PCC 759836 v1 Wellington Regional Governance MartinJenkins Submissions Analysis August 2011 Council Workshop.PDF.pdf

Submissions Analysis of Wellington
Region Governance Review

12 August 2011

Draft Report

Commercial In Confidence
Preface
This report has been prepared for the Wellington region’s councils by Susan Shipley and Sonia
Ogier from MartinJenkins (Martin, Jenkins & Associates Limited). It has been peer reviewed by
Nick Davis.
Our goal is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the organisations we work with. We do
this by providing strategic advice and operational support in the following areas:

Strategy, Transformation & Performance

Policy & Economics

Evaluation & Research.
MartinJenkins was established in 1993 and is 100% New Zealand owned. It is governed by
executive directors Doug Martin, Kevin Jenkins, Michael Mills, Nick Davis and Nick Hill, plus
independent directors Peter Taylor (Chair) and Sir John Wells.

link to page 5 link to page 10 link to page 22 link to page 24 link to page 8 link to page 13 link to page 19

Commercial In Confidence
Introduction
Our brief
1
Last year the Wellington Mayoral Forum commissioned PriceWaterhouseCoopers to
review the current local governance arrangements to establish whether they are
optimal for the Wellington region and its communities into the future.  The report
analysed the present arrangements, highlighted a number of issues and opportunities,
and identified six possible scenarios for the future.
2
Each of the region’s nine councils (four city councils, four district councils and one
regional council) held a consultation process on the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report
and 165 written submissions were received from the public. MartinJenkins was
commissioned by the Mayoral Forum to produce an analysis of those written
submissions gathered from across the region.
Overview
3
This report summarises the key findings of an analysis of 165 written submissions
from the public on the PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) report on its review of
Wellington region governance. It includes important background and contextual
information about the submissions process.  As the submissions from organisations
are generally more in-depth than those received from individuals, the analysis
framework was based on the 28 submissions received from organisations.
4
There was a different pattern of public response across the different councils’ areas.
There was a very low level of response to the invitations from the Hutt City Council,
the Upper Hutt City Council and the Kapiti Coast District Council for public
submissions. This means that there may be some big gaps in the overall picture
provided by this analysis. The particular process followed by each council and the
additional information provided may also have influenced the way that people
responded.  There is large variation in the depth and breadth of responses. This
reflects the broad and open-ended invitation to the public to comment on the PWC
report.  As a result, there are significant limitations on the use of the data for statistical
analysis and this report provides largely qualitative information. However, it does
include indicative patterns of responses which provide insights into the concerns,
issues and ideas conveyed in the public submissions.
5
The submissions from across the Wellington region show a widely held view that
change should be determined by and within the region rather than by central
government.  However, there is no single vision for the Wellington region in the future
and no shared view on what submitters want from their local and regional government.

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   3
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
6
The submissions analysis found that a majority of submissions (69% of those that
state a view) express a preference for change in regional governance arrangements
rather than the status quo. Submissions from several organisations identify
opportunities for the region in embarking on a programme of change and want the
Mayoral Forum to establish some momentum around it. However, many submitters
(individuals and organisations) are concerned that the PWC report does not provide
the evidence base for major change and want more information and analysis of the
various structural options before they come to a view.  So the discussion of submitters’
preferred options for change in this report is indicative only.
7
All submissions were analysed from the viewpoint of whether the submission supports
the retention of the status quo or one of the other Options in the PWC report. Most
submitters indicate that they see the need for change in governance arrangements but
they record a fairly even spread of preferred options for future governance
arrangements (using the six Options in the PWC report).
8
This report looks at the stated reasons for the need for change to regional governance
arrangements and the benefits that might be expected from that change, according to
the submissions.   These include:

Stronger regional leadership

Better management of relationship with central government

Better regional decision making (transport, water in all its forms, natural disaster
response) and strategies that deliver results

A single regulatory authority (or one set of regulations) to reduce compliance
costs and make interacting with councils easier for business and developers

Improved efficiency – economies of scale, reduced duplication, increased focus
on services provided and improved financial management

Improved capability - more technical expertise, enhanced strategic management.
9
Submitters who support retention of the status quo seriously challenge some of the
reasons for change generally cited. The efficiency benefits of amalgamations are
particularly contentious, and for many, that issue forms the major basis of their
rejection of the findings of the PWC report. Supporters of the status quo are not
necessarily arguing a case for ‘no change’ at all but they are not in favour of structural
change at this time.
10
Some commonly held views are evident in the submissions. Wairarapa and
Wellington are seen by people across the region as distinctly different, predominantly
rural and urban areas respectively, separated by geography and lifestyle – they are
understood as different communities of interest. This leads most submitters to the
view that Wellington and Wairarapa’s local government should remain separate to a
4   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
large degree.  Wairarapa submitters are most in favour of a change to the status quo
in local governance arrangements, compared to the other council areas.
11
Business people and business organisations across the region can see
opportunities for reducing compliance costs and increasing the ease of doing
business, by councils either agreeing one set of planning regulations or combining into
fewer authorities.
12
Residents’ submissions reflect a concern that any local government changes will lead
to a review of the current rates system and of local service provision. Many are
concerned about the possibility of higher rates and/or reduced services and want to
see some analysis of the potential impacts of the change options before any decisions
are made.
13
Finally, both opponents and supporters of structural change submit that ‘local
democracy’ must be maintained - and assisted to flourish under any new governance
arrangements.  Many submissions make the case that effective local democracy and
community participation are more important than economic and financial
considerations when evaluating any proposals for change.
Submissions process
14
The Mayoral Forum published the PWC report on Wellington Regional Governance
and invited feedback from the public, through various media.
15
The process for consulting on the findings of the PWC report varied. Some councils
advertised the consultation on their websites and some in local newspapers. Some
Councils also presented additional information and analysis. Some held public
meetings in which speakers gave their views on the Options presented in the PWC
report and others simply relied on a paper-based submissions process.  Appendix 1
has a table that sets out the details.
16
165 unique submissions were received in total. At least 15 of these submissions were
sent to multiple councils but they are counted only once in Table 1, against the local
council (in many cases, a duplicate was sent to the Greater Wellington Regional
Council).

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   5
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Table 1: Submissions received by each council

Individuals
Organisations
Total
Percentage of total
Wairarapa district
25
4
29
18%
councils (3)
Wellington City
8
3
11
7%
Council
Porirua City Council
47
5
52
32%
Greater Wellington
43
13
66
40%
Regional Council

Upper Hutt City
2
2
4
2%
Council
Hutt City Council
2
-
2
1%
Kapiti Coast District
-
1
1
>1%
Council
Total
127
28
165
100%

17
Significantly, there were very different levels of response across the different councils’
areas. The highest number of submissions was to the Greater Wellington Regional
Council (66), followed by Porirua City Council (52) and the three Wairarapa district
councils (29).  Wellington City Council received 11 submissions. Upper Hutt City, Hutt
City and Kapiti District Councils received fewer than five submissions each.  The vast
majority of submissions were made by individuals and 28 were from organisations.
The latter included 15 community organisations, six business organisations, the Public
Service Association, three political organisations/representatives and three service
providers.  A complete list of submitters by council is included as Appendix 2.
18
The particular process followed by each council and the additional information
provided may have influenced the way that people responded.  For example, some
submitters focus exclusively on their choice of the structural Options set out in the
PWC report while others debate the scope of the governance review and argue that it
is premature to be deciding on any options and structures.
6   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
19
The submissions received are from interested individuals and organisations that
decided to respond to the councils’ invitation, and are not based on a statistically
representative sample of the population in the Wellington region. As might be
expected, they provide a wide range of perspectives on Wellington governance issues
and on the need for any change to local government structures. There is large
variation in the depth and breadth of responses. This reflects the broad and open-
ended invitation to the public to comment on the PWC report.
20
In these circumstances, there are substantial limitations on our ability to draw any
statistically-based conclusions from the submissions received.  The constraints on the
use of the data we have gathered from the public submissions are acknowledged.
While we have carefully categorised the submitters’ views and main concerns as
objectively as possible, this does not provide a reliable basis for any quantitative
analysis beyond a count of responses on key points.  Therefore this submissions
report largely provides qualitative information, indicative of the range of submitters’
views on major concerns and issues raised by the PWC report.

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   7
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Key findings
21
Many submitters welcomed the opportunity to be involved in the debate about the
future governance of the Wellington region and commented on the importance of
‘getting it right’. There is a widely held view that change should be determined by and
within the region rather than by central government. However, there is no single
vision for the Wellington region and no shared view on what submitters want from their
local and regional government.
22
The majority of submissions (69% of those that state a view) express a preference for
change in regional governance arrangements rather than the status quo.1
Submissions from several organisations identify opportunities for the region in
embarking on a programme of change and want the Mayoral Forum to establish some
momentum around it.  However, many submitters (individuals and organisations) are
concerned that the PWC report does not provide the evidence base for major change
and want more information and analysis - particularly of the costs and benefits of the
various options - before they come to a view. Many also make the point that a
commitment must be made by all the councils to engage in further consultation with
the public in the region before any decisions are made.
23
An overview of all the submissions indicates that the scope and focus of the current
debate is unclear and many people are confused about what is being proposed.  Their
comments and concerns cover governance frameworks and principles, local
government structures and accountability, rates systems and delivery of services, and
many other things.  Some are clearly reacting to a perceived imminent threat of the
imposition of a super-city model like Auckland’s.  Others take the view that there is no
point in changing anything unless it can be demonstrated to be more cost-effective
than the status quo.
24
The Options described in the PWC report and expanded on in the GWRC papers
provide a focus for the discussion for some submitters but they are not seen
necessarily as discrete options, and some options may have been misunderstood.
Because there is no common view on the drivers of change, or agreement on the
principles and criteria against which the Options might be evaluated, many submitters
found it difficult to decide on a preferred Option.  This means that the discussion of the
submitters’ preferred options for change in this report is indicative only. Many
submissions emphasised that much more information is required and thorough
consultation with the community must take place before any options are ready to be
put to a decision.

1 It is noted that the status quo also includes opportunities for change, while retaining current structures.
8   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
25
An understanding of all aspects of the issues around ‘community of interest’ is a key
part of any decision about proposals for change to governance arrangements. The
submissions show that people have very different expectations about what it means to
live in the Wellington region or in a part of it. Individual residents have different
expectations of local government and value different things about living in their local
area.  Discussions about local government reorganisation go to the heart of people’s
sense of place and of ‘belonging’.  This presents an important diversity of views and
frameworks which are inherently difficult to capture in a descriptive report such as this.
26
Despite all of the above factors, some commonly held views are evident in the
submissions:
     Wairarapa and Wellington are seen by people across the region as distinctly
different, predominantly rural and urban areas respectively, separated by geography
and lifestyle – they are understood as different communities of interest. This leads
most submitters to the view that Wellington and Wairarapa’s local government should
remain separate to a large degree.  (It is also generally acknowledged that Wellington
and Wairarapa are economically bound together and that regional transport links are
joint in nature).
Wairarapa – most Wairarapa submissions (84%) state that there is a need for
change. Around half of Wairarapa submitters are in favour of combining their three
district councils, whether as an end point or as an intermediate stage in the evolution
of local government.  Submitters that want to keep the status quo express support for
greater collaboration between existing councils.
Porirua – many submitters express concerns about losing their local identity in a
larger regional entity which would be dominated by Wellington city.  Some
submissions also make suggestions for mitigating this, such as the retention of the
Village Planning programme and its integration into regional planning.
Business people and business organisations across the region can see
opportunities for reducing compliance costs and increasing the ease of doing
business, by councils either agreeing one set of planning regulations or combining into
fewer authorities.
Residents anticipate that any local government changes will lead to a review of the
current rates system and of local service provision. Many are concerned about the
possibility of higher rates and/or reduced services and want to see some analysis of
the potential impacts of the change options before any decisions are made.
Local democracy – there is also a lot of concern expressed by both opponents and
supporters of change that ‘local democracy’ must be maintained - and assisted to
flourish under any new governance arrangements.  Many submissions make the case

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   9
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
that effective local democracy and community participation are more important than
economic and financial considerations when evaluating proposals for change.
The need for change
27
Many submissions are critical of the PWC report on a number of grounds but in
particular for applying an economic or efficiency focus to questions of regional
governance.  Several challenged the PWC report’s assertion that larger authorities
and organisations are more efficient and therefore could potentially achieve savings
and be more cost effective. Many submitters make the point that ‘bigger is not
necessarily better’.  Many also take the view that the political representation and
community engagement functions of local government are more important
considerations than organisational efficiency.
28
For some, the PWC report provides a convincing case for the need for change.
However, many submitters are concerned that the report does not provide enough
information, evidence or analysis of the options to enable an informed debate to
happen.  For these submitters, people need access to:

A clear case for the need for change which is evidenced-based and independent.

An agreed set of criteria to assess options against (suggestions made include
Local Government Act, GWRC principles of governance, PSA guideline
developed for Auckland,  HPSTED2, ecologic principles for collaborative
governance).

Options that clearly articulate how issues will be addressed and therefore what
outcomes should be expected. This should be backed up by evidence-based
analysis including costs and benefits analysis.

Other options should be presented that are not based on structural change (e.g.
boundary changes). And all options need to be further detailed (e.g. they should
include proposed electoral processes and voting mechanisms – these are inter-
twined issues).
29
There is some confusion among submitters about the reasons for proposing changes
to Wellington regional governance now, and who is driving the change. There is some
concern that PWC did not consult with residents as part of their consultation with
stakeholders in the development of the report.  There is a fear that a short-term
perspective is being taken when there is a need to think long-term about the
governance of the Wellington region. This led some submitters to choose the status
quo option and advocate that more time be taken to consider the longer term issues
before embarking on major change.  Others believe that if they don’t choose to

2  Regional Public Health recommends using HPSTED, a framework with 14 dimensions that link environmental design
and community health and wellbeing.
10   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
support a structural change option now, they may miss the opportunity to have some
say in the future (which is going to happen regardless).  So people’s perceptions of
where we are in the change process and why, and whether the focus is firmly on the
long term benefits of change or on reacting to short term pressures, may have had an
impact on their submissions and choice of Options at this time.
30
All 165 written submissions were examined with respect to whether they see a need
for change to governance arrangements for the Wellington region or not. Of those,
145 give information which is able to be categorised and are distributed as follows:
Table 2: Submitters’ views on whether or not change is needed to the status quo
Yes, there is a need for change to the status quo
100
(69%)
No, there is no need to change the status quo
  26
(18%)
Undecided but not opposed to change

  8
(5.5%)
No indication given

11
(7.5%)
TOTAL
145
(100%)

31
Wairarapa submitters are most in favour of a change to the status quo (21 out of 25
submitters or 84%) and Porirua submitters least in favour of change (26 out of 43
submitters or 60%).  Submitters to the Greater Wellington Regional Council (37 out of
56 or 66%) were close to the average across all councils. Based on only 10
submissions to Wellington City Council, submitters are 80% in favour of change to the
status quo.  The other councils received fewer than five submissions each.
Reasons for the need for change
32
These are typical points made by submitters who see a need for change to the status
quo:

Local government is too fragmented - an amalgamation of the three district
councils would strengthen the Wairarapa

A structure that brings the Wairarapa councils together will be more efficient and
improve the capability available

It is imperative to move away from the status quo which is too expensive and
lacking coordinated leadership to carry the region forward

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   11
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence

A new model needs to be efficient and effective, provide an overall plan for the
region and have a coherent structure

Businesses operating across the Wellington region currently face compliance
costs associated with the need to understand and deal with different district
plans, standards and other regulations

Different councils won’t agree unless there is overall governance by one
organisation

We would benefit from greater cooperation and coordination at a regional level
but not at the expense of local democracy

We don’t have the skills and expertise within the Wairarapa to bring irrigation
projects to fruition.  Such projects will need to be owned and led on a regional
basis.
33
Many submitters who support change to regional governance arrangements cite the
expected benefits from change.  The benefits identified can be summarised as:

Stronger regional leadership

Better management of relationship with central government

Better regional decision making and strategies that deliver results

Better regional planning (transport, water in all it’s forms, natural disaster
response)

A single regulatory authority (or one set of regulations) to reduce compliance
costs and make interacting with councils easier for business and developers

Improved efficiency – economies of scale, reduced duplication, increased focus
on services provided and improved financial management

Improved capability - more technical expertise, enhanced strategic management.
34
The need for stronger regional leadership lies at the heart of the issues facing the
region, according to many submissions. The current GWRC is seen as lacking the
mandate and powers to provide that leadership and a stronger regional voice is
required.  This also manifests itself in a sub-optimal management of the region’s
relationship with central government.

The GWRC falls too short of ensuring that decisions taken at the territorial local
authority level are compatible with regional strategies and programmes. The
region is managed by nine authorities and the principle of subsidiarity does not
apply (40)

Wellington needs a strong unified voice to develop, e.g. transport infrastructure
developments currently serve local interests rather than the whole (144)
12   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence

The Wellington region could be better positioned to influence central government
– and other leadership models could be explored (19)

The region needs to agree transport priorities so that it can convince third parties
to change the funding parameters (40)

Need to forge a strong Wellington identity and voice to keep up with Auckland
and Christchurch when it is rebuilt. (47) (50) (61) (91)
35
Better regional decision-making is required for better regional planning and the
need to develop regional strategies that deliver results, according to submissions that
favour a change to current governance arrangements.  For example:

Better quality decision-making is needed for the region – this is a key issue.
Currently too many sub-optimal decisions from a regional perspective because of
territorial battles (39)

Too much fragmentation means infighting and inferior judgements. A single
unitary authority would be able to take the broader view and be more objective,
making better decisions (91)

Should explore and agree the role and priority of the Wellington CBD in relation to
other CBDs in the regional and in the context of wider regional economic
development (45)

Agree with the PWC report that there is inherent planning dysfunctionality in the
current legislative framework. (40) (106)

Support a hierarchy (national, regional, local) of mandatory policies and plans
which set binding minimum standards for the next, lower level (30)

A spatial planning approach and decision-making are supported (19) (45)

Integrate Village Planning with the process of spatial planning across the region
(64)

Issues affect people across city/council boundaries – we should look for solutions
that would give the greatest benefit to the most people, in the most efficient way.
It affects water, land management, economic development, environmental
protection, road transport and sports facilities (42)

Need to think collectively about services for the whole region – take an overall
view of development needs and get away from councils being competitive which
leads to ‘nice to have’ rather than essentials (100)

Local land planning often doesn’t reflect regional interests (30)

Water would benefit from more effective regional planning. GWRC and other
TLAs are not participating in Capacity which runs water services for Wellington
and Hutt.  This should be a regional activity (40)

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   13
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence

All regulatory roles should sit together and be managed by one body in an
integrated way – because of the inter-twined nature of managing: water, land use,
transport and biosecurity. For example, coastal management depends on land
and water management. (141)
36
One set of regulations for business - whether after some local council
amalgamations or with the establishment of a unitary authority, it would be beneficial
to minimise or eliminate variations in rules and regulations, and to harmonise
procedures between councils.

Fragmented government means that businesses must deal with a variety of
authorities (40)

A single regulatory authority could harmonise regulations, standards and
procedures to make a simpler, more efficient system for developers and others
(72)

We need to encourage new enterprise and discourage existing businesses from
moving off-shore so we need to reduce these types of compliance costs (118)

A single council would provide a single set of rules and point of contact for
businesses – a one-stop shop making it much easier to do business. (39)
37
More efficient and effective regional governance arrangements will likely lead to
improvements in service delivery, asset management and financial management,
according to many submitters.

Rationalisation of local government in Wellington is essential to achieve efficiency
gains, allow better planning and give us a chance to compete with the new
Auckland (31)

It’s reasonable to expect some economies of scale by some form of
amalgamation (45)

Combine areas of operations and administration where appropriate, removing
duplications (98) (100) (110) (111) (160)

Combine services and have fewer Mayors and Councils (64)

Need a structure (like a super city) that would keep costs in line with services and
be able to manage a fairer distribution of resources than local councils can (112)

Need better regional management of the three waters that increases efficiency,
builds resilience and substantially reduces energy inputs and costs. (142)
38
Improved capability available to councils and council operations by amalgamating
authorities. This would also support economic development in the region.

A single Wairarapa council would be able to attract good quality staff (including
specific skill areas) and improve staff capability (13) (15)
14   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence

Option 5 would provide opportunities to employ more specialist staff across the
region. (65)
No need for change to the status quo
39
There are some typical points made by submitters who do not see the need for
change to the status quo:

Keep local councils to deal with local issues

The current system works well and effectively reflects the needs, values and
desires of its residents

The status quo includes the opportunity to transfer some infrastructure
responsibilities to the GWRC and to amalgamate some operations if that would
be beneficial

Structural change is not going to fix any of the issues that the region faces

The case for change hasn’t been made – the PWC analysis is insufficient and not
specific to the needs of Wellington.
40
Submitters who support retention of the status quo seriously challenge some of the
reasons for change generally cited by its supporters. The efficiency benefits of
amalgamations are particularly contentious and for many, that issue forms the major
basis of their rejection of the PWC report. Proponents of change also acknowledge
that efficiencies and savings are by no means guaranteed. Some submitters hold the
view that the status quo can be adapted and improved without the costs and
disruption of major change.  The following points made in submissions illustrate that
supporters of the status quo are not necessarily arguing a case for ‘no change’ in local
council management – but in some cases, they still need to be convinced.

Keep the status quo and improve accountability to the public for outcomes –
make management responsibilities more transparent (26)

Keep the status quo and get the finances in order and secure efficiencies (76)

The PWC report assumes that bigger is better and does not reflect the views of
residents associations, ratepayers and consumers of council services... Efficiency
and effectiveness are not necessarily achieved through shared services and just
because most may see ‘a necessity for change’ does not mean that any set of
changes will be better overall. (30)
41
Some submitters are in favour of other non-structural ways of making changes which
will provide benefits to the Wellington region (e.g. boundary changes, alignment of
regulations and procedures).

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   15
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
The need for effective local representation
42
Effective local representation is a major theme in submissions from both those who
support change to governance arrangements and those who are opposed to change.
43
Many submissions make the point that statistics show that the Wellington region is
over-governed at present and that a simplified structure could deliver better results.
However, others say that effective local representation is their most important concern
and must be at the centre of any proposals to restructure local government. These
views are not necessarily mutually exclusive but do reflect some key tensions in the
development of proposals for change.
44
There is a fear of disempowerment running through some of the individual
submissions. Access to local councillors and officials is highly valued by many people
who see that as their route to a remedy for particular problems. Local councils are
seen by others as an essential element in giving a voice to community concerns, and
the prime mechanism for community engagement and participation in decision-
making.  A few submitters challenge this view, saying that effective community
engagement does not necessarily equate with local representation – particularly as
the internet and social media are increasingly available to all.
45
Several submissions are concerned that Iwi need to be appropriately represented in
any new regional governance arrangements and that the Treaty of Waitangi is
acknowledged.  It is also important that Maori participate early in the process of
change.  However, other submitters don’t support particular Maori representation on
future councils.
46
Wairarapa submissions in particular make the point that rural areas would find it
harder to be heard in a bigger, unitary authority and suggest that rural representation
be built in to any new local government structures.
47
Four submissions expressed strong negative views about either the current
Community Boards in South Wairarapa or in principle, objected to a second layer of
community governance structure. However, others were interested in exploring the
concept further, either as an adjunct to larger regional council structures, or as a
potentially new basis for sustainable communities.
48
It should be noted that, in sharp contrast to those submitters who put effective local
representation at the forefront of their concerns, there are also several individual
submissions that assess local government structures against a single criterion:
efficient and effective service delivery. One submitter puts it succinctly:

People don’t really care who provides the services as long as there is a good
level of service.  So the shape of local government is less important than its
ability to provide efficient and effective services. (50)
16   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence

Structural options
49
Most submitters (69%) indicate that they see the need for change in governance
arrangements but they record a fairly even spread of preferred options for future
governance arrangements (using the six Options in the PWC report).
All submissions were analysed from the viewpoint of whether the submission supports
the retention of the status quo or one of the other Options in the PWC report. The
results are set out in Table 3 below. Note that the count is of the Preferred Option of
submitters, although a few put some caveats on their support for that option.  A small
number of others wanted to combine aspects of the different options and these have
been categorised as far as possible in the Option first mentioned (most submitters in
this instance nominated Option 3 with another). It also seems likely that there was
some blurring of Option 3 and Option 4, taking into account submitters’ comments.
Table 3: Preferred option for future governance arrangements

Number and % of submissions in favour
Option 1  Status quo
27
(17%)
Option 2 Strengthen regional council
17
(11%)
Option 3 Local clusters/amalgamation
19
(12%)
Option 4 Two tiers

30
(19%)
Option 5 Two unitary authorities
19
(12%)
Option 6 Single unitary authority
19
(12%)
No preferred option yet
19
(12%)
None of the options
  8
( 5%)
TOTAL
158
(100%)

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   17
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
50
Note that Federated Farmers recorded three different preferred options for change on
behalf of its members: Options 3, 4 and 5. Their submission is not counted in Table 3.
51
It should also be noted that 15 submissions explicitly recorded their opposition to
Option 6 a single unitary authority for the Wellington region (the ‘super-city model’).
52
Wairarapa has a greater proportion of its submitters in favour of Option 3 than the
average across all councils (in some cases, combined with Option 2 or Option 4).
There is evidence of some interest in Option 5 which would involve a sub-regional
unitary authority for the Wairarapa but others doubt that it would be financially viable.
No Wairarapa submissions mention a preference for Option 6 in the short term.
53
Porirua submissions broadly follow the average pattern of responses set out in Table
3.  Submissions to the GWRC are slightly more likely than the average to favour
Option 2, Option 4 or Option 6.
Specific ideas that could be developed further
54
Several submissions were in favour of establishing a new spatial planning framework
that would go beyond traditional land use planning and integrate land use, urban
planning transport and infrastructure. Under a unitary authority it would be an
important tool to start addressing the social, economic, environmental and cultural
dimensions of wellbeing.

A spatial plan with statutory backing would provide the certainty and timeliness
necessary to foster the conditions for improved profitability for businesses and job
opportunities for workers (40)

Spatial planning is a positive response to declining global and regional capacity to
use fossil fuels. (142)
55
Some submissions by organisations and individuals wanted to create a much stronger
future focus for the vision for the Wellington region and consequently, for the analysis
of local governance requirements and possible structures.

Decision-making is based on advice that looks at past trends and short-term
predictions. There is a need to look for futures thinking advice. The recent
changes in the world’s finances, climate change and peak oil suggest that the
past is not a good predictor for the future. (165)
56
Several submitters advocated a review of the effectiveness of existing unitary
authorities such as Gisborne and Nelson-Tasman, in order to inform the next stage of
discussion.
18   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
57
Porirua City has a Village Planning programme which could be investigated and
perhaps used as part of a two-tier local government structure or a unitary authority.
58
A research organisation suggests that a charter could be agreed between community
groups and councils to establish a framework for meaningful relationships.
59
More use of Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) in the future could facilitate
planning and implementation of solutions to complex problems.

All public transport and bulk water supply should be given to a CCO, owned by
the councils, to run – they will have the expertise necessary to deliver a quality
service. (126)
A service provider (NZBUS) relates its own recent experience:

Dealing with a CCO in Auckland has resulted in rapid and efficient planning and
implementation – the speed of this is unprecedented and the transport
bottlenecks will be more quickly overcome as a result.  CCOs seem to be more
insulated from the influence of politics and hence better able to look to the overall
good rather than to local considerations (e.g. dairy owner influencing community
board to keep parking outside their shop which is on a major arterial road). (122)
However, there are opposing views among submitters:

There should be no CCOs – this looks like empire building.  Proper commitment
by elected representatives should negate any need for them. (156)
60
Many submissions discussed the importance of improving communications between
local government and the public, and thereby improving community engagement in
decision-making. Technology could be used to much greater advantage than at
present and increase access whichever structural solution is ultimately adopted.
There is the potential for communications technology to transform the public’s
relationship with local governance in future.

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   19
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Appendix 1
Submissions process used by each council

Advertised
Additional material
Public Meeting
Submission format
Submissions period
Wairarapa district councils:

  GWRC paper on Options
Three councils joint hearing 11
  Written
4 weeks?
Aug 2011.
Masterton, Carterton and
  Smarter Government
  Oral (11/ 8)

South Wairarapa
Smarter Communities.
[are these just requests?].
Period closed 30 Jun 2011.
Wellington City Council
Website
X
Regular Council Strategy and
Written.
26 Nov 2010 – 11 Feb 2011.
Policy meeting
17 Feb 2011.
Porirua City Council

Summary of six Options in
Community Forum with six
Written – with forms available to
Period closed 30 June 2011.
PWC report
speakers
complete.
Regional Governance Review  23 June 2011.
webpage information
Active promotion of the
submissions process through
communications to
stakeholders.
Wellington Regional Council

GWRC paper on Options
X
Written.
Period closed 30 Jun 2011.
Principles of good
governance
Summary assessment of the
options v Auckland’s Royal
Commission criteria.
20   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence

Advertised
Additional material
Public Meeting
Submission format
Submissions period
Upper Hutt
Website.
Brief summary of Options.
X
Written.
Six weeks to 30 June 2011.
Hutt City Council

X
X
Written.
4 May 2011 -  30 Jun 2011.

Kapiti Coast District Council  Website with
X
X
Written.
8 Dec 2010 – 11 Feb 2011.
online form
provided.

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   21
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Appendix 2  List of submitters by council
Council
Number
Submitter
Category
Wairarapa
1
EB Watkins
Individual
2
Brent Goodwin
Individual
3
Bridget Canning
Individual
4
Jamie, Georgie and
Individuals
Philippa Falloon
5
Michael Bott and
Individual on behalf of
Wairarapa Labour
Wairarapa Labour
6
Mike Grace and Stephanie  Individuals
Turner
7
Frank Cody
Individual
8
Liz Waddington
Individual
9
Gerald Tait
Individual
10
Alan Sadler
Individual
11
Ron and Sue Southey
Individuals
12
Wairarapa Development
Business representatives
Group [Governance

Review]**
13
R J Dunlop
Individual
14
Nigel Boniface
Individual
15
Anders and Emily Crofoot
Individuals

22   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Council
Number
Submitter
Category

16
Federated Farmers
Business representatives
17
Neil and Greg
Individuals
Montgomerie-Crowe
18/135
Emily Greenberg
Individual
19
Matt Adams
Individual
20
S V Barton
Individual
21/132
Perry Cameron
Individual
22
Wairarapa Chamber of
Business representatives
Commerce
23
Rex McKay
Individual
24
Minty Hunter
Individual
25
Michael Hewison
Individual
26
Alan Roy
Individual
27
Nancy Sutthoff
Individual
28
David Johnson
Individual
28 B
Roddy McKenzie
Individual
Total
29

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   23
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Council
Number
Submitter
Category
Wellington
29
Miles Athea
Individual
30/35/167
Michael Taylor
Individual
31
Charles Finny
Individual
32
Curtis Nixon
Individual
33
Francis Hyland
Individual
34
Gordana Vukomanovic
Individual
36
Ngaire Oliver
Individual
37/97/180
PSA
Unions
38
Roland Oliver
Individual
39/162
Wellington Chamber of
Business representatives
Commerce
40/103
Wellington Civic Trust
Community
representatives
Total
11

Porirua
41
John Seddon JP
Individual
42
Pukerua Bay Residents’
Community
Association
representatives
43/152
Rob Partridge
Individual
24   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Council
Number
Submitter
Category

44
Canopy Connections
Business representatives
45
Porirua Chamber of
Business representatives
Commerce
46
George Seconi
Individual
47
Jenny Brash
Individual
48
Brian McKeon
Individual
49/131
NZ Social and civic policy
Research organisation
institute
50
Jim Dearsly
Individual
51
Karen Apperley
Individual
52
Beryl Hawthorne
Individual
53
Frederick McMahon
Individual
54
Dr Judith Whitcombe
Individual
55
Barbara Blanchard
Individual
56
Margaret Faulkner
Individual
57
Kay M Paget
Individual
58
Christine J Jacobson
Individual

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   25
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Council
Number
Submitter
Category

59
David A Heather
Individual
60
Te Runanga
Iwi
61
Derek M Shepherd
Individual
62
Gordon J Robinson
Individual
63
Katherine M Smith
Individual
64
Robyn Moore and Julian
Individuals
Meadow
65
Pip Piper
Individual
66
Cannons Creek Residents  Community
Association
representatives
67
Mary Galliven
Individual
68
Shirley I Cherrie
Individual
69
Jenny Williamson
Individual
70
Bruce Twidle
Individual
71
Michael Ansteih
Individual
72
A R Branson
Individual
73
Dr John Wren and Robyn-
Individuals
Jane Wren
26   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Council
Number
Submitter
Category

74
Kilian V de Lacy
Individual
75
David Bradford
Individual
76
Maurice J Field
Individual
77
Donald Borrie
Individual
78
Arthur Graves
Individual
79
Peter Davies
Individual
80
Jenny McLeod
Individual
81
Garry Ferguson
Individual
82
Ray
Individual
83
Megan Sarty
Individual
84
Greg Hall
Individual
85/100
Bryan Helm
Individual
86
Egon Gutke
Individual
87
John Watson
Individual
88
Brian Mosen
Individual

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   27
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Council
Number
Submitter
Category

89
Graeme Ebbett
Individual
90
Russell Morrison
Individual
91
M J Williams
Individual
92
Clive Millanta
Individual
Total
52

Greater Wellington
93
Gillian Hunt
Individual
Regional Council
94
Marian Emma Brooks
Individual
96
OneWellington
Community
representatives
98
Janet Macdonald
Individual
99
Possibilitiez
Community
representatives
102
Phil Hayward
Individual
104
Dr John Munro
Individual
105
Edwin Crampton
Individual
107
Wayne Perkins
Individual
108
Dorothy Baker
Individual
109
Stuart Taylor
Individual

28   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Council
Number
Submitter
Category

110
Alwyn Parry
Individual
111
Solveig Mikkelsen
Individual
112
Elizabeth Tremayne
Individual
113
Crimestoppers
Service provider
114
Linda Mead
Individual
115
Lance Wiggins
Individual
116
John Dalziell
Individual
117
Phil Malpas
Individual
118
Roger Walker
Individual
119
Sandy Ryan
Individual
120
Peter Petterson
Individual
122
NZBUS
Service Provider
123
The City is Ours
Community representative
124
Simeon Copsey
Individual

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   29
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Council
Number
Submitter
Category

125
Pam Hanna
Individual
126
Max and Saria Shierlaw
Individual
127
Barry Kelliher
Individual
128
Rosamund Averton
Individual
129
Ben Zwartz
Individual
130
Phil and Jenny Dickson
Individual
133
John Carruthers
Individual
134
Nigel Tapitklis
Individual
136
Jason Markham
Individual
137
Mary & Maurice Brown
Individual
138
Miramar / Maupuia
Community
Progressive Association
representatives
139
Wellington Residents’
Community
Coalition
representatives
140
Green Party
Elected representatives
141
Paula Warren
Individual

30   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Council
Number
Submitter
Category

142
Liz Springford
Individual
143
Phys Phillips
Individual
144
Philip Harland
Individual
145
Frank Cook
Individual
146
Dr Margaret Gordon
Individual
147
Maria Gobbi
Individual
148
Rob Tomkies
Individual
149
Alan Jamieson
Individual
150
Colin Clench
Individual
151
Petone Community Board   Elected representatives
153
Alison Hoffman
Individual
154
Mark Gobbi
Individual
155
A J Barton
Individual
156
Albie Gaskin
Individual
157
Allan and Sarah
Individual
158
Gervasio Lavo
Individual

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   31
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Council
Number
Submitter
Category

159
Ray and Karen Stewart
Individual
160
Nancy Buckley
Individual
161
Tracey Weir
Individual
163
Chris Parkin
Individual
164
Regional Public Health
Service provider
168
Kahungunu Wairarapa
Iwi
169
Bernard Harris
Individual
170
Normandale Residents
Community
Association
representatives
171
Dr Marie O’Sullivan
Individual
172
Tom LeGrice
Individual
173
Victoria University
Research organisation
Total
66

Upper Hutt
174
Helene Ritchie
Elected representative
175
Lynne McLellan
Individual
176
Roz Brown
Individual
177/ 178/ 165/ 166
Transition Town Upper
Community
Hutt
representatives
Total
4

32   Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review

12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.

Commercial In Confidence
Council
Number
Submitter
Category
Kapiti
179/ 106
Grey Power
Community
representatives
Total
1

Hutt City
181/121
Barbara Branch
Individual
182/95
Alan Waller
Individual
Total
2

Submissions Analysis of Wellington Region Governance Review   33
12 August 2011 3.56 p.m.