Waitomo District Council Submission on Local Government Regulatory Performance Issues Paper Inquiry into Local Government Regulatory Performance New Zealand Productivity Commission PO Box 8036 The Terrace Wellington 6143 Waitomo District Council Submission on Local Government Regulatory Performance Issues Paper Introduction 1.1 Waitomo District Council (WDC) welcomes the opportunity to submit on the Local government regulatory performance Issues Paper. 1.2 The submission starts by presenting relevant information about the Waitomo District in order to provide some context to the points made in our feedback. A picture of the District is important, as it is these characteristics – environmental, economic, social and cultural, that have played a role in shaping the regulatory regime developed by Waitomo District Council. 1.3 This submission then goes on to address the five topic areas explored in the Commission’s Issues Paper being • Regulatory responsibilities of local government • Regulatory Variation and its need and importance • Allocation of regulatory roles • Adequacy of regulation-making processes • Assessment of regulatory performance 1.4 This submission does not seek to directly answer each of the 62 questions raised in the Issues Paper. Context 1.5 The Waitomo District encompasses 354,649 hectares of mostly rural land on the west coast of the Central North Island. The District is predominantly contained within the Waikato Region but a small part in the south-eastern corner of the District is within the Manawatu-Wanganui (Horizons) Regional Council’s jurisdiction. It is adjacent to the Otorohanga District to the north, Taupo District to the east and Ruapehu Districts to the south. 1.6 The usual resident population for the District was 9,441 for the 2006 census. The population ranks 61st out of the 73 Districts in New Zealand. The Maori population for the 2006 Census was 38.4% whereas for the whole of New Zealand it was 17.4%. WDC’s Long Term Plan projects the population in the District to be static over the next 10 years, but estimates that further growth is likely to occur in certain parts of the District which are coastal areas of Mokau-Awakino and Te Waitere and the Waitomo Village. This growth in certain pockets of the District could potentially put pressure on the infrastructure available in these communities. 1.7 Te Kuiti is the administrative and main trading centre in the District, with approximately 45% of the District population residing in this town. It is located about an hour south of Hamilton City, the Waikato Region’s main urban centre. 1.8 There are several other smaller settlements located throughout the District, including the popular beach settlements of Mokau, Awakino, Marokopa, Te Waitere and Taharoa. The main rural communities are Benneydale, Piopio and Waitomo Village. 1.9 Waitomo Village (Village) is one of New Zealand’s popular tourist destinations and has been attracting visitors to its labyrinth of glowworm caves for over 100 years. The Village is located 15 minutes from Te Kuiti and 2 hours, 50 minutes from Auckland. Waitomo’s eco-tourism and caving adventures are associated with its world famous limestone caves. 1.10 The District has a strong agricultural base and also contains agricultural industry such as meat freezing works. Dairy farming is increasing in the District and is replacing some pastoral uses. Mining also forms an integral part of the District economy as represented by extensive quarrying operations and mineral extraction from the black sand in the north western part of the District. Abundant quantities of roading aggregate, limestone and coal deposits are also available across the District. 1.11 The Waitomo District Council is a small sized rural Council serving a District where the average income is lower than the national average. The pressures of meeting national standards for various activities are felt more acutely in smaller communities where the benefits of economies of scale do not exist. However, WDC has made considerable efforts in the past 6-7 years to consolidate the delivery of services and to meet the needs of its community on a financially sustainable basis. We are keen to ensure that local government is able to function efficiently and effectively into the future for the benefit of our communities and New Zealand as a whole. The following parts of the submission address the five topic areas discussed in the Issues Paper: Regulatory responsibilities of local government 1.12 Table 2 in the Issues paper lists the regulatory functions undertaken by local government under a central government statute. This list is incomplete. Additional statutes that influence the regulations and functions performed by local government are listed below (and there may well be more) – 1. Forests Act 1949 2. Reserves Act 1977 3. Burial and Cremation Act 1964 4. Property Law Act 2007 5. Residential Tenancies Act 1986 6. Public Works Act 1981 7. Camp Ground Regulations 1985 8. Land Transfer Act 1952 9. Civil Defence Emergency management Act 2002 10. Waste Minimisation Act 2008 11. Climate Change Response Act 2002 12. Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2007 13. Government Roading Powers Act 1989 14. Land Transport Management Act 2003 15. Land Transport Management Amendment Act 2008 1.13 The above statutes are relevant since the Issues Paper defines regulation broadly to cover the full range of legal and informal instruments through which the management of behaviour is sought; of citizens, businesses as well as government itself. Regulatory variation 1.14 It is noted that the Issues Paper acknowledges that regulatory variation is to be expected because of the diversity of local authorities in New Zealand. 1.15 It is true that variation primarily results from the environmental, economic and social differences that exist within a district or a region. For example, the existence of highly productive agricultural land, flood prone areas, forests or an extensive coastline will reflect in the planning, zoning and building regulations of a local authority. The social and economic fabric will also have an impact, for example noise control regulations or speed regulations will differ according to population density. The variation could be in the regulations or the enforcement of these regulations. 1.16 Community preferences also play a very important role in the regulations put in place by local authorities. Basically, local authorities need to and do pay close attention to the needs and wants of the communities they serve, which is also the purpose of local government by statute. Councils’ regulations are partly aimed towards addressing the issues and problems existing in their communities, as they should be. And this can lead to a big difference in the regulations put in place. For example, the issue of street prostitution which is prevalent in South Auckland is a non-issue in Waitomo District. 1.17 Another important factor that could play an important role in regulation and consequently lead to regulatory variation is the state and type of infrastructure available within a local authority. For example, a particular type of wastewater treatment plant or the state of it could lead to certain bylaws and restrictions being put in place for sustainable maintenance of it. 1.18 It is important that local authorities be allowed the discretion to vary regulation to make them ‘fit for purpose’. Providing a broad framework with common measurable parameters nationally does provide the benefit of consistent measurement and assessment. However, even minimum standards need to be approached with caution. Adherence to any minimum standard has a cost implication. What might be quite an acceptable minimum standard (or cost) for one local authority, given the significance of failure (measured by number of people impacted and the potential for the problem to aggregate given close proximity), might be inordinately excessive for a small and widely dispersed community. 1.19 Similar to regulatory variation itself, the charges and costs for a regulatory service vary within local authorities as well, as pointed out in Table 6 of the Issues Paper. This variation could be a result of different socio-economic and geographical factors intertwined with the affordability considerations in that particular community. For example, it is possible, particularly in more densely populated communities or towns, that the actual public benefit of regulation like Dog Control is higher because a potential lapse poses a threat to a larger number of people than in a sparsely populated rural town. Generally speaking, local authorities are steadfast in applying the principles to funding activities. But the principles based approach needs to be and is, balanced (as stated in legislation) with an impact assessment on the current and future well beings of that allocation to get around issues like reducing compliance due to higher compliance costs. Allocation of regulatory roles 1.20 Generally speaking, WDC is of the view that most regulatory functions are best dealt with at a local level because the community needs and expectations are better understood and therefore regulations can be suitably tailored. This is particularly important for regulations like Sale of Liquor, Resource Management, Gambling and Animal Control. The issues and priorities of communities can be quite specific and are best met by locally informed regulations. 1.21 However, there are certain regulations that though locally or regionally administered, benefit from national