9.1. This chapter examines social well-being and makes recommendations about governance arrangements that would support improved social well-being in the Auckland region. The chapter includes discussion on what social well-being is and why councils should be involved; how Auckland is faring on key social well-being indicators and priority issues; what councils currently do in this area; what is working well and what could be improved. Key points from the submissions and lessons from the Commissioners’ international study tour are also included. The ensuing recommendations are based on consideration of best practice in engaging and transforming communities.
9.2. Local government is obligated to promote social well-being under the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA 2002”)1 and must discharge a range of related statutory obligations such as alcohol and gambling policies. The long-term council community plan (“LTCCP”)2 is intended to provide a systematic process for addressing this requirement, along with promotion of economic, environmental, and cultural well-being.
9.3. The importance of social well-being for the overall prosperity of the region is generally not well understood. The data outlined in this report make it clear that Auckland does poorly on many indicators of social well-being. The extent of deprivation is significant, and it equates to lost potential. There are consequences for individuals, their families and whānau,3 and the local community. In particular, children suffer when they grow up in disadvantaged households that are struggling to survive and get ahead, with every likelihood that these struggles and disparities will be perpetuated through generations. Auckland carries the costs of this deprivation in three ways: the untapped potential constrains economic growth; it places a significant burden on government resources; and it destroys social cohesion making the city less safe, less healthy, and less attractive. For Auckland to become a leading Asia-Pacific city, improved social well-being outcomes are critical. Every citizen must have the opportunity to reach their potential, to lead a fulfilling life, and to contribute to Auckland’s growth and prosperity.
9.4. Overall, the systematic approach intended by the LTCCP has not been followed, and there is a lack of clarity and consistency about how and to what extent local government should give effect to its obligations to promote social well-being. While central government has primary responsibility for social well-being, local government has a vital role to play, and is already inextricably involved. Over and above initiatives that directly aim to improve social well-being, all council activities (such as public transport, urban design, rate-setting, and roads and other infrastructure) have significant social consequences. However, with some notable exceptions, promoting social well-being has not been prioritised as core business by councils, and they have not used their powers to improve social well-being outcomes through their traditional core activities.
9.5. Central and local government also commit substantial resources to social issues, but as the data set out in this chapter show, the results fall short. There have been significant collaborative efforts by central and local government to align and integrate their approaches, but while close collaboration is necessary, it has proved far from sufficient to date.
9.6. Accordingly, the key recommendations centre around governance arrangements that will support shared decision making between local and central government, particularly in relation to directing funding to the areas of greatest need. These arrangements are based on role clarity, clear articulation of the issues and the strategic direction, access to good data and analysis, better engagement with affected communities, and strengthened accountability arrangements. It is important to emphasise that the Commission is not recommending any changes to the present arrangement, in which central government has primary responsibility for social well-being outcomes, including delivery of social services.
9.8. There is necessarily a strong focus on social deprivation and inequalities in this chapter. Auckland’s current and projected demographic profile is described in detail in Chapter 2, “Auckland Now” of this report. In relation to social well-being, Auckland’s population is characterised by the broadest range of social and economic differences in New Zealand. It has the youngest and most ethnically diverse population in the country. Auckland fares poorly on some key social well-being indicators, and there are large inequalities (such as education and housing) within the region, as well as clusters of deprivation in certain suburbs, particularly in South Auckland, West Auckland, and Auckland City. Moving people out of deprivation lifts their personal self-worth and enhances their development and their ability to participate in the economy. It also reverses the loss to the economy and lifts the mood of the city. As Barack Obama said in his inaugural address
… a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart – not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.11
9.9. This chapter also has a focus on housing. Access to quality housing is one critical requirement for positive social well-being outcomes in relation to employment, education, health, safety, and social connectedness. Housing also has environmental and cultural dimensions, and is very important for labour markets and economic growth. The data clearly demonstrate that housing access and affordability is a significant problem for Auckland and is highly correlated with significant social and economic inequalities. While the private sector is the primary provider of housing and public provision is primarily the responsibility of Housing New Zealand Corporation, councils have traditionally played an important, complementary role. In addition to direct provision of housing, access can also be determined by other council functions such as growth and urban planning, public transport, and economic development. Council provision of, and support for, social and affordable housing varies greatly and has changed over time. It illustrates the underlying variability in local government’s understanding of, and commitment to, promoting social well-being. Housing is one of four key social well-being issues that have been identified in this chapter. While it may not be as critical as, for example, giving children the best start in life, council approaches to housing demonstrate the potential within local government to contribute more effectively to better social well-being outcomes.
9.10. The Ministry of Social Development’s Social Report defines well-being as “those aspects of life that society collectively agrees are important for a person’s happiness, quality of life and welfare”.12 The terms “well-being”, “social well-being” and “public health” tend to be used interchangeably. In the post-Ottawa Charter era public health has come to be understood as an holistic approach to preventing illness and promoting the well-being of populations.13 This approach acknowledges the broader determinants of health, such as income, education, and housing.
9.11. The Ministry of Social Development Social Report identifies a set of social well-being domains. These domains, and indicators for the Auckland region are described in detail below and include
9.12. The data set out below demonstrate that achieving social well-being and improving outcomes for disadvantaged people is an increasingly important challenge for the region, particularly for children and young people, older people, people with disabilities, Māori, Pacific peoples, and new migrants.
9.13. Rowe proposes thinking of social well-being in terms of the critical transition periods in the life cycle, and the points at which interventions can enhance potential and confer the greatest gains. She describes three critical periods in the life cycle
… birth and the early years, when future capacity and resilience are largely established; the transition from teenage years to adulthood, and the transition to older age, which poses different challenges in maintaining autonomy, social connectedness and a sense of purpose.15
9.14. Rowe makes the case that the increasingly youthful age structure and ethnic diversity of Auckland’s population are compelling reasons alone to focus on children and young people, particularly within the youthful Asian, Pacific, Māori, and migrant populations. Giving children the best start in life will do more to improve social well-being than any other action. This preventive, rather than remedial approach, would also bring efficiencies and lay the foundations for a “cohesive and prosperous future”.16
9.15. For Auckland to become a world-class city, improved social well-being outcomes are critical. Local government is already involved and can contribute significantly to improved outcomes. The Auckland Regional Public Health Service submission described local authorities as “place shapers and service enablers”,17 recognising that they have a range of opportunities to enhance or impede social well-being.
9.16. Auckland’s changing demographic profile also demands that social issues are well understood and considered as part of any council activity. For example, between 2006 and 2016 it is estimated that the proportion of Pacific people will increase by 23% and Asians by 58%. Based on these estimates, the Pacific population will increase from 203,000 to 262,200 and comprise 16% of the total population; while the Asian population will increase from 268,000 to 402,200 and will comprise 25% of the total population. By contrast, the proportion of Māori in Auckland’s population will increase by only 1% (from 11% to 12%), growing from 156,600 in 2006 to 187,400 in 2016.18 The needs and preferences of Auckland’s population in relation to council functions may change accordingly.
9.17. Over and above the legislated obligations to promote social well-being and to discharge the associated regulations (such as gambling policy and alcohol licensing), local government has the potential to make a significant contribution to positive social well-being outcomes through direct and indirect spheres of influence. As described in Chapter 6, “Our Vision for Auckland”, the four dimensions of well-being that local government must promote under the Local Government Act 2002 are inextricably linked, and should not be treated in isolation. The Ministry of Social Development has pointed out that “Doing well or poorly in one domain is often likely to impact on performance in another outcome domain”.19 The linkages between the well-being dimensions represent under-utilised opportunities to improve social well-being through the delivery of core or traditional council business (such as infrastructure and related services). Systemic efforts to improve social well-being will enhance economic, environmental, and cultural well-being, and vice versa.
9.18. Embedding social well-being in policy, planning, and monitoring frameworks that focus on issues such as urban design and public transport has the potential to improve outcomes in all areas. It is possible that some of the greatest gains in social well-being may be achieved by explicitly considering and addressing social well-being in local government planning and infrastructure initiatives. Submitters and stakeholders, including some councils and mana whenua,20 advocated for local government to be “looking through a social well-being lens as part of the normal planning process for all local body decision-making”.21 Waitakere City Council noted that there should be “improved delivery and accountability for the social dimension of existing regional strategies (for example, the Regional Growth Strategy), ensuring land use, transport, and other infrastructure decisions integrate social and community dimensions.”22 In general, however, while the value of such an approach is recognised by some, local government appears to be just starting to address the social well-being impacts of its core “place shaping” and infrastructure activities. Urban design and public transport are two key examples.
9.19. Urban design is integral to social well-being. As well as creating beauty in the environment which helps people feel good, good urban design can improve quality of life by incorporating features that provide healthy, green spaces, recreation opportunities, opportunities for active transport (for example, walking and cycling), enhanced access to public transport, closer proximity to services and facilities such as schools, opportunities for community activities and events, and improved safety and security. For example, by focusing on high walkability, good urban design has been demonstrated to increase physical activity bringing health benefits; increase foot traffic through shopping precincts bringing economic benefits; and increase the numbers of people on streets, bringing safety benefits and enhanced social cohesion.23 Conversely, by ignoring or downplaying these considerations, councils can create negative outcomes such as obesogenic environments.24 At times, these concepts appear to be well understood. Rodney District Council for example has developed the (non-regulatory) urban design guideline Building on Opportunity that incorporates social well-being issues.25
9.20. Similarly, public transport is crucial for providing easy and affordable access to employment, education, housing, recreation, and services (such as hospitals). People from disadvantaged communities (including those with greater health and social needs), young people, older people, migrants, and others who don’t own cars are particularly reliant on public transport. Limited access to public transport can exclude people from participating in the social, economic, and cultural lives of their community and all the associated opportunities. Further, use of public transport increases physical activity and enhances social connectedness.
9.21. Local government also has a direct role in the planning and placement of educational and health facilities (for example, schools and hospitals), housing, and employment opportunities (through business development initiatives). Council planning and approval processes can determine where and how these facilities are located and develop, and therefore can impact on the associated social consequences. The University of Auckland, for example, in its submission described the importance of top-class tertiary education institutions in bringing people, money, employment opportunities, innovative research, and business into a city, with benefits for the whole region.26
9.22. Economic growth relies on attracting people to live in the region, and maximising the potential of the whole population by supporting them to be healthy, housed, educated, safe, and socially connected. In turn, economic growth is a significant determinant of social well-being. The Waitakere City and Manukau City27 submissions highlighted the role of social infrastructure and social services as the platform for economic development. Waitakere City noted that
… the well-being, development and international competitiveness of the Auckland region rests amongst other things on the public funding of infrastructure and social services. Internationally and within New Zealand, it is accepted that public agencies should fund infrastructure and social services that provide the platform, security and frameworks for private investment and development to create wealth and opportunity.28
9.23. Council policies, regulations, and services can influence the choices people make to move to or remain in a region. Students are one example of a population facing many choices of places to study, and they can contribute hugely to all aspects of a city. A successful city often retains a high percentage of its graduates through employment in the workforce, or through businesses and industries they may go on to establish or develop. Initially, students will be attracted largely by the quality of educational opportunities, but will also take into account housing issues, public transport, employment, social and recreational opportunities, affordability, and the social cohesion and connectedness of the city. Similarly, their choice to stay in the city where they have studied will be influenced by these factors.
9.24. It is important to recognise that the inter-linkages can bring tensions such as those that can occur between economic growth and environmental values. Managing the inevitable tensions and achieving balanced, positive outcomes through a more systemic approach will continue to be a key challenge for local government.
9.25. A strong focus on social well-being can also contribute significantly to the development of a strong identity, a sense of belonging and social cohesion.29 These characteristics confer protection against negative social well-being outcomes such as crime. Waitakere City Council for example, led by Mayor Bob Harvey, has concentrated on aspects of social well-being such as housing, environmental practices, preventing domestic violence, and inclusion of ethnic community representatives in council discussions. These efforts appear to be reflected in the social well-being outcomes for Waitakere that are described below. Despite having the second highest proportion of the population with low incomes in the region, the Waitakere population typically does better than expected, ranking in the middle for most social well-being indicators compared with other territorial authority populations in Auckland.
9.26. The reverse of social well-being is social deprivation, disadvantage, and social exclusion. The state of Auckland’s social well-being is set out below, and it is clear that on many key indicators the Auckland region and communities within the region fare poorly. There are significant and unacceptable inequalities. Manukau City Council observed in its submission that successful international cities are concerned about social exclusion and that growth should not increase inequalities.30 Maintaining the status quo will not enable Auckland to fulfil its potential as a successful international city, and is not an option. It can be expected that continuing with the same approach and failing to target communities with the greatest needs will perpetuate and indeed may exacerbate these inequalities, with negative consequences for the whole community.
9.27. Although the broad policy-making, funding, service delivery, and monitoring functions are the responsibility of central government, local government has considerable capacity to partner with central government in order to contribute to improved social well-being. Central government can be limited in its ability to target initiatives at the neighbourhood level where clusters of deprivation are located. Local government, with neighbourhood-level knowledge, relationships, and established initiatives (such as community development programmes), can work with national agencies to increase the effectiveness of policy, funding, services, and monitoring in order to improve social well-being for high-need communities. The Auckland Regional Public Health Service noted in its submission,
Local authorities have considerable influence over the ability of individuals and families to mitigate the impact of low income and education by accessing employment and educational opportunities.31
9.28. Rowe stressed both the challenge of finding “a role for local government that links the macrocosm of the state to the microcosm of the neighbourhood and the family”32 and the advantages of local and central government working in a more integrated and aligned system:
When local authority powers to regulate land use, make provision for affordable housing, and determine public transport are combined with central government’s powers to decide on the distribution of social services such as health, education, police and family support services, a powerful engine for change can be built.33
9.29. Although it is clear that local government has an important role to play in supporting improved social well-being, it is apparent that currently, this capacity is underutilised. Rowe also observed,
Despite the potential inherent in local government, few [stakeholders] thought local authorities had yet understood the power of the decisions they make … Central agencies frequently express frustration that local authorities do not use the instruments they have to configure the urban physical environment so social well-being can be achieved.34
9.30. The Auckland Regional Public Health Service made a similar observation in its submission:
The public health view of local authorities’ influence on health outcomes is somewhat wider than the view of local government itself …35
9.31. The following section provides a snapshot of Auckland’s social well-being, focusing on each of the domains reported on by the Ministry of Social Development in the annual Social Report.36 The discussion identifies how Auckland compares with the rest of New Zealand, how the sub-regions (or territorial authority-level populations) compare within the region, and how communities within territorial authority districts compare (where such data are available or particularly pertinent). While the information is intended to provide a snapshot of social well-being in Auckland, it is not comprehensive, and has been selected to reflect the key social well-being issues for Auckland, such as housing.
9.32. The data provide an evidence base to support identification, analysis, and understanding of complex social issues and priorities for Auckland, and highlight the importance of addressing deprivation in Auckland. The data inform the recommendations about the governance arrangements that will support improved social well-being outcomes. The data can be applied to assist understanding the size and nature of problems, prioritising and targeting resources for those with the greatest needs and capacity to benefit, tracking trends, and measuring and monitoring progress against objectives over time. An evidence-based approach highlights the importance of access to good quality data, including routinely collected data, research, and evaluation.
9.33. There are significant problems accessing regional and sub-regional/territorial authority-level data. Limitations also exist with the data that are available. This is partly the result of misaligned boundaries, which means that accurate aggregation, disaggregation, and comparison of the data collected and analysed by the various agencies cannot easily be made. For example, the Auckland Regional Public Health Service (“ARPHS”), which is responsible for promoting health and well-being, disease surveillance, and so on, covers seven territorial authority areas and three regional authority areas. The ARPHS boundaries do not align well with local government boundaries, nor those of the major central government agencies that have major roles to play in social well-being, such as the police. (Note that this report includes data based on the different boundaries of the territorial authorities, the police, district health boards (“DHBs”), regional sports trusts, and small area (census or meshblock) units.)
9.34. Overall, the Auckland region does well by comparison with other regions in New Zealand on a number of social well-being domains. However, as detailed below, regional aggregation masks many significant inequalities at the sub-regional level, and as Rowe notes, the positive and negative data “… underscore the fact that Auckland is home to both the most and the least deprived neighbourhoods in New Zealand”.37
Table 9.1 Life expectancy at birth (years), 2000–2002, Auckland region
| Life expectancy (years) | Rodney District | North Shore City | Waitakere City | Auckland City | Manukau City | Papakura District | Franklin District | Auckland region |
| Female | 82.5 | 83.6 | 81.7 | 82.4 | 81.5 | 79.8 | 80.7 | 82.1 |
| Male | 78.5 | 79.1 | 77.7 | 77.7 | 76.2 | 76.2 | 77.0 | 77.5 |
Notes: Life expectancy at birth indicates the total number of years a person could expect to live, based on the mortality rates of the population at each age in a given year or period. Source: Ministry of Social Development, Social Report 2008 (data available at www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/, accessed January 2009).
9.35. Auckland’s demographic profile and the associated projections are detailed in Chapter 2 of this report. In relation to social well-being, Rowe’s analysis identified four key facts:
9.36. The Ministry of Social Development reports on two standard indicators of health: how long people live and the quality of their lives. Auckland ranks in the highest quintile in the country on both measures. As Table 9.1 illustrates, North Shore City residents have the highest life expectancy, while Papakura District residents have the lowest. There is an association between life expectancy and the level of deprivation in an area, which is reflected in the mortality data.
9.37. Infant mortality “is recognised internationally as a sensitive indicator of social and economic conditions and the adequacy of health services”.39 Among New Zealand’s 12 largest cities, the infant mortality rates between 2000 and 2003 were highest for Manukau City (6.8 per 1,000 live births), which were more than double those of Rodney District, with the lowest in the region (3.4 per 1,000 live births), as shown in Table 9.2. The rates are noticeably higher for Māori and Pacific infants than those of other (including New Zealand European) ethnicity. In Manukau, the infant mortality rate for Māori is nearly three times that of others (including New Zealand European).
Table 9.2 Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births (2000–2003 combined), for five Auckland councils
| Rodney District | North Shore City | Waitakere City | Auckland City | Manukau City | |
| Māori | 1.3 | 10.7 | 5.5 | 6.4 | 10.3 |
| Pacific Islands | 5.2 | 9.1 | 6.3 | 8.4 | 8.7 |
| Other (incl. NZ European) | 3.8 | 3.6 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 3.5 |
| Total | 3.4 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 6.8 |
Notes: An infant death is a live-born infant dying within the first year of life. Source: Quality of Life ’07 in Twelve of New Zealand’s Cities, 2007, p. 51 (available at www.qualityoflifeproject.govt.nz).
Table 9.3 Intentional self-harm statistics (suicide and hospitalisation)
| Deaths 2002–2006 | Hospitalisations 2006 | |||||||
| Total | Māori | Total | Māori | |||||
| Number | Rate | Number | Rate | Number | Rate | Number | Rate | |
| Waitemata | 245 | 9.7 | 24 | 10.2 | 328 | 65.0 | 40 | 83.3 |
| Auckland | 213 | 9.1 | 28 | 15.2 | 137 | 29.8 | 26 | 71.9 |
| Counties-Manukau | 256 | 12.1 | 78 | 22.8 | 184 | 41.3 | 48 | 65.2 |
| Total New Zealand | 2,504 | 11.9 | 487 | 16.5 | 2,868 | 69.7 | 473 | 77.2 |
Notes: Suicide is mortality data; hospitalisation refers to admission for intentional self-harm. Data by district health board areas. Source: Health Information Service, Ministry of Health.
9.38. Cigarette smoking and suicide rates are also key health indicators included in the Ministry of Social Development’s Social Report. On both indicators the Auckland region ranks in the lowest quintile for New Zealand (which is a positive outcome). However, there are marked inequalities between the Auckland region’s DHB districts; the suicide data is a telling example of how regional aggregation of statistics can mask sizeable inequalities within the region. (Note that the data are aggregated by DHBs, not by territorial authorities.) Suicidal behaviour is influenced by many factors at individual, family, community, and society levels, and suicide prevention efforts must therefore involve a multi-stranded, intersectoral response. DHBs influence suicidal behaviour through provision of services such as health promotion programmes, emergency care, and mental health services. Councils can also influence suicide behaviour through such activities as planning and consent processes (for example, the erection of suicide barriers on Grafton Bridge), and alcohol and gambling policies.
9.39. Table 9.3 shows that in 2002–06 the Auckland DHB had the lowest total suicide rate in New Zealand at 9.1 (age-standardised rate per 100,000 population), compared with the national average of 11.9. Waitemata DHB’s suicide rate was 9.7 and Counties-Manukau DHB’s 12.1, highlighting a significant difference (over 30%) between Auckland and Counties-Manukau. It is apparent that Māori rates are consistently much higher than those of the rest of the population within each of the districts, for both completed suicide and hospitalisation for intentional self-harm (a major risk factor for suicide). For example, in the Counties-Manukau district the Māori suicide rate was 22.8, one of the highest in the country, and nearly double that of the total population (12.1). Auckland, which had the lowest suicide rate for the country, also had the lowest hospitalisation rate for self-harm, but the Māori rate was more than twice that of the total population. In 2006, Waitemata DHB had the highest rate of hospitalisation for self-harm within the region, and more than twice that of Auckland (65 compared with 29.8 for Auckland).
9.40. It is well recognised that deprivation and ethnicity are correlated with health status. Māori and Pacific populations generally fare significantly worse on many health indicators than the rest of the population as the examples above illustrate. As socio-economic disadvantage tends to be concentrated geographically, it is also apparent that where you live in Auckland makes a difference to your health status.
9.41. The Ministry of Social Development reports on participation and attainment (or qualifications) in education from early childhood through to tertiary education. Three of these indicators are detailed below for the Auckland region. Nationally, Auckland ranks in the lowest quintile for participation in early childhood education. It is in the second highest quintile for school leavers with higher qualifications, and is average for adult educational attainment. In keeping with other indicators of inequality, Auckland has the highest concentration in New Zealand of schools at the extremes of the decile range.
9.42. In July 2007, one-third of the New Zealand school population was enrolled in Auckland, and over half of New Zealand’s decile 1 school pupils were enrolled in Auckland schools.40 Just over half of Auckland’s decile 1 and 2 schools are in Manukau City, while nearly two-thirds of decile 9 and 10 schools are in North Shore City, as shown in Figure 9.1.
The Social Report notes
Evidence from New Zealand and international research shows that early childhood years are vital to a child’s development and their future ability to learn. Quality early childhood programmes prepare young children socially, physically and academically for entry into primary education and can help narrow the achievement gap between children from low-income families and those from more advantaged families.41
Table 9.4 Participation in early childhood education, 2007, Auckland region
| Rodney District | North Shore City | Waitakere City | Auckland City | Manukau City | Papakura District | Franklin District | Auckland region | |
| “Apparent” participation rate 3- and 4-year-olds | 95.0% | 105.2% | 85.7% | 96.8% | 71.8% | 88.0% | 74.8% | 87.5% |
| Early childhood attendance by Year 1 students | 97.4% | 97.9% | 93.6% | 93.3% | 85.7% | 86.3% | 93.7% | 91.7% |
Notes: The data represent the number of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in early childhood centres or home-based education programmes as a proportion of all 3- and 4-year-olds and the proportion of Year 1 students who indicated they have attended some form of early childhood education. Note that numbers can add up to more than 100%. Source: Ministry of Social Development, Social Report 2008 (data available at www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/, accessed January 2009).
Table 9.5 Provision of early childhood education by ward in Manukau City
| Ward | Population under 5 years (March 2007) | Early childhood education places (2007) | Provision of places as % of population |
| Botany-Clevedon | 3,123 | 1,333 | 42.7% |
| Howick and Pakuranga Wards | 4,372 | 3,310 | 75.7% |
| Mangere | 5,808 | 2,034 | 35.0% |
| Manurewa | 7,913 | 2,786 | 35.2% |
| Otara | 3,911 | 1,526 | 39.0% |
| Papatoetoe | 3,470 | 1,369 | 39.5% |
| Manukau City total | 28,597 | 12,358 | 44.4% |
Notes: Data represent the number of places for children under five at childcare centres, divided by the number of children under five. Source: 2007 data provided by The Salvation Army.
9.44. The data set out in Table 9.4 from the same report reveals significant differences between territorial authorities within the region. It shows that participation is highest in the North Shore (97.9% of children reported attending early childhood education) and lowest in Manukau and Papakura (85.7% and 86.3% respectively).
9.45. The Salvation Army submission also included data about participation in early childhood education at a ward level for Manukau City, illustrated in Table 9.5.42 While this data was derived using a different approach, this analysis reveals further significant differences within this territorial authority that already fares poorly by comparison with the rest of the region.43 Overall, Manukau City had places available for an average of 44% of its children under five. There was 76% availability for Howick and Pakuranga, but only 39% for Otara’s children. The implication is that just under two-thirds of Otara’s children are not able to access early childhood education facilities within their community, compared with one-quarter in Howick and Pakuranga. The Salvation Army notes that the ward-level breakdown of these statistics reveals the “real inequalities beneath these averages”.44School leaver qualifications and adult educational attainment
9.46. The data in Tables 9.6 and 9.7 show a similar pattern to that of early childhood education, with the highest qualified school leavers and the highest adult educational attainments being concentrated in the North Shore, and the lowest qualified in Papakura, Manukau City, and Waitakere. The data show that the same geographic areas experience disadvantage in access to early school education and qualification of school leavers and adults.
Table 9.6 School leavers with higher qualifications, 2007, Auckland region
| Rodney District | North Shore City | Waitakere City | Auckland City | Manukau City | Papakura District | Franklin District | Auckland region | |
| NCEA Level 2 or higher | 62.9% | 78.5% | 58.3% | 75.6% | 64.8% | 55.8% | 58.8% | 69.6% |
| Bursary or higher | 32.1% | 48.4% | 26.9% | 40.6% | 32.1% | 21.5% | 31.7% | 37.0% |
Notes: Figures show the proportion of school leavers who had attained a qualification at National Certificate of Educational Attainment (NCEA) Level 2 or above and the proportion who leave with Bursary and above. Source: Ministry of Social Development, Social Report 2008 (data available at www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/, accessed January 2009).
Table 9.7 Adult educational attainment, Auckland region, 2007
| Rodney District | North Shore City | Waitakere City | Auckland City | Manukau City | Papakura District | Franklin District | Auckland region | |
| At least upper secondary | 81.3% | 89.4% | 79.3% | 87.7% | 75.5% | 71.1% | 75.9% | 75.8% |
| At least tertiary | 15.1% | 28.3% | 18.4% | 35.8% | 16.1% | 11.1% | 12.2% | 26.6% |
Notes: Figures show The proportion of adults aged 25-64 years with an educational attainment of at least upper secondary school level and the proportion of adults with at least tertiary qualifications. Source: Ministry of Social Development, Social Report 2008 (data available at www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/, accessed January 2009).
9.47. The Ministry of Social Development reports on five indicators of paid work: unemployment, employment, median hourly earnings, workplace injury claims, and satisfaction with work-life balance. Nationally, Auckland has an average unemployment rate, the lowest rate of employment (the proportion of the 15–64-year population in at least one hour of paid employment per week), ranks in the highest quintile for median hourly earnings, and ranks in the second highest quintile for workplace injury claims.45
Table 9.8 Unemployed and unemployment rate by territorial authority, Auckland
region
(Comparison between September quarter 2006 and September quarter 2008)
| September quarter 2008 | September quarter 2006 | |||
| Territorial authority | Unemployed (thousands) | Unemployment rate (%) | Unemployed (thousands) | Unemployment rate (%) |
| Rodney District | 1.5 | 3.6 | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| North Shore City | 2.5 | 2.4 | 5.1 | 4.7 |
| Waitakere City | 3.7 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 3.2 |
| Auckland City | 13.8 | 5.7 | 6.7 | 2.9 |
| Manukau City | 6.7 | 4.5 | 7.1 | 4.6 |
| Papakura District | 1.6 | 10.8 | 2.0 | 11.3 |
Source: Statistics New Zealand, Household Labour Force Survey.
Table 9.9 Number of working-aged (18–64 years) unemployment benefit recipients
(Comparison between December quarter 2007 and December quarter 2008)
| December Quarter 2007 | December Quarter 2008 | ||
| Territorial authority | Unemployed benefit recipients | Unemployed benefit recipients | % increase |
| Rodney District | 157 | 357 | 127 |
| North Shore City | 403 | 695 | 72 |
| Waitakere City | 614 | 1,111 | 81 |
| Auckland City | 2,239 | 3,572 | 60 |
| Manukau City | 2,472 | 3,083 | 25 |
| Papakura District | 474 | 723 | 53 |
| Franklin District | 262 | 374 | 43 |
| Auckland region | 6,613 | 10,286 | 56 |
Notes: Data illustrated in Figure 9.2. Source: Ministry of Social Development.
9.48. Tables 9.8 and 9.9 and Figure 9.2 show changes across the Auckland territorial authorities in unemployment numbers and rates (for the two years from September 2006 to September 2008) and unemployment benefit recipient numbers (for one year from December 2007). The unemployment rate was highest in Papakura District (10.8%) compared with the lowest in the North Shore City (2.4%) in the September 2008 quarter; however, because of the small population, this translated to only 1,600 unemployed people in Papakura. The highest number of unemployed people live in Auckland City (13,800) and the lowest in Rodney District (1,500). Between 2006 and 2008, the biggest increase in the unemployment rate occurred in Auckland City with an increase of 7,100 in the number of unemployed. The biggest decrease occurred in North Shore City with a decrease of 2,600 in the number of unemployed. The other territorial authorities showed small changes in either direction.
9.49. The Auckland region saw a 56% increase in the number of unemployment benefits between December 2007 and December 2008. The biggest proportionate increases occurred in Rodney District and North Shore and Waitakere Cities. The smallest increase occurred in Manukau City.
9.50. Recent forecasts point to continuing increases in the national unemployment rate and number of unemployed people over the short to medium term. In December 2008, Treasury forecasts saw national unemployment peaking at 6.5% (5.7%–7.5%) midway through 2010,46 although it should be noted that the forecasts are likely to be revised (possibly further upwards) as economic conditions change. The most recent data indicate that Auckland’s unemployment is increasing at a greater rate than the national average. In the September 2008 quarter the unemployment rate in the Auckland region was 4.4%, only slightly higher than the national rate for the same quarter (4.2%). Figures for the December 2008 quarter, however, show the region’s unemployment rate has increased to 5.2%, while the national figure is 4.6%.47 It is likely that those areas of Auckland already suffering from high unemployment will be hit harder by this increase, with a corresponding increase in socio-economic inequalities across the region.
Table 9.10 Population with low incomes, Auckland region
| Year | Rodney District | North Shore City | Waitakere City | Auckland City | Manukau City | Papakura District | Franklin District | Auckland region |
| 2001 | 18.1% | 14.7% | 18.8% | 18.1% | 20.8% | 18.9% | 16.6% | 18.2% |
| 2006 | 14.5% | 12.6% | 16.2% | 15.9% | 17.7% | 16.2% | 13.6% | 15.6% |
Notes: The table shows the proportion of people living in households with gross real income less than 60% of the median household equivalised national income benchmarked at 2001. Equivalisation is a method to control for household composition. In this way, for example, the standard of living of a single person with an income of $40,000 can be compared with the standard of living of a household consisting of two adults and three children on an income of $40,000. The census income groups vary between censuses, therefore the income thresholds for each index also vary. (See www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/8066/$File/NZDep2006_text.pdf.) Source: Social Report 2008, Regional Indicators – Territorial Authorities.
9.51. The Ministry of Social Development reports on five indicators of the economic standard of living, including the proportion of the population with low incomes and household crowding. These are detailed below for the Auckland region.
9.52. Insufficient economic resources have an immediate range of consequences, from poor housing and overcrowding to limited transport options, lower educational attainment, and poor health. The Ministry of Social Development’s Social Report also notes that low income can “limit people’s capability to participate in and belong to their community and wider society and otherwise restrict their quality of life”.48
9.53. The Auckland region ranks in the lowest quintile for “population with low incomes” with less than 16% of the population living in “low income households”. Since 1991 this proportion has been decreasing indicating an overall positive outcome for the region.49 However, the Auckland region also has a wider range of incomes than other regions in New Zealand. Table 9.10 shows that in 2006 Manukau City had the highest proportion of people living on low incomes and North Shore City had the lowest. One of the contributory factors is the large number of immigrants and refugees who settle in particular areas of Auckland. Many of these people have low skill levels, limited English language, and may not be eligible for most benefits (for example unemployment, domestic purposes, and sickness) if they have been resident for less than two years.50
9.54. The New Zealand In dex of Deprivation (“NZDep”) uses nine weighted variables derived from census data (such as income and home ownership) to describe the level of deprivation experienced by groups of people in small area units.51 As illustrated by the map in Figure 9.3, Manukau and Auckland Cities have the greatest number of small area units in Auckland that have more deprived NZDep scores (decile 8, 9, and 10).52 In Manukau, NZDep scores are high in areas such as Otara, Mangere, Flat Bush, Weymouth, Clendon, Wiri, Manurewa, and Papatoetoe. In Auckland City NZDep scores are high in areas, such as Tamaki (Point England, Glen Innes, and Panmure), Otahuhu, Mt Wellington, Oranga, and Wesley.53 The Salvation Army submission also described a similar concentration of poverty in a broad band extending from Glen Innes to Manurewa and alluded to intergenerational effects noting that “there is some evidence that this poverty is not only deeply embedded in these communities but is becoming more concentrated”.54
9.55. The deprivation statistics show that deprivation is not only correlated with geography, but also with ethnicity, as Figure 9.4 illustrates. European people are represented in all of the deciles, but in decreasing proportions as deprivation increases. Māori are more strongly represented in the deciles with high deprivation scores and Pacific people are severely disadvantaged, with three-quarters of the population in the three most deprived deciles, and almost 40% in decile 10.
9.56. Crowding in households relates to situations where the number of people residing in a household exceeds the ability of the dwelling to provide adequate shelter and services to its members.55 Household crowding is defined as “the proportion of the population requiring one or more additional bedrooms”, by the Canadian Crowding Index. This index is based on criteria outlined in the Canadian National Occupancy Standard that take account of appropriate age and gender mixes.56
9.57. Access to quality, stable, and affordable housing is an important determinant of social well-being for all age groups. Overcrowding is a direct consequence of insufficient economic resources and the difficulties faced by low-income families in meeting the costs of rent and basic utilities such as power and water. Families are forced to share accommodation and costs, often ending up in very poor conditions, such as cold, damp houses or garages. Data provided by the Monte Cecilia Housing Trust show that children are usually involved in high need or crisis housing situations.57 Overcrowding is accompanied by high mobility and frequent moves which bring additional costs, disruption within families and social support systems, disconnection within communities, and frequent school changes with increased truancy. This presents difficulties for children undertaking homework and they either do poorly at school or rely on community facilities such as homework centres and libraries. Adults in these situations often struggle to maintain stable employment. Overcrowding is also associated with other serious health and social well-being consequences (such as infectious diseases, respiratory illness, mental illness, and family violence), poor educational attainment, and crime.58
Table 9.11 Proportion of population living in crowded housing, Auckland region
| Year | Rodney District | North Shore City | Waitakere City | Auckland City | Manukau City | Papakura District | Franklin District | Auckland region |
| 2001 | 4.9% | 6.5% | 13.9% | 16.4% | 24.3% | 14.8% | 8.6% | 15.3% |
| 2006 | 4.7% | 7.0% | 14.5% | 16.5% | 25.1% | 16.2% | 8.3% | 15.7% |
Notes: Crowded housing means houses with fewer bedrooms than required given household size and composition, measured against the Canadian National Occupancy Standard. Further details on the crowding index are available in the Social Report. Source: Ministry of Social Development, Social Report 2008 (data available at www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/, accessed January 2009).
9.58. Nationally, Auckland region ranks in the highest quintile for household crowding, meaning that it has the highest proportion (15.7%) of the population living in crowded conditions.59 There are significant inequalities within the region as illustrated by Table 9.11. About one-quarter of Manukau City’s population live in crowded housing, about five times the proportion of Rodney District residents in this situation.
9.59. Figure 9.5 illustrates that overcrowding is also correlated with geographical location and ethnicity. In all the council districts, Pacific people constitute the highest proportion of the population living in crowded households. In Manukau City nearly 40% of Pacific people live in such conditions. Māori experience the second highest rate of overcrowding in nearly all of the territorial authority districts, followed by Asians. Europeans experience the lowest levels of overcrowding with well below 5% in most of the council districts.
9.60. Household crowding is influenced by income, plus the affordability of rent and house ownership. There are significant housing affordability issues in the Auckland region as documented in the statistics and reported in recent media.60 Housing in the Auckland region is the second least affordable region in New Zealand, behind Central Otago. Between 2001 and 2006, the largest housing shortages (where dwelling growth failed to keep up with population growth) were in Auckland, Manukau, and North Shore Cities. Between 2000 and 2005 the median house sale price rose by over 60% in Rodney District and North Shore and Auckland Cities, making home ownership increasingly unattainable for more people. Rentals in Auckland have also increased, and are higher than the rest of New Zealand (averaging $275 per week compared with $201).61 It is estimated that an additional 56,000 rental properties will be needed in Auckland over the next 10 years, with the Centre for Housing Research noting that
A shortage of affordable and secure accommodation for poorer households is a key problem in the private rental market, which is also characterised by an absence of institutional investors and a government housing policy focus on the demand side via income supplementation. Urban planning policies that emphasise containment and increased density also tend to reduce supply and increase prices.62
9.61. In addition, the number of homeowners experiencing housing stress in Auckland rose by 20.5% between 1996 and 2004, including 45.4% of younger people (20–39 years). Housing stress is experienced when a household is in the bottom two quintiles of income distribution, and pays more than 30% of the gross household income on housing costs, either rental or owner-occupied.63
9.62. More recent analysis indicates that housing affordability is the best it has been in several years owing to falling interest rates and house prices.64 While this trend is expected to continue over the short term, affordability is likely to remain out of reach for lower-income people as banks tighten their credit criteria and demand higher deposits. The situation is likely to increase housing inequalities.
9.63. The Ministry of Social Development observes that
Wellbeing depends on people having a sense of choice of control over their lives, and on being reasonably able to do the things they value. This is only possible if people can exercise the many rights referred to above.65 People’s ability to take part in society, and their sense of belonging and identity, also depend on the exercise of these rights.66
9.64. The ministry uses four indicators to measure civil and political rights: voter turnout, representation of women in government, perceptions of discrimination, and corruption.
9.65. Auckland ranks in the lowest quintile for voter turnout in territorial authority elections.67 It is low by national and international standards and is approximately half that of general election turnout, which was 81% in 2005.68 It has been gradually declining since 1989 and is now at similar levels to those in the 1960s. In general, it appears that turnout is higher for larger councils and for district (rather than city) councils. Turnout appears to have increased after local government restructuring, the introduction of postal voting, and in response to high-profile mayoral contests. Voter turnout across Auckland in 2007 is shown in Table 9.12.
Table 9.12 Voter turnout in Auckland mayoral and council elections, 2007
| Councils | Mayoral elections | Council elections | |
| % overall turnout | % overall turnout | % change 2004–07 | |
| Rodney District | 45% | 45% | – <1% |
| North Shore City | 35% | 35% | – <1% |
| Waitakere City | 38% | 38% | + 2% |
| Auckland City | 40% | 40% | – 9% |
| Manukau City | 39% | 38% | – 2% |
| Papakura District | 35% | 35% | – 5% |
| Franklin District | 34% | 35% | – 11% |
| Auckland region | 38% | – 4% | |
Notes: The table shows the proportion of all enrolled electors (both resident and ratepayer) who cast a vote in territorial/regional authority elections. Source: Department of Internal Affairs, Local Authority Election Statistics 2007, 2008.
9.66. Submitters raised concerns about the lack of participation of poorer communities in local government process and identified the need to establish “inclusive, accessible and responsive”69 political systems. One submitter stated that they wanted to see a governance structure that included “the marginalised in decision-making” adding that this would “lead to a vibrant, diverse, healthy, liveable, sustainable and nearly perfect Auckland”.70 These comments highlight the value of engaging well with disadvantaged communities through a range of mechanisms, and to encourage higher turnout at local body elections.
9.67. Auckland is the most culturally diverse city in the country. Cultural identity is a vital contributor to social well-being for a range of reasons, and can be based on nationality, ethnicity, community, or religious affiliation or other shared interests. It fosters a sense of belonging, provides access to social networks, increases social capital, and has been shown to be associated with positive health and education outcomes. The Ministry of Social Development uses three indicators to measure cultural identity: local content programming on New Zealand television, Māori language speakers, and language retention.71
9.68. Tables 9.13 and 9.14 show that the Auckland region has the second lowest proportion of Māori language speakers (Māori who can hold a conversation about everyday things in te reo Māori72), and the highest level of language retention (the proportion of people, other than Māori who can speak their “first language” of their ethnic group).
Table 9.13 Māori language speakers
| Year | Rodney District | North Shore City | Waitakere City | Auckland City | Manukau City | Papakura District | Franklin District | Auckland region |
| 1996 | 14.3% | 16.6% | 18.2% | 20.8% | 22.2% | 23.8% | 25.7% | 20.5% |
| 2001 | 14.1% | 18.2% | 19.5% | 20.7% | 22.1% | 23.5% | 24.1% | 20.7% |
| 2006 | 14.0% | 17.3% | 19.0% | 20.0% | 21.4% | 20.9% | 21.3% | 19.8% |
Notes: The proportion of Māori who can hold a conversation about everyday things in Māori, as a proportion of the Māori population. Source: Social Report 2008, Regional Indicators – Territorial Authorities.
Table 9.14 Language retention
| Year | Rodney District | North Shore City | Waitakere City | Auckland City | Manukau City | Papakura District | Franklin District | Auckland region |
| 2001 | 45.9% | 68.8% | 59.8% | 63.2% | 62.4% | 46.8% | 54.6% | 62.4% |
| 2006 | 50.4% | 69.4% | 59.8% | 64.8% | 63.8% | 49.8% | 52.9% | 63.7% |
Notes: Proportion of people, born in New Zealand or overseas, who can speak the “first language” (excluding English) of their ethnic group, for ethnic groups (other than Māori) with an established resident population in New Zealand. Source: Social Report 2008, Regional Indicators – Territorial Authorities.
9.69. The Ministry of Social Development describes leisure and recreation as “crucial components of a balanced and healthy lifestyle” and an important part of community life, and the development of social cohesion.73 In particular, participation in leisure and recreation has well-documented physical health, mental health, and social well-being consequences. The Ministry of Social Development uses three indicators to measure leisure and recreation: satisfaction with leisure time, participation in physical activity, and participation in cultural and arts activities. Issues related to culture and art are addressed in Chapter 10, “Culture, Recreation, and Diversity” of this report.
9.70. The data in Table 9.15 set out levels of participation in physical activity in the areas of Auckland’s four regional sports trusts. It shows that for most categories, the sport, recreation, and physical activity profiles for the trusts’ regions are comparable to the national profile. Within the region, the highest proportion of adults achieving the guidelines (at least 30 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity on most, if not on all, days of the week) was in Waitakere, and the lowest in North Harbour. The sports trust region with the highest proportion of inactive people was Auckland.74
9.71. Preferences for different activities within the region reflect the characteristics of the local population and opportunities within the local environment. For example, in Counties-Manukau (where the Manukau City Council provides free swimming pools) swimming was the second most popular sport with over 36% participating in swimming over 12 months. This was less than Auckland’s population (at 43.9%), where access to swimming pools is not free, but where there is easier access to beaches. Auckland adults identified pilates/yoga and tennis on their 10 most popular activities list – activities that did not appear on the national list. In the North Harbour region, walking was the most popular activity for men and women, while women listed golf and fishing among their most popular activities – also activities that did not appear on the New Zealand list. Waitakere had a similar profile to North Harbour, although women identified tramping rather than golf among their most popular activities.
Table 9.15 Adult compliance (% of population) with national physical activity guidelines in 2008
| North Harbour | Auckland | Waitakere | Counties-Manukau | National | |
| Achieved the guidelines | 42.5 | 44 | 54.3 | 51 | 48.2 |
| Some activity | 45.8 | 40.3 | 35.7 | 35 | 39.1 |
| Inactive | 11.7 | 15.7 | 9.9 | 14 | 12.7 |
Source: SPARC, Sport, Recreation and Physical Activity Profile: Waitakere/ North Harbour/Auckland/Counties-Manukau Regions 2007/08. Wellington, 2009.
9.72. The Ministry of Social Development recognises that a clean, healthy environment is essential for physical and emotional well-being, and plays a particularly important role in the nature and extent of participation in leisure and recreation activities. The physical environment includes land, air, water, plants and animals, buildings, infrastructure, and other natural resources that “provide our basic needs and opportunities for social and economic development”.75
9.73. The ministry uses two indicators to measure the quality of the physical environment: air quality and drinking water quality. Local government has responsibilities that directly impact on these measures. In addition to the broad statutory obligations of local government that relate to the physical environment and provision of infrastructure (addressed in detail elsewhere in this report), local government is also responsible for controlling discharges or contaminants into land, air, and water; managing water resources; controlling public health nuisances and hazardous substances. When compared nationally, Auckland ranks in the highest quintile for drinking water quality (achieving high compliance scores in drinking water standards for E. coli and Cryptosporidium) and is safe with scores below the annual guideline threshold for particulate matter.
9.74. In addition to the measures set out in the Social Report, the Quality of Life ’07 report also reports on the “built environment” including indicators of the “look and feel of the city” (measured by residents’ ratings relating to graffiti and noise pollution), land use (measures include the area of green space and residents’ ratings of ease of access to green, open spaces), traffic and transport (measures include motor vehicle ownership and travel to work), and public transport (measures include use, affordability, and safety of public transport).76 As noted above, five Auckland cities took part in the Quality of Life ’07 report, and some findings for key measures relating to transport are noted below.9.75. Four of Auckland’s territorial authorities (Rodney, North Shore, Waitakere, and Manukau) ranked the highest score for the average number of vehicles per household. The Auckland region cities did not score well in relation to perceptions of public transport. Residents ranked affordability at 36% to 49% (compared with 55% nationally), safety at 61% to 79% (compared with 73% nationally), and convenience at 30% to 49% (compared with 55% nationally).
9.76. The use of motor vehicles to get to work is an important indicator of dependence on vehicles and is associated with congestion pressures and related stress, air quality and pollution, pressure on roading infrastructure, and utilisation of public transport. As illustrated by Figure 9.6, Manukau City has the highest proportion (72.7%) of employed people using a motor vehicle to get to work compared with the other 12 major cities in New Zealand. It should be noted that while Auckland appears to have a relatively low score within the region (61.5%), the score is significantly higher than that of Wellington City (45.1%).9.77. This graph also indicates that vehicle utilisation may be higher among people who can probably least afford it. This may be explained by poor public transport options in areas with high levels of deprivation. Vehicle ownership has major financial implications for lower-income people who are often, for example, forced to borrow money from Work and Income New Zealand or other organisations to pay for vehicle repairs (thereby adding to their debt levels). This financial burden is expected to increase should proposed vehicle pollution regulations be introduced in three to four years’ time when many older-model cars will become non-compliant.
9.78. The Ministry of Social Development notes that safety and security are fundamental to well-being. Both violence and avoidable injury are encapsulated within the safety domain, which is measured using indicators of assault mortality, criminal victimisation, fear of crime and road casualties. Children and young people are particularly vulnerable to violence and injury.
9.79. As noted in the Social Report, criminal victimisation rates provide a “broad measure of personal safety and well-being”.77 Those who are more likely to be the victims of crime include young people (the risk decreases with age), Māori, Pacific peoples, Asians, sole parents with children, people who rent their homes, unemployed, and those living in the most deprived quintile of New Zealand. Some criminal victimisation statistics stand out. For example, Māori women are three times more likely than the average to be assaulted or threatened by a partner.78 While these findings are derived from national data, they have particular relevance for Auckland’s people because of the concentration of these groups within the region.
9.80. The charts in Figure 9.7 (provided by the Salvation Army) compare the reporting and resolution of violence and dishonesty crimes within the Auckland region.79 The charts reflect the risk of being a victim of crime in particular districts, and the nature of the crime. The resolution rate is generally higher for violent crime because it is heavily weighted towards family violence which typically occurs within a household. This may explain the high rate of reporting and resolution of violent crime within Counties-Manukau West. Low reporting rates and high resolution are the most desirable outcomes. Overall in the year to June 2008, North Shore, Rodney, and Waitakere experienced lower rates of reported crime and high resolution, with roughly half the reported crime of Counties-Manukau West and Central. Manurewa, for example, had high reporting rates and low resolution, compared with Rodney with relatively low reporting rates and high resolution. As both charts show, there is a marked discrepancy between the reporting and resolution of violent crime between East and West Counties-Manukau (or Pakuranga/Howick/Botany and Otara/Papatoetoe/Mangere). Auckland City (East and West) has a high rate of dishonesty crimes, with a low rate of resolution.
9.81. The Ministry of Social Development describes social connectedness as “the relationships people have with others”. The ministry notes that it is integral to social and economic well-being for both individuals and communities with, for example, people working together towards shared goals which can benefit communities and society as a whole. The Social Report observes that “Several studies have demonstrated links between social connectedness and the performance of the economy and positive outcomes for individual health and well-being”.80
9.82. The Ministry of Social Development uses a number of indicators to measure social connectedness, including telephone/internet access at home, contact between young people and their parents, trust in others, and loneliness.81 Auckland has the second lowest proportion of the population with telephone access; and for contact between young people and their parents, ranks as average for males and in the second best quintile for females.
9.83. Home access to telephone and internet provide critical communication tools that facilitate access to information, support services, and community networks. The data in Table 9.16 illustrate the high rates of telephone and internet access in the North Shore locality and the low rates in Manukau City and Papakura District.
9.84. Nationally, Māori and Pacific peoples have the lowest levels of household access to telephones and the internet, although these populations showed the greatest increases between 2001 and 2006. In 2006 the rate of internet access for people of European ethnicity was 70.4%, compared with 46.7% for Māori and 37.7% for Pacific peoples. This is consistent with the geographical variation in access rates illustrated in Table 9.16.
Table 9.16 Proportion of the population with telephone and internet access in the home, Auckland region
| Census year | Rodney District | North Shore City | Waitakere City | Auckland City | Manukau City | Papakura District | Franklin District | Auckland region |
| Telephone | ||||||||
| 1996 | 93.9 | 95.8 | 92.3 | 89.5 | 87.4 | 88.0 | 91.3 | 90.7 |
| 2001 | 93.4 | 95.8 | 91.0 | 90.8 | 87.5 | 89.2 | 90.3 | 90.9 |
| 2006 | 95.4 | 96.7 | 92.5 | 92.8 | 90.9 | 91.2 | 93.4 | 93.1 |
| Internet access | ||||||||
| 2001 | 44.1 | 59.3 | 43.2 | 49.3 | 38.4 | 38.3 | 39.4 | 46.3 |
| 2006 | 71.2 | 79.0 | 63.9 | 67.7 | 55.6 | 57.0 | 63.9 | 65.7 |
Notes: Information about internet access was asked for the first time in the 2001 census. Source: Ministry of Social Development, Social Report 2008 (data available at www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/, accessed January 2009).
9.85. Telephone and internet access data have notable limitations as indicators of social connectedness, particularly for certain populations. For example, young people may rely extensively on mobile phones to communicate with their peers. Other communities, despite having low internet and phone access, may enjoy strong, positive connections through participation in cultural or sporting activities. For those with internet access, time spent communicating online may erode time and effort spent engaging in family and community activities.
9.86. The data in Tables 9.17 and 9.18 show that among the five Auckland territorial authorities included in the Quality of Life ’07 survey, “trust in others” is highest in Rodney and lowest in Waitakere. People in Rodney are also the least likely to report experiencing loneliness, while people in Auckland and Manukau are most likely. Aucklanders are generally less trusting than others in the rest of New Zealand, and are on a par in relation to loneliness.
Table 9.17 Trust in others (five territorial authorities only)
| Rodney | North Shore | Waitakere | Auckland | Manukau | Rest of New Zealand | |
| People can almost always be trusted | 15% | 15% | 15% | 14% | 16% | 20% |
| People can usually be trusted | 64% | 60% | 51% | 58% | 51% | 56% |
| You usually can’t be too careful in dealing with people | 14% | 20% | 25% | 22% | 22% | 18% |
| You almost always can’t be too careful in dealing with people | 6% | 5% | 8% | 6% | 9% | 6% |
Notes: The table shows the proportion of the population aged 15 years and over reporting that people can “almost always” or “usually” be trusted. Source: Quality of Life Survey 2006.
Table 9.18 Proportion of the population experiencing loneliness (five territorial authorities only)
| Rodney | North Shore | Waitakere | Auckland | Manukau | Rest of New Zealand | |
| Never | 61% | 58% | 58% | 54% | 55% | 60% |
| Rarely | 26% | 25% | 23% | 25% | 24% | 21% |
| Sometimes | 12% | 15% | 16% | 17% | 18% | 15% |
| Most of the time | 1% | 1% | 2% | 3% | 2% | 2% |
| Always | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
Notes: The table shows the proportion of the population aged 15 years and over who reported feeling lonely “sometimes”, “most of the time”, or “always” during the previous 12 months. Source: Quality of Life Survey 2006.
9.87. The previous statistics highlight some key groups that are under-achieving in many social well-being domains. These groups also have largely untapped potential in terms of skills, resources, labour, creativity and other contributions to the well-being of the community. They are also more likely to be socially disconnected which can bring a range of negative social consequences. As the data illustrate, these groups are largely concentrated in distinct neighbourhood clusters.
9.88. In her report Rowe observed,
Māori, Pacific peoples, and other ethnic groups, children and young people, older people, those with disabilities, and those with low incomes represent the majority of Auckland’s citizens, yet their particular needs and interests can slip out of focus in the usual planning and priority-setting processes. All stakeholders wrestled with the question of how to get these voices heard, with most preferring a means of bringing them into the decision-making process – a step further than consultation.82
9.89. Among submissions and stakeholder feedback, there was very strong support for elected bodies to reflect the diversity of the people they represent. Both Māori and Pacific peoples sought guaranteed representation, and some Māori also advocated for Māori wards.
9.90. Overall, the stakeholder comments and analysis highlight the importance of improving social well-being outcomes for the identified priority populations and the benefits that will be shared by the whole population. Governance arrangements must ensure that these priority populations are able to engage effectively and participate in local government decision-making processes. Access to high-quality information, a systems-based approach, and shared decision-making and accountability arrangements between local and central government agencies are also crucial. These requirements are reflected in the Commission’s recommendations.
9.91. The data outlined above make it clear that on most key indicators of social well-being, for example, health, household crowding, crime victimisation, and social connectedness, Māori in Auckland are significantly disadvantaged and Māori communities include the most vulnerable citizens. Both North Shore City and Papakura District Councils highlighted the importance of social and cultural considerations for Māori, noting that Māori have increasing influence and need to be part of the solution. There are some encouraging signs as Rowe notes:
Māori are not simply the vulnerable; Treaty settlements have given them an economic base from which they are becoming part of Auckland’s economic powerhouse. Local authorities will need to work out how to work with Māori holistically, as serious economic players, as some of the most vulnerable of Auckland’s citizens, and as iwi with kaitiaki responsibilities for the land on which Auckland sits.83
9.92. For local authorities, improving social well-being for Māori will require a holistic, strength-based approach which recognises and addresses the deprivation that exists. This will involve shifting away from a deficit-based approach to focus on what is working well, utilisation of existing and emerging opportunities and prioritising strategies that enhance resiliency and positive development. This points to the need for proper engagement and representation, and complementary and appropriate responsibilities as Treaty partners.
9.93. In her report Rowe set out some key issues identified by Māori stakeholders that act as impediments to Māori progress in social issues.84 These included
Māori are diverse, some are connected with their Māoriness and some are not. Some know their marae, their waka and the various nuances that make up being Māori, some can only just pronounce Kia ora … Urban Māori authorities … are sometimes seen as lighthouses of hope for many Māori.87
9.94. Mana whenua88 stakeholders with whom Rowe consulted identified the importance of deciding the proper roles of Māori as mana whenua and taura here.89 They said that governance structures and process must enable mana whenua to exercise their kaitiaki over that for which they have a mandate, such as people and the environment. There must be proper representation and primary engagement must then be with mana whenua, who decide whether, and how, to engage with taura here on issues that affect them. They felt that such an approach would create healthy Māori communities. The mana whenua stakeholders explained that in practice this would mean
Stakeholders noted that this model largely applies in Rodney where the taumata92 is the iwi.93
9.95. Issues for Māori are addressed in further detail in Chapter 22, “Māori”.
9.96. The data outlined above make it clear that on most key indicators of social well-being, for example, health, household crowding, crime victimisation, and social connectedness, Pacific people in Auckland are significantly disadvantaged and Pacific communities include the region’s most vulnerable citizens. Thirty-seven percent of Pacific people live in decile 10 neighbourhoods,94 and within these neighbourhoods (for example, Manukau City), up to 40% of Pacific people are living in overcrowded housing.95 As Pacific peoples comprise nearly 14% of the region’s population, including 24% of children under 15 years of age, this is a major challenge for both local and central government. As Rowe notes,
Pacific peoples are concentrated in the poorer neighbourhoods, where there is a high concentration of liquor outlets and fast food shops, limited areas for children to play, and few transport facilities. Shop owners rarely live in the area, and treat it as simply a way to make money, contributing little to civic pride.96
9.97 Pacific stakeholders and submitters generally felt that their communities were not well served by the current local government arrangements.97 The social well-being outcome data endorse this perspective. Pacific peoples sought guaranteed representation as a key part of the solution. For local authorities in the Auckland region, improving social well-being for Pacific peoples represents a significant challenge – and if achieved, will bring social and economic well-being gains for all.
9.98. Unlike Māori, Pacific peoples do not have the same growing economic base to support moving forward. To address this, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs has identified economic development as one of three strategic priorities and seeks to significantly increase “the participation and economic contribution of Pacific peoples to the New Zealand economy”.98 The ministry also recognises the importance of focusing its efforts on Pacific communities in the Auckland region. It is clear that there are some shared imperatives and that greater gains are likely to be achieved through central and local government agencies working together.
9.99. Issues for Pacific peoples are also addressed in further detail in Chapter 23, “Representation and Participation by Minority and Other Groups”.
9.100. As noted elsewhere in this report, Auckland is by far the most culturally diverse city in New Zealand with well-established migrant populations. Auckland is the first port of call for immigrants, and most of them stay here. This is reflected in data showing that between 1986 and 2006 the proportion of Auckland’s population born outside of New Zealand grew from 23% to 37%. This trend is forecast to continue, as ethnic communities grow and provide networks of employment and social connections for new arrivals. As well as the total proportion of migrants increasing, ethnic diversity is also increasing, along with the range of social well-being needs and preferences. It is clear that a “one size fits all” approach is not appropriate. Manukau City also noted that increasing diversity can lead to social tension and exclusion.99 It is important for the whole population that migrants are able to settle as quickly as possible and participate as much as possible in the economic, social, and cultural life of the city.
9.101. Stakeholders from ethnic communities are concerned about how engaged local authorities are in the issues of concern to them, and how their communities are assisted to participate in council processes. They noted that some migrant and refugee groups are particularly reliant on access to health and social services. Some councils have established mechanisms for engagement with ethnic communities, such as the Waitakere Ethnic Board, with some appearing to be more developed and effective than others. Increasingly, ethnic communities sought representation to address these issues.
9.102. Geographically based ethnic clusters can bring advantages to their communities such as social cohesion, support, and a collective voice, but they can also experience significant disadvantage on key social well-being domains, as the data illustrate. As with Pacific communities, improving social well-being for ethnic communities represents a significant challenge and an important opportunity to achieve social and economic well-being gains for all.
9.103. Census figures show that about one in five New Zealanders is disabled, which means in Auckland there are approximately 280,000 people with some impairment.100 Disability is defined as including “those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others”.101 Disabilities include blindness and visual impairment, auditory and ambulatory difficulties, paraplegia, mental illness, and accidents and injury-related conditions. The Ministry of Social Development states that “we cannot make real economic and social gains without addressing disability issues”.102 The ministry also notes that the number of people with disabilities is forecast to increase largely because of an ageing population which is living longer.103
9.104. There can be greater challenges for people with disabilities to do well on social well-being indicators such as health, knowledge and skills, paid work, leisure, and recreation. Councils are currently involved in disability issues to varying degrees, with some having developed specific disability plans (for example, the North Shore Disability Strategy).104 There are opportunities for local government to improve outcomes for people with disabilities by taking account of and addressing their needs in areas of council business such as urban and infrastructure design, access to public transport, recreational facilities, and other services, and promoting participation in decision-making processes. There are also opportunities to improve outcomes by collaborating with central government agencies such as DHBs, Accident Compensation Corporation, Housing New Zealand Corporation, and Sport and Recreation New Zealand (“SPARC”).
9.105. Auckland has a very young population which is increasingly ethnically diverse. The data cited above highlight a number of areas where children and young people in Auckland fare poorly, including access to early childhood education, household crowding, violence, and injury. Stakeholders were appreciative of some council efforts to improve access to services for disadvantaged communities, such as the collaboration between the Office for Children and Auckland City Council to undertake a child impact assessment for a neighbourhood housing development. However, Rowe’s paper also highlights where councils have failed to target their resources to communities with greater needs:
Those who have fewer resources in their homes rely greatly on recreational facilities provided by local government, yet more than one stakeholder commented that the quality of playgrounds gave an accurate picture of whether a neighbourhood was rich or poor.105
9.106. Efforts that aim to improve outcomes for children and young people are critical for maximising the potential of the population and achieving sustainable, positive social well-being outcomes in the long term. A focus on giving children the best start in life can also break the cycle of intergenerational deprivation. Again, local government has a range of opportunities to contribute to improving outcomes for children and young people.
9.107. While Auckland has the youngest population in the country, it also has an ageing one. Older people have particular needs in relation to a number of social well-being domains such as health, housing, leisure, and recreation. Making the facilities and services in the Auckland region more user-friendly for older people will improve their health and well-being. For example, with affordable housing, easy access to public transport and services and a safe community, older people may be able to remain living independently in their own homes for longer. Local government has an important role to play through its involvement in urban design, public transport, and provision of housing.
9.108. Age Concern New Zealand Inc summarised the views of many stakeholders in its submission:
Local government ... needs to be more responsive to the needs of the increasing numbers of older people living in the cities of Auckland. … Auckland local authorities can … [respond to] their needs with affordable rates rises, affordable transport options and affordable housing.106
9.109. Older people also felt that involving them in decision-making processes would be the best way to ensure their needs were reflected in council activities.
9.110. The proposed new governance structure will need to undertake its own process to determine the regional social well-being priority issues. The Commission considers that the four critical social issues identified by Rowe should be taken into account.107 These issues are points of intervention where investment is likely to achieve significant social well-being gains.
Housing reform requires coordinated action by central and local government and the private sector. Local communities, iwi, and others with a stake in the land need also to be involved. New developments such as the Hobsonville redevelopment and the Tamaki Transformation Project point the way, but action is needed across the region.109
9.111. Central and local government agencies, the private sector, and NGOs all make important contributions to social well-being outcomes. Their principal roles are outlined below to provide a context for the discussion of the role of local authorities and the appropriate governance arrangements.110
9.112. Central government’s primary responsibilities for social well-being are to
9.113. Central government provides the infrastructure and the services to discharge these responsibilities. Central government agencies with responsibilities for health, social development, education, justice, policing, housing, and sport and physical activity have the primary responsibility for policy, funding, service delivery, and monitoring in these areas. There is also significant private provision of services in the health and education sectors. Service delivery is devolved in the case of health and education services, to 21 DHBs, and to more than 2,000 school boards of trustees, which have partial and fully elected representation respectively. A key strategy for central government is to build community capacity so communities can take care of and develop their own people.
9.114. As noted in Rowe’s paper, there are considerable resources spent on social well-being in the Auckland region by both central and local government. Approximately $4.6 billion of central government expenditure was spent in the Auckland region by the Ministry of Social Development in the 2007/08 financial year, $43 million of which went to NGOs (rising to $50 million in 2009); the Ministry of Health estimates it will spend more than $3 billion in the Auckland region in 2009; Housing New Zealand owns more than 30,000 houses in the Auckland region, and plans to spend approximately $211.5 million on capital expenditure in 2009; and the Accident Compensation Corporation’s expenditure was approximately $475 million in 2007/08.112 When the expenditure of the police113 and the Ministries of Education114 and Justice115 is also taken into account, annual central government expenditure in Auckland is probably in the vicinity of $11–12 billion. It is therefore unlikely that the challenge of reversing poor outcomes lies with resource shortages, but rather with ensuring that current resources are applied where the greatest needs lie, and where the greatest gains can be achieved.
9.115. Expenditure of this proportion emphasises how important it is for central government to have access to the best information and advice to ensure that the funding is appropriately targeted. Local government needs to be in a stronger position to work with central government, to share the decision making around resource allocation and to ensure that there is alignment of policy, funding, service delivery, and monitoring. It will, however, have to invest in developing its knowledge base to improve access to high-quality evidence (such as excellent data and research), application of up-to-date analytical technology, and closer engagement with the community.
9.116. The private sector is the engine of economic growth, the primary provider of employment and housing. It is also very influential through its investment and development decisions. Some sections of the private sector are becoming increasingly aware of the opportunities and benefits of being socially responsible and contributing to the wider communities from which they derive their revenue. Some companies do this by incorporating social well-being values and objectives in their business plans (for example, triple bottom-line reporting), by supporting staff to participate in community initiatives, or by providing philanthropic funding. Other commercial organisations, which manufacture or sell products with potential for harm (such as alcohol and gambling companies), are highly regulated to minimise the associated harm to the community. Local government has direct responsibility for administering aspects of these regulations.
9.117. Private sector stakeholders reported several impediments to working effectively with local government on social well-being issues, including a lack of clarity about their role, inconsistent approaches between councils, and inadequate engagement. To improve the situation, they sought a strengthened regional body with a strategic focus, well-articulated goals, and a formalised mandate for collaboration among the key agencies.
9.118. NGOs are often the providers of social support services at the local level and contribute significantly to social well-being. NGOs vary greatly in function, size, the populations they serve, and their geographical boundaries. They carry out a range of functions from lobbying and advocacy to policy development, research, service delivery, and community development. Iwi and Māori organisations typically have mandates for action that stretch well beyond social well-being to economic development and the preservation and promotion of language and culture.116 Even those whose primary business is the delivery of social services vary widely, from national multimillion-dollar enterprises to tiny, local volunteer groups.
9.119. New Zealand Council of Social Services research investigated relationships between its members and local bodies, focusing on how well social service providers were engaged in community outcomes processes. The 2005 survey revealed that 52% of these organisations were partly or fully funded by their local council, 65% worked collaboratively with their local council, 54% were involved in consultation over the LTCCP, 46% discussed the community well-being indicators with the council, and 15% didn’t know what an LTCCP was.117 Among its conclusions, the Council of Social Services found that the involvement of local social services in the community outcomes process is very dependent on the territorial authority, with great variation in the capacity and willingness of the authority to undertake the strategic planning process in an inclusive and collaborative way.118 Stakeholder feedback provided to the Commission indicates that little has changed since the survey was conducted nearly four years ago.
9.120. NGOs usually have close relationships with the neighbourhoods they serve, and can share valuable insights into problems and potential solutions. As well as informal intelligence, organisations like the Council of Social Services conduct regular surveys of their members about issues related to local government and use the results to track longitudinal changes. This kind of information should be included among the information sources collated and analysed by local government.
9.121. NGOs that extend across council boundaries often encounter challenges trying to link with several councils, which have varying levels of interest in their work. This can require capacity that many NGOs do not have. Councils can also expend considerable resources trying to ensure that all relevant NGOs are engaged in council activities. In its submission Community Waitakere noted,
Community Waitakere is concerned at the lack of regional cohesion within the community sector, the uneven nature of local government’s relationship with the community sector in the region and the general lack of community sector visibility and voice in the region. There also remains a widespread lack of understanding and recognition of the roles the sector plays and the fundamental contribution it makes in society.119
Philanthropic organisations
9.122. The philanthropic sector also plays an important part in funding a range of social well-being initiatives. Often these bodies are able to fund innovative initiatives that sit outside central government policy and funding criteria. Organisations such as the ASB Charitable Trust, Lotteries Commission, Vodafone Foundation, gaming trusts, and many other grant-giving bodies collectively make a sizeable contribution to the sector. Obviously, there are advantages for communities when these bodies target their funding to areas where the greatest needs and capacity to benefit lie. Collaborating with central and local government agencies can also give them access to government expertise and information that is beyond their limited capacity.
9.123. The LGA 2002 makes it clear that local government must promote social well-being. The Act states that the purpose of local government, as defined in Section 10 of the Act is
Local government is also required to carry out a range of statutory obligations related to social well-being, such as administration of gambling, alcohol, and prostitution regulations; noise and dog control; hygiene controls (for example, food premises); and control of discharges to water and air.
9.124. The main policy development process centres around the LTCCPs, which identify and prioritise community outcomes for the four dimensions of well-being. Councils are also required to monitor progress against the outcomes and plans set out in the LTCCP. The LTCCPs need to
9.125. The social well-being activities currently carried out by councils in the Auckland region are summarised in Table 9.19 based on the SOPHAR report.120 The SOPHAR report takes an ecological approach to the determinants of health and well-being, placing determinants in four levels of influence: natural, physical, and built environment; social, economic, and cultural environment; individual behaviours; and health states/diseases across physical, mental, family, and spiritual dimensions.
9.126. This table illuminates the breadth of territorial authority actions that can impact on social well-being. It includes a broad range of council activities such as the prevention of infectious disease, administration of gambling and alcohol regulations, provision of facilities for sport and physical activity, building consents, housing (with direct provision in some cases), emergency planning and responses, environmental health, initiatives to combat family violence and promote safer communities, and refugee/migrant settlement. Many councils also directly fund various community-based social well-being and community development services. As explained above, the planning and infrastructure responsibilities also impact directly and significantly on social well-being.
Table 9.19 Framework categories in relation to determinants of well-being and local government activities
| Framework/indicator category | Common local government activities/responsibilities |
Natural, physical, and built environment |
Land use planning |
| Resource management | |
| Environmental/hazard and waste management | |
| Biosecurity | |
| Transport (all modes) | |
| Roads | |
| Urban design and planning | |
| Housing/building consents | |
| Liquor licensing, gambling controls, etc | |
| Amenities such as parks, street lighting, footpaths, shops | |
| Recreational facilities | |
| Natural and cultural heritage | |
Social, economic, and cultural environment |
Community development |
| Economic development | |
| Libraries and other community facilities | |
| Recreation programmes | |
| Lifelong learning | |
| Housing | |
| Community safety and crime prevention | |
| Injury prevention | |
Individual behaviours |
Local government not usually involved in acting directly on these determinants, although sometimes is involved in promoting healthy behaviours and specific enforcement activities, for example: |
| Enforcement of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 | |
| Enforcement of noise controls | |
| Youth development | |
| Health states/diseases across physical, mental, family, and spiritual dimensions | Local government has a limited direct role, but could advocate for the provision and access of social and health services |
9.127. In general, most councils appear to have concentrated their social well-being resources in the areas of recreation and leisure, safety (for example, crime prevention initiatives such as Safer Community and Family Violence projects), physical environment, housing, and social connectedness (such as community development initiatives). Some councils also have a strong focus on youth development, often in partnership with central government. The Ministry of Youth Development provides $1 million of funding annually through the “Youth Development Partnership Fund” to support successful council proposals to implement the Youth Development Strategy Aotearoa across the country.121
9.128. Waitakere City and Manukau City are recognised as leading the way with their efforts to promote social well-being. They have taken the most systematic approach to this issue. It is apparent that mayoral leadership has been crucial in influencing the extent of council involvement, as well as collaboration and input from other agencies and the community.
9.129. Waitakere City Council, as part of its “eco city” approach takes social cohesion very seriously and explicitly places the welfare of its residents at the centre of its activities. In its submission the council says, “… regional and local governance must be about people, and most importantly about their welfare. Put simply, ‘people are our greatest resource’.”122 The “Waitakere Way” is based on a three-way partnership between the community, local government, and central government, recognising the critical contribution of central government. The council points to the Kelston Community Project, Ranui Action Project, Safe Waitakere, and Waitakere Hospital as successful examples of its approach.123
9.130. Manukau City Council has developed Tomorrow’s Manukau: Manukau Apopo 2006–2016, a 10-year framework that aims to achieve the community outcomes identified through the LTCCP process. The outcomes include a strong emphasis on social well-being themes, for example, educated and knowledgeable people, healthy people, safe communities, vibrant and strong communities. The council has developed policies and action plans to achieve these outcomes and works collaboratively with a broad range of central government, NGO, business, community, and mana whenua partners.124 Project teams have been established to focus on increasing participation in early childhood education, reducing family violence, and developing outcomes for Māori.
9.131. The LGA 2002 and the LTCCP (community outcomes) process have prompted all councils to increase their involvement in social well-being, over and above discharge of their regulatory obligations. However, the efforts of Auckland councils vary significantly according to local history, political will, availability of funding, the perceived relationship to core business activities, opportunities for action, and the needs profile of local communities. There is inconsistency between approaches, and in general it is difficult to determine what is being done, and with what effect. There appears to be lack of clarity about the outcomes that are being sought, the optimal role for the council in achieving those outcomes, and the most effective implementation strategies.
9.132. The general lack of clarity about local government’s role in promoting social well-being is partly a consequence of central government having primary responsibility for this area. It has been a controversial issue. Preferences for local government’s role in promoting social well-being (as outlined in the Commission Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions) range from leaving this area entirely to central government and focusing strictly on infrastructure and related services such as roads and rubbish collection, to prioritising initiatives that directly and explicitly aim to improve the well-being of communities and the quality of life of individuals.125 Overall, submissions received by the Commission recognised the constraints on economic development that poor social outcomes bring and supported greater local government involvement and a more proactive approach.126 Champions for Auckland noted, “All of Auckland is carrying an increasing cost of community dysfunction and poverty …”127
9.133. Rowe points out that this lack of clarity creates difficulties for collaboration with other sectors:
The lack of a clear and consistent role across all local authorities … makes it complicated for NGOs, which work with many local councils, to know which are likely to support their work, and makes the private sector less likely to engage with local councils – they are more likely to connect with central government agencies, where functions are uniform and well understood.128
9.134. Overall, however, Rowe concluded that the LTCCP and community outcomes mechanisms do not appear to be very effective:
The evidence suggests that the results … are generalised outcomes statements, rather than sharply delineated desired results, and priorities that tend not to focus on the most marginalised neighbourhoods, people, or population groups.129
9.135. In addition to central government, local authorities appear to spend a significant amount of money on the promotion of social well-being. However, it is very difficult to isolate social well-being budget allocations. Further, because the councils use different financial output categories, and include various budget lines within these categories, it is very difficult to calculate an overall total for the region, or to make meaningful comparisons between councils. For example, Auckland City Council spent $224,194,000 in operating expenses and $165,873,000 in capital expenditure for “Arts, Community and Recreation” (including community development) in 2007/08.130 The 2008/09 budget is $238,619,000 and $132,399,000 respectively, representing a significant decrease in capital expenditure.131 It is notable that one of the largest council expenditure categories is often capital development of recreation facilities. The “Arts, Community and Recreation” category includes a broad range of outputs such as the art gallery, museums, libraries, open space, community development, and streetscapes. By combining these diverse expenditure categories, and presenting the budget in this way, it is impossible to determine what proportion is allocated to promote social well-being and whether or not any of this funding is targeted to those most in need.
9.136. Most of the council submissions agreed that local government should have a role in addressing social issues, but were not specific about what this function should be. Generally, they proposed greater integration of strategy, planning, funding and service delivery across national, regional and local government with “vertical accountability platforms”.132 The theme of advocating for Auckland’s best interests with a “single voice” to central government emerged frequently. There appeared to be consistent support for the development of a regional social strategy (mostly in partnership with central government) from many of the councils (for example, Auckland City, North Shore City, Manukau City, Waitakere City, and the Auckland Regional Council) and other submitters.133 Some added that this should be in partnership with central government, and supported by a “Regional Social Development Forum”.134 Manukau City Council proposed that a regional social strategy would guide the allocation of central government funding in this area.135 In general, stakeholders supported a stronger focus on social issues, but did not support increasing local government responsibility for direct service delivery.136
9.137. All councils have some involvement in the provision of housing. The extent and nature of their involvement is illustrative of the variability in approaches to social well-being across the region. Research commissioned by the Centre for Housing Research Aotearoa New Zealand found that nationally, the management of housing by local government is done “relatively passively and is largely detached from any real analysis of affordable housing dynamics, and any robust monitoring or research into the nature of housing need”. The researchers concluded,
Most councils collect very little information about housing affordability and have a limited understanding of the impacts of local government activities on housing affordability. Knowledge around the affordability impacts of core council activities appears to be extremely limited despite the enormous body of research and evidence-based policy debate on those issues to be found internationally.137
9.138. The researchers (citing an international review) highlighted three main characteristics of local authorities that are active in provision of affordable housing:
The report added that “both local and central government need to have a common understanding of their respective and shared roles in addressing housing affordability”.138
9.139. The situation in Auckland is consistent with the findings of the Centre for Housing Research national study. As described previously, household overcrowding is a significant issue for a high proportion of Auckland’s population. Below is an overview of key housing initiatives undertaken by councils across the Auckland region.
9.140. “Social housing” is listed as a “strategic asset” in the LGA 2002, and changes must go through the LTCCP process.139 There are three initiatives that support social and affordable housing provision across the region:140
9.141. It is important to distinguish between “social” and “affordable” housing. “Social housing” involves the direct provision of housing for those who may otherwise be homeless. It is largely provided by Housing New Zealand and some councils that focus on housing for the elderly. “Affordable housing” refers to efforts to make housing more affordable and is an integral part of economic development. Housing was originally acquired by councils under a “regime of highly subsidised housing funding provided by central government.”143 The labour force needs affordable housing, particularly those who are in lower-paid employment and have families. In this context it will be important to examine current projects, identify those that are effective, and develop them across the Auckland region.
9.142. Within this framework, current initiatives by councils include the following:144
Many of our people live in sub-standard homes that are too expensive to keep warm and dry and which make them lose time at school and work through preventable illness … This is a drain on all taxpayers and a small investment could save us money.149
9.143. It is apparent that the level of council involvement in the provision of housing varies greatly, both in terms of the nature and scope of council contributions. The current initiatives reflect differences in commitment to underlying philosophies (such as sustainability), and a range of partnership arrangements with central government, NGOs, and the private sector.
9.144. While Auckland lacks an overarching regional social well-being strategy, a number of issue-specific strategies have been developed to improve alignment and integration between councils. Some of these regional strategies also focus on improving alignment between local and central government. However, Waitakere City Council pointed out in its submission that despite 90% of public spending on social well-being in the region coming from central government, this often occurs in the absence of a regional strategy.151
9.145. The development of these regional strategies points to both recognition of the importance of a regional approach to social well-being issues and the increased efforts that have gone into improving regional collaboration between local government and communities, central government, NGOs, and the private sector. The Commission considers it important that these programmes continue during the transition and into the new structure.
9.146. The following regional plans and strategies that impact on social well-being are listed on the ARC website:
9.147. There are other plans currently being developed, including
9.148. In addition to the regional strategies and their associated projects noted above, there are other regional intersectoral initiatives that are making headway: violence prevention, and Healthy Eating, Healthy Action153 initiatives for example.
9.149. With so many regional plans and projects, these initiatives may work against each other, creating potential to increase complexity and confusion about what needs to happen and who is responsible. This was one of the reasons for the creation of the Auckland Sustainability Framework in 2007.
9.150. While it is apparent that councils have increased their efforts to collaborate and to develop regional approaches, stakeholders have reported limited success with implementation. It appears that key agencies tend to participate in the regional strategic planning process, sign up to the final document, and may also commit to contributing funds towards regional projects. However, at the implementation phase, the strategies typically encounter obstructions that can prove fatal. These obstructions include local ratepayer resentment of regional, rather than local, spending of their rates, misaligned approval and accountability processes between partners, deprioritisation of regional initiatives by one or more of the council partners, and insufficient dedicated regional funding.
9.151. In the context of collective ownership of regional strategies, it appears that a lack of leadership has also been a significant factor. In its submission, the Auckland Regional Migrant Services described its frustrations with implementation of the Auckland Regional Settlement Strategy and Action Plan:
Despite considerable buy-in from settler communities, strong support from its numerous constituent agencies, a comprehensive foundation report, and Cabinet approval, this Strategy now lacks the necessary momentum and leadership at the local council level to ensure its success.154
9.152. Ultimately, commitment to regional implementation by the non-regional councils relies on a “grace and favour” arrangement and is based on goodwill. In the absence of a strong mandate, accountability with “teeth” (such as, consequences for non-compliance), regional funding, and incentives that favour regional delivery, the best-laid plans and intentions come unstuck. Accordingly, the recommendations on governance arrangements to support achievement of social well-being outcomes involve all of the key agencies being party to a binding decision-making structure and processes that centre around projects focused on priority issues.
9.153. Given that central government, the private sector, and NGOs have important contributions to make to social well-being, it is imperative that local government has functional linkages with these organisations. Mechanisms such as the Central/Local Government Forum, co-chaired by the Prime Minister and the President of Local Government New Zealand, have been established to improve the link between central and local government at a national level.155 The forum includes local government representation on inter-agency groups and has a national working party comprising mayors and public sector chief executives who focus on a range of issues, including seven priority social well-being issues.156 A key aim of the forum is for the LTCCPs and community outcomes process to have some influence over central government strategic priorities, funding decisions, and resource allocations.
9.154. The Government Social Sector Office was established in Auckland in March 2008 by the Ministry of Social Development. It seeks to influence regional strategies, policies, and planning processes and to support government social sector agencies working at the strategic level in Auckland. For example, the office currently hosts the Tamaki Transformation project team, comprising staff from a range of agencies including Housing New Zealand Corporation, Auckland City Council, Auckland Regional Council, and Auckland DHB. Over time, it is anticipated the office will expand to include staff from a range of social sector agencies.
9.155. Other intersectoral groups that support social well-being outcomes have also been established, with variable impact. For example, the Social Policy Evaluation and Research Committee was established by central government in 2001 to oversee the Government’s investment in social policy research and evaluation. The group monitors social research and evaluation activity, works to strengthen connections between public, private, and tertiary sectors, and advocates for the provision of social research and evaluation to decision makers. The aim is to increase the capacity and capability of the social sector to deliver evidence-informed advice in a timely manner.157 This is a well-established but under-utilised forum with potential to work more closely with local government.9.156. Rowe observed that “central government seems to have a better grasp of the fact that economic and social outcomes are deeply inter-connected”.158 Central government agencies (for example, the Auckland Regional Public Health Service and the Ministry of Health), while acknowledging recent efforts to increase collaboration, sought a governance structure that would further support collaboration, role clarity, formalised inter-agency planning, and enhanced accountability mechanisms.159 On the other hand, the regional initiatives identified experienced a lack of commitment from central government agencies.160 Overall, Rowe concluded from her analysis that “links between central and local government at the national level [have] shown the most improvement recently”.161
9.157. As noted above, there are several regional strategies led by local government that typically involve a range of sectors, including central government agencies. ARPASS, for example, involves all of the Auckland territorial authorities, the four regional sports trusts, and SPARC as formal partners, with the territorial authorities and SPARC contributing funding. The Ministry of Health and the Auckland Regional Council support the initiative as non-funding partners. Specific projects initiated by ARPASS tend to involve working with other NGOs such as sporting bodies, the private sector, or other central government agencies, including schools and public health services. In its submission ARPASS highlighted the sizeable challenges associated with implementing a regional strategy because “there is no assurance that these outcomes will be implemented as the delivery is left to 14 individual strategy partners”.162
9.158. Some submissions identified misaligned geographical boundaries between local government, central government agencies, NGOs, and iwi as a major deterrent to intersectoral collaboration.163 For central government, other agencies, and the private sector, the prospect of engaging with up to eight councils is daunting and carries high transactional costs. For example, the Counties-Manukau DHB boundaries overlap with Manukau City Council, Franklin District Council, Papakura District Council, the Auckland Regional Council, and Environment Waikato. Similarly, a neighbourhood or community level project may require several councils to be involved if the community transcends council boundaries. Auckland City observed in its submission,
The current boundaries and responsibilities of local government do not correspond to either the functional market which operates across the region or the social and cultural environment.164
9.159. Generally, getting traction is very hard work and is clearly constrained by the current structural arrangements. Establishing relationships and intersectoral working groups is slow and is slowed further by high staff turnover. Partner organisations typically have different accountability time frames and requirements, and progress is limited to that of the slowest partner or the last sign-off process. In addition to the data-related difficulties described previously, the current arrangements increase complexity, transaction costs, and resource requirements, slow down decision-making processes, create gaps and duplication, and present accountability challenges.
9.160. Councils are required to monitor and report on their progress towards achieving community outcomes. This is a complex task, particularly because the outcomes are often influenced by a wide range of factors that lie outside local government’s direct control. Nevertheless, identifying, measuring, and monitoring indicators appear to be done with varying levels of sophistication and there is a lack of alignment across agencies. Reports such as the Ministry of Social Development’s Quality of Life ’07 have been helpful, particularly because they rely on national data sets and therefore enable comparisons between cities. Even this report, however, is limited because it does not include Papakura and Franklin District Councils and therefore does not provide comprehensive regional or sub-regional data. It is apparent that central government technical expertise and data could usefully be shared more extensively with local government.
9.161. Determining priorities, developing effective interventions, and measuring and monitoring progress all require a robust evidence base, with data able to be aggregated at both neighbourhood and regional levels. As described previously, the current evidence base has serious limitations. The SOPHAR report notes,
Reviewing the health and well-being of the region using key indicators that have potential significance for local government has been a difficult task and has been limited by numerous data gaps. Many of the data sources for potential indicators of health and well-being and their determinants derive from national surveys and collections, which do not break the data down to territorial authority level.165
9.162. In addition, there is also a lack of place-based socio-demographic information that “illuminates” the challenges a community faces and the resources it can draw on to meet those challenges.166 This process has begun with recent efforts to map local services to individuals and their families by Family and Community Services. Similarly under the ARPASS strategy, a geographic information systems mapping project involves providing local government and other relevant agencies with physical activity amenity maps for priority communities, and supplementing these maps with the findings from community surveys and open space audits.167
9.163. There appears to have been very little formal evaluation of regional strategy effectiveness. The evaluation of ARPASS – of which all the Auckland councils, the regional sports trusts, and SPARC are partners – highlighted a number of areas where stakeholders considered there had been value for the region. These included advocacy and collaboration. The brief report also highlighted a number of shortcomings, including a lack of commitment from, and alignment with, SPARC.168
9.164. The restructuring process presents an opportunity for central and local government agencies to develop aligned community outcomes, including a regional community outcome indicator framework to guide strategic direction and to facilitate measuring and monitoring progress.
9.165 As documented elsewhere throughout this report, the Commissioners visited a number of international cities. The key lessons related to promoting social well-being are summarised below.
9.166. Many councils (such as Brisbane, Melbourne, Seattle, and London) are extensively involved in the delivery of social well-being programmes that are strictly the responsibility of central government agencies in New Zealand, such as immunisation, mental health services, and aged care. The Commissioners observed that the delivery of social services through small local councils increased responsiveness to emerging issues.
9.167. The importance of leadership on social issues was often acknowledged. In London, this included the view that the Mayor’s executive powers had been instrumental in establishment of the Child Poverty Commission and London’s Living Wage.
9.168. The importance of advocacy by local government on social issues was also acknowledged, for example in London and Victoria (Australia).
9.169. Effective efforts were often characterised by integrated strategy, clarity of roles and responsibilities with formalised linkages between key agencies, and robust monitoring and accountability mechanisms. Strategies usually involved inter-agency approaches at both community and regional levels, integrating the environment, transport, economic development, culture, housing, and other social domains. Responsibility lay at the regional level, with integrated delivery at the local level. Enhancing and formalising linkages between agencies through local area agreements and partnerships was typically work in progress. Performance measures were also negotiated between central and local government.
9.170. A key theme was valuing the diversity of the population and significant efforts were made to welcome and integrate new people (for example, London and Toronto).
9.171. There was also a range of community development models. For example, the community development corporations (“CDCs”) in the US have a variety of roles, including community improvement programmes and providing social services. They promote community economic stability by developing affordable housing and commercial property. The CDCs are typically neigbourhood-based, non-profit corporations with at least one-third of the board composed of community residents. The size of a CDC ranges from the boundaries of a single community to cover an entire region or even state. Community land trusts have also been set up in the US to ensure that housing can be kept affordable. They are dependent on obtaining land at a favourable price, usually from a benefactor or territorial authority.
9.172. The LGA 2002 requires councils to promote environmental, economic, cultural, and social well-being, and sets out a systematic process to develop actions and monitor outcomes through the LTCCP mechanism. Despite this legislation now having been in place for over six years – over and above their highly prescribed statutory responsibilities – council activities to promote social well-being vary greatly. Generally, councils have not fully come to grips with the requirements of the legislation and are just starting to address their role in promoting social well-being. With some notable exceptions, it appears that councils have neither prioritised social well-being as part of their core business, nor carried out this requirement in a systematic way. They have largely muddled along in the absence of clarity about priority social well-being challenges, the strategic direction and outcomes sought, and how and to what extent councils should be contributing.
9.173. The issue of local government involvement in social well-being has been a matter of debate. It is clear to the Commission that local government is already inextricably involved. All council activities (such as public transport, urban design, rate setting, roads, and other infrastructure) have significant social consequences. These functions can and should be approached with the explicit intention of maximising their contributions to improve social well-being. Most local authorities, however, do not recognise the social implications of their activities, and do not systematically use the power of these activities to promote social well-being and to improve the lives of the most disadvantaged places and people in the region.
9.174. Environmental, economic, cultural, and social well-being are inextricably linked. Balanced, positive outcomes can be achieved across all of them with a more systematic, integrated, and aligned approach. All council activities need to be planned, implemented, and monitored through the lens of all four dimensions of well-being.
9.175. Auckland has a growing population which is increasingly diverse and youthful. Auckland does well in some well-being domains and very poorly in others, such as housing. The inequalities within the region are significant and unacceptable. Stakeholders felt that there has been “too much focus on the “average” rather than areas of inequality and deprivation”.169 Unless the focus shifts to improving outcomes for disadvantaged people, these inequalities can be expected to perpetuate or worsen, with negative consequences for the whole population and the future of Auckland. The new governance structure must enable these inequalities to be addressed if Auckland is to become a leading Asia-Pacific city.
9.176. Deprivation is typically concentrated at the neighbourhood level – a situation that demands a stronger, place-based approach. The changing socio-demographic characteristics of the population must be well understood, and there must be effective engagement with disadvantaged communities to achieve this. Rowe concluded,
Any redesign of local authority functions and processes must find a way to bring the needs of poor communities, disadvantaged ethnicities and deprived individuals into the discussions about pressing social issues in the Auckland region, and give their voices prominence in decisions about what actions will be effective.170
9.177. The analysis that informs this report points to some priority populations, some priority intervention points (children, young people, housing, and public transport), and the importance of taking a place-based, neighbourhood-level approach. (It is important to note that the Commission’s recommendations leave decisions about strategic priorities to the proposed “Social Issues Board”.)
9.178. Although the broad policy-making, funding, service delivery, and monitoring functions are the responsibility of central government, local government has considerable capacity to support central government initiatives, and vice versa. Both central and local government resources allocated to social well-being in the Auckland region are substantial, with annual spending in the vicinity of $12 billion in 2009.171 This level of expenditure emphasises the importance of getting it right – spending it effectively, and achieving the best possible outcomes. It is therefore vital that central and local government work together to direct regional resources to where the greatest need lies and where there is greatest capacity to benefit.
9.179. While efforts to collaborate have increased, partnerships between central and local government need to be strengthened and all the players need to be knitted into a robust structure and a well-functioning system. There needs to be more integration and alignment of roles and strategies so that they complement each other more effectively. There needs to be a shift from collaborative “grace and favour” approaches (such as non-binding partnerships) to a mandate for shared decision making and shared accountability with dedicated regional funding. In order for this to happen, those who can commit resources, those whose decisions and actions affect outcomes, and those who are most affected must be part of the decision-making process.
9.180. As the list of existing regional strategies demonstrates, there have been considerable efforts to strengthen collaboration between councils in order to address social issues of regional significance. There are many valuable lessons to be learned from these efforts. It appears that while councils (and other sectors) may be willing parties in the development of regional strategies, in the absence of strong leadership, a clear mandate, one point of contact, robust accountability arrangements, and dedicated funding, getting traction is very difficult. Typically, these initiatives encounter insurmountable difficulties at the point of implementation. Progress has been frustrating and achievements have been limited.
9.181. There must also be effective, formalised mechanisms for engaging the private sector, NGOs, and philanthropic organisations in the outcome-setting and strategic planning processes. Similarly, while provision is made in the recommendations for representation of Māori, Pacific, and other ethnic communities on the Social Issues Board, provision must also be made for young people, older people, people with disabilities, and people on low incomes to participate in the decision-making process. As highlighted in paragraph 9.88, these populations constitute the majority of Auckland’s population.
9.182. Auckland requires an overarching regional social well-being strategy with clearly articulated issues; clear outcomes, objectives, and actions; and a robust monitoring process. As well as integrating internally with the other dimensions of well-being, the strategy must address how it integrates and aligns with the strategic directions of other relevant sectors. An implementation/funding plan is also required to operationalise this strategy. This plan needs to clearly define implementation roles for the key agencies, and the central and local government funding streams. Implementation requires dedicated resources, and must focus on neighbourhoods in order to address areas of greatest deprivation. The strategy must incorporate both medium- and long-term time frames to focus action and to ensure accountability.
9.183. Strong leadership will be crucial to articulate the vision and the challenges, to set strategic priorities, to give weight and visibility to social well-being issues, and to galvanise the various agencies that can contribute to better outcomes. Stakeholders and submitters commented that “a powerful articulation of vision and values (such as Waitakere’s “eco-city” vision) is important as a way of unifying and galvanising a community”.172
9.184. Promoting social well-being is complex and effectiveness is difficult to measure. It therefore requires a sophisticated approach, with expertise and dedicated resources. Local government is in a unique position to collate, analyse, and disseminate data. Yet there is a lack of high-quality, relevant data, and current efforts to identify and address social well-being issues are not always underpinned by a strong evidence base. For example, as Rowe discovered, it is very hard to get “place-specific data about the socio-demographics of communities/neighbourhoods, the social challenges they face, the resources available to them … all the place-based factors that illuminate what the challenges are in a particular community, and what resources the community can access to meet the challenges”.173 Further, current efforts to monitor and evaluate progress against outcomes appear in the main to be patchy and relatively unsophisticated.
9.185. The misalignment of central government, local government, rohe, and NGO intra-regional boundaries presents an additional barrier to promoting social well-being. In particular, current boundaries do not always align with true communities of interest. Misaligned boundaries increase the complexity and transaction costs associated with inter-agency collaboration, and create data comparison issues which compromise the quality of research, evaluation, and monitoring. Many of these intra-regional boundary issues can be overcome by shifting local government responsibility for social well-being to the regional level, as the Commission proposes. However, the Commission also considers that better alignment of government agency boundaries would be of value for both central and local government, as well as other agencies.
9.186. In summary, to effectively promote social well-being, the recommendations of this report apply the following principles to governance arrangements for the Auckland region:174
9.187. The section below sets out the detailed recommendations for new governance arrangements for the Auckland region in relation to promoting social well-being. The Commission has considered a range of options, including the two options presented in Rowe’s discussion paper.175 The Commission is proposing to adopt most of the recommendations set out in Rowe’s second option, with some modifications.
9.188. The proposed governance structure involves a devolution approach where local and central government share decision making and accountability for improving social well-being outcomes through the main governance body, the Social Issues Board (“SIB”). This board will be a direction-setting body responsible for making decisions on the social well-being strategy (and supporting documents such as an implementation/funding plan), and joint recommendations to the Cabinet Committee for Auckland and the Auckland Council for decisions on resource allocation. The decisions will then be implemented by the appropriate Government department and/or the Auckland Council. The SIB will be supported by an officials’ Social Issues Advisory Group (“SIAG”), described below. The Auckland Council will include a Social Issues Committee and a social issues team with clearly defined responsibilities, also described below. The relationships between these groups are illustrated in Figure 9.8.
9.189. The Commission is proposing that the membership of the SIB should include
9.190. The central government agencies may include Health, Education, Social Development, Justice, Police, Housing New Zealand Corporation, SPARC, and population ministries such as Te Puni Kōkiri, Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, Women’s Affairs, and the Ministry of Youth Development.
9.191. Substitutes should not be allowed and the board should be able to consult with and call in experts as required. The chief executives who are members of the SIB should have associated key performance indicators in their performance agreements.
9.192. The Commission is proposing that the key functions of the SIB should centre around responsibility for decisions on the regional social well-being strategy and an implementation/funding plan, and recommendations on resource allocations to the Cabinet Committee for Auckland and the Auckland Council. More specifically, their functions should include
The outcome-setting and strategy development processes should be sufficiently resourced to ensure that priority populations are able to participate.
9.193. The SIAG should be co-funded by central and local government, and comprise a dedicated, highly skilled team of central and local government personnel. The primary role of the SIAG should be to undertake analysis and provide policy advice to the SIB, particularly to inform the identification of critical social issues. The SIAG should be accountable to the SIB, but with operational accountability to the Auckland Council, where the group would be located.
9.194. The SIAG should not undertake primary data collection, but should collate and analyse information derived from research, routinely collected data, evaluation and consultation at the regional, sub-regional, and neighbourhood levels. The SIAG should work with key agencies such as Statistics New Zealand, the Ministry of Health, and Social Policy Evaluation and Research Committee to improve the quality and accessibility of data for its purposes. It may also commission specific research and evaluation projects to address gaps.
9.195. The SIAG should provide evidence to support neighbourhood-level initiatives, including documentation of the full range of challenges and resources available in areas identified for priority action. Monitoring of progress should also occur at a neighbourhood level to avoid pockets of non-achievement being obscured by the average.
9.196. The SIAG should be responsible for
9.197. The information produced by the SIAG would be publicly available, particularly for the purpose of supporting engagement and consultation processes. The SIAG would also publish a three-yearly social report.
9.198. The Auckland Council will include a Social Issues Committee and a social issues team made up of officials. To ensure alignment and integration with central government functions, the Commission is proposing that the Auckland Council should focus on leadership and facilitation. Direct delivery of social well-being services should not duplicate central government responsibilities, and should be part of the regional social well-being strategy and implementation/funding plan. More specifically, the Auckland Council should be responsible for
9.199. The Commission is proposing that responsibility for the promotion of sport and physical activity should be jointly shared by the Auckland Council Social Issues Committee and Arts and Recreation Committee.
9.200. The social well-being strategy and implementation/funding plan should be published and carry the same degree of accountability as Government agencies’ Statements of Intent. The Mayor of Auckland should report on the progress of the social well-being strategy in the annual report on the state of Auckland, and appropriate audit provisions should also be made.
9.201. The key establishment issues focus on the steps required to put in place the recommended governance arrangements outlined above. They also focus on putting in place the necessary infrastructure to ensure that the SIB and the SIAG are able to commence work on their immediate priorities, including the social well-being strategy and its supporting documentation.176
9.202. The Establishment Board should
General9.203. The following issues should receive consideration by central government:
Central and local government’s annual social well-being spend is in the vicinity of $12 billion in the Auckland region. It is critical that these resources are applied effectively, to achieve the best outcomes. Accordingly, Auckland needs a governance structure for social well-being that enables local and central government to share decision making and accountability for improving the effectiveness of resources spent, and addressing the critical social issues in Auckland.
9A A Social Issues Board should be established as the main governance body for social issues, with central and local government membership as described in Chapter 9.
9B The powers of the Social Issues Board should be set out in Terms of Reference approved by the Cabinet Committee for Auckland and the Auckland Council.
9CThe Social Issues Board should develop a Social Well-Being Strategy and Implementation/Funding Plan.
9D A Social Issues Advisory Group of officials should be established to support the Social Issues Board. It should be co-funded by central and local government with responsibilities as described in Chapter 9.
9E The Auckland Council role should centre on providing leadership and facilitating improved social well-being outcomes. Direct delivery of social well-being services by the Auckland Council should not duplicate central government responsibilities and should be part of the Social Well-Being Strategy and Implementation/Funding Plan.
9F The Government should give consideration to aligning geographic boundaries of local government and central government agencies responsible for the delivery of social well-being services.
Transition
9G The Establishment Board should ensure the necessary structures and processes are in place to ensure that the Social Issues Board, the Social Issues Advisory Group, and the Auckland Council are able to commence work on their immediate priorities.
1. Local Government Act 2002, section 10(b).
2. Ibid., section 93.
3. Whānau – family, blood relatives.
4. Rowe E., “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region” in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, Auckland, 2009, pp. 131–189 (available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz).
5. Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions (available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz).
6. Ministry of Health, Public Health (Well-Being) in New Zealand: the Interface with Local Government (Draft), 2008. Drafts provided by Allen and Clarke, with the permission of the Ministry of Health.
7. Auckland Regional Public Health Service, Improving Health and Wellbeing: A Public Health Perspective for Local Authorities in the Auckland Region (hereafter the SOPHAR Report), Auckland Regional Public Health Service, Auckland, 2006 (available at www.arphs.govt.nz).
8. Ministry of Social Development, Information for the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, The Social Landscape in Auckland Region, 2008 (available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz).
9. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008 (available at www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz).
10. Quality of Life Project, Quality of Life ’07 in Twelve of New Zealand’s Cities, 2007 (available at www.qualityoflifeproject.govt.nz).
11. President Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address, 20 January 2009 (available at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGxHZR).
12. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, p. 4.
13. World Health Organisation, Ottawa Charter, 1986.
14. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, pp. 8–9.
15. Rowe, Elizabeth, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 160.
16. Ibid.
17. Submission to the Royal Commission from Auckland Regional Public Health Service, p. 7. (All submissions are available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz.)
18. Statistics New Zealand, Subnational Ethnic Population Projections: 2006 (base) – 2021, (available at www.statistics.govt.nz).
19. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, p. 4.
20. Mana whenua – local Māori with ancestral ties to the land.
21. Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 168.
22. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Waikatere City Council, Appendices and Case Studies, p. 66.
23. Litman T. A., “Economic Value of Walkability”, in Transportation Research Record 1828, Transportation Research Board, 2003, pp. 3–11.
24. “Obesogenic” means that it tends to increase the likelihood of people becoming obese, as described in the Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service, p. 7.
25. Rodney District Council, Building on Opportunity (Second Draft).
26. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from the University of Auckland, cited in Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, p. 15.
27. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Manukau City Council, p. 40.
28. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Waitakere City Council, p. 59.
29. “Social cohesion” in this context is understood to mean good connections and trust between people.
30. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Manukau City Council, p. 12.
31. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service, p. 8.
32. Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 140.
33. Ibid., pp. 160–161.
34. Ibid., p. 168.
35. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service, p. 8. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service, p. 8.
36. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, pp. 3, 8, 9.
37. Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 152.
38. Ibid., p. 160.
39. Quality of Life Project, Quality of Life ’07 in Twelve of New Zealand’s Cities, 2007, p. 51.
40. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Landscape in Auckland Region, p. 9.
41. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, p. 36.
42. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from the Salvation Army, p. 3. Table 9.5 contains updated information for 2007, provided by the Salvation Army.
43. It should be noted that the variances between the two data sets are larger than might be expected and do raise methodological questions.
44. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from the Salvation Army, p. 3.
45. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, Regional Indicators, pp. 12–15.
46. Hon Bill English, Minister of Finance, Economic and Fiscal Forecasts, December 2008, Treasury, Wellington (available at www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/eff2008/eff08.pdf).
47. Statistics New Zealand, Household Labour Force Survey: December 2008 Quarter (available at www.stats.govt.nz).
48. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, p. 62.
49. A “low income household” is described as having real gross income less than 60% of the median household equivalised national income benchmarked at 2001. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, Regional Indicators, p. 16.
50. Department of Labour, Benefit Receipt of Recent Migrants to New Zealand 2006 (available at www.dol.govt.nz/publications/)
51. White, P., Gunston, J., Salmond, C., Atkinson, J., and Crampton, P., Atlas of Socioeconomic Deprivation in New Zealand NZDep2006, Ministry of Health, Wellington, 2008 (available at www.moh.govt.nz).
52. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Landscape in Auckland Region, 2008, p. 4.
53. Oranga is a suburb between Penrose and Onehunga North. Wesley is a small suburb to the west of Mt Roskill.
54. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from the Salvation Army, p. 2.
55. See www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/housing-affordability-report/technical-notes.htm# crowding.
56. The criteria are: “(1) There should be no more than two people per bedroom; parents or couples share a bedroom; (2) Children aged under five years, either of same or opposite sex, may reasonably share a bedroom; (3) Children aged under 18 years of the same sex may reasonably share a bedroom; (4) A child aged five to 17 years should not share a bedroom with one aged under five of the opposite sex; (5) single adults aged 18 years and over and any unpaired children require a separate bedroom.” (The Canadian National Occupancy Standard criteria are available at www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/housing-quality-stats/crowding-occupancy-rate.htm).
57. Data for 2000–2007 provided directly to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance by the Monte Cecilia Housing Trust.
58. Mitchell, I., How Affordable is Housing in New Zealand and What Strategies are Available to Reduce Housing Stress?, Centre for Housing Research (undated), p. 2 (available at www.chranz.co.nz/pdfs/how-affordable-is-housing-in-nz.pdf).
59. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, Regional Indicators, p. 17.
60. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Landscape in Auckland Region, 2008, pp. 14–15, and “Tackling South Auckland’s Social Ills Begins at Home”, New Zealand Herald, 7 January 2009.
61. Statistics New Zealand, Quickstats About Housing (Revised 04 May 2007) (available at www.stats.govt.nz, accessed March 2009).
62. Centre for Housing Research Aotearoa New Zealand, “The Future of Home Ownership and the Role of the Private Rental Market in the Auckland Region”, Research Bulletin 7, March 2007.
63. Centre for Housing Research Aotearoa New Zealand, “Affordable Housing in the Bay of Plenty Region: a Solutions Study” in Research Bulletin 10, August 2007.
64. Home Loan Affordability Series, “Home loan affordability for typical buyers – New Zealand” (available at www.interest.co.nz/HLA/HLA-NZ-January2009.asp?105).
66. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, p. 68.
67. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, Regional Indicators, p. 18.
68. Department of Internal Affairs, Local Authority Election Statistics, 2007, p. 18.
69. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from the Waitakere Pacific Board Inc, p. 9.
70. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Paul William Doherty.
71. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, pp. 9, 78–85.
72. Te reo Māori – Māori language.
73. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, p. 86.
74. Sport & Recreation New Zealand (SPARC), Sport, Recreation and Physical Activity Profile: Waitakere/ North Harbour/Auckland/ Counties-Manukau Regions 2007/08, Wellington, 2009. These are not statistically significant differences and when the margin of error is taken into account, the proportions of adults meeting the guidelines within the region are similar. Also, it should be noted that, because of differences in the sampling methodologies and questionnaires between this survey and that undertaken in 2001, the results are not comparable; therefore analysis of trends in physical activity participation over time is not possible.
75. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, p. 94.
76. Quality of Life Project, Quality of Life ’07 in Twelve of New Zealand’s Cities, pp. 215–229.
77. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, p. 104.
79. Data provided directly to the Royal Commission by the Salvation Army, based on Police Crime Statistics 2007/2008.
80. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report 2008, p. 110.
81. Territorial authority-level data were not available for the indicator “contact between young people and their parents”.
82. Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 172.
83. Ibid., p. 175. Kaitiaki means guardian, caretaker.
84. Ibid., p. 173–174.
85. Paul Stanley, cited in Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 173.
86. Taura here – Māori from another area, without ancestral ties to the region.
87. Ibid., p. 175.
88. Mana whenua – local Māori with ancestral ties to the land.
90. Wairua – spirit.
91. Rohe – tribal area.
92. Taumata – high-level forum for decision making.
93. Iwi – tribal grouping.
94. Refer to paragraph 9.55.
95. Refer to paragraph 9.59.
96. Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 175.
97. Ibid., p. 176.
98. Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, Pacific Economic Action Plan and Pacific Women’s Economic Development Plan, 2007, Executive Summary.
99. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Manukau City Council, p. 13.
100. Office of Disability Issues, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: National Interest Analysis, p. 2 (available at www.odi.govt.nz/documents/convention/2008-06-24-national-interest-analysis.doc).
101. Ibid., p. 4.
102. Ministry of Social Development, Briefing to the Incoming Minister: Enabling participation by disabled New Zealanders, p. 3.
103. Ibid.
104. North Shore City Council, Draft North Shore Disability Strategy: A Barrier Free North Shore 2008–2011 (available at www.northshorecity.govt.nz).
105. Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 176.
106. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Age Concern New Zealand Inc, p. 2.
107. Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland
108. Ibid., p. 161.
109. Ibid., p. 163.
110. Note that this section draws heavily on Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, Sections 1.2 and 4.2 (in Report, Volume 4: Research Papers”).
113. New Zealand Police, Annual Report 2007/08, p. 50 (available at www.police.govt.nz, accessed March 2009).
114. Ministry of Education, Annual Report 2007/08 (available at www.minedu.govt.nz, accessed March 2009).
115. Ministry of Justice, Annual Report 2007/08 (available at www.justice.govt.nz/, accessed March 2009).
116. Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector “Definition of the community and voluntary sector – Māori and the community and voluntary sector” (available at www.ocvs.govt.nz).
117. Information provided directly to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance by the New Zealand Council of Social Services, by email, 24 February 2009.
118. Cheyne, C., Johnston, K., and Parker, W., Promoting Community Well-being: A Study of the Involvement of Councils of Social Services in Local Authority Community Outcomes Processes, New Zealand Council of Social Services, 2005 (available at www.nzcoss.org.nz/index.php?page=85).
119. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance received from Community Waitakere, p. 2.
120. Auckland Regional Public Health Service, SOPHAR Report, 2006, p. 33.
121. Ministry of Youth Development, “Youth Development Partnership Fund” (see www.myd.govt.nz); Ministry of Youth Affairs, Youth Development Strategy Aotearoa, Wellington, 2002. Note that the Ministry of Youth Affairs changed to the Ministry of Youth Development in 2003.
122. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Waitakere City Council, p. 11.
123. Ibid., Part 2: Appendices and Case Studies (Case studies 4, 5, 12 and 13).
124. These policies and action plans include the Community Safety Framework, Crime Prevention Action Plan, Disability Policy and Action Plan, Health Policy and Action Plan, New Settlers Policy and Action Plan, Youth Policy, Cycle and Walking Strategy, Pacific People’s Policy and Action Plan.
125. Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, Auckland, 2009, pp. 161–171.
126. Ibid., p. 168.
127. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Champions for Auckland, p. 10.
128. Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 144.
129. Ibid., p. 145.
130. Ibid., p 141.
131. Auckland City Council, Annual Plan 2008-09, 2008, p.47 (available at www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/annualplan).
132. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Waitakere City Council, Part 2: Appendices and Case Studies, p. 74.
133. Submissions to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance received from Auckland City Council, p. 67; North Shore City Council, p. 40; Manukau City Council, p. 4; Waitakere City Council, Part 2: Appendices and Case Studies, p. 66–67; Auckland Regional Council, p. 116; and, Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, Auckland, 2009, p. 167.
134. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance received from Waitakere City Council, Part 2: Appendices and Case Studies, p. 66.
135. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance received from Manukau City Council, p. 4.
136. Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, Auckland, 2009, p. 167.
137. Saville-Smith, K., James, B., Scotts, M., and Fraser, R., Local Government and Affordable Housing, Centre for Housing Research Aotearoa New Zealand, 2007, p. 10.
138. Ibid.
139. Section 5 (1) defines a strategic asset as “an asset or group of assets that the local authority needs to retain if the local authority is to maintain the local authority’s capacity to achieve or promote any outcome that the local authority determines to be important to the current or future well-being of the community; and includes— ... (b) any land or building owned by the local authority and required to maintain the local authority’s capacity to provide affordable housing as part of its social policy;”
140. Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”,
141. See Housing New Zealand website, www.hnzc.co.nz, “Housing Innovation Fund – Overview”. Note that this fund is currently under review.
142. Regional Growth Forum, Auckland Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, Auckland Regional
143. Saville-Smith et al., Local Government and Affordable Housing, Centre for Housing Research Aotearoa New Zealand, 2007, Executive Summary.
144. Note that this summary is based on information verified by each council.
145. “Affordable-housing bill ‘perverse’”, New Zealand Herald, 5 December 2007 (available at www.nzherald.co.nz).
146. Auckland City Council, “Reduced housing programme agreed”, media release, 5 February 2009 (available at www.aucklandcity.govt.nz).
147. A Mission in the City (see www.missioninthecity.org.nz).
148. Information provided to the Royal Commission Communication by Sean Bignell, Hobsonville Land Company.
149. “Council mulls $63m healthy homes plan”, New Zealand Herald, 17 November 2008.
150. EECA – Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.
151. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Waitakere City Council, p. 62.
152. See www.arc.govt.nz/auckland/, “Sustainability”; and Regional Growth Forum, Auckland Sustainability Framework: An agenda for the future, September 2007 (available at www.arc.govt.nz, accessed March 2009).
153. Ministry of Health, Healthy Eating, Healthy Action, 2003, Ministry of Health, Wellington (available at www.moh.govt.nz/healthyeatinghealthyaction).
154. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from the Auckland Regional Migrant Services.
155. Local Government New Zealand, “Local Central Government Forum”, media release 21 November 2003, states the the Forum is “an opportunity to identify key issues of significance to either or both parties, agree on priorities for addressing them and monitor progress towards their resolution.” (available at www.lgnz.co.nz).
156. The priority issues are policing and the justice system, management of alcohol and its misuse, graffiti, street racing, youth gangs, family violence, and housing.
157. See “What is SPEaR?” at www.spear.govt.nz.
159. Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, p. 171.
160. Jamie Newth Business Consulting, ARPASS Evaluation, 2008.
161. Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 169.
162. Submission to the Royal Commission received from ARPASS, p. 2.
163. Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, p. 163.
164. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance received from Auckland City, p. 30.
165. Auckland Regional Public Health, SOPHAR Report, 2006, p. 18.
166. Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 167.
167. See Auckland Regional Physical Activity and Sport Strategy website (www.arpass.org.nz), “Projects – participation”.
168. Jamie Newth Business Consulting, ARPASS Evaluation, 2008.
169. Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 166.
170. Ibid, p. 157.
171. Refer to paragraphs 9.114 and 9.135.
172. Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 179.
173. Ibid, p. 167.
174. These principles are largely based on those set out in Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, section 5.1, in Report, Volume 4: Research Papers.
175. Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, section 5.2, in Report, Volume 4: Research Papers.
176. The supporting documents include the Implementation/Funding Plan, the evaluation and monitoring programme, etc.
| Home | Help | Disclaimer & Copyright | Contact us | newzealand.govt.nz |