Get documents about "2009_august_11_-_rep_rev_panel_final_report
Document Sample
REPRESENTATION REVIEW 2009
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL REPORT
TO COUNCIL
JULY 2009
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................5
1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................9
PART A: THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWS...................11
2.0 The Legal Framework...................................................................................................11
2.1 The Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA)..................................................................11
2.2 The Local Government Act 2002 ......................................................................11
3.0 Local Government Commission Guidelines on Process and Definitions......................12
3.1 Three Steps ......................................................................................................12
3.2 Communities of Interest ....................................................................................12
3.3 Effective Representation...................................................................................13
4.0 Representation Systems...............................................................................................13
5.0 Community Boards .......................................................................................................15
PART B: THE REVIEW PROCESS .................................................................................17
6.0 The Process Followed By the Independent Review Panel ...........................................17
6.1 Appointment of Independent Review Panel......................................................17
6.2 General Principles Adopted by Panel ...............................................................17
6.3 Public Discussion Document ............................................................................18
6.3.1 The Discussion Document ....................................................................18
6.3.2 Distribution of the document .................................................................18
6.4 Media and Advertising ......................................................................................19
6.5 Public Discussion..............................................................................................21
6.6 Questionnaires..................................................................................................21
6.7 Liaison with Local Government Commission ....................................................21
PART C: RESULTS .........................................................................................................23
7.0 Results..........................................................................................................................23
7.1 Public Meetings.................................................................................................23
7.2 Questionnaires..................................................................................................23
7.3 Summary of Panel and Public Views ................................................................29
7.3.1 Communities of Interest ........................................................................29
7.3.2 The Preferred System of Representation .............................................29
7.3.3 Total Number of Councillors .................................................................31
7.3.4 Community Boards ...............................................................................31
7.3.5 Is Change Needed? ..............................................................................31
7.3.6 Other Ways for the Council to Engage with Communities ....................31
3
PART D: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................33
8.0 Discussion ....................................................................................................................33
8.1 National Situation – Representation Systems and Community Boards ............33
8.2 Recent Decisions of the Local Government Commission.................................34
8.2.1 General .................................................................................................34
8.2.2 Napier Decision.....................................................................................35
8.2.3 Palmerston North Decision ...................................................................35
8.3 Invercargill.........................................................................................................36
8.3.1 Mechanisms for Community Engagement ............................................36
8.3.2 Socio-Economic Data ...........................................................................37
9.0 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................39
9.1 The Public View ................................................................................................39
9.2 Invercargill Situation..........................................................................................40
9.3 The Panel View.................................................................................................40
APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................................43
The appendices are available on request to the Council. They are also available on-line at
the Council website: www.icc.govt.nz
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This is a report on the pre-review consultation which has taken place as Stage One of
the Representation Review 2009. The aim of this phase has been to develop
representation options, discuss these in the community and form a view about the
matters to be decided in the Review.
2. A Representation Review requires a determination of whether there are separate
communities of interest within Invercargill Territorial Authority and if so, whether they
can nevertheless be grouped together for effective representation. If they can, an
at-large system would be appropriate. To the extent that they cannot be grouped
together and still receive effective representation, Council would have to choose from
the other methods or tools in the Local Electoral Act, namely, wards, a mixed system
of wards and at-large and/or community boards.
3. Council appointed an Independent Review Panel comprising five members of the
public, one Iwi representative and one Councillor as Chair. The Panel has been
assisted by an independent consultant.
4. The Panel established two principles in relation to the process it would follow.
The first principle was that the Panel wanted responses which were authentic and
valid and based on a proper understanding of a representation review and the options
available. To achieve this, the Panel adopted a two stage process with Stage One
being public education. Key tools for achieving this were the production of the Public
Discussion Document and the media coverage. The second stage was the gathering
of public opinion through the five public meetings and one hui and through
questionnaires.
The second principle was equity of access for all residents in the Invercargill
Territorial Authority area. For this reason, the Panel chose not to use existing
community groups or organisations as Representation Review meetings as they
believed this could privilege the participation of some groups over others. While the
Panel realised that the participation rate via public meetings was likely to be much
lower, it nevertheless opted for this approach to preserve the equal right of all
residents to participate.
5. The work of the Panel has focused on the definition and assessment of communities
of interest, the development of possible options for wards and mixed systems of
representation, the production of the Public Discussion Document, development of
the communications and consultation plans, attending the public meetings and the
analysis of results and the report for Council.
6. The Panel went to great lengths to distribute the Public Discussion Document as
widely as possible, enlisting primary schools in Invercargill and Aurora College as
well as the Supermarkets, The Warehouse, the Public Library, Bluff Service Centre
and the Civic Centre as distribution mechanisms. It also wrote to over 32 service
organisations to inform them about the Review. A media programme was instigated,
which had a dual role of educating as well as publicising the public meetings. Local
fliers were posted in numerous locations in each district advertising the public
meetings and a $100 dinner voucher was offered as a prize at each venue. The
meetings were also separately advertised in the media.
7. The campaign won public praise for the way in which it was conducted.
5
8. Despite these efforts, the level of responses via questionnaire and attendance at the
public meetings was low, representing only a small fraction of the Invercargill
Territorial Authority population. The Panel feels that this in itself can be taken as an
indicator that there is not a large groundswell for change. In any case, the Panel can
only take into account the views it has before it in assessing public opinion.
The Public View
9. Among the responses there was however a reasonably high level of uniformity in the
views expressed when these are broken down by area. The summary of results
shows that:
(i) While people tended to think that the area in which they lived, at least, was a
community of interest, this did not necessarily translate into wanting any
change in their form of representation (with the exception of Otatara and
South Invercargill, as noted below).
(ii) There was clear support across the district for Bluff as a community of interest
and for the retention of the Bluff Community Board.
(iii) As well, the members of the Bluff community who attended the public meeting
and/or completed the section of the questionnaire relating to their views of the
Bluff Community Board all said they were entirely satisfied with their Board
and its boundaries. They were also satisfied with the status quo in general.
(iv) A high percentage of respondents from North Invercargill favoured the status
quo. Many supported Bluff as a separate community of interest.
Questionnaire respondents however showed a preference for a mixed system
of representation with eight preferring mixed, four preferring at-large and no
votes for an entirely ward system.
(v) Myross Bush appeared to favour the status quo in terms of the number of
Councillors and community boards, but to favour either a mixed or ward
system of representation rather than at-large.
(vi) The view from the Hui was in favour of at-large and the status quo.
(vii) Otatara residents were strongly of the view they are a community of interest
and that they want more voice and more consultation. At the public meeting,
their preference was a Residents Association if it can be funded via a grant or
targeted rate. Failing this, they would consider the option of a community
board. A high majority was happy with the at-large system of election.
(viii) The majority of South Invercargill residents thought they were not receiving
effective representation under the current system. The preferred change was
in the system of election to either mixed or wards, and there was little interest
in a community board.
(ix) A majority of all respondents wanted some additional engagement with
Council, and there was a high degree of consensus in preferring this to be
“face to face” interaction. The most commonly mentioned means were clinics
and community-based meetings.
6
Invercargill Situation
10. Invercargill City Council has limited means of community engagement below that of
the district as a whole, particularly as regards geographically based communities. On
the other hand, in decisions in the last round of Representation Review Appeals, the
Commission has said it believes that effective mechanisms for engagement between
the communities and the Council are fundamental to the purpose of local
government. It has also regarded disparities in socio-economic status as the most
important factor in impacting the existence and effectiveness of that engagement.
11. Invercargill has patterns of socio-economic disadvantage which show a general
correlation to a north/south pattern.
12. Based on its recent decisions, the Commission could take the view that:
(a) South Invercargill is under-represented at Councillor level, is an area that is
generally of greater socio-economic disadvantage and, while not responding
in large numbers, did show a high level of consistency in being unhappy with
the current system and in wanting a change in the system of representation.
In these circumstances, the Commission might feel that some form of ward or
mixed system is required.
(b) Otatara merits a form of community representation.
(c) Bluff is a community of interest and merits the continuation of the current
community board unchanged as to boundaries and the number of members.
(d) There are no grounds for change in Myross Bush or among the rural
community, or in the northern urban area of Invercargill.
Panel View
13. The Panel recognises:
(i) The interest that was shown in a mixed system of representation by
respondents across the board. If these results are taken from the
questionnaires returned by North and South Invercargill only, an area which
includes the majority of the population, and which represented 68% of the
total responses, 12 out of 25 favoured a mixed system, nine favoured at-large
and four favoured a ward system.
(ii) That respondents from Otatara and South Invercargill were unhappy with the
current system.
(iii) That the majority of questionnaire respondents wanted alternative or
additional means of community engagement with Council
14. However, the Panel also notes:
(i) The equality of access that was provided to all residents to participate in the
Review.
(ii) The very low response rate in terms of attendance at the public meetings and
the questionnaires and the difficulty in using these results as the basis for
fundamental change.
7
(iii) The overall desire to retain the status quo expressed by the majority of
participants at the public meetings.
(iv) The difficulty in finding a sensible geographic division for wards or a mixed
system that is just for everyone and does not result in significantly less
representation for some.
(v) The strong community of interest at a district-wide level.
(vi) That the community issues identified may be better resolved by means other
than wards.
(vii) That non Local Electoral Act solutions will provide greater flexibility and would
allow Councillors to work in the community to their strengths.
15. The Panel believes that only Bluff meets the criteria for a separate community of
interest as defined by the Local Electoral Act 2001.
16. It also believes that effective representation for Bluff is provided by the existing
Community Board and agrees with its continuance and its membership and
boundaries as currently defined.
17. The Panel believes that the status quo could prevail with an at-large system of
representation, the same number of Councillors and the Bluff Community Board.
However, in addition to and outside the remedies provided by the Local Electoral Act,
the Panel believes that additional means of geographically based community
engagement are needed. These could be:
(i) A programme of Councillor Clinics by area.
(ii) A regular programme of community area meetings.
(iii) The development of a policy to provide basic support to residents groups
which meet defined criteria.
8
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Under the Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA), the Council must carry out a representation
review during 2009, and implement any changes in time for the local government elections in
2010.
Reviews are governed by the Local Electoral Act, the Local Government Act and the
guidelines produced by the Local Government Commission. Although the latter are not
legally binding, they constitute best practice and Council adherence to the guidelines would
be taken into account in any appeal to or review by the Commission.
The objective of a review is to determine what would provide effective representation for
individuals and communities of interest in the Invercargill TA district. In light of this, the LEA
requires councils to review how Councillors are to be elected, the total number of Councillors
and whether there should be community boards.
The Commission guidelines recommend a pre-review consultation phase to generate
options and promote discussion prior to Council making its decision. To assist in this,
Council appointed an Independent Review Panel in January 2009. In this report, the Panel
presents its views and reports the findings of its public discussions and input.
The overall timeline for the review is shown in the table below.
Date Actions
February 2009 The Council appointed an independent advisory Panel of five
members of the public, one Iwi Representative and one
Councillor.
February – March 2009 The Panel met to discuss where communities of interest exist and
the requirements for effective and fair representation. The Panel
developed options for representation and community boards
April 2009 The Panel produced a public discussion document and published
information in the paper and on radio. People were invited to
discuss the options during May 2009.
May 2009 The Panel conducted public meetings and also received views via
the internet, email and by post.
July 2009 The Panel reports to Council on what people think and the
options.
11 August 2009 Council decides which Representation Option it prefers, called
“The Initial Proposal”.
15 August until The Initial Proposal is published in the Public Notices section of
15 September 2009 the newspaper and people are invited to make formal
submissions.
Early October 2009 Council holds a hearing on the submissions.
3 November 2009 Council decides on its final proposal.
7 November 2009 Council publishes the final proposal in the Public Notices.
No later than If any appeals or objections are received, the Review is referred to
15 January 2010 the Local Government Commission for a decision.
9
10
PART A: THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWS
2.0 THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 The Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA)
Section 4(1)(a) of the LEA provides that one of the principles the Act is designed to
implement is the provision of “fair and effective representation for individuals and
communities”.
The specific tasks for local councils in conducting a representation review are specified in
sections 19H and 19J of the LEA. Section 19H requires councils to determine how members
will be elected (at-large, a mixed system or wards), the total number of elected
representatives and, where relevant, ward boundaries and names. Section 19J requires that
every time a review is carried out under section 19H, a review must also be carried out of
whether there is a need for community boards and if so, their nature and structure.
In making its decisions on both the system of election and community boards, councils
must ensure that there will be effective representation of communities of interest within
the district (section 19T(a) and section 19W(b)) and that, as far as practicable, ward
boundaries coincide with community boundaries.
There is an additional requirement for fair representation in relation to wards, or
subdivisions of community boards. In this context, fair representation requires that each
ward councillor, or community board subdivision, must represent the same number of
people, plus or minus 10%.
2.2 The Local Government Act 2002
Local authorities carrying out representation reviews also need to bear in mind relevant
provisions of the Local Government Act 2002. Section 13 provides that sections 10
(Purpose of Local Government) and 12(2) (Status and powers) “apply to a local authority
performing a function under another enactment to the extent that the application of those
provisions is not inconsistent with the other enactment”.
In addition to sections 3 and 10 of the LGA relating to the purpose of the Act and the
purpose of Local Government, section 14, which sets out principles for local authorities,
also applies:
Section 14:
(1)(b) A local authority should make itself aware of, and should have regard to, the
views of all of its communities; and
(1)(c) When making a decision, a local authority should take account of –
(i) The diversity of the community, and the community’s interests, within its
district or region; and
(ii) The interests of future as well as current communities; and
(iii) The likely impact of any decision on each aspect of well-being referred to in
Section 10.
11
Councils must also comply with sections 77, 78 and 81 of the LGA. These set out
requirements for local authorities when making decisions including consultation with and
contributions to decision-making by Maori, the requirement to identify and assess all
reasonably practicable options and the need to give consideration at all stages to the views
and preferences of persons likely to be affected by or interested in the decision. Section 82
must also be followed. This sets out the principles of consultation, including the need to
encourage affected or interested persons to present their views.
The relevant provisions of both the LEA and the LGA are included in full in Appendix 1A and
Appendix 1B.
3.0 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION GUIDELINES ON PROCESS AND DEFINITIONS
3.1 Three Steps
The Commission says that a three step process should be followed in carrying out a review:
1. Identify communities of interest
The Commission said that defining communities of interest is an essential part of the
review process, and a necessary precursor to determining effective representation.
2. Determine effective representation for those communities of interest
The review must decide whether each identified community of interest needs
separate representation or whether communities of interest can be grouped together
in certain ways to achieve effective representation.
3. Consider the fair representation of electors
3.2 Communities of Interest
The Council must ensure that the election of Councillors provides effective representation of
the community or communities of interest within its area. Giving proper consideration to
defining local communities of interest is therefore an essential part of the representation
review process.
The term “community of interest” however is not defined in the legislation and it can mean
different things to different people. It can also change over time. While it is possible to
decide that the whole local authority district is a single community of interest where residents
believe they share common interests across the city, the Local Government Commission has
also said that a person can be both a member of the city as a whole, and a smaller local
community.
The Panel used a number of criteria to assess whether different geographic areas of the
Invercargill Territorial Authority might be a community of interest for representation
purposes. The criteria were:
The history of the area influences and contributes to the current sense of community
The area is bounded by distinct or clear topography
Distinct land use
Strong issues specific to the area
Shared and unique economic activities
Completeness of community services (schools, shops, services)
Demographic or socio-economic disparity
Ethnic groups or cultural significance which are an important aspect in defining the
community
12
3.3 Effective Representation
Once the community or communities of interest have been defined, the Council is required to
consider whether each identified community of interest needs separate representation or
whether communities of interest can be grouped together to achieve effective
representation.
The Council must consider whether effective representation is best achieved by way of:
an at-large (city wide) system
a ward system
a mixed system, with election partially at-large and partially by ward
Additionally or alternatively, the Council might consider that a community board is necessary
to provide effective representation for some communities.
While what constitutes effective representation will be specific to each local authority
area, the Commission said the following factors should be considered to the extent
possible:
Avoiding arrangements that may create barriers to participation, such as at large
elections, for example by not recognising residents’ familiarity and identity with an
area.
Not splitting recognised communities of interest between electoral subdivisions.
Not grouping together two or more communities of interest that share few
commonalities of interest.
Accessibility, size and configuration of an area including:
Would the population have reasonable access to its elected members and
vice versa?
Would elected members be able to effectively represent the views of their
electoral area?
Would elected members be able to attend public meetings throughout the
area, and provide reasonable opportunities for face-to-face meetings?
Another aspect of effective representation is the total number of Councillors. The
Commission said that local authorities should consider the total number of members
necessary to provide effective representation for the district as a whole taking into
account such factors as the size, nature and diversity of the district or region.
4.0 REPRESENTATION SYSTEMS
The Local Electoral Act allows for three options – at-large, all wards or a mixed system of
wards and at-large. The Commission notes that the characteristics that have generally
been evident for those territorial authorities that have opted for elections at large include:
The district having a relatively compact geographic area and/or
Very strong commonalities of interest among identified communities of interest ie
a shared common community of interest at the district level and/or,
Distinct communities of interest are not geographically located but spread across
the district.
13
The Commission said that the mixed option may be best where clear district-wide
communities of interest exist in tandem with specific geographically based communities
of interest.
The Panel put a lot of effort into looking at potential boundaries for a ward and mixed
system and encountered some difficulties in coming up with acceptable options. The
difficulties centred around the requirement for fair representation, ie that each Councillor
represent approximately the same number of residents, and the make-up of the
Invercargill TA area where most of the population live in urban areas but where the land
area is predominantly rural. This always meant that in a ward system Bluff would be
required to join with residents all the way up to Myross Bush, or include a part of South
Invercargill – which does not meet the Commission guidelines to join only similar
communities together. In a mixed system, the likelihood was that all of rural/semi-rural,
from Otatara, up to Makarewa and Myross Bush and down to, and including Bluff, would
be required to form one ward, with one representative.
In the opinion of the Panel, the factors in favour of the three options include:
Factors in favour of an at-large system:
Electors are able to vote for all Councillors and so have a much wider choice of
candidates.
Electors are more likely to feel they have a say in the running of the entire city
through being able to vote for all Councillors rather than just those standing in a
particular part of the city.
At-large candidates are only required to act in the interests of the district as a whole
and it may therefore be easier for Councillors to take a district wide perspective. 1 An
elector can ask any Councillor for help and is not limited to their local ward
Councillors.
An at-large system may assist in achieving more diverse representation. For
example, ethnic minority groups and other interest groups which are spread across
the city could have a greater chance of being elected in an at-large system.
If electors are given the opportunity to pass judgement on all candidates, increased
accountability may result.
Factors in favour of a ward system:
Representation is likely to be more evenly distributed geographically across the
district although candidates are not required to live in the ward in which they are
standing.
Potential candidates could find the financial and time costs of campaigning less
prohibitive in a ward than an at-large system. 2
It encourages residents to become better informed on candidates and their policies
because there are fewer candidates, who may also be better known to locals.
1
Although ward Councillors are also required to act in the interests of the district as a whole, in
practice this may be harder to do since their re-election depends on keeping their ward constituents
happy.
2
The Local Electoral Act specifies the maximum amount that can be spent by each candidate on their
campaign, depending on the population in the area they are campaigning for. For example, a ward of
between 4,999 and 10,000 people allows a maximum spend of $7,000 whereas a territory the size of
Invercargill as a whole would allow a spend of $30,000.
14
It may improve accountability in that ward and ensure a closer link between the
Council and residents of particular parts of the district, thereby contributing to the
effective delivery of local services and facilities. Residents may also feel more able
to approach ward Councillors directly.
A ward system may enable more effective management of the community/council
consultation processes.
Factors in favour of a mixed system:
Electors can vote for more than just their ward Councillor(s) as they are also able to
vote for Councillors being elected at-large. This could reduce the frustration some
voters feel in a ward only system at being able to vote for a much smaller number of
Councillors.
A mixed system could provide a better balance of interests between the district as a
whole and the needs of specific wards.
A mixed system still provides specific ward (local) representation, although the wards
would be bigger and have fewer Councillors than under an entirely ward system.
The option of ward representation, with the lesser campaign costs and time
involvement could encourage a wider range of candidates to stand.
A part ward system would still provide some of the anticipated better linkages
between the Council and residents of particular parts of the district
5.0 COMMUNITY BOARDS
In carrying out a review of the need for community boards, two levels of decisions are
required:
Whether there should be communities and community boards within the territorial
authority’s district.
If the territorial authority considers that one or more communities should be
constituted (or retained), the nature of the community and the structure of the
community board.
In making the decisions required by the review under section 19J, regard must also be had
to the criteria for reorganisation proposals specified in schedule 3 of the Local Government
Act 2002 (LGA). These criteria include whether the proposal will promote good local
government of the parent district and community areas concerned, whether the district and
the community have the resources necessary to carry out its duties, responsibilities and
power and whether the district and community encompass an area that is appropriate for the
efficient and effective exercise of its responsibilities, duties and powers.
A recent seminar on representation reviews in Wellington came up with the following list
of criteria which could be applied in deciding whether a community board should be
established or continued:
Is there a community of interest and what is the connection to the rest of the territorial
authority district?
Does the community want a community board and are there sufficient people willing
to stand?
Does the board have a clear purpose?
Is it the best form of representation for the community, rather than, for example, ward
forums or residents associations?
15
Is it fair, considering the impact on communities without boards?
Overall, is the board the right answer?
Other relevant statutory provisions are section 19F (there must be between four and
12 members, more than half of which must be elected rather than appointed members)
and 19G which allows for the subdivision of a community board area into wards.
Appendix 2 lists the specific decisions that must be made in reviews of community boards
under section 19J of the LEA.
16
PART B: THE REVIEW PROCESS
6.0 THE PROCESS FOLLOWED BY THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL
6.1 Appointment of Independent Review Panel
At its meeting on 27 January 2009 Council appointed six persons to an Independent Review
Panel being five independents and one Iwi Representative. The five independents were:
Margaret Cook
Alan Derrrick
Robyn Hickman
Joe O’Connell
Tony O’Neill
Iwi appointed Stephen Bragg as their representative.
Council Norman Elder was appointed as the Council Member and Chair of the Panel.
The terms of reference included the following: To report to Council on:
(i) The representation options that were developed
(ii) The feedback and results of the community consultation including the community’s
views of the options and their desire (if any) for more or different representation.
The full terms of reference are included as Appendix 3.
The Panel has met ten times between February 9 and July 15, 2009. Initial meetings
focused on defining a community of interest for the purposes of the review, and in assessing
whether any communities within the Invercargill Territorial Authority Area met this definition.
The Panel then moved on to discussing effective representation, and the development of
possible options for wards and a mixed system. This was followed by the development of
the Public Discussion Document and plans for communication and consultation. Panel
members also attended all the public meetings and the Hui.
6.2 General Principles Adopted by Panel
The Panel established two principles in relation to the process it would follow.
The first principle was that the Panel wanted responses which were authentic and valid and
based on a proper understanding of a representation review and the options available. To
achieve this, the Panel adopted a two stage process. The first stage was to educate the
public about representation reviews. Key tools for achieving this were the production of the
Public Discussion Document and the media coverage. The second stage was the gathering
of public opinion through the public meetings and through questionnaires.
The second principle was equity of access for all residents in the Invercargill Territorial
Authority area. For this reason, the Panel chose not to use existing community groups or
organisations as Representation Review meetings as they believed this could privilege the
participation of some groups over others. While the Panel realised that the participation rate
via public meetings was likely to be much lower, it nevertheless opted for this approach to
preserve the equal right of all residents to participate.
17
6.3 Public Discussion Document
6.3.1 The Discussion Document
A discussion document was produced for the purpose of educating the public about
representation reviews and presenting one or more examples of each representation system
to promote discussion. The document also included a questionnaire. The final version of
the copy was approved by the Local Government Commission and 8,000 copies were
printed.
The Panel elected to include in the document examples of what the different systems of
representation could look like in the Invercargill Territorial Authority Area. The difficulty the
Panel had in coming up with sensible boundaries has been covered earlier, in section 4.0,
page 10. Having looked at a great many options, the Panel chose the following for inclusion
in the document, assuming the status quo of 12 Councillors:
At-large: All 12 Councillors elected by all voters (the Status Quo option).
Wards: North and South Invercargill forming two wards with each electing five
representatives. Bluff and up to Myross Bush forming one ward with one Councillor,
and the remaining area of Makarewa and including the Otatara Peninsula electing
one Councillor. The Panel chose this option because it believed that realistically, the
only urban division that most people recognised was a north/south split.
Mixed: The option chosen by the Panel was for six Councillors elected by Wards and
six at-large. Representatives were however then representing double the number of
residents over the Ward only option, which exacerbated the difference between rural
and urban. The one rural Councillor would need to cover the area from Bluff, all the
way up the rural collar to Makarewa and down to Otatara.
6.3.2 Distribution of the document
A decision was taken not to distribute the document to every household in the district. This
was because of the nature of the project, which was not considered to have widespread
interest, and secondly, the cost. The Local Government Commission was consulted and
agreed with this decision.
Instead the following means of distribution were used:
4760 copies of the document were distributed to families via all but one primary
school 3 and to Aurora College. The schools also mentioned the review and public
meetings in school newsletters.
A letter outlining the review, providing the dates for the public meetings, and offering
to supply copies of the document was sent to 32 service clubs and organisations.
Special distribution boxes were made and placed in most supermarkets (New World
at South City and Windsor, Pak’N Save, Countdown) and The Warehouse as well as
the Public Library. Brochure display stands with copies of the document were
located at Woolworths Supermarket, Otatara Four Square, the Bluff Service Centre
and the Civic Administration Building in Esk Street. Most articles and advertising
referred to these locations in informing people where they could get a copy of the
document.
The document was loaded on the Council website, and there was an icon on the
Homepage which took viewers directly to the Representation Review page.
3
Except St Teresa’s School in Bluff which did not respond despite repeated messages.
18
6.4 Media and Advertising
The following table summarises the press, radio and television coverage in relation to the
public consultation.
Press
Date Medium Comment
3 December 2008 Southland Times “Council to undertake six-year review”
3 December 2008 ICC Website Press Release is loaded on to the website
announcing the review
11 December 2008 Southland Express “Review Underway”
17 December 2008 Advertisement in “Electoral Representation Advisory Panel –
20 December 2008 Public Notices for six positions available”
10 January 2009 applications for
Review Panel
17 December 2008 ICC Website “Representation Review: The Invercargill
City Council is looking for six local people to
sit on an Advisory Panel ….” The
advertisement and the Terms of Reference
were also loaded on the site.
2 February 2009 ICC Press Release “Six named on Independent Advisory
Panel”
3 February 2009 ICC Website “Boards, wards or districts: city names
Review Panel”
10 February 2009 ICC Website Representation Review – Independent
Advisory Panel – a photo of the Panel at its
first meeting
19 February 2009 Southland Express “Advisory Panel to meet with the
“Community News” community” plus photo
– two page paid
editorial
22 April 2009 Southland Times “Time to Voice Your Choice. The future:
“Noticeboard” – wards, boards a mix or more of the same?”
one page paid
editorial
22 April 2009 Southland Times – “Airport flies at last” – last paragraph
Mayor’s column mentions the review
27 April 2009 ICC Website “Voice Your Choice” (logo) plus link to
on-line feedback form and the Public
Discussion Document. Also include the
dates of the public meetings
29 April 2009 ICC Press Release “Primary school children given Voice Your
Choice booklet”
30 April 2009 Southland Express “Voice Your Choice hits the supermarkets”,
“Community News” with photo
– two page paid
editorial
30 April 2009 Southland Times “Your Say” photo of school children holding
the Public Discussion document with article
about Representation Review
19
Date Medium Comment
May/June 2009 ICC – Rates Back page features an article on the
newsletter Representation Review. Posted to every
ratepayer
7 May 2009 ICC Website “Super way to be put in the picture” – photo
of local Countdown Supermarket manager
with the distribution box for the Public
Discussion Document that was located in
the foyer of Countdown
7 May 2009 Southland Express “Working it Out” - photo of school children
with Voice Your Choice document and
article about Representation Review
8 May 2009 The Eye Advertisement of dates of public meetings
8 May 2009 Southland Times – “Voice Your Choice Delivery” and Council
Letters to Editor reply. Query was why Council had used
school children to distribute the Voice Your
Choice document
9 May 2009 Southland Times Advertisement of dates of public meetings
14 May 2009 Southland Express Advertisement of dates of public meetings
15 May 2009 Southland Times – “Choice Booklet” – letter from arch critic of
Letters to the Editor Council congratulating the Council on the
way it has handled the production,
promotion and distribution of the booklet
Voice Your Choice and the public meetings
and lamenting poor attendance at meetings
21 May 2009 Southland Times – “People’s voice to council just a whisper” –
article journalist talking about the poor attendance
at the public meetings and noting remaining
meetings that people could attend
5 June 2009 ICC Website “Reminder: Last days for public feedback
on Representation Review (Phase One)”
10 June 2009 Southland Times – “By all means let’s engage” – includes
editorial reference to the voter apathy evidenced by
poor response to the Voice for Choice
consultation
Radio
Council paid 60 second radio spots during entire month of May on Newstalk ZB, Classic Hits
and Coast. There was also a 20 minute interview on City Talk, Radio Southland, a
community radio station.
Television
Council talkback on Cue Television, 6 May 2009 featured an item on the Representation
Review.
20
6.5 Public Discussion
The Public meetings were advertised separately in the news sections of The Southland
Times, The Southland Express and The Invercargill Eye. A large number of notices
advertising the meetings were also posted in shop windows in South and North Invercargill,
Otatara and Bluff for the meetings in those areas. Other Council publicity also referred to
the public meetings. In addition, the Invercargill Licensing Trust donated a meal voucher
prize for each public meeting and this information was included in all the notices.
Public meetings were held as follows:
North Invercargill, Monday 11 May - Six attendees
South Invercargill, Wednesday 13 May – 12 attendees
Myross Bush, Wednesday 20 May – Two attendees
Otatara, Monday 25 May – 11 attendees with as many apologies
Bluff, Wednesday 27 May – 24 attendees
A Hui was held at Murihiku Marae on Wednesday 3 June. There were six attendees.
The same process was followed at each meeting. A 15 minute presentation summarising
the public discussion document was followed by discussion. Each group was asked the
same questions including the identification of communities of interest, the preferred system
of representation, their view of the need for community boards, the ideal number of
Councillors and finally, whether they thought, in light of everything, change was required.
6.6 Questionnaires
Residents were invited to complete questionnaires. These were included in the back of the
Discussion Document. They were also able to be completed on-line on the Council website,
and separate copies were handed out at the public meetings. Council received 51
completed questionnaires. An analysis of these is included in section 3.3 of this paper and a
summary of each individual response is included in Appendix 4. Copies of the completed
questionnaires are available on request.
6.7 Liaison with Local Government Commission
Regular discussions and consultations were held with staff at the Local Government
Commission and every aspect of the process was agreed with the Commission before being
put in place.
21
22
PART C: RESULTS
7.0 RESULTS
7.1 Public Meetings
Five public meetings and a Hui were held during May 2009. In the discussion following the
presentation, all groups were asked the same five questions. The results of these are
analysed in Table 1 below.
7.2 Questionnaires
Table 2 below provides a snapshot analysis of all questionnaires, and Table 3 provides a
summary by area. A full analysis of the questionnaires, by individual submitter, is included
as Appendix 4. Fifty-two questionnaires were received, of which 44 were valid for the district
as a whole.
23
24
Table 1: Results of Public Meetings
ISSUE NORTH SOUTH MYROSS BUSH OTATARA BLUFF HUI
Are there communities of Agreed on Bluff. South unique socio-economic Identified themselves as Definitely Otatara is a COI Definitely Bluff is a COI. Some The north/south split could be
interest (COI) in On rest, some thought two – issues. Most would think the Myross Bush. Noted there is because it is already distinct in also felt it should qualify as seen as separate COIs.
Invercargill? urban and semi-rural. Others South is separate COI, south an identified postal boundary the District Plan. Also has isolated under Local Electoral
not, on basis that semi rural of Tay Street. Not easy to fit around the area and they have distinct ecological features. Act.
people do 90% of their all criteria of test, but COI is common land use. Take simple view – are we a
business in Invercargill. mainly on socio-economic and community? Do we have
North/south split “just ethnic grounds. something in common
perception” although /common interests? - The
acknowledged there were Agreed Bluff and Otatara were answer to both is yes.
more deprived, high need COIs. Boundary is Oki Street, Bay
families in the south, and that Road, Airport and Coopers
schooling was a concern Creek.
there.
Which system of Some in favour of mixed Both discussion groups Liked the idea of wards, and A mixed view. The majority At-large, plus Bluff Community Of the three who had a view,
representation do you system because the cap on favoured either wards or a that each Councillor would was in favour of at-large but Board. Bluff does not get less two favoured at-large, and one
prefer? spending would enable more mixed system. represent the same number of 2-3 favoured a mixed system. now than it did in 1989 when it favoured a ward of 5 + 5
people to stand. Current system not effective people/12 wards, each with a Believed they currently had was part of a ward as well as because it would increase
Advantage of wards would be representation. slice of the city. access to Councillors, and having a community board. accountability.
candidates better known. there were two living in Strong view that current
More likely to be elected if you Might get new people being Otatara. Under a ward based system is working okay, and A view that Maori are
live in the ward. elected if there were wards. system they would probably no need to fix it. developing their own structure
Opposing view thought wards Wards could provide true have less Councillors living in and working well with Council.
restricted choice and could representation. Might also get Otatara (although they
lead to a blinkered approach. clinics. acknowledged that current At-large gives a greater ability
Some concern that wards Otatara Councillors weren’t to vote for a balanced picture
could become divisive. representing them as such). (gender, skills etc) whereas
with a ward vote, can’t see the
whole.
Should there be community Bluff would be justified, but it’s Bluff is the only CB required. Not much point in CBs if they Substantial discussion on what Strong “yes” to Bluff CB. Strong support for Bluff.
boards (CB)? up to them to decide. Instead of CBs we should don’t have delegated authority. advantages and
No others required. have Councillor clinics. disadvantages there would be One person had suggested
in having a community board, that the area of Omaui needed
Bluff has the ear of Council, at instead of the current more attention, and possibly
the expense of South Residents Association. the community board should
Invercargill. Wanted to know if a CB would be divided into wards, to
give them a stronger voice enable Omaui to have specific
with Council. representation. However,
By setting up a Residents strong consensus was that
Association they had Omaui had own group which
demonstrated a strong interest met with the community board
in having a say. Don’t want to and everyone was happy.
be a tool of Council, but want
to be a conduit of information.
Say there is a lack of
consultation at present and a
more formal system or process
is needed.
Residents Association has to
have funding though. Don’t
want salaries, but need up to
$5,000 pa for communication
and meeting costs. Discussed
funding options including a
targeted rate of $5 or Council
grant.
25
ISSUE NORTH SOUTH MYROSS BUSH OTATARA BLUFF HUI
How many Councillors Views expressed were Most favoured the status quo Status quo of 12. As is – 12 Councillors. Status quo. 10 would be okay/adequate
should there be? between 8 and 12 Councillors. and to keep the Council but maximum of 12.
One extreme was 8 committee structure.
Councillors, focused solely on
policy, full time, meeting every One or two favoured 10
3 weeks and no committee Councillors in a mixed system
structure. of 5 from Wards and 5
Comments about whether at-large.
Councillors should have
directorships on Council
owned companies/whether
they had the right skills to do
so.
Is change needed? Status quo fine if no Yes. Wards or a Mixed Why change the system if it is Agreed they would rather have No. No.
community boards. system. working, albeit an a community board than
acknowledgement that while nothing, but prefer an
One person wanted mixed, some had no trouble alternative to a CB if it can be
others seemed to be in favour approaching Councillors if funded. The change required
of the status quo. necessary, others would find to the current representation
addressing Council difficult. system is some sort of
community representation. In
addition, at least two people
preferred a mixed system of
electing Councillors while the
majority preferred the status
quo.
Other comments or issues There is a need for better South City issues still not
raised communication between local addressed following 2005
authorities and the DHB. All public meetings.
governance bodies should be Need youth and child friendly,
working together for the safe spaces in south
well-being of the community. Invercargill, and a youth
drop-in place.
Dog problem. Complaint
about why there had been no
consultation before a proposal
for a new dog pound costing
$0.5 million solution was
announced.
Request for random listing of
candidates on voting paper.
Also mentioned were the STV
voting system, an extended
Council term of 4 years, and
limit of tenure of Councillors to
two terms
26
Table 2: Snapshot of All Questionnaire Results
COMMUNITIES OF TOP CONTENDERS COMMUNITY ELECTION SYSTEM NUMBER OF COMMENTS
INTEREST BOARDS COUNCILLORS
84%* said there are Bluff 21/37 (57%) 59% voted for at least At-large 48% Status Quo 73% 22 forms included suggestions for
at least some Otatara 18/37 (49%) one community board Mixed 36% Less 18% others ways Council could
Communities of South 14/37 (38%) Wards 16% More 9% communicate with communities.
Interest Rural 10/37 (27%) If you take out those that Broadly these included:
* 37 respondents said “only Bluff”, this reduces - community type meetings (15)
to 41% - meetings with Councillors (4)
- referenda (2)
- surveys/questionnaires (4)
- Cue TV and local radio (1)
Table 3: Summary of Questionnaire Results by Area
COMMUNITIES OF
TOTAL WHICH COIs WHICH ELECTION SYSTEM? NUMBER OF COUNCILLORS COMMUNITY BOARDS WHICH COMMUNITY
AREA INTEREST?
RESPONSES Number of votes BOARDS?
YES NO A/L MIXED WARDS SAME LESS MORE YES NO
SOUTH 13 9 4 Bluff 3 5 4 4 10 2 1 7 6 Bluff 5
Otatara 4 Otatara 3
South Invercargill 7 South Invercargill 2
Rural 2 Waikiwi 1
Other 4
OTATARA 11 11 0 Bluff 9 7 2 2 8 2 1 9 2 Bluff 6
Otatara 10 Otatara 8
South Invercargill 2 Rural 2
Rural 4 South Invercargill 1
Myross Bush 3 Myross Bush 1
Other 3
NORTH 12 9 3 Bluff 6 4 8 0 8 3 1 6 6 Bluff 3
Otatara 2 Otatara 1
South Invercargill 2 South 1
Rural 3 North 1
Myross Bush 1 West 1
Other 4 Myross Bush 1
MYROSS BUSH 3 3 0 N/A 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 2 None specified
BLUFF 3 3 0 Bluff 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 Bluff 2
Otatara 1 Otatara 1
South Invercargill 2
Rural 1
Other 1
ANON/CITY WIDE 2 2 0 Bluff 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 N/A
Otatara 1
South City 1
Other 1
TOTAL 44 37 7 Bluff 21 21 16 7 32 8 4 26 18 Of those that said
Otatara 18 “yes”, 8 were on the
South Invercargill 14 basis that it was for
Rural 10 Bluff only.
Myross Bush 4
27
28
7.3 Summary of Panel and Public Views
7.3.1 Communities of Interest
In the Panel’s view, based on the criteria it adopted, which are shown in Table 4 below, Bluff
was clearly a community of interest. The Panel initially believed that there could also be
others that might meet the test, for example, Rural farming, South Invercargill and the
Otatara Peninsula. However, after further consideration and following the public discussion
phase, the Panel has decided that only Bluff meets the threshold required for Communities of
Interest for the purposes of the Local Electoral Act. In deciding this, the Panel acknowledges
that the threshold required under the Act is a high one, and that this does not detract from
the view of residents who consider the areas in which they live to be communities of interest.
In the public meetings, the most notable result was that those at meetings in the South,
Otatara and Bluff were strongly of the view that their own area was a community of interest.
The Hui thought there was a north/south split, and there was not much consensus in the
North with the exception of agreeing that Bluff was a community of interest.
In the questionnaires, respondents overall were most likely to decide there was a COI in the
area in which they themselves lived. Bluff however was well supported across the board. By
area, almost all those who responded from Otatara believed they were a separate
community of interest, over half those in the South thought they were, and in the North, 50%
thought Bluff was a separate COI and 25% also voted for rural as a COI. There were only
three responses from Bluff but they gave equal votes for both Bluff and South Invercargill as
separate COIs.
Taking the information from the public meetings and questionnaires, it would seem that
there is a moderate to strong view that Bluff, Otatara and South Invercargill are separate
communities of interest. However, this does not necessarily imply that any change would be
required in the system of representation as this depends on an assessment of whether those
communities are effectively represented under the current system.
7.3.2 The Preferred System of Representation
From the public meetings, the consensus in the South was that the current system was not
effective representation and their preference was for either wards or a mixed system.
However in both the Otatara and Bluff meetings, there was a strong majority for the at-large
system. Mainly this seemed to be because Bluff had their community board and so felt they
had the additional representation they required, and Otatara felt they had the means to talk
directly to Councillors and that in any case, two of the current 12 Councillors live in Otatara.
There was not a consensus in the North, and in Myross Bush no clear opinion was
expressed. Of those who expressed a view at the Hui, two favoured an at-large system and
one favoured a ward system.
From the questionnaires, the at-large system did not win a majority of support (48% overall
in favour of at-large). If the results are taken from North and South Invercargill only, which
represented 68% of the total response and the majority of the population, 12 out of 25
favoured a mixed system, nine favoured at-large and four favoured a ward system.
The biggest support for an at-large system came from Otatara (seven out of 12) and Bluff
(three out of three).
29
Table 4: Panel Assessment of Possible Communities of Interest
Demographic
or socio- Particular ethnic
History
Shared and Number economic groups and/or
contributed Distinct Strong
Distinct unique and type of similarities cultural Total
to current physical specific
land use economic community that may neg. significance is Pts
sense of borders issues
activity services impact quite defining of
community
effective community
representation
Bluff √ √ √ √ √ √ ⁄ ⁄ 7
Otatara ― √ ⁄ √ ― ⁄ ― ― 3
Rural Lifestyle ― √ √ ⁄ ― ― ― ― 2.5
Rural ― √ √ √ √ ― ― ― 4.0
Windsor, Gladstone, Rosedale ― ― ― ― ― √ ― ― 1.0
Glengarry, Ascot, ― ― ― ⁄ ― ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ 2.0
Hawthorndale. Newfield
Rockdale
Heidelberg
Clifton, Kew ― ⁄ ― √ ― √ √ ⁄ 4.0
Strathern,
Crinan
East Waikiwi ― ⁄ ― ― ― ― ⁄ ― 1.0
CBD ― ⁄ ― ⁄ ― ― ― ― 1.0
Residents only
Key: Yes √ = 1.0 points: Mixed ⁄ = 0.5 points: No ― = 0 points
30
7.3.3 Total Number of Councillors
At the public meetings and the Hui, there was strong support to retain the current number
of Councillors and the questionnaires showed a similar response.
7.3.4 Community Boards
Bluff was once again a clear winner. In addition, Otatara questionnaire respondents were
strongly in favour of a community board. At the public meeting in Otatara, the view was that
they would much prefer to have their current Residents Association, provided they could get
the level of funding they required for it to operate (about $5,000 pa). There was almost no
support for a community board among South Invercargill respondents.
7.3.5 Is Change Needed?
This question was only asked in the public meetings.
The North was of the view that change was not needed (with one exception that wanted a
mixed system for elections). Myross Bush and Bluff also thought that overall, no change was
needed. In Otatara, the change they wanted was in the area of community representation –
either funding for their existing Residents Association as first choice, or failing this, a
community board. In the South, there was strong consensus that change was needed,
focused on the system of election, with a change to either wards or mixed. The Hui believed
that no change was needed.
7.3.6 Other Ways for the Council to Engage with Communities
The majority of questionnaire respondents answered this question (60%), and there was a
good consensus amongst all areas that the most preferred means of increased engagement
between Council and the community would be some form of “face to face” interaction.
31
32
PART D: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
8.0 DISCUSSION
8.1 National Situation – Representation Systems and Community Boards
Nationally, there are eight District Councils and five City Councils which elect all or some of
their members at-large. The remaining 60 City or District Councils elect members entirely on
a ward based system.
District Councils City Councils District Councils City Councils
At Large At Large Mixed System Mixed System
Kaikoura, Kawerau, Invercargill Kapiti Napier
Chatham Islands, Nelson Masterton Tauranga
Wairoa, Wanganui Upper Hutt City Gore
Comparing Invercargill’s population, area and representation system with other small cities:
Small City Population Area Number of Representation System
(2006 square Councillors
Census) kms
(Dept
Stats)
Tauranga 103,632 168 10 3 Wards – 3 members
At large – 7 members
No community boards
Hutt City 97,701 377 12 6 Wards – 12 members
3 community boards and
2 community committees
Palmerston 75,543 335 15 5 Wards – 15 members
North No community boards but
have active ward committees
Napier 57,200 106 12 4 Wards – 6 members
At large – 6 members
No community boards
Invercargill 50,328 491 12 At large – 12 members
1 community board
Porirua 50,300 182 13 3 Wards – 13 members
No community boards
Nelson 42,891 443 12 At large – 12 members
2 community boards
Upper Hutt City 38,415 540 10 At large
No community boards
33
Comparing Invercargill’s population, area and representation system with some of the
smaller District Councils:
Small City Population Area Number of Representation System
(2006 square Councillors
Census) kms
(Dept
Stats)
Rotorua District 68,100 2,615 12 4 Wards (3 members/ward)
Council 1 Community Board
Whangarei 74,500 2,700 13 6 Wards of between 1 and 4
District Council Councillors
No Community Boards
New Plymouth 68,901 2,234 14 3 Wards with 2, 2 and 10 Councillors
District Council 4 Community Boards
Wanganui 43,380 2,405 13 At-large.
District Council 1 Community Board divided into three
subdivisions
8.2 Recent Decisions of the Local Government Commission
8.2.1 General
Since Invercargill City Council’s earlier review in 2003, the membership of the Local
Government Commission has changed and the following observations can be made about
the 2007 round of appeal decisions:
A tendency to decide on a higher rather than a lower number of Councillors.
No particular trend in relation to community boards, which are considered very much
as part of the overall mix which also includes at-large, wards and ward committees 4
in providing effective representation.
A greater emphasis on socio-economic factors and whether groupings of low
socio-economic residents are being adequately and effectively represented.
No greater weight given to the opinion of Council over that of the objectors. 5
4
Although the Commission notes, in its decision on Palmerston North, that it has no jurisdiction to
mandate the establishment or continuation of ward committees, it said it was unable to completely
remove consideration of ward committees from its wider consideration of the City’s representation
arrangements. In light of this and “Palmerston North’s strong and effective ward committees, which
provided an effective opportunity for face to face contact between residents and elected members”,
the Commission decided that the establishment of community boards in the city was not warranted
5
Mike Reid of LGNZ advises that the Commission is seeking to change this and a recent review of
the LEA recommended that Council decisions be given greater weight by the Commission. There is
no timetable however for this change to take place.
34
Two of the three current Commission members, including the Chair, Sue Piper, were recently
reappointed for a further three year term and so it is probably reasonable to assume that
Commission decisions in the near future will follow a similar line to those in the recent past.
In particular, the decisions of the Commission in regard to Palmerston North and Napier may
have implications for Invercargill. In those decisions (respectively 2006 and 2007) the
Commission stressed that residents’ engagement with their community, and effective
mechanisms for engagement between communities and the Council are fundamental to the
purpose of local government. Disparities in socio-economic status were regarded as
perhaps the most important factor in impacting the existence and effectiveness of that
engagement and whether separate ward representation was therefore required. The
Commission also made the point that identifying with the district as a whole did not preclude
establishing the necessary identification with one’s suburb or “community of interest”.
The Commission said that while the city’s electoral framework was the principal safeguard for
ensuring effective representation for communities of interest, it also took into account the
influence of Council structures and processes in providing representation, for example, its
relationships with organisations and community groups and its ward committees.
8.2.2 Napier Decision
Napier had had an at-large system of election since 1998, and prior to that had been divided
into three wards. In their 2006 review, the Council decided to retain the at-large system, and
not to have any community boards. The objectors argued that an at-large system did not
provide effective representation for Napier’s communities of interest. They argued that there
were “two Napiers” one of which had significant numbers of socially and economically
deprived people (over half of the residents lived in deciles six to ten, with ten being the
highest level of deprivation). 6 Furthermore, the objectors said that only three members
(23%) of the Council lived in this deprived portion of the city.
The Commission agreed with the objectors and said it “was not persuaded by the Council’s
argument that Napier is one geographic community of interest” and that they believed that “a
form of ward system would enhance the effectiveness of representation of communities of
interest in Napier”. The decision of the Commission was that Napier would have four wards,
two of which would elect one representative each, and two electing two representatives. The
other six Councillors would be elected at-large.
8.2.3 Palmerston North Decision
Prior to conducting its review in 2006 the Council comprised 15 Councillors and all were
elected by wards. There were strong ward committees in all but one area, and no
community boards. As a result of the review, the Council decided to reduce the number of
Councillors to 14 and for all of them to be elected at-large, with one community board to be
established.
The Commission considered various aspects in relation to the communities of interest
question and concluded that many of them would also identify with their local community as
well as the City as a whole. The Commission also noted that many of the objectors
expressed concern at the impact of socio-economic disparity on effective representation of
6
The New Zealand Atlas (or Index) of Socio-economic deprivation, from which this decile information
is taken, is explained, and discussed in relation to Invercargill in the paper, “A demographic profile of
Invercargill Territorial Authority”.
35
communities of interest within the central urban area. In relation to this the Commission said
that “socio-economic disparity is an important matter to consider for two reasons:
Lower socio-economic areas face different pressures, and have different interests and
concerns than areas of greater general affluence; and
Specific councillor representation for such areas enhances the council’s capacity to
understand and respond to these differences.”
The Commission noted that while the Council held bi-annual ward forums, the Takaro ward,
which comprised the most socio-economically deprived population, was the only ward in the
city that did not have an active formal ward committee. The Council was therefore
compromised, according to the Commission, in its ability to provide effective representation
for the Takaro community. The decision of the Commission was that Palmerston North
would retain an entirely ward based system.
8.3 Invercargill
As seen above, Invercargill City Council is one of only three city councils that elects its
members at-large. The question that the review needs to ask is whether this continues to
provide effective representation for the communities of interest within the Invercargill
Territorial Authority.
8.3.1 Mechanisms for Community Engagement
In determining whether there is effective representation, the Commission tries to gain an
overall picture of council engagement with the community and will take into account the
formal and informal mechanisms that a council has in place. In Invercargill these
mechanisms include:
One Community board – Bluff.
One Residents’ group – Otatara
Two Advisory Committees or Groups 7 - Youth Council and Community Services
Safer Invercargill Subcommittee.
Other ways in which the council obtains community views on an ongoing basis 8 include the
ability of the public to address Council Committee meetings, information given directly to
Councillors and staff via phone calls; letters and emails to the Council and the Councillors’
monthly talkback Panel on CUE television. In respect of Maori, a formal consultation
structure is maintained with other Southland Councils to ensure Maori contribution to the
decision-making process.
In summary, Invercargill has very little in the way of differentiated representation at the level
below the district as a whole, particularly mechanisms which are geographically based.
7
There are also three committees that are called Advisory Committees, but their role is confined to
advising on the distribution of central government funds in their areas. They are respectively, Active
Communities, Creative Communities and Southland Heritage. An informal arrangement also exists
with the Disability Council and from time to time, reference groups are established for one-off projects.
8
For specific issues, or as required by law, the Council invites formal submissions and may in addition
use additional methods for seeking pubic input and views, for example, a barbecue in a local park
when the council wanted input from residents about proposed redevelopment plans
36
8.3.2 Socio-Economic Data
In socio-economic terms, as measured by the overall Index of Socio-Economic Deprivation,
which is the data source that has been used by the Commission, Invercargill exhibits a
general pattern of advantage/disadvantage that correlates to the north/south areas of the
city. These rankings are shown on the map below.
37
Socio-economic rankings by mesh block
38
9.0 CONCLUSIONS
9.1 The Public View
1. The level of responses, via questionnaire and attendance at the public meetings, was
disappointingly low, representing only a small fraction of the Invercargill Territorial
Area population. Given the efforts made by the Panel to publicise the review and
distribute the Public Discussion Document, the low participation rate can itself be
taken as an indicator that there is not a large groundswell for change. In any case,
the Panel can only take into account the views it has before it in assessing public
opinion.
2 Despite the low number of responses, there was however a reasonably high level of
uniformity in the views expressed when these are broken down by area.
3. While people tended to think that the area in which they lived, at least, was a
community of interest, this did not necessarily translate into wanting any change in
their form of representation (with the exception of Otatara and South Invercargill, as
noted below).
4. There was clear support across the district for Bluff as a Community of Interest and
for the retention of the Bluff Community Board.
5. As well, the members of the Bluff community who attended the public meeting and/or
completed the section of the questionnaire relating to their views of the Bluff
Community Board all said they were entirely satisfied with their Board and its
boundaries. They were also satisfied with the status quo in general.
6. A high percentage of respondents from North Invercargill favoured the status quo.
Many supported Bluff as a separate community of interest. Questionnaire
respondents however showed a preference for a mixed system of representation with
eight preferring mixed, four preferring at-large and no votes for an entirely ward
system.
7. Myross Bush appeared to favour the status quo in terms of number of Councillors and
community boards, but to favour either a mixed or ward system of representation
rather than at-large.
8. The view from the Hui was in favour of at-large and the status quo.
9. Otatara residents were strongly of the view they are a community of interest and that
they want more voice and more consultation. At the public meeting, their preference
was a Residents Association if it can be funded via a grant or targeted rate. Failing
this, they would consider the option of a Community Board. A high majority was
happy with the at-large system of election.
10. The majority of South Invercargill residents thought they were not receiving effective
representation under the current system. The preferred change was in the system of
election to either mixed or wards, and there was little interest in a community board.
11. A majority of all respondents wanted some additional engagement with Council, and
there was a high degree of consensus in preferring this to be “face to face”
interaction. The most commonly mentioned means were clinics and
community-based meetings.
39
9.2 Invercargill Situation
12. Invercargill City Council has limited means of community engagement below that of
the district as a whole, particularly as regards geographically based communities. On
the other hand, in decisions in the last round of Representation Review Appeals, the
Commission has said that it believes that effective mechanisms for engagement
between the communities and the Council are fundamental to the purpose of local
government. It has also regarded disparities in socio-economic status as the most
important factor in impacting the existence and effectiveness of that engagement.
13. Invercargill has patterns of socio-economic disadvantage which show a general
correlation to a north/south pattern.
14. Based on those recent decisions, the Commission could take the view that:
(a) South Invercargill is under-represented at Councillor level, is an area that is
generally of greater socio-economic disadvantage and, while not responding
in large numbers, did show a high level of consistency in being unhappy with
the current system and in wanting a change in the system of representation.
In these circumstances, the Commission might feel that some form of ward or
mixed system is required.
(b) Otatara merits a form of community representation.
(c) Bluff is a community of interest and merits the continuation of the current
community board unchanged as to boundaries and the number of members.
(d) There are no grounds for change in Myross Bush or among the rural
community, or in the northern urban area of Invercargill.
9.3 The Panel View
15. The Panel recognises:
(i) The interest that was shown in a mixed system of representation by
respondents across the board. If these results are taken from the
questionnaires returned by North and South Invercargill only, an area which
includes the majority of the population, and which represented 68% of the
total responses, 12 out of 25 favoured a mixed system, nine favoured at-large
and four favoured a ward system.
(ii) That respondents from Otatara and South Invercargill were unhappy with the
current system.
(iii) That the majority of questionnaire respondents wanted alternative or
additional means of community engagement with Council.
40
16. However, the Panel also notes:
(i) The equality of access that was provided to all residents to participate in the
Review.
(ii) The very low response rate in terms of attendance at the public meetings and
the questionnaires and the difficulty in using these results as the basis for
fundamental change.
(iii) The overall desire to retain the status quo expressed by the majority of
participants at the public meetings.
(iv) The difficulty in finding a sensible geographic division for wards or a mixed
system that is just for everyone and does not result in significantly less
representation for some.
(v) The strong community of interest at a district-wide level.
(vi) That the community issues identified may be better resolved by means other
than wards.
(vii) That non Local electoral Act solutions will provide greater flexibility and would
allow Councillors to work in the community to their strengths.
17. The Panel believes that only Bluff meets the criteria for a separate community of
interest as defined by the Local Electoral Act 2001.
18. It also believes that effective representation for Bluff is provided by the existing
Community Board and agrees with its continuance and its membership and
boundaries as currently defined.
19. The Panel believes that the status quo could prevail with an at-large system of
representation, the same number of Councillors and the Bluff Community Board.
However, in addition to and outside the remedies provided by the Local Electoral Act,
the Panel believes that additional means of geographically based community
engagement are needed. These could be:
(i) A programme of Councillor Clinics by area.
(ii) A regular programme of community area meetings.
(iii) The development of a policy to provide basic support to residents groups
which meet defined criteria.
41
42
APPENDICES
The appendices are available on request to the Council. They are also available on-line at
the Council website: www.icc.govt.nz
43
