Referendum? What Referendum [Update]

Written by Ben Ross - Talking Auckland

Auckland Council Governing Body to Deliberate on Transport Funding Referenda TODAY

 

vote image

If people would listen to Radio NZ and read blogs more, the Herald article today on Council Officers opposing a referendum on motorway tolling for Auckland would not be in such a total surprise (read here for first break: Referendum on Motorway Tolls Goes Cold)

In any case yes the Governing Body meets TODAY to “ratify” what the Budget Committee passed earlier this month in terms of a 2015-2025 Draft Long Term Plan that will go out for consultation early next year. You can read the Agenda, and Addendum Agenda at the bottom of this post.

What has Facebook going this morning (Twitter is consumed with the affairs of the Prime Minister at the moment) is reports coming out that Council Officers are opposed to the Council holding a referendum next year on whether Auckland should have motorway tolling or not to assist plugging a perceived $12 billion funding gap in our transport projects. That same funding gap that has stalled out as an example the two Manukau and Otahuhu Transport Interchanges as last noted here: Otahuhu and Manukau Transport Interchange Confusion. The situation around the Interchanges as such has sparked off me sending Local Government Official Information and Meeting Act requests to both Auckland Transport and Auckland Council on the matter (see here: LGOIMA MK2s Away With Auckland Council, and Auckland Transport)

 

The details of the referendum I have placed below, otherwise it is item 15 of the main agenda which is embedded at the bottom.

Referendum on transport investment and funding options

File No.: CP2014/26484

Purpose

  1. To receive information about the costs of a referendum and other issues relating to engagement with the public on LTP provisions for transport investment and funding options.

Executive summary

  1. At its meeting on 5 November 2014, the Budget Committee considered a report on “Transport programmes and funding options”.  The Committee resolved:

“That staff report to the next Budget Committee meeting on the costs of a referendum and general issues relating to engagement on this matter.”

  1. A formal referendum would have to be conducted under the Local Electoral Act 2001 which makes specific provision for referendums.  Many of the provisions that exist for the running of elections also apply to the running of a referendum.  Those eligible to vote are all resident and non-resident ratepayer electors on the electoral roll.
  2. The process would involve compiling an electoral roll and making that available for public inspection.  The roll would then be closed and voting packs posted to electors to return over a three week period.
  3. Regardless of whether a referendum is held, a consultation document for the Long-term Plan (LTP) will be delivered to each household for feedback.  Aucklanders will be able to provide feedback using a structured feedback form, through online channels or in person at a range of events.  The referendum would not replace the Council’s separate obligations to consult on the LTP and costs would be in addition to those incurred to support the LTP consultation process.
  4. The total estimated cost of an Auckland-wide referendum is $1.5 million.  This includes the cost of conducting the referendum, approximately $1.10 (plus GST) per elector or in the vicinity of $1.156 million (plus GST), as well as costs relating to advertising and communication of explanatory information other than what is provided in the voting pack.  This cost is estimated to be around $0.3 million based on a similar level of promotion undertaken to support the Unitary Plan process. This assumes only one referendum is required.
  5. If the council wished to conduct a referendum, a further report would be necessary setting out the resolutions required by the Local Electoral Act 2001.
  6. In order for results to be known in time for the Budget Committee meeting on 7 May 2015, the process would need to commence in late January 2015.
  7. Related engagement issues include the need to consult on the LTP at the same time as hold a referendum and the potential for confusion as to whether Aucklanders should take part in one or the other or both.  The LTP process is likely to lead to more informed feedback.
  8. A non-binding referendum has the benefit of informing councillors of the wish of the electorate (or at least those who participate) and councillors can take this into account when making decisions.  However, based on an assessment of the costs and related issues, and given the concurrent LTP process, staff do not recommend that a referendum is used to seek feedback from Auckland electors on transport investment and funding options.
  9. As an alternative, if members are seeking greater clarity about public opinion, in addition to the LTP engagement, we recommend a survey is commissioned. The survey would be statistically reliable and independent and less costly than a referendum.

 

RecommendationsThat the Governing Body:a)      agree to not undertake a referendum to seek feedback from Auckland electors on transport investment and funding options.

b)      direct the Chief Executive to commission an independent statistically reliable survey to help inform choices about transport funding.

 

 

Comments 

Costs

  1. Independent Elections Services advise that the cost of a referendum would equate to $1.10 (plus GST) per elector or in the vicinity of $1.156 million (plus GST).  This includes one A4 double-sided explanatory insert.  As at 23 September 2014 there were 1,043,153 residential electors for Auckland Council and there are currently 403 non-resident ratepayer electors outside the Auckland Council area who would be entitled to vote.
  2. Costs would also arise from additional advertising and communication of explanatory information.  This cost is estimated to be around $0.3 million based on a similar level of promotion undertaken to support the Unitary Plan process.

Example timetable

  1. In terms of timing, if polling day was Friday 24 April 2015:

(a)  Roll would open (28 days before roll closes): 29 January 2015

(b)  Roll would close (57 days before polling day): 26 February 2015

(c)  Delivery of voting documents: 2 – 7 April 2015

(d)  Polling day: 24 April 2015 (results available same day)

(e)  Budget Committee meets to make final decisions for the LTP: 7 May 2015.

Requirements for neutrality

  1. The referendum proposal should be accompanied by appropriate explanatory information and both the proposal and the accompanying explanatory information should be as clear, accurate, and neutral as possible, so that the persons being polled can make a free and reasonably informed decision.  The Council must not attempt to influence the outcome of the referendum by making public statements, or utilizing Council funds/facilities, either in support of or against any particular position.  The Electoral Officer determines what information is appropriate, in consultation with others.
  2. Clause 46 of the Local Electoral Regulations states:

“(1)    The electoral officer may, if he or she considers it appropriate to provide neutral information on the matter or matters that are the subject of a poll, decide that every voting document for that poll that is issued to a voter in person or posted or otherwise delivered to an elector must be accompanied by neutral information on the matter or matters.

(2)     For the purposes of deciding whether to provide neutral information under subclause (1), or ensuring that any information provided is neutral, the electoral officer may seek advice from any person he or she considers appropriate.”

 

 

  1. However, individual elected members are free to express their own views, so long as:

(a)  They make it clear that the views are theirs, not the Council’s

(b)  They consider the results of the referendum with an open mind when making subsequent decisions and

(c)  They do not use Council funds/resources to express their views.

 

Background to previous community engagement

  1. There has been relatively high engagement with Auckland stakeholders on the policy development for alternative funding for transport.  The process to investigate alternative funding for transport infrastructure started in late 2011.
  2. In February 2012 the “Getting Auckland Moving – Alternative Funding Discussion Document” was released and consulted on alongside the 2012-22 Long Term Plan Process.
  3. As a result of that work, in July 2012 Council agreed to bring together an independent group of stakeholders (the Consensus Building Group – CBG) to work on a broad consensus on the funding sources needed to improve Auckland’s transport network.
  4. In April 2013 the CBG released a discussion document “Funding Auckland’s Transport Future”. This second discussion document was the subject of extensive public and targeted stakeholder consultation. This resulted in recommendations to Council in July 2013 on funding pathways that warranted further consideration.
  5. In December 2013, councillors considered a report on the next steps which led to the development of detailed policy and business cases for two potential funding options.
  6. The Independent Advisory Body (IAB) reported to council in October 2014. On the basis of the IAB report the Budget Committee determined to consult on the two funding programmes as a formal part of the 2015-25 LTP process.

Analysis of benefits and cost of a referendum

  1. A referendum has the benefit of informing councillors of the wish of the electorate (or at least of those who vote) and councillors can take this into account when making decisions.
  2. However, after considering the various costs and related issues associated with a referendum, staff do not recommend a referendum is used to seek feedback on the views of Auckland electors on transport investment options and funding options.
  3. This advice is based on the following considerations:

(a)  A referendum would not replace council’s obligation to consult on transport investment and funding options through the LTP process.

(b)  The total cost of the referendum is estimated to be around $1.5 million.  This cost would be in addition to the costs associated with the LTP consultation process.

(c)  The LTP consultation process is likely to be a more effective means of engaging with Aucklanders than a referendum because there is greater flexibility in the provision of information to support the consultation process (delivering more informed feedback) and the LTP process will also engage Aucklanders on the total council budget and the concept of trade-offs across different types of services and investments.  The LTP process also supports better analysis of the feedback received, for example, the ability to understand the differing views of specific segments of the population.

(d)  A referendum is available to electors only; community groups, business associations and other organisations will need to use the LTP consultation process.

(e)  Running two processes to ask about the same issue is likely to be confusing for Aucklanders.

(f)  To ensure the results of the referendum are available to support decision-making, the process of setting up the referendum would need to begin in late January 2015. The timetable would be very tight.

(g)  Undertaking a referendum process in addition to the LTP consultation process would place considerable pressure on staff required to support both processes.

(h)  At the time of writing this report, it is not clear whether one or two referendums would be required. This would be dependent on the information being sought.

Procedural requirements under the Local Electoral Act 2001

  1. The following sets out the requirements of the legislation.

Referendum to be on a proposal

  1. The key provision for conducting referenda is section 9 of the Local Electoral Act 2001.  Subsection 9 (1) provides for a local authority to direct its electoral officer to conduct a referendum on

“(a)           any matter relating to—

(i)      the services that are provided or that may be provided by the local authority; or

(ii)      any policy or intended policy of the local authority; or

(b)     any proposal relating to—

(i)      the current or future activities or objectives of the local authority; or

(ii)      the current or future well-being of its local government area.”

 

  1. In this case, a referendum would relate to a proposal in terms of the Council’s future activities and objectives.

Affected area

  1. Subsection 9 (2) states:

“The local authority—

(a)     must determine whether the matter that is the subject of the referendum affects all or part of its local government area; and

(b)     must direct the electoral officer to conduct the referendum for all or the appropriate electors of the local government area accordingly.”

  1. The Council would direct the electoral officer to conduct the referendum over the whole of the Auckland Council area.

A referendum is a poll

  1. Subsection 9 (5) states:

“A referendum conducted as a consequence of a direction under this section is a poll to which this Act applies.”

  1. Thus, the requirements in the Local Electoral Act 2001 that apply to polls also apply to referenda.

Whether binding

  1. Subsection 9 (7) states:

“The result of any referendum conducted as a consequence of a direction under this section is not binding on the local authority unless it resolves otherwise or any enactment provides otherwise.”

  1. The referendum would be intended to elicit the views of electors on matters which will form part of the LTP.  The results of the referendum would be taken into account by the Council when making decisions on the LTP but should not be binding, if the effect of the referendum would make redundant the Council’s separate LTP consultation process.

Voting method

  1. The Council must determine the voting method.  If there is no determination, the default method is postal voting (s 36).  The Local Electoral Regulations only provides for postal voting or ballot box voting or a combination of the two.

Notice of poll

  1. The same requirements under section 52 that apply to giving notice of elections also apply to polls.  In addition, section 54 further requires:

“In the case of a poll, a notice under section 52 must also—

(a)     state the proposal or subject matter of the poll; and

(b)     in the case of a binding poll, state the consequences of each possible result of the poll; and

(c)     in the case of a non-binding poll, state the intentions (if any) of the local authority or other body on whose behalf the poll is conducted in respect of each possible result of the poll.”

  1. It is necessary to state any intention of the Council as regards to the result of the poll.  The Council would take the results of the referendum into account when making decisions on the LTP.

What voting documents for polls must contain (s 76)

  1. Section 76 sets out what the voting document must contain in terms of giving directions to the voter.
  2. Section 77 states:

“A voting document may not be used at an election or poll unless it is consistent with at least one of the general formats that have been approved for use by the Secretary for Local Government or a person appointed by the Secretary for the purpose of approving formats for voting documents under this section.”

  1. Thus, a voting document must be set out in the prescribed way.

Electoral systems for polls (s35)

“(1)    Every poll conducted for a local authority must be conducted using an electoral system adopted by resolution of the local authority—

(a)     for the purposes of the particular poll; or

(b)     for the purposes of 2 or more polls that are to be conducted at the same time.

(2)      If a poll is to be conducted for a local authority and there is no applicable resolution, that poll must be conducted using the electoral system commonly known as First Past the Post.”

An alternative to a referendum

  1. As an alternative, if committee members are seeking greater clarity about public opinion, in addition to the LTP engagement, we recommend a survey is commissioned. The survey would be statistically reliable and independent and less costly than a referendum.
  2. A survey has the benefits of providing more information to respondents to help inform a more comprehensive response.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

  1. This report provides the Committee with information it has requested on the implications of conducting a referendum.  The views of Local Boards have not been sought.

Māori impact statement

  1. This report provides the Committee with information it has requested on the implications of conducting a referendum.  If a referendum is conducted, there will not be a specific impact on Māori as distinct from the rest of the community.

Implementation

  1. If the Council decides to hold a referendum, the Electoral Officer would need to be instructed to conduct a poll.  This would be administered and run through the Council’s election services provider, Independent Election Services.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors Warwick McNaughton – Principal Advisor – Democracy ServicesTanya Stocks – Programme Director, Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting
Authorisers Marguerite Delbet – Manager DemocracyServicesGrant Taylor – Governance DirectorStephen Town – Chief Executive

 

—————-

Aptly called "The Village Idiot"
Aptly called “The Village Idiot”

Enough for you? Wait there is more with this from Councillor Cameron Brewer that Councillor Cathy Casey agrees on (yep when this happens the Mayor is in trouble):

Cameron Brewer

Mayor needs to deliver on his referendum over toll roads – Media release – Auckland Councillor Cameron Brewer – Sunday, 28 April 2013:

Eighteen months ago Auckland Mayor Len Brown promoted a public referendum over the council’s preferred option to address Auckland’s $12 billion transport funding gap. With the Consensus Building Group set to release a discussion document tomorrow on its proposed additional funding options, the Mayor should recommit to his idea of a referendum following public consultation and the council adopting a position, says Auckland councillor Cameron Brewer.

On 18 October 2011 when the Mayor was talking up the concept of tolling Auckland’s existing motorway network he stated on National Radio that ‘if we had a referendum, then I think that would really clarify things and give a pretty strong mandate over and above the mandate that I already as leader of the city’.

Mr Brewer says following public consultation on the CBG’s discussion document over the next two months and then the CBG’s final recommendation to the council in July, the Mayor should then put any specific funding proposal to the people via a referendum and preferably as part of the postal ballot at this year’s local body elections.

“The Mayor is very keen on the prospect of road pricing in the form of network tolling or congestion charging and believes the public is about ‘about 50-50’ over the idea of paying every time they get on Auckland’s motorway network or pass through a cordon. Well 50-50 is not the strong mandate he is after so once the council endorses a final recommendation in July, the Mayor needs to then deliver on his referendum.”

Mr Brewer believes the Mayor has now backed off his referendum because he is worried about its result following growing public distaste for the likes of tolling the existing motorway network, with the council now only promising ‘separate formal consultation with Aucklanders on any specific proposal to introduce a new form of funding for Auckland’s transport system.’

“Len Brown loves the idea of charging a few dollars every time drivers get on the motorway or pass through a cordon but he knows Aucklanders don’t. He’s now trying to push it through without too much fuss but this could be a major cost imposition on households so it’s definitely worthy of a vote.”

Eighteen months ago the Mayor told an Auckland business lunch that ‘strong community buy-in for tolls in a referendum at the 2013 local body elections would strengthen the case with whoever was in Government’ with commentators at the time commending the Mayor for showing the courage of his convictions and putting his funding solution up for popular vote.

“Well the Mayor now needs to recommit to his own idea of a referendum to give the wider public some confidence that they will be asked and listened to on how to fund Auckland’s future transport projects,” says Mr Brewer.

——

Source: Facebook https://www.facebook.com/cameron.brewer.39/posts/545533745498625?fref=nf

Remembering Council consultation is consultation in all but name 99% of the time……

 

More reactions here: Councillors Unite For the Transport Referendum

 

Of course I podcasted on public transport projects being used as political weapons such as to justify a motorway toll as mentioned here:

Reference: https://voakl.net/2014/11/17/public-transport-projects-being-used-as-political-weapons/

 

The Governing Body Agenda and Addendum Agenda:

 

Thursday it is all on in Town Hall