Slide 1 Mayor Evans, Councillors, staff and community members. Thank you for allowing me to speak here tonight, my name is Sarah McGrath. Slide 2 In the Council’s DL Flyer about the Draft Public Consultation Policy it states: “The Public Consultation Policy and Procedure has undergone scrutiny by the Supreme Court regarding the Coast Park Project, where it was found to be open to debate and legal interpretation.” In fact, Justice Blue’s findings were these:
Slide 3 Justice Blue did not state that the Council’s existing Public Consultation Policy was illegal or unlawful and his interpretation was the proper construction of the law. The Council was required to follow the steps set out in their Public Consultation Policy, but the COUNCIL DID NOT. Slide 4 The error was not in the Public Consultation Policy itself BUT IN THE FACT THAT THE COUNCIL DID NOT FOLLOW THEIR OWN POLICY. This cost ratepayers in the order of $860,000 in direct legal costs alone. In fact, the current PCP is a good one. It is based on the best practice Community Engagement IAP2 standard.
Slide 5 If the Council were honest and open about admitting their mistakes and ensuring Continuous Improvement then surely, they would be adopting the IAP2 Quality Assurance Standard and then COMPLYING with that standard. Slide 6 The council has decided that instead of admitting their mistakes and aiming to continually improve they would lower the bar for Community Consultation to the minimum statutory legal requirement as set-out in the Local Government Act.
Slide 7 In the Summary and Response to Public Submissions Document under the Comments Heading, this was stated 7 times by Council Staff: Slide 8 And this was stated 9 times: However, neither of these ideals are incorporated in the proposed PCP, and therefore are empty, worthless statements, as they are not legally binding. Given the Council’s first-class lawyers, the PCP could be drafted to include these principles and how they would apply in a meaningful way. The final line in the PCP under Part 3 states: “For the avoidance of doubt, there is no obligation on the Council or the CEO to undertake, or to consider whether or not to undertake, any additional or discretionary consultation steps or consultation activities.
Slide 9 This one line is the biggest contradiction in terms of the entire PCP. It is proposed that the CEO and/or Council has absolute discretion for decisions that fall under Part 3 of the PCP, what guarantees against bias by staff and councillors will be made mandatory and why is this important? Slide 10 Ms Cornish admitted under oath in the Supreme Court that “her purpose in deliberately reducing the time for consultation about the management plan was to avoid community groups having a longer period over which to marshal the troops or to lobby.” This is in breach of the principles that apply in the Council’s Consultation Policy and under the Local Government Act.
Under Roles and Responsibilities in the proposed PCP, General Managers are responsible for ensuring their staff comply with this Policy. However, it is clear from Ms Cornish’s evidence that they themselves deliberately breached their consultation policy to minimise consultation. Slide 11 On the Council Meeting of the 26 th of April 2016, item 6.44 Community Land Management Plan – Coastal Reserve was to be voted n. There were 8 deputations made at this meeting about this item. There was no discussion, questions or debate from Councillors about any of the deputations. The resolution was passed. Why is this relevant to Council Bias? Slide 12:
Justice Blue stated “When a decision maker is required to have regard to a matter, it is necessary that the decision-maker give genuine open-minded consideration to the matter and undertake an active intellectual process in considering its impact on the question to be decided.” Council bias was incredibly apparent in this instance, as the following text messages between Mayor Evans, Councillor Randall, Councillor Scheffler and Councillor Waslyenko were disclosed during Discovery related to the Supreme Court Case. Slide 13 Agreements were made prior to Council meetings on who would take the lead and who would second resolutions at that meeting. Note the times of these text messages and that this was sanctioned by the Mayor, prior to the start of the Council Meeting. I sincerely hope that we do not witness Council repeating history tonight. Slide 14
The PCP must include transparency in its reporting to stakeholders. Staff bias was only mentioned once in the Summary and Responses to Public Submissions, yet I know that was mentioned by others in their own submissions including my own. This is again Council staff being biased towards the information they present to council. Slide 15 It was mentioned 6 times in Submissions that timing was hurried and more consideration needed to be given to the PCP. Given the majority of negative feedback provided to Council, it would seem that there is indeed a very strong argument for getting the PCP right the first time. It would be intelligent not to rush it through because of the timing delineated by the minimum legal requirement under the LGA. Slide 16 Actions speak louder than words, and if this proposed PCP is voted upon and passed in its current form, it tells us that the Council has learned nothing, has not listened to the community, and will continue not to listen in the future. That leaves the community and
rate payers with a very reduced say in what our Council does on our behalf, and we only have two choices: 1. Is to take appropriate legal action if required 2. Is to vote the incumbent Mayor and Councillors out at the November elections. Thank you.
Recommend
More recommend
