Harbourmaster's office now under Auckland Transport

[ScottiE 174]

Anyone know when, how and why this came about? Fascinating that our council can simply change the justiction of an entity out from direct council control to now be under the control of a CCO. All seemingly without any significant notice (at least none that I can recall seeing)

[Vorpal Blade 89]

I just got my notice about moorings too and was a bit surprised about this, the direct debit form (which I'm definitely not doing) has the Payee particular of "Lease parking"?????

[ScottiE 174]

Yeh - I'd say we've all got one of these. Had my suspicions a few ,on the back when I bought the new mooring cause they were mucking about with their website but wouldn't tell me what was going on at the time.

 

So the Act which establishes Auckland Transport's existence clearly states its purpose -

"39 Purpose of Auckland Transport

The purpose of Auckland Transport is to contribute to an effective, efficient, and safe Auckland land transport system in the public interest.

Section 39: substituted, on 1 November 2010, by section 31 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 36).

Section 39: amended, on 13 June 2013, by section 72 of the Land Transport Management Amendment Act 2013 (2013 No 35).

 

So as of today - nothing in there about giving even the slightest interest in the harbour, moorings, etc. I'd like some legal beagles to get to the bottom of this one 'cause there's something awry here.

[MarkMT 68]

I think they've always been under Council control, perhaps just not explicitly associated with AT -

 

Page 9, section 1 of the New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code ( https://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/Publications-and-forms/Commercial-operations/Ports-and-harbours/NZ-port-harbour-marine-safety-code.pdf ) :

 

1.1.4 Regional councils have the statutory function to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of their communities, in the present and the future. They have the power under the Local Government Act 1974 to regulate shipping movements for the purpose of navigational safety. They can do this by making bylaws and through powers exercised by appointed harbourmasters. In addition regional councils have a power and a corresponding duty to erect and maintain aids to navigation, remove obstructions and impediments to navigation and to execute and maintain works, which in the opinion of the regional council, tend to improve navigation. 

...

1.3.2 Appointment of Harbourmaster

A regional council has the power to appoint a harbourmaster. The powers and duties of the harbourmaster are prescribed in sections 650B to 650E of the Local Government Act 1974. Every regional council shall exercise the power to appoint a harbourmaster in harbours to which this Code applies. 

 

Sections 650B-E of the Local Government Act referenced above were actually repealed by the Maritime Transport Amendment Act 2013. However Section 33D of the latter states

 

33D Regional councils to appoint harbourmasters

(1) A regional council may appoint a harbourmaster for any port, harbour, or waters in its region.

 

More details on responsibilities etc in Sections 33D-F here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2013/0084/latest/DLM4698470.html

[ScottiE 174]

Hi Mark,

 

The whole governance structure of AT as a CCO is quite different to that of the council itself.  The stated objectives are quite different.  Its the thin wedge getting thicker.  Among other things the harbourmaster's office administers a) the harbour bylaw moorings etc. As a mere department under a CCO it will now be expected to return a dividend.  How did you suspect it will do that for these two examples?

[MarkMT 68]

Yep possibly. AT as a whole is not required to return a dividend - Section 6.2 AT Statement of Intent http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/representativesbodies/CCO/Documents/aucklandtransportstatementofintent20132016.pdf :

 

"Auckland Transport does not anticipate making a distribution to Auckland Council as Auckland Transport is funded at a level to undertake the operating and capital programmes agreed with the Council"

 

But that aside, I think your broader point is valid. Their financial projections (Attachment E) rely on a big inflow of "revenue from services" and it's not hard to imagine the justification for specific service costs becoming lost in the fog of unaccountable bureaucracy. And more importantly imo, the Harbourmaster has specific legislated responsibilities that are at the very best tangential to AT's mandate and completely invisible (as far as I can find) in the public documentation of what they think their job is.