Audit & Risk Committee 23 November 2021 - Gisborne District ...

Audit & Risk Committee 23 November 2021 1 of 144

AGENDAP O Box 747, Gisborne, Ph 06 867 2049 Fax 06 867 8076

Email [email protected] Web www.gdc.govt.nz

MEMBERSHIP: Bruce Robertson (Independent Chair), Andy Cranston, Larry Foster, Pat Seymour, Terry Sheldrake, Rehette Stoltz (Mayor) and Josh Wharehinga

AUDIT & RISK Committee DATE: Tuesday 23 November 2021

TIME: 10:00AM

AT: Te Ruma Kaunihera (Council Chambers), Awarua, Fitzherbert Street, Gisborne

AGENDA – OPEN SECTION

1. Apologies .........................................................................................................................................4

2. Declarations of Interest...................................................................................................................4

3. Confirmation of non-confidential Minutes ...................................................................................5

3.1. Confirmation of non-confidential Minutes 22 September 2021 .......................................5

3.2. Action Sheet.........................................................................................................................11

3.3. Governance Work Plan ......................................................................................................12

4. Leave of Absence.........................................................................................................................12

5. Acknowledgements and Tributes................................................................................................12

6. Public Input and Petitions .............................................................................................................12

7. Extraordinary Business ...................................................................................................................12

8. Notices of Motion ..........................................................................................................................12

9. Adjourned Business........................................................................................................................12

10. Reports of the Chief Executive and Staff for DECISION ............................................................13

10.1. 21-224 Woody Beach Debris Across Tairawhiti - Addressing the Short-Term Problem

and Establishing a Long Term Council Position ................................................................13

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.gdc.govt.nz/


11. Reports of the Chief Executive and Staff for INFORMATION ....................................................37

11.1. 21-257 Health and Safety Update.....................................................................................37

11.2. 21-177 Internal Audit Update February - November 2021..............................................48

11.3. 21-263 Council Strategic Risk Management Report .......................................................56

11.4. 21-265 Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Metrics 2020/2021 .........................68

12. Public Excluded Business ............................................................................................................144


Governance StructureDelegations to Committees

Audit and RiskReports to: Council

Chairperson: Independent Chairperson

Membership: Mayor Stoltz, Deputy Mayor Wharehinga, Chairs

Quorum: Half of the members when the number is even and a majority when the membership is uneven.

Meeting frequency: Quarterly (or as required)

PurposeTo assist the Council to exercise due care, diligence and skill in relation to the oversight of:

the robustness of the internal control framework;

the integrity and appropriateness of external reporting, and accountability arrangements within the organisation for these functions;

the robustness of risk management systems, process and practices;

internal and external audit;

accounting practice and, where relevant, accounting policy;

compliance with applicable laws, regulations, standards and best practice guidelines for public entities; and

the establishment and maintenance of controls to safeguard the Council’s financial and non-financial assets.

The Audit and Risk Committee Chair is responsible for submitting an annual report to the Council covering the Committee’s operations and activities during the preceding year.

Terms of ReferenceInternal Control Framework

Consider the adequacy and effectiveness of internal controls and the internal control framework including overseeing privacy and cyber security.

Enquire as to the steps management has taken to embed a culture that is committed to probity and ethical behaviour.

Review the processes or systems in place to capture and effectively investigate fraud or material litigation, should it be required.

Seek confirmation annually, and as necessary, from internal and external auditors, attending Councillors, and management, regarding the completeness, quality and appropriateness of financial and operational information that is provided to the Council.


Risk Management Review and consider Management’s risk management framework in line with Council’s

risk appetite – which includes policies and procedures to effectively identify, treat and monitor significant risks, and regular reporting to the Council.

Assist the Council to determine its appetite for risk.

Review the principal risks that are determined by Council and Management, and consider whether appropriate action is being taken by Management to treat Council’s significant risks. Assess the effectiveness of, and monitor compliance with, the risk management framework. Consider emerging significant risks and report these to Council, where appropriate.

Internal Audit Review and recommend the annual internal audit plan; such plan to be based on the

Council’s risk framework.

Monitor performance against the plan at each regular quarterly meeting.

Monitor all internal audit reports and the adequacy of Management’s response to internal audit recommendations.

Monitor compliance with the Delegations Manual.

External Audit Annually review the independence and confirm the terms of the audit engagement

with the external auditor appointed by the Office of the Auditor General. This includes the adequacy of the nature and scope of the audit, and the timetable and fees.

Review all external audit reporting, discuss with the auditors and review action to be taken by management on significant issues and recommendations and report to Council as appropriate.

Compliance with Legislation, Standards and Best Practice Guidelines Review the effectiveness of the system for monitoring the Council’s compliance with

laws (including governance legislation, regulations and associated government policies), with Council’s own standards, and Best Practice Guidelines.

PowersThe Audit and Risk Committee, within the scope of its role and responsibilities, is authorised to:

obtain any information it needs from any employee and/or external party (subject to their legal obligation to protect information);

discuss any matters with the external auditor, or other external parties (subject to confidentiality considerations);

The Audit and Risk Committee has no executive powers and is directly responsible to Council.1. Apologies

2. Declarations of Interest


3. Confirmation of non-confidential Minutes

3.1. Confirmation of non-confidential Minutes 22 September 2021

MINUTESDraft & Unconfirmed

P O Box 747, Gisborne, Ph 867 2049 Fax 867 8076Email [email protected] Web www.gdc.govt.nz

MEMBERSHIP: Bruce Robertson (Independent Chair), Andy Cranston, Larry Foster, Pat Seymour, Terry Sheldrake, Rehette Stoltz (Mayor) and Josh Wharehinga

MINUTES of the AUDIT & RISK CommitteeHeld in Te Ruma Kaunihera (Council Chambers), Awarua, Fitzherbert Street, Gisborne on Wednesday 22 September 2021 at 10:00AM.

PRESENT:

Independent Chair Bruce Robertson, Bill Burdett, Andy Cranston, Larry Foster, Pat Seymour, Terry Sheldrake Kerry Worsnop, Josh Wharehinga, Kerry Worsnop and Mayor Rehette Stoltz,

IN ATTENDANCE:

Chief Executive Nedine Thatcher Swann, Director Lifelines David Wilson, Director Internal Partnerships James Baty, Director Liveable Communities Michelle Frey, Director Environmental Services & Protection Helen Montgomery, Chief Financial Officer Pauline Foreman, Chief of Strategy & Science Joanne Noble, Finance Manager Melanie Hartung, Health and Safety Manager David Wilkinson, Risk Partner Steve Breen, Democracy & Support Services Manager Heather Kohn and Committee Secretary Coral Dunn.

Secretarial Note: Michelle Frey and Helen Montgomery attended by audio visual.

Secretarial Note: Items were heard out of order described in the agenda. For ease of reference they have been recorded in agenda order.

1. ApologiesThere were no apologies.

2. Declarations of InterestThere were no interests declared.

http://www.gdc.govt.nz/


3. Confirmation of non-confidential Minutes

3.1 Confirmation of non-confidential Minutes 23 June 2021

The two questions raised by Cr Seymour concerning the timeframe for the staff Wellbeing Survey and response from Waka Kotahi about late information would be addressed in Items 11.2 and 12.3.

MOVED by Cr Seymour, seconded by Cr Stoltz

That the Minutes of 23 June 2021 be accepted. CARRIED

3.2 Governance Work PlanNoted.

4. Leave of AbsenceThere were no leaves of absence.

5. Acknowledgements and TributesThere were no acknowledgements or tributes.

6. Public Input and PetitionsThere were no public input or petitions.

7. Extraordinary BusinessThere was no extraordinary business.

8. Notices of MotionThere were no notices of motion.

9. Adjourned BusinessThere was no adjourned business.

10. Reports of the Chief Executive and Staff for DECISION

10.1 21-83 Update to Credit Card Policy

Response to questions:

It was agreed that the scope of the Credit Card Procedural Guidelines (page 20 under Credit Card 1) be amended as follows:

"It may be only used for accommodation, dining in relation to travel or entertainment and civic duties."

MOVED by Cr Seymour, seconded by Cr Wharehinga

That the Audit & Risk Committee:

1. Recommends that Council:

a. Approves the revised Credit Card Policy.

CARRIED


10.2 21-137 Draft Insurance Strategy & Wreck Removal Cover

Presentation by Matt Bilderbeck and Matthew Wilson from Aon who attended by audio visual link.


Under the Maritime Transport Act the distinction between Council's responsibility and that of the Port regarding wreck removal was murky.

The vessel owner had first responsibility for wreck removal but if the owner did not have adequate insurance this responsibility fell to Councils.

The Port would probably have some responsibility in an incident resulting from maintenance negligence regarding damaged navigation aids.

There was opportunity under the Maritime Transport Act for responsibility to be contracted out to other parties.

The loss modelling approach identified three different versions of the three scenarios, however, there would need to be more investigation of Council's relationship with the Port and whether the Port had assumed any of those responsibilities.

While scenario modelling provided a face value of the extent of potential exposure, contractual amendments might potentially change Council's position in relation to these exposures.

It was prudent to accept the view that Council was the last organisation standing as councils tended to end up as last man standing.

Council's ocean boundary was 12 nautical miles.

The assumption was made that Council's insurance covered its responsibility.

If an incident was a Council fault it was Council's responsibility and if an incident resulted from a Port function the Port would be responsible.

The Committee agreed the recommendations be amended by adding "c" as outlined below.

MOVED by Cr Seymour, seconded by Cr Sheldrake


1. Recommends that Council:

a. Approves the Draft Insurance Strategy.

b. Approves to increase the Wreck Removal Liability Policy to $10 million, and thereafter to increase liability cover in line with shipping volumes in Gisborne’s navigable coastal waters.

c. Requests a further update on the relationship between the Port and Gisborne District Council with respect to insurance and risk responsibilities.

CARRIED


11. Reports of the Chief Executive and Staff for INFORMATION

11.1 21-82 Data Analytics 2019/20


New employees’ reference and police checks were completed prior to employment, and best practice procedures checks were ongoing following their employment.

Testing included source documentation for each transaction ie. invoices, legitimacy of signed bank slips, and that changes of bank details made to correct account and were entered by a different person, etc.

MOVED by Cr Stoltz, seconded by Cr Foster


1. Notes the contents of this report.

CARRIED

11.2 21-193 Ernst & Young Closing Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2021

David Borrie and Loren Hunt of Ernst & Young attended by audio visual link.


A number of stakeholders had raised the timing Waka Kotahi's decisions with them however as yet Waka Kotahi had not given a firm undertaking to anyone.

Estimated the Three Waters reimbursement to Council would be $41m as at 30 June 2024.

The bar graph at the bottom of page nine showed individual measures in each group eg. the two measures in Emergency Management had been achieved.

The non-financial measures essentially described levels of services provided.

Environmental Health had not delivered their four levels of service.

There was a two-part approach to the audit of the non-financial measure. The first being a sample basis of the correct calculation of the results and the second being that an explanation provided context for the result.

The auditors were happy to answer any further questions either by email or attending Council meeting on 30 September 2021.

David Borrie and his team were thanked for their excellent service, and he was wished well in his new role as Audit Partner at Wairoa.

MOVED by Cr Stoltz, seconded by Cr Seymour



CARRIED


11.3 21-205 Health and Safety Update


Staff and contractors were continually encouraged to report near misses, however, instances of non-report did occur eg. recent damage to a window screen.

Council had in place a robust reporting system, good induction, ongoing training and good Health and Safety (H&S) culture in the organisation resulted in few near misses.

Good input was received from managers and teams.

COVID-19 had had a detrimental effect on August reporting.

Consistent graph colours for near misses would be used in future reports.

The H&S report was high level and significant work had been done by the H&S team with contractors and staff to improve H&S across the organisation.

Regular meetings were held with key contractors who reported on near misses in high-risk activity areas.

The executive team received detailed reports which could be provided to this Committee going forward if that degree of comfort was needed.

It was confirmed that the complete Health & Safety report, considered by the Committee, would be provided to the whole Council.

The Chair advised reported near misses provided early information for preventative action.

MOVED by Cr Seymour, seconded by Cr Foster



CARRIED

11.4 21-204 Council's Strategic Risk and Risk Appetite Progress Report


The orange columns in the graph on page 166 identified additional actions being taken to return a residual risk to within Council's moderate risk appetite.

Next steps on page 164 should read "to be completed".

MOVED by Cr Stoltz, seconded by Chair Bruce Robertson.



CARRIED


12. Public Excluded Business

Secretarial Note: These Minutes include a public excluded section. They have been separated for receipt in Section 14 Public Excluded Business of Council.

13. READMITTANCE OF THE PUBLICMOVED by Cr Stoltz, seconded by Cr Cranston

That the Council:

1. Re-admits the public.CARRIED

14. Close of MeetingThere being no further business, the meeting concluded at 2.24pm.

Bruce RobertsonINDEPENDENT CHAIR


3.2. Action Sheet

Meeting Date

Item No.

Item Status Action Required Assignee/s Action Taken Due Date

22/09/21 10.2 21-137 Draft

Insurance Strategy & Wreck Removal

Cover

In progress

Provide a further update to the Committee on the relationship between the Port and Gisborne District Council with respect to insurance and risk responsibilities.

Andrew Haughey

12/11/2021 Andrew Haughey

There will be an annual meeting with the Port Company to update shipping movements and any new risks. This will inform Council of the need for insurance cover. Updated shipping movements for the past year have already been supplied. In addition, there is a scheduled meeting with the Port Company to discuss and understand their risks and mitigation covers (eg insurance) that they have in place. This is to inform Council of exposure to any residual risks.

02/11/2021


3.3. Governance Work Plan

Audit & RiskJune – December 2021

Additional meetings or workshops may be scheduled to discuss Council’s position on a range of matters as and when required.

23 November 2021

DECISION Reports

- Woody Beach Debris Across Tairawhiti – Addressing the Short Term Problem and Establishing a Long Term Council Position

INFORMATION Reports

- Health and Safety Update

- Internal Audit Update February – November 2021

- Council Strategic Risk Management Report

- CME Metrics Report 2020-2021

PUBLIC EXCLUDED Reports

- Litigation Risk and Legal Issues

- Strategic Risk Deep Dive Background Report

4. Leave of Absence

5. Acknowledgements and Tributes

6. Public Input and Petitions

7. Extraordinary Business

8. Notices of Motion

9. Adjourned Business


10. Reports of the Chief Executive and Staff for DECISION10.1. 21-224 Woody Beach Debris Across Tairawhiti - Addressing the Short-Term Problem and Establishing a Long Term Council Position

21-224

Title: 21-224 Woody Beach Debris Across Tairawhiti - Addressing the Short-Term Problem and Establishing a Long Term Council Position

Section: Liveable Communities

Prepared by: Michele Frey - Director Liveable Communities

Meeting Date: Tuesday 23 November 2021

Legal: No Financial: Yes Significance: Low

Report to AUDIT & RISK Committee for decision

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to request approval to proceed with progressing a methodology to address the medium to long-term management of the woody debris on beaches issue.

SUMMARY

Woody debris on our beaches continues to accumulate, either through one-off storm events or incrementally over time as vegetation makes its way into our rivers and eventually onto the beach. No one owns this regional issue, and it isn’t going away.

This paper outlines:

1. The background context.

2. What is being done immediately to address the issue of woody debris on our beaches for this coming summer, and associated costs.

3. An emergency response plan for a future large-scale woody debris event.

4. A methodology to address the issue in the medium to long-term, forming a policy position on how Council will manage any future woody debris clean-up or beach grooming type activities across the region; considering the costs and effectiveness of approaches proposed. This will also provide clarity on who is responsible for what.

The decisions or matters in this report are considered to be of Low significance in accordance with the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.


RECOMMENDATIONS


1. Notes the short-term approach to dealing with woody debris this summer, and associated costs, noting these costs are unbudgeted.

2. Endorses the development of a formalised Woody Debris Emergency Response Plan (note this would be an annex to the overarching Flood Response Plan).

3. Approves proceeding with a methodology to address the medium to long-term woody debris issue.

Authorised by:

Michele Frey - Director Liveable Communities

Keywords: beach clean up, woody debris on beaches, Waikanae beach, midway beach, woody debris emergency response plan


BACKGROUND

Problem Definition

1. Woody debris on our beaches continues to accumulate, either through one-off storm events or incrementally over time as vegetation makes its way into our rivers, marine environment and eventually onto the beach.

2. Large amounts of woody debris on the beach are a Health and Safety and environmental risk issue and has an impact on the general amenity of the area. This is a regional issue.

3. While the issue of woody debris is best addressed at source, be it forestry or willow and poplar in riparian margins, once the woody debris has reached the coastline and marine environment, management is no longer the responsibility of the landowner, and thus has become Council's responsibility by default. Refer to the diagram below for a further description of this.

Diagram 1: outlining the various points at which Council and others play a role in reducing the escape of wood material that eventually lands on the beach.

4. Due to community concerns, Council and the forestry industry have taken on the role of beach clean-ups over time, but this has been reactive, and with no formal Council policy position established.

DISCUSSION and OPTIONS

Short-Term Context

5. Beach clean-ups for this summer: So far two clean ups have occurred; a clean-up of woody debris from Midway to the ‘Cut’ on Centennial Parade (the town beach), and north and south beaches in Tolaga Bay. These were undertaken in October 2021.

6. Unfortunately a further storm event occurred in November 2021 and Council staff are currently investigating the scale of clean up works required. It appears that the town beach is the only area requiring a second clean up.


7. The reason for the focus on these two areas is due to the comparatively high use of these areas being close to the City, the overall safety (ensuring woody material has limited remobilisation potential) and amenity expectations within these recreational areas.

8. Further, under the Uawa and Waipaoa Communities Recovery Plan, Council identified the restoration and protection of degraded waterways and the coastal marine area. There was a focus on avoiding future mobilisation of woody debris from forestry harvest sites into the receiving environment as key actions.

9. At Uawa there was also a community concern about the impact of woody debris on kaimoana, and the Cawthron Institute has initiated a study into this issue funded via the Envirolink programme. Uawanui will participate in this project.

Short-Term Approach for Town Beaches

10. The town beach clean-up commenced in October 2021 and was completed in time for Labour weekend, as has been standard annual practice. The clean-up was managed by contractor, Recreational Services. The material was removed off site and chipped elsewhere and will be used in a variety of ways. In the future it is anticipated there may be an opportunity for the community to access chip for gardens, weed suppression etc.

11. As mentioned above a further storm event occurred in November 2021 and Council staff are currently investigating the scale of works required to clean up the town beach. Further clean up works will be required.

Short-Term Approach for Tolaga Bay Beach

12. A meeting with the Uawa community representatives was held to confirm an approach for this summer. Woody debris has been relocated off the beach to the old rugby league field, and chipped. This chip will be made available to Uawanui Sustainability Group for community use as part of the restoration planting programme.

13. Only a limited amount of clean-up was required on the southern beach.

14. As mentioned above a further storm event occurred in November 2021. Council staff have investigated Tolaga Bay Beach and in consultation with community members, agree that no further clean up works are required.

15. No burning is proposed to be undertaken on the beach this season.

16. Woody debris is located on other beaches across Tairāwhiti and a long term policy position needs to be developed in collaboration with our Treaty partners and communities.

Emergency Response Plan

17. An informal Emergency Response Plan for woody debris migration has been used since 2018. At a high level this involves monitoring of potential adverse events and, as soon as safely practicable, undertaking beach assessments, with subsequent drone flights to document distribution and volumes. When there is a potential upstream issue, contact with the most at-risk people is made via text, Facebook Message, and email followed up by visits.


18. For larger events, a helicopter has been used and a detailed helicopter Health and Safety Plan has been prepared (this is now with Council’s Health and Safety Manager). There is a more comprehensive CDEM Severe Flooding Emergency Response Plan.

19. Due to the relatively informal nature of the response currently, we recommend the development of a more formal Woody Debris Emergency Response Plan (note this would be an annex to the overarching Flood Response Plan).

Medium to Long-Term Context and Approach

20. Council has no formal policy position on how Council will manage any future woody debris clean-up or beach grooming type activities across the region, considering the costs and effectiveness of any approaches proposed. The current approach is largely associated with keeping the community safe, as well as community amenity and is not consistently applied across the region. This is now required.

21. Given the location and nature of this issue, it is imperative that this project is facilitated in a manner consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles. Council must also ensure any additional legislative obligations are included in any planning or decision making. Principle 3 (Toitū te mana tangata) of the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Deed states “This deed contributes to the legal expression, protection and recognition of the right of ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou to exercise influence over persons carrying out activities within, or impacting upon, ngā rohe moana o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou.”

22. While the deed is unique to a Ngāti Porou context, it is only logical, and best practice that the same approach be afforded to any affected coastal hapū and iwi in the region. Council and mana whenua will need to define the issue, include key stakeholders, then set about the development of a sustainable policy position inclusive of all interested parties.

23. The following indicative methodology is proposed to achieve this consistent approach. Working through this methodology will also provide clarity on who is responsible for what in the medium to long-term. In order to ensure this methodology is successful, a committed project manager will be required, to work alongside iwi leadership.

Task Detail Led by who When

PHASE 1: Project Establishment and ContextProject Establishment and Problem Definition alongside iwi leadership.

Internal team to set up a meeting with relevant iwi leadership. Develop:- Project scope Problem definition Outcome Timeline

Liveable communities to provide support

for this partnership approach

November 2021

Assign Project Manager. This project requires a committed project manager to ensure delivery of milestones and timely completion of this project.

Liveable Communities

December 2021

Monthly internal working group meeting.

To establish internal working group meeting – with representatives from across Council to inform the policy position development.

Project Manager November 2021


Task Detail Led by who When

Establishment of Regional Interest Group Meeting #1.

Introductory meeting to set the scene, introduce project, and discuss and agree to Interest Groups role/ Terms of Reference. Issues and opportunities workshop.

Project Manager January 2022

Gap Analysis Analysis of information we have about the problem, and gaps in research (any scientific reports required to inform position).Consider work undertaken elsewhere.

Project Manager March 2022

PHASE 2: Project Research Develop Budget & Secure Project Funding (consider Envirolink).

Investigate funding options for: Further research. Policy development. Regional Interest Group

Involvement.

Project Manager March 2022

Commence Further Research.

Undertake further research (to be confirmed following Gap Analysis and funding approval)

Consultants April 2022

Regional Interest Group Meeting #2.

HOLD POINT: Recap on Project scope and

outcome required. Issues and Opportunities

Summary. Gap Analysis Summary. Update on research undertaken

and progress to date.

Project Manager June 2022

Complete Further Research.

Finalise research. Consultants July 2022


HOLD POINT Results of Research Draft scope of policy

development

Project Manager August 2022

PHASE 3: Policy PositionDraft Policy.

Using the information obtained in earlier stages, prepare a draft Policy position. This will also include consideration of the costs and effectiveness of management approaches proposed, and respective responsibilities.

Consultant October 2022


HOLD POINT: Draft Policy – opportunity to

provide feedback.

Project Manager November 2022

Finalise Policy and undertake engagement to socialise the outcome.

Finalise policy and undertake engagement to socialise the outcome.

Consultant/ Project Manager

December 2022


ASSESSMENT of SIGNIFICANCEConsideration of consistency with and impact on the Regional Land Transport Plan and its implementationOverall Process: Low SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

Impacts on Council’s delivery of its Financial Strategy and Long Term PlanOverall Process: Low SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

Inconsistency with Council’s current strategy and policyOverall Process: Low SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

The effects on all or a large part of the Gisborne districtOverall Process: Low SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

The effects on individuals or specific communitiesOverall Process: Low SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

The level or history of public interest in the matter or issueOverall Process: Low SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

24. The decisions or matters in this report are considered to be of Low significance in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

TANGATA WHENUA/MĀORI ENGAGEMENT

External Impact Assessment (Kaitiaki Tairawhiti)

25. We intend to work closely through Te Matapihi and the Engagement and Māori Responsiveness team to provide guidance and ensure that our approach gives effect to our Treaty obligations and legislative responsibilities.

26. A Regional Interest Group is proposed for this project, to ensure the policy position is well informed and the impacts on the wider community are well understood. The members of this group are yet to be established but will be confirmed as part of the project establishment.

27. Also note the existing networks established such as those established through the recovery plans and the Uawa community forum as well as the engagement in relation to the Tikapa Beach assessment. These will be considered when establishing the Regional Interest Group.


COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Internal Impact Assessment (Manaaki Tangata)

28. The short-term approach requires immediate action to resolve prior to summer 2021/22.

29. The medium to long-term approach will involve a wide range of internal inputs to inform the policy position. The members of the internal working group are yet to be confirmed but will be confirmed as part of the project establishment.

Communications

30. While engagement throughout the project will be largely through the Regional Interest Group, a phase of engagement is anticipated upon completion of the Policy.

31. This will best enable a community endorsed approach (or at least increase understanding of the issue and re-set expectations).

32. Note: Engagement may occur with industry experts and interested parties (associated with finding solutions to the problem), and this will be undertaken as the project evolves.

CLIMATE CHANGE – Impacts / Implications

33. The issue of disposal of such volumes of wood waste has significant implications particularly if it is burnt, which releases CO2 as well as particulates. Mulching or chipping provides an opportunity to add to soil carbon thus sequestering CO2. It is not possible to undertake the work without the use of heavy machinery which will emit CO2, however, longer term options will include use of wood wastes as a feedstock offsetting emissions. Allowing pine wood wastes to decompose in “birds’ nests” in forests or end-of-life willow and poplar is not carbon neutral and has an equivalent CO2 profile to burning.

34. In some instances, burning may still be required for either logistical reasons or because it is urgent from an environmental or health and safety risk point of view.

CONSIDERATIONS

Financial /Budget / Implications

Short-Term Approach

35. To relocate, mulch and beach groom from Midway to the ‘Cut’ in Gisborne and the identified material (north beach and previous stockpiles) in Tolaga Bay, is $156k. Three quotes were obtained from contractors in order to identify the preferred contractor. Efforts have been put into achieving collaboration with the contributors to the problem, but the cost offset may not be significant.

36. Due to the storm event in November, it is likely that a further $100K - 150k will be required to complete the beach clean-up.


Medium to Long-Term Approach

37. In order to activate this project, funding is initially required to establish a Project Manager. We anticipate this could be a part-time FTE circa 15 hours/week, for one year. Costs will be approximately $40k.

38. Funding will also be required for: Iwi Leadership Further research Policy development Regional Interest Group involvement

39. Costs for the above items can only be confirmed once the first phase of the project is complete - to completion of Gap Analysis.

40. It is anticipated that there are several external funds available to secure funding for this work including Envirolink and a project to assess potential long term economic utilisation options is being submitted for funding approval. Should further funding not be secured externally, a report will be brought to Council with a quantum of costs, at that time.

Legal

41. Provided the work on the town beaches and at Tolaga are undertaken in accordance with the existing consents the operations will have no legal implications.

42. The work required at Karaka Bay will not necessarily fall within the context of a permitted use but the forestry industry has committed to undertake this work and so further work is required to establish what consents would be required.

43. It will be necessary long-term to ensure that the replacements for existing consents are fit for purpose and carefully considered to eliminate current confusion about what is and what isn’t permitted.

POLICY and PLANNING IMPLICATIONS

44. The short term approach largely complies with the rules of the TRMP, and where required resource consent has been obtained to enable the works to proceed for this coming summer. The methodology for forming the long term Council position will be developed closely with the policy and planning departments of Council to ensure alignment.

RISKS and Issues

45. There is uncertainty about the volumes of woody material remaining in the catchment. An assessment of woody residues to assess residual volumes would be useful but it is noted that this would be a resource heavy project and could involve some cost, for example the cost of acquiring suitable satellite imagery would cost between $5,000 and $16,000 US.


46. The focus to date has been on Uawa due to the lack of good practice from forestry and the community’s high level of concern. The Eastland Wood Council has committed to clean Karaka Beach. Other communities have the same concerns as Uawa but there is no mechanism for addressing these concerns. This is a concern to Council as it creates an impediment to effective management of woody debris if we experience another influx which would require an immediate response to address community concerns (refer appendix).

47. Resourcing the monitoring and compliance has been challenging in previous years; however, this coming season, the Enforcement Team will see additional resourcing with a view to having an increased presence.

48. Tighter requirements required through national legislation and through the TRMP: Consideration can be given to having this addressed in future reviews of the National Environmental Standard – Plantation Forestry (NES-PF) and through the review of the TRMP.

49. Further complexities with removing the material include:

Lack of accountability – whose woody debris is it.

Health and Safety risks associated with large woody debris deposits.

High community concern about the volume of woody debris and who is going to clean it up.

High costs associated with environmentally friendly solutions.

Issues with re-use of the material – sediment and salt in the material potentially limits its value for re-use (this is subject to assessment).

Costs for removing woody debris are currently unbudgeted.

NEXT STEPSDate Action/Milestone Comments

November 2021 Short-term solution.Complete short-term solution for town beach and Tolaga Beach for this summer.

December 2021 – December 2022

Medium to long-term Council policy position.

Undertake research and establish Council policy position.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Post Storm Surge May 2021 Clean up of North Tolaga Beach [21-224.1 - 14 pages]

3

Post-Storm Surge May 2021 Clean-up of North Tolaga Beach

Dr M. P. Cave Principal Scientist

Gisborne District Council June 2021

Attachment 21-224.1


Executive Summary Woody Debris cloaking the Tolaga Bay Beaches has been an issue since 2013 but particularly since Cyclone Cook in 2017 and the Queens’ Birthday storms in 2018. Storms since 2018 have remobilised woody material in the catchment. This material has been dominated by forest harvest residues including slash, cut logs, long resident logs and slovens. Between 20 and 30% of the wood waste is willow and poplar, and on farm debris such as fence posts and battens.

Clean ups of this material have been undertaken by the forestry industry with the last clean-up was initiated in March and was completed by 21st April 2021. The forestry industry has been reluctant to remove the material at the far end of North Tolaga Beach and this 200m plus of logs remaining since the 2018 storm remained in place when the forestry operation ceased. On the 21st of May 2021 a heavy swell warning was put in place for Tolaga Bay to East Cape and consideration was given to removing the remaining logs at the north end. By the 23rd of May, this area of logs had started to erode and efforts to initiate engagement of a contractor commenced. Fulton Hogan were contracted to do the but due to sustained heavy seas work did not fully commence until the end of that week. By the end of Tuesday 1st of June a total of 627 cubic metres of wood was removed from the beach and securely stowed above the high tide mark for eventual disposal and a further 120m south of the stowage area had logs and woody debris pushed up to the top of the beach. Overall operations were undertaken along 29% of north Tolaga Beach and the total cost came in under the initial estimates of $20-25,000 by 29%. On the weekend of the 19th-20th June, a further rainstorm with an associated c.4m storm surge impacted the area. This did not result in any erosion from the stowed logs or the shaped berm at the northern end of the beach but a significant volume of new material dominated by willow and poplar was deposited. It is likely that much of this was sourced from a site at Mahanga Creek where large volumes of willow/poplar waste were seen being remobilised from the banks of the creek during flood flows.

Attachment 21-224.1


1

Introduction On Friday May 21st a heavy swell warning for Gisborne was issued by the Metservice. “Easterly swells expected to reach 3.5 metres around midday Sunday 23rd May, with a period of 10 seconds or less. Strong southeast winds reach gale north of Tolaga Bay Sunday morning, and the underlying swell will be masked with large wind waves of up to 4 metres by midday. Combined waves could reach 5 metres by Sunday night and will be ongoing for 2-3 days.”

This storm surge occurred soon after contractors working under the guidance of Aratu Forests Ltd completed a cleanup of harvest residues remaining on the beach after the storms of June through to October 2020. Araru Forests Ltd undertook its operations on behalf of on behalf of the Eastland Wood Council but operated under two Gisborne District Council consents (CO-2014-106480-00, LU-2019-109013-00 and DL-2019-109014-00). An inspection confirming the completion of that cleanup was carried out on the 21st of April 2021. It was noted that the cleanup managed by Aratu Forests did not include a significant volume of logs and other debris estimated at 1030 cubic metres situated on Council land in front of an unconsented dwelling (Figures One and Two).

Figure One. State of the northern end of Tolaga North Beach on the 21stApril 2021 showing the cleared area (shore side of the urapa fence) and the 235m3+logs remaining in front of the informal dwelling.

The Storm Surge The storm surge was significant and characterised by its long duration. While forecast as being expected to have waves reaching 3.5m on midday Sunday with hightide at 2:45pm. Waves higher than forecast occurred earlier than expected with waves of 4m+ occurring at mid tide on the Sunday (Figure Three). The event lasted significantly longer than the forecast 2 to 3 days with high seas lasting for over a week. Observations over the first 2 days of the storm surge indicated that the log pile at the north end was being undercut (Figures Four and Five)

Attachment 21-224.1


and that and estimated 400 cubic metres mainly smaller sized material had been remobilised for here as well additional material from the top of the beach further south. Separately, the storm surge also remobilised material on the south bank of the Uawa river mouth and smaller debris from the top of south Tolaga Beach (reported separately).

Figure Two. Drone map of the north end of Tolaga Beach showing the material left prior to the clean-up operations (Note this image predates the 2021 clean up lead by Aratu Forests Ltd.

Attachment 21-224.1


Figure Three. Waves breaking over Tolaga Bay wharf at midday Sunday 23rd May 2021 (Gisborne Herald supplied).

Figure Four. Storm surge impacting on log pile at northern end of Tolaga Bay 23rd May 2021.

Attachment 21-224.1


Figure Five. Undercutting of log pile at northern end of Tolaga Bay 23rd May 2021. Removal of the harvest residues It was clear by Sunday, the 23rd of May that the logs in front of the informal dwelling were unstable and at risk of remobilisation with calculations based on drone mapping indicating that around 400m3 of mainly smaller sized debris1 was remobilised before the clean-up operation commenced. With heavy swell warnings remaining in place for several days, it was decided that Council would act urgently to dismantle the vulnerable log pile and relocate to the cleared area shown in Figure One to minimise the risk of volumes of large logs being distributed along north Tolaga Beach.

On the 24th of May, Cranswick Contracting, who had undertaken the prior work for Aratu Forests Ltd was contacted and discussions held over the next two days but it became clear that they would be unable to undertake the operation for some time. Thus on the 26th of May, Fulton Hogan were contacted and on the 27th of May agreed to undertake the operation as soon as practicable and a plan of operations agreed to. Fulton Hogan mobilised onto site on the 28th of May and the scope of works refined with Council agreeing that using a Moxy to transport the logs was the most efficient option.

A revised heavy swell warning issued on the 27th May advised that the swells were anticipated to ease to 3 metres on the 28th and after that to ease below the warning threshold. The operation commenced on schedule but continued heavy swells initially restricted good access to the beach and progress was limited on the 28th but with some bigger material relocated from the southern end to clear a route for operations on the following Monday (Figure Five).

1 This volume would have included a significant amount of incorporated sand.

Attachment 21-224.1


Figure Six. View of operations progress on Sunday 30th May showing the two piles of material removed from the beach since operations were initiated on the Friday. Rapid progress was made on Monday the 31st May when more settled weather and suitable tides allowed for a more sustained effort although the large size of many of the logs necessitated cutting them in half before they could be transported away from the Beach (Figures Seven and Eight).

Figure Seven. View of the logs stowed at the far end of Tolaga Bay North Beach. These long logs needed to be cut in half before loading into the Moxy.

Attachment 21-224.1


Figure Eight. View of operations on Monday 31st May showing logs being loaded into the Moxy. Once the majority of material was removed from site, the remaining sand and small woody debris was reshaped into a more normal dune form which would be capable of being replanted in suitable coastal dune species to give long term protection. As the work was progressing faster than anticipated, approval was given to undertake a push up of woody debris for 175m south of the cleared area (Urapa gate).

The operation was completed by the end of day on Tuesday 1st of June and all of the equipment demobilised from site. A small number of logs were left at the end of the operation as these had been buried in the sand and fine debris and were uncovered during the push up in front of the informal dwelling. These logs could not be transported to the storage site as the Moxy had already been demobilised by this time, but were pushed to the back of the shaped dune to reduce risk of remobilising.

A suite of drone photos taken on the 5th of June 2021 were provided by Fulton Hogan as part of their post-operational reporting (Figures Nine, Ten and Eleven) and a drone flight to generate an orthomap of the site was flown by the Council on the 18th of June (Figures Twelve, Thirteen and Fourteen). The council drone footage confirmed the Fulton Hogan imagery and also allowed for the volumes of material stockpiled to be assessed (Table One).

Table One. Calculation of log volumes stockpiled

Pile description M3

Southern small pile 75

Northern small pile 62 Northern long pile 353

Southern mixed pile 137

627

Attachment 21-224.1


Figure Nine. Drone footage dated 5th of June 2021 supplied by Fulton Hogan as part of their post-operational reporting. This shows the area of pushed up logs in the foreground, the log piles in the middle ground and the cleared area at the north end of the beach.

Figure Ten. Drone footage dated 5th of June 2021. This shows the cleared area at the north end of the beach with the remaining material pushed up on a low gradient slope.

Attachment 21-224.1


Figure Eleven. Fulton Hogan drone footage dated 5th of June 2021 showing the log piles.

Figure Twelve. Three dimensional model based on drone footage dated 18th of June 2021 showing the push up areas in the foreground, the log piles and the cleared area at the north end of the beach which is consistent with the Fulton Hogan imagery.

Attachment 21-224.1


Figure Thirteen. Orthophotographic image showing the different log piles stowed in the cleared area on the top of the dunes. The two left hand and the northern long pile comprise clean logs while the southern long pile comprises smaller logs mixed with sand. Volumes are in cubic metres.

Attachment 21-224.1


Figure Fourteen. Orthophotographic image showing the cleaned area at the north end of the beach. Health and Safety Health and safety during the operation was good. The site manager for Fulton Hogan was diligent in requiring on site sign in, and personnel inexperienced in such operations were given a brief toolbox talk. Hazard tape was not used to isolate the operational area nor the log piles

Attachment 21-224.1


as these had been previously been found to be ineffective as people would ignore them. Signage and isolating tape is being arranged now that operations are completed.

Operational Efficiency and Cost The operation was undertaken between Friday 28th of May and Tuesday 1st of June with the majority of the work undertaken on the 31st May and 1st of June due to continuing heavy swells on the 28th of May limiting access to the beach. In effect, the operation took around 2.5 days to complete. In this time 200m of the northernmost end of the beach was cleared with 627 cubic metres of logs were relocated to the clearing adjacent to the urapa fence for eventual disposal. The disposal area occupies a length of 75m and a further 120m of beach to the south of the disposal area. Overall, operations were undertaken along 29% of the total north Tolaga beachfront.

A cost of $20,000 to $25,000 was estimated for the project based on prior Tolaga Beach operations but came in under the estimate by around 29%. Postscript Soon after the operations were completed a storm occurring over the weekend of 19-20th June associated with a moderate storm surge resulted in more debris being deposited on north Tolaga Beach. While a full assessment hasn’t been undertaken, a site inspection on the 22nd June indicated that a significant portion appears to be willow and poplar. A drone flight of the Uawa River mouth shows that a significant volume of new wood has been deposited (Figure Fifteen).

Figure Fifteen. Orthophotographic image dated 21st June showing the deposition of fresh wood waste at the Uawa River mouth.

Attachment 21-224.1


A field assessment between Gisborne and Tokomaru Bay on the 20th observed that the Mangaheia and Mangatokerau Rivers which had previously been significant sources of harvest woody debris were dirty but little woody debris was observed. At the Anaura Bay turn off on State Highway 35 flood waters were observed in Mahanga Stream and a significant volume of willow wood stored in piles on the banks of the stream were being eroded and transported downstream to the Hikuwai.

A more detailed assessment of the impacts of this storm will be undertaken when time allows.

Attachment 21-224.1



11. Reports of the Chief Executive and Staff for INFORMATION11.1. 21-257 Health and Safety Update

21-257

Title: 21-257 Health and Safety Update

Section: Health & Safety

Prepared by: David Wilkinson – Health & Safety Manager


Legal: No Financial: No Significance: Low

Report to AUDIT & RISK Committee for information

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to update the Audit & Risk Committee with specific information on critical health, safety and wellbeing risks, and controls to mitigate these risks at all Gisborne District Council workplaces.

SUMMARY

The Gisborne District Council has duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) and its associated Regulations. These include:

Applying due diligence to ensure Council, through its Chief Executive, provides resources and support to meet legal health and safety obligations.

Ensuring that significant health and safety risks have been identified and that robust controls are implemented to mitigate these risks, and that they are reviewed regularly.

Assurance that all workers are confident that Council is providing a safe workplace for its workers and other persons.

Confirming that Council is compliant with health and safety legislation and striving to continuously improve health and safety systems and culture.

Ensuring all workers are valued and that their health, safety and wellbeing is essential to the overall success of Gisborne District Council.

This report aims to provide key information relating to these matters at a governance level.


RECOMMENDATIONS



Authorised by:

James Baty - Director Internal Partnerships

Keywords: health and safety, wellbeing, critical risks, contractor management HSWA, boots on the ground


BACKGROUND1. The Health & Safety at Work Act is now well established with regular opportunities to

review case law and related precedents together with frequent Regulator media reports. Since the last Committee meeting WorkSafe have announced changes to health and safety regulations providing more clarity and certainty for businesses and better health and safety for workers. These proposed changes focus on plant, machinery, structures, scaffolding, vehicles and tools. Consultation will commence early 2022 with the final regulations expected to be in place by late 2022.

2. Our focus continues to be on critical risks, staff wellbeing, and building a culture where all our workers feel supported, understand the risks associated with their work, and what controls are needed to mitigate these. Accordingly, this report provides several updates.

DISCUSSION and OPTIONS3. Gisborne District Council recognises that a well-functioning health and safety system

relies on participation, leadership and accountability. HSWA sets out the principles, duties and rights in relation to workplace health and safety. A guiding principle of HSWA is that workers and others need to be given the highest level of protection from workplace health and safety risks, as is reasonable.

4. A recent review of Council’s strategic risks included Health & Safety and resulted in several options to ensure ongoing continuous improvement.

Identified Health and Safety Operational Risks

5. Healthy and safe work starts with identifying and understanding what our work-related health and safety risks are. It then involves implementing what is reasonable and practicable to eliminate those risks. Where the risk cannot be eliminated, it must be minimised so far as is reasonably practicable.

6. We focus on critical risks first before managing less serious risks. Teams are required to review work activities on an ongoing basis to identify any new risks that need to be managed. We work with other businesses where we have shared work risks (e.g. share a workplace or in a contracting chain). In addition, we ask workers for input on not only identifying health and safety risks but also when choosing solutions. We believe people are more likely to take responsibility and make good choices if they’ve been involved in the conversation, remembering that workers are the eyes and ears of our business. They could suggest practical, cost-effective solutions and often do.

7. We follow the "Plan-Do-Check-Act" four steps model to help manage our work health and safety risks:


8. Teams have identified their operational risks and these, together with controls, are reviewed on an annual basis or post any incident/accident. As previously advised, to support this work we have implemented a Business Partnership Model where the HomeSafe team collaborate and review team risks developing minimum risk guidelines for staff and contractors to follow.

9. A list of 28 critical risks have previously been identified, highlighted and reviewed at regular Central Organising Roopu (COR) meetings. These critical risks include, for example, uncertified lifting equipment and non-compliant edge protection. All but one (Williams Dam Sluice grill) have been closed off, the remaining outstanding risk is planned for completion when conditions permit.

10. Our top ten identified operational risks are:

Conflict, violence and aggression Falls from heights Driving and vehicle safety Working in the road corridor Contractor management Confined spaces and access Isolated, remote, lone working Hazardous substances, including asbestos Mental health and wellbeing

11. The HomeSafe and Risk teams remain vigilant around the changing COVID situation across New Zealand and worldwide. At the time of writing, the proposed Gisborne District Council COVID-19 Vaccine Policy is in the consultation phase. The highly transmissible Delta strain has led to increased focus on vaccination rates to enable movement towards the Government’s COVID-19 protection framework. Clear concise documentation is available to all staff via Naumai (staff intranet) and other communication channels. Ensuring we are well prepared particularly in terms of resources, plans and PPE for any potential COVID-19 resurgence in Tairāwhiti is constantly front of mind.

12. Our summer student recruitment and induction process improvements will focus on education and mitigation controls of key risks young students could face.

Compliance

13. Workplace health and safety is not just about compliance with every letter of the law. It is about making sure our basic proposition about workplace health and safety is cemented in our organisation’s culture. To this end, several compliance initiatives are under way or completed.

14. Gisborne District Council continues to play a key role in the local Te Tairāwhiti Asbestos Liaison Protocols where Council, Hauora Tairāwhiti, Fire & Emergency New Zealand and WorkSafe jointly support the reduction of occupational and public health risks associated with the exposure to asbestos.


Contractor Management

15. Much of Council’s medium to high risk work is undertaken by contractors. Before becoming a Council approved contractor, a health and safety assessment is undertaken with the contractors who are required to pass a pre-qualification check of their health and safety systems using our pre-qualification system SHE. ‘SHE’ helps us make smarter health and safety decisions, all backed by data and supported by rigorous process. Changes to the pre-approval process (cross-accreditation with Totika) have been ratified and will necessitate additional training to staff across Council. Council staff who engage medium or high risk contractors then undertake a check of any qualifications, licensing, safety plans and associated documentation before work commences. Monthly monitoring of contractors undertaking physical work is required by the person who engaged them, or a suitable project consultant/team. An example is the floodwater programme, with monitoring overseen by the HomeSafe team.

16. Working closely with approved contractors includes regular meetings where health and safety is reviewed, including accident and incident data. Additional contractor near miss reporting is under review. The benefit of collaboration not only ensures that Council complies with requirements under Section 34 of HSWA (overlapping duties) but also achieves benefits when exchanging learnings.

17. Gisborne‘s branch of NZISM (New Zealand Institute of Safety Management) continues to promoted safety in Tairāwhiti. Members include many of Council’s key contractors who get opportunities for training and personal development.

Due Diligence by Officers

18. HSWA outlines who is an ‘Officer’ and what their duties are. In councils ‘Officers’ include Mayors, Councillors and Chief Executives. An officer must exercise due diligence to ensure that Council complies with all its duties or obligations under HSWA.

19. To ensure all elected members fulfil due diligence in their capacity as an officer, health and safety reports to the Audit & Risk Committee will also be included in the subsequent Council agenda. The updates to the Governance Structure and Terms of Reference (Report 20-219) will mean that such information in the future will be accompanied by any recommendations from the Audit & Risk Committee.

20. Part of the role of an Officer of a PCBU[1] is to ensure that there is a safe workplace and that Council has required resources available. We achieve this in several ways:

a) COR (including the Chief Executive) meet weekly and discuss health and safety. Regular reviews of health and safety risks are undertaken – including general data, trends, accident data, critical risks and changes to guidance, standard operating procedures and health and safety Information.

b) The Chief Executive and COR ensure sufficient finance is made available as and when required.

c) Directors attend Health and Safety Committee meetings.

[1] Person in Control of a Business or Undertaking

https://auc-word-edit.officeapps.live.com/we/wordeditorframe.aspx?ui=en-US&rs=en-NZ&WOPISrc=https://onegdc.sharepoint.com/sites/docassembler/_vti_bin/wopi.ashx/files/941bd3bdb60543a0bb470e93c826cd9f&wdEnableRoaming=1&mscc=1&hid=17b8ea9f-50e9-0000-aa44-1ba4e47b8d04#_ftn1

https://auc-word-edit.officeapps.live.com/we/wordeditorframe.aspx?ui=en-US&rs=en-NZ&WOPISrc=https://onegdc.sharepoint.com/sites/docassembler/_vti_bin/wopi.ashx/files/941bd3bdb60543a0bb470e93c826cd9f&wdEnableRoaming=1&mscc=1&hid=17b8ea9f-50e9-0000-aa44-1ba4e47b8d04#_ftnref1


Keep Up-to-date with Health and Safety Matters

21. Due diligence includes taking reasonable steps to acquire, and keep up-to-date, knowledge of work health and safety matters Section 44(4)(a) of HSWA.

22. Recent notifications from WorkSafe include:

Company director fined for health and safety failingsWorkSafe is warning company directors that if they are not making sure their company’s operations are safe and healthy, they face enforcement under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.The warning follows the first WorkSafe prosecution and subsequent conviction and sentencing today of a director and his company for health and safety failings.“Directors have explicit legal duties to undertake due diligence on their company’s adherence to health and safety obligations and failing to do so not only puts their workers at risk, but it also puts them in our sights,” WorkSafe’s Head of Specialist Interventions Mr Humphries said.“As governors of their businesses, they have more ability than anyone else to influence their business’ operations to ensure they’re taking all the steps required to protect workers and others on their sites from health and safety risks. If they’re not doing so, they’re failing in their duties,” Mr Humphries saidOn 18 October 2021 in the Tauranga District Court, Jon-Brian Parker and his company Kimberley Tool and Design (NZ) Limited were convicted and fined over a November 2018 incident in which a worker suffered crushing injuries while operating a metal press. The ends of his right middle and ring fingers required amputation as a result.WorkSafe investigated the incident and found that the press was not properly guarded and did not have the required emergency stop button. The investigation also found previous history of the machine not operating as expected and had not identified this as a risk.Mr Humphries said the company’s induction and staff training was haphazard and undocumented, and the company could not produce any evidence of the victim having been properly trained in the press’ use.“What makes this case all the more concerning is that the company has had two previous convictions for incidents involving presses and injuries to workers’ hands and fingers.“At the time of the incident the company was also non-compliant with three WorkSafe Improvement Notices relating to non-implementation of a health and safety manual; inadequate safe operating procedure; and training issues.“With that history, Mr Parker should have known he had to step up and fix the litany of problems evident in his business. He did not, and a worker was unnecessarily injured,” Mr Humphries said.


Notes:

Jon-Brian Parker appeared in the Tauranga District Court on 18 October 2021. He was sentenced under sections 44(1), 48(1) and 48(2)(b) of the Health and Safety

Work at Act 2015. Being a director of a PCBU, namely Kimberley Tool and Design (NZ) Ltd, and having a

duty as an Officer to exercise due diligence to ensure that Kimberley Tool and Design (Ltd) complies with its duties as a PCBU, did fail to comply with that duty, and that failure exposed workers, including the victim, to a risk of serious injury arising from exposure to a crushing hazard created by the moving parts of the press when in operation.

Whakaari/White Island update

22 October 2021

WorkSafe New Zealand welcomed the recommendations in the "Review of WorkSafe New Zealand’s Performance of its Regulatory Functions in Relation to Activities on Whakaari White Island. The review was commissioned by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and was carried out by David Laurenson QC

“WorkSafe accepts that there were significant shortcomings in our implementation and enforcement of the Adventure Activities Regulations in relation to adventure activities on Whakaari. We deeply regret that and fully committed to improving our performance by addressing the review’s recommendations”.

WorkSafe previously laid charges against 13 parties, 3 of which were under HSWA Section 44/ Officers duties. All 13 defendants pleaded not guilty, with the next hearing in March 2022 and trial set for July 2023.

Worker Participation

23. One of the key requirements of health and safety legislation is that it is mandatory to have active worker participation. We formally apply this in two ways:

By having nominated Health and Safety Representatives, who cover a specific work group across Council. Currently each representative operates in this role for a period of two years. Health and Safety Representatives are consulted on worker health and safety matters, involved in investigations, meet quarterly and are given a variety of training opportunities during their term.

All workers are encouraged to report accidents, incidents and near misses through the VAULT system (our health and safety management platform). A mobile VAULT app is available and well used.


Our Key Processes Facilitate Employee Participation process in line with HSWA regulations.

Manage the VAULT health and safety system which aligns with AS/NZ 4801 Occupational Health and Safety Management systems and provides a repository for all health and safety information, hazard registers, risk registers, compliance registers and monitors improvement actions and investigations.

Lead the Health and Safety Risk Management process which is a core function of the VAULT system. The risk module has a sophisticated structure that fully integrates with all outputs of VAULT where risk assessments and controls are monitored and continuously improved.

Contribute to the BOPLASS Mahi Tahi LG Collaboration Portal which provides a shared resource where council health and safety policy, guidance and related material is freely available and members meet on a quarterly basis.

Coordinate the Audit and Review Process from within VAULT. Scheduling and improvement actions are applied to individuals and monitored until close-out.

Process Gaps or Improvement Opportunities

24. Improvement opportunities identified include:

Some aspects of VAULT remain not well understood or utilised. Additional training is required, targeting managers and teams.

Staff and contractors encouraged to ensure prompt reporting of events that include near misses.

Health and wellbeing initiatives require further development and implementation – additional HomeSafe resource engaged.

Managers/Team leaders regularly engage with those working from home.

Health and safety culture recognition and rewards scheme requires formalisation.

Audit and review of major contractors is ongoing and requires further enhancement.

Accountability – annual health and safety KPIs assessment and review requires completion following year-end.


Accident and Incident Statistics

KEY: No Treatment = reported accident requiring no first aid, medical treatment or time off.

First Aid = minor accident requiring first aid.

MTI = Medical Treatment Injury - injury or disease requiring treatment by General Practitioner (GP).

LTI = Lost Time Injury - workplace injury where worker requires time off (GP certified).


Key/Explanation: Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (TRIFR): Shows our performance gauged

against similar organisations. It is an industry standard reporting calculation based on (recorded incidents x 200,000) / total number of hours worked.

Events by trend (last 12 months) highlight top 3 events as: vehicle and driving, conflict and aggression and more recently an increase in criminal damage to GDC facilities.

Contractors reporting

With significant numbers of contractors engaged in Council work, many on very short duration works, obtaining accurate and timely data can be challenging. Main Contractors continue to have regular meetings with their GDC counterparts where Health & safety is the first item on the agenda. Incidents, accidents and near misses are reviewed and any recommendations arising shared.

Reporting data to follow will initially be based on our larger Tier 1 contractors.

Notifiable events: In the past 12 months no Council staff have been involved in events requiring

notification to WorkSafe.

2 x notifiable events incurred by contractors were notified to WorkSafe.

o Fulton Hogan/Siteworx - ruptured underground gas pipes.o Waste Management – worker under training fell from refuse truck – injuring arm.


Impacts on Council’s delivery of its Financial Strategy and Long-Term PlanOverall Process: Low SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

Inconsistency with Council’s current strategy and policyOverall Process: Low SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

The effects on all or a large part of the Gisborne districtOverall Process: Low SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

The effects on individuals or specific communitiesOverall Process: Low SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

The level or history of public interest in the matter or issueOverall Process: Low SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance




26. While no tangata whenua engagement was required to complete this report we are respectful when partnering with our community and organisations and ensure Te Tiriti o Waitangi – The Treaty of Waitangi is recognised in our daily work.

27. HomeSafe team actively promote the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi – The Treaty of Waitangi.


28. No community engagement was required to complete this report. All teams – including HomeSafe – are responsible for the safety and wellbeing of our workers and community. Contractor management and requests for service from our community may require input and guidance from the HomeSafe team.


29. There are no impacts or implications on climate change.

CONSIDERATIONS

Financial/Budget

30. Any financial implications relating to this report will be met from within existing budgets.

Legal

31. HSWA and associated regulations were introduced in 2016 and have now had a chance to acclimatise. Significant fines have been highlighted in the media for PCBUs who have not taken all reasonably practicable steps to mitigate health and safety risks. Any notifiable events have the potential to be investigated by the government regulator (WorkSafe).


32. There are no policy and planning implications to consider. health and safety is inherent in all areas of Council work.

RISKS

33. HSWA and its associated regulations require a PCBU[1] to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure the safety of its workers. There remains a risk to workers, Council reputation and regulatory censure due to any unidentified or unknown risks or failure of workers to follow safe work procedures. Risks to GDC workers’ health and wellbeing have increased, compounded by COVID and associated requirements including working from home. The majority of known critical risks identified are well managed or closed off.

[1] Person in Control of a Business or Undertaking




11.2. 21-177 Internal Audit Update February - November 2021

21-177

Title: 21-177 Internal Audit Update February - November 2021

Section: Internal Audit

Prepared by: Tina Swann - Internal Audit Partner




PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on activities of internal audit projects completed and/or currently in progress.

SUMMARY

Attachment 1 is an updated high-level summary of completed internal audits and policy reviews. The summary briefly explains the reason for the review, the approach taken and the outcomes or recommendations put in place after discussions with management.

The total external grants and subsidies received for the financial year ending 30 June 2021 was $84.1m. This been the focus of internal audit including supporting the project teams and external agencies with the view to provide assurance that the funding is and has been managed appropriately.

Parking collection has gone through notable changes recently with the implementation of pay by plate meters that have replaced the older pay & display, and standalone. While this will reduce the amount of cash that needs to be collected and counted, a separate standard operating procedure (SOP) for parking meter staff and coin counting staff was developed and is now a part of the conditions of employment.

Further details on this and other work currently under way is included in the report below.


RECOMMENDATIONS



Authorised by:

Pauline Foreman - Chief Financial Officer

Keywords: Internal audit


BACKGROUND

1. Internal Audit is an independent and objective assurance, consulting and advisory service, which aims to assist the organisation to accomplish its objectives. This is done by bringing a systematic disciplined approach to evaluating and improving the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance processes.

2. The Audit & Risk Committee is responsible for monitoring the work on Internal Audit. In order to facilitate this, Internal Audit provides a quarterly report of its progress which includes a high-level summary of the work completed and an assessment of the level of assurance provided.

3. When reports have been agreed and finalised with the Manager and Director concerned, an action plan is drawn up to implement improvements. These assignments are scheduled for follow up reviews.


External Grant Funding

4. During the past financial year, Council has received over $80m in external grants and subsidies. A substantial portion of this related to the Provincial Growth Funding (PGF) projects and the Tairāwhiti Redevelopment (TRP) projects.

5. Due to the significant external funds, this was an area of focus for our external auditors Ernst and Young (EY) during their audit of the financial statements to 30 June 2021.

6. The work that Internal Audit has done over this period in developing a robust process to support the project teams and provide oversight was instrumental in assisting EY to validate the appropriateness and measurement of costs claimed against the programme of works as set out in the various funding agreements.

7. While the TRP has been completed, there are still a few projects being monitored and supported by Internal Audit within the PGF roading programme.

8. The success of the model applied by Internal Audit for these programmes of work are now being applied to the following major projects:

a. Olympic Pool

b. Wastewater Treatment Plant

c. Waipaoa River Flood Control

9. Our involvement is to provide assurance to our project sponsors and funders that expenditure is being recorded and allocated correctly and that any funding claimed is correct and based on actual expenditure incurred.

10. It also extends to project forecasting and cash flows that help identify any issues or concerns around project timing, tracking against budget and project milestones to meet for funding requirements.

11. We do this in a few ways:

Each project has a dedicated financial advisor that works closely with the project team in monitoring spend, forecasting, cash flow and funding.

Internal Audit review and sign-off on the financial information before the information is released to our funders.


12. The approach Internal Audit has taken has been very collaborative. The goal has been to work smarter and more efficiently together with the project team and various agencies involved, for example, Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE), Waka Kotahi and more recently CIP (Crown Infrastructure Partners).

13. What we found that worked well is scheduled monthly meetings with key project team members and agency representatives a few days after the financial reporting and transaction listings have been submitted.

14. This has been great in identifying and raising concerns or issues and often mitigated any perceived risks from the outset.

Road Safety Review

15. The Safer Journeys strategy is to target road safety education programmes to high and medium risk areas. The programme is funded 75% from Waka Kotahi and 25% rate funded.

16. The last internal audit was undertaken in June 2019 and resulted in a few medium to high level recommendations around contract management.

17. Given there has been some time between the last internal audit and having had a change in staffing last year where a new Road Safety Educator was appointed, it is timely that a further review be carried out to assess the integrity of the controls and recommendations put in place.

18. The approach taken to review key risk areas:

a. Contract Management

b. Conflicts of interest disclosed (if any)

c. Appropriateness of expenditure and funding subsidies

d. Delegated approvals

19. This review will be finalised with management and reported at the next Audit & Risk Committee meeting in March 2022.

Non-rateable Maori land application and rates refund review

20. This is a review of the new process around non-rateable Maori land due to changes in the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Maori) Amendment Act 2021 which came into force on 1 July 2021 regarding Maori freehold land.

21. The new Act will provide Council the power to write-off rates arrears and a statutory remission process for development, make unused Maori land unrateable and also provide the opportunity for Council to treat multiple blocks of Maori land as one block for rating purposes.

22. The approach taken is to ensure clear processes are in place with a view to have:

a. Robust controls are in place

b. Separation of duties when decisions need to made (conflict of interest)

c. Delegated approvals; and

d. Reporting of any changes made


23. Put in place the necessary systems so the correct rating treatment can be applied and fine-tune our rates remission process.

24. This is a new process and may take some time to work through with the revenue team. We would expect this to take at minimum six months.

Three Year Programme

25. Management is currently reviewing each of Council’s strategic and organisational risks and apply the risk appetite framework to assess each of their inherent risk, the control environment to manage the risk and the resulting residual risk.

26. Once the overall organisational risk is determined, this will lead into the development of the three-year programme.

ASSESSMENT of SIGNIFICANCE

Consideration of consistency with and impact on the Regional Land Transport Plan and its implementationThis Report: Low Significance

Impacts on Council’s delivery of its Financial Strategy and Long-Term PlanThis Report: Low Significance

Inconsistency with Council’s current strategy and policyThis Report: Low Significance

The effects on all or a large part of the Gisborne districtThis Report: Low Significance

The effects on individuals or specific communitiesThis Report: Low Significance

The level or history of public interest in the matter or issueThis Report: Low Significance



28. Māori engagement is not required in relation to Internal Audit activities.


29. The community will not be engaged in relation to Internal Audit activities.


30. There will be no effect on greenhouse gases or climate change as a result of the matters in this report.


CONSIDERATIONS

Legal

31. While there are no legal requirements in relation to Internal Audit activities, the Internal Audit function assists our statutory requirements. The combined mix of internal and external audit coverage supports the Audit & Risk Committee members to fulfil their governance responsibilities.


32. There are no policy and planning implications.

RISKS

33. The risk profile and risk appetite will help focus the Internal Audit programme over the next three years.


Nov 21-June 2024Continue to provide support and oversight of all major projects and PGF funded projects.

Ongoing.

Jan–June 2022Development of a three-year internal audit programme.

Refining risk appetite with Council before programme can be developed.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Update of Completed Audit Reviews/Projects [21-177.1 - 3 pages]

APPENDIX 1:

UPDATE OF COMPLETED AUDIT REVIEWS/PROJECTS FOR

AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE MEETING ON 24 NOVEMBER 2021

PARKING METER COLLECTION REVIEW

Objective:

Revisit the previous review undertaken in 2018 to assess the integrity of the recommendations and improvements implemented and to observe and/or recommend additional controls as a result of changes during this time.

Approach taken:

Interviews with Parking Team Leader, Director and Enforcements Manager to discuss findings and recommendations of previous review.

Noting new equipment purchased for transporting collection money and recording more efficient pay-by-plate meter upgrades planned for troublesome pay and display meters.

Discussions with Financial Services to check reports from new meters and reconciliations. Discussions with IT Services to check footage review from coin room CCTV and parking

wardens body cameras. Discussions with parking staff, enforcements administrator and coin counting staff to

confirm process changes.

Outcome:

Identified prior recommendations not being followed and discussing solution.o mesh box in counting room not being locked.

Process improvements noted and documented.o Team Leader to utilise locked drawer to store keys to meters and coin bins when

not in use so they are centralised and secure.o Unsealed money bags to be kept in safe with register to be kept of un-sealed bags

and how much money is contained within them. Process documentation updated to reflect new equipment and upgrades with new

procedures required. Prepared separate Standard Operating Procedures for parking meter staff and coin

counting staff to include in new training programme for Enforcement staff.

Attachment 21-177.1


KOHA POLICY REVIEW

Objective:

To review current Koha policy following phasing out of cheque payments on 28 May 2021 to ensure koha fulfils tikanga whilst still meeting the financial reporting requirements of audit and policy.

Approach taken:

Meeting with Maori Responsiveness Team representatives to discuss collective solutions for all our requirements.

Checking how other Councils will manage koha.

Outcome:

Update koha policy and supporting documentation to reflect new changes. Presented to COR and approved on 26 May 2021. Socialise new koha policy via all staff email and Naumai.

PETTY CASH POLICY REVIEW

Objective:

To review current Petty Cash policy following phasing out of cheque payments.

Approach taken:

Discussions with Financial Services to review current petty cash operations and alternative methods available for petty cash reimbursement.

Research business card options with Westpac.

Outcome:

Update petty cash policy and supporting documentation to reflect new changes. Presented to COR and approved on 26 May 2021. Socialise new petty cash policy to Departments utilising petty cash with instructions on using

new Westpac Business cards. Meeting with Customer Services Manager to outline new process for reimbursement.

Attachment 21-177.1


SENSITIVE EXPENDITURE POLICY REVIEWS FOR BOTH ELECTED MEMBERS

AND STAFF

Objective:

To update both policies to include reference to Koru Club membership for Mayor and Chief Executive as per external audit suggestion.

Approach taken:

Review OAG guidelines on sensitive expenditure for airline memberships. Review policy and separately update to include Koru Club expense for Mayor and Chief

Executive under respective policies.

Outcome:

Both Elected Members policy and Staff policy were updated to make the change.

Attachment 21-177.1



11.3. 21-263 Council Strategic Risk Management Report

21-263

Title: 21-263 Council Strategic Risk Management Report

Section: Finance & Affordability - Performance

Prepared by: Steve Breen - Risk Partner


Legal: No Financial: Yes Significance: Low


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform the Audit and Risk Committee on the status of Gisborne District Council’s strategic risks.

SUMMARY

Management continues to review each of Council’s strategic and organisational risks and apply the risk appetite framework to each to assess their inherent risk, the control environment to manage that risk, and the resulting residual risk.

This report provides a status update for the ‘Health and Safety’ and ‘Civil Defence’ strategic risks reported to the 22 September Audit and Risk (A&R) Committee meeting and progress on ‘People and Capability’, and ‘Impact of External Change’ strategic risks.

A deep dive on the ‘Finance’ strategic risk which will include ‘Fraud and Corruption’ and ‘Procurement’ will be conducted as part of the Committee meeting and forms a separate part of the meeting under public excluded and referenced in Public Excluded report 21-269.


RECOMMENDATIONS


1. Notes the updates to the individual strategic risks and their risk appetites contained in this report.

Authorised by:

Pauline Foreman - Chief Financial Officer

Keywords: Risk, Strategic Risk,


BACKGROUND

1. This report provides an update on Council’s top risks and risk activities for the period ending November 2021.

2. The Council is progressively applying its risk appetite framework to each of the Council’s 13 identified strategic risks. Each strategic risk will be assessed in terms of its inherent risk, the control environment to manage that risk, and the resulting residual risk.

3. At the 23 June Audit and Risk Committee (A&R Committee) meeting (report 21-131), the following steps were agreed as part of this process:

Recalibrating the Council’s risk consequence definitions to move the current risk appetite from ‘Minor’ to ‘Moderate’ as based on the risk appetite workshop results.

Determine if the Council is currently exposed to any risks beyond its risk appetite.

Develop the annual Internal Audit Plan (based on a 3 year programme).

Plan and conduct deep dive risk sessions with the A&R Committee.

4. The goals of this current period of work are to:

a) Progressively determine the status of our strategic risks and overall organisational risk now.

b) Map where we need to go in terms of running an across-organisation risk management approach that is consistent for each area of risk and keeps the Council operating within an acceptable level of risk.

5. The 22 September A&R Committee report covered the ‘Health and Safety’ and ‘Civil Defence’ strategic risks and deep dives on ‘Impact of External Change’ and ‘People and Capability’.

6. The ‘Impact of External Change’ deep dive identified a close association of this area of risk with ‘Overall Council Strategy’ (including strategic relationships) that the previously proposed deep dive on ‘Overall Council Strategy’ scheduled for the November A&R Committee meeting will be deferred to allow more work to be done on defining and aligning both risks.

7. The ‘People and Capability’ deep dive identified the need for the Council to take additional actions to meet its recruitment and retention requirements. The Committee agreed that this should form the basis of a separate report to the full Council which management is now progressing.

8. This report is supported by the accompanying Public Excluded Deep Dive report (21-269), which covers the deep dive for ‘Finance’, accompanied by ‘Fraud and Corruption,’ and ‘Procurement’ which will take place in the Public Excluded part of this meeting.

9. Work is being undertaken across all the strategic risks and the Strategic Risk Update Summary Table below shows the completed risk assessments to date and where the risk assessments and deep dives for each risk are proposed.


10. Strategic Risk Update Summary Table:

Strategic Risk Inherent Risk Residual Risk Proposed Deep Dive Risk Assessment completed by

Health and Safety Serious Moderate August 2022 Completed

Civil Defence Serious Moderate August 2022 Completed

People and Capability (including projects/change management and service delivery)

Serious Major Completed 23 November 2021

Impact of Externally Driven Change New risk: level to be determined following deep dive

New risk: level to be determined following deep dive Completed April 2022

Financial (including fraud and corruption) Serious Moderate 23 November 2021 23 November 2021

Procurement Serious Moderate 23 November 2021 23 November 2021

Overall Council Strategy (including strategic relationships)

To be reassessed following deep dive

To be reassessed following deep dive April 2022 April 2022

Treaty Commitments New risk: to be determined following deep dive

New risk: to be determined following deep dive 23 February 2022 April 2022

Capital Projects New risk: to be determined following deep dive

New risk: to be determined following deep dive 23 February 2022 April 2022

Natural Environment (including ability to monitor and report) To be reassessed To be reassessed April 2022 23 February 2022

Legal Compliance To be reassessed To be reassessed June 2022 April 2022

Infrastructure Asset Management To be reassessed To be reassessed April 2022 23 February 2022

Business Continuity (including Information and Technology) To be reassessed To be reassessed August 2022 June 2022


11. A residual risk ‘heat map’ forms part of the risk reporting and has been provided below for the risks assessed to date: ‘Health and Safety’ (H&S); ‘Civil Defence’ (CD), ‘People and Capability’ (P&C); ‘Finance’ (F), ‘Fraud and Corruption’ (F&C); and ‘Procurement’ (P):

12. More risks will be added to the heat maps as they are assessed. The maps are supported by the summary table as below:

13. The previously held workshops with Councillors have identified a shift in the make-up of the strategic risks facing Council and the level of risk it is prepared to accept (its risk appetite). This is to be expected given that the nature of risk changes over time and risk management should be proactive in identifying and responding to this change.


14. It was agreed at the 23 June 2021 A&R Committee meeting (report 21-131), to recalibrate the Council risk appetite from ‘Minor’ to ‘Moderate’ as based on the risk appetite workshop results. This recalibration is being progressively applied to Council’s strategic risks to determine if they meet Council's risk appetite and their potential impact on mitigation resources if they fall outside Council’s risk appetite. Management is reporting to the A&R Committee on each risk as it is and as part of developing the Internal Audit Plan (hence the completion of Step 3 after the risks have been re-assessed).

15. Identifying the residual risk for each strategic risk area involves management reviewing the relevant risk that it reflects its current risk environment by:

a) Assessing what the inherent risk is using the recalibrated risk consequence matrix. This determines the level of risk inherent in the activity before any actions (controls) are put in place to reduce this risk to an acceptable level (the residual risk that remains, even after something is being done to manage it).

b) Assessing the existing controls to determine how effective they are and what the level of residual risk is as a result.

c) If the residual risk is assessed to be outside Council’s risk appetite, identifying further treatments which, if implemented, will bring the residual risk back within Council’s risk appetite. Further assessment of the treatments potential impact on mitigation resources is completed and approvals sought if treatments are identified to exceed available mitigation resources.

16. This approach for determining the residual risk is best summarised for each strategic risk using the ‘bow tie’ method. A 'bowtie' visualises the risk we are dealing with in one, easy to understand picture. The diagram is shaped like a bowtie, creating a clear difference between proactive and reactive risk management. The bowtie gives an overview of multiple plausible scenarios, in a single picture, which would be much more difficult to explain otherwise. Examples of how a bowtie is applied in practice for ‘Health and Safety’ and ‘Civil Defence’ are contained in Attachment 1.

17. The current degree of confidence under each strategic risk is at various levels: some have been developed with the “bowtie” method and of these, some require updating as there have been changes since the bowtie was done; while there are others that are new strategic risks needing to be started from scratch with their own bowtie completed. Regardless, each strategic risk is being reviewed to bring it into line with our risk appetite.

18. Attachment 1 also demonstrates how the bowtie was used for the residual risk assessment for ‘Health and Safety’ and ‘Civil Defence’. The Inherent Risk of each risk area is identified along with the existing actions (controls) in place to bring that risk level within Council's risk appetite (currently set at ‘Moderate’ across the organisation). Where the risk is determined to be outside Council’s risk appetite, further actions (treatments) are identified to bring the risk level back within Council’s risk appetite. This informs other management activities, including monitoring and assessing the risks and the budget and resource allocation for managing each.


19. As a planning and management approach this enables Council to identify the differences between the ideal activity/asset management requirements and the actual – as adjusted by the budget and resource allocation. The difference should articulate the trade-offs made in resource allocation and how these impact on the activity or asset condition for the forthcoming three-year work programme and beyond.


Health and Safety Strategic Risk

20. The current residual risk level for Health and Safety is assessed as ‘Moderate’ which is within our overall Council risk appetite.

21. This ‘Moderate’ level of risk has been achieved through the introduction of several actions (treatments) since the original H&S risk bowtie was completed in 2020 (Attachment 1). These ‘treatments’ are in progress or have been completed across the following themes:

a) Review of H&S incidents to identify lessons learned and develop improvement actions: Ongoing.

b) Efficient recruitment and training programme in place and implemented: In Progress.

c) Personnel training combined with robust assurance and verification audits: In Progress.

d) Standard Operating Procedures in key areas developed and in place: In Progress.

Civil Defence Strategic Risk

22. The current residual risk level for Civil Defence is assessed as ‘Moderate,’ which is within our overall Council risk appetite.

23. This ‘Moderate’ level of risk has been achieved by revising the existing Civil Defence risk bowtie following the September A&R Committee meeting, resulting in several additional actions (treatments) being added. These ‘treatments’ are proposed or in in progress as follows:

a) Further training is scheduled: In Progress. May require additional budget where specific training is required.

b) Workshop with Councillors to assist clarifying Council CDEM operational responsibilities and accountabilities: Proposed.

c) The existing Civil Defence Risk Bowtie has been updated and the revised draft (Attachment 1) is being reviewed for implementation: In Progress.

d) Establish a natural hazards work programme to monitor and manage natural hazards: Proposed. Scope of work to be determined. May require additional budget and/or re-prioritisation of existing work commitments.

e) Implementation of medium-term actions of 2018/19 CDEM Review Plan recommendations: In Progress. Majority of short-term recommendations implemented but ongoing delivery of full recommendations required. May require additional budget and/or re-prioritisation of existing work commitments.

f) Sharing of local and national expertise and resources to ensure the right level of decision-making experience and competency for an event: In Progress. This will also build relationships and the development of consistent operational platforms between regions.


24. Operationally, the Council is able to meet its Civil Defence commitments, however the current risk assessment identifies the need for continued training to ensure the region has suitably qualified and capable personnel as needed. The training requirements will be further developed within the wider CDEM Group Plan.

25. This active focus on the treatments identified will reduce the residual risk level to ‘Moderate’ which meets the Council’s risk appetite.


Impacts on Council’s delivery of its Financial Strategy and Long Term PlanOverall Process: Medium SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

Inconsistency with Council’s current strategy and policyOverall Process: Medium SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

The effects on all or a large part of the Gisborne districtOverall Process: Medium SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

The effects on individuals or specific communitiesOverall Process: Medium SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

The level or history of public interest in the matter or issueOverall Process: Medium SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

26. This report is part of a process to arrive at a decision that will/may be of Low level in accordance with the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

27. This report is part of the Council risk management process and will inform future Council decision-making across Council functions and therefore the level of significance will be informed by the functions this process is applied to.

TANGATA WHENUA/MĀORI ENGAGEMENT28. The level of engagement has primarily been internally facing to date as the areas of risk

are identified. This will then inform the level of engagement and process for engagement to be followed.

CLIMATE CHANGE – Impacts / Implications29. The outcomes of determining the Council’s strategic risks and risk appetite for each will

inform Council’s decision-making and the allocation of resources to deliver the Long-Term Plan objectives supported by an appropriate risk management strategy and approach.

30. The level of community engagement will be determined by the areas of risk identified and the degree to which they directly affect the community.


CONSIDERATIONS

Financial/Budget

31. There are no direct financial implications in relation to receiving this report.

32. The financial impact will be determined by the resource allocation required to meet Council’s risk appetite for the areas of risk identified. While there are no direct financial costs from the identification of risks, the implications of not managing risks could have significant financial impacts.

Legal

33. This report is part of Council's obligations to operate in a prudent manner by identifying and reducing relevant risks to the delivery of its services and activities.


34. This is consistent with Council's Risk Management Framework.

RISKS

35. This report is part of Council’s wider organisational risk management process which seeks to minimise risk across the Council organisation. The process being undertaken as set out in this report will be applied to map the rest of the strategic risks.


November onwardsDetermine if the Council is currently exposed to any risks beyond its risk appetite.

Complete in conjunction with Internal audit for the assurance programme.

Reported within Audit and Risk Committee.

November onwardsDevelop the annual internal audit plan.

Complete in conjunction with the profiling of each strategic risk and subject to further consideration by Audit and Risk Committee.

November onwardsPlan and conduct deep dive risk sessions with the Audit and Risk Committee.

Complete in conjunction with Internal audit for the assurance programme.

Reported within Audit and Risk Committee.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - H&S and CDEM Risk Bowties and Residual Risk Assessments 23 November A& R Report [21-263.1 - 4 pages]

Gisborne District Council | Strategic Risk and Assurance Maps

Preventative Action/Controls

1. Policy, framework and reporting align with Worksafe & Safe Places (best practice)

2. Trained, enabled and empowered workforce – culture supports H&S kaupapa

3. Capacity planning across the organisation,budgets are prioritised by managers, and where necessary, COR

4. SHE pre-qualification, contract monitoring and reporting to COR

5. Training and reward (positive recognition for correct behavior)

6. Formal check and review scheduled by Home Safe team with reporting via Vault

Mitigating/Corrective Controls

7. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)

8. Staff personal accident insurance and other liability insurances

9. Dedicated and trained crisis management team, succession planning, work prioritisation

10. H&S steering and representative group and communications teamto assist crisis management team with external communications

11. Effective communications from crisis team internally and externally

7 Worksafe investigation, legal action/regulatory sanction, potential fine

8 Financial Impact on victim and victim’s family caused by serious harm or death

9 Loss of productivity

10 Negative impact on the Council’s reputation, loss of public trust and confidence

11 Reduced staff morale and direct impact on victim, family and community

Incomplete Health & Safety framework with ad-hoc due diligence at COR and Council 1

Insufficient training of staff to identify, monitor and report on Health & Safety risks 2

Inadequate Health & Safety resourcing and budget, planning for succession 3

Failure to manage contractors 4

Culture is primarily data driven, rather than behavior-based 5

Deliberate misuse of equipment or serious misconduct 6

Inability to adequately protect council staff and the community, from hazards or events which compromise

their physical and emotional wellbeing, while delivering

Council services

Health and Safety Risk Bowtie and Residual Risk Assessment

Health & Safety Risk Risk Owner: James Baty

Consequence “Then’s”Mitigating ControlRisk EventPreventative ControlCauses “If’s”

Attachment 21-263.1


Health and Safety

Inherent

Risk LevelExisting Controls Control Effectiveness Applicable Categories Likelihood Consequence Result

Residual

Risk Level

Residual risk

outside appetite

(i.e Moderate)

Treatment Options Owner StatusApplicable

CategoriesLikelihood Impact Result

Residual Risk Level

(after treatment)

1. Policy, framework and reporting align with

Worksafe & Safe Places (best practice) Controls are present and effective

H&S incidents are reviewed to identified lessons

learned and develop improvement actions

Homesafe/

ManagersComplete

2. Trained, enabled and empowered

workforce – culture supports H&S kaupapa

Controls ineffective in some areas

Development of LMS system to ensure Managers

are supported (resourced) in team leader and

management roles having clear development

pathways.

Hub

DirectorIn progress

3. Capacity planning across the organisation,

budgets are prioritised by managers, and

where necessary, COR Controls are present and effective

Efficient recruiting process Hub

DirectorIn progress

4. SHE/Totika pre-qualification, contract

monitoring and reporting to COR


Staff training combined with robust assurance

and verification audits

Homesafe/

ManagersIn progress

5. Training and reward (positive recognition

for correct behavior)


Review initiatives - H&S reps acknowledgementHomesafe/

ManagersIn progress

6. Formal check and review scheduled by

Home Safe team with reporting via Vault Controls are present and effective

Full teams in place, Managers and teams trained

& competentHomesafe In progress

7. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) Controls ineffective in some areas

SOPs need to be developed within several med-

high risk teams to set clear H&S expectation and

required for staff to meet

Homesafe/

ManagersIn progress

8. Staff personal accident insurance and

other liability insurances Controls are present and effective Ongoing training, recruitment as required

Hub

DirectorIn progress

9. Dedicated and trained crisis management

team, succession planning, work

prioritisation Controls are present and effective

H&S representatives planned 2 year training

regimeHomesafe Complete

10. H&S representative group and

communications team to assist crisis

management team with external

communications Controls are present and effective

11. Effective communications from crisis team

internally and externally Controls are present and effective

Serious ModerateYes Moderate

High

Low

Reputation Unlikely Moderate Moderate

Health, safety &

wellbeing Possible Moderate Moderate

Regulatory and legal

compliancePossible Moderate Moderate

Low

Health, safety &

wellbeing Almost certain Moderate

Regulatory and legal

compliancePossible Minor

Reputation Possible Minor

Attachment 21-263.1


Gisborne District Council | Strategic Risk and Assurance Maps

Preventative Action/Controls

1. Recruit and provide contracts for Controllers (not employed by Council)

2. Controller and recovery manager training is implemented by CDEM manager

3. Ongoing Exercise and Training Programme for CDEM and Council staff in place, required training completed by 30 June 2022

4. Function specific training for recovery managers

5. Update the Group Plan and the detailed plans that sit under it (including the Strategic Communications Plan (SCP))

6. Interim ECC in place while dedicated facility established

7. Hazards work programme in place to monitor and manage hazards

Mitigating/Corrective Controls

8 We are not compliant with MCDEM regulations

9Wrong decisions are made and response and recovery operations are delayed/negatively impacted

10 Negative impact on the Council reputation, loss of public trust and confidence

11 There is a greater negative direct impact of an event on individuals, families and the community

A lack of availability of CDEM controllers 1

Inexperienced and unqualified controllers 2

Staff not trained or experienced and not available to support in a CDEM event

3

We lack a trained and experienced recovery manager to lead a recovery concurrently with a response

4

Lack of engagement with our communities to develop readiness and lack of current strategic plan to set response and recovery operations

5

We lack a dedicated Emergency Coordination Centre 6

CDEM Group is unable to provide appropriate response

and recovery operations

CDEM RiskRISK OWNER: David Wilson

Consequence “Then’s”Mitigating ControlRisk EventPreventative ControlCauses “If’s”

7We lack ongoing research of hazards to inform event response preparedness

8. Implementation of 2018/19 CDEM Review Plan and outlined recommendations

9. Provision of the right level of decision making experience and competency for an event

10. Strategic Communications Plan (SCP) in place as part of the Group Plan

11. Welfare Plan Framework in place and applied as appropriate

Attachment 21-263.1


Civil Defence Residual Risk Assessment

Attachment 21-263.1



11.4. 21-265 Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Metrics 2020/2021

21-265

Title: 21-265 Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Metrics 2020/2021

Section: Compliance & Enforcement

Prepared by: Gary McKenzie - Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Manager



Report to AUDIT & RISK Committee for informationThe purpose of this report is to provide information to the Committee on the results of the Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Metrics Report (CME Metrics) 2020/2021 (Attachment 1).

PURPOSE

The CME Metrics report is an annual report put together by the Compliance and Enforcement Special Interest Group (CESIG) which is made up of Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement Managers (CME) from both regional and unitary councils across New Zealand. The purpose of the report is to measure our own performance and look at areas where we may need to improve. The result of the report impacts the programme of work that each council has.

The questions around the number of consents monitored do not reflect the actual work that the Compliance team do. The questions in this report relate to the regional function of council only and do not capture the number of district consents monitored by staff. The Compliance Officers also deal with enforcement matters that take a considerable amount of staff’s time.

To give some context, the Compliance and Monitoring team was created following an internal review in 2018. What was once district-only compliance monitoring became monitoring for both District and Regional consents. Due to these changes more resourcing was required, and the focus was put on developing new procedures and education programmes around the various activities. These programmes are continuously being developed and we are seeing a lot more consent compliance, but we are also able to detect more breach of the Tairāwhiti Resource Management Plan rules.

To give a snapshot of how the Compliance team is continuing to improve, the team have achieved the following in the last financial year:

40 Warnings issued 35 Abatement Notices Issued 3 Infringement Fines Issued (This figure does not include infringements issued for freedom

camping offences) 1 Enforcement Order application


5 Prosecutions concluded 1 Prosecution in progress 194 Environmental Incidents responded to 681 Regional Consents monitored


RECOMMENDATIONS



Authorised by:

Helen Montgomery - Director Environmental Services & Protection

Keywords: Compliance, monitoring, enforcement


BACKGROUND1. The Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (CME) Metrics Report is an annual report

produced by the Compliance and Enforcement Special Interest Group (CESIG). CESIG membership includes CME managers from the 16 regional and unitary authorities across New Zealand. The purpose of the report is to provide insight and improvement to CME delivery and share best practice across the sector. The driver behind initiating these voluntary reports was the self-identified need for greater consistency and best practice across resource management regulation.

2. The report is made available to the public on Local Government New Zealand’s website. This is the fourth report that has been produced by CESIG. Regional and unitary councils across New Zealand administer over 280,000 active resource consents each year (Council administers around 9,000 consents). The sector achieved an 83% national average in consents that required monitoring under the Resource Management Act. This is despite the disruption caused by COVID-19.

3. Council participates in the CME Metrics report to measure our performance in compliance, monitoring and enforcement and assess which areas we may need to focus more attention on and introduce improvements. The results from the report influence the Council’s overall programme of work.

DISCUSSION and OPTIONS4. New Government regulations alongside an increase in the number of consents that

require monitoring has increased the volume of work at both the sector and local level. This increase is not expected to taper off for some time. Key areas driving the increase in monitoring are forestry, water takes, industrial activities, freshwater, biodiversity, and resource management.

5. For the number of consents monitored it is important to note that for some consents the monitoring requires multiple site visits to be considered a completed monitoring action.

6. One area that is absent from the report is the time and resource required for enforcement matters. This currently absorbs a lot of Council’s available resources. Timesheets detailing the time spent dealing with enforcement issues are kept by staff of the Compliance team.

7. As noted above to give a snapshot of how the Compliance team is continuing to improve, some of the key achievements in the last financial year:

(a) 40 Warnings issued.(b) 35 Abatement Notices Issued.(c) 3 Infringement Fines Issued (This figure does not include infringements issued for

freedom camping offences).(d) 1 Enforcement Order application.(e) 5 Prosecutions concluded.(f) 1 Prosecution in progress.(g) 194 Environmental Incidents responded to.(h) 681 Regional Consents monitored.


8. It is important to note that during 2020/21 we had a period where we were unable to monitor due to the COVID-19 restrictions.

ASSESSMENT of SIGNIFICANCE



10. There has been no engagement with tangata whenua or Māori in the preparation of this report or the CME Metrics report.


11. There has been no engagement with the community in the preparation of this report or the CME Metrics report.


12. There are no climate change implications from the preparation of the CME Metrics report.

CONSIDERATIONS

Financial/Budget

13. There are no financial implications for the preparation of the CME Metrics report.

Legal

14. There are no legal requirements for the preparation of the CME Metrics report.


15. There are no policy and planning implications due to the preparation of the CME Metrics report.

16. The results of the report are used to inform areas to direct attention to within councils CME function. The majority of the improvements are about operational methods rather than policy and planning processes.

RISKS

17. There are no major risks associated with the matters.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - CME Metrics Report 2020/2021 [21-265.1 - 72 pages]

ANALYSIS OF THE

2020/2021COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENTMETRICS FOR THE REGIONAL SECTOR

PREPARED BY

Attachment 21-265.1


FOREWORD

Michael McCartney Chief Executive Officer at Horizons Regional Council

Kia ora,

Every year the councils of Aotearoa’s regional sector commission a report to measure our own performance in the areas of compliance, monitoring and enforcement, associated with our role under the Resource Management Act.

Compliance, monitoring and enforcement isn’t done for it’s own sake. Our work programmes are some of the key drivers we use to support positive behaviour change and positive outcomes on behalf of New Zealand’s environment.

This is the fourth year of these annual reports with a different appearance this year. Trends in individual CME metrics are becoming more evident.

When compared to the last three years, it was ‘business as usual’ in the 2020-21 year and there’s a consistent delivery of CME work streams across New Zealand. It is great to see more people working in CME roles across the sector since the last report, actively monitoring, responding to and enforcing in favour of the environment. By tracking and providing these metrics on our work, we’re seeing for ourselves an improving record of environmental regulation as well as opportunities for improvement.

The analysis that follows will be a useful reference for the reform that is currently taking place around resource management, Three Waters (stormwater, waste water and drinking water) and the review of Local Government.

The solid evidence base of these metrics in relation to compliance, monitoring and enforcement can assist informed decision-making, both nationally and at a regional level.

Readers should have confidence in our commitment to continuous improvement. The Compliance and Enforcement Special Interest Group (CESIG) is made up from relevant representatives of regional and unitary councils in New Zealand. We will continue to support the funding of this annual survey as we explore ways to improve our own performance and get the most intelligence from what the survey tells us year on year.

Ngā mihi nui

Analysis of the 2020 / 2021 compliance monitoring and enforcement metrics for the regional sector

PAGE 2

Attachment 21-265.1


SUMMARY

OF COMPLAINTSRESPONDED TO

99%

542 FTE’sin CME roles

! !

283,470 active resource

consents

Councils monitored an average of 83% of all consents that required monitoring under the RMA83%

802 formal warnings

5,225 abatement notices

2,150 infringement

fines

Up 11% from last

year

enforcement orders

prosecutions (71 in progress)

$5,187,565 in fines

9545 individuals convicted

1875 corporates convicted


PAGE 3

Attachment 21-265.1


CONTENTS

PART 1 - INTRODUCTION

Reading this report w6

How does this reporting process differ year on year? 7

Data limitations 7

CME under the Resource Management Act New Zealand 7

PART 2 - ANALYSIS

Regional Context 8

Working with Iwi 9

CME Operations (managing the workload) 10

Registering notifications 10

Complaints received 11

Complaints responded to & attended 11

Confirmed breaches 14

Monitoring resource consents 15

Compliance gradings 17

Compliance assessment 17

Monitoring permitted activities 22

Making decisions on priorities 23

Staffing levels 24

CME Policies and Procedures 30

Educating and Engaging with the Regulated Community 33

Acting on Non-Compliance 34

Prosecutions 39

Penalties 43

CME Reporting 47

PART 3 - REGIONAL SCORECARDS 48

APPENDIX 1 – METRICS SURVEY QUESTIONS 66

APPENDIX 2 - LONG FORM RESPONSES (QUESTION 3) 71

Table 1: Percentage and types of breaches 14

Table 2: Total consents that require monitoring 16

Table 3: Council FTEs for different aspects of the CME role 26

Table 4: Comparison of council FTEs, population and number of formal actions

27

Table 5: Decision making process and delegation to authorise filing of charges

31


PAGE 4

Attachment 21-265.1


Table 6: Total use of formal instruments against relevant section of the Act

35

Table 7: Other sanctions handed down under the RMA 43

Table 8: Prosecution outcomes: fines 44

Table 9: Prosecutions Involving Other Sanctions Imposed by Courts 45

Table 10: Prosecutions Involving Restorative Justice, Diversion or Other Alternative Justice

46

Table 11: CME reporting channels 47

Figure 1: Regional context data 8

Figure 2: Recording conventions for incoming complaints across the regional sector

10

Figure 3: Number of individual complaints and incidents 12

Figure 4: Number of individual complaints and incidents responded to and physically attended.

13

Figure 5: Total number of consents in different categories of compliance on a per monitoring event basis

18

Figure 6: Percentages of consents in full compliance, low risk/ technical non compliance, moderate non compliance and significant non compliance on a per monitoring event basis.

20

Figure 7: Nationwide percentages of consents in full compliance, low risk/ technical non compliance, moderate non compliance and significant non compliance on a per monitoring event basis.

21

Figure 8: Proportion of permitted activity monitoring programmes for different industries

22

Figure 9: Council FTEs in CME roles 25

Figure 10: Comparison of CME resourcing and number of formal enforcement actions

28

Figure 11: Comparison of CME resourcing and GDP 29

Figure 12: Total use of formal instruments 36

Figure 13: Total formal warnings and abatement notices 37

Figure 14: Total infringement notices and enforcement orders 38

Figure 15: Prosecutions across the regional sector 40

Figure 16: Individuals convicted across the regional sector 41


PAGE 5

Attachment 21-265.1


INTRODUCTIONPART 1

This report is the fourth report in a series of reports aimed at increasing information available to the sector. Improving the availability of CME functions information is a sector-led effort, under the leadership of CESIG. The questions are designed by the regional sector with the aim of improving and complementing the present national monitoring system’s compliance, monitoring and enforcement related questions and analysis.

All 16 of New Zealand’s regional councils and unitary authorities (the ‘regional sector’) have participated since 2018. Each year we see three distinct groups within the regional sector Auckland Council, the small unitary councils and the regional councils.

CME is a tool in achieving the purpose of the RMA. The RMA is New Zealand’s environmental legislation with the purpose of sustainably managing natural and physical resources. Regional councils, unitary authorities and territorial local authorities have the primary role in compliance, monitoring and enforcement of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

In February this year the government announced it would repeal the RMA and enact new legislation based on the recommendations of the Resource Management Review Panel, replacing it with three new pieces of legislation. This will be based on the Natural and Build Environments Act, Strategic Planning Act and the Climate Adaption Act.

Monitoring and understanding implementation remains critical to understanding our nations environmental management. The success of that management is largely dependent on the quality of implementation.

In this reporting period we must acknowledge COVID-19 and the impact it is having worldwide. In June 2020 New Zealand was through the initial nationwide lockdown. During the lockdown periods CME monitoring is considered an essential service, so continues as ‘normal’ but this is not at 100%. This year the most significant impacts are to the Auckland Region who went into Alert level 3 on the following dates:• 12th August to the 30th August• 14th of February to the 17th of February• 28th February to the 7th of March

Reading this reportEach council was sent an online survey comprising 44 questions (Appendix 1). They were given 2 weeks to collect and input the data into an online platform. After inputting the initial data, they were sent a link that allowed them to log in and change their information at any time. This report sets out data provided for each section of the survey, as follows: • A short analysis of the findings, at both a regional and national scale • The tables and graphs of the information• A boxed section containing the exact questions relevant to that section• Responses to open-ended questions have been aggregated and analysed and the theme of the response presented

in this report. • Verbatim answers are provided where responses can not be summarised


PAGE 6

Attachment 21-265.1


How does this reporting process differ year on year?The quest ionnaire has not dif fered fol lowing year two, this al lows us to track the successes and improvements over t ime. For this reason, it is cr it ical the consistency is maintained.

Fol lowing the f i r st year there were s ignif icant learnings and improvements to the quest ionnaire, the quest ionnaire was ref ined based on these improvements .

Throughout this document we have aimed to repor t data from previous years so we can see patterns when they are ar is ing. In year two quest ions were condensed and rearranged, with the purpose of enr iching the data by ensur ing clar ity in wording. This year ’s format fol lows year two, meaning al l result s are direct ly comparable.

In year one and two the repor t was conducted by independent consultant Dr Marie Doole. From year three onwards col lect ion and repor t ing was conducted by Sprout Customer Research.

Data limitationsRepor t ing of act ivit ies in complex, ref lect ive measures can be dif f icult . When reading the repor t keep in mind the fol lowing aspects and data:

• Not all requested information can be provided by all councils which results in gaps in the dataset. • The project does not include any data auditing and it is therefore unknown how accurate the information provided

by councils is. Each council had a representative that sense checked and was responsible for the final data points entered into the survey.

• Throughout the report there are some instances where the way a council reports has changed or improved. Making the data incomparable to prior years.

CME under the Resource Management Act New ZealandThis repor t is a sector led ef for t by the Compliance and Enforcement Special Interest Group (CESIG). It aims to improve the qual ity of information avai lable on the CME functions . Whilst the data set is not per fect it provides interest ing insight into CME operations under the RMA and, it ’s value increases year on year. As we enter the four th year we are seeing trends ar is ing. The outcomes of improvements made by individual counci ls to improve how they implement CME is also evident .

Implementation of CME and the way it is adopted and exercised is up to individual counci ls under the broad framework of the RMA . Implementation in a robust manner leads to posit ive environmental outcomes . L imited national direct ion has placed an emphasis on individual counci ls to develop their own operations under the relat ively broad framework of the RMA . This role has developed dif ferent ly over the jur isdict ions . The regions also dif fer based on GDP, area, population and population growth.

As the sector develops , formalisat ion and standardisation of parameters have been developed. In 2018, the Ministr y re leased Best Practise Guidel ines , this has been inf luential in forming standardised and comparable measures .

Compliance: adherence to the RMA, including the rules established under regional and district plans and meeting resource consent conditions, regulations and national environmental standards.

Monitoring: the activities carried out by councils to assess compliance with the RMA. This can be proactive (e.g., resource consent or permitted activity monitoring) or reactive (e.g., investigation of suspected offences).

Enforcement: the actions taken by councils to respond to non-compliance with the RMA. Actions can be punitive (seek to deter or punish the offender) and/or directive (e.g. direct remediation of the damage or ensure compliance with the RMA).

Key definitions


PAGE 7

Attachment 21-265.1


ANALYSISPART 2

REGIONAL CONTEXTThe graph below shows the diversity of the regions reported on. Regionally New Zealand is diverse and contextual ly there are large differences.

The population of Auckland is more than double other regions. To demonstrate the diversity of the differences in population the West Coast is home to the equivalent of 2% of Auckland’s population. Population in the West Coast is decl ining, in other regions we see an increase.

The Southmost regions (Southland, Canterbury and Otago) cover the largest geographical area. The area Nelson covers is considerably lower than the rest of New Zealand.

NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL

WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL

TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL

HORIZONS REGIONAL COUNCIL

AUCKLAND COUNCIL

POPULATIONPOP CHANGE

AREAREGIONAL GDP


AREAREGIONAL GDP


AREAREGIONAL GDP


AREAREGIONAL GDP


AREAREGIONAL GDP

192,50013%13,778km2

$8,222m

492,10013%24,147km2

$27,884m

124,0007%7,256km2

$9,513m

252,0007%22,220km2

$12,426m

1,702,70011%5,945km2

$122,557m

BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL

HAWKES BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL

GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL


AREAREGIONAL GDP


AREAREGIONAL GDP


AREAREGIONAL GDP


AREAREGIONAL GDP

333,50015%12,303km2

$18,884m

177,2009%14,138km2

$9,093m

538,5008%8,412km2

$40,272

50,5006%8,386km2

$2,299m

SOUTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL

TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL

WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL


AREAREGIONAL GDP


AREAREGIONAL GDP


AREAREGIONAL GDP

102,3005%32,184km2

$6,718m

56,40010%9,764km2

$6,005m

32,400-2%23,277km2

$1,836m

Figure 1: Regional context data

MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL

NELSON CITY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY


AREAREGIONAL GDP


AREAREGIONAL GDP


AREAREGIONAL GDP

49,9009%10,773km2

$3,290m

54,60010%477km2

$6,005m

641,20011%44,633km2

$39,961m

OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCILPOPULATIONPOP CHANGE

AREAREGIONAL GDP

243,00013%31,280$14,180mRegional CouncilsUnitary Authorities


PAGE 8

Attachment 21-265.1


WORKING WITH IWI

Having good relationships with iwi and hapū is becoming increasingly important as we str ive towards proper recognit ion to the principles of Te Tir it i of Waitangi and providing greater recognit ion of te ao Māori including mātauranga Māori in the RM reform.

Qualitative reports show there is a commitment from counci ls to strengthen these relationships. Majority of counci ls have formalized agreements or are actively working towards these; four counci ls have no formal agreements.

Many councils:• Advise iwi i f major incident occurs or advise when an incident occurs in waterways• Have iwi involvement in cultural impact assessment• Iwi provide victim impact statements for sentencing

Other commitments included:• Appointed iwi representatives• Paid advisory roles• Posit ions on committees or counci l• Working parties• Identifying iwi prior it ies as part of decis ion making• On going co design processes with mana whenua• Planning and pol icy interactions• Iwi involvement in operational meetings• Meetings with iwi to discuss opportunit ies for iwi and hapū to be involved in compliance and

monitoring• Joint work programs to identify where counci l and iwi can work together to improve incident

response, compliance and enforcement• Mutual education on compliance monitoring• Involvement in monitoring• Involvement of iwi in notif ied consents• Involvement in consents management (or sent consent applications)• Financial support from counci ls to bui ld environmental monitoring capacity• Reporting to iwi on CME (summary updates of enforcement actions (prosecutions, enforcement

orders, abatement notices and infr ingement notices)

Northland Regional Counci l and Southland Regional Counci l show strong commitments to iwi on CME based on historical partnerships.

“Environment Southland, refers to the iwi relationship as te kōura tuia – the ‘golden thread’ that we weave through al l our work. It’s just part of how we operate. There is a commitment to the responsibi l ity of improving Southland’s local government understanding of al l things Māori .”

A ful l set of responses is avai lable in appendix 2.

Question 4: In no more than 300 words describe your regional key commitments to work with iwi/Māori on CME. For example, joint management agreements or other co-management agreements.


PAGE 9

Attachment 21-265.1


CME Operations - managing the workload

Registering notifications Complaints are registered by individual councils in one of two ways, either as individual incidents or by event. The 2017/2018 report recommends it would be optimal for the sector to work towards a standardised approach.

This year 3 councils have changed the way they register complaints West Coast and Gisborne all opted to change to one incident per event. Horizons changed to an individual incident per notification. Majority of councils now register an “incident“ per notification.

An individual “incident” per notification

One incident per event, regardless of the number of separate complainants

Both an individual “incident” per notification and one incident per event, regardless of the number of separate complainants

Recording conventions for incoming complaints

Question 5. Does your council register/count: • An individual “incident” per notification?

• One incident per event, regardless of the number of separate complainants?

Figure 2: Recording conventions for incoming complaints across the regional sector


PAGE 10

Attachment 21-265.1


NATIONWIDE COMPLAINTS

RESPONDED TO99%

PHYSICALLY ATTENDED

63%

Complaints receivedNationwide there continues to be a large variation, explained by the contextual differences of regions. At first glance the regional individual complaints look like they are on an upward trend, however this can be accounted for by Horizons Regional Council individual complaints. Similarly at first glance individual complaints appear to be increasing, Southland now have individual incidents. Gisborne’s incidents exclude 1,276 noise complaints accounting for the variation from last year.

Significant points of interest include are the • An increase in complaints for Environment Canterbury (642) and Waikato (495) • A decrease in complaints from Auckland (1,900) and Otago (326) • An increase in incidents from Environment Canterbury (564)• A decrease in incidents in Northland (208)

Complaints Responded & AttendedNearly all complaints made to councils were responded to. Councils responded to 100% of complaints with the exception of 2 regional councils Bay of Plenty responded to 99% of complaints, Environment Canterbury responded to 87% of complaints.

The percentage of events physically attended increases year on year, with the West Coast Regional Council and Southland Regional Council physically attending an increasing number if incidents. This year Gisborne District Council provided data, having the second highest percentage behind Taranaki Regional Council (100% physically attended).

CONFIRMED ASA BREACH

29%

Question 6. How many notifications (complaints) were received from members of the public (or other sources, but excluding information from council monitoring activity) relating to environmental incidents or potential breaches of environmental regulation? This might include information from, for example, emergency services attending an incident or perhaps a council staff member observing something while on other duties but excludes information from council monitoring activity. Please note answer unknown if your council does not record the information requested.

Question 7. How many of these notifications were responded to by council? This response may be in any form – e.g. phone call, site visit, desktop audit.

Question 8. How many of these notifications were physically attended by council staff?

If one incident had multiple visits, only count this as one.


PAGE 11

Attachment 21-265.1


Northland Regional Council

Waikato Regional Council

Bay of Plenty Regional Council

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Taranaki Regional Council

Horizons Regional Council

Greater Wellington Regional Council

Environment Canterbury

Otago Regional Council

West Coast Regional Council

Southland Regional Council

Auckland Council

Gisborne District Council

Nelson City Council

Marlborough District Council

Tasman District Council

1,052

414

792

1,913

1,308

4,735

147

557

1,095

1,026

452

1,298

2,056

1,192

3,599

539

633

1,116

1,019

529

1,168

1,184

1,258

3,877

1,837

587

13

811

590

1,226

1,268

1,226

1,140

4,441

194

559

13

888

2017 / 2018 2018 / 2019 2019 / 2020 2020/ 2021

1,543

983

1,838

823

1,7122,207

2,834

102

742

472194

559

2,568

3,519

1,244

4,225

223

813

537

2,631

3,862

1,398

4,602

199

718

496

1,335

3,771

1,140

5,244

118

888

523

1,394

Number of individual complaints and incidents

Figure 3: Number of individual complaints and incidents

9,02211,74311,402

9,502

IND

IVID

UA

L C

OM

PLA

INTS

IND

IVID

UA

L IN

CID

ENTS

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

REGIONAL COUNCILS

9,502

1,9361,610


PAGE 12

Attachment 21-265.1


Northland Regional Council 811 100%

Waikato Regional Council 2,207 100%

Bay of Plenty Regional Council 3,736 99%

Hawkes Bay Regional Council 823 100%

Taranaki Regional Council 590 100%

Horizons Regional Council 1,226 100%

Greater Wellington Regional Council 1,140 100%

Environment Canterbury 3,877 87%

Otago Regional Council 1,610 100%

West Coast Regional Council 131 100%

Southland Regional Council 888 100%

Auckland Council 9,502 100%

Gisborne District Council 194 100%

Nelson City Council 523 100%

Marlborough District Council 559 100%

Tasman District Council 1,394 100%

TOTAL/OVERALL AVERAGE 23,211 99%

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

REGIONAL COUNCILSREPONDED TO

2020/2021 PHYSICALLY ATTENDED

NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS RESPONDED TO AND PHYSICALLY ATTENDED

67%

20%

NO DATA

NO DATA

NO DATA

NO DATA

NO DATA

NO DATA

NO DATA

NO DATA

100%

23%

42%

39%

51%

70%

48%

57%

68%

28%

48%

100%

31%

39%

37%

52%

38%

51%

50%

68%

33%

39%

100%

33%

31%

63%

59%

100%

49%43%

51%

67% (545)

29% (634)

100% (590)

39% (482)

32% (1,428)

82% (108)

77% (684)

85% (165)

43%

63% (4,877)

Figure 4: Number of individual complaints and incidents responded to and physically attended.

2017 / 2018

2018 / 2019

2019 / 2020

2020/ 2021


PAGE 13

Attachment 21-265.1


10%

58%

50%

16%

30%

23%

28%

55%

90%

42%

50%

84%

70%

NA

NA

45%

Resource consentNon-consented

activity

Confirmed breachesThe average confirmed breaches has remained relatively stable year on year, on both unitary and regional levels. Year on year Waikato Regional Council shows a consistent increase in notifications confirmed as breaches. Environment Canterbury shows a decrease on last year, this year breaches are inline with year 2018/2019. No data was provided by Auckland Council.

Northland Regional Council 48% 42% 47% (379)

Waikato Regional Council 24% 7% 26% 37% (810)

Bay of Plenty Regional Council 25% 20% 23% (866)


Taranaki Regional Council 37% 37% 40% 39% (233)


Greater Wellington Regional Council 17% 15% 18% 19% (213)

Environment Canterbury 23% 29% 68% 24% (1,085)


West Coast Regional Council 50% 41% 17% 21% (28)

Southland Regional Council 17% 18% 29% 34% (298)

Auckland Council 29% 22%

Gisborne District Council 35% (67)

Nelson City Council 70%

Marlborough District Council 34% 23% 21% 22% (122)


TOTAL AVERAGE 40% 27% 27% 29% (4,101)

REGIONAL COUNCIL

Percentage of CONFIRMED BREACHES

NO DATA

NO DATA

100%85% (165)

2017

/ 2

018

2018

/ 2

019

2019

/ 2

020

2020

/ 20

21

Question 9. How many of these notifications were confirmed as breaches of the RMA or subsidiary instruments?

Question 10. How many of the breaches were for:Breach of a resource consent?Breach of permitted activity rules?

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

Table 1: Percentage and types of breaches


PAGE 14

Attachment 21-265.1


NATIONWIDE COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS

Monitoring resource consentsThis year the number of consents increases a further 11% bringing the total active consents to 283,470.

While it appears that consents that require monitoring are decreasing, Auckland and Waikato were unable to provide data this year. Annually Auckland has the largest consent volumes, this year they have confirmed consent volumes including those that require monitoring have increased but could not provide accurate figures. The largest increases in consents that require monitoring is Southland Regional Council (1,793 more). Environment Canterbury (3,096 less), and Tasman District Council (1,448 less) reported significantly less consents that required monitoring.

For the majority, the proportion monitored is on a par with last year. All regional councils monitored over 70% of consents that required monitoring. Unitary authorities monitored around 60% or above.

Marlborough District Council has a lower proportion monitored (active consents and those that required monitoring were on par with previous years). Gisborne provided data this year.

PERCENTAGE MONITORED

REQUIRED MONITORINGCONSENTS 83%38,214283,470

Question 11. How many individual, active resource consents exist in your region? Exclude Land Use Consents where the activity is completed e.g., Land use subdivisions where the subdivision is complete, and certificates issued or land use – building where the building has been constructed.

Question 12. How many consents required monitoring during this period, in accordance with your monitoring prioritisation model/strategy?

Question 13. How many of these consents were monitored (including desktop audit) in the period?


PAGE 15

Attachment 21-265.1



PAGE 16

TOTAL CONSENTS REQUIRED MONITORING NUMBER MONITORED

2017

/ 2

018

2018

/ 2

019

2019

/ 2

020

2020

/ 2

021

2017

/ 2

018

2018

/ 2

019

2019

/ 2

020

2020

/ 2

021

2017

/ 2

018

2018

/ 2

019

2019

/ 2

020

2020

/ 2

021

REG

ION

AL

CO

UN

CIL

S

Northland Regional Council 3,812 9,738 9,910 10,164 3,724 3,847 3,731 3,505 94% 93% 88% 86% 3,001

Waikato Regional Council 4,500 4,787 11,419 11,839 1,500 525 1,674 77% 100%+ 100%

Bay of Plenty Regional Council 5,500 9,057 8,458 8,407 1,900 2,380 3,316 3,324 69% 70% 85% 86% 2,858

Hawkes Bay Regional Council 3,144 5,928 8,300 8,452 3,144 3,446 3,550 3,355 94% 93% 93% 93% 3,116

Taranaki Regional Council 4,837 4,784 4,625 4,517 2,930 2,743 2,788 2,510 100% 100% 100% 100% 2,510

Horizons Regional Council 4,700 5,204 5,468 6,619 1,700 1,648 1,367 1,823 82% 80% 81% 89% 1,618

Greater Wellington Regional Council 6,375 6,604 6,863 7,138 1,544 1,782 1,633 1,779 94% 95% 94% 87% 1,547

Environment Canterbury 20,417 18,500 22,051 22,648 20,417 4,625 4,410 1,314 28% 72% 89% 96% 1,258

Otago Regional Council 5,984 5,588 5,656 5,785 3,827 1,161 3,256 3,136 66% 52% 64% 71% 2,237

West Coast Regional Council 3,474 3,000 5,682 868 900 1,268 100%+ 87% 92% 1,167

Southland Regional Council 5,376 5,590 5,824 5,995 3,188 4,586 4,127 5,920 100% 78% 73% 72% 4,265

REGIONAL SUBTOTAL 64,645 79,254 91,574 97,246 43,874 27,611 30,752 27,934 80% 85% 87% 87% 23,577

UN

ITA

RY A

UTH

OR

ITIE

S Auckland Council 103,690 108,326 115,723 130,371 17,759 11,778 13,162 71% 60% 72% 18,708

Gisborne District Council 1,250 10,500 8,893 699 1,135 34% 60% 681

Nelson City Council 1,200 784 656 675 550 619 656 675 100% 100% 100% 100% 675

Marlborough District Council 20,802 21,377 29,459 29,459 2,686 3,261 3,529 3,529 83% 89% 93% 98% 3,475

Tasman District Council 15,764 13,042 7,230 16,826 4,250 2,478 6,389 4,941 46% 75% 26% 57% 2,833

UNITARY SUBTOTAL 142,706 143,529 163,568 186,224 25,944 18,136 23,736 10,280 67% 81% 73% 79% 26,372

TOTAL 207,351 222,783 255,142 283,470 69,818 45,747 54,488 38,214 74% 83% 80% 83%

Table 2: Total consents that require monitoring

Attachment 21-265.1


Compliance assessmentThe following section focuses on the levels of compliance amongst those monitored based on the MfE framework. This year Gisborne’s data is included, meaning for the first year there is data available for all regional councils and regulatory authorities based on the MfE framework.

The report analyses the compliance gradings of over 64,000 consent monitoring events, overall this is on a par with last year for both regional councils and unitary authorities.

Levels of full compliance differ between 36% in Otago Regional Council and 95% West Coast Regional Council. Previously we were seeing a downward trend in full compliance, however this year there is a slight increase in full compliance. Northland Regional Council, Waikato Regional Council, Taranaki Regional Council, Horizons Regional Council, West Coast Regional Council, Auckland Council and Nelson City Council are reporting more full compliance than last year, with Hawkes Bay Regional Council, Otago Regional Council, Southland Regional Council and Tasman District Council reporting less.

Southland’s moderate and significant non-compliance is increasing. Hawkes Bay have seen an increase in moderate non-compliance. Gisborne has higher significant-non compliance than others.

*Numbers provided will not equate to the consents totals earlier in this report as some sites had more than one monitoring visit over the year. The tables below relate to the percentage of monitoring visits that fit within different grades.

*GWRC are unable to exclude telemetry water readings from statistics.

Question 15. What grades do you apply to non-compliance? (e.g., technical non-compliance, significant noncompliance)Fully CompliantTechnical/Low Non-ComplianceModerate Non-ComplianceSignificant Non-ComplianceOther (please specify)

Question 15. What were the levels of compliance with consents according to the grades you use? Note 1: Numbers provided under each grade is per monitoring event not per consent. E.g. a consent may be monitored four times in the year: on one occasion it may be Technically Non-Compliance and on three occasions it may be Fully Compliant, this would add three to the total of Fully Compliant and one to the total for Technical Noncompliance. Note 2: The compliance grade is based on the condition with the worst compliance grade. e.g. a consent with five conditions Fully Compliant and one condition Moderate Non-Compliance has an overall compliance grade of Minor Non-Compliance Note 3: Daily telemetry water readings where compliance with water take limits is continuously monitored are to be excluded from compliance grade totals.

Compliance gradingsIn 2018 the MfE released Best Practise Guidelines, including a suite of recommended compliance categories. The intention of this is to make data on compliance levels nationally comparable. Uptake of the framework is now at 100%, with the remaining two councils adopting it this year.

Question 14. In the 2020/2021 year, did you use the four compliance grades as recommended by Ministry for the Environment?Yes / No

Question 16. When will your council be adopting the four compliance grades recommended by Ministry for the Environment?

ADOPTION OF FRAMEWORK

100%


PAGE 17

Attachment 21-265.1













Auckland Council


Nelson City Council



TOTAL

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

REGIONAL COUNCILS3,803

1,078

1,842

2,943

1,457

7,274

7,025

1,309

3,188

550

2,219

1,940

18,732

58,610

4,119

1,131

3,561

1,157

3,059

3,198

1,692

3,315

607

1,126

3,594

1,245

2,359

1,870

20,188

50,008

2,743

916

5,833

1,674

4,027

3,304

1,633

5,339

5,909

767

681

3,019

1,707

2,212

1,691

19,430

63,825

6,168

1,112

6,349

2,827

4,861

3,116

1,365

6,626

2,237

1,167

4,265

1,122

2,417

2,833

18,708

64,122

3,930

1,618

Total Number of Consents in Different Categories of Compliance on a Per Monitoring Event Basis

2017 / 2018

2018 / 2019

2019 / 2020

2020/ 2021

Question 15. What grades do you apply to non-compliance? (e.g., technical non-compliance, significant noncompliance)• Fully Compliant• Technical/Low Non-Compliance• Moderate Non-Compliance

• Significant Non-Compliance• Other (please specify)

Figure 5: Total Number of Consents in Different Categories of Compliance on a Per Monitoring Event Basis


PAGE 18

Attachment 21-265.1


77%

47%

81%

82%

92%

73%

71%

65%

36%

13%

25%

12%

5%

1%

11%

19%

4%

40%

8%

14%

7%

12%

6%

5%

7%

17%

16%

2%

2% 12%

1%

1%

2%

11%

3%

5%

6%

9%

2%

OTHER COMPLIANCE GRADING


Waikato Regional Council*








Percentages of consents in full compliance, low risk/ technical non compliance, moderate non

compliance and significant non compliance on a per monitoring event basis

FULL COMPLIANCE

LOW RISK/TECHNICAL NON-COMPLIANCE

MODERATE NON-COMPLIANCE

SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIANCE

* The non-compliance rating system used at WRC considers multiple factors, and not solely whether the non-compliance results in actual significant environmental effect. As such the data is not directly comparable to those Councils that apply the MfE compliance rating system.


PAGE 19

Attachment 21-265.1


95% 2%2%

1%

West Coast Regional CouncilWest Coast Regional Council

Southland Regional CouncilSouthland Regional Council

Auckland CouncilAuckland Council

Gisborne District CouncilGisborne District Council

Nelson City CouncilNelson City Council

Marlborough District CouncilMarlborough District Council

Tasman District CouncilTasman District Council

46%

43%

38%

75%

75%

70%

22%

47%

20%

21%

4%

10%

19%

8%

22%

4%

19%

10%

12%

3%

20%

2%

10%1%

Figure 6: Percentages of consents in full compliance, low risk/ technical non compliance, moderate non compliance and significant non compliance on a per monitoring event basis.


PAGE 20

Attachment 21-265.1


TOTAL CONSENTS MONITORED 64,122

NATIONWIDE COMPLIANCE RATING OF CONSENTS MONITORED

REGIONAL COUNCILS

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

71%

60% 20% 13% 5% 2%

19% 7% 3%

Nationwide Compliance Rating of Consents Monitored

Figure 7: Nation wide percentages of consents in full compliance, low risk/ technical non compliance, moderate non compliance and significant non compliance on a per monitoring event basis.

OTHER COMPLIANCE GRADING

FULL COMPLIANCE

LOW RISK/TECHNICAL NON-COMPLIANCE

MODERATE NON-COMPLIANCE

SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIANCE


PAGE 21

Attachment 21-265.1


Permitted activities remained similar to 2019/2020, with forestry and dairy making up nearly half of permitted activities. Last year Greater Wellington Regional Council did not have a monitoring program for Forestry, this year they have adopted one meaning all regional councils and unitary authorities now have a monitoring program in place.

Monitoring permitted activities

Figure 8: Proportion of permitted activity monitoring programmes for different industries

Question 18. Which permitted activities do you have a monitoring programme for? List of activities with tick box if yes:• Agriculture (excluding dairy)• Aquaculture• Construction• Dairy• Forestry• Horticulture • Mining• Oil and gas• Tourism• Vineyards• Wineries• Wintering• Other (please specify)

Forestry

Dairy

Wintering

Industrial stormwater

Agriculture (excluding dairy)

Aquaculture

Mining

Wineries

Horticulture

Construction

Oil and gas

Tourism

Vineyards

28%

19%

12%

9%

7%

5%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

0%

Permitted activity monitoring programmes for different industries


PAGE 22

Attachment 21-265.1


Making decisions on priorities

All councils have established formalised prioritisation assessment for complaints, notifications and incidents, with many having a response time. Most have some form of coding to prioritise.

Methods of determining priority and urgency for physical attendance are:• Elevated response programs• Triage plans or dedicated triage personal• Risk based priority models• Attending all within a timeframe (e.g., 4 hours)• Priority setting matrix• Categorisation based on impact score and escalation factors

Assessment for appropriate action include:• Environmental impact/ adverse effect/ consequence• Zone priority• If still happening• Duration• Clean up/ mitigation• Quality of the information provided• Reliability of the source• Hours- out of hours response is limited to ‘High priority/Significant’ incidents• Balance against health, safety and wellbeing considerations• History of compliance• Frequency of notification

To determine which consents are monitored the following methods are used:• Risk-based approaches/ priority systems• Zone Delivery models• Approved RMA Compliance Plan 2020-22• Active monitoring• Strategic Compliance Monitoring Programme based on the National Strategic Compliance Framework• Individual monitoring programmes per consent• Strategic priority setting framework

QUESTION 19. What basis is used for determining what notifications/complaints/incidents are physically attended and with what urgency or priority?

QUESTION 20. Describe how you determine which consents are monitored and how frequently? If there is a prioritisation model or compliance strategy, add link

QUESTION 21. Describe the basis, which was used for determining what, if any, permitted activities were monitored. If there is a prioritisation model or compliance strategy, add link


PAGE 23

Attachment 21-265.1


Staffing levels

The number of FTE’s continues to increase, this year there is a 9% increase overall. Most regions report smaller increases of between 1-3 FTE’s. The largest increase is Horizons Regional Council at 13 more FTE’s, followed by Environment Canterbury with 8 more FTE’s. Taranaki Regional Council has an increase of 7 FTE’s. Gisborne District Council has seen an increase of 2 FTE’s and is currently recruiting more. There are no significant decreases in the number of FTE’s.

There continues to be large variation in the total number of FTE’s, this is expected because of the variation in regions (population, area, GDP, development type, intensity and council funding base). Auckland Council has around a third of all FTE’s. Taranaki Regional Council remains the highest ratio of FTE per 100 (0.4), with Greater Wellington Regional Council having the lowest (0.03).

Note: FTEs should only be counted once under each of these categories. However, if a team member has more than one role then calculate what portion of their time is generally spent in each role, or only answer question 24 if your officers do a combination of roles. An example of an answer to each of the questions in this section might look like 22 FTEs spread across 40 individuals. Exclude any in-house or contract lawyers. Include managers in your count. Include any vacant positions in your counts.

Question 22. How many FTEs does your council have who carry out monitoring roles?

Question 23. How many FTEs does your council have who carry out environmental incident or pollution response roles?

Question 24. How many FTEs does your council have who carry out investigation or enforcement roles?

Question 25. How many FTEs does your council have who carry out a combination of the above roles? Note 1: Include contractors Note 2: Only answer this question if you have not included these staff in questions 21, 22 or 23

Question 26. How many FTEs does your council have in CME support roles? This includes administrative roles, e.g. staff who assist with issue of notices, reminder notices, upload of unpaid infringements to Ministry of Justice.


PAGE 24

Attachment 21-265.1


Figure 9: Council FTEs in CME roles












Auckland Council


Nelson City Council



TOTAL FTEs

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

REGIONAL COUNCILS22

47

31

10

16

44

23

6

8

13

5

9

11

146

436

36

10

23

45

36

14

14

44

24

6

6

13

6

10

12

179

479

38

12

25

44

35

14

16

46

28

6

7

15

7

11

11

182

499

42

12

25

47

37

16

18

54

32

7

9

13

6

13

12

181

542

49

25

Council FTEs in CME roles

2017 / 2018

2018 / 2019

2019 / 2020

2020/ 2021


PAGE 25

Attachment 21-265.1


Table 3: Council FTEs for different aspects of the CME role


PAGE 26

MONITORING COMBINATIONENVIRONMENTAL

INCIDENT OR POLLUTION

INVESTIGATION OR ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT

2018

/ 2

019

2019

/ 2

020

2020

/ 2

021

2018

/ 2

019

2019

/ 2

020

2020

/ 2

021

2018

/ 2

019

2019

/ 2

020

2020

/ 2

021

2018

/ 2

019

2019

/ 2

020

2020

/ 2

021

2018

/ 2

019

2019

/ 2

020

2020

/ 2

021

REG

ION

AL

CO

UN

CIL

S

Northland Regional Council 20 21 22 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 2

Waikato Regional Council 20 20 22 9 8 9 10 10 10 7 6 6

Bay of Plenty Regional Council 17 16 17 4 4 4 4 3 4 12 12 12

Hawkes Bay Regional Council 9 9 10 0 0 0 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2

Taranaki Regional Council 27 29 35 2 2 2 3 4 5 4 5 5 2 2 2

Horizons Regional Council 0 0 13 10 10 0 0 0 9 1 1 1 1 1 2

Greater Wellington Regional Council 0 0 0 13 15 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

Environment Canterbury 31 31 28 0 0 0 8 5 7 4 4 4 1 6 15

Otago Regional Council 15 15 18 8 3 2 0 3 4 0 3 3 1 4 5

West Coast Regional Council 0 0 0 5 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

Southland Regional Council 8 8 8 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 3 2

REGIONAL SUBTOTAL 126 128 151 57 56 49 26 27 42 26 31 31 32 40 50

UN

ITA

RY

AU

THO

RIT

IES

Auckland Council 65 69 69 19 16 88 32 41 0 49 43 0 14 13 24

Gisborne District Council 4 0 0 0 7 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

Nelson City Council 0 0 0 5 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

Marlborough District Council 2 2 5 7 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 1 2

Tasman District Council 0 0 0 10 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2

UNITARY SUBTOTAL 71 71 74 41 46 112 32 41 0 51 43 5 18 17 30

UNITARY SUBTOTAL MINUS AUCKLAND 6 2 5 22 30 24 0 0 0 2 0 5 4 4 6

TOTAL 197 198 225 98 102 160 58 68 42 77 74 36 50 57 79

TOTAL MINUS AUCKLAND 132 129 156 79 86 72 26 27 42 28 31 36 36 44 55

Council FTE’s in Specific Roles Attachment 21-265.1


FTE/1000

2017

/ 2

018

2018

/ 2

019

2019

/ 2

020

2020

/ 2

021

FTE 2020/2021

Population Estimates

2020

Formal actions

per 1000 2020/2021

REG

ION

AL

CO

UN

CIL

S

Northland Regional Council .13 .13 .13 .13 25.00 192,500 1.59

Waikato Regional Council .10 .10 .09 .10 47.18 492,100 0.95

Bay of Plenty Regional Council .10 .11 .11 .11 37.20 333,500 0.39

Hawkes Bay Regional Council .06 .08 .08 .09 16.00 177,200 0.98

Taranaki Regional Council .31 .32 .34 .40 49.00 124,000 3.29

Horizons Regional Council .04 .05 .05 .10 25.00 252,900 1.83

Greater Wellington Regional Council .03 .03 .03 .03 17.75 538,500 0.25

Environment Canterbury .07 .07 .07 .08 54.00 641,200 0.97

Otago Regional Council .10 .10 .12 .13 31.60 243,000 0.35

West Coast Regional Council .17 .16 .17 .20 6.50 32,400 1.23

Southland Regional Council .13 .13 .15 .12 12.50 102,300 1.63

REGIONAL SUBTOTAL / AVERAGE .11 .12 .12 .14 29.25 284,509 1.22

UN

ITA

RY

AU

THO

RIT

IES

Auckland Council .09 .11 .11 .11 181.00 1,702,700 3.12

Gisborne District Council .18 .13 .14 .18 8.90 50,500 1.56

Nelson City Council .10 .10 .12 .10 5.50 54,600 0.57

Marlborough District Council .20 .20 .21 .25 12.50 49,900 1.12

Tasman District Council .15 .22 .20 .21 12.00 56,400 0.99

UNITARY SUBTOTAL .15 .15 .16 .17 43.98 382,820 1.47

AVERAGE 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.15

TABLE 4: Comparison of council FTEs, population and number of formal actions (excluding prosecutions but including warnings)

Council FTE's and Formal Actions Based on Population


PAGE 27

Attachment 21-265.1


The relationship between FTE’s per thousand and formal actions per thousand is shown below, councils with higher staffing levels per thousand tend to have more formal actions per thousand.

Taranaki Regional Council has the highest levels of formal actions per thousand and also the highest FTE per thousand. Greater Wellington has the lowest formal actions per thousand and also the lowest FTE’s per thousand.

Horizons Regional Council and Taranaki Regional Council have the largest increases in FTE’s per thousand. Horizons Regional Council has seen a large increase in the number of FTE’s last year, while for Taranaki Regional Council his has happened gradually over time.

Figure 10: Comparison of CME resourcing and number of formal enforcement actions

FTE

per

tho

usa

nd

Formal actions per thousand

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

CME RESOURCING AND NUMBER OF FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS











Auckland Council


Nelson City Council





PAGE 28

Attachment 21-265.1


Figure 11: Comparison of CME resourcing and GDP

GD

P $m

illio

n

Number of FTE’s

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

10 20 30 40 50 60

COMPARISON OF CME RESOURCING AND GDP

This figure shows regions with higher GDP tend to have more FTE’s. While this holds true for Auckland Council, Environment Canterbury and Waikato Regional Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council has the second highest GDP and is mid range for the number of FTE’s.

Outlier Auckland GDP$Mill 122,557 FTE’s 181











Nelson City Council






PAGE 29

Attachment 21-265.1


CME POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Credibility of regulators is maintained through having coherent policy in place. These questions help us understand how policy informs CME operations and the decision-making process with regulators.

This year the remaining councils have adopted enforcement policies. Meaning all councils and unitary authorities have both active enforcement and conflict of interest policies inline with Best Practise Guidelines.

The Guidelines state that all councils ‘should have an operational enforcement policy, which the council uses to determine what enforcement action (if any) to take in response to non-compliance’.

Decisions on prosecutions are usually a process with multiple parties, those involved include:• Investigating officer• Senior officer• Team leader • Manager• Compliance Manager• Regulatory Manager • Group Manager• Director Resource Management• Prosecution panel/ Prosecution Decision Group• Enforcement Decision Group• Enforcement and Prosecution Committee • Enforcement Specialist• Legal council• General Manager• CEO/ CEDelegation usually fell with a Manager, Director, General Manager, Group Manager, General Manager, CE, or CEO.

* MfE Best Practice Guidelines at p73

Question 27. Does your council have an enforcement policy? Yes No

Question 28. What is your process for making decisions on prosecutions?

Question 29. Who has the delegation to authorise filing of charges for a prosecution at your council?

Question 20. Does your council have a conflict of interest policy? Yes No

ENFORCEMENT POLICIES

16/16

CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICIES

16/16


PAGE 30

Attachment 21-265.1


DECISIONS ON PROSECUTION DELEGATION

RE

GIO

NA

L C

OU

NC

ILS

Northland Regional CouncilEnforcement decision group meets (this group changes depending on the alleged offence). Usually consists of the investigating officer plus their manager, plus the Enforcement Specialist.

Group Manager - Regulatory Services or the Compliance Monitoring Manager/Deputy GM - Regulatory Services.

Waikato Regional CouncilInvestigating officer reports to a panel of 3 senior managers with recommendations. If the panel authorises prosecutions, this will be conditional on an independent legal review, which studies the file in entirety and applies the Evidential and Public Interest Tests. If the legal review is satisfied that the tests are met, charges are filed.

See decisions on prosecution

Bay of Plenty Regional CouncilSignificant incidents/breaches are delegated to our dedicated investigators, who will undertake a thorough investigation of the matter and present the outcomes to an Enforcement Decision Group (EDG). The EDG makes a recommendation (by consensus) for a response; if the recommendation is to prosecute, then the recommendation is subject to a legal opinion, before being referred to the General Manager for Regulatory Services.

General Manager - Regulatory Services

Hawkes Bay Regional Council1) EDG recommends prosecution. 2) Councils’ solicitor provides a legal opinion. Must pass the evidential and public interest tests. 3) Signed off by GM Policy & Regulation 4) To CEO for final sign off

CEO

Taranaki Regional CouncilChief executive in collaboration with Director Resource Management and Compliance Manager

Chief Executive

Horizons Regional CouncilAll incidents and significantly noncomplying resource consent assessments are assessed. If the matter is deemed serious it is referred to the investigation programme. If a subsequent investigation determines a prosecution is required, then the investigation file is sent for legal review. This review focuses on whether the evidential sufficiency and public interest tests have been satisfied. Once this review is completed a report is prepared and provided to the Regulatory Manager and Group Manager Strategy and Regulation, who then pass the matter onto the Chief Executive for consideration and final decision

Group Manager Strategy and Regulation Regulatory Manager Team Leader Consents Monitoring Senior Consents Monitoring Officer

Greater Wellington Regional CouncilAll decisions on enforcement outcomes for breaches of the RMA are made by the Enforcement Decision Group (EDG) to ensure consistency, transparency and fairness, with the exception of some formal warnings and advice letters . Any EDG recommendations to prosecute are required to go to the Prosecution Decision Group (PDG). Normally and EDG consists of a minimum 3 persons. Delegation on decisions sits at team leader level. Decisions are generally made by consensus of the attendees. Where agreement cannot be reached the person with the delegated authority will make the decision. In extreme circumstances consultation with other delegated authority holders may be required. For recommendations of Infringement or less EDG may consist only of Officer and Team Leader. All enforcement action taken must be in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991, Summary Proceedings Act 1957, Criminal Procedure Act 2011, Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Disclosure Act 2008, Sentencing Act 2002, Resource Management (Infringement Offences) Regulations 1999 and the GWRC Environmental Regulation Prosecution Guidelines.

General Manager - Environment Group

E

Decision making process and delegation to authorise filing of charges


PAGE 31

Attachment 21-265.1



RE

GIO

NA

L C

OU

NC

ILS

Follow MfE CME guidelines, and an internal enforcement Decision Panel makes recommendations

Chief Executive


Recommendations for prosecution are considered at an ‘Enforcement Decision Group’ with Compliance Manager, Team Leaders, in-house legal counsel and Senior officer presenting the case. If considered appropriate by EDG, the file is reviewed by legal counsel to consider whether it meets the evidential test for prosecution. If it meets the evidential test, the file is considered by a ‘Prosecution Decision Group’ meeting with CEO, GM Regulatory, Compliance Manager and senior officer presenting the case.

To initiate and/or withdraw a prosecution for an offence against the RMA (GM Regulatory or GM Operations). If a decision has been made to prosecute, authority to file a charging document on decisions to prosecute for offences (Compliance Manager).


Recommendation on action report submitted to the manager. Approval given to prepare a staff report for consideration at an EGD meeting. EDG consists of The CE, another manager separate from Consents and Compliance, the C & C Manager and officer in charge of the case. Final decision rests with the CE

The CE and the Consents and Compliance Manager


Incident response – investigation – enforcement decision group meeting – legal opinion – CEO approval

Chief Executive

UN

ITA

RY

AU

TH

OR

ITIE

S

Auckland Council

Enforcement criteria is utilized, followed by team leader discussion, then Manager discussion. Prosecution panel made up of Manager(s) and legal counsel is the final step.

Manager Compliance Response and Investigations


Enforcement Decision Group. Director Environmental Services & Protection. Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Manager. (There is an expectation of consultation with Chief Executive)

Nelson City Council

Recommendation by investigating officer to team leader, then manager, then to two group managers (tier 2) after receiving legal advice

Authorised by two group managers after receiving legal advice


Stage 1: QA per review panel Stage 2: Enforcement and Prosecution Committee Stage 3: Legal Counsel Review

Enforcement and Prosecution Committee


Investigating officer prepares a case which is presented to a decision-making group. If case meets the tests a detailed recommendation to proceed goes to the group manager who carries delegated authority to initiate prosecutions.

Group manager (Tier 2)

Question 28. What is your process for making decisions on prosecutions?

Question 29. Who has the delegation to authorise filing of charges for a prosecution at your council?

Table 5: Decision making process and delegation to authorise filing of charges


PAGE 32

Attachment 21-265.1


EDUCATING AND ENGAGING WITH THE REGULATED COMMUNITY

Inline with the ‘four E approach’ giving clear direction on what is expected to the regulated community creates a robust approach. This question helps us understand the programs councils have in place.

All councils had at least one initiative in place. The most common education was about farming/dairy, earthworks and forestry. Majority did this through workshops and presentations.

Have or support education and

engagement projects

16/16

Delivery methods of information include:

• Workshops• Presentations• Meetings e.g., Industry stakeholder meetings• Hui• Information evenings• Pocket guides• Superhero programs• Engagement programs• Attendance at Fieldays• Attendance at farm dairy effluent forums• Attendance at liaison groups• Contributions to Land Use and other Council

publications• Emails• Newsletters• Website• Advertising campaigns• Citizen science• 0800 number• Educational visits

Areas covered in education or engagement projects include:

• Dairy/ farming• Earthworks• Forestry• Construction• Wineries• Marine Farms• General community• Catchment groups

Question 42. Does your council have, or support, any education or engagement projects relating to compliance with the RMA or any of its derivative regulation? For example, workshops for earthworks contractors around erosion and sediment controls. Yes No If yes, briefly describe


PAGE 33

Attachment 21-265.1


Question 31 helps us to identify what at sector level is occupying the largest proportion of resources and how/ if that resource allocation is shifting over time. In turn this helps with understanding priority areas and challenges for compliance programs.

In total there were nearly 8,195 actions this year, this is 1,287 more than last year. Councils are highly variable in the number of actions taken. This year Gisborne District Council showed the most significant increase in the proportion of formal actions (5 times last year). Hawkes Bay Regional Council, Taranaki Regional Council, Otago Regional Council, Southland Regional Council and Auckland Council all have more formal actions than last year. Majority of these cases are abatement notices with abatement notices increasing on last year.

Abatement notices make up the largest proportion of formal warnings, this year they have increased by around a quarter. Taranaki Regional Council, Environment Canterbury, Northland Regional Council and Auckland Council issue the most abatement notices. This year Environment Canterbury issued 191 more than last year, Auckland Council issued 843 more than last year.

367 more infringement fines were issued this year, an increase of 21%.

Waikato Regional Council and Environment Canterbury make up seven in ten formal warnings. This year there is an 18% drop in formal warnings, this is driven by Environment Canterbury with 218 less formal warnings compared to last year.

Auckland Council then Taranaki Regional Council have the most infringement notices, both increase in this period (Auckland increases 40%, Taranaki increases 46%).

ACTING ON NON-COMPLIANCE

QUESTION 31. Question 31 relates to the instruments issued in relation to the different sections of the Act (listed once for brevity)• Section 9 Use of land• Section 12 Coastal marine area• Section 13 Beds of lakes and rivers• Section 14 Water• Section 15 Discharges of contaminants• Section 17 Duty to avoid, remedy & mitigate• Other breach e.g., Section 22 Formal warnings issued Abatement notices issued Infringement notices issued Enforcement orders applied for


PAGE 34

Attachment 21-265.1


NATIONWIDE:ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND SECTIONS BREACHED

FORMAL WARNINGS

ABATEMENT NOTICES

INFRINGEMENT ORDERS

ENFORCEMENT ORDERS

TOTAL ACTIONS

802 5,225 2,150 18 8,195

SECTION 9Use of land

45 141 201 7 394

SECTION 12 Coastal marine area

27 24 11 0 62

SECTION 13 Beds of lakes and rivers

51 90 26 3 170

SECTION 14 Water

68 222 28 0 318

SECTION 15 Discharges of contaminants

567 777 1,014 6 2,364

SECTION 17 Duty to avoid, remedy & mitigate

6 12 3 0 21

OTHERe.g. Section 22

38 7 867 2 914

Auckland Council (total abatement notices- no breakdown available this year)

3,965 3,965

Table 6: Total use of formal instruments against relevant section of the Act (i. e., group of possible offences).

*Note this year Auckland Council only had total abatement notices available. These are included in the overall figure. Horizons Regional Council had 13 abatement notices that fell into more than one section these are counted in individual sections, but only count once in totals.


PAGE 35

Attachment 21-265.1


Figure 12: Total use of formal instruments (excluding prosecution)












Auckland Council


Nelson City Council



TOTAL

626

189

137

137

268

64

36

200

34

34

118

24

58

56

42

459

244

119

142

352

151

44

110

51

47

61

12

108

130

35

384

211

142

90

291

135

90

137

47

55

77

9

73

65

42

307

186

129

152

408

118

92

358

59

29

76

39

43

56

31

2017 / 2018 2018 / 2019 2019 / 2020 2020/ 2021

632

387

463

545

384

516

307

468137

151

268

110

93

615

39

84

137

62

83

74

56

4,042

119

142

352

203

87

282

56

75

92

114

35

12

130

7,105

142

102

291

183

144

616

47

70

112

99

42

13

65

6,908

129

174

408

129

136

619

86

40

167

56

31

79

56

8,195

Total use of formal instruments (excluding prosecution)

1,114 1,114

3,137

4,398 4,398

6,463

4,082 4,082

5,930

5,310 5,310

7,393

TOTA

L FO

RM

AL

AC

TIO

NS

(INC

LUD

ING

WA

RN

ING

S)

TOTA

L FO

RM

AL

AC

TIO

NS

(EX

CLU

DIN

G W

AR

NIN

GS)

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

REGIONAL COUNCILS


PAGE 36

Attachment 21-265.1


Figure 13: Total formal warnings and abatement notices

2017 / 2018 2018 / 2019 2019 / 2020 2020/ 2021

Total formal warnings and abatement notices












Auckland Council


Nelson City Council



TOTAL

373

89

106

46

200

41

11

72

12

24

80

19

45

33

28

271

134

87

40

240

82

17

39

14

20

29

11

56

67

18

230

134

117

20

187

54

24

69

20

20

29

9

38

31

29

210

118

102

66

255

40

26

260

25

12

29

35

28

37

17

6

198

4

301

00

NO DATANO DATA

NO DATANO DATA

305282

14

46

57

415

5

50

19

4

905

41

50

0

0000

52

43

172

5

28

31

6

642

0

12

48

54

479

15

35

26

978

4

22

11

44

261

27

11

91

13

802

40

648

1,827

3,186

4,311

3,122

4,133

3,965

5,225

TOTA

L FO

RM

AL

WA

RN

ING

S

TOTA

L A

BAT

EMEN

T N

OTI

CES

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

REGIONAL COUNCILS

NO DATA

NO DATANO DATA

NO DATANO DATANO DATA

NO DATANO DATA

NO DATANO DATA

NO DATANO DATA


PAGE 37

Attachment 21-265.1


Figure 14: Total infringement notices and enforcement orders












Auckland Council


Nelson City Council



TOTAL

0

0

0

1

10

21

1

0

0

3

0

0

2

1

1

1

1

0

2

11

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

0

0

1

1

1

4

14

0

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

3

0

0

1

6

18

1

0

0

0

3

1

0

1

2017 / 2018 2018 / 2019 2019 / 2020 2020/ 2021

253

100

187

107

154

71

94

6729

91

67

23

25

127

22

10

35

11

13

4

23

1,289

31

101

112

69

27

71

36

27

32

50

17

1

63

2,141

25

69

104

81

66

67

26

35

48

34

13

0

34

1,783

27

86

152

78

63

97

34

17

47

15

13

3

18

2,150

4561,210

9561,339

TOTA

L IN

FRIN

GEM

ENT

NO

TIC

ES

TOTA

L EN

FOR

CEM

ENT

OR

DER

SUNITARY AUTHORITIES

REGIONAL COUNCILS

1

2

0

2

0

1

1

00001

Total infringement notices and enforcement orders


PAGE 38

Attachment 21-265.1


Prosecutions

Questions 32 to 37 address prosecutions, defendants and convictions. The degree to which prosecutions are used shows the willingness of agencies to use tools at the heavy end of the spectrum. Prosecutions work to deter offenders, they are valuable in encouraging compliance and behaviour change when used appropriately.

Where councils are unlikely to prosecute it may be perceived that non compliance is unlikely to result in consequence.

The overall prosecutions concluded are up 36% on last year, while those in progress are down on last year (39%). Regionally there are differences, this is between 0 and 20 for those that have concluded, and between 0 and 12 for those still in progress.

Number of individuals convicted remains on par with last year, the number of convictions entered is decreasing year on year. The number of corporates convicted has increased steadily since 2018, this year by around a quarter.

QUESTION 32. How many RMA prosecutions were: Note: For this question please consider an entire case (regardless of number of charges and defendants) as one prosecution.Concluded in the period?Still in progress in the period?

QUESTION 33. What is the total number of individual (person) defendants convicted as a result of RMA prosecutions concluded in this period?

QUESTION 34. For all of these (person) defendants what is the total number of convictions entered against them? For example, there may be a total of 27 separate convictions entered against a total of nine ‘individual’ defendants.

QUESTION 35. What is the total number of corporate (e.g., Crown, company, body corporate etc.) defendants convicted as a result of RMA prosecutions concluded in this period?

QUESTION 36. For all of these (corporate) defendants what is the total number of convictions entered against them? For example, there may be a total of 30 separate convictions entered against a total of 12 corporate defendants.

QUESTION 37. Total number of convictions against an individual [see categories for sections of the Act as above] Total fine potential (Total x $300,000)

Total number of convictions against a corporate entity [see categories for sections of the Act as above] Total fine potential (Total x $600,000)

NATIONWIDE PROSECUTIONS

IN PROGRESSCONCLUDED 7195INDIVIDUALS ON 84 CHARGES

CORPORATESON 175 CHARGES

45

75


PAGE 39

Attachment 21-265.1


Figure 15: Prosecutions across the regional sector












Auckland Council


Nelson City Council



TOTAL

4

4

2

12

0

2

0

5

27

17

0

3

12

3

8

21

4

4

1

8

22

13

0

4

9

2

2

12

3

3

4

2

6

10

6

0

2018 / 2019

2019 / 2020

2020/ 2021

0

15

4

21

2

20

4 6

12

1

1

5

0

7

4 4

4

3

6

4

0

7

61

0

1

3

0

1

4

52

3

0

10

1

0

10

70

4

0

10

12

4

3

9

2

1

11

1

0

10

95

5

1

NU

MB

ER C

ON

CLU

DED

NU

MB

ER IN

PR

OG

RES

S

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

REGIONAL COUNCILS

12

4

99

7

5

118

1

5

71

011

Nationwide Prosecutions Across the Regional Sector


PAGE 40

Attachment 21-265.1


Figure 16 : Individuals convicted across the regional sector












Auckland Council


Nelson City Council



TOTAL

1

2

12

2

35

114

3

0

0

41

4

6

0

0

0

0

47

106

0

3

0

11

25

8

0

14

18

2

2

10

95

3

8

0

8

21

5

0

12

4

0

3

10

84

6

4

2

4

17

7

0

2017 / 2018 2018 / 2019 2019 / 2020 2020/ 2021

1

3

0

8

5

12

3

86

1

3

0

0 0

0 0

1

10

0

11

0

0

11

49

0

2

4

0

0

1

0 0

0 0

0

0

5

2

0

7

29

0

2

4

0

2

3

1NO DATA NO DATA

1

0

6

1

0

5

41

1

0

6

4

3

1

2

0

1

4

0

0

6

45

5

2

NU

MB

ER O

F IN

DIV

IDU

ALS

CO

NV

ICTE

D

NU

MB

ER O

F C

ON

VIC

TIO

NS

ENTE

RED

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

REGIONAL COUNCILS

0

0

0

6

2

2

11

08

60

4

Individuals convicted across the regional sector


PAGE 41

Attachment 21-265.1


Figure 17 : Corporates convicted across the regional sector












Auckland Council


Nelson City Council



TOTAL

0

5

13

8

18

2

0

1

25

0

18

102102

2

3

0

0

5

15

8

5

1

9

0

37

12

0

7

1

4

16

17

0

11

0

6

47

21

138

3

0

10

14

2

22

17

6

10

2

5

39

21

175

14

0

2017 / 2018 2018 / 2019 2019 / 2020 2020/ 2021

0

8

0

12

4

11

2

132

3

1

0

0

4

10

1

11

1

1

16

60

0

2

10

0

3

5

0

5

1

4

2

0

4

47

0

1

2

11

0

5

7

4NO DATA NO DATA

3

0

4

0

0

6

60

3

0

7

10

4

3

5

11

2

1

5

1

0

5

75

6

0

NU

MB

ER O

F C

OR

POR

ATES

CO

NV

ICTE

D

NU

MB

ER O

F C

ON

VIC

TIO

NS

ENTE

RED

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

REGIONAL COUNCILS

0

2

0

7

5

0

12

15

300

Corporates convicted across the regional sector


PAGE 42

Attachment 21-265.1


Penalties

Fines increased significantly this year totalling $5,187,565 ($1.7m more than last year). The majority of these are corporate fines $4,273,025. This year 5 councils had no individual fines, 2 had no corporate fines. Following last year Waikato has more fines than other councils with $1.34m of fines.

There were a range of sanctions handed down. This year there were no prison sentences. Nelson City Council was the only council this year to issue no fines or penalties as they had no prosecutions.

Table 7: Other sanctions handed down under the RMA

NUMBER OF COUNCILS

ENFORCEMENT ORDER 7

REPARATION 4

COMMUNITY SERVICE 4

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 6

DIVERSION 1

ALTERNATIVE JUSTICE 1

DISCHARGE WITHOUT CONVICTION 5

QUESTION 38. What is the total amount of fines imposed by the courts as a result of RMA prosecutions concluded in this period? Individual / Corporate QUESTION 39. What other sanctions, if any, have been imposed by the courts as a result of RMA prosecutions concluded in this period? Prison sentence / Enforcement order / Reparation / Community Service / Discharge without conviction / Other QUESTION 40. How many prosecutions involved restorative justice, diversion or other alternative justice process?• Restorative justice• Diversion• Alternative justice QUESTION 41. Describe any outcomes relating to these processes.


PAGE 43

Attachment 21-265.1


CORPORATEINDIVIDUAL$4,273,025$914,540

INDIVIDUAL FINES

CORPORATE FINES

REGIONAL COUNCILS

NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL $3,000 $60,800

WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL $397,000 $948,475

BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL $69,800 $326,450

HAWKES BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL $34,690 $161,700

TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL $105,000 $600,000

HORIZONS REGIONAL COUNCIL $0 $214,000

GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL $0 $310,000

ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY $36,000 $319,300

OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL $0 $547,750

WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL $25,500 $25,500

SOUTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL $51,250 $103,500

REGIONAL SUBTOTAL $722,240 $3,617,475

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

AUCKLAND COUNCIL $67,500 $232,250

GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL $96,800 $408,300

NELSON CITY COUNCIL $0 $0

MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL $0 $15,000

TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL $28,000 $0

UNITARY SUBTOTAL $192,300 $655,550

TOTAL $914,540 $4,273,025

Table 8: Prosecution outcomes: fines

NATIONWIDE Total fines

QUESTION 42. What is the total amount of fines imposed by the courts as a result of RMA prosecutions concluded in this period?


PAGE 44

Attachment 21-265.1


ENFORCEMENT ORDER REPARATION COMMUNITY

SERVICE

DISCHARGE WITHOUT

CONVICTION

REGIONAL COUNCILS

NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL 1 1 (300hrs)

WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL 1 $120,000

BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL $5,000 1


TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL 1


GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL 1

ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY 1 1 (45hrs) 1

OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL


SOUTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL 1 1 ($15,000) 1

REGIONAL SUBTOTAL 5 4

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

AUCKLAND COUNCIL 4 2

GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL $6,500 (150hrs)

NELSON CITY COUNCIL


TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL 1

UNITARY SUBTOTAL 5 2

TOTAL 10 6

Table 9: Prosecutions involving other sanctions imposed by courts

QUESTION 43. What other sanctions, if any, have been imposed by the courts as a result of RMA prosecutions concluded in this period?

Prosecutions Involving Other Sanctions Imposed by Courts


PAGE 45

Attachment 21-265.1


RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

DIVERSION ALTERNATIVE JUSTICE

REGIONAL COUNCILS

NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL 1

WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL 1

BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL 2

HAWKES BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL 2





OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL 1

WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL 1

SOUTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL 1

REGIONAL SUBTOTAL 7 1 1

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

AUCKLAND COUNCIL


NELSON CITY COUNCIL

MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL 1


UNITARY SUBTOTAL 1 0 0

TOTAL 8 1 1

Table 10: Prosecutions involving restorative justice, diversion or other alternative justice

QUESTION 44. How many prosecutions involved restorative justice, diversion or other alternative justice process?

Prosecutions Involving Restorative Justice, Diversion or Other Alternative Justice


PAGE 46

Attachment 21-265.1


CME REPORTING

Question 44 addressed the ways in which this operational function was carried out, providing a range of ‘standard’ options and giving council respondents space to describe alternate approaches.

Most commonly councils use reports to other Councillors and Council committee meetings that are open to the public. Other mechanisms include zone meetings, putting data on the website, regulation committee meetings, compliance monitoring report, rates newsletter, media release and individual prosecutions.

Table 11: CME reporting channels

ANNUAL REPORT

REPORT TO COUNCILLORS SNAPSHOT

REPORT(S) TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS (OPEN TO PUBLIC) OTHER

TOTAL REPORTING CHANNELS

REGIONAL COUNCILS

NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL 5

WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL 3

BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL 4

HAWKES BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL 4

TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL 4

HORIZONS REGIONAL COUNCIL 3

GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL 3

ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY 5

OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL 2

WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL 3

SOUTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL 1

UNITARY AUTHORITIES

AUCKLAND COUNCIL 1

GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL 3

NELSON CITY COUNCIL 3

MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL 4

TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL 3

CME Reporting Channels


PAGE 47

Attachment 21-265.1


REGIONAL SCORECARDSPART 3

The following pages are summaries of the key data for the regional and unitary councils on an individual basis. They enable councils to quickly and easily communicate the findings of the national scale analysis as it applies to them, and to use these figures as a basis for regional scale performance improvement. All pages contain identical categories of information, all of which is based on tables found elsewhere throughout the report.


PAGE 48

Attachment 21-265.1


NATIONAL SUMMARY

CME METRICS REPORT 2020/ 2021

!

NEW ZEALAND POPULATION ESTIMATE 2020

POPULATION GROWTH 2015-2020

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

5,042,900

10.5%

268,000km2

$323,142m

FTE/1000

FULL TIME EMPLOYEES 542

0.15

ADMINISTERED REQUIRED MONITORING

CONSENTS MONITORED OF THOSE REQUIRING IT

ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENTS REPORTED

RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED

ENFORCEMENT ORDER APPLICATIONS

ABATEMENT NOTICES ISSUED

PROSECUTIONS CONCLUDED

INFRINGEMENT FINES ISSUED

PROSECUTIONS IN PROGRESS

802 5,225 2,150

719518

283,470 38,214

29,468 99%

83%

CME STAFF

POLICY CHECKLIST

Conflict of interest policy

Education / engagement programmes

Enforcement policy

16/1616/1616/16


PAGE 49

Attachment 21-265.1


NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL


!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

192,500

13.1%

13,778km2

$8,222m

FTE/1000


0.13




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






o 210 94

423

10,164 3,505

811 100%

86%

CME STAFF

NATIONAL AVERAGE 83%


NATIONAL AVERAGE 0.15


PAGE 50

Attachment 21-265.1


WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL


!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

492,100

12.5%

24,147km2

$27,884m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






282 118 67

10201

11,839 no data

2,207 100%

no data



FTE/1000


0.1

CME STAFF



PAGE 51

Attachment 21-265.1




!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

333,500

15.1%

12,303km2

$18,884m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






NO data 102 27

6100

8,407 3,324

3,771 100%

86%



FTE/1000


0.11

CME STAFF



PAGE 52

Attachment 21-265.1




!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

177,200

9.2%

14,138km2

$9,093m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






22 66 86

9120

8,452 3,355

823 100%

93%



FTE/1000


0.09

CME STAFF



PAGE 53

Attachment 21-265.1




!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

124,000

7.1%

7,256km2

$9,513m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






0 255 152

341

4,517 2,510

590 100%

100%



FTE/1000


0.4

CME STAFF



PAGE 54

Attachment 21-265.1




!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

252,900

7.2%

22,220km2

$12,426m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






11 40 78

43no data

6,619 1,823

1,226 100%

89%



FTE/1000


0.1

CME STAFF



PAGE 55

Attachment 21-265.1




!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

538,500

8.1%

8,142km2

$40,272m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






44 26 63

443

7,138 1,779

1,140 100%

87%



FTE/1000


0.03

CME STAFF



PAGE 56

Attachment 21-265.1


ENVIROMENT CANTERBURY


!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

641,200

10.8%

44,633km2

$39,961m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






261 260 97

291

22,648 1,314

4,441 100%

96%



FTE/1000


0.08

CME STAFF



PAGE 57

Attachment 21-265.1




!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

243,000

13%

31,280km2

$14,180m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






27 25 34

220

5,785 3,136

1,268 100%

71%



FTE/1000


0.13

CME STAFF



PAGE 58

Attachment 21-265.1




!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

32,400

-1.5%

23,277km2

$1,836m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






11 12 17

21no data

5,682 1,268

131 100%

92%



FTE/1000


0.20

CME STAFF



PAGE 59

Attachment 21-265.1


SOUTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL


!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

102,300

5.1%

32,184km2

$6,718m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






91 29 47

6110

5,995 5,920

888 100%

72%



FTE/1000


0.12

CME STAFF



PAGE 60

Attachment 21-265.1


AUCKLAND COUNCIL


!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

1,702,700

10.8%

5,945km2

$122,557m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






NO DATA 3,965 1,339

12106

130,371 NO DATA

9,502 100%

NO DATA



FTE/1000


0.11

CME STAFF



PAGE 61

Attachment 21-265.1




!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

50,500

5.6%

8,386km2

$2,299m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






40 35 3

151

8,893 1,135

194 100%

60%



FTE/1000


0.18

CME STAFF



PAGE 62

Attachment 21-265.1




!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

56,400

9.7%

9,764km2

$6,005m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






NO DATA 37 18

111

16,826 4,941

1,394 100%

57%



FTE/1000


0.21

CME STAFF



PAGE 63

Attachment 21-265.1


NELSON CITY COUNCIL


!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

54,600

9.7%

477km2

$6,005m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






NO DATA 17 13

001

675 675

523 100%

100%



FTE/1000


0.1

CME STAFF



PAGE 64

Attachment 21-265.1




!



GEOGRAPHIC AREA

GDP TO MARCH 2020

49,900

9%

10,773km2

$3,290m




RESPONSE RATE

CONSENTS

INCIDENTS

ENFORCEMENT

WARNINGS ISSUED






13 28 15

510

29,459 3,529

559 100%

98%



FTE/1000


0.25

CME STAFF



PAGE 65

Attachment 21-265.1


1. Which council are you completing this survey on behalf of? [Regional/ Unitary]2. And this is for?

• Northland Regional Council• Waikato Regional Council• Bay of Plenty Regional Council• Hawkes Bay Regional Council• Taranaki Regional Council• Horizons Regional Council• Greater Wellington Regional Council• Environment Canterbury • Otago Regional Council• West Coast Regional Council• Southland Regional Council• Auckland Council• Gisborne District Council• Nelson City Council• Marlborough District Council• Tasman District Council

3. What is your name and contact details?

Comments to IwiPost 2017/2018 regional context data from common national sources (e.g. Statistics New Zealand) instead of requiring councils to submit it. This also helped ensure comparability

4. In no more than 300 words describe your regional key commitments to work with iwi/Maori on CME. For example, joint management agreements or other co-management agreements.

Note: The report author may contact you for further information or clarification of your response.

CME Operations (managing the workload)

Complaints5. Does your council register/count:

• an individual “incident” per notification?• one incident per event, regardless of the number of separate complainants?

6. How many notifications (complaints) were received from members of the public (or other sources, but excluding information from council monitoring activity) relating to environmental incidents or potential breaches of environmental regulation?

APPENDIX 1

METRICS SURVEY QUESTIONS


PAGE 66

Attachment 21-265.1


This might include information from, for example, emergency services attending an incident or perhaps a council staff member observing something while on other duties, but excludes information from council monitoring activity.

• No. of individual complaints/calls?• No. of individual incidents logged?• Unknown

7. How many of these notifications were responded to by council? This response may be in any form – e.g. phone call, site visit, desktop audit8. How many of these notifications were physically attended by council staff? If one incident had multiple visits, only count this as one. 9. How many of these notifications were confirmed as breaches of the RMA or subsidiary instruments?10. How many of the breaches were for:

• Breach of a resource consent?• Breach of permitted activity rules?

Monitoring Resource Consents & Permitted ActivitiesResource Consents

11. How many individual, active resource consents exist in your region? Exclude Land Use Consents where the activity is completed e.g. Land use subdivisions where the subdivision is

complete and certificates issued or land use – building where the building has been constructed.12. How many consents required monitoring during this period, in accordance with your monitoring prioritisation model/

strategy?13. How many of these consents were monitored (including desktop audit) in the period?

Compliance Gradings14. In the 2020/2021 year, did you use the four compliance grades as recommended by Ministry for Environment? Yes/No15. What grades do you apply to non-compliance? (e.g. technical non-compliance, significant noncompliance)

• Fully Compliant• Technical/Low Non-Compliance• Moderate Non-Compliance• Significant Non-Compliance• Other (please specify)

16. When will your council be adopting the four compliance grades recommended by Ministry for Environment?17. What were the levels of compliance with consents according to the grades you use?

Note 1: Numbers provided under each grade is per monitoring event not per consent. E.g. a consent may be monitored 4 times in the year on one occasion it may be Technically Non-Compliance and on three occasions it may be Fully Compliant, this would add 3 to the total of Fully Compliant and one to the total for Technical Noncompliance.

Note 2: The compliance grade is based on the condition with the worst compliance grade. (e.g. a consent with five conditions Fully Compliant and one condition Moderate Non-Compliance has an overall compliance grade of Minor Non-Compliance

Note 3: Daily telemetry water readings where compliance with water take limits is continuously monitored are to be excluded from compliance grade totals.

• Fully Compliant• Technical/Low Non-Compliance• Moderate Non-Compliance• Significant Non-Compliance• Other (please specify)


PAGE 67

Attachment 21-265.1


Monitoring Permitted Activities18. Which permitted activities do you have a monitoring programme for?

• Agriculture (excluding dairy)• Aquaculture• Construction• Dairy• Forestry• Horticulture• Industrial Stormwater• Mining• Oil and gas• Tourism• Vineyards• Wineries• Wintering• Other (please specify)

Making Decisions on Priorities19. What basis is used for determining what notifications/complaints/incidents are physically attended and with what

urgency or priority?20. Describe how you determine which consents are monitored and how frequently? If there is a prioritisation model or compliance strategy, add link21. Describe the basis, which was used for determining what, if any, permitted activities were monitored. If there is a prioritisation model or compliance strategy, add link

Staffing Levels 22. How many FTEs does your council have who carry out monitoring roles? Include contractors.23. How many FTEs does your council have who carry out environmental incident or pollution response roles? Include contractors.24. How many FTEs does your council have who carry out investigation or enforcement roles?25. How many FTEs does your council have who carry out a combination of the above roles? Note 1: Include contractors

Note 2: Only answer this question if you have not included these staff in questions 21, 22 or 23

26. How many FTEs does your council have in CME support roles? This includes administrative roles, e.g. staff who assist with issue of notices, reminder notices, upload of unpaid infringements to MoJ.

CME Policies and Procedures27. Does your council have an enforcement policy? Yes/ No28. What is your process for making decisions on prosecutions?29. Who has the delegation to authorise filing of charges for a prosecution at your council?30. Does your council have a conflict of interest policy? Yes/ No


PAGE 68

Attachment 21-265.1


Acting on Non-Compliance 31. What was the total number of actions taken during the period for:

• Formal warnings issued• Abatement notices issued• Infringement notices issued• Enforcement orders applied for

Note: This relates to the instruments issued in relation to the different sections of the Act (listed once for brevity)

• Section 9 Use of land• Section 12 Coastal marine area• Section 13 Beds of lakes and rivers• Section 14 Water• Section 15 Discharges of contaminants• Section 17 Duty to avoid, remedy & mitigate• Other breach e.g. Section 22

Prosecution32. How many RMA prosecutions were: Note: For this question please consider an entire case (regardless of number of charges and defendants) as one prosecution.

• Concluded in the period• Still in progress in the period

33. What is the total number of individual (person) defendants convicted as a result of RMA prosecutions concluded in this period?

34. For all of these (person) defendants what is the total number of convictions entered against them?For example, there may be a total of 27 separate convictions entered against a total of nine ‘individual’ defendants.

35. What is the total number of corporate (e.g. Crown, company, body corporate etc) defendants convicted as a result of RMA prosecutions concluded in this period?

36. For all of these (corporate) defendants what is the total number of convictions entered against them? For example, there may be a total of 30 separate convictions entered against a total of 12 corporate defendants.

37. Total number of convictions against: [see categories for sections of the Act as above]• an individual• a corporate entity

Total fine potential (Individual total x $300,000, corporate entity total x $600,000)

38. What is the total amount of fines imposed by the courts as a result of RMA prosecutions concluded in this period?

• Individual fines• Corporate fines

38. What other sanctions, if any, have been imposed by the courts as a result of RMA prosecutions concluded in this period?

• Prison sentence• Enforcement order• Reparation• Community Service• Discharge without conviction• Other


PAGE 69

Attachment 21-265.1


40. How many prosecutions involved restorative justice, diversion or other alternative justice process?• Restorative justice• Diversion• Alternative justice

41. Describe any outcomes relating to these processes.

Educating and Engaging with the Regulated Community 42. Does your council have, or support, any education or engagement projects relating to compliance with the RMA or

any of its derivative regulation? For example, workshops for earthworks contractors around erosion and sediment controls. Yes/No

43. If yes, briefly describe CME Reporting 44. What mechanisms do your council use to report CME data to the public? e.g. annual reports, reports to councillors

• Annual Report• Report to Councillors• Snapshot• Report(s) to Council committee meetings (open to public)• Other (please specify)


PAGE 70

Attachment 21-265.1


Northland Regional CouncilNRC has a range of initiatives to work in partnership with Māori. A key one is the Te Tai Tokerau Māori & Council Working Party (TTMAC), which is an advisory committee established in 2014. This group meets monthly. Four of council's five other working parties have an equal number of Maori representatives sitting alongside councilors. This includes the Planning & Regulatory Working Party, which has oversight of CME as part of its purpose. council has signed with two hapū the Mana Whakahono a Rohe; Patuharakeke and Ngatirehia with the intention to sign with Te Uri o Hau and Te Hikutu. This will be reviewed in terms of implementation in 2022. There is an agreed process for hapū signatories to meet with the Northland Regional Council to discuss opportunities for hapū to be involved in council compliance and monitoring activities.

SOUTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCILNgāi Tahu ki Murihiku (tangata whenua) have a particular interest in the work of Environment Southland. And mutually, the council has responsibilities towards Māori and Māori cultural and spiritual values. The approach we have in Southland today is unique in the South Island. Its aim is to ensure Māori values are reflected in the council's decision-making, so that Southland's mauri is protected for now and generations to come. Te Aō Marama Incorporated (the environmental arm of Ngāi Tahu ki Miruhiku) was one of the key facilitators when the relationship between the council and iwi began in the early 90s. Te Aō Marama was delegated the responsibility of dealing with councils on environmental matters, on behalf of the four papatipu rūnanga who hold mana whenua over all ancestral lands in Murihiku – Awarua, Hokonui, Ōraka Aparima and Waihōpai. For 25 years the relationship with Environment Southland continues to grow, with various protocols being developed to ensure smooth and efficient processes for plan development and consents management, a jointly funded iwi policy advisor position, an iwi management plan Te Tangi a Tauira, and a partnership to improve Southland's water and land through the People Water and Land programme – Te Mana o te Tangata, te Wai, te Whenua. The most recent milestone in the council's relationship with iwi is the inclusion of mana whenua positions on two of Environment Southland's committees. The successful candidates for these positions will start their work after the elections in October. Environment Southland, refers to the iwi relationship as te kōura tuia – the 'golden thread' that we weave through all our work. It's just part of how we operate. There is a commitment to the responsibility of improving Southland's local government understanding of all things Māori.

WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCILThe WRC has operative Joint Management Agreements (JMAs) with five ‘River’ Iwi – Waikato-Tainui, Raukawa, Te Arawa, Ngati Maniapoto and Ngati Tuwharetoa – as required by legislation. A key purpose of JMAs is to provide a framework for Iwi and the Council to discuss and agree processes for enabling co-management of planning, regulatory and other functions within the relevant Iwi’s geographic area of interest. For all currently operative JMAs, this includes RMA compliance, monitoring and enforcement (CME) functions of Council. Whilst each of the JMAs was individually negotiated, there are common themes across all in relation to CME. The key commitments relating to CME within the JMAs generally include biannual operational meetings to discuss monitoring priorities, extent and methods; the potential for Iwi involvement in monitoring and enforcement processes; responses to non-compliance; consent review opportunities; the effectiveness of conditions and the effectiveness of compliance policies and procedures generally. The JMAs require various CME-related information to be provided, at different times – for example, summary updates of enforcement actions (prosecutions, enforcement orders, abatement notices and infringement notices) undertaken by the Council under the RMA for the JMA area. Agreed outcomes and actions from biannual operational meetings will, where appropriate, be reported up to the corresponding co-governance committees. The JMAs have facilitated closer personal and working relationship with Iwi which itself has engendered more effective engagement, co-operation and flow of information in both directions.

TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCILThe Council has 3 iwi appointed representatives on each of its Consents and Regulatory and Policy and Planning Committees. This provides for CME input at this level. In addition the Council engages directly with iwi over prosecutions and obtains victim impact statements for sentencing. The 4 local authorities in the region are currently trying to develop Iwi Relationship Agreements, under the Mana Wakahono a Rohe provisions of the RMA, with 7 iwi in the region, which potentially includes CME provisions.


Hasn’t changed from last year response which covered more the planning and policy interactions with iwi. We are obtaining cultural impact statements from iwi for most prosecutions as part of the sentencing.

APPENDIX 2

LONG FORM RESPONSES (QUESTION 3)


PAGE 71

Attachment 21-265.1



To give effect to the obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 and the related obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991, we have committed with Ngāi Tahu to improve relationships and interaction and integrate improved working practices across Environment Canterbury. The way we do this falls under the umbrella of our joint work programme Tuia, which includes a commitment to including rūnanga input to our 5-year CME plan. The 5-year plan has identified key areas where Rūnanga and Environment Canterbury can work together to improve Incident Response, compliance and enforcement. For example, we have begun alerting Rūnanga to compliance issues/incidents in their areas through incident response, have identified opportunities with providing and receiving mutual education and training around compliance monitoring, and are identifying Rūnanga priorities to help with decision making. Environment Canterbury are also funding rūnanga to provide advice to help inform our decisions relating to enforcement action.


The West Coast Regional Council and Poutini Ngai Tahu have signed a Mana Whakahono a Rohe - Iwi Participation Arrangement. The arrangement formally acknowledges the partnership and relationship between Council and Ngai Tahu. The document can be found on Councils web site under Strategies - publications. Te Runanga Ngati Waewae and Te Runanga Makaawhio have representation on Council and in decision making on relevant Council committees such as the Resource management Committee.

AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Our Compliance Monitoring Unit has been part of the Council’s review of the Cultural Values Assessment processes. This is a co-design process with mana whenua that has been on-going for the last few years. We are currently working through a ‘winter works’ shadowing programme with mana whenua and are working across Council departments to improve the application of Accidental Discovery Protocols which apply where cultural sensitive material is unearthed during construction.


Joint management agreement over Waiapu catchment. Discussions on certain notified resource consent applications. Department of Internal affairs pilot ‘strengthening treaty partnerships’ currently underway.


MDC engage with Iwi and hapū in relation to CME with cultural impact and prioritises as required. MDC operates a Iwi working group in the development of plans. MDC currently have a draft Iwi Engagement Plan


We do not currently have any formal CME focused arrangements with tangatawhenua; however, we are currently in the process of developing agreements in this regard in relation to a number of specific matters. Further to this, the role and importance of Māori as kaitiaki is considered in the day-to-day implementation of our compliance programme. In practical terms, this may include ensuring tangatawhenua are notified of incidents in their rohe(‘no surprises’ approach) and involved in project where appropriate (e.g., marae wastewater). CME information is also formally reported to co-governance groups (eg. Rangitaiki River Authority and TeMaru o Kaituna)


No formal agreements under CME but is in early-stage development. Currently only engagement is through consent imposed conditions and cultural impacts assessments.

GREATER WELLINGTON

The Council has no formal CME agreements with Iwi. The proposed Natural Resource Plan for the Wellington Region lays out the collaborative work and strategy for involving iwi. Part of that collaborative work is the ongoing establishment of Whaitua’s to engage iwi and communities in a catchment focused approach to management of the environment. This intrinsically includes a CME element.


No formal agreements at this stage with iwi around CME, however, in the event of a major incident or comprehensive investigation iwi are advised. We have used iwi for cultural impact assessment reports on prosecution cases. We also notify Aukaha of any incidents involving waterways. ORC is working with Aukaha and Te Aō Marama Incorporated to improve engagement and involvement in CME activities.

NELSON CITY COUNCIL

No formal agreements are in place, Iwi are involved in revising Plan provisions and Council facilitates having an iwi monitor on site alongside Council’s monitoring officer when this is requested. All iwi are sent a summary of all resource consent applications on a weekly basis. Council is also financially supporting iwi to build capacity in state of the environment monitoring and to establish cultural health monitoring practices.


No formal agreements under CME responsibility at this stage but being developed. At a very early scoping stage.


PAGE 72

Attachment 21-265.1



12. Public Excluded Business

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Section 48, LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION and MEETINGS ACT 1987

That:1. The public be excluded from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting,

namely:

PUBLIC EXCLUDED Business

Item 12.1 21-260 Litigation Risk and Legal Issues

Item 12.2 21-269 Strategic Risk Deep Dive Background Report

2. This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information & Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:

Item 12.1 7(2)(h) Maintain legal professional privilege.

Item 12.27(2)(k)

Prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

Audit & Risk Committee 23 November 2021 - Gisborne District ...

Documents

Transcript of Audit & Risk Committee 23 November 2021 - Gisborne District ...