs to achieve:
Relevant sections of the Local Government Act 2002 Part 1, clause 9 - Financial strategy and infrastructure strategy A long-term plan must include a local authority's financial strategy described under section 101A and infrastructure strategy described under section 101B. 101B Infrastructure strategy (1) A local authority must, as part of its long-term plan, prepare and adopt an infrastructure strategy for a period of at least 30 consecutive financial years. (2) The purpose of the infrastructure strategy is to-- (a) identify significant infrastructure issues for the local authority over the period covered by the strategy; and (b) identify the principal options for managing those issues and the implications of those options. (3) The infrastructure strategy must outline how the local authority intends to manage its infrastructure assets, taking into account the need to-- (a) renew or replace existing assets; and (b) respond to growth or decline in the demand for services reliant on those assets; and (c) allow for planned increases or decreases in levels of service provided through those assets; and (d) maintain or improve public health and environmental outcomes or mitigate adverse effects on them; and (e) provide for the resilience of infrastructure assets by identifying and managing risks relating to natural hazards and by making appropriate financial provision for those risks. (4)The infrastructure strategy must outline the most likely scenario for the management of the local authority’s infrastructure assets over the period of the strategy and, in that context, must-- (a) show indicative estimates of the projected capital and operating expenditure associated with the management of those assets-- (i) in each of the first 10 years covered by the strategy; and (ii) in each subsequent period of 5 years covered by the strategy; and (b) identify-- (i) the significant decisions about capital expenditure the local authority expects it will be required to make; and (ii) when the local authority expects those decisions will be required; and (iii) for each decision, the principal options the local authority expects to have to consider; and (iv) the approximate scale or extent of the costs associated with each decision; and (c) include the following assumptions on which the scenario is based: (i) the assumptions of the local authority about the life cycle of significant infrastructure assets: (ii) the assumptions of the local authority about growth or decline in the demand for relevant services: (iii) the assumptions of the local authority about increases or decreases in relevant levels of service; and (d) if assumptions referred to in paragraph (c) involve a high level of uncertainty,-- (i) identify the nature of that uncertainty; and (ii) include an outline of the potential effects of that uncertainty. (5) A local authority may meet the requirements of section 101A and this section by adopting a single financial and infrastructure strategy document as part of its long-term plan. (6) In this section, infrastructure assets includes-- (a) existing or proposed assets to be used to provide services by or on behalf of the local authority in relation to the following groups of activities: (i) water supply: (ii) sewerage and the treatment and disposal of sewage: (iii) stormwater drainage: (iv) flood protection and control works: (v) the provision of roads and footpaths; and (b) any other assets that the local authority, in its discretion, wishes to include in the strategy. These amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 became law on 29 July 2014.
|
