living wage aotearoa new zealand

SUBMISSIONS

Volume 6 (602 - 642)

No. Name Organisation Page Number

1 Jono Wood 21

2 Jamie Stewart 25

3 Alistair Sutton 29

4 Donald S McDonald 34

5 Dean Stanley Royal Port Nicholson Yacht Club 38

6 Sridhar Ekambaram 51

7 Jean Anderson Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand Charitable Trust 52

8 Alastair Scott 117

9 Margaret Carruthers 118

10 Jennie Henton 123

11 Christian Williams 128

12 Nicci Wood 133

13 Rachel Hargreaves 138

14 Angela Farrell Fluriode Free Families 143

15 Graham Weir 145

16 Sandra Simpson 150

17 Louis Schmitt Waterside Karori Association Football Club (Inc) 155

18 Finn Stallmann 156

19 Hayley Robinson 162

20 Oliver du Bern 167

21 Linda Cardiff Nature Connections 172

22 Mike Smith 177

23 Heather Marion Smith and David Tranter

Democrats for Social Credit179

24 Elliott Ramsden 181

25 Erinna Gilkison 182

26 Stephen Shepherd 187

27 Renee Rushton 192

28 David Stevens 197

29 Daniel Warsaw 202

30 Jenny Cossey 207

31 Claire Pascoe 212

32 Graham Howell Beneficiary Education Advisory Service Inc 217

33 Pat McNair 222

34 Steve Walshe 226

35 Rosamund Averton 227

36 Eric Chin 243

37 Rosi Zeiske 244

38 Penny Holman 245

39 Miranda Struthers 247

40 Andy Gow 248

41 Dave O'Brien 249

42 Karena Brown NZ Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU)

250

43 Andrew Dickinson‐Smith 253

44 Brittany Peck 259

45 Donna Drinkwater 264

46 Christoph Hackenberg 269

47 Michael Dutton 274

48 Colby Raley 279

49 Nicci Tong Room Space Design 284

50 Helen Chapman 285

51 Jonathan Zukerman 290

52 Cindy Jemmett 295

53 Frances Russell 300

54 Ed Haszard Morris 305

55 Blair Brooker 310

56 Andrew Evans 315

57 Willemijn Vermaat 320

58 Patrick McKenna 327

59 Prudence Stone Smokefree Coalition 332

60 Marilyn Northcotte Pedal Ready 337

61 Nadine Dodge 342

62 Henry Peach 374

FANNZ

63 Rob Holmes 379

64 Geoff Simmons 384

65 Jude Murdoch Electricity Authority 389

66 Clare Gillard 394

67 John Parker 399

68 Mathew Walsh 405

69 Hannah Morgan‐Stone 410

70 Bill Vella 411

71 Lou Gallagher Ministry for Primary Industries 412

72 Matt Barnett 413

73 Malcolm Wood 414

74 David Laing Sustained Consulting 415

75 Teresa Maguire 416

76 Emma Bassett 417

77 Matthew Lawrence Alcatel‐Lucent 418

78 Andrew Partlin 419

79 Karen Hofmann‐Body 420

80 Jean‐Marie O'Donnell 421

81 Thomas Stokell 422

82 Rev Brian Dawson The Anglican Parish of St Peter’s on Willis 423

83 Carrie Buckmaster 425

84 Natalie Beardsworth 426

85 Bernie Napp 427

86 Christina Bellis 428

87 Stephen Coppard 433

88 Janet Young 439

89 Christina Bellis Sustainability Trust 444

90 Julie Moularde 449

91 Tom Lynskey 454

92 Helen Taylor 459

93 Tim Holman 464

94 Lincoln Mackay 469

95 Simon Morris 474

96 David Bevan‐Smith 479

97 Trevor Crosbie Safe Water Alternative New Zealand 484

98 Helen Waddington 485

99 Margaret Zarifeh 487

100 Max Rashbrooke 488

101 Nathan Rose 489

102 Daniel Roh Donghwi 491

103 Ha Nguyen 492

104 Fiona McCauley 493

105 Maureen Mooney 494

106 Huia Welton 495

107 Alastair Baldwin 497

108 Ross Miller 498

109 Toni Carson 499

110 Philip Grimmett 500

111 Patricia Kane 501

112 Ashley Holwell 502

113 Michael Denton 503

114 Dr Kathleen Logan 504

115 Justine Goode 505

116 Raquel Marty Frocks on Bikes 506

117 Stan Litras Fluoride Information Network for Dentists (FIND) 511

118 Sarah Adams 516

119 Gert Verhoog 521

120 Anna Carter 526

121 Rimu Atkinson 531

122 Rob Fall 536

123 Charles Barrie 541

124 Pierre Lagace 546

125 Mathew Cole 551

126 Helen Edwards 556

127 Mike O'Neil 561

128 Katie Isaacs 566

129 Jesse Matthews 571

130 Aidy Sanders 576

131 Amelia Smith 581

132 Rachel Hogg 586

133 Judith Ball 591

134 Kathryn Maloney 596

135 Emma Roache 601

136 Beba McLean 606

137 Samuel Kempthorne 611

138 Steve Graham 616

139 Tom Halliburton 621

140 Emma Woods 626

141 Philippa Boardman 631

142 Paul Watson 636

143 Judith Ball Public Health Association, Wellington Branch 641

144 Andrew Cohen 648

145 Mandy Zukerman 653

146 Geoff Nicholls 658

147 Alex Dyer 663

148 Marion Lienert 665

149 Ian Bennett 666

150 Mike Camden 667

151 Simon Antliff 668

152 Brett Longley 669

153 Kathleen Wright Storypark 671

154 Joshua Vial 672

155 Rev Norman Wilkins On behalf of the Parish Council of St Andrew’s on The Terrace 673

156 Phil Squire Sustainability Trust 675

157 Paul Bruce 676

158 Frank Pega 680

159 Kolja Schaller 681

160 Janet Weir 682

161 Torrey McDonnell 687

162 Paul Hawkes NZEI Te Ngaio Tu 688

163 Martin Henry NZ Post Primary Teachers' Association Te Wehengarua 689

164 Sue Piper Sport Wellington 690

165 Colleen Trolove 694

166 Alastair Duncan 695

167 Peter Reinmann Trelissick Park Group 696

168 Brendon Williams 698

169 Susanna Robinson 699

170 Alastair Smith Great Harbour Way/ Te Aranui o Poneke Trust 700

171 Joice Jose 703

172 Nathan Rose 704

173 Stephen Day 705

174 John Hancock Utilities Industry Consulting 706

175 Stephanie Mills 707

176 Inez Romanos 708

177 Simon Edmonds 709

178 Colin Wilms‐Hurst 710

179 Hadleigh Tiddy 711

180 Cecily McNeill 712

181 Michael Cuncannon 714

182 Wendy Howell 715

183 Hilary Watson 716

184 Craig Hayes 717

185 Sarah Drake 719

186 Adam Lewis 720

187 Remy Schneider 722

188 Ike Hayes 723

189 Kurt Shanly 724

190 Claire Graeme 725

191 David Jenkins 726

192 Peter Barlow 727

193 Kane Titchener 728

194 Jennie Smith 729

195 James Renwick 730

196 Heather Brown 731

197 Konstanze Artmann 732

198 Paul Wilson 733

199 Russell Tregonning 734

200 Daryl Cockburn 735

201 Margaret and Murray Lucas 736

202 Simon Shaw 737

203 Kether Gati 738

204 Ruth Paul Makara Model School 739

205 Dr Ian Best 754

206 Eleanor Meecham 755

207 Rosie Knight 756

208 Craig Norman 757

209 Andy Day Datacom Systems (Wellington) Limited 758

210 Robert Tredger Tawa Community Board 759

211 Ritchie Morris 765

212 Hinrich Schaefer NIWA 766

213 Crista Toomey 767

214 Robyn McFarlane 768

215 Amanda Chu 769

216 Katy Jordon 770

217 Liam Drew 771

218 Matt McNeil OMD 772

219 John Barnett 773

220 Nina Atkinson 774

221 Leigh Catley 775

222 Russell Taylor 776

223 Kirsty Lillico 796

224 Vivienne Mountier 797

225 Simon Bailey 798

226 Jo Clendon 799

227 Elsa Noeline Gannaway 800

228 Russel Garlick Wellington Mountain Bike Club Inc 802

229 Rob Howard 807

230 Kevin Kai Ma 812

231 Bernard Jennings 817

232 Richard Davies 822

233 Ralph Wilkinson 827

234 Nicola Gaston 832

235 Hilleke Townsend 837

236 Nicola Hubbard 842

237 Gareth Morgan Morgan Foundation 847

238 Natalia Albert 852

239 Paul Chaplow Outdoor & Adventure Consultants Ltd 857

240 Chris Dawson 862

241 Grant Perry 867

242 Claire Hodge 872

243 Bryan Dickinson Cricket Wellington 878

244 Michael Gray 886

245 Laura Honey 891

246 Euan Galloway 896

247 Aimee Whitcroft 901

248 Patricia Fraser 906

249 Hamish Smith 911

250 Karen Lum 916

251 Karen Evans 921

252 David Robinson 926

253 Mary Munro 931

254 Amy Cosgrovw 936

255 Nicky Morton 941

256 Kareem Omar 946

257 John Falkner 952

258 Hadleigh Petherick Petherick Holdings Limited 957

259 Rissa Ota 967

260 Phillip Leslie‐Collins 972

261 Ric Van Weede 977

262 Chris Fraser 982

263 Adam Campbell 987

264 Robert Ibell 992

265 Alison White Safe Food Campaign 997

266 Mary Barr 1004

267 Martin McDonnell 1009

268 Matt Sims 1014

269 Geoff Lawn 1019

270 Linda Pannekoek 1024

271 Alison Turner 1029

272 Helga Wientjes 1034

273 Arran Culver 1039

274 Megan Mcfarlane 1044

275 Tony Pears 1049

276 Chris Meyer 1054

277 Alan Royal Personal 1059

278 Kate Lee‐Gleisner 1066

279 Clare O'Brien 1071

280 Sophie Mormede 1076

281 Paul Jones 1081

282 Mike Townsend 1086

283 Nicole Hoy 1091

284 Diana Pedlow 1096

285 John Whale 1101

286 Andrew Steedman 1106

287 Gillian Bruce 1111

288 Mark Coburn 1116

289 Nick Smith 1121

290 Adam Miller 1126

291 Hadyn Smith The Alex Moore Park Sport and Community Board 1131

292 Donna Scammell 1140

293 Andy Woodwark 1145

294 Maz Hermon 1150

295 Ben Macaulay 1155

296 Harriette Carr 1160

297 Karen Fifield Wellington Zoo trust 1165

298 Matthew Lynch 1170

299 Steve Darroch 1175

300 Calum Chamberlain 1180

301 Laura McKim 1185

302 Gary Moller 1190

303 Ben Gleisner 1200

304 Freda Wells Esho Publishing 1205

305 John Morrison Churton Park Community Assn Inc 1210

306 Rajivini Worsley 1215

307 Ryan Kennedy 1220

308 Hannah Gibson‐Lapsley 1225

309 Craig Anderson 1230

310 James Burgess 1235

311 Stuart Davenport 1240

312 Ralph Pannett 1245

313 Andrew McLellan 1250

314 Phaedra Upton 1251

315 Robin Wilson‐Davey 1252

316 John Keene The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua 1253

317 Leigh Rosin 1254

318 Marion Davey 1255

319 Andrew Simms Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua 1256

320 Tim Teramoto 1257

321 Mark Leone 1258

322 Jonathan Swatz Weta Digital 1259

323 Greg Simpson 1260

324 Merlin Maertz 1261

325 David Short Weta Digital 1262

326 Peter Torr Smith 1263

327 Jens Kafitz 1264

328 Donella Bellett 1265

329 Michael Petherick 1266

330 Valerie Love 1267

331 Tim Nunn 1268

332 Peter Whitehead 1269

333 Peter Galvin 1270

334 Andrew Butel EndGame Ltd 1271

335 Kieran Martin 1272

336 Kim Slattery 1274

337 Susan Perry Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua 1275

338 Joanna Orr 1276

339 Troy Kusabs 1277

340 Lucy Elwood 1278

341 Nicolaas Thiemen Francken

1279

342 Jacqueline Barber 1281

343 Lucy Moore 1282

344 Sam Daish 1283

345 Laura Cooper 1284

346 Muriel Tunoho Health Care Aotearoa 1285

347 Murray Price 1287

348 Dave Chowdhury 1288

349 Matt Lane 1290

350 Eileen Brown New Zealand Council of Trade Unions ‐ Te Kauae Kaimahi 1291

351 Callum Strong 1301

352 Nina Hlebec 1302

353 Jessica Nickelsen 1303

354 Jack Donaldson 1304

355 Debbie Leyland United Community Action Network 1305

356 Kim Sinclair 1307

357 Ron Beernink 1308

358 Katherine Haines and Andrew Roxburgh 1310

359 James and Loene Betteridge 1311

360 Tobias Lang 1312

361 Tanya Ashby 1313

362 Pam Govan 1318

363 Erica Mangin 1319

364 Ursula Kerpen 1320

365 Jo Coffey 1325

366 Dean Johansson 1330

367 Jim Shaw 1335

368 Maurice Marquardt 1340

369 Melissa Spicer 1346

370 Bernard Smith 1357

371 Michael Faherty 1362

372 Karl Yager 1367

373 Mathew FitzGerald 1372

374 Eliza Stevens 1377

375 Brett Grant 1382

376 Liv Henrich 1387

377 Ryan O'Connell 1392

378 Colin Ryder Wellington Natural Heritage Trust 1397

379 Chris Coles 1404

380 Anna Lambrechtsen 1409

381 Natasha Naus 1414

382 Bronwen Shepherd 1419

383 Stephen Wallace 1424

384 Lauren Schaer 1429

385 Tom Adams 1434

386 Chris Lowrie 1439

387 Laura Stuart 1444

388 Judi Miller 1449

389 Charles Finny 1454

390 Chris Wilson 1459

391 Paul Young Generation Zero 1465

392 Ari Pfeiffenberger 1470

393 Victor Anderlini Wellington Marine Conservation Trust 1475

394 Megan Hubscher 1482

395 Vlatko Materic 1487

396 Lucy Bailey 1492

397 Abbie Bull 1497

398 Rebecca Maresca Capital BMX Club Inc 1502

399 John Randal Makara Peak Mountain Bike Park Supporters 1507

400 Anthony Edmonds 1514

401 Steve Martin Tourism Industry Association NZ 1519

402 Steven Adams 1530

403 Rich Swain 1535

404 Malcolm Gunn 1540

405 John Forne 1545

406 Charles Davenport 1550

407 Grace Leung 1555

408 Chris Worsley 1560

409 Isabella Cawthorn 1565

410 Louise Thornley 1570

411 Nessa Lynch Wellington Trails Alliance 1575

412 Marilyn Moffatt Lyall Bay Surf Life Saving Club 1580

413 Linda McNabb 1585

414 Jenny Visser 1590

415 Bethany Hine 1595

416 Joseph Shannon 1600

417 Jane Beale 1605

418 Janet Miller 1610

419 John Morrison 1617

420 Lynn Jordan Health Professional Opposing Fluoridation 1622

421 Paul Horton Wellington Zoo 1636

422 Justin Fogarty 1641

423 Sharlene Turner 1646

424 Ashley Burgess WORD‐ Wellington Off‐Road Riding Department 1651

425 Suze Keith 1657

426 Brian Hasell 1662

427 Michelle Peden 1667

428 Richie Singleton 1673

429 Charlie Clark Victoria University of Wellington 1679

430 Dolores Hoy 1693

431 John Gerritsen 1694

433 Jenny Davies 1695

434 Ben Lewis 1697

435 Sophie Mormede Friends of Taputeranga Marine Reserve 1698

436 Deborah Barton 1702

437 Bryan Crump 1703

438 Reuben Ferguson 1705

439 Mark Strange 1706

440 Daniel Addington 1708

441 Scott Tingey 1709

442 Richard Mowll Friends of Tawa Bush Reserves 1711

443 Mary Bryne Flouride Action Network 1714

444 Dr Stuart Mossman 1757

445 Gavin Cho 1758

446 Tracy Teramoto 1759

447 Guy Armstrong 1760

448 Allan Proberts 1762

449 Elizabeth Tomlinson 1817

450 Mandy Hancock 1819

451 Francois Badenhorst 1820

452 Frances Lee 1821

453 Mike Burrell 1823

454 Matt Johnston The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua 1824

455 Stacey Marquardt 1825

456 Mathew Walker 1826

457 Anne Kramer Ministry for Primary Industries ‐ Manatu Ahu Matua 1827

458 Chris Coles Wellington Library Coalition 1829

459 Mark Harris 1831

460 John Rhodes 1832

461 Paul Barnes 1833

462 Melissa Bray 1844

463 Brendy Weir 1845

464 Kerry Popplewell 1846

465 William Veale 1847

466 Geraldine Murphy 1848

467 Robert Miller 1851

468 Neil Crowe 1852

469 Conrad Edwards 1853

470 Karen Hunn 1854

471 Christopher Little 1855

472 John Sullivan 1856

473 Chris Lawton 1857

474 Bob Stallworthy 1859

475 John Tiley 1860

476 Lucy Alcock 1861

477 Richard Ainsworth 1862

478 Jo Mackay 1863

479 Laurie Foon 1864

481 Andrew Dalziel 1866

482 Rebecca Speirs 1867

483 Ellen Blake 1868

484 Craig Starnes 1870

485 Paul Pearson Quality Gardening Hardware and Accessories 1871

Living Streets Aotearoa

Inner City Association

486 Ollie Gilbert 1872

487 Peter Churchman 1873

488 Emma Blades 1874

489 Arawhetu Berdinner 1875

490 Natalie Crane 1876

491 Hilary Penwarden 1877

492 Primoz Boncina 1878

493 Deb Gully Wellington chapter leader of the Weston A Price foundation 1879

494 Dave Nendick 1881

495 Mike Revell 1882

498 John Ryall Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota 1883

499 Chris Gray 1887

500 Mark Breslin 1889

501 Beth Goodwin 1890

502 Nicole Miller Wellington Underwater Club 1891

503 Gary Page 1893

504 Bev Abbott 1894

505 Amy Joseph 1898

506 Barbara Mitcalfe and J C Horne 1899

507 Kirsty Smith 1904

508 Steve Zeier 1905

509 Nick Kelly Public Service Association 1906

510 Betsan Martin Methodist Public Issues 1916

511 Micah Rickards 1920

512 Simon OBrien 1921

513 Ngahuia Riri 1922

514 Jane Dawson 1923

515 Ibrahim Omer 1925

516 Lynn Ward 1929

517 Marianne Bishop 1930

518 A Dowding 1931

519 Emily Makower 1932

520 Tamara Baddeley 1933

521 Annie Phillips 1934

522 Kate Hamblyn 1935

523 Daniel Triebsch 1936

524 Awatea Gane 1937

525 Daele OConnor 1938

526 Jane Byrne 1939

527 Mahanga Maru 1944

528 Sandy Guthrie 1945

529 Pauline Swan Waterfront Watch Inc 1946

530 Jenny Neligan Bowen Galleries 1949

531 Pauline and Athol Swann 1950

532 Eleanor Meecham Cycle Aware Wellington 1953

533 Mary‐Ann Greaney Justice Peace and Development Commission of the Archdiocese of Wellington 1955

534 Pat Buckley 1956

535 Ian Gregson Weston A Price Foundation 1968

536 Julie Buckley 1988

537 Nick Watson Ngaio Crofton Downs Residents Association 2000

538 Rebecca Matthews NZEI Te Riu Roa 2001

539 Graeme Sawyer Johnsonville Community Ass Inc 2003

540 Kareena Bryant Newtown Union Health Service 2005

541 Jak Wild 2008

542 Charlie Cordwell Surf Life Saving NZ 2010

543 John Pope 2024

544 Taufaga Malaga 2025

545 Jessie Barwick 2026

546 Carol Holden 2027

547 Iain Southall 2028

548 Fran Taito 2029

549 Janine Harding 2030

550 Famaleke Auelua 2031

551 Lynette Shum 2032

552 Sonya Clark Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association (VUWSA) 2033

554 Jane Shallcrass 2036

555 Steve Orchard 2037

556 Monica OConnell 2038

557 Murray Darroch 2039

558 Judith Waugh 2041

559 Frank Cook 2046

561 Rob McGann 2048

562 Laura Newcombe 2053

563 David Smith 2054

564 Mareta Soiamoa 2059

565 Jane Kitchenman 2066

566 Tony OHalloran 2067

567 Carole Gibb 2072

569 Peter Kennson 2073

570 Glenn Kingston The Strathmore Park Progressive and Beautifying Association (Inc) 2081

571 John Cocker and Penny Linder 2087

572 Deryn Hardie Boys 2092

573 Phoebe Huygens 2093

574 Jeff Flavell 2094

575 Robert Tredger 2099

576 Milton Hollard 2100

577 Alana Bowman 2102

578 Shaun O'Brien 2103

579 Michael Noble Kites Trust 2104

580 Lou Hunt 2106

581 Richard Herbert 2107

582 Anne‐Margaret Campbell Hockey NZ 2110

583 Michael Scott 2117

584 David Fraser 2124

585 David Shone 2129

586 Richard Burrell 2134

587 Chrissie Rotter 2139

588 Maria Van Der Meel 2144

589 Judith Graykowski 2149

590 Pat Bolster 2154

591 Christine Greenwood 2159

592 Accessibility Advisory Group 2164

593 Fran Wilde Greater Wellington Regional Council 2165

594 Howard Markland Environmental Reference Group 2167

595 Sam Huggard First Union 2169

596 Lyne Pringle 2172

597 Tim Parkin 2174

598 Bev Abbott Wellington Botanical Society 2175

599 Kris Bieringa 2180

600 Michael Grace Positively Wellington Tourism 2182

601 Sue Watt Mt Victoria Residents Association 2188

602 Paul Barber Living Wage

2195

604 Jack Marshall Wellington City Youth Council 2230

605 Meagan Robertson Revolve Cycling Club 2236

606 Eva Hartshorn‐Sanders NZ Post Primary Teachers' Association Te Wehengarua 2238

607 Tess Burgoyne 2243

608 Martin Payne Friends of Owhiro Stream 2244

609 Stephanie Revell 2249

610 Bernard Smith Zealandia 2250

611 Katie Underwood 2252

612 Anne Simpson (Dr MacLennan) 2254

613 Gill Watson 2256

614 Peter Hunt Forest and Bird, Wellington Branch 2257

615 Robin Boldarin Miramar/Maupuia Progressive Ass 2259

616 Roger Kiddle 2260

617 Mary Adams 2263

618 Nicky Boughtwood 2264

619 Andrew Simpson Victoria University 2265

620 Christina Allen 2267

621 Barry Hellberg NZ Retailers Association 2268

622 Christine Grace Makara/Ohariu Community Board 2270

623 Lucy Briant 2272

624 Ben White 2273

625 Liz Springford 2274

626 Scott Metcalfe and Liz Springford

OraTaiao: The NZ Climate and Health Council 2275

627 Maikali Bulicakau Wellington Methodist Parish 2281

628 Rev Viliami Finau Wellington Methodist Parish 2285

629 Rev Falaniko Mann‐Taito Wellington Methodist Parish 2289

630 Rev Viliami Finau Wellington Methodist Parish 2293

631 Rev Graeme McIver Wellington Methodist Parish 2296

632 Ledua Taucilagi Wellington Methodist Parish 2300

633 Jill Ford 2304

635 Janice Schone 2312

636 Ian Cassels The Wellington Company Limited 2314

637 Mike Brigden 2315

638 Holly Cotter Wellington Employers' Chamber of Commerce 2316

639 Pat Stuart Wellington Museums Trust 2335

640 David Adams 2336

641 Kate Mitcalfe 2337

www.livingwagenz.org.nz1

Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand

www.livingwagenz.org.nz

LIVING WAGE WELLINGTON

Submission to the Wellington City Council Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015

2196



2

Contents

Executive summary 3

Introduction 5

Council’s goals and strategies 6

Why do we need a Living Wage? 7

Benefits of a Living Wage 8

A Living Wage at Wellington City Council 9

Oral submission 11

Appendix 12

2197



3

Executive summary

Living Wage Wellington notes that• In June 2013, Wellington City Council voted

to support in principle becoming a Living Wage Council and to ‘develop a Living Wage Framework’ by November 2013 providing for the phased implementation of the living wage for directly employed staff, staff employed by Council Controlled Organisations and contractors who deliver council services. Council also supported the principle of a Living Wage Capital.

• In December 2013, Wellington City Council reaffirmed the principle of becoming a Living Wage Council and voted to fully implement the living wage for directly-employed employees by July 2014; to direct Council Controlled Organisations (through the statement of intent process) to consider how they would implement the living wage and to report back as part of the 2015 Long Term Plan; and to support further work undertaken on how to apply the living wage to staff employed by contractors, (to also be reported back as part of the 2015 Long Term Plan).

Summary of Recommendations1. Living Wage Wellington’s submission

is that Wellington City Council should fully implement what has been agreed in principle — to become a Living Wage employer and ensure all the Council workforce, including directly-employed workers and those employed through CCOs and contractors, are paid a living wage.

2. Living Wage Wellington’s submission is that ensuring all staff are paid the living wage is not just a priority. It is an essential step towards addressing inequality in the people-centred, smart capital of Aotearoa New Zealand.

3. Living Wage Wellington’s submission is that the cost of implementing the living wage for CCOs and contractors is far out-weighed by the benefits to Wellington City of Council taking the lead in addressing inequality and direct benefits to the Council, including reduction in staff turnover, lowering of training costs and increased morale.

4. Living Wage Wellington’s submission is that the cost of implementing the Living Wage will be met by a range of measures, including from the Council’s current total wage budget and through negotiation with the relevant contractors. Any cost to ratepayers will be staged as contracts come up for renegotiation.

5 Living Wage Wellington’s submission is that the Wellington City Council 2014/2015 Annual Plan should include:• Council’s commitment to the principle

of becoming a Living Wage employer, paying all staff the living wage, including directly-employed staff, and those employed by CCOs and contractors

2198



4

• Council’s implementation of the living wage to all directly-employed staff by July 2014

• Council’s decision to direct CCOs to report on how they will move their staff to the living wage from July 2014

• Council’s decision to investigate the best way to ensure council workers employed through contractors are paid the living wage, with implementation (as tenders are sought for services delivered on a regular and ongoing basis)

• Council taking the lead in creating a Living Wage Capital

• Council’s commitment to consulting with relevant parties, including Living Wage Wellington, throughout the planning and Implementation process.

2199



5

Introduction

Living Wage Wellington (as part of The Living Wage Movement Aotearoa NZ) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission on the Wellington City Council Annual Plan 2014-15.

Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand is a broad-based community movement committed to addressing poverty and inequality by lifting low wages.

The Living Wage Movement represents over 200 organisations that have endorsed a call for a Living Wage in New Zealand and a growing membership of faith-based groups, community groups and unions.

The definition of a Living Wage is: The income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life. A living wage will enable workers to live with dignity and to participate as active citizens in society.

Independent research conducted by the Family Centre Social Policy Research Centre, released in February 2013, set the New Zealand living wage rate at $18.40 an hour. An annual review conducted by the Family Centre research team has set the 2014 rate at 18.80 an hour.

Living Wage Wellington was launched in August 2012 in the Taranaki Street Wesley Church and includes a wide range of community and faith-based organisations and trade unions who are working together to call for a living wage for all workers. Supporting organisations include: St Andrews on The Terrace St Peters on Willis Victoria University Students Association DCM Wesley Community Action Newtown Budgeting and Advocacy Service Healthcare Aotearoa Newtown Union Health Service NZCCSS Wesley Wellington Church St Joseph’s Catholic Church Caritas Wellington Samoan Ministers’ Association Council of Trade Unions Service and Food Workers Union Public Service Association FIRST Union New Zealand Educational Institute.

2200



6

The Living Wage Movement supports the Draft Annual Plan’s focus on addressing inequality, adding to the quality of life Wellington has to offer and the outcome of creating a prosperous and Smart Capital.

These outcomes are all supported by the commitment to becoming a Living Wage Council and Living Wage Wellington affirms that paying a Living Wage to all directly and indirectly paid employees will contribute to this outcome becoming a reality1.

Adopting the Living Wage is consistent with Wellington City Council’s goals and strategies and its short and long-term vision.

The 2013/2014 Annual Plan identified the link between economic prosperity and quality of life: “The economic prosperity of the city is closely linked to residents’ quality of life. Our activities contribute to the city’s economic well-being and take a lead in shaping Wellington’s future prosperity.”

A living wage is necessary for economic prosperity. A prosperous economic environment depends on consumers having the spending power to support local industry. By becoming a living wage employer, Council can lead the way and encourage Wellington employers to follow this lead.

The call for a living wage city is consistent with the Council’s commitment to access to social and recreational activities, as the goal of the living wage is to provide the income necessary for workers and their families to participate in society.

Council’s goals and strategies

One of the main goals identified in the Wellington Towards 2040: Smart Capital vision is to support Wellington as a People-Centred City. Moving towards the living wage supports Wellington City Council’s commitment to its residents and helps to build a vibrant and resilient city.

The economic evidence supporting the living wage principle is an example of ‘smart development’. The 2040: Smart Capital document acknowledges that Wellington has a highly educated population, which has helped the city to learn, adapt and innovate. However all workers must be part of the Smart Capital.

The Council aims to support diversity and opportunity, acknowledging that making the city attractive to newcomers plays a role in maintaining our identity as the ‘Creative Capital’ of New Zealand. For students, migrants and others considering moving to Wellington, the city’s participation in the Living Wage Movement will positively promote the Wellington job market, and send a clear message about the Council’s commitment to social outcomes.

Wellington is proud to be a Fair Trade and Anti-Nuclear Capital City. Wellington prides itself in being the “Coolest Little Capital in the World”. Wellington has now taken the first steps towards becoming the first living wage city in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The economic prosperity of the city is closely linked to residents’ quality of life.

2201



7

As the gap between the rich and poor grows in New Zealand, more and more New Zealanders do not get paid enough to meet their basic needs or participate in society in a meaningful way.

● Between the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s, New Zealand went from being one of the most equal to become one of the most unequal in the developed world

● 285,000 New Zealand children are estimated to be living in poverty — one in ten Pakeha and one in five Maori and Pacific children

● Two in five poor children come from families where at least one person is in full-time work or self-employed.2

Why do we need a living wage?

Wellington has both the capacity and the need for a living wage

Wellington is a wealthy city. The Wellington Region has the highest median incomes in the country. Wellington City, as the largest population centre of the Wellington Region, is in a good position to take a lead on the living wage.

Recent census results have confirmed Wellington City as the most prosperous city in New Zealand. The (2012) median earnings in Wellington City were $65,370, compared to $50,110 for New Zealand. Average annual earnings in 2012 in Wellington City grew by 2.7% in Wellington City, compared to 0.4% for the whole of New Zealand.

The June 2013 New Zealand Income Survey shows Wellington has highest average household income in New Zealand. Wellington is 12.1% above the country average.

However, although Wellington leads the way with the highest household incomes, the region also has high levels of inequality. While the average wages in Wellington City are higher than the national average, many workers and their families in Wellington live in poverty. It is not acceptable that workers and their families struggle to make ends meet in a city where many enjoy great wealth.

It is not acceptable that a significant number of Wellington workers are part of the working poor, including those in the Council workforce. The Council can play a vital leadership role in making a difference to address poverty and inequality in Wellington City and lead the region and the country by showing the way.

Wellington City Council can lead the way to significant change in the quality of life for all New Zealanders by supporting the calls for a living wage and becoming a living wage council.

2202



8

The benefits of the living wage

A living wage brings many benefits. It creates a basic yet decent standard of living for all workers and their families. It benefits businesses by reducing costs of turnover, improving morale and motivation of workers, and enhancing public image and reputation and can encourage a more competitive industry.

Implementing the living wage brings benefits to workers and their families, communities and central and local government. The relationship between wages and well-being is well documented. Health, education, and social participation all improve when wages are lifted.

Decent wages makes business sense in both public and private sectors. Research in the UK in 2012 reports that a living wage:

• Supports recruitment and retention of staff, saving employers the costs of turnover

• Lowers the rates of absenteeism and sick leave

• Suggests enhanced productivity, through higher quality work by employees

• Boosts morale and motivation

• Improves public image and reputation of businesses

• Promotes competition by wage repression as a competitive edge

London Mayor Boris Johnson has said: “The London Living Wage Campaign is not just about helping to put some extra cash into the pockets of some of the poorest and hardest working families in this city. It’s also about giving them, from firms that can afford it, extra cash to help the wheels of the economy turn, to give them some more spending power to help consumption in the city. It makes economic sense.”

Becoming a living wage council and encouraging other employers to do the same will improve the economic prosperity and quality of life of Wellington workers and residents. Paying staff a living wage will ensure they can participate in the amenities of the city and have access to recreational and community facilities.

A prosperous economic environment depends on consumers having the spending power to support local business and the low-paid workers who would benefit from receiving the living wage spend their entire incomes on retail and basic services.

Becoming a living wage council and encouraging other employers to do the same will improve the economic prosperity and quality of life of Wellington workers and residents.

2203



9

Apart from the need to take a lead in addressing poverty in Wellington City, if the living wage coverage does not include procured services then it will incentivise the outsourcing core local government services.

A living wage at Wellington City Council

Since the launch of the New Zealand living wage rate in February 2013, the living wage has entered the public lexicon as a tangible response to the poverty and inequality that has come to characterise much of Aotearoa New Zealand. Wellington exemplifies these issues.

We submit that large employers, such as the Council, have a moral responsibility to respond to this poverty and inequality, by providing leadership in their communities.

There has been significant public discussion around the living wage. The report from Living Wage Wellington provided to Council to inform the decision of the Governance, Finance and Planning Committee on 11 December 2013 (attached as an appendix to this submission) provides detailed analysis of the costs and benefits based on the experience of other countries. In addition it provides recommendations for a staged implementation of the living wage for Wellington City council.

We emphasise that the Living Wage

• Is voluntary and not mandatory.

• Is not a welfare payment but a wage in the market place.

• Is a rate for all workers, based on a methodology similar to that used around the world.

The cost to Wellington City Council

Given the many local authorities that have introduced the living wage around the world, there is a large body of literature on the costs and benefits of doing so. International experience has been that initial estimates of the cost of implementing the living wage are almost always higher than eventuates. For example, when Los Angeles introduced the living wage in 1997, it was predicted to cost somewhere between US$30-40 million. However, the total increase to labour costs was $US2.5 million.3

There are many reasons that costs often end up much lower than estimated. As many of the services councils provide are now procured from private firms (who rely on low wage labour), some of the costs can be absorbed by the firms themselves. Secondly, there are significant benefits associated with implementing a living wage, with regard to lower staff turnover, absenteeism, and boosted productivity.

Further investigation into the costs of the implementing the living wage for CCO and contract workers needs to be quantified with urgency to ensure a fair implementation. Most of the lowest-paid workers in the council workforce are employed in WCC-contracted organisations, with the cleaners, catering workers and security workers paid not much above $14.00 an hour.

There are numerous reasons why contract workers must be included. Apart from the fairness issues and the need to take a lead in addressing poverty and inequality in Wellington City, if the living wage coverage does not include

2204



10

procured services then it will incentivise and accelerate the process of outsourcing core local government services.

Although it is assumed that the WCC will bear the cost of the movement to the living wage, the competition between contractors to win the service contracts will also mean that some of that cost will be borne by successful contractors through the reduction of margins or productivity improvements.

The Draft Annual Plan estimates the cost of implementing a Living Wage in Council-controlled organisations and Council contractors “in excess of $2 million” (p.11). No information has been supplied to support this estimate and we believe this is a very significant over-estimate of the total costs of implementation. Work done on the living wage for Auckland Council estimated the cost to be $3.2 million or 0.015% of the Auckland Council’s spending ($4.5 billion). This would suggest that net implementation costs for Wellington may well be far below the $2 million estimated, given the far smaller total spending for WCC ($378 million).

Finally, the cost of introducing the living wage is put in perspective alongside the possibility of funding it by addressing top salaries.

Work at Auckland Council showed that in the 2012/13 financial year 7% of the workforce were earning salaries over $120,000. The total cost of those salaries was approximately $127 million or 20% of the total salary budget. The proposed cost of introducing a living wage for direct employed staff at Auckland Council was $3.5m, or 0.5% of the total salary budget. We do not have these figures for Wellington City Council.

Governance support for the Living Wage

A clear majority of the new council committed during the recent local body election campaign to take all possible steps to implement the living wage for all directly employed, CCO and contracted council workers during this term. The issue received widespread publicity and many candidates stood on a platform of supporting the living wage.

2014/15 Draft Annual Plan, Mayor’s Introduction, page 3

Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2012. Ministry of Social Development.

(Andrew J Elmore, Living Wage Laws & Communities: Smarter Economic Development, Lower than Expected Costs, Brennan Center for Justice, New York, 2003, p. 2).

2205



11

Oral submission

Living Wage Wellington would like to speak to our submission.

Contact

Paul Barber 0274732006; or

Lyndy McIntyre 0272046329

2206



12

Appendix

THE LIVING WAGEin the People-Centred, Smart Capital of Aotearoa/New Zealand

Addressing inequality starting with Wellington City Council

This report was prepared for Living Wage Wellington with the assistance of Prue Hyman, formerly Associate Professor of Economics and Gender and Women’s Studies at Victoria University of Wellington.

2207



2

This paper has been prepared for Living Wage Wellington, an organisation of Wellington faith groups, community organisations and unions. Living Wage Wellington is part of Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand Inc.

Supporting organisations include: St Andrews on The Terrace, St Peters on Willis, Victoria University Students Association, Downtown Community Ministry, Wesley Community Action, Newtown Budgeting and Advocacy Service, Healthcare Aotearoa, Newtown Union Health Service, NZCCSS, Wesley Wellington Church, Pacific Island Presbyterian Church Newtown, St Joseph’s Catholic Church, Caritas and Wellington Samoan Ministers’ Association, The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and individual unions, including The Service and Food Workers Union, The New Zealand Public Service Association, FIRST Union and The New Zealand Educational Institute.

2208


www.livingwagenz.org.nz 3

Contents

Executive summary 5

Introduction 7

Why a Living Wage in Wellington 8

Responding to the critics 11

Costs and benefits of a Living Wage 13

Direct cost to Wellington City Council 15

Implementation proposal 17

Proposed resolution 21

References 22

2209



Executive summary

In June 2013 Wellington City Council (WCC) voted to support in principle a Living Wage Council and a Living Wage Capital. Councillors asked council officers to prepare a “Living Wage Framework” by November 2013, detailing a phased implementation of a living wage for directly-employed council staff, staff employed by council-controlled organisations (CCOs) and by contractors who deliver council services.

A clear majority of the new council committed during the recent local body election campaign to take all possible steps to implement the living wage for all directly employed, CCO and contracted council workers during this term.

Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand defines the living wage as “the income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life. A living wage will enable workers to live with dignity and to participate as active citizens in society.” Independent research carried out by the Family Centre’s Social Policy Research Centre has identified the current New Zealand living wage hourly rate as $18.40.

In the past 25 years, New Zealand has gone from being one of the most equal countries in the world to one of the most unequal. The call for a living wage has emerged from growing concern about poverty and inequality. The same concern has led to the formation of living wage movements across the world.

There is clear international evidence that high levels of inequality contribute significantly to major problems in society. Many families experience hardship or poverty despite having one or two adults in paid work. Of the 270,000 children estimated to be living in poverty in New Zealand, two in five come from households where at least one person is in full time work or self-employed.1

Wellington City is in a good position to take

a lead on the living wage. While the region leads the country with the highest average hourly wages, it does not have lower levels of inequality. It is not acceptable that a significant number of Wellington workers are part of the working poor. WCC can play a vital leadership role in addressing poverty and inequality and lead the region and the country by showing the way.

Adopting the living wage fits with WCC’s policies, goals and strategies and its short and long term vision. The living wage has been successfully implemented by councils around the world. International experience shows initial estimates of the cost are almost always higher than the eventual outcome. There are also significant benefits, including lower staff turnover and absenteeism, and boosted productivity. Becoming a living wage council and encouraging other employers to do the same will improve the economic prosperity and quality of life of Wellington.

Since the living wage rate was launched in February 2013, there have been some critical responses, including a recent Treasury Report. This was based on incorrect assumptions, for example that the living wage campaign is a campaign to lift the legislated minimum wage. Living wages are voluntary, and employers who can and should pay are targeted.

Critics have also asserted that the Local Government Act prevents councils from implementing the living wage. A legal opinion by Dr Matthew Palmer refutes this assertion.

A clear majority of the new council committed during the recent local body election campaign to take all possible steps to implement the living wage for all directly employed, CCO and contracted council workers during this term.

2211



6

Council officers have quantified the cost of implementing the living wage for directly-employed staff at $575k and the cost for staff employed in CCOs at $325k.

Officers have not quantified the cost for the council workforce employed by contractors. As council has committed to achieving the living wage for contract staff, this must be done with

urgency. The living wage can be achieved for contract staff as contracts expire.

Living Wage Wellington proposes that WCC implements the living wage during this council term, beginning on 1 January 2014, making tangible progress from the start for direct, CCO and contract-employed staff earning below the living wage.

A living wage would be life-changing for 22-year old Esau Taniela. The Parkwise parking warden earns $14.40 an hour before tax and works a 68 hour week to bring home $719 while his pregnant partner is working three jobs.

He says it’s barely enough to pay bills and rent, let alone provide healthy food for his family, or savings.

“The most important thing for me is to have a stable future for my family,” Mr Taniela said. “I want a future where I don’t have to worry constantly about the bills – to be happy and not stressing all the time, and to have enough time to spend with my partner and our baby.”

A worker’s story

2212



Introduction

The call for a living wage has emerged from growing concern in New Zealand about poverty and inequality. This concern has led to the formation of living wage movements across the world.

The relationship between wages and well-being is well-documented. Implementing a living wage brings benefits to workers and their families, communities, along with central and local government. Health and education outcomes and social participation all improve when wages are lifted.

Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand (LWANZ) defines the living wage as “the income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life. A living wage will enable workers to live with dignity and to participate as active citizens in society.”

The International Labour Organisation definition reads: “The idea of a living wage is that workers and their families should be able to afford a basic, but decent, lifestyle that is considered acceptable by society at its current level of economic development. Workers and their families should be able to live above the poverty level, and be able to participate in social and cultural life”. 2

A detailed study undertaken for LWANZ in 2012 by Peter King and Charles Waldegrave of the Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit provided the empirical basis for an hourly living wage figure of $18.40 for New Zealand, although the hourly wage is not all there is to achieving the objectives of a living wage. The figure will be reviewed annually, with the outcome of the first review due to be announced in February 2014. The full study can be found at www.livingwage.org.nz

Inequality is a growing phenomenon in New Zealand that has developed since the mid-1980s. Driving factors have included the acceleration of globalisation, financial

and labour market deregulation, cuts to the social safety net and the privatisation of state assets, increasing unemployment and underemployment and a reliance on exporting low-value unprocessed commodities.

Major increases in earnings’ inequality are the most significant cause of the overall increase in household and family inequality. Such widening inequality has been observed throughout the world, but particularly in New Zealand, where many lower paid workers have seen their incomes fail to keep up with inflation, while top incomes have soared.

The rapidly increasing income and earnings inequality experienced by New Zealand in the 15 year period 1985 to 2000 has never been reversed and has taken the country from being one of the most equal to one of the most unequal in the developed world. 3

Wellingtonian Max Rashbrooke’s recently published book on inequality describes a New Zealand in 2013 where the wealthiest 1% of the 2.9 million adults now own 16% of the $470 million of national wealth – over three times as much wealth as the poorest 50% of New Zealanders (5%). 4

Many families experience hardship or poverty despite having one or two adults in paid work. Of the 270,000 children estimated to be living in poverty in New Zealand, two in five come from households where at least one person is in full time work or self-employed.5

There is now clear international evidence that high levels of inequality contribute significantly to major problems in society. There is a substantial price to be paid in the quality of life for all New Zealanders, as well as major economic costs for us all.

There is now clear international evidence that high levels of inequality contribute significantly to major problems in society.

2213



8

In June 2013, WCC voted to support, in principle, becoming a Living Wage Council and a Living Wage Capital. Councillors supported a resolution asking council officers to prepare a “Living Wage Framework” detailing a phased implementation of a living wage for directly-employed council staff, staff employed by CCOs and contractors who deliver council services and to advise on the impact on council’s procurement policy and future tendering arrangements.

$250k was budgeted for in the 2013/14 draft Annual Plan, for implementation of the living wage from 1 January 2014.

A clear majority of the new council committed during the recent local body election campaign to take all possible steps to implement the living wage for all directly-employed, CCO and contracted council workers during this term.

Wellington City, as the largest population centre of the Wellington Region is in a good position to take a lead on the living wage.

The region has the highest average hourly wage and average household income of any New Zealand region.

The September 2013 Quarterly Employment Survey shows:

l The Wellington Regional Council Area average ordinary time hourly wage was highest out of Auckland Regional Council Area, Canterbury Regional Council Area

Why a Living Wage in Wellington?

and the “Rest of NZ”: $31.30 compared to $27.98 for the whole of New Zealand (11.9% higher).

l Similarly average total weekly earnings (averaged by number of employees) were $1,033,57 compared to $916.48 (12.8% higher).

The June 2013 New Zealand Income Survey shows:

l Wellington has highest average and median household income out of 12 regions. Nearest is Auckland, which is still significantly behind.

l Average weekly household income: Wellington $1794, Auckland $1736, whole country: $1601. Wellington is 12.1% above the country average.

l Median weekly household income: Wellington $1529, Auckland $1458, whole country: $1358. Wellington 12.6% above the country median.

However, although Wellington leads the way with the highest household incomes, the region does not lead other regions in inequality.

One useful measure of inequality is the P80/P20 ratio between the income of households four fifths of the way up the income distribution scale and those only one fifth of the way up. This measure uses household disposable income and is adjusted for household size and composition.

The 2009 80/20 figures showed Wellington had higher levels of inequality than the rest of the country but comparable more up-to-date data is not available. Even if that showed some reduction in inequality, Wellington is unlikely to be better than the average for the country with its high levels of inequality.

Hence Wellington has both the capacity and the need for a living wage.

It is not acceptable that a significant number of Wellington workers are part of the working poor. The Council can play a vital leadership role in making a difference to address poverty and inequality in Wellington City and lead the region and the country by showing the way.

2214



It is not acceptable that a significant number of Wellington workers are part of the working poor. The Council can play a vital leadership role in making a difference to address poverty and inequality in Wellington City and lead the region and the country by showing the way.

The economic impact of WCC expenditure in the total economy of the region is highly significant. WCC can help the region economically by raising the standard of contractors and stimulating demand for goods and services at a time when the city, while certainly not dying, is struggling to replace the gaps left by the recession and the depleted public service. WCC is one of Wellington’s larger employers, either directly or through CCOs and in turn affects other workers’ employment through expenditure on contracted services.

WCC will spend around $260 million in 2014 on employees and suppliers. Hence the economic impact of WCC expenditure in the total economy of the region is highly significant. Paying a living wage to its employees and ensuring its contractors do the same, will create winners not only among low-paid working people, but in the broader community.

An employer accreditation process will soon be finalised that will issue a license to employers that meet the criteria for a living wage business, including that all workers, directly employed and contracted, are paid a living wage. It is in WCC’s interests to be one of the first employers to be accredited, with the accompanying prestige and attention that this would bring.

Becoming a living wage council provides WCC with an opportunity to:

l Demonstrate WCC is proactive in making Wellington a fair and equal, people-centred city by addressing poverty and inequality.

l Profile local businesses stepping up to pay the living wage.

l Highlight the social and economic benefits to the city and the benefits to businesses and the council as an organisation and

Wellington’s largest employer.

l Profile communities coming together and celebrating the city.

l Broaden the positive voices in the capital city to include ordinary working people and their families who have benefitted from the living wage and are able not just to survive but to participate actively in their city.

Becoming a living wage council and encouraging other employers to do the same will improve the economic prosperity and quality of life of Wellington workers and residents. Paying staff a living wage will ensure they can participate in the amenities of the city and have access to recreational and community facilities. A prosperous economic environment depends on consumers having the spending power to support local business and the low-paid workers who would benefit from receiving the living wage typically spend their entire incomes on retail and basic services.

Adopting the living wage fits with WCC’s policies, embodied in its goals and strategies and its short and long term vision. It is consistent with the goal identified in Wellington Towards 2040: Smart Capital Vision to ensure Wellington is a people-centred city. The Smart Capital proposal states, “Cities... need to be active in their efforts to attract new people into the city – to live, work or visit. This means a city that is easy to do business in, attractive to new migrants, connected internationally, and tolerant of diversity.” The living wage will support this goal.

Wellington is proud to be a Fair Trade and Anti-Nuclear Capital City and prides itself in being the “Coolest Little Capital in the World.” It

A prosperous economic environment depends on consumers having the spending power to support local business and the low-paid workers who would benefit from receiving the living wage typically spend their entire incomes on retail and basic services.

2215



10

makes sense to also become New Zealand’s first “Living Wage City”.

A recent New Zealand survey shows strong support for the living wage. Horizon Research’s 2013 Living Wage Insights Report, based on the views of 2,799 respondents, found that 69.7% expressed support for employers in New Zealand being encouraged to pay a living wage, while 10.6% of respondents opposed this.

Adopting a living wage framework is an outstanding leadership opportunity for Wellington City. A feature of written proposals for the living wage to councils overseas is a communications strategy and Living Wage Wellington strongly supports working in partnership with stakeholders in

the development of such a strategy. During the recent Living Wage Week in the UK, churches and community organisations took the opportunity to highlight the benefits of the living wage in addressing poverty and inequality. Councils reinforced the benefits of the living wage, both social and economic, and a significant number of new living wage employers announced their accredited status.

Although regulations differ in the UK, there are many examples from existing living wage cities that are comparable in size to Wellington of ways that the Council can promote the benefits of a living wage. Examples are Glasgow, Preston, Newcastle, Birmingham, Cardiff, Oxford and the London boroughs of Camden, Hounslow, Lambeth and Southwark.6

2216



Responding to the critics

Since the living wage rate was launched in February 2013, there have been a number of notable responses, some supportive and some from a critical standpoint.

The Treasury Report

In November 2013 the Treasury released an analysis of the proposed $18.40 hourly living wage, which, it argued, is ‘not well targeted at low income families’ and is likely to have negative economic impacts on employment and inflation.

The report appears to be based on a number of unfounded assumptions:

l That the living wage of $18.40 is to replace the hourly minimum wage (i.e. to effectively raise the minimum wage overnight by $4.65)

l That this minimum wage increase would be instituted with no other accompanying legislative, regulatory or policy changes

l That there would be no other behavioural changes that would come about as a result of such a significant jump.

None of these assumptions are correct, nor are they in keeping with the aspirations of LWANZ. Even if these assumptions are accepted, Treasury’s analysis is seriously flawed.

First, it is pointed out that the kind of family on which the living wage calculation was based is a minority in New Zealand, and that 63% of earners below a living wage are single adults, and that it is therefore not a well-targeted mechanism. A single adult on $13.75 with no other government support will be the greatest benefactor of lifting the minimum wage to $18.40, lifting their after-tax take-home pay by $150 a week.

This criticism misses the point that most families begin their working life as single adults. A helping hand now will reduce the likelihood of them being reliant on state subsidies later and enable them to begin saving towards a house and retirement, as well as reduce the likelihood

they will jump the ditch to Australia in search of better-paying work.

All the same, the claim that it is not a well-targeted mechanism to assist those with low incomes bears further discussion. As the report itself notes, over half of all sole parents with dependants earn below the living wage (indeed many below $15 an hour), in 25% of households with two adults and dependants the principal earner is on less than a living wage, and 21% of families earning below the living wage have dependants.

It is also argued that for a family with two parents (one working 40 hours at $16 an hour and one working 20 hours at $13.75) with two children, a living wage would increase their take-home pay by only $63 a week.7 The government would be the biggest benefactor, with an additional $126 per week per person in increased tax and reduced benefits. A number of points can be made here. Firstly, any increase in pay for low-income families is a positive and this family has been left $3,276 better off each year. Secondly, getting employers to pay a living wage allows us to refocus government spending in way that can target low-income families even more effectively - that $126 a week ($6552 a year, per family) could be shifted into fixing other parts of the social safety net, assisting others into work, or paying down public debt.

As Treasury’s report itself argues, “adopting a Living Wage would rebalance the role of the employer and the welfare system towards work being the primary mechanism for people to support themselves.”8 We agree with this proposition.

Minimum/living wages and social welfare are not

Living wages are voluntary, and are based on adoption by employers who both can and should pay.

2217



12

alternatives but must work together to provide adequate living standards. The balance has shifted too far with inadequate wage levels – the tax and transfer system allows employers to pay wages well below what can be justified by both fairness and productivity levels.

Since deregulation of the labour market lower earners have failed to receive the gains from their productivity increases. If earnings had kept up with labour productivity growth since 1989, the average wage in the private sector would have been $31.85 in March 2011, but it was only $23.43.

Many economists have rejected the view that low pay simply reflects low skill, “an argument of impregnable circularity in which the outcome, low pay, is used as the only evidence for the alleged cause - low skill and personal inefficiency”.9

Similarly, Auckland Professor of Economics Tim Hazeldine argues: “We must insist on fair shares. This means reversing the past decade’s trend towards a hollowing out of the income distribution: top people paying themselves more and paying those at the bottom less... There is no real question about whether a relatively rich country like New Zealand can ‘afford’ to pay everybody a decent living wage. Indeed, can we afford

not to, in the long run?”10

It is important to remember how a living wage mechanism works. Living wages are voluntary, and are based on adoption by employers who both can and should pay. These tend to be large employers, are often multinationals or have overseas shareholders, are profitable despite their low wages, and have an impact right across the relevant labour market. It is well-established that there are a large number of small businesses in New Zealand that are not in a position to pay a living wage due to their low

turnover and profit. This notwithstanding, many of the employers that have sought accreditation with LWANZ have been small businesses who see the innate value in having a living wage.

Local Government ActIt has been argued that the Local Government Act 2002 is a barrier to paying council employees and/or requiring its CCOs and contractors to pay a living wage.

A legal opinion by Dr Matthew Palmer concludes it is not a barrier: “…the Local Government Act does not prohibit a local authority or Council-Controlled Organisation from paying its employees, or requiring its contractors to pay their employees, a living wage. My opinion is based on material that explains the economic justification of a living wage in terms of associated productivity gains. Pursuing such a policy would be consistent with the purpose of local government which includes cost-effectiveness and provision of good quality services. In particular, I consider that it would be valid for a local authority to exercise its power to set remuneration policy under the Local Government Act by adopting a living wage policy.”

Relativity issues

Some concerns have been raised about the impact on those workers on higher pay rates than the living wage and whether this will create upward pressure on wages in general to maintain or restore differentials.

The PSA is clear that for WCC employees, pay increases to those below the living wage should not mean increases for all other employees of the same percentage to maintain internal relativities. Compression of pay scales is accepted, with the living wage policy aimed at targeting the lowest paid employees. The PSA says it would continue to advocate cost of living increases at a minimum for its other members. For example, library staff just above the living wage level (earning $19-$25 per hour) would expect some increase, but less in percentage terms than those currently below the living wage. This position has been overwhelmingly endorsed by its members.

“There is no real question about whether a relatively rich country like New Zealand can ‘afford’ to pay everybody a living wage. Indeed, can we afford not to?” Tim Hazeldine

2218



Given the many local authorities that have introduced the living wage around the world, there is a large body of literature on the costs and benefits of doing so.

International experience has been that initial estimates of the cost of implementing the living wage are almost always higher than the eventual outcome. When Los Angeles introduced the living wage in 1997, it was predicted to cost somewhere between US$30-40 million. However, the total increase to labour costs was $US2.5 million.11

Baltimore is the longest-running and most-studied municipality with a living wage ordinance, from 1994 onwards. The first study, by the Preamble Centre for Public Policy, showed that in the first year nominal contract costs rose by only 0.2%, declining by 2.4% once adjusted for inflation. A 1999 study found that nominal contract costs rose by 1.2% — lower than inflation for the period — and concluded that the budgetary impact had been minimal.12

There are a number of reasons that costs often end up much lower than estimated. Firstly, given that many of the services councils provide are now procured from private firms (who rely on low wage labour), some of the costs can be absorbed by the firms themselves. Secondly, there are significant benefits associated with implementing a living wage, with regard to lower staff turnover, absenteeism, and boosted productivity.

Two UK studies demonstrate the positive impacts of paying a living wage. The first was a 2008 study of Queen Mary, a college of the University of London, which moved to pay its cleaners the London living wage, and brought cleaning in-house, ending an outsourced contracting arrangement. The study, led by Professor Jane Wills, Professor of human

The costs and benefits of the Living Wage

geography at the University, showed that cleaners had higher levels of morale and job satisfaction, worked more productively, and completed a broader range of tasks.

The authors concluded: “The research has revealed that the move to be a living wage employer and bring the cleaning service in-house has stimulated improvements in job quality, productivity and service delivery, with very little increase in costs.”13

The second study, conducted by consultancy firm London Economics for the Greater London Authority, showed “significantly lower rates of staff turnover” leading to “substantial cost savings on recruitment and induction training”.

There were also lower rates of absenteeism and sick leave, enhanced quality of work, and widespread efficient work reorganisation. This was alongside significantly boosted worker morale and motivation and reputational benefits for the employers. It found “evidence of little or no impact on business performance of London Living Wage implementation.

Firms in the finance industry in the UK report the types of results discussed above. KPMG, with a UK turnover of £1.6bn and over 5,000 staff in two large London offices, states: “We have been paying the living wage since 2006 and have found that it really pays off. Since its introduction, staff turnover has reduced and productivity has increased as attitudes are now more flexible and positive. Paying the Living Wage is not just a moral issue – we have found that it also makes good business sense.”

When Los Angeles introduced the living wage in 1997, it was predicted to cost somewhere between US$30-40 million. However, the total increase to labour costs was $US2.5 million.

2219



14

London’s Conservative Mayor, Boris Johnson, is a strong advocate of the living wage movement: “More and more London firms are recognising the benefits of fair remuneration for all of their workforce. Paying the London Living Wage ensures hard-working Londoners are helped to make ends meet, providing a boost not only for their personal quality of life but delivering indisputable economic dividends to employers too. This in turn is good for London’s productivity and growth.”

“Paying the London Living Wage ensures hard-working Londoners are helped to make ends meet, providing a boost not only for their personal quality of life but delivering indisputable economic dividends to employers too. This in turn is good for London’s productivity and growth.” Boris Johnson

2220



The direct cost to Wellington City Council

The literature review on the effects of living wage policies carried out in August 2013 for the Auckland Council by labour economist Professor Tim Maloney of AUT, with Amanda Gilbertson, reports relatively small impacts overall from living wage ordinances and policies with only a small proportion of most workforces covered, but notes that “even small positive benefits for specific groups of low-wage workers and their families may be better than nothing.”

WCC officers have quantified the cost of implementing the living wage for directly-employed staff and for CCO staff as $900k.

Their paper for the 11 June 2013 meeting of the WCC Strategy and Policy Committee estimates that there are around 500 directly-employed council staff receiving less than $18.40 an hour. This includes staff on fixed-term or casual contracts.

Officials estimate the number of directly-employed staff and costs of applying a living wage at:

l 345 permanent staff: $450k per annum

l 30 fixed term staff: $12k per annum

l 127 casual staff: $75.5k per annum

l Subtotal: $550k per annum

l Total $575k per annum (adjusted for Kiwisaver contributions)

The paper went on to point to possible savings from a living wage. “There is high staff turnover in roles that currently earn below $18.40: 11% at one year of service; 25.5% at two years of service; and 44% in total.”

The PSA also reports that current turnover of directly-employed staff is very high. Between June 2011 and March 2013 there were 463 resignations from council. In addition 235 positions were disestablished due to

restructuring. This is out of a total workforce of approximately 1300.

The costs should also be offset by the considerable benefits. With regard to Wellington, these benefits have been reinforced in the officials’ paper to councillors (June 2013) which refers to the benefits of adopting a living wage for direct employees in terms of “staff loyalty, increased morale, and improved efficiencies. This primarily relates to a reduction in time spent on recruitment as the higher wages tend to encourage staff to stay longer. This is a factor for the Council with a current turnover of above 30%.”

With regard to CCOs, the officials reported 312 employees earning below $18.40 and the breakdown of numbers of staff and the costs associated with the living wage as:

l 49 permanent staff: $77k per annum

l 263 fixed term and casual staff: $238k per annum

l Subtotal: $315k per annum

l Total: $325k (adjusted for Kiwisaver contributions).

No costs have been estimated for the council workforce employed by contractors in the officials’ paper. On this, the paper said: “The council is therefore not in position to make a decision. Nevertheless, the use of such an approach would cut across the principle that the living wage is discretionary and the decision to adopt it should rest with each organisation taking into account their circumstances. Legislation requires Council to deliver services that are the most cost effective for households

The costs should also be offset by the considerable benefits – “staff loyalty, increased morale, and improved efficiencies”. Council officers’ report

2221



16

and businesses. Applying a living wage to contractors could expose Council to challenge because it may not be able to demonstrate that it is meeting the ‘most effective’ purpose of the Local Government Act 2002.”

As council has also made the commitment in principle to achieving the living wage for contract staff, the cost of this implementation

must also be quantified with urgency to ensure a fair implementation. There are numerous reasons why contract workers must be included. Apart from the fairness issues and the need to take a lead in addressing poverty and inequality in Wellington City, if the living wage coverage does not include procured services then it will incentivise and accelerate the process of outsourcing core local government services.

2222



Directly-employed staff

WCC should be the best possible employer offering the best possible jobs by moving all directly-employed staff above the living wage as soon as possible.

Up to 500 directly-employed WCC staff earn below the living wage out of a total workforce of 1300. They work mainly in libraries, pools, recreation centres, parks and some administration and receptionist roles. The living wage should be implemented as soon as possible. Should a phased implementation be necessary, this will be completed by June 2016.

The movement of wages to reach the living wage should be treated as a separate process to adjustments for cost of living or other changes for employees above the living wage. Performance pay issues should not be related to paying a living wage; they should be a separate issue for employment negotiation. Any proposals to change and enhance job descriptions to accompany the wage changes should not a condition of living wage implementation, but worked through independently in employment relations processes.

Living Wage Wellington proposes that WCC implements the living wage through collective bargaining. Currently the PSA has collective agreements that cover employees in the libraries and in the Building Compliance and Consents parts of council. The Library Agreement expires on 5 May 2014 and the Building Compliance and Consents Agreement on 30 June 2014. Bargaining has recently been initiated for a new collective agreement to cover these employees, including pay levels. The PSA has claimed to have pay rates written into the agreement in future, with wage levels to be bargained. The PSA will be seeking to have all starting rates on or above the living wage as soon as possible, with unanimous support

Implementation proposal

having been voted by its members, including those paid above the living wage.

A total of 45 of about 200 library employees are paid below the living wage of $18.40. Thirty of these are located in the Central Library and 15 at branch libraries. In addition those in customer service roles, mostly at entry level, but with the potential to move to other full-time or permanent positions in the library, have starting rates below the living wage. For the newer employees in this group there have been little to no recent pay increases, and progression within salary bands is no longer automatic. Cuts in the library budget in recent years have resulted in some staff having their hours reduced, making the hourly rate even more crucial. The living wage campaign for this group has taken on real importance.

Council-Controlled Organisations

There are currently 10 CCOs operating under various ownership models. The eight 100%-controlled CCOs are:

l Wellington Zoo Trust

l Wellington Museums Trust

l Wellington Venues Ltd

l Basin Reserve Trust

l Positively Wellington Tourism

l Positively Wellington Venues

l Wellington Cable Car Ltd

l Wellington Waterfront

As full council subsidiaries established to run

WCC should be the best possible employer offering the best possible jobs by moving all directly-employed staff above the living wage as soon as possible.

2223



18

activities that are key to the city’s success, they must be run in a way that contributes to the overall wellbeing of all Wellingtonians. Implementing the living wage would involve working with each organisation to achieve living wage accreditation in this council term within the overall living wage framework.

As a first step, WCC will require each directly-owned CCO to develop an implementation plan.

The PSA notes that many of its members working for the Museums Trust earn below the living wage and funding is tight. The debate about CCO structure and whether some, or all should be brought back in-house, is beyond the scope of this paper but this may assist in ensuring CCO employees

are paid the living wage.

Other ownership arrangements

Two CCOs have more diffuse ownership arrangements: Capacity (joint-ownership with Hutt Councils) and Wellington Regional Stadium Trust (joint ownership with Greater Wellington Council). These CCOs would not initially be included in the living wage process but options for progressing the issue within the existing ownership models should be identified.

Contractors who deliver services

While we have not been supplied with any detail from council officers about the scope of the council contracts and their cost, we understand from various sources that the main contractors cover cleaning, catering, security, car parking enforcement, roading, refuse/recycling and facility maintenance. We understand that the two largest of these contracts, covering roading and property maintenance, have been recently let for five-year terms. This means there will be a lengthy

period where the living wage will not apply.

The parking enforcement contract comes up early in 2014, and would provide a good starting place to implement the living wage for contracted staff providing a service to the city.

Some of the contractors, such as City Care, employ tradespeople, trades assistants and labourers and nearly all of these employees are paid above the living wage with only two steps in their collective agreement being just below the living wage, affecting only a handful of individual workers. City Care has the contract for facility maintenance. It also has a contract with Capacity for drainage, which is currently outside the scope of this exercise.

Catering and security are fairly small -scale operations, with part of security in-house.

Cleaning is a service where there is a regular workforce cleaning WCC premises, including libraries and council service centres as well as the main Wakefield Street premises. We understand that 25 Spotless cleaners are employed in total but some are on low, part-time hours with the overall average probably about 20 hours a week. They are employed on $14.10 an hour with a handful paid more. We estimate about $113,000 for the direct wage cost of increasing the rate to $18.40, plus ACC levies etc.

We understand that in the current tendering process for carparking enforcement, the prospective tenders are being asked to give two quotes with and without payment at the living wage rate. Carparking is currently run by Armourguard (Parkwise), which employs the workers involved in issuing parking enforcement tickets, and Tenix Solutions, which deals with payment notices, receipt and enforcement for non-payers. We understand that some Tenix workers may be paid below the living wage but probably no more than 10 maximum with a $2.00 per hour gap.

The Service and Food Workers Union (SFWU) has members in Parkwise which employs 33 parking attendants who all work 40 hours per

The parking enforcement contract comes up early in 2014, and would provide a good starting place to implement the living wage for contracted staff providing a service to the city.

2224



week or more, some as many as 60 hours. They are paid between $14.08 and $14.40 per hour and may get bonuses for issuing more than the standard number of parking enforcement tickets in a week.

We estimate that it would cost some $300,000 to bring them up to the living wage (plus ACC levies etc). WCC income from car parking is approximately $15 million per annum. On a quick estimate, paying the living wage could be covered by an 8c increase on the current $4.00 an hour parking charge. WCC has already said that consideration could be given to increasing the charge to $5.00 per hour. Less than 10% of this towards the living wage commitment would seem very reasonable.

Most of the lowest-paid workers are employed in WCC-contracted organisations, with the cleaners, catering workers, security and carparking enforcement workers paid not much above $14.00 an hour. In line with the guiding principle that all low-paid workers should benefit from living wage implementation, the council will need to make progress on contracted services from the start of the implementation process.

The payment of a living wage should be a condition of all new service contracts delivered to WCC on an on-going basis and not on an irregular or one-off basis. The tender documents for the new contracts must also ensure that the payment of the living wage covers service contract work that is sub-contracted by the successful contractor. It is assumed that WCC will bear the cost of the movement to the living wage although competition between contractors to win the service contracts will also mean that some of that cost will be borne by successful contractors through the reduction of margins or productivity improvements, or possibly price increases where consumers pay for services, such as parking. While virtually all of the workers in cleaning, catering, security and parking are paid well below the living wage, their numbers are not huge and the cost may

not be as much as expected.

Some current contractors may raise arguments against the living wage implementation to protect the status quo (although some have welcomed it as a way to keep good staff):

l “We will have to pay all of our staff the living wage whether they work on a WCC contract or not because our employment arrangements do not allow for the payment of different rates.” Even though it would be good if the contractor decides to spread the living wage to all of its Wellington workforce, there is nothing in the law that prevents a contractor from paying one wage at the WCC and another at another site. In fact, in both cleaning and security (including car parking enforcement) the national collective agreements specifically acknowledge that this will happen.

l “Other vulnerable workers, such as young people and less qualified people will lose out as the payment of the living wage will mean that staff will need to be more productive and more skilled”. International evidence suggests this is not a significant problem.

l “The cost of the contract will dramatically increase.” Evidence from the USA experience with the living wage suggests the overall impact on costs over time is not significant. (See section on cost.)

l “The Wellington market is not large enough for the tenders to be competitive enough so that contractors absorb some of the costs.” If the Wellington market isn’t large enough, then what market in NZ actually is? In any case, WCC could be expected to

In line with the guiding principle that all low-paid workers should benefit from living wage implementation, the council will need to make progress on contracted services from the start of the implementation process.

2225



20

include such matters in its negotiations with tenderers.

Procurement and tendering processes – impact of a living wage

Council officials will need to produce an analysis of how the living wage can be integrated into the current procurement policy of WCC. Unlike local authorities in the UK and European Union, there are fewer legal constraints on the ability of New Zealand councils to set criteria for contracted services in New Zealand, beyond

a general obligation to be transparent and open in the tender processes.

There are seven main contractors delivering services currently who would be impacted by living wage implementation. The affected areas of service are catering, parking, security, roading, refuse/recycling, facility maintenance and cleaning. Given the extent

and size of the contracts and long terms (some are for five years), the implementation would take place over a number of years.

l The framework will need to include a timetable for the contracts that are due for tender.

l WCC will signal to current contractors its intention to implement a living wage as a condition of tender and design an engagement process with current contractors so that they are aware and prepared for this development.

There has been a suggestion that rather than requiring tenderers to quote on the basis of paying a living wage, tenderers (such as in carparking enforcement) may be asked to put in two quotes – one paying a living wage and one without a living wage. The living wage quote could then be given a preference by putting in a tender evaluation process weighting to favour the living wage quote over the non-living wage quote. We believe this sends mixed messages to the tenderers, would not allow WCC to ever become an accredited Living Wage Employer and would not allow WCC to get the best value out of contractors competing for their tenders.

Reducing top salaries

The modest cost of introducing the living wage is put in perspective alongside the possibility of funding it by addressing top salaries. Work at Auckland Council produced some interesting figures. In the financial year ending 30 June 2013 there were 770 staff – 7% of the workforce – earning salaries over $120,000. The total cost of those salaries was approximately $127 million or 20% of the total salary budget. The proposed cost of introducing a living wage for direct employed staff at Auckland Council was $3.5m, or 0.5% of the total salary budget. A reduction of the total amount paid to those on salaries above $120,000 by 3% would, on its own, more than meet that living wage cost.

Budget implications and options can be set out by council officials. Such options could include exploring funding the rise in the living wage through a cap on top salaries (including CEO and senior executive packages) to help limit the overall cost to WCC of implementation.

The modest cost of introducing the living wage is put in perspective alongside the possibility of funding it by addressing top salaries.

2226



THAT the Governance, Finance and Planning Committee recommends that Council agrees:

1) To adopt the following guidelines for implementation of the living wage at Wellington City Council:

l The living wage will be implemented in this term, beginning on 1 January 2014.

l Tangible progress will be made from the start of implementation for direct, CCO and contract employed staff earning below the living wage.

2) To implement the living wage in this term by:

l Committing to become an accredited living wage employer by November 2016

l Lifting all directly-employed staff to the living wage in this term

l Ensuring staff employed by CCOs are paid the living wage in this term

Proposed resolution

3) To ensure that, as contracts for services supplied to WCC on a regular and on-going basis expire, that a clause is inserted in tender documents requiring contractors to pay a living wage to all employees involved in these contracts.

4) To actively support and encourage Wellington employers to become living wage employers.

5) To Work with Living Wage Wellington to prepare an implementation plan.

6) To prepare a communications strategy highlighting the benefits of the living wage to Wellington City

7) To spend $250k in this Annual Plan round on the first stage of implementing the living wage for all directly-employed staff and implementing the living wage in parking services.

8) To make provision in subsequent Annual Plans to progress all stages of the implementation plan towards the goal of full implementation by November 2016.

2227



22

References

1 Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2012. Ministry of Social Development, www.msd.govt.nz

2 Richard Anker, A new methodology for estimating internationally comparable poverty lines and living wage rates, ILO Working Paper No. 72, 2005, p 5, available at http://www.ilo.org/integration/resources/papers/WCMS_079165/lang--en/index.htm

3 See annual reports on Household Incomes in New Zealand: Trends in Indicators of Inequality and Hardship at http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/index.html for full documentation of household incomes, poverty levels, and inequality measures in New Zealand).

4 Max Rashbrooke, Inequality a New Zealand Crisis page 1-2.

5 Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2012. Ministry of Social Development, www.msd.govt.nz

6 http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?article=3791 ; http://www.glasgowlivingwage.co.uk/ ; http://vimeo.com/24115491 ; http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4663 ; http://www.livingwagenewcastle.co.uk/ ; http://www.preston.govt.uk/yourservices/jobs-and-volunteering/preston-living-wage/

7 Their before-tax wages would increase by $189, reduced to $153 after tax; which would result in a decrease of supplementary support of $88.

8 Treasury report, page 5.

9 Peter Brosnan, and Frank Wilkinson, 1989, Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Industrial Relations Research, Low Pay and the Minimum Wage, page 35

10 Hazledine, T., Taking New Zealand Seriously: The Economics of Decency, (1998) Auckland: Harper Collins, page 172

11 Andrew J Elmore, Living Wage Laws & Communities: Smarter Economic Development, Lower than Expected Cost, , Brennan Center for Justice, New York, 2003, p. 2).

12 Christopher Niedt, Greg Ruiters, Diana Wise and Erica Schoenberger (1999) The Effects of the Living wage in Baltimore (Working paper No 199) at 6-9.

13 Jane Wills, The business case for the living wage: The story of the cleaning service at Queen Mary, University of London, January 2009, available at http://www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/docs/staff/8041.pdf ).

2228

232229

Submission on the 2014/15 Draft Annual Plan.

Wellington City Youth Council.

The Youth Council wishes to make an oral submission.

Further contact:

Jack Marshall,

Chair,

[email protected]

0211866186

2230

The Wellington City Youth Council welcomes the opportunity to submit on the 2014/15

Draft Annual Plan.

1. Development Contributions

1.1 We support the reduction of development contributions for five star rated

buildings. These buildings reduce energy consumption and aids progress

towards achieving the goals of 'Wellington 2040: Eco City'.

1.2 The Youth Council supports this proposal as it will assist Wellington to

become Carbon Neutral. We would like to see Wellington become Carbon

Neutral by 2040.

2. Earthquake Strengthening

2.1 The Youth Council believes that in order for Wellington to be a Resilient City,

all buildings must, at a minimum, meet the standards set by the building code,

and business owners should be encouraged to strengthen their buildings to as

high a standard as is practical.

2.2 We believe this standard to be at least 67% of building code, as established

by the Building Act 2004 as being the level below which buildings are considered

'earthquake risk'. We generally support any moves that allow and encourage

building owners to strengthen their buildings faster.

2.3 The Youth Council believes that the strengthening of the Cuba Precinct must

be expedited. This is an important location where many young people live, work

and relax.

3. Living Wage

3.1 In principle, we support the living wage. We recognise there are costs and

the living wage will not be suitable for every individual CCO but we believe that

as a major employer, the Wellington City Council should show leadership in pay

rates.

2231

3.2 We believe a living wage is as much about accessibility to the community as

it is about basic necessities.

4. Cycling

4.1 We support increased mode share for alternative transport. We recognize

that with limited road space, decisions regarding share of space for each mode of

transport must be made, but cycling does not have to be sacrificed in favor of

traditional, car based, transport.

4.2 We believe that the Wellington City Council should investigate the

possibilities of segregation of motor vehicle traffic and cycle traffic. Excellent

examples of this have been achieved in New York City.

4.3 An associated issue, which Wellington City Council is unsuited to influence, is

the absence of post-ride showering facilities, which discourages commuter

cycling. The Youth Council raises this issue in this context to emphasize that

encouraging sustainable mode-share is a many-faceted issue.

5. Lombard Lane

5.1 We support the redevelopment of Lombard Lane. This will be an excellent

inner city open space. The Youth Council previously submitted in support of the

development of an inner city green space in Long Term Plan 2012-2022.

6. Healthy Homes

6.1 We would like the council to continue to pursue a minimum standard for

rental homes. If legislation introduced by MP Phil Twyford is passed by

Parliament, the council should immediately develop a framework to ensure that

rental property owners begin to meet this standard.

6.2 We congratulate the council for undertaking their program to ensure council

owned housing stock already meets this standard, and would support the council

continuing programs to promote installing insulation in private homes.

2232

7. Eight Big Ideas For Economic Growth

7.1 The Youth Council generally supports the concept of picking projects with

which to rejuvenate the Wellington economy. We feel that it is important for the

Wellington City Council to set aspirational goals and ideas when planning for the

future. We commend council for its willingness to consider the future.

7.2 However, we think the ideas proposed in the 2014/15 Annual Plan partially

lack imagination and are not goals that council can aspire to.

7.3 The Youth Council supports a film museum. Our film industry is world-class,

and showcasing this is an excellent idea. The ‘Weta Cave’, for example, already

draws many visitors to Wellington. However, we do not believe that this is a

particularly aspirational goal to grow the economy.

7.4 We consider international air connections and a runway extension to be

inevitable and necessary, at least within current transport technology. We must

be a connected city in order to retain and attract talent.

7.5 A related issue to the international air connections is that of public transport

connections to the Airport. We do not think the Airport Flyer adequately services

this route. We think the decisions made around the Spine Study are a missed

opportunity to create fast and effective public transport between the Airport and

the railway station. The absence of proper and cheap transport to the airport is a

significant setback to air patronage.

7.6 A technology precinct is a fantastic idea. Properly and aggressively pursued,

this project may make a tangible and substantial contribution to economic growth

between now and 2040.

7.7 We recommend the council actively consider ways in which it can support

development of new information technology businesses. A potential location for

this precinct could be the upper Taranaki Street area, between Courtenay Place

and Vivian Street.

2233

7.8 Alongside this proposal, the Youth Council would like Council to investigate

gigabit internet within the CBD, in order to bring our internet infrastructure

properly in line with world-class standards.

7.9 We are not convinced the demand exists for a convention centre beyond

what the city already offers. This is in part due to these facilities existing or being

developed in Auckland, but mostly due to our geographic isolation relative to the

rest of the world. Perhaps this “big idea” should be revisited when that demand

can be convincingly proven.

7.10 However, we believe there is some merit in a smaller arena with a capacity

of 6,000-12,000 people, for music concerts and similar. We believe the demand

does exist, as larger acts currently avoid Wellington in favour of Auckland due to

the lack of viably-sized venues. A potential place for such a venue is next to the

Westpac Trust Stadium, a site that was flagged by a Wellington Venues'

investigation in 2011. With careful planning, perhaps this could be integrated with

the conference centre idea.

7.11 We do not understand how a “Miramar framework” and the “open for

business” plan amount to a meaningful growth plan. We should support

business, and the fledgling film industry is a perfect example of a suitable area,

but it is not something that we consider particularly worthy of comment. Instead,

council should be already doing this.

7.12 Our transport development is being stalled by policies of Greater Wellington

Regional Council, such as the annual rise in fares irrespective of patronage

changes. Whilst there are some easy improvements that can be made, these are

prevented by a “balanced” approach to planning that unduly favours private

vehicles. That said, we recognize Wellington’s successes in public transport to

date.

2234

1

Antoinette Bliss

From: [email protected]: Tuesday, 11 March 2014 4:39 p.m.To: BUS: Annual PlanSubject: Submission on behalf of Revolve Cycling

Importance: High

Hello, My name is Meagan Robertson and I am writing on behalf of Revolve Cycling Club – a fun cycling club for women of all abilities and skill levels. I would like to make an oral submission, and can be contacted on 027 826 0006. We are hugely supportive of the ‘Our Capital Spaces’ service improvements included in the Draft Annual Plan 2014:

1) An increase in the investment in Makara Peak Mountain Bike Park – this park has become an outlet for recreational purposes for Wellingtonians and visitors of all ages. Volunteers pour hundreds of hours into building and maintaining the tracks and increased investment in the park is testament to their hard work and commitment. Since the council pledged its support 16 years, more than 40 kilometres of track have been built and over 32,00 native trees planted. Revolve Cycling regularly encourages women to begin or improve their riding abilities by hosting weekly rides, skills clinics and events at Makara Peak – we believe that just as Revolve in an investment in women’s health and confidence, so is Makara and the other trail networks required to run the club

2) Funding to implement Open Access Plan – while Revolve focuses on biking and bike skills, it wouldn’t be possible without Wellington’s unique access network, embedded within the city structure and the Town Belt, which allows women to participate in planned outings only minutes from the CBD. Being able to connect different parts of the city via routes running through open space is a unique and unparalleled Wellington bonus.

3) Support for community planting and pest control/Project Halo – Zealandia has done a fantastic job of protecting and nurturing the native bird population in Wellington and it’s important to recognise that by ensuring that birds that step foot out of the zone are as well protected as possible. Part of the outdoor experience in Wellington – whether mountain biking, tramping or walking ‐ is the appreciation of nature and wildlife.

4) Funding to review existing signage – Revolve is all about encouraging women to get out on their bikes and enjoying the trail networks Wellington has to offer. This means that we often end up playing tour guide for women who haven’t explored the tracks previously. From our experience, most newbies are relatively timid about trying out new tracks, and are hesitant to come back on their own, especially if the tracks are not well sign posted as they fear they might attempt to ride down a trail that is too difficult. Once put off, many women will decide not to pursue the sport any further. We believe that comprehensive (track difficulty, whether it’s one way or both ways and whether it’s dual‐use) signage is essential to encouraging new participants to experience and appreciated the trail network. Makara Peak is a fantastic example of comprehensive signage, and for that reason beginners feel comfortable going there.

5) Funding to support promotion of Wellington as premier MTB destination – We are hugely supportive of exposing one of our best‐kept secrets! The trails are here...the proximity to the city is here...what we need is marketing. Wellington needs to promote itself as a mountain bike destination through images and videos in

2236

2

the tourism market. Yes we have great coffee, cafes, music and culture, but what makes wellington so special is its proximity to the outdoors. There is no other capital city where you can be in your office, and 10 minutes later be biking on amazing single track trails that lead to the South Coast. This is ideal for the people who live here, and appealing to those wanting to visit a city that offers both culture and recreation.

With regards to the plan to invest in cycling as a priority, we strongly support increasing the cycling budget to $4.3million: Revolve Cycling is comprised of both mountain bikers and road bikers, as well as a significant number of commuters. At the moment, we are concerned that cycling in the city is often considered unsafe, due to a lack of bike lanes, feeder lanes, stop boxes and vehicle driver education. We believe that with better education and more obvious road space reserved for cyclists, drivers could become more aware of cyclist requirements and ideally, more respectful. We support all of WCC's plans for cycling (for both recreation and transport) We support all current and proposed plans for cycling, from safety improvements such as advance stop boxes and lowering the speed limit in the CBD, to more challenging projects such as lifting the level of service on all 19 key cycle routes into the city. We agree that the Island Bay to CBD cycle route is a priority, and also support the creation of the Kilbirnie cycle and walkway. We would like to see all these projects form the basis of a plan for a comprehensive cycle network for the city. We would like the plan to be considered whenever other transport improvements are being made (for example, alongside the Public Transport Spine development). A coordinated approach is needed to develop Adelaide Road (Basin Reserve to John Street) Adelaide Road has been the top priority for improvement for Wellington cyclists for the past three years. We are aware that various projects are looking at developing all or part of the Basin to John Street section of Adelaide Road, namely the:

Public Transport Spine Basin Reserve flyover Adelaide Road Framework Island Bay to CBD cycle route Memorial Park project.

We want to see the different parties responsible for these projects coordinate so that their aims and solutions do not conflict with each other. This section of Adelaide Road needs international‐standard separated cycle lanes on both sides of the road to serve the current and growing number of bicycles flowing into the CBD via Newtown (10% of vehicles at morning peak, according to WCC's 2013 cordon count). We want to ensure that this opportunity is not lost simply because of a lack of coordination between the various projects coming up. Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Meagan Robertson

Meagan Robertson Account ManagerLevel 4, 195 Willis StreetPO Box 9368, WellingtonDDI: +64 4 384 5689 Mob: +64 027 826 0006 www.dinniss.co.nz

This email has been filtered by SMX. For more information visit smxemail.com

2237

1

SUBMISSION

to the

Wellington City Council

on the

ANNUAL PLAN

2238

2

ABOUT PPTA

1. PPTA represents approximately 17,000 secondary teachers, principals, and manual

and technology teachers, in New Zealand; this is the majority of teachers engaged in

secondary education – approximately 90% of eligible teachers choose to join PPTA.

PPTA is an affiliate member of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (“CTU”).

2. Under our constitution, all PPTA activity is guided by the following objectives:

(a) To advance the cause of education generally and of all phases of secondary and

technical education in particular.

(b) To uphold and maintain the just claims of its members individually and

collectively.

(c) To affirm and advance Te Tiriti O Waitangi.

3. PPTA is not affiliated to a political party and our members individually support a broad

spectrum of political parties in Parliament. However, PPTA have consistently

promoted policies that promote progressive economics, social policy and employment

relations policy. At our 2012 Annual Conference, PPTA members endorsed the

following alternative economic model:

(a) A fairer tax system;

(b) Effective public services;

(c) Addressing the public debt myth;

(d) Investing heavily in education and training;

(e) Regulating financial markets and limiting corporate excess;

(f) Respect for the rights of workers (paid and unpaid) and learners; including:

(i) Legislation that promotes union membership and collective bargaining;

(ii) Avoiding a unilateralist approach to employment relations by engaging

employees, employers and those not yet in employment in ways which add

value to the economy and society;

(iii) Engaging in employment relationships that outlive economic cycles and

extend beyond the walls of individual organisations;

(iv) Rejecting a low wage economy (which will help to stop the outflow of

skilled labour from Aotearoa / New Zealand).

(g) Retaining New Zealand’s state assets in full public ownership;

(h) Promoting the idea that we are cultural citizens not just economic citizens;

(i) Closing the pay gap between the minimum and maximum wages paid across a

workforce or industry; and

(j) Fiscal policy that acknowledges the importance of the environment.

SUPPORT FOR THE LIVING WAGE

4. PPTA is strongly in favour of the proposals to introduce the living wage as a minimum

pay scale for council workers and contractors, where those workers are earning under

the living wage.

5. As teachers in the public education system, our members have first-hand knowledge

of the impact that poverty and rising inequality, through unemployment and low wages,

can have on students’ learning and achievement. Child poverty, and inter-generational

poverty, continues to be a problem and teachers attempts to deal with the effects of

2239

3

poverty are well documented (for example, the effect that poverty has on students’

cognitive abilities). Last year, the PPTA commissioned independent research by

academics Liz Gordon and Brian Easton, which found that there is a direct link

between socio-economic status and achievement.

6. The link between socio-economic status and achievement levels has also been

recognised by central Government, which is why children from low socio-economic

backgrounds have been identified as priority learners.1

7. We all have our part to play in ensuring that students achieve at school. Implementing

the living wage for council staff and contractors will help as an important “out of school

factor”.

8. Not implementing the living wage for council workers and contractors will perpetuate

low wages, inequality, poverty and the further exploitation of vulnerable workers.

9. Local Government has a key leadership role in promoting best practice employment

and ensuring that they are acting consistently with their legal obligations to be a good

employer. We endorse the recommendations made by the New Zealand Council of

Trade Unions (“CTU”) in its submission.

INEQUALITY

10. Over the past 30 years, New Zealand has become an increasingly unequal society.

For example, “New Zealand:

Now has the widest income gaps since detailed records began in the early 1980’s;

From the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s the gap between rich and the rest has

widened faster in New Zealand than in any other developed country;

The average household in the top 10 per cent of New Zealand has nine times the

income of one in the bottom 10 per cent; and

The top 1 per cent of adults own 16 per cent of the country’s total wealth, while the

bottom half put together have just over 5 per cent.”2

11. The continued and persistent trend in inequality can be seen in the Salvation Army’s

forewords to their annual State of the Nation reports over the past five years:

2009 “It does appear that our recent social progress is quite fragile and might easily reverse with the deteriorating economic conditions that we and the rest of the world face. The best example of this is the recent advances in reducing rates of child poverty. Regrettably this progress was based mainly on the prospect of growing employment with policies such as Working for Families backing up this focus.”3

2010 “There is no denying that the recession is taking a social toll. Unemployment is at a five-year high, gains made over the past five years in reducing child poverty have probably been lost, and there

1 http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Priority-learners (last accessed 11 March 2014).

2 Rashbrooke, Max Inequality: A New Zealand Crisis (Bridget Williams Books Ltd., 2013), pp 1 to 2.

3 Into troubled waters (State of the Nation report, Salvation Army, February 2009), pg. 4.

2240

http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Priority-learners

4

are signs of a widening income gap between the well paid and the poorly paid.”4

2011 “This report shows that child poverty rates have climbed back to where they were five years ago, that violence towards children and youth unemployment are as bad as they were five years ago, and that the educational disadvantage suffered by Māori children continues and may even be getting worse.”5

2012

“We have two clear choices here: one is to continue the path we have been on more or less continuously for the past three decades, concentrating wealth and influence, and driving the marginalised further into the shadows with yet more restrictive welfare entitlements and a yet more punitive criminal justice system. The other is to act more inclusively and to work consciously and deliberately at ways of ensuring that the most marginalised New Zealanders, and in particular, many poor families and unemployed young people, feel as though they are valued and valuable members of our society.”6

2013

“The reality is that the New Zealand economy has crawled since the beginnings of the global financial crisis in late 2007: real per capita GDP has declined while total GDP on a production basis has grown by just over 3% in real terms over the past five years. In response, nearly 150,000 New Zealanders have left for Australia since late 2007—more than the population of our fourth largest city. Despite this exodus, almost 300,000 New Zealanders are jobless and official unemployment is at a 10-year high. Yet the alarm bells are not ringing. The media is enthusiastic about rising house prices, and the Government remains singularly focused on reducing its deficit, while refusing to consider increasing taxes even to pay for the one-off costs of the Christchurch earthquake rebuild. Child poverty remains resolutely stuck at around 20% of New Zealand children, despite a Ministerial Committee on Poverty being established. Auckland’s housing shortage continues to grow and despite attempts to reform the effectiveness of Housing New Zealand, many households in need of decent housing don’t currently have those needs met—resulting in too many New Zealanders living in unhealthy, unaffordable and insecure accommodation.7 “… it’s naïve to believe and dishonest to suggest that these solutions do not require more tax dollars. The source of these extra tax dollars is, of course, a problem particularly considering the global economic situation. In our view the need for a society that is just and gives every citizen the right to participate economically and socially is so important, that ways must be found to find this additional tax revenue.”8

2014

While there has been a great deal of political and media attention paid to solutions to child poverty, virtually no effort has been spent in actually

4 A road to recovery (State of the Nation report, Salvation Army, February 2010), pg. vi.

5 Stalled (State of the Nation report, Salvation Army, February 2011), pp. v - vi.

6 The Growing Divide (State of the Nation report, Salvation Army, February 2012), pg. viii.

7 She’ll Be Right (State of the Nation report, Salvation Army, February 2013), pp. 7-8.

8 Ibid, pg. 9.

2241

5

addressing the underlying causes of the poverty. Furthermore, we appear to lack any broadly based political will to event face this challenge.”

12. It is important to remember that inequality affects all of society, not just those in

poverty. In its 2011 report on inequality, the OECD had the following comments for

Governments about the need to, and benefits of, tackling inequality:

“Rising income inequality creates economic, social and political challenges. It can stifle

upward social mobility, making it harder for talented and hard-working people to get the

rewards they deserve. Intergenerational earnings mobility is low in countries with high

inequality such as Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and much higher in the

Nordic countries, where income is distributed more evenly (OECD, 2008). The resulting

inequality of opportunity will inevitably impact economic performance as a whole, even

if the relationship is not straightforward. Inequality also raises political challenges because

it breeds social resentment and generates political instability. It can also fuel populist,

protectionist, and anti-globalisation sentiments. People will no longer support open trade

and free markets if they feel that they are losing out while a small group of winners is

getting richer and richer.”9

[Emphasis added].

13. It should come as no surprise that low wages go hand in hand with inequality.

Libraries

14. We support the proposal to increase the Council libraries’ budget by $60,000 and

to reinstate our children’s literacy programmes, and for customer service and collection

refreshment. Libraries are an important asset for the community and allow all

members of the public access to information and resources that would otherwise be

unavailable.

ORAL SUBMISSION

15. We would like to appear before the Committee in support of our submission.

9 Divided we stand: why inequality keeps rising (OECD, 2011), pg. 40.

2242

1

Antoinette Bliss

From: BUS: Annual PlanSubject: FW: Submission to the Draft Annual Plan 2014/15Attachments: Cyclist for submission.jpg

Dear Councillors, I am writing this submission in support of cyclists having their own lanes with barriers to ride in. This should become reality because then cyclists can enjoy the stress-free experience of not having to worry about cars. Also it might encourage others to ride their bikes (including me!) and stop driving cars. Also drivers don't have to worry about running over cyclists. It would be a good experience for both rider and driver!

Regards, Tess Burgoyne (age: 11)

2243

Friends of Owhiro Stream Submission for the Wellington City

Draft Annual Plan 2014-15

Page 1 of 1

Mr

First name(s) Martin Last name Payne Street address 160 Washington Ave, Brooklyn Wellington 6021 Phone (04) 389 8995 Email [email protected] I am writing this submission on behalf of an organisation

Friends of Owhiro Stream Type of organisation: Community/Environmental restoration Do you wish to speak to a panel of Councillors in support of your submission? yes

2244



Page 2 of 2

Owhiro Stream Restoration Project Friends of Owhiro Stream (FOOS) have been working to bring one of Wellington’s few remaining streams back to life., Since 2003, the community have planted over 20 thousand plants, removed tens of tonnes of rubbish to enhance and restore habitat for native fish, animals and plants. With our native plant shadehouse at the Vogelmorn Community Hall, we are able to grow 1500 plants a year for this project which augment the 500 plants supplied by WCC. We also strongly advocate for environmental friendly urban and business development within the catchment boundaries.

We make the following requests for inclusion in the Wellington City Annual Plan 2014-15:

1. Waste Management - Southern Landfill Extension Friends of Owhiro Stream are strongly opposed to the Stage 4 extension of the Southern Landfill as it is presently proposed. The extension will involve destruction and permanent loss of a significant tributary and regenerating bush in the Owhiro stream catchment. WCC Open Space and Recreational Strategy propose ecological buffer zones around “biodiversity hotspots”. The proximity of the proposed landfill extension to the southern boundary of Zealandia clearly qualifies for such protection. It is our view the present resource consent application: • Does not demonstrate a full investigation of alternatives that would

reduce waste volumes and hence require a smaller landfill footprint.

• Its extent (10,000,000 cubic metres) and its duration (80+ years) are excessive and will diminish opportunities to develop new recycling and reprocessing initiatives.

• Does not appropriately recognise and protect this high-value habitat of

indigenous flora and fauna which is significant to Wellington City.

We recognise the need to provide landfill facilities for Wellington City, but argue that a more creative solution need to be found to both meet the waste management needs of the city and protect this important ecosystem.

2245



Page 3 of 3

Requested action: 1a) Temporarily suspend the resource consent process for the Southern

Landfill Stage 4 Extension while further discussion with the community occurs.

1b) Carry out a full waste audit and develop a detailed long term waste

management plan for Wellington City. 1c) Develop and expedite plans to divert sewage sludge from landfill

2. Biodiversity action

We actively support the long-term goals outlined in the WCC Biodiversity Action Plan for environmental restoration and protection and would like to see these environmental objectives strongly integrated into all planning and work carried out by WCC divisions and CCOs.

The integrating approach of the WCC “Our Living City” initiative to environmental, social and economic issues is valuable. As an urban stream project, we have been working to strengthen our communities understanding of the urban-nature connection. In addition, continuing support for conservation volunteers groups is essential. FOOS appreciates the assistance that WCC provides to the Owhiro Stream Restoration Project, in particular from the WCC rangers, the WCC Berhampore nursery (native plants) and the WCC Biodiversity Coordinator.

Requested action:

2a) Funding is continued for implementation of the WCC Biodiversity Action Plan by all divisions and CCOs of WCC.

2b) Continuing funding is made available for the WCC Our Living City

initiative. 2c) WCC continue to provide funding, support and staff assistance to

voluntary groups involved in environmental restoration.

3. Stormwater

The DAP states that “The stormwater network keeps people and property safe from flooding.” Page 32 DAP. While it is important that the stormwater network protects the city from flood damage, it is also important to recognise the detrimental impact that this network has in concentrating the discharge of large volumes of water, rubbish, pollutants and sediment into Wellington’s freshwater and coastal marine environments.

2246



Page 4 of 4

It is clear to FOOS, that stormwater discharge, both in volume and contaminants is having negative impacts on the stream environment we are working to restore. Urban infill and climate change are likely to further undermine the streams capability to support sustainable populations of fish and invertebrates FOOS would like the scope of the stormwater objective to be expanded to : “The stormwater network keeps people and property safe from flooding and safeguarding the natural environment” To effectively address the sources of stormwater contamination it is also important that the wider community is engaged in understanding and participating in actions that reduce the harmful effects at its source. We support the Stormwater Education Programme required under the WCC Stormwater discharge to coastal marine resource consent will be an important step in this process.

Requested action: 3a) That operational “environmental objectives” be established for all

divisions of the Wellington City Council immediately. Particularly for activities involving town planning, roading, water supply, stormwater and wastewater. Similarly any Council Controlled Organisations (CCO) need to be fully accountable to their community in terms of any plans or actions that may impact on the natural environment.

3b) Provide targeted resources for the WCC planning division to

strengthen building/urban design codes to mandate stormwater retention measures (WSUD) in new developments and encourage retrofitting measures in existing buildings/structures.

3c) Adopt a goal of no increase in stormwater flows from consented activities. Review site coverage rules and provisions for all RMA and Building Act consents involving construction, including both “greenfields” and infill housing, to be consistent with this goal.

3d) Provide for the upgrade and maintenance of the wastewater and stormwater networks in order to minimise the effects of wastewater, stormwater and sediment run-off on the environment

3e) We ask that a reasonable budget for resources be specifically tagged for development and implementation of the Community Stormwater Education Programme.

2247



Page 5 of 5

Conclusion Prominent among the objectives of Wellington’s District Plan is the need to “safeguard the natural environment – land, air and water – from pollution and contamination” and to “protect and enhance the natural or ‘green’ areas of the city”.

FOOS sees many opportunities to preserve the city’s unique environment and protect and restore its biodiversity. We believe that with informed urban planning and innovative design, the needs of both natural and urban environments can be integrated, benefitting the health and wellbeing of both. We hope that you are able to give consideration to the issues we have raised and find a way to integrate these into the ongoing plans for this wonderful place. Wellington. Yours environmentally, Martin Payne For Friends of Owhiro Stream restoration project 160 Washington Ave, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021 Phone (04) 389 8995 Fax (04) 389 8992 Email [email protected]

2248

1

Antoinette Bliss

From: Stephanie.Revell <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2014 4:52 p.m.To: BUS: Annual PlanSubject: WCC Draft Annual Plan 2014

As a ratepayer I support the council’s plan to invest $4.3 million next year in making Wellington a better cycling environment.

I’m a grandmother who often uses my bike to commute through the city for work and also travel from town out to the south and eastern suburbs to visit my family. I’m a confident rider and constantly have less confident people asking me how to deal with the traffic and expressing their fear at being in among it as their main reason for not cycling more often and especially for commuting purposes. I have friends who took part in the Cyclovia event in Feb when the peninsula road incl Scorching Bay was closed to traffic – they really enjoyed that opportunity to feel relaxed on the road and would ride more often if they could get out of the way of the traffic. My little granddaughters (4 and 7) can both ride bikes and do so with their parents, around their Lyall Bay suburb. As a family they would make cycling their means of transport to town, eg on weekends, if they felt they could do so in a protected environment, separated from traffic. I want those girls to keep up their riding and enjoy the health and economic benefits it brings to them and their whole family and there needs to be safe routes for that to happen. I see improved cycling conditions as presenting an appropriate way to address the increased rate of pedestrian accidents in Wellington – lower vehicle speed limits (eg the 30kph in Lambton Quay and some suburban streets) may help encourage more people to leave their cars at home in favour of using public transport. Fewer cars on the roads will make those roads safer for everyone. It’s also much safer biking in town when I know the cars won’t be travelling any faster than me. I really value the range of shops and cafes we have that are operating successfully in Wgtn. With fewer cars in the centre shoppers can be more sure of getting a park so they can transact their business and keep those shops and cafes profitable. The city centre is more attractive for all, tourists and Wellingtonians alike, when it feels safe to stroll around and less polluted than it would be with more vehicle traffic. I support the Council using this increased funding to research and gain evidence on the best ways to make Wellington cycle‐friendly, and then to put those ideas into practice. Yours faithfully, Stephanie Revell Work ph 04 4745136 Home ph 04 8970275 Mobile 021 061 5068

Warning: This email contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient you must not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this email or attachments. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and delete this email. Thank you.

Scanned by MailMarshal - M86 Security's comprehensive email content security solution.

2249

11 March, 2014 To Whom it may concern, I write in support of two items flagged for consultation in Wellington City Council's Draft Annual plan for 2014/15. These are increases in funding for Project Halo, and for Community planting and pest control. Zealandia occupies a unique place in the Wellington landscape, and over the last 15 years has allowed an ecosystem in recovery to flourish. This has been achieved in large part due to the support of local communities, and of local government. Many of the species that have successfully established are increasingly abundant in the wider landscape. These proposed increases would on one hand ensure continued protection of the Zealandia environment, and on the other strengthen the wider community's capacity to enhance the spill-over , as well as that from other such restoration in the wider landscape. Community planting and pest control One of the key intentions of the Halo Project is to improve the capacity for restoration groups & organisations to identify, monitor and communicate progress. The Morgan Foundation's recent initiatives to help expand this concept will enhance connectivity. This is in terms of native species that are spreading into suitable habitat, and also the sense of connectivity that groups gain, as these species colonise areas that they have restored, and helped to protect. The Morgan Foundation's work in this area provides a great opportunity to capitalise on the support they offer (investment in traps, advocacy), and the community willingness to utilise these resources. Wellington City Council has both expertise and a mandate to leverage this new source of funding. Practical advice on how to use these tools, and an overview of the wider landscape, are the kinds of support that WCC is well placed to provide. Increased capacity to meet this opportunity would be timely - and welcomed. Project Halo Wellington's storm events during 2013 highlighted the value of the pest control in the areas surrounding Zealandia. Following five weeks of extensive monitoring we determined that the breaches of our fence that occurred had not been exploited by pest

2250

31 Waiapu Road, Karori, PO Box 9267, Wellington 6141, New Zealand T +64 4 920 9200 E [email protected] W www.visitzealandia.com

species. One of the factors that undoubtedly contributed to this is the pest control that has been funded by Greater Wellington, and the imminent withdrawal of this funding may have serious implications for the biosecurity of Zealandia. From the experience of other similar projects, the chance of breach exploitation is thought to be close to 100% in the case of an overnight breach. While chance will always play a role, it was noteworthy that from external trapping adjacent to the fence only a single female stoat was caught. Additionally, this was not until two weeks after the event. Low activity levels of rats are most likely due to the possum & rat bait station network. Any such suppression of rodent numbers will have flow-on effects – fewer rodents means fewer rodent predators, which in turn need to maintain larger home ranges and are therefore less likely to find and exploit an overnight breach. Ruru are known to occasionally catch rats, weasels, & stoats, and are not likely to respect the fence as a hunting boundary. While we are confident in the general competency levels of our birds, there is always the chance of an inexperienced but ambitious juvenile biting off more than it can chew. These are all extreme examples, with a very low likelihood of occurring, but illustrate the limits of what a fence is able to achieve. Ongoing monitoring, as well as responses to exceptional events, is a continuing and generally predictable expense. The costs of incursions stretch beyond this, however; while a trapping response adds costs, the environmental impacts of a rodent or mustelid incursion would be another matter altogether. Through much of the year, the primary available prey within the fence would be mice, but following annual mouse control it might well be tieke or pateke. Management of animal pests in these adjacent reserves therefore enhances the safety of the Sanctuary itself, and ensures the connectivity of Zealandia to the wider landscape. Yours sincerely, Bernard Smith Biosecurity Officer T + 64 4 920 9212 | M + 64 21 170 2845 | F + 64 4 920 9000

2251

1

Antoinette Bliss

From: Katie Underwood <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2014 4:57 p.m.To: BUS: Annual PlanSubject: Draft annual plan submission

Greetings Here is my submission on the draft annual plan 1: The plan talks about transparency and a willingness to engage. So far, the council has ignored years of the citizens saying they don’t want more buildings on the waterfront. Your comment that ‘income should be generated upfront where possible to minimise the impact on ratepayers’ goes against the framework policy of ‘development of the waterfront not dependent on commercial activities.’ It should have the same protection that the Botanic gardens and the town belt have from commercial creep. 2: I disapprove of the redevelopment of Frank Kits park. How can WWL continue to oversee this when they are to be brought back in house? By all means upgrade the play area but leave the park alone. It is a waste of money to redevelop it. Page 49 only talks about re doing the play area. 3: The southern landfill needs to be looked at more carefully. Am not sure if this is part of the 35 year extension to discharge or not. Have serious concerns about a 35 year lease if this is the case. 4: Te Moana – I have no problem with this project being given the same commitment as Zealandia or

the Zoo. But not at the expense of a Blue Belt in the harbour. Also, as long as it is a trust and not a private public partnership.

5: Not sure a Museum of Conflict is a propriety in Wellington at present. There are so many other things the council has proposed and is not doing – lets finish something first.

Priority Growth Agenda 1: Not for or against – my interest will be on the chosen site and who pays. 2: Against extending the airport for international connections. Someone has to be a hub – why not

Auckland and Christchurch. Evans Bay is too special to have a runway through it. The south coast if also too valuable to have a runway through it. The Airport isn’t putting in as much money so why should the ratepayer foot the bill.

3: Tech precinct – have no issue with this depending on the site and who pays and who benefits 4: Convention centre – no point in Wellington and Lower Hutt both having one. Put it out the back of

the stadium where it is close to trains etc. we have the Town Hall which should be strengthened and we have the MFC and we have the Amora and the Intercontinental. I don’t believe this is a priority. Improve/save/strengthen what we have and use it sensibly.

5: Miramar framework – what does this mean? 6: Open for business – surely this is a paper pushing exercise and can be done now. 7: Better land transport options. If you mean better bus service and improved cycling then I am all for

it. 8: Liveable City – this should be a part of all decisions the council makes about projects etc along with

economic, intrinsical, environmental impact, social, historic. Can’t believe ‘it is a growth area’. I support the increase in the cycling budget with several provisos – there is consultation with the cycling community not just the community and options are sensible – who ever heard of a cycle path through a golf course. That is madness in the extreme even if we do wear helmets. There has to be a better way.

2252

2

Haven’t got time to do more a bit submissioned out with the kumototo and the speed limit. Thanks Catharine Underwood 22 Taft Street Brooklyn Wellington 6021 04 389 2534 [email protected]

2253

67 Balfour St Wellington 6021

Submission on Wellington City Council Draft Annual Plan 2014/5 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft plan. This is a brief written submission, but I should like the opportunity to present an oral submission to Council to clarify these points. I commend in particular, the emphasis on improving cycleways, and on implementing the living wage for lower‐paid Council workers. I am dismayed that there is little mention of the important work required to mitigate and adapt to Climate Change which will have a significant impact on the city and on Wellingtonians. What’s new or changed I strongly support the planned work on cycleways to encourage active transport, reduce congestion and thus reduce the current increasing noise, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. I am disappointed, however, that there is a target for only 50% of cycleway users to be satisfied with the safety of cycleways (p56). If these routes are to be well‐planned and constructed, the target should surely be considerably higher. I strongly support paying a living wage to lower‐paid council workers. I support the same approach for employees of Council‐controlled organisations and contractors. It would be appropriate for Council to contribute to the increased rates for Council‐controlled organisations. For contractors, I suggest that they would pay the increase as a condition of winning Council contracts. Receiving a living wage should be fundamental to fair and just employment, not merely a nice‐to‐do idea of the Council’s. The Council is a good example but should not be financially responsible for other employers doing ‘the right thing’. I support incentives for earthquake strengthening, but suggest that retro‐fitting to minimise carbon footprint could be included as a condition for the incentives. A lower carbon footprint helps to mitigate against climate change, but also reduces costs in the long term (eg energy conservation, waste minimisation, insulation, rainwater collection), while contributing to resilience and adaptation. Service improvements include storm damage repairs. It is not made clear in the Plan whether the Council recognises that Wellington is going to have to cope with many more severe storms over the coming years. Environment Key projects include starting external engagement about Climate Change. We should be further along the path than that. Under community support, is the Council planning to provide shelter for the vulnerable during heatwaves along with preparation for storms and flooding?

2254

I approve the targets to reduce emissions 40% by 2020, and 80% by 2050. The plans to improve community hubs are important to facilitate community resilience, but more could be added towards that resilience. Transport I am extremely disappointed that the Council has made the wrong decision on the Public Transport Spine Study. Having rapid bus transport is short‐sighted, with high opportunity costs and will end up being very expensive for the city and its ratepayers. It is also a dangerous system for Wellington’s streets. I strongly disapprove of the strong working relationship with NZTA, blindly planning towards more roading which will not best serve a pleasing and efficient transport network for Wellington’s future needs. In fact, tweaking Wellington’s transport structure to fit in with Roads of National Significance will have detrimental effects and long‐term opportunity costs to Wellington and Wellingtonians. There are significant adverse financial, health and climate change implications from the RONS programme and the Council would do well to think outside of that particular box. Anne Simpson 11th March 2014

2255

1

Antoinette Bliss

From: Gill Watson <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2014 5:01 p.m.To: BUS: Annual PlanSubject: Feedback

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to state my support for the Council's plan to invest $4.3 million in cycling.

I am a keen cyclist and ride my bike both to commute to work, and for pleasure. I have found that I feel much safer when I can ride separate from traffic and would therefore support any initiatives to increase the routes this is possible.

Regards, Gill

2256

Draft Annual Plan 2014 – 15 Submission by Forest & Bird, Wellington BranchINTRODUCTION Forest & Bird’s purpose is to take all reasonable steps within its power to preserve and protect the indigenous fauna and flora and natural features of New Zealand and in doing so take full account of their intrinsic values and benefits to communities and future generations. We all benefit when we have a healthy and functioning natural environment.

Our organisation is New Zealand’s largest independent environmental voice and is represented by a nation-wide network of branches. The Wellington Branch has over 2,000 members plus young people in Forest & Bird’s Kiwi Conservation Club (KCC). Its initiatives enjoy levels of volunteer and community support beyond branch membership.

The built environment, whilst essential to our lifestyle and economy, is a significant threat to our wildlife. Our purpose in engaging with the Council is to give nature a voice and do whatever we are able to preserve our remnant flora, enhance Wellington's endemic biodiversity, promote ecological connectivity, clean and healthy waterways and harbour. Our other purpose is to emphasise the need for initiatives to reduce the city's impact on global warming and the environment, like efficient public transit, green streets, use of renewable energy, re-use and recycling of resources.

THIS SUBMISSION The branch will support initiatives in the proposed plan that improve the bio-diversity outcomes for our native flora and fauna and those that reduce our contribution to global warming. We have written extensively on these issues in various submissions over recent years and do not propose to re-state them here.

A potential weakness of this Draft Plan is that the initiatives are, for the most part, presented in isolation from higher level policy and strategy directives that have been developed in long term plans and objectives described in other Council documents.

We have restricted our comment to matters that pertain to our core purpose as stated above.

Our feedback is by topic: Biodiversity and pest controlWe commend the Council for:

• the increased funding of $75,800 to support community planting and in particular pest control. (page 16)• allocation of $47,000 to fund the Project Halo buffer zone concept around Zealandia. (page 16) • the inclusion of additional funding (not specified) for the Biodiversity Action Plan and progressing the South

Coast Management Plan (page 16)

CommentThe commitment to “... identify areas to protect and/or acquire, including Watts Peninsula, Belmont Gully between Horokiwi and Newlands and the Harbour Escarpment...” [reference Our Capital Spaces] is not repeated in this draft plan and we would like to know when this will occur.

We fully support“....An impressive target of planting two million native trees by 2020 ... as part of the Council's Our Living City programme...[reference Our Capital Spaces] however it seems unlikely to be met as it requires an average of 217,000 trees to be planted each year and the target for this year is 79,000 plantings as stated below, neither of which specify trees. (page 28):

• at least 45,000 native plantings are undertaken by the Council• at least 34,000 native plants are provided by Council for community group planting.

Even if all these plantings were trees there is still a shortfall of 138,000 and no explanation that we have found in this plan as to how the implementation strategy for this 'Our Living City' tree planting programme is being progressed this year.

Waste reduction and energy conservationThe Council states it is committed to re-use and re-cycling and “... only commits resources to landfills as a last resort...” (page 28) and we agree that it is about promoting culture “...that values the environment and encourages pro-environment behaviour of everyone who lives, works, or studies here...”.

Unfortunately that culture only exists for a few Wellingtonians so it is our view that the Council must take a lead role through its bylaws and its own actions.

The performance measure of “no more than 84,000 tonnes of waste sent to the landfill” is commendable but still represents 1.2kg of waste per person per day for the Wellington population. The reduction in the kerbside re-cycling target from 14,125 tonnes to 12,000 tonnes is disturbing. We can conclude from this that material that could be re-

2257

cycled will be sent to landfill.

On the one hand the Council is actively supporting wildlife through its Halo Project yet is also seeking to fill the remainder of the Southern Landfill gully system (and destroy stream habitat and remnant plants within close proximity to Zealandia) and also reduce its target for its kerbside re-cycling. This is sending mixed messages especially when the Council Outcome Indicator for the environment is “New Zealanders' and residents' perceptions that Wellington is an eco-city” (page132)

We would like to see the Council be more aggressive in its desire to become an eco-city. Much can be learnt from the Netherlands. The following quotes are from an article from Waste Management World by Gordon Feller (ref: http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/print/volume-11/issue-1/features/dutch-successes.html)

“Thanks to its top-notch waste management structure, the Netherlands is able to recycle no less than 64% of its waste – and most of the remainder is incinerated to generate electricity. As a result, only a small percentage ends up in landfill... ““....The Dutch approach is simple: avoid creating waste as much as possible, recover the valuable raw materials from it, generate energy by incinerating residual waste, and only then dump what is left over – but do so in an environmentally friendly way. This approach – known as 'Lansink's Ladder' after the Member of the Dutch Parliament who proposed it – was incorporated into Dutch legislation in 1994 and forms the basis of the 'waste hierarchy' in the European Waste Framework Directive...”

“...Lack of space and a growing environmental awareness forced the Dutch government to take measures early on to reduce the land-filling of waste. This in turn gave companies the confidence to invest in more environmentally friendly solutions. 'We can help countries that are now starting to make these types of investments to avoid the mistakes we made,' says Dick Hoogendoorn, director of the Dutch Waste Management Association (DWMA)...”

We commend the Council for deferring its development of stage 4 (if approved) but simply to continue to use our gullies to dump rubbish is not acceptable; these places and their open streams are in decline in Wellington yet essential to biodiversity outcomes for both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. We would like to see the Council take a lead by adopting a more stringent waste regime. This could include for instance, the requirement for roads and Council building work to use re-cycled demolition material.

Potable Water , Wastewater and StormwaterWe agree that the City needs to have a water reticulation network that is resilient. We would like to see local rainwater storage systems and the use of permeable material for driveways and paths included in the mix of measures that the Council will promote and use itself as well as encourage its citizens to do likewise.

We welcome the reference to water sensitive urban design (page 31) and would like to see it adopted as policy across all three water systems.

We welcome the inclusion of integrated catchment management plans in this document and look forward to contributing to this programme.

Gardens, Beaches and Green SpacesWe note from the title and the text that the Council chooses not to include the centrepiece of our city (the harbour) in its plans. We would like to see the 'Blue Belt' initiative supported in this plan. It has the potential to restore the harbour's ecology and encourage a greater diversity and quantity of marine life which will, over time, develop into a tourist attraction.

Throughout the draft plan most of the performance measures are based on a poll of people's level of satisfaction. This is subjective and not a true measure of function and purpose except possibly for sports fields and play areas. In the case of beaches and open spaces it is just one measure that could be applied. These places are also used by our wildlife, and in-fact is where our wildlife lives.Some examples :

• 90% of residents agree open spaces, gardens and beaches provide good value for money. (page 28)

• 90% of residents use local parks and reserves yearly, and at least 30% use them weekly (page 28)

• 95% of residents use beaches and coastal areas yearly, and 25% use them weekly.(page 28)

• At least 93,430 visitors to Zealandia (page 33)

We suggest that more relevant measures to apply to open spaces and beaches would be water quality, biodiversity, weed control, pest control and rubbish and in the case of Zealandia and reserves flora and fauna.

2258

1

Antoinette Bliss

From: Robin Boldarin <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 12 March 2014 8:26 a.m.To: BUS: Annual PlanSubject: Miramar/Maupuia Progressive Association

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on this. In the cultural/educational arena we suggest that entry to the Zoo be on the same (current) level as Zealandia. It was clearly evident that the lowered entry fee (for Zealandia) encouraged a greater attendance by the public. The Zoo is both an educational tool and a conservation tool and that should be factored into any price changes. We believe that the upgrade of Kilbirnie should be completed i.e. the lower edges of Coutts StreetIn close proximity to Bay Road. The project has been scheduled, its funding approved and would be the logical final step to take in the process. This should take precedence over the proposed Cycle Way, which, although admirable in environmental/safety terms, will not have the same monetary impact. We strongly support the retention of the Town Hall as an icon within the city. It holds an enviable position as a very fine acoustic auditorium as well as being of notable heritage value. We would also like to make an oral submission on this and city-safety issues and would appreciate a time slot to do so. Yours sincerely Robin Boldarin Chair (4) 387 2587 (bus) (04) 388 2647 (pvt)

2259

1

Antoinette Bliss

From: Mary Adams <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 12 March 2014 11:25 a.m.To: BUS: Annual PlanSubject: better Cycling infrastructure

I support investing $4.3 million in cycling. love cycling but hate mixing with busy traffic. Cycling is a great investment: less congestion, easier parking, lower fuel bills, cleaner air, boosts business, safer streets. We'll all be better off. Mary Adams PRINCIPAL ANALYST Migration, Research Evaluation & Analysis, Strategy & Governance Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment [email protected] | Telephone: +64 (04) 901 3865|

Level 17 Unisys House, 56 The Terrace, Wellington 6011, DX SR57028, PO Box 3705, Wellington 6140

newzealand.govt.nz - connecting you to New Zealand central & local government services

Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.

2263

1

Antoinette Bliss

From: Nicky Boughtwood <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 12 March 2014 11:38 a.m.To: BUS: Annual PlanSubject: Supporting cycling spend in annual plan

Hi I realise that I am slightly late making this submission but I am emailing in support of the proposed increased spending on cycling in the annual plan. I am a regular commuter to work, mainly from Brooklyn to the Central city. I find the commute extremely fast and efficient but also often very scary with the lack of defined cycle lanes and the fact that drivers (including bus drivers) often do not know how to drive well around cyclists. My son loves to bike to school (one of less than 10 that bike to Brooklyn school) and I would love for it to be safer for him to travel in this way. As a family, and with friends, we regularly use the mountain bike tracks in the city (eg on Brooklyn hill - Highbury Fling and Transient, etc, plus Makara peak and the new Island Bay kids track). We have visitors to Wellington that love to include some recreational mountain biking or cycling as part of their trips. I would also like to see more bike parking in places around town - near cinemas, on major shopping streets, etc to make it easier for these things to be done by bike. For people I know that have moved to Wellington to live and work, they see biking as part of what makes the city vibrant and interesting (particularly the work of organisations like Frocks on Bikes) but they are also often too frightened to cycle. I hope that you will accept my late submission in support of increasing the investment in cycling in Wellington in the annual plan. Kind regards Nicky Boughtwood 132 Ohiro Rd Brookyn

2264

1

Antoinette Bliss

From: Christina Allen <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 12 March 2014 12:27 p.m.To: BUS: Annual PlanSubject: Positive feedback for investment in cycling

Hi Councillors, A quick note just to say I wholeheartedly support the plan to invest $4.3 million in cycling infrastructure in Wellington. I adore cycling and over the summer I finally got the nerve up to commute each day through town to work (Aro to Thorndon) on my bike, combining exercise with a show of support for cleaner air transport options. I do hate mixing with busy and angry traffic - particularly buses, they're terrifying. A commitment to safe cycle lanes would be a dream come true. Kent Tce is one example of a street where separate cycle lanes would be highly valued. When there are three busy lanes of motor vehicles and one lane for buses, often the only safe option is to move on to the footpath and cycle amidst pedestrians. Either that or cycle slowly behind the bus, breathing in all the exhaust fumes. Where driving a car or paying for the bus each morning isn't always an option for many people on a tight budget, cycling is a highly accessible and sustainable mode of transportation. It makes so much sense for Wellington Council to encourage and support a safer cycling infrastructure for Wellingtonians. Kind regards,

Christina Allen| Library Assistant, Collection Support |Information and Knowledge Services National Library of New Zealand Te Rua Matauranga o Aotearoa Direct Dial: +64 4 470 4467 | Extn: 3467 Corner Molesworth & Aitken St, Wellington 6011, New Zealand | www.natlib.govt.nz National Library of New Zealand is part of the Department of Internal Affairs

2267

Submission on the 2014/15 WCC Draft Annual Plan from the Makara/Ohariu

Community Board

Roading

We support the proposed additional amount of $100,000 in capital expenditure for minor

safety initiatives in Ohariu and Makara. The basis of this support is due to the following:

a. Over the past few years, there has been a noticeable increase in the amount of

traffic using the rural roading system. In particular in Makara, this is partly due to

the opening and operating of the Meridian Westwind project. This has involved,

and will continue to involve for the foreseeable future, large commercial vehicles

(i.e. vehicles transporting cranes and machinery for maintenance purposes) and by

service vehicles.

b. Heavy vehicles attending to the servicing of the Karori Sewage Outfall.

c. Vehicles accessing the area to service the Transpower lines.

d. Vehicles accessing Opau Road to visit the Westwind Recreational area.

e. Throughout both Makara and Ohariu, the Board notes that there have been a

number of residential additions that have involved vehicles accessing the sites

during the development process and an increase in the number of residential

vehicles in both valleys once developments have been completed.

f. Through both valleys, there has been a noticeable increase in passenger vehicles,

and vehicles towing boats and trailers to access Makara Beach, which is a prime

recreational fishing area within the Wellington area, this being partly due to the

opening of the Taputeranga Marine Reserve at Island Bay.

g. There has been a general increase in vehicle usage in Ohariu Valley and Makara for

recreational purposes, i.e. golf, horse riding etc.

h. There has also been many more cyclists and runners passing through Ohariu Valley

and Makara, using the route through Makara and Ohariu as a training ground for

large road races throughout New Zealand. Rural roads were not built for the high

number of cyclists currently using them.

i. The WCC proposes to increase the cycling budget to $4.3 million to improve the

networks and safety. Some of this budget could be spent on improving cyclist

safety through the Ohariu-Makara loop which is so well used.

Condition of Roads/Drains/Culverts

There are a number of issues relating to the roads in both Valleys. These include:

a. Slumping of the roadside edges into the streams in various places.

b. A number of the culverts need attention.

c. Drainage alongside the roads in many places is deep, thus causing potential hazards

to both motorists, cyclists and runners because of the narrowness of the road in

many places, causing the motorist, runner or cyclist to move to the side when

2270

meeting oncoming vehicles. The sealing at the side of the roads is in places non-

existent or very rough, and creates a hazard to runners and cyclists.

d. In some places, the Ohariu Stream and the Makara Stream run close or parallel to

the road, thus causing erosion which will require serious repair to prevent the road

from caving in, in the future.

e. Makara and Ohariu Roads could possibly be an access route in a civil emergency,

such as an earthquake, from inner Wellington through Karori to the north, and need

to maintained to an acceptable standard for now and into the future.

Cliff faces

In many places throughout both valleys, slipping occurs in bad weather conditions (for

example the cliff face along the roadway opposite 736 Makara Road, where a slip and

trees came down in the June storm 2013.) This situation is likely to reoccur in that area

because the cliff face is unstable. There are other areas of cliff faces along the roadside

that could potentially cause problems in both valleys.

The concerns raised under the above points are ongoing problems that would not be

covered by the $100,000.

The proposal put forward in the proposed Draft Annual Plan refers to capital expenditure

for minor safety initiatives on rural roads. We consider that the Council roading

representatives need to meet with the Board in order to identify with the Board those

items that are considered to be “minor safety initiatives” and be put forward into a

programmed maintenance plan.

Environment

Increase in Community Planting and Pest Control Funding

We support the proposed increase in operating expenditure for the above.

Summary

The Makara/Ohariu Community Board is in the process of updating the Ohariu and

Makara Community Plans with assistance from the WCC. A traffic and roading

strategy will feature in these plans.

Thank you for the opportunity of submitting on the Draft Annual Plan. I am prepared to

speak to this submission if required.

Christine Grace

Chair

Makara/Ohariu Community Board

2271

1

Antoinette Bliss

From: lucy briant <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 12 March 2014 3:14 p.m.To: BUS: Annual PlanSubject: Fluoridation

Please accept this email as a submission to Wellington Council regarding the practice of water fluoridation. I would like to make a formal submission in person at the next hearing. Thank you, Lucy Briant lucy briant holistic lifestyle coach rex street miramar wellington 6022 nz tel/fax: +64 4 388 1807 mob: +64 210 655 339 [email protected]

2272

1

Antoinette Bliss

From: Ben White <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 12 March 2014 8:49 p.m.To: BUS: Annual PlanSubject: Annual plan

Just a quick email to state my support for the proposed $4.3 m investment in cycling set out in the annual plan . The more people we can encourage to ride rather than drive the better for everyone and currently the hectic nature of the roads in Wellington is putting loads of folk off. Be bold and go for it! Ben White Ben White 236a The Esplanade Island Bay Wellington 6023 ph 04 3836807 or 0272900423

2273

Wellington City Council Draft Annual Plan 2013/2014 Individual submission by Liz Springford

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission on the Council’s 2013/14 draft Annual Plan. “Toitū te marae a Tāne, Toitū te marae a Tangaroa, Toitū te iwi” “Care for the domain of Tāne Mahuta (Guardian of the Forest) and Tangaroa (Guardian of the sea), so too will the people endure.” This quote from the draft Annual Plan seems particularly apt at this point in Wellington’s history. Perhaps we can take the wisdom from the early days of this country and the latest science to lead this city to a more secure and hopeful future for us all? Certainly, this three year Council term is critical if Wellington is to play its part in protecting our climate and future. The number on which we need to base all future planning is half a trillion. That’s the figure from the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Working Group 1 Physical Science Basis announced late September last year. The IPCC AR5 is the most detailed assessment of climate change ever. It is based on more data, contains more detailed regional projections and is more confident about its conclusions than any global assessment to date – and supersedes AR4 from 2007 which I understand had been the basis for previous central government advice to local authorities. Why half a trillion matters is that this is the first time that the world has a number for our carbon budget to 2050. If we emit less than half a trillion tonnes of carbon by 2050, we have a two‐thirds chance of staying within the internationally agreed limit of 2’C global warming. That is, a two‐thirds chance that most Wellingtonians alive today will be dealing with dangerous warming, rather than extremely dangerous warming. There are also credible arguments for a zero budget which would lead us back to 350ppm carbon in our atmosphere rather than 400ppm which we reached for the first time in human history last year. A zero budget gives us the kind of certainty that we usually prefer for human safety issues, and gives small island states, including our Pacific neighbours, hope of staying on their homelands. There are significant implications from our global half trillion tonnes carbon budget to 2050 for this draft Annual Plan which I will outline in my oral submission. Liz Springford Master of Public Policy (merit), Victoria University of Wellington 16 Chatham Street, Berhampore, Wellington 6023 phone 9709 126, cellphone 021 0617 638, email [email protected]

2274

The NZ Climate & Health Council www.orataiao.org.nz contacts: Liz Springford, Mob 021 0617 638, [email protected] ; Scott Metcalfe [email protected] 12 March 2014

Wellington City Council c/- Research, Consultation and Planning via email [email protected] Dear Wellington City Council Submission on the Wellington City Council’s 2013/14 draft Annual Plan This brief submission to Wellington City Council on the draft Annual Plan (DAP) 2014/15 (http://dap2014.publications.wellington.govt.nz/) has been prepared by members of OraTaiao: The New Zealand Climate and Health Council living in Wellington city. This written submission emphasises selected aspects of the plan, particularly chapter 7 Transport. We wish to be able to make an oral submission, using that opportunity to discuss other aspects of the plan as needed. We are disappointed that the draft Annual Plan makes no mention of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC)’s Fifth Assessment Working Group 1 (Physical Sciences) Report [references 1,2] released last September by the world’s top climate scientists, which makes it clear that the world is working to a carbon budget of less than half a trillion tonnes by 2050. Some credibly argue that our real budget is zero now if the world wants 350ppm and a safe level of confidence about our changing climate not moving beyond human management [3]. We strongly recommend that Wellington City Council devote urgent funding to an analysis of this carbon budget and what that means for both the operations of the Council and the residents of this city. We support the Council’s plan to reduce emissions by 40% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 – but with a 1990 baseline, not 2001. OraTaiao is pleased to note that the Council recognises Wellingtonians as ‘enthusiastic users of public transport’ and acknowledges that ‘an effective public transport network helps reduce congestion and reduces the city’s carbon emissions’. OraTaiao applauds the Council’s work on cycleways and walkways, but would like to see an even stronger emphasis on quality public transport (as well as active transport) for our city so that Wellington can keep moving as the pressure to rapidly reduce emissions grows, ranging for example, from an independent study on light rail in recognition of the Public Transport Spine Study’s fundamental flaws, to piloting reduced off-peak fares on selected bus routes. Other steps that we would like to see in the Annual Plan 2014/15 to protect the future of this city’s residents, our communities and our economy, will be discussed during our oral submission.

2275

http://www.orataiao.org.nz/

mailto:[email protected]



http://dap2014.publications.wellington.govt.nz/

Transport - Island Bay to City cycle-path OraTaiao: The New Zealand Climate and Health Council strongly supports the Wellington City Council’s proposal to create a new Island Bay to City cycle-path. In the interests of time, this written submission concentrates on the climate and health evidence supporting the new cycle proposal. Encouraging the rapid uptake of active transport (including walking and cycling) and public transport modes has significant climate, economic and health benefits. This is through:

1. Reduced vehicle-induced emissions, including mode shift through greater uptake of cycling

2. Increased health by greater physical activity

3. Improved safety

1. Climate change The Wellington City Council, in its Climate Action Plan (2010), listed land transport as a major cause of Wellington's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Ensuring Wellington city has safe and attractive provision for active transport is part of reducing vehicular emissions and hence climate risk. Climate change is widely recognised by world health authorities and leading medical journals to be the biggest global health threat of the 21st century [see references 3,4,5,6]. Major threats—both direct and indirect—to global health from climate change will occur through water and food insecurity, threats to shelter and human settlements, population displacement and migration, extreme climatic events, changing patterns of disease, risks to security (e.g. war), and loss of economic potential. Further details are available in the New Zealand College of Public Health Medicines (NZCPHM)'s policy statement on climate change [3]. OraTaiao: The New Zealand Climate and Health Council considers safe and attractive cycling infrastructure in the Wellington CBD important for both immediate health gains and longer term health gains related to climate change. The transport sector has a key role to play in reducing New Zealand’s overall emissions, where road transportation causes 1/6th of New Zealand’s total gross greenhouse gas emissions [11]. All transport proposals for Wellington must keep climate change at the forefront, encouraging greater take-up of walking, cycling and public transport – and less single-occupant commuter vehicular traffic. OraTaiao supports sustainable transport environments where active travel and public transport are prioritised and are realistic and safe. 2. Active transport (walking and cycling) create significant health gains Physical inactivity contributes to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and musculoskeletal disease (degenerative arthritis of the spine and major joints) – with perhaps 4000 disability-adjusted years of life (DALYs) lost in the Wellington region each year [12], with cost estimates of up to $141 million annually for the region [13]. The latter figure derives from the Wellington Regional Strategy Committee, which last year joined Auckland and Waikato Councils to examine the full costs of physical inactivity in their regions [13]. The study reported physical inactivity to be costing the country approximately $1.3 billion, or 0.7% of total GDP (2010), including $141 million in Wellington. The study concluded that “Physical inactivity is as serious a risk factor as smoking or obesity in causing a range of chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer and diabetes. Physical inactivity is globally recognised as the fourth-leading cause of death and a global public health priority. Local government plays an important role in motivating and providing the infrastructure for people’s physical activity, including providing

2276

transport infrastructure, active transport opportunities such as cycling, walking, public transport, walking buses, urban design and land use planning.” Encouraging active transport will provide major health benefits [10,14,15]. Increasing physical exercise is well known to reduce the current epidemics of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers. Regular exercise also gives health co-benefits for those increasing numbers of people suffering from the common causes of disability like musculoskeletal disease (back and neck pain and arthritis) and psychological disorders. Wellington’s transport planning must support the rapid growth of cycling since the last Census, and encourage an even greater uptake of walking and cycling. That the AA survey, to our knowledge, reported around 92% of New Zealanders would like to cycle if they felt it was safe, sends a strong message to the Council on infrastructure priorities. For cycling, recently-released projections indicate that transforming New Zealand’s urban roads over the next 40 years, using best practice physical separation on main roads and bicycle-friendly speed reduction on local streets, would yield benefits 10-25 times greater than costs (Macmillan et al. 2014 http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307250 [16]). Similar health gains might be expected with increased uptake of walking. Further detail on the reasons behind OraTaiao’s stance on active transport is provided in the NZCPHM’s policy statement on Transport at: http://www.nzcphm.org.nz/media/64538/2013_08_02_transport_policy_statement.pdf [14]. OraTaiao supports the NZCPHM’s calls [14] for the development of sustainable transport environments where active travel and public transport are prioritised and with walking and cycling modes predominant in transport hierarchies. This is because active and sustainable modes of transport such as walking and cycling positively affect health.

3. Improved safety with cycleways and lower speed limits Safe cycleways mean fewer road traffic incidents and injuries for cyclists and walkers [15]. And as an allied issue, as with many suburban roads, OraTaiao: The New Zealand Climate and Health Council reiterates its strong support for the Wellington City Council’s proposal to reduce the speed

2277

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307250

http://www.nzcphm.org.nz/media/64538/2013_08_02_transport_policy_statement.pdf

limit in Wellington central city to 30km/h for most of its roads in the CBD. Known injury mortality and morbidity data and mean road speeds in Wellington city CBD (http://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/have-your-say/public-input/files/consultations/2014/central-city-safer-speed-limit/supporting-data.pdf) reinforce the role of road traffic injuries and fatalities causing considerable disease burden in Wellington, as in New Zealand. Higher vehicle velocities induce exponentially greater harm to non-motor-vehicular road users in the event of collision, compounded by longer stopping distances [17,18,19,20]. This is aside from aside from the role of vehicular air pollution [21]. Safe cycleways, walkways and slower speed limits are healthy as they reduce CO2 and other emissions, foster active walking and cycling, and reduce road injury events and severity. About OraTaiao: The New Zealand Climate and Health Council OraTaiao: The New Zealand Climate and Health Council (www.orataiao.org.nz) comprises more than 200 senior doctors and other health professionals in New Zealand highly concerned about the impact of climate change on health and health services. OraTaiao: The New Zealand Climate and Health Council advocates on behalf of our patients and communities, because climate change has become a real, urgent and fundamental threat to health and wellbeing, yet mitigation offers large opportunities to improve health. Based on the need to limit global warming to 2oC by 2100, and taking into account our cumulative emissions and capacity to mitigate, New Zealand should very rapidly and profoundly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, more than halving our emissions by 2020 [5,6]. Healthy transport choices must be part of this [7,8]. OraTaiao: The New Zealand Climate and Health Council is grateful for this opportunity to make this submission, and we hope to have the opportunity to speak directly to these issues with the Wellington City Council. We wish to be able to make an oral submission. Yours sincerely Dr A O MacLennan MB, ChB, FRCP(Ed), FRAChPM, MPM Palliative Medicine Specialist, Mornington, Wellington; Executive Board Member Mr Russell Tregonning MBChB, FRACS, FNZOA Orthopaedic Surgeon/Senior Lecturer UO Wellington School of Medicine, Wadestown, Wellington; Executive Board member

Liz Springford BA, MPP(merit) Policy analyst, Berhampore, Wellington; Executive Board member Dr R Scott Metcalfe MBChB, FNZCPHM Public Health Medicine Specialist/Chief Advisor, Berhampore, Wellington; Executive Board member (emeritus founding Co-convenor)

OraTaiao: The New Zealand Climate and Health Climate Council (www.orataiao.org.nz) contacts: Liz Springford, Mob 021 0617 638, [email protected] ; Scott Metcalfe [email protected]

2278

http://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/have-your-say/public-input/files/consultations/2014/central-city-safer-speed-limit/supporting-data.pdf

http://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/have-your-say/public-input/files/consultations/2014/central-city-safer-speed-limit/supporting-data.pdf

http://www.orataiao.org.nz/



References: 1. IPCC, 2013. IPCC WGI AR5. Twelfth Session of Working Group I. Approved Summary for Policymakers.

27 September 2013. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

2. IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Final Draft Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment. Accepted by the 12th Session of Working Group I and the 36th Session of the IPCC on the 26th September, 2013, Stockholm, Sweden. http://www.ipcc.ch/

3. New Zealand College of Public Health Medicine. Policy statement on climate change. Wellington: New Zealand College of Public Health Medicine, 2013. http://www.nzcphm.org.nz/media/67575/2013_11_6_climate_change_substantive_policy__final-corrected_.pdf

4. Costello A, Abbas M, Allen A, et al. Managing the health effects of climate change: Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission. Lancet 2009,373:1693-1733. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60935-1/fulltext

5. World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Delhi on Health and Climate Change, http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/c5/index.html

6. Chan M. Climate change and health: preparing for unprecedented challenges. The 2007 David E. Barmes Global Health Lecture, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 10 December 2007. www.who.int/dg/speeches/2007/20071211_maryland/en/index.html

7. Metcalfe S, Woodward A, Macmillan A, Baker M, Howden-Chapman P, Lindsay G, Hales S, Sinclair D, Jaine R, Springford L, Holmes A, Laking G, Jones R, Carr H, Edwards R, Shaw C, Wells S, Hosking J, Forde A, Bismark M, Palmer S, Keating G, Simpson J, Highton R, Dhar D, Kane P; New Zealand Climate and Health. Why New Zealand must rapidly halve its greenhouse gas emissions [Special Article]. N Z Med J. 2009 Oct 9;122(1304):72-95. http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/122-1304/3827/

8. Montgomery H. Climate change: the health consequences of inactivity [editorial]. NZ Med J. 2009 Oct 9;122(1304):6-8. http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/122-1304/3817/

9. Woodcock J, Edwards P, Tonne C, Armstrong BG, Ashiru O, Banister D, et al. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport. Lancet 2009;374(9705), 1930-1943. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61714-1/fulltext

10. Hosking J, Mudu P, Dora C. Health co-benefits of climate change mitigation - Transport sector. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2011. http://www.who.int/hia/green_economy/transport_sector_health_co-benefits_climate_change_mitigation/en/index.html

11. New Zealand's Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2011. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, 2013. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/greenhouse-gas-inventory-2013/index.html, http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/greenhouse-gas-inventory-2013/greenhouse-gas-inventory-2013.pdf. Calculated as 12569.8 Mt Co2-equivalents from road transportation ÷ 72834.9 Mt CO2-e total gross emissions for New Zealand in 2011 (17.3%)

12. Global Burden of Disease country profiles: GBD New Zealand. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, 2013 http://www.healthmetricsandevaluation.org/sites/default/files/country-profiles/GBD%20Country%20Report%20-%20New%20Zealand.pdf; Martin Tobias (personal communication. In New Zealand, 4.2% of the 955,000 total DALYs lost in 2010 were linked with physical inactivity, being approximately 40,110 DALYs. The Wellington region comprises around 1/10th

of the NZ population.

13. The costs of physical inactively: towards a regional full-cost accounting perspective. Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, Wellington Regional Strategy Committee, 2013. http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/About-GW-the-region/News-and-media-releases/Physical-inactivity-costs-report.pdf

2279

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.nzcphm.org.nz/media/67575/2013_11_6_climate_change_substantive_policy__final-corrected_.pdf

http://www.nzcphm.org.nz/media/67575/2013_11_6_climate_change_substantive_policy__final-corrected_.pdf

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60935-1/fulltext

http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/c5/index.html

http://www.who.int/dg/speeches/2007/20071211_maryland/en/index.html

http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/122-1304/3827/

http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/122-1304/3817/

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61714-1/fulltext

http://www.who.int/hia/green_economy/transport_sector_health_co-benefits_climate_change_mitigation/en/index.html

http://www.who.int/hia/green_economy/transport_sector_health_co-benefits_climate_change_mitigation/en/index.html

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/greenhouse-gas-inventory-2013/index.html

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/greenhouse-gas-inventory-2013/greenhouse-gas-inventory-2013.pdf

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/greenhouse-gas-inventory-2013/greenhouse-gas-inventory-2013.pdf

http://www.healthmetricsandevaluation.org/sites/default/files/country-profiles/GBD%20Country%20Report%20-%20New%20Zealand.pdf

http://www.healthmetricsandevaluation.org/sites/default/files/country-profiles/GBD%20Country%20Report%20-%20New%20Zealand.pdf

http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/About-GW-the-region/News-and-media-releases/Physical-inactivity-costs-report.pdf

http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/About-GW-the-region/News-and-media-releases/Physical-inactivity-costs-report.pdf

14. New Zealand College of Public Health Medicine. Policy statement on transport. Wellington: New Zealand College of Public Health Medicine, 2013. http://www.nzcphm.org.nz/media/64538/2013_08_02_transport_policy_statement.pdf

15. British Medical Association. Healthy transport = Healthy lives. London: British Medical Association, 2012. http://bma.org.uk/transport

16. Macmillan A, Connor J, Witten K, Kearns R, Rees D, Woodward A. The Societal Costs and Benefits of Commuter Bicycling: Simulating the Effects of Specific Policies Using System Dynamics Modeling. Environ Health Perspect 2014; DOI:10.1289/ehp.1307250. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307250

17. Ministry of Transport. Safer journeys: New Zealand’s road safety strategy 2010–2020. Wellington: Ministry of Transport, 2013. http://www.saferjourneys.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/SaferJourneyStrategy.pdf

18. Richards DC. Relationship between speed and risk of fatal injury: pedestrians and car occupants. Road Safety Web Publication no.16. London: Transport Research Laboratory, Department for Transport, 2010. http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/pgr-roadsafety-research-rsrr-theme5-researchreport16-pdf/rswp116.pdf

19. Tefft BC. Impact speed and a pedestrian’s risk of severe injury or death. Washington DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2011. https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf

20. 18. Human Impact Partners. Articles in Vehicle speed and type of vehicle predicts pedestrian injury and fatality. http://www.humanimpact.org/evidencebase/category/vehicle_speed_and_type_of_vehicle_predicts_pedestrian_injury_and_fatality

21. Kuschel G, Metcalfe J, Wilton E, Guria J, Hales S, Rolfe K, Woodward A. Updated Health and Air Pollution in New Zealand Study. Emission Impossible Ltd, Environet Ltd, Jagadish Guria, University of Otago, Kevin Rolfe, University of Auckland, prepared for Health Research Council of New Zealand, Ministry of Transport, Ministry for the Environment and New Zealand Transport Agency, 2012. http://www.hapinz.org.nz/. Estimates include 255 premature deaths in adults each year in New Zealand from exposure to particulate emissions from motor vehicles, with 352,000 restricted activity days.

2280

http://www.nzcphm.org.nz/media/64538/2013_08_02_transport_policy_statement.pdf

http://bma.org.uk/transport

http://www.saferjourneys.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/SaferJourneyStrategy.pdf

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/pgr-roadsafety-research-rsrr-theme5-researchreport16-pdf/rswp116.pdf

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/pgr-roadsafety-research-rsrr-theme5-researchreport16-pdf/rswp116.pdf

https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf

http://www.humanimpact.org/evidencebase/category/vehicle_speed_and_type_of_vehicle_predicts_pedestrian_injury_and_fatality

http://www.humanimpact.org/evidencebase/category/vehicle_speed_and_type_of_vehicle_predicts_pedestrian_injury_and_fatality

http://www.hapinz.org.nz/

1

Antoinette Bliss

From: [email protected]: Monday, 10 March 2014 8:25 p.m.To: BUS: Annual PlanSubject: Better cycling will help make wgtn a more liveable cityAttachments: PBL-Benefits.png

Hi I am writing to make a submission on the annual plan. Its proposed that the city council is planning to invest $4.3 million in cycling next year I support greater funding for cycling with the $4.3M being a good first step. Considerable research overseas show that;

More people are wanting alternative forms of transport other than cars and everywhere cycle lanes and other cycle friendly measures have been taken greater numbers of people cycle.

Cities like Chicago, New York, London are all good examples.

Cycling is a great investment: less congestion, easier parking, lower fuel bills, cleaner air, boosts business.

Highly skilled employees want more liveable cities to live and work in, if Wellington wants to attract well educated, high income work force we have to have a competitive advantage over Auckland, or Australian cities, and having good cycling facilities both on road and off road are considered positive assets by this target market.

Businesses on cycle route do better – as cyclists stop and shop

Money saved by cycling is often spent locally

Where residential areas are improved with safe cycling and more pedestrian friendly areas house prices increase Benefits Residents Quality of life: streets are quieter and safer, less chance of car getting sideswiped, better public space. No loss of parking. Property values rise. Business More people on bikes is great for business. In New York city, 49% increase in retail sales for local businesses on 9th Avenue. Lower fuel and health bills means more money is spent locally. People on bikes Safer, convenient, direct Health Lower health costs, healthier people. Having safer cycling will hopefully lift Wellington off the bottom of the list for cycling safety in NZ ‐ a shameful fact

I therefore urge the WCC to not just spend $4.3m but to substantially increase this in future years, as it needs at least $5M just for the Island Bay route. Wellington should aim to be the most liveable city in the southern hemisphere –and prioritising cycling (for commuting and recreation) and walking over the use of private cars will contribute significantly to a more liveable and attractive city and help to attract and retain business. This includes increasing the spend on mountain bike tracks with an emphasis on easier grade tracks suitable for commuting, as well as recreation.

I would like to make a verbal submission.

Jill Ford [email protected] 94 Coromandel St, Newtown, Wellington 04 3894496, 021 671 291, Skype jillford

2304

Submission on the 2014/15 Draft Annual Plan.

Wellington City Youth Council.

The Youth Council wishes to make an oral submission.

Further contact:

Jack Marshall,

Chair,

[email protected]

0211866186

2306

The Wellington City Youth Council welcomes the opportunity to submit on the 2014/15

Draft Annual Plan.

1. Development Contributions

1.1 We support the reduction of development contributions for five star rated

buildings. These buildings reduce energy consumption and aids progress

towards achieving the goals of 'Wellington 2040: Eco City'.

1.2 The Youth Council supports this proposal as it will assist Wellington to

become Carbon Neutral. We would like to see Wellington become Carbon

Neutral by 2040.

2. Earthquake Strengthening

2.1 The Youth Council believes that in order for Wellington to be a Resilient City,

all buildings must, at a minimum, meet the standards set by the building code,

and business owners should be encouraged to strengthen their buildings to as

high a standard as is practical.

2.2 We believe this standard to be at least 67% of building code, as established

by the Building Act 2004 as being the level below which buildings are considered

'earthquake risk'. We generally support any moves that allow and encourage

building owners to strengthen their buildings faster.

2.3 The Youth Council believes that the strengthening of the Cuba Precinct must

be expedited. This is an important location where many young people live, work

and relax.

3. Living Wage

3.1 In principle, we support the living wage. We recognise there are costs and

the living wage will not be suitable for every individual CCO but we believe that

as a major employer, the Wellington City Council should show leadership in pay

rates.

2307

3.2 We believe a living wage is as much about accessibility to the community as

it is about basic necessities.

4. Cycling

4.1 We support increased mode share for alternative transport. We recognize

that with limited road space, decisions regarding share of space for each mode of

transport must be made, but cycling does not have to be sacrificed in favor of

traditional, car based, transport.

4.2 We believe that the Wellington City Council should investigate the

possibilities of segregation of motor vehicle traffic and cycle traffic. Excellent

examples of this have been achieved in New York City.

4.3 An associated issue, which Wellington City Council is unsuited to influence, is

the absence of post-ride showering facilities, which discourages commuter

cycling. The Youth Council raises this issue in this context to emphasize that

encouraging sustainable mode-share is a many-faceted issue.

5. Lombard Lane

5.1 We support the redevelopment of Lombard Lane. This will be an excellent

inner city open space. The Youth Council previously submitted in support of the

development of an inner city green space in Long Term Plan 2012-2022.

6. Healthy Homes

6.1 We would like the council to continue to pursue a minimum standard for

rental homes. If legislation introduced by MP Phil Twyford is passed by

Parliament, the council should immediately develop a framework to ensure that

rental property owners begin to meet this standard.

6.2 We congratulate the council for undertaking their program to ensure council

owned housing stock already meets this standard, and would support the council

continuing programs to promote installing insulation in private homes.

2308

7. Eight Big Ideas For Economic Growth

7.1 The Youth Council generally supports the concept of picking projects with

which to rejuvenate the Wellington economy. We feel that it is important for the

Wellington City Council to set aspirational goals and ideas when planning for the

future. We commend council for its willingness to consider the future.

7.2 However, we think the ideas proposed in the 2014/15 Annual Plan partially

lack imagination and are not goals that council can aspire to.

7.3 The Youth Council supports a film museum. Our film industry is world-class,

and showcasing this is an excellent idea. The ‘Weta Cave’, for example, already

draws many visitors to Wellington. However, we do not believe that this is a

particularly aspirational goal to grow the economy.

7.4 We consider international air connections and a runway extension to be

inevitable and necessary, at least within current transport technology. We must

be a connected city in order to retain and attract talent.

7.5 A related issue to the international air connections is that of public transport

connections to the Airport. We do not think the Airport Flyer adequately services

this route. We think the decisions made around the Spine Study are a missed

opportunity to create fast and effective public transport between the Airport and

the railway station. The absence of proper and cheap transport to the airport is a

significant setback to air patronage.

7.6 A technology precinct is a fantastic idea. Properly and aggressively pursued,

this project may make a tangible and substantial contribution to economic growth

between now and 2040.

7.7 We recommend the council actively consider ways in which it can support

development of new information technology businesses. A potential location for

this precinct could be the upper Taranaki Street area, between Courtenay Place

and Vivian Street.

2309

7.8 Alongside this proposal, the Youth Council would like Council to investigate

gigabit internet within the CBD, in order to bring our internet infrastructure

properly in line with world-class standards.

7.9 We are not convinced the demand exists for a convention centre beyond

what the city already offers. This is in part due to these facilities existing or being

developed in Auckland, but mostly due to our geographic isolation relative to the

rest of the world. Perhaps this “big idea” should be revisited when that demand

can be convincingly proven.

7.10 However, we believe there is some merit in a smaller arena with a capacity

of 6,000-12,000 people, for music concerts and similar. We believe the demand

does exist, as larger acts currently avoid Wellington in favour of Auckland due to

the lack of viably-sized venues. A potential place for such a venue is next to the

Westpac Trust Stadium, a site that was flagged by a Wellington Venues'

investigation in 2011. With careful planning, perhaps this could be integrated with

the conference centre idea.

7.11 We do not understand how a “Miramar framework” and the “open for

business” plan amount to a meaningful growth plan. We should support

business, and the fledgling film industry is a perfect example of a suitable area,

but it is not something that we consider particularly worthy of comment. Instead,

council should be already doing this.

7.12 Our transport development is being stalled by policies of Greater Wellington

Regional Council, such as the annual rise in fares irrespective of patronage

changes. Whilst there are some easy improvements that can be made, these are

prevented by a “balanced” approach to planning that unduly favours private

vehicles. That said, we recognize Wellington’s successes in public transport to

date.

2310

My submission on Wellington City Council’s Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 I would like to be allocated a time for an oral presentation. Janice Schone 354 The Esplanade Island Bay

WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL’S DRAFT ANNUAL PLAN 2014/15

The following is a comment on a few points that I see as more important to comment on at present not having enough time to really research all) WHAT’S NEW OR CHANGED

I agree with points 1, 3 & 4 Point 5 - Investment in Minor CBD Improvements There are many dingy lanes between buildings that are begging for attention and I look forward to these small improvement and hope it will encourage people not to throw down rubbish & butts in these areas. Point 6 - Make Service Improvements This is a very important area for the satisfaction of citizens of Wellington and should also impress visitors! I endorse all these projects. Section 2.3 Looking towards the future I would like to see a resolve to encourage the installation of water collection and storage systems in all new dwellings. And also install more small community storage Water tanks for access in an emergency. Section 2.4 Likewise encourage research into individual or group eco sewage systems to deal with the treatment in situ. Section 2.5 Stormwater outlets & inlets need regular maintenance inspection with the number of storms increasing. There is also a constant problem with toxic substances entering the system. Section 6 One point I would like to make is that there should be no more buildings on the Waterfront including the Kumutoto area. It needs to be open to preserve the few views left and enable the sunshine inI*t should be inviting and welcoming to encourage people into enjoy the attractions and the natural beauty of the surrounding area.

2312

Section 7 Transport I am very much in favour of establishing safe cycling routes into the city but hope that there will be much thought going into separating the cyclist lanes from all traffic including parked cars so they are the outer lane. (except at intersections) The other project I would like to see on the list to ease congestion to the Eastern suburbs is for a feasibility study to be done to assess whether the Coutts to Miro Street tunnel under the airport runway could be widened (1 lane in each direction with a barrier, between the cycle lane and footpath )

2313

1

Antoinette Bliss

From: brigden <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 13 March 2014 10:20 p.m.To: BUS: Annual PlanSubject: Cycling

As a regular cyclist from Valley to Wgtn most days to and from work I wish to see dedicated safer cycling lanes installed and maintained. Current the route is unsafe due to:

‐ Poor uneven surface ‐ lampposts mid lane ‐ bollards and other structure in path ‐ Bus stops with minimal path past ‐ shared by runners as no alternative ‐ shared by walkers, ditto ‐ poor visibility as narrow for vehicles crossing ‐ narrow and forced close to vehicles travelling at 100KM/hr ‐ no barrier protection to above ‐ no separation from above ‐ path surface not cleared

Regards Mike Brigden

2315

Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce submission on the Wellington City Council Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 1

SUBMISSION TO WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL

DRAFT ANNUAL PLAN 2014-15 WELLINGTON EMPLOYERS’ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

MARCH 2014

INTRODUCTION

The Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce is pleased to be able to make this

submission on Wellington City Council’s 2014-15 Draft Annual Plan (“DAP”). The Chamber has

been the voice of business in Wellington since 1856 and advocates policies that reflect the

interest of Wellington’s business community, and the development of the Wellington economy as

a whole. The Chamber is also accredited through the New Zealand Chamber of Commerce

network and through Business Central as one of the four regional divisions of BusinessNZ.

Wellington businesses pay nearly half of the Wellington City Council’s total rate-take. As such,

the business community has a significant interest in the operation, structure and performance of

Wellington’s local government, given their contribution and the impact Councils’ actions have on

the business environment and the city’s economic growth.

This submission follows in two parts; the first half looks at the Council finances, revenue and

expenditure, and the second half considers several projects planned over the next year,

providing commentary on proposals of key interest to the Chamber.

OVERVIEW

Overall the Chamber is confident about Wellington and the opportunities ahead for our city. We

absolutely positively believe that our city is the coolest little capital, with all the ingredients to

encourage an environment for innovation, growth, and success. Despite naysayer’s doubt, the

2316


Chamber believes that our prospects and fortunes can only be further enriched by ensuring that

we have the right people, at the right time, working together. We have a real opportunity before

us to start joining up the dots.

There’s no doubt that the performance and activities of Wellington City Council have a large

influence on the outcome of the city. The Chamber’s submission on the DAP focuses on areas

we see for council improvement – on what and how we are spending ratepayers money. We first

want to congratulate the Council in delivering the Draft Annual Plan so quickly after inauguration.

This is an extremely positive head start for Wellington in 2014, creating elements of certainty for

businesses, painting an early picture for the city’s future activities and projects. While producing

this document early has meant some compromise on aspects of proposals, we applaud the work

that has gone into the Draft Annual Plan and acknowledge that the Council is the first Council in

New Zealand to introduce their Draft Annual Plan for 2014/15. The Chamber also wishes to

acknowledge the vision and challenge that has been set out through the priority growth agenda.

We are eager to get into further detail on each of the eight proposals that sit underneath this

programme.

Our members share this positive outlook on the city too, as demonstrated by the Chamber’s

December 2013 quarterly business confidence survey, showing a net 40% of business

respondents expect the Wellington economy to improve over the next 12 months, compared with

a net 27.6% saying in August 2013 they expected the economy to improve, and 18.4% in May

2013.

With all bouquets there are realities. The Chamber continues to be concerned that spending is

too high and an overhaul is needed to reduce the growth in both council expenditure and the

rate take. We are concerned expenditure has grown too much in recent years and that total

borrowing of the city, at $404.2 million, is 104.56% of city’s total operating funding. Regardless

of the overall balance sheet, or the Council’s standard and poor’s credit rating, servicing this

debt and paying it down needs to be made a number one priority. Increasing the debt this year

by $46 million, some of which to fund what ought to be opex items, is not justifiable or prudent

economic management. We believe that the Council’s and city’s performance and activities

needs to be clearer in this document and this increased transparency will enable rate-payers to

asses whether the allocation and level of Council expenditure is appropriate.

2317


Our concern about the Council’s current level of debt, and this year’s increase, is not to say that

we are against future investment or the consideration of future project expenditure, particularly

with the Council’s priority growth agenda on the horizon. But we are concerned about adding to

this debt. The DAP includes no apparent plan to pay the debt down beyond the sale of $2 million

of assets, which would be just 0.49% of the current total owing. For any future proposals, the

Chamber would need to see the following:

1. An investment strategy with a robust business case, including a convincing cost benefit

analysis and return on investment, with funding in collaboration with commercial

partners.

2. A repayment strategy, with a solid plan and commitment to service and pay down the

debt quickly.

We are also concerned about Wellington’s economic indicators and results. While the Council’s

ten year trends tell a strong long term narrative, the current perception and reality has to be

addressed with urgency. There are too many retail vacancies on the golden mile which are all

too visually confronting. Our annual economic growth to September 2013 was just 1.6%

compared with the national average of 2.6%. And while business and consumer confidence is

high, employers are telling us that skilled labour is becoming harder to find in the industries in

which Wellington excels.

The weight of responsibility to turn these indicators around doesn’t rest with the Council alone.

We understand there are pressures outside of Councils’ control. However it’s about ensuring

Council does the very best with what they do control, the city’s finances. Council needs to

ensure that the city has what it needs, to generate business activity, to make our city regionally,

nationally and internationally attractive and vibrant. The Chamber acknowledges the good work

to date on event attraction and support.

There is much work to be done. The DAP sets out some ways of achieving further growth, but

needs to be careful not to limit options open to our region. Working with business and the wider

community is essential to achieving the city’s potential and we welcome future opportunities to

progress our relationship.

2318


I. COUNCIL SPENDING AND RATE TAKE

Council Finances

The Chamber is concerned that the DAP does not properly articulate the current economic

environment that Wellington City Council and its rate-payers face, as was outlined in last year’s

DAP. While business and consumer confidence is high, and economic indicators are showing

promise, it is imperative to continue to operate within financial constraints as the economic

recovery begins to take shape. More importantly though, with continued uncertainty about future

liabilities relating to earthquake strengthening of Council buildings such as the town hall, legal

action from leaky homes, and as the region awaits the outcome from the Local Government

Commission’s reorganisation proposal it is important that all nonessential expenditure within the

Council’s operations is eliminated.

As such, we are pleased that the Council is seeking efficiencies and reprioritised spending,

through the CCO merger and other projects, but we strongly believe that overall spending is still

too high and a significant overhaul is needed to reduce the growth in Wellington City Council’s

overall expenditure and rate-take.

In particular, the Chamber is concerned that the Council’s AA Standard and Poor’s rating is

championed as a justification to raise revenue through debt to fund future projects, such as

those contained in the ‘8 Big Ideas’. The Chamber would be very concerned if this financial

policy setting is pursued – to raise even more debt, especially when a robust business case is

yet to be put forward for these projects.

The current spending proposals in the DAP mean a total average rate rise of 3% with a target of

2.5% taking into account growth in the rate base. This increase is too high. The Chamber’s view

is there needs to be a zero rate rise or even a reduction. Firstly, the increase is actually quite

high in real, inflation-adjusted terms (the latest CPI increase to Dec 2013 was 1.6%).

While we note that there is a projected operating surplus of $26.3 million, and acknowledge the

Council’s AA credit rating, the Chamber still has concerns about the Council’s overall finances.

The Chamber notes that total Council debt is projected to hit $404.2 million which is greater than

the annual operating funding of $386.551 million for the next year. Total borrowing now sits a

2319


104.56% of operating funding. We believe this is an important measure of ongoing debt

feasibility.

We are concerned that this debt to operating expenditure and revenue ratio may in the longer

term be a liability, particularly if the Council continues to borrow at its current pace without

further servicing its borrowings. Carrying this level of debt comparative to revenue also may, in

the longer term, have an impact on the Council’s future ability to make decisions if new capital

opportunities were to arise, or unexpected crises were to incur significant cost or create revenue

loss.

We are also concerned that this year an additional $46 million will be borrowed. While the

financial strategy set a borrowings funded capital investment target of $45 million for each three-

yearly Council triennium, and a borrowings funded capital investment limit of $60 million for each

three yearly Council Triennium, we believe borrowing caps and targets is not a sensible long

term plan to fund projects.

We support the property assets disposal proposal of $2 million and are pleased that proceeds

are marked to reduce Council borrowings. However, in the face of total debt of $404.2 million, $2

million appear inconsequential for servicing total borrowings just 0.49% of the total borrowings.

The Chamber is concerned that there are several line items that appear to be funded through

borrowings, rather than operating expenditure. One such example is the economic development

fund of $3.1 million. We do not support the move to fund economic development from

borrowings. Attempting to grow business by increasing the ratepayer burden is counter

productive, particularly when it is not clear how this fund will actually achieve what the line item’s

name sets out to do.

Costs need to better lie where they fall

The Chamber takes objection to the way in which the DAP attributes costs to a yearly and

weekly per resident figure. This gives a false impression and fails to accurately attribute where

the costs of rates revenue really lies. It does not acknowledge the contribution business makes –

which is nearly half of the total rate take. We have calculated what the share of costs is for

business, as appears in the second half of this submission.

2320


We are also concerned about the cost to ratepayers of subsidised activity where the Council

should be operating commercially. One example in the DAP is the current subsidy used to

operate the city’s public funded swim facilities. The current ratepayer subsidy of each swim is

above 60%. An adult swimmer pays just $5.90 per swim, while the real total cost is $14.80. This

is an unjustifiable use of ratepayer’s money, undermining the market.

Given the recently enacted local government legislation, the purpose of local government is

much narrower than it used to be. We are wary of the scope of local government activities

expanding too broadly and we support the narrower scope under the new Act notwithstanding

some of the grey areas that have arisen in terms of definition.

It is important for Wellington that the Council does not stray outside its core business nor grows

relative to the size of the overall economy. All Council expenditure needs to meet the criteria that

that it makes the city a better place live work or do business and not be something that the

private sector or central government is better placed to do. We also encourage Council to work

closely with central government to better leverage strategic investment through partnered costs.

Burden of rates on business

In addition to the overall rise in Council spending and rates, we have strong concerns about the

burden of rates falling unfairly on business vis a vis other categories of ratepayers. The fact that

several Council activities funded by business rates are more to the benefit of residential

ratepayers is a longstanding concern.

It is essential that WCC does not overcharge Wellington businesses if it wants to attract and

retain businesses in the city. Businesses provide employment, pay wages, produce goods and

services, and determine the depth of the rating base. If businesses are ill-treated by Council

rating policies they are liable to relocate, close down or downsize.

The Chamber’s view is that rates should reflect the benefits received and should not be unfairly

applied to businesses as a revenue raising mechanism. The Chamber believes Councils should

substantiate the benefits to businesses before applying differential and targeted rates and be

transparent in doing so.

2321


In the coming year, business ratepayers will pay around 45% of the total rate-take. This

excludes development contributions and other revenue (fees and charges etc). This figure and

the information is obtainable from the DAP but is not readily accessible. It would be good if this

information were more transparent in the DAP. It is not clear from the plan what proportion of the

latter is paid by businesses but it is likely to be the greater part. Again, this is something else that

should be made transparent.

Currently the Council applies a 2.8 differential rate to property used by ‘commercial, industrial

and business’ (business) ratepayer. Accordingly, businesses pay 2.8 times more than residential

ratepayers per dollar of rateable property. This differential was phased down from the early

2000s, which was greatly welcomed by the Chamber. This phase down was completed two

years ago leaving it at the current 2.8. The phase-down of the differential was about reducing a

major cross-subsidy paid to residential ratepayers by business ratepayers. As the cross-subsidy

reduced, businesses’ rates became more in keeping with the benefits they receive and their

ability to pay. Even so, businesses still pay 2.8 times as much as residential ratepayers per

dollar of rateable property irrespective of the benefits they receive. In fact the benefits received

principle seems to be totally ignored by Council officials when assessing the differential.

Businesses are not happy with this.

Auckland and Christchurch both charge a business differential. Both these Councils have also

been phasing them down to ensure that their businesses remain competitive. Comparisons are

difficult because of the particular circumstances those cities face (earthquake recovery and

2322


super city formation) but last year they were both lower than Wellington’s. This is very relevant

given that Wellington in one sense is ’competing’ with the cities to attract and retain businesses.

We think that the Council needs to keep thinking about its funding policies and how to ensure

costs better lie where they fall so that the funding burden on business is not too high. The

differential is not justified and we think a continued phase down of the business rating differential

is required. This is particularly important with the possibility that the Local Government’s draft

reorganisation proposal may amalgamate of the Wellington region’s Councils. We are strong

supporters of amalgamation but we would be concerned if the local government appetite to rely

on the business sector to fund its activities was extended to an amalgamated Council and that

the Wellington CBD ended up overly subsidising the rest of the region. Our submissions to-date

on amalgamation have emphasised this point.

It is important to note that because rates are collected from property owners who pass them on

to tenants (business and residential) - usually in a non-transparent fashion (i.e. the commercial

property sector rentals applies gross rentals in Wellington meaning rates aren’t displayed at all),

a large section of the community are oblivious to the high cost of funding the Council.

Transparency and decision making would be improved greatly if citizens knew how much

Council activities were costing the community and themselves indirectly.

Commercial Sector Targeted Rate – Events Attraction and Support

The Commercial Sector Targeted Rate is paid by businesses across the city to fund ‘events

attraction and support’. It will collect $5.040 million in 2014/15. This rate is paid solely by

businesses city-wide, not just those in the CBD. Events activity receives its entire rate funding

from this commercial rate. Wellington City Council’s events programme makes an important

contribution to the city. As well as the direct economic contributions these events provide, they

enhance the reputation of the city and make it a better place to live or visit. We fully support the

Council’s role in events attraction but this area of activity has grown significantly in recent years

and this is another area where we think there needs to be more transparency.

There also needs to be a debate as to how the events activity is funded. Some central city

businesses (particularly those in the hospitality, accommodation and retail sectors) are

beneficiaries but residents also enjoy these events. Under the current arrangements it is

2323


businesses, including suburban businesses, which pay 100% of this expenditure. There is no

reason why businesses should be singled out, particularly non-hospitality businesses and

suburban businesses.

The Council has a good record with events attractions to-date and a good reputation for hosting

international sporting events. Opportunities such as the ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 are

important. The games that have been allocated to Wellington will be high profile and ought to

provide increased economic activity and attract visitors from around New Zealand and the

World. We support the investment the city makes in the events where events have a direct

economic benefit for the city as well as serving to promote the city through the positive exposure

they receive.

However, it needs to be emphasised that there are significant risks attached to events activity.

As competition from other cities to host events increases, Wellington needs to be clever in how

and which events it attracts. This might mean focussing on events in which the city has a natural

advantage over other cities due to its special characteristics, rather than throw increasing sums

of money at events. With Auckland having increased expenditure on events attraction, and

desire to be the events centre, Wellington must on events which play to our strengths, and

leverage these to our unique advantage.

Finally, on the subject of events funding, the proposition that there is a 1:20 ratio of Council

spend to economic impact of the events fund needs to be questioned. This clearly overstates the

economic return as much of the expenditure is substituted i.e. a Wellington resident’s

expenditure on the event and associated activities is often just diverted away from spending on

some activity in the city. There needs to be a better measure of benefit to the city if the event

funding formula is to withstand scrutiny. ‘Event related spending in the city which would not

otherwise have occurred’, ‘spending that has come from outside the city’ or simply ‘visitor

numbers’ are alternative measures that should be considered.

The Downtown Levy

The downtown levy is paid by the city’s CBD businesses and is used to pay for ‘tourism

promotion’ and facilitation of ‘free weekend parking’. The levy also pays for 70% of the ‘visitor

attractions’ activity and 25% of the ‘city galleries and museums’ activity. The Chamber believes

2324


that the Council’s funding commitments from the downtown levy benefit the area in which the

money has been generated. Accordingly, the Chamber encourages greater interaction between

those who contribute to the downtown levy and the allocation of the funds generated. However,

businesses do not have a good understanding of it or how the levy is spent.

We fully support targeted rates like the downtown levy. There is a good argument for central city

businesses to club together and pay a levy to fund services from which they can benefit. But this

is not currently the case with all of the downtown levy revenue. A significant amount is diverted

by the Council for other activities and it is not clear that the return is there for some of the

expenditure. The downtown levy is paid by all central city businesses whilst not all directly

benefit from what it funds.

The Chamber is concerned that last year’s Christmas period lacked any festivities in the CBD,

with many businesses disappointed given the lack of celebration and atmosphere. We have

expressed this view to the Council and are pleased that there have been informal indications

that will remedy this for Christmas 2014. This is an example where attraction funding ought to be

spent, at a time where there is a premium for return on investment, rather than during the

seasonally quiet periods.

A large proportion of the downtown levy pays for Te Papa and the Carter Observatory yet all

ratepayers enjoy these facilities. The Carter Observatory is not in the CBD. Te Papa is an iconic

Wellington institution and we support a Council contribution but we recommend the Council

better leverage its existing funding whilst increasing consultation on how Te Papa operates to

obtain clear agreement as to how the funding is to be used. This will result in downtown levy

payers having more say in how the levy is allocated. A key criterion should be to ensure that levy

payers receive a payback on the money spent.

On the subject of targeted business rates, we welcome the creation of the business district

improvement (“BID”) in Miramar. The Chamber is very supportive of this type of initiative, local

business taking action to support their communities. Business improvement districts are a

positive endeavour for businesses to support targeted levying and resourcing for local projects

and improvements. The Chamber is pleased to have been able to lend our support in the initial

stages of this process and we are encouraged by this successful outcome. We are supportive of

further investigation to follow this model for application to the downtown levy.

2325


Fees and Charges

The DAP aims to set fees and charges at appropriate levels so that individuals that directly

benefit from a service pay an appropriate contribution towards the cost of providing that service.

The Chamber supports this goal. The amount collected from the user vis a vis the rates

contribution should reflect the costs and benefits of the service and where they fall.

However, a glance at the schedule of fees and charges reveal that too many fees are increasing

at rates in excess of inflation (1.6%) suggesting that they are simply another revenue raising

mechanism for the Council. This is not acceptable.

II. THE WORK OF THE COUNCIL

Overview

The Chamber has examined the DAP and would like to provide comment on some of the

Council’s proposals and programmes. A general comment is that while there are some projects

and proposals identified under each themed chapter area (e.g. Governance, Environment,

Transport, etc), not all project and programme funding is clearly allocated or attributable to a line

item. The downside of this is that there will be projects worthy of comment, yet without being

able to go through these it limits the richness in analysis as to whether these projects merit

ratepayer expenditure. We have provided general comments under each of the section

headings, which are set out as follows.

Governance

As the DAP sets out, the proposed 2014/15 operational cost is around $74 per resident, $1.42

per resident per week, or looking how the cost is actually shared, $6,802,200 to business, a total

of $15,116,000. The Chamber supports efficient and effective governance of the city. On the

proposal of greater shared services, we would encourage that the work being undertaken with

other Councils in the region look to find alignment beyond shared services, given the current

proposals being considered. We would also encourage Councils to look to share more than just

back office services, but also infrastructural development and strategy.

2326


The most significant programme of new expenditure of which the Chamber has greatest concern

in this year’s plan is the adoption of the Living Wage. The Chamber does not support the living

wage and is concerned with the method in which the Council has made the decision. We have

significant reservations about this decision. Though a living wage is well-intentioned, and we all

want everyone to be paid more, what is not clear is how the proposal is going to help the city

grow so everyone can enjoy higher wages.

The living wage commitment by the Council incurs an additional operating cost on the city and

rate payers which should not be within the City Councils mandate. Minimum wage and employee

income subsidies are a central government issue for which individual and business contribute

through tax.

There are public policy concerns over the accuracy of the living wage and questions as to

whether it will achieve what it is intended to do, which we have raised with the Council

previously. A report produced by the New Zealand Treasury and a comprehensive study from

Brian Scott has released figures questioning the methodology and data used by the Living Wage

campaign in determining the wage rate of $18.40 p/h. The reports highlight the following

concerns:

• Two-parent, two-children households make up just 6 per cent of families earning less

than $18.40 p/h.

• Almost 80% of New Zealanders earning less than $18.40 an hour, including young

people and students, don’t have children.

• Of those earning below $18.40 p/h one in five family household incomes earn more than

$80,000 P/A.

• A low income family with two parents and two children would only gain $63 a week from

the living wage while the Government would gain (via abatements and extra tax) $126 a

week.

• The “living wage” would least help low-income families whose welfare support would

abate as their income rose. In those cases, the main beneficiary of the living wage would

effectively be the Government because it would receive more in tax and pay out less

through abated transfers.

• 43% of those who earn below the living wage are aged under 30.

• The living wage would only reduce the relative poverty rate by 0.3%.

2327


• The proposed $18.40 living wage is high compared to the other living wage rates being

proposed by similar groups overseas. Compared to Australia, Canada, USA, and the UK,

it is the highest proposed living wage relative to GDP per capita.

• Only 12.5% of fulltime employees are paid less than 2/3rds of the median wage which is

one of the lowest proportions in the OECD. The US is 24.8%, UK 20.6%, Canada 20.5%

and Australia 14.4%.

The Chamber concerns have grown in light of developments relating to an increase to the living

wage rate. In the last month, Living Wage Aotearoa announced an increase in the Living wage

from $18.40 to $18.80 after having conducted an annual review of the rate (see the report

February 2014). Further analysis of the report released by Living Wage Aotearoa shows that the

methodology used to calculate the $18.80 rate appears to be different to the one used to

calculate the $18.40 rate. Under the original methodology (as applied by the Council to calculate

the living wage rate for direct employees) a figure of $22.89 an hour is produced. As you are

aware, we repeatedly raised concerns about the methodology during the period when the

Council was considering adopting the living wage. Our concerns remain.

However, if the methodology was sound (as the Council has stated) the new figure ($22.89)

should have been adopted by Living Wage Aotearoa as the new living wage rate. The fact that it

has not, we believe, provides further evidence that the whole approach is flawed and totally

unacceptable for the Council to use to set pay rates. In any event, to help the Chamber better

understand the Council’s position and rationale, we wish to raise the following questions that are

not clear in the DAP:

• Will the Council be moving all staff to the new rate? If so, which rate? If not, how can the

Council claim to continue to have “adopted the living wage”?

• If the Council are moving to the rate of $18.80 what are the cost implications of this on

top of what has already been publicised?

• What pay rises, if any, will be given to staff whose salaries are the same or only slightly

higher than the ‘Living Wage’ rate?

• Given parking services are being moved in house from 1 July, what additional costs will

be incurred to include this new group of direct staff?

2328


• Furthermore if the Council is not adopting the higher rate of $22.89 that the original

methodology produces how is this justified given the same methodology was implicitly

endorsed by adopting the concept in the first place?

The Chamber knows families have had it tough in the last few years. Many of our members who

operate businesses have also had it tough – it has been hard for some to stay afloat. But we do

not believe the living wage is the answer. It is not the way to achieve higher wages which we

absolutely want to see. We want to work with Council and other local government agencies to

achieve higher wages for all Wellingtonians, and in order to do this we need to grow the

Wellington economy. As a business organisation we have to question whether the adoption of

the living wage is a prudent business decision. Lifting everyone’s wages is something we should

all be aiming for, but it is a matter of how we do that and the basis for it. And it is not done by a

stroke of a pen.

Environment

The DAP states that the proposed 2014/15 operational cost is $732 per resident, $14.07 per

resident per week or looking how the cost is actually shared, $51,457,000 to business, a total of

$114,349,000. The chamber supports the emergency preparedness proposals. We support

efforts to implement a programme of activities that seeks to improve the city’s resilience to

extreme weather events. We would be interested in further detail on these, especially as they

relate to business. We believe this ought to happen with some sense of urgency, given the

previous year’s events. The storms and events of 2013 reinforce that the city’s resilience is

important. We support the budgeted remedial works where this will ensure further resilience.

Economic development


resident per week or looking how the cost is actually shared, $9,734,900 to business a total of

$21,633,000. The Chamber supports a focus on business and supporting businesses to thrive.

However, we believe there needs to be more understanding on how the $3 million Economic

Development Fund is to operate, and what criteria will be set around the grants. Investment in

business to create jobs and support growth needs to be thoroughly considered with a strong

business case for investment. Ratepayers should expect a significant return on investment from

2329


any venture capital awarded to business prospects. As noted earlier in this submission, the

Chamber is concerned that these grants will be funded through borrowings, rather than

operating expenditure. We do not support the move to fund economic development from

borrowings as this is counter productive to attempt to grow business by increasing the ratepayer

burden, particularly when it is not clear how this fund will actually achieve what the line item’s

name sets out to do.

We support the open for business project and are encouraged by Council commitment so that

businesses can transact and connect with the Council in an easy and cost-effective manner.

However, we are very interested in seeing future proposals in this area as it now sits in the ‘8 Big

Ideas’, including policy detail to reduce real costs beyond Council office transactions.

The City Council’s proposal to merge Positively Wellington Tourism and Positively

Wellington Venues is a positive step toward improving the city’s economic performance. We

believe the alignment will provide strategic benefits to better deliver for ratepayers. Bringing two

of the main drivers of economic activity into one should result in a more co-ordinated and highly

tuned organisation which can better deliver on what the city needs from tourism and events.

These are two of the city’s biggest strengths. This is a step towards what we know works well in

the New Zealand context. Feedback from the Auckland model is resoundingly positive and we

would welcome further consideration to include the economic delivery arm too. Freeing-up

$500,000 from all this for other projects is also most welcome, but the Chamber does expect to

see this money ring-fenced. The funders of both organisations – CBD businesses, via the

Downtown Levy - will expect to see direct benefits from the savings, either by being returned to

the contributors or through prudent investment. The businesses that contribute will expect

consultation around the detail and 100 per cent transparency around this. It also makes sense to

absorb Wellington Waterfront Ltd and Wellington Cable Car Ltd back into the Council.

A project which has potential to create a significant contribution to local economic development

is the extension of the airport runway. Long haul flights out of Wellington are essential to

attracting businesses to Wellington and we fully support the moves Council has made to kick-

start the extension of Wellington Airport's runway. It’s important that progress on this proposal is

made, and that the robust business case be put for the investment. Further on this point, our

region needs to be supported by a modern and efficient motorway system to allow Wellington to

maintain its competitive CBD to airport linkage. This in turn needs to include a modern and

2330


efficient public transport network. Although improved investment in cycleways is nice to have,

the development needs to be seen in the above context.

Cultural wellbeing

The DAP states that the proposed 2014/15 operational cost: $92 per resident, $1.78 per resident

per week, or looking how the cost is actually shared, $8,193,200 to business, totalling

$18,207,000. The Chamber supports a strong arts and culture sector, but would caution that

spending needs to demonstrably justifiable. There also needs to be alignment between activities

in this area, and those funded through economic development. One such example is the

regional amenities fund, which is a top up fund for attractions and events. We would question

why this sits outside of the other Council events and attraction activity.

Social and recreation


resident per week, or looking how the cost is actually shared, $37,229,000 to business, totalling

$82,732,000. We support the activities, however, as discussed earlier in this submission the

Chamber believes that subsidised activities, such as a swim at the pool, should be set a

reasonable level of subsidy. The current example requires further ratepayers funding of over

60%. This is not acceptable. The Zoo’s costs are another example, where it costs $21 for an

adult to visit the Zoo, but without the subsidy provided by ratepayers it would cost $33.

Urban Development



$27,585,000. The Chamber believes that urban planning and policy, building control and

facilitation, development control and facilitation, earthquake risk mitigation and public spaces

development are of paramount importance to the city.

In our submission on the DAP 2013/14 we question the need for the changes to Civic Square

given it is in relatively good shape, but we support a further investigation of options given the

future of the Civic Square precinct including the decision over the Town Hall. We would strongly

2331


support the Council to consider alternative options with regard to strengthening the existing town

hall, given there are further costs than first anticipated. Attractive public spaces are good for

visitors and residents alike and make the city a more attractive place to live, visit and do

business. We also wonder whether central government could contribute further to the cost of the

Parliamentary precinct.

The chamber supports incentives to support and encourage earthquake strengthening. The

proposal to provide rates relief for buildings not earning an income during earthquake

strengthening of buildings is sensible. We note that rates relief actually abates an increase

which would not have been achieved had no upgrades been undertaken in any case. In fact the

rates generated by earthquake prone buildings that are not addressed could reasonable be

expected to decrease further over the coming decade as demand for such buildings is expected

to remain in low demand and owners ability to meet rates payments will become strained. We

have seen cases where there is real pressure coming on to companies that have been forced

out of buildings because of structural issues caused by the earthquakes and on building owners

whose buildings are not earning an income, so this is timely. Council and other partners must

continue to do all we can to retain the businesses we have, while working to attract new ones

and these moves will make a big difference.

The change in development contributions payments makes good sense and we support the

initiatives to encourage green buildings although these should be quantified against targeted

reduction in demand on municipal services as a result of efficiency gains. In this way there is

clear associated benefit to the city that is acknowledged in the incentive.

The Chamber would like to see further detail on the minor CBD improvement proposals, as we

are concerned that $100,000 is to be spent on to better label building’s street numbers.

We are also concerned about the Lombard Lane proposal, which proposes an increase to

capex by $1.5 million to redevelop the Lombard Lane area (including Denton Park and part of

Bond Street), subject to private redevelopment. The Chamber would be interested to see the

further details of this 'private redevelopment'. We are concerned that given the already high

number of vacancies of retail shops in Wellington golden mile, whether this investment is a

justifiable spend to attract and support the creation of more retail space.

2332


The Chamber is concerned that despite being a previous focus of the DAP, this year’s document

leaky homes is mentioned briefly and has been budgeted to see a decrease. Given the recent

legal cases, where settlement exceeded $1 million is each case, it is unclear as to why there

would be a decrease, given the perceptions and legal risks. We note that this issue is yet to be

considered by the Transport and Urban Development Committee post election 2013. We would

recommend this be a priority.

Transport



$34,016,000. We support the Council’s focus on maintaining and operating the transport

network. We support the Johnsonville roading improvements to address long-standing

deficiencies in the local roading network. In particular the Chamber is supportive of the Council’s

commitment to ongoing state highway projects such as the Airport to Levin project, which

includes the Basin Reserve, Memorial Park, Inner City Bypass capacity, and the Buckle Street to

Cobham Drive project including Mt Victoria Tunnel duplication.

The Chamber questions the cost of cycleway improvements, and we would want to see a

robust investment case. The proposed increase to the cycling budget, of $4.3 million seems

excessive (an extra $3 million capital expenditure and $250,000 operating expenditure).

Regarding CBD car parking charges, the Chamber is pleased that the Council has not

attempted to raise them this year.

Projects on the Horizon – Council’s 8 Big Ideas and Priority Growth Agenda

The Chamber are supportive of the Council is establishing a priority growth agenda that sets

out some bold plans to lift the city’s performance, and are eager to see further details. At this

stage the 8 Big Ideas have been presented without any business case, return on investment

assessment or cost benefit analysis, of which the Chamber would need to see to continue our

support. We are positive about the commitment from Council that funding will only be

recommended if business cases “stack up”. Again we would caution the Council about looking to

increase our current level debt to fund any of these projects.

2333


We support the points made by TIA Wellington hotels in their DAP submission. The Council

should investigate which project and actions will make a difference sooner rather than later, and

progress them. We strongly concur that Wellington must remain competitive with other New

Zealand cities as a place to do business if our economy is to grow. Adding vibrancy to the city

streets during events and Christmas as well as building a parking regime which will make the

visitor feel welcome to Wellington are all important projects.

2334

Annual Plan Submission – Wellington Museums Trust – March 2014 1

17 March 2014

2014-15 DRAFT ANNUAL PLAN SUBMISSION

MUSEUM OF WELLINGTON CITY & SEA DEVELOPMENT

This submission relates to the Annual Plan section “On the Horizon” which outlines projects which are likely to require Council funding. Another such project is the development of the Museum of Wellington City & Sea which will open new visitor experiences; refurbish existing content; and earthquake strengthen the building.

The Museum opened in 1999 as the first museum dedicated to sharing the stories of Wellington city and harbour. Last year The Times of London selected the Museum in its WORLD’S TOP 50 MUSEUMS.

This multi-year development will be completed by 2020 at a total cost of $12.8 million. The first phase of the development, the opening up of the top floor and new exhibitions, is planned to open on 26 July 2015 to mark the 150th anniversary of Wellington being made Capital City of New Zealand.

Our development objectives are to:

Open the top floor The Attic (previously not accessible to the public) with major new exhibitions that will showcase the unique features of the building and increase commercial opportunities through venue hire;

Reconfigure the ground floor to include community space integrated with changes to the exterior landscaping, a café, extended retail and reception.

Enhance the first and second floor exhibitions and upgrade popular exhibitions such as Millennium Ago and The Wahine Disaster.

Council’s investment as owner of the Museum is important to build sponsor and community confidence that the project will achieve its fundraising target and an essential ingredient if we are to attract central Government funding through the Regional Museums Policy.

We have secured $2.036 million towards the first phase including a $930,000 Lottery World War 1, Environment & Heritage Committee grant and we are confident of raising further funds from community and corporate sources.

Council’s investment of $1.4 million in 2014-15 to complete the first phase is sought and a further investment of $3.9 million over five years through the Long-term Plan.

IMPORTANCE FOR WELLINGTON

The development objectives reflect our ambition and commitment to make a relevant and compelling contribution to the city’s future and to help Council realise its growth strategy for Wellington.

This is the only museum dedicated to sharing the stories of Wellington Te Upoko o te Ika a Māui (the head of the fish) and to continue to reflect this a broader representation of the city’s diverse communities will be reflected in the development through the stories, the objects and by opening up the building for all to enjoy.

The development will be an invigorating contribution to Wellington’s arts and cultural brand because the new spaces, facilities and exhibitions will position the Museum as a destination, increasing its value amongst Wellington’s portfolio of great visitor attractions.

The building that houses the Museum is the second oldest building on the Waterfront and an undisputed Wellington treasure. The development incorporates seismic straightening which will take it from approximately 35% of the New Building Standard (NBS) to 67% of NBS.

Further information is available.

Pat Stuart Chief Executive

2335

1

Antoinette Bliss

From: David Adams <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 14 March 2014 3:41 p.m.To: BUS: Annual PlanSubject: Annual Plan feedback

Hi I heard that submissions closed, but I never knew they were open as I hadn't received any information by mail. I would like to support the $4.3m funding for cycling My reasoning is that there has been a strong increase in cyclists, over 70% since 2005 or thereabouts. I am a cyclist and we need better and safer cycle routes, and bus drivers need better training on watching for cyclists. This will help encourage more children cycling to school to reduce traffic (30% of rush hour traffic is kids drop‐offs) and it will also reduce child obesity. Please do include my submission Thank you Regards David David Adams | Imaging Services Leader Alexander Turnbull Library | National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa Direct Dial: +64 4 474 3151 | Fax: +64 4 474 3063 Cnr Molesworth & Aitken Streets | PO Box 12349, Wellington 6144, New Zealand www.natlib.govt.nz

2336

living wage aotearoa new zealand

Documents