Transcript National Code of Practice Workshop

Access to the
Corridors
Utilities Access to the
Transport Corridors
National Code of Practice
Implementation Workshop
1 – 20 May 2009
Outline of programme
• Introduction and background
• Outline of the Code
– Latest submissions
• Implementing the Code
– Implementation issues
• Case study and discussion
• Next steps
– Completing the Code
– Governance
• Review of the day and feedback
Introductory session
•
•
•
•
•
Introductions
Housekeeping
Objectives for the day
The journey so far
Report on legislative progress
Housekeeping
•
•
•
•
•
•
Emergency procedures
Ground-rules for the day
Cell phones
Handouts
Feedback forms
Parking lot
Objectives for the day
• To explain the content of the Code
• To provide a simple process for
every-one to implement the Code in a
nationally consistent manner
• To identify and address any
impediments to implementing the
Code
• To provide advice and support across
all sectors
The Journey So Far
Why the Code was developed
• Government’s economic strategy –
constant concerns being raised
• Nationally consistent process
• Formalise current industry best
practice
• Third party damage problems
• Need to update Working in the Road:
stakeholders not getting enough out
of it
• If we didn’t, Government would!
Government Policy
Objectives 2006
a.
b.
c.
“To reduce the costs and inefficiencies
arising from the current statutory framework,
including avoidable damage to roads and
utility networks, delays and disputes,
inconsistencies between statutes, and poor
coordination
To provide for better management of the
multi-use of road corridors in the public
interest, including road safety, and balancing
the provision of utility services with efficient
transport and universal access to roads
To provide the potential for increased utility
access to rail and motorway corridors while
recognising the transport and safety
responsibilities of Transit NZ, and the
transport, safety and business interests of
ONTRACK.”
The context
• Utilities’ right of access to the corridor
• Corridor managers’ rights to manage the
corridor
– setting reasonable conditions
• Definition of roles and responsibilities of
the parties
• Planning, liaison and coordination
• Maintaining the integrity of the corridor
• Safe work site minimising public
inconvenience
• Collaboration in good faith
Who developed the Code?
By the stakeholders for the stakeholders
–
–
–
–
–
Electricity, gas, telecommunications sectors
Local authorities: Roads/ Waters/ Wastewaters
Transit NZ
ONTRACK
Contracting sector
Other participating parties include:
– Government departments and agencies
– Agents of any of the above – consultants,
contractors
How the Code was
developed
• NZUAG/LGNZ seminar 19 February
2007
• Pan-sector meetings
• Statement of Intent
• Directors group
• Working groups
• Industry peer review processes
• Independent technical edit
• Legal review
Current status of the
Code
• Living document
• Some chapters work in progress
• Will be reviewed later this year
– fix any implementation issues
– align with the legislation
Future status of the
Code
• Authorised by the proposed
Utilities Access Bill (expected
2009)
• Consistent with legislation
• Replaces existing Codes/
Handbooks
Legislative progress
Report from MED
• To be done as late as possible
Draft Utilities Access Bill
• Gives legal status to the Code
• Identifies the content
• Requirements to have the Code
approved by the Minister
• Process for amending the Code
• Publication
• Amends various utility Acts to
achieve consistency
Purpose of the Code
• NZ Inc – benefits to public
• Fair and equitable to all users of
the road
• Minimising disruptions to traffic,
public, neighbours
• Nationally consistent approach
Content of Draft Utilities
Access Bill
• Purpose of the Code
• Utility operators and corridor
managers must comply with the
Code
• Court can order compliance
• Powers to regulate if no Code
• On legislative programme 2009
MED consultation
• Improving understanding both ways
• Input on process
• Joint approach on long-term
governance
• Opportunity to put forward some
ideas for draft bill
• Pushing for exposure draft for early
industry input – awaiting outcome
Legislative process
• Bill introduced to the House of Representatives
with first reading no less than three days later.
• If ‘voted’ to go to second reading, next step
select committee process
• The select committee:
– hears public submissions,
– recommends amendments, and
– reports recommendations back to
Parliament
• Second reading takes into account Select
Committee Report
• Third reading (if ‘voted’ to go)
• Royal assent
• Enactment three months later
Process from here
Code
released
Implemented
Identify any
flaws
Collate
submissions
Review Date
Finalise Rail/
legislation
Finalise code
Legislation
enacted
Code
mandated
Outline of the Code
Document is in Hand
• This is a document that has been
collaborative effort
• Consider the balance is appropriate
• Socialised now operationalise
• Review to eliminate the fatal flaws
• Alignment with legislation
• Needs to be used – little point
changing until it has been
Purpose of the Code
To provide a consistent and
cooperative framework for the
CM and UO to manage the
corridor by providing access
rights to the UO
Principles supporting the
Code
• Working together – regular liaison
• Consistency – process, reasonable
conditions
• Technical excellence – best practice
• Equity and fairness - respect
• Quality – reducing costs, protecting
all assets
• Health and safety – staff and the
public
• Constructive resolution of
differences
CM systems
Warranty
Planning
Preliminary
notification
Works
completion
Undertaking
works
Application
Processin
g
General Provisions
• Explanatory, guidelines and
specifications
• Expanded to cover full gamut of
the access process
• Process is generic – parties will
still need to agree in some areas
• Principles and general outcomes
agreed – options for specifics
• Delivers nationwide consistency
General Provisions
cont
• Government had defined goals
• Code meets all requirements
specified by Govt
• Underlying data is patchy – got
to go forward
• Willingness by team to consider
any aspect
Intention
• Share forward plans (eg LTCCP,
District Plans, utility work plans)
• Work towards a balance of interest
• Maintain integrity of transport
corridor/road/utility assets
• Safety and efficiency
• Eliminate, isolate or minimise road
safety hazards
Overview of Code Contents
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Principles supporting the Code
Roles and Responsibilities
Sharing Key Information
Planning for Access to the Road
Corridor
• Working in the Road Corridor
• Access to Motorways
Code Contents Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
cont.
Access to Rail Corridors
Applying for Corridor Access
Reasonable Conditions
Compliance
Cost Sharing
Dispute Resolution
Continuous Improvement
Code Contents Overview
concl.
• Schedules
– Interpretation & Construction
– Forms
– Template for Reasonable
Conditions
– Process
– Risk Management Process
– Referenced documents
Motorway issues
• Need to keep community
connected
• Working on motorways
problematic
• Fastest growing need for
capacity
• If space, should be for the
highest level community need
Rail issues
Role of the Corridor Manager
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Communication with stakeholders
Co-ordinate where practicable work in
the corridor (road)
Organise liaison meetings with utilities
Receive and process notifications/
requests
Set reasonable conditions
Ensure and enforce compliance
Require reasonable care not to damage
other parties infrastructure or causing
unnecessary disruption
Role of the Utility Operator
o
o
o
o
o
Notify corridor manager of any
impending work
Comply with reasonable conditions
Reasonable care not to damage
other parties infrastructure or
cause unnecessary disruption
Know and share location of assets
in corridor
Participate in liaison meetings
arranged by Corridor Manager(s)
Responsibilities
• Good quality work
• Liability for suppliers and agents.
Stakeholders are responsible for
their agents and contractors.
• Corridor Managers as Utility
Operators – comply with roles and
responsibilities of a Utility Operator.
• Conflicts of interest – set of best
practice principles to deal with
conflicts of interest between
stakeholders.
Submissions
Thank you to all submitters
• Helped to significantly refine the
Code
• Biggest issue is how some of
the provisions may be applied
• Agreement on principle, not use
• Good consensus on technical
issues
• Some decisions pending
Topics included in
submissions
• Treating utilities differently and
separately
• Ensuring that any party cannot
abdicate from its responsibilities
• Prioritisation of space
• Designations
• Information sharing
• Marking services on roads
Submission issues
pending
• Chapter 8: Access to the rail
corridor
• Chapter 12: Cost allocation
• Chapter 14: Code management
What next?
• Trust to be earned - relationship
• Monitor and review
• Want to hear back about areas
where the Code has not been/
cannot be used as intended
• Can use website (particularly
FAQs) to get assistance
• Will provide back-up: what do
you want?
Processes
• Co-ordination (liaison meetings,
forward planning, information
sharing)
• Applications (applying,
processing, setting conditions)
• Cost allocation
• Quality and Compliance
• Dispute resolution
Dispute Resolution
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Any matter
Either party can initiate
Step-by-step
Conciliatory
Four options
Process is best practice
Can pick and choose, but
reduces options
Dispute resolution
• Dispute process – will be
mandated
• Anything disputable and any party
– learn to get along
• Emphasis on communication
• Do you need NZUAG to support
dispute process – find expertise?
• Knowledgeable mediators
Reasonable conditions
• Template as part of work
approval
• Conditions in template will
always apply
• Special and local conditions
• Begin process of developing
Local Conditions at any time
• Contestability
Other Codes
• Replaces other Codes
• Need to phase out
• Legislation will replace
Questions?
Session 2
How to implement the Code
CM systems
Warranty
Planning
Preliminary
notification
Works
completion
Undertaking
works
Application
Processin
g
Glossary of abbreviations
CM
CAR
WAN
WCN
COPTTM
STMS
TMP
Corridor Manager
Corridor Access Request
Works Approval Notice
Works Completion Notice
Code of Practice for Temporary
Traffic Management
Site Traffic Management
Supervisor
Traffic Management Plan
Corridor Manager’s
preparations
• Defining the role
• Managing where utilities are
located in the corridor
– Competing demands from UOs
• Systems and processes
• Staff with defined
responsibilities
• Others?
Plan
Planning
Warr
anty
Works
completion
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Undertaking
works
ning
Prelim
inary
notific
ation
Appli
catio
n
LTCCP, RLTP, NLTP
District plans
District or regional strategies
Utility forward work plans
Co-ordination
Information sharing
Liaison meetings
Proc
essi
ng
Preliminary
notification
•
•
•
•
•
•
Warr
Plan
anty
ning
Works
completion
Undertaking
works
Prelim
inary
notific
Appli ation
catio
n
Section 9.3
Provide advance notification
Preliminary plan
Details of work scheduled
Location: above or under-ground
Liaison between CM and UO
– Possible coordination
– Impact on the public
Proc
essi
ng
S 9.4: Making
applications
•
•
•
•
•
•
Warr
Plan
anty
ning
Prelim
inary
notific
ation
Works
completion
Undertaking
works
Corridor access request
Timelines
Process
Traffic management plans
Charges
Consultation with other
stakeholders
• Communications plan
• Emergency works
Proc
essi
ng
Appli
catio
n
Processing
applications
•
•
•
•
•
•
Warr
Plan
anty
ning
Prelim
inary
notific
ation
Appli
Works
completion
catio
n
Undertaking
works
Reasonable conditions
Local conditions
Special conditions
Consents (regional or local)
Designations
Works approval notice (WAN)
Proc
essi
ng
Reasonable Conditions
• Reasonable conditions defined – these are
default conditions
• If no response from Corridor Manager, base
conditions apply
• Still a notice and UO can commence
• Three categories of conditions
• Template in Code
• Process for defining local and special
conditions
• Relate to guidelines for above ground
structures as required
What is a Reasonable
Condition?
• Based on criteria in
Telecommunications Act
• RCAs provided their standard
conditions
• Good degree of uniformity
• Debated: outcome in Code template
• Amenity outcomes identified in, and
consistent with, LTCCPs eg special
paving
What isn’t a Reasonable
Condition?
• Preventing, frustrating or
unreasonably delaying installation or
maintenance
• Unreasonably avoiding future costs
• RMA issues
• Too unreasonable
• Appropriateness of the work
• Requiring amenity outcomes not
specified in LTCCPs
Local Conditions
• Related to condition or event or area,
not work
• May not be time dependent
• Issue to all relevant parties for
comment
• Must attempt to reach agreement
• If cannot, may be imposed
• If imposed, can then go to dispute
Special Conditions
• Particular to the works
• Notify in draft and seek
comments
• Must attempt to reach
agreement
• If cannot, must be imposed
• Can then go to dispute
Undertaking works
Warr
Plan
anty
ning
Prelim
inary
notific
ation
Appli
Works
completion
catio
n
• Compliance
• Notifications to third parties
• Implementing communications
plan
• Re-instatement
• Inspections
• Stop work notices
Undertaking
works
Proc
essi
ng
Code Compliance
• Utility operator responsible for its
contractors’ work
• Corridor manager wants confidence that
standards will be met
• All principals are seeking the work to be
carried out “right first time”, and for good
behaviour to be developed and maintained
by all parties, especially contractors
• Audits provide the proof that standards are
being met
• Utility operator provides warranty for its
work
• Non-compliance is included
• Quality plans required.
General Principles for Placement
of Utilities: Chapter 5
Consider
• Protect finite resource
• Statutory spacing and depth
• Multiple ducting
• Trench sharing
• Innovative approaches encouraged
• Traversing of carriageway minimised
Preferred Lay Positions (S 5.7.1)
Eight key situations addressed:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Greenfields
Developed urban areas
Congested urban areas
Rural lifestyle
Other rural areas
State highways
Motorways
Railways
Notifications to third
parties
• Identifying third parties
• Responsibility still on working
party to identify parties
• Importance of good records
• Peg is in the ground
Implementing
communications plan
• Appropriate communications
strategy for public, adjacent
property owners, etc
• Leaflets
• Advertising
• Signage
Re-instatement: chap 6
• Trenches
• Surface layer
• Roadmarkings etc
Inspections/audit
• What to inspect?
• How often?
• Who defines?
What about questionable work?
• Evidence of compliance
• Independent audit
Non-compliance: S 11.4
•
•
Failure to meet:
The requirements of the WAN
The Code
Reasonable conditions
Traffic management plan
Stop-work notice requires an
approval to recommence work
• Non-actioned notices
Works completion
Warr
Plan
anty
ning
Prelim
inary
notific
ation
Appli
Works
completion
•
•
•
•
Undertaking
works
As-built plans
Works completion notice
Sign-off
Handover
Proc
essi
ng
catio
n
As-built plans
• All parties must keep accurate
records
• All parties are responsible for
their own records and must
make them available
• Required to update if
new/unknown service located
• Timeliness
• Electronic / paper-based
Works completion
notice: S 9.7
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lodge within 3 weeks of completion
Any changes to the work approved
QA records (s 6.26)
As-builts
Signed confirmation of compliance
Any work yet to be done
Sign-off
Handover
Warr
Warranty
anty
Works
completion
•
•
•
•
Maintenance
Audit
Maintenance notice
Good performance
Undertaking
works
Plan
ning
Prelim
inary
notific
ation
Appli
Proc
essi
ng
catio
n
Maintenance
• UO responsible for damage to
– Road corridor
– Road asset
– Other property
– Other infrastructure
• includes
– Subsidence
– Road surface deterioration
• Common law proof
Maintenance notice
• At completion of two-year
warranty
• Template
• No outstanding works
Other implementation issues
Quality control
•
•
•
•
•
•
Letting contracts
Layers of sub-contractors
Supervision
Audit
Quality systems
Guidelines on procurement
processes?
Quality assurance
requirements
• Quality system required
appropriate to job
• Equivalent to NZTA TQS1
• Covers from Go to Whoa
• List of requirements in section
6.26 – check ref
Letting contracts
• Define minimum requirements in
tender
• Quality standards
• Competence
• Limitations on sub-contractors
Layers of subcontractors
Utility
operator
Principal
contractor
SubSubcontractor
contractor
Sub-subcontract
Sub-sub-subcontract
Sub-sub-subcontract
Subcontractor
Sub-subcontract
Sub-sub-subcontract
Different
contractor
Subcontractor
Supervision
• Why supervise?
• What do you supervise?
Quality systems
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TQS1
ISO 9000 series
TQM
Q-base
Six sigma
Baldridge
Others
What is competence?
• What is the desired quality
outcome?
– What does the CM want
• people
• tasks
• asset
– What does a UO want when others
are working around the utility
asset?
What is competence?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Skilled in the job being done
Accurate performance
Timeliness
No complaints
No third party damage
Experienced
Qualified? In what?
Training
• On-job
• Off job
– In-house
– External provider
• Industry certificate
• National qualification
Accredited or preferred
suppliers
Issues to consider:
• Available to all
• Clearly defined standard
• Variable standard for low/high
value contracts
• Monitoring
Other implementation
considerations
•
•
•
•
Risk assessment
Cost share
Performance reporting
Any others?
Risk assessment
For above ground structures
• Primarily safety issues
• Sections 5.9.1 and Schedule E
For underground utilities
•
•
•
•
Separation
Depth
Road factors
Third party factors
Cost share: chapter 12
• Based on current legislation
• May agree as long as it is not inconsistent
with legislation
• Principles
– Equity
– Causer pays with care
– Direct costs only
– Betterment
– Wrongly located services
– CM admin costs
– Optimal overall solution
Session 3
• Case studies
• Discussion
• Next steps
National Code of Practice for
Utilities’ Access to the Transport
Corridors
A Nelson City Council Case
Study
Alec Louverdis
Background

NCC is a Unitary Authority

5 Private Utility Operators

NCC processes around 50 ROA’s per month

So what has NCC done wrt the new code
and in particular the 7 key areas??
Planning
Regular co-ordinated meetings – Commenced
in June 2005, with strong desire to work
together
 Initially 3-4 meetings per year - now meet every
6 weeks at request of UO’s
 Standing item at each meeting – update on
capital and major O&M works
 UO’s include private and internal NCC
departments (utilities, roading and capital
projects)

Planning continued

Attended by Contractors’ Federation &
NZTA representative

Facilitated and chaired by CM, formally
minuted and well attended.

NCC shares LTCCP & annual plans with
UO’s.

All NCC capital works plans sent to UO’s at
design stage giving opportunity to comment
on all works.
Planning continued

Council capital as-builts sent to all UO’s

UO’s have access to NCC GIS for services

Clear understanding of roles

Clear understanding of information sharing
Planning continued

Agreement on service locations, service
locates, potholing and stand-overs

Potholing of services by all parties at design
stage to avoid conflict

Agreement on cost sharing

Ownership of private cables

Graffiti – zero tolerance
Planning continued

Aligning conditions to District Plan

Understanding importance of accuracy of
service information

Compliance qualifications – National
certificates in road opening and water
reticulation

Trenching by private individuals
Planning continued
Service – requires potholing at time of
design to determine depth
 Structural layers – requires testing of
structural layers to effect long-term road
stability through registered engineer
 Imported material requirement for all
excavations

Preliminary notification

Not done specifically wrt actual works but
commenced 1 May 2009 as per Code
Application of CAR
Currently UO’s apply for CAR – contractors do
not wish to accept this responsibility
 NCC costs - From $35/application to
$75/application but with additional inspection
costs
 Standard practice to submit TMP’s
 At request of UO’s, CAR includes full contact
UO details wrt notification and stand-overs

Application continued

All emergency work retrospective
 Work <1m2 currently deemed minor. UO’s
forward schedule to CM each month to
check work. Not working as well as
envisaged
 Trialling electronic processing and
working well
Application continued
All UO’s pay for ROA fee and 2 inspections
up front
 New CAR format implemented 1 May 2009

Processing

Currently takes between 1 and 5 days for
more complex applications
 Request made for NCC to put more details
on invoicing – cross reference CAR details
 Local conditions – Engineering standards
Processing continued

Special conditions include:
 Qualification requirements
 Full reinstatement of footpaths in CBD
 District plan requirements - noise &
hours of work
 Time to reinstate (including PMB and
road markings)
 Temporary reinstatement
Actual Works


Staff inspect most works
Provision exists to issue Stop Work
Notice – new form to be used 1 May
2009
 NCC inspections not a substitute for UG
QA system
 Photographs not accepted in lieu of
inspections by NCC
Work Completion

Currently CM checks completion of
works
 No WCN currently issued but
implemented 1 May 09
 UO understand importance of as-builts
Warranty
2 year warranty period consistent with NCC
requirements
 Following essential to ensure longevity of
infrastructure:
 Pre-design work
 Thorough and workable UO QA
systems
 Proper Reinstatement
 Detailed compaction records
Comments and
discussion
National Code of Practice for
Utilities’ Access to the Transport
Corridors
Southland District
Council Experience To
Date
Presented by Russell Hawkes
Asset Manager Roading
Background
 Before the Draft Code
– SDC operated two systems
• Hanson for internal road openings
• Paper based system for other utility
operators
– Systems were not complementary
– Sign-off somewhat haphazard
– Maintenance requirements often not
followed through
Draft Code
 Draft Code Release
– Code identified as benefit to SDC
– SDC reviewed draft
– SDC attended workshops
– SDC made submissions on draft
– Council approved adoption of code
– No action taken until implementation
version released
Implementation
 Implementation
– Document reviewed December 08
– Local conditions developed
– Meetings with internal utility group
– Decision made on implementation
timeframe
– Review of procedures and systems
required undertaken
Implementation
 Implementation
– Management systems put in place
– Standard documentation developed
– Rollout presentation developed
– Utility companies advised of Road Show
– Local rollout meetings in May 09
Cluster Group
 Southland RCAs
– Three Road Controlling Authorities in
Southland plus NZTA
– SDC approached all for joint approach to
implementation
– SDC approached adjoining RCAs who will
attend rollout meetings.
– Uniform approach should eventuate
Lessons
 Lessons to date
– Approach adjoining RCAs for joint rollout
– Develop an implementation plan
– Have your systems in place to manage
process
– Get your internal utilities onside
– Ensure Local Conditions are accepted
– Keep local utility & contractors in the loop
– Do not rush the process
Where to from here
 SDC Plan
– Confirm Corridor Manager
– Process flow charts to be completed
– Rollout meeting May 09
– First co-ordination meeting June 09
– Full implementation 1 July 09
– Three monthly co-ordination meeting
planned
– Six monthly procedure review
Advantages to SDC
– Code will be operational before it becomes
mandatory
– Forced a rethink on Roading project planning
– Co-ordinated planning of utilities
– System in place for management
– Maintenance responsibilities defined
– Over time utility records will be available inhouse
– All party communication lines will be
established
Application to Corridor Manager: Example of Process for Simple Works
Owner
Agent/Contractor
Utility Provider
Corridor Manager
Local plumber
Water Services
SDC
Preliminary
Notification and
Liaison of
proposed works
New water
connection
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Loads into
Hansen
Road opening
notice
q
q
No link between Hansen and Pathways.
Need to advise by manual means to trigger
Pathways process
Min 5 days
Email via
Pathways with
evidence of:
q TMP/H&S
q Other utilities
checked
q Prepares
CAR
q
q
CAR received
Review
q
Does work
q
Advises work
can proceed
Establish
Bond
WAN issued
(includes
reasonable
conditions etc.)
< 6 months
< 3 weeks
q
q
q
q
Forwards test
results
As builts
Producer
statement
q
q
Signs off in
Hansen.
WCN
completed
and
forwarded
10 days
q
q
Checks
completion
Start of 24
month
maintenance
period
Record/load
as builts
Approve Works as
finished
WAN = Works Approval Notice
CAR = Corridor Access Request
WCN = Works Completion Notice
24 months
End
q
q
Inspect work
Release
Bond
Telecom
PowerNet
NZTA
Ontrack
Waste
Services
Stormwater
RCA
?
5 days
End
Other Utility
Providers
Discussion
Case Study –
Implementing the Code
#3 Other Regions
Comparing the case
studies
Nelson: single council
• Planning and liaison meetings
• Local and special conditions
• Inspections
• Completion and warranty
Southland: four councils
• New systems
• Separation of internal utilities
• Formal council adoption of the Code
• Re-think on roading planning
Impediments
Operationalising
•
•
•
•
Identify CMs
Which can cluster?
What are the benefits of clusters?
What about the local UOs
Clusters
Regional cooperation
• Regional launches
• Information sharing
• RLTP regional or technical
advisory groups
• Others? Help!
Forward Issues for
NZUAG
Next Steps –
Managing the Code
• Your actions
• Our actions
• Government actions
Next Steps –
Managing the Code
Your actions are:
• CM preliminary planning (if no
systems already in place)
• Establish and maintain good
working relationships
• Manage QA and compliance with
the Code
• Provide feedback later this year
Our actions:
Completing the Code
• Access to Rail
• Cost allocation
• Chapter 14: Code management
Review of the Code
• Post-implementation
• To align with legislation
– Start when Bill introduced in House
• Formal review process
– Seek submissions
– Small team to review
– Wider sector endorsement
• Timing dependent on the Bill
Getting the Code approved
• Agreed Code following review
• Formal submission to the Minister
• Supporting evidence of consultation
and support
• MED review development process for
compliance with legal requirements
• Check that Code contents meet legal
requirements
• Ministerial approval
Ongoing Code
review process
• Needs to be structured to avoid
ad hoc changes
• Managed to provide regular
updates
• Still requires BALANCE
• Smaller group required to make
process workable – expert
support as necessary
• Data collection
Code amendment
approval process
• Minister to make final decision
on changes
• Same procedures as for getting
Code approved
• Expecting industry to manage
process
• Sorting out sector
representation
Government Actions
•
•
•
•
Legislative process
Approving Code
Long-term involvement
Meeting objectives
Next Steps –
Managing the Code
• Code management body
• Need to ensure all sectors fairly
represented – rebalance?
• Supporting structure – formalise
• Working on governance – draft
rules of engagement
• Guidelines on procurement
processes?
Restructuring
• Clear lines of sector
accountability
• Clear representation for each
sector
• All sectors at the table
• Balanced representation
• Selection of Chair?
• Charter or incorporation?
Strategic Approach
• Code is not the only purpose for
existence of NZUAG
• Expectation from Government
that NZUAG or similar
represents industry
• Clear positioning and
development strategy needed
• For restructured group to
finalise strategic directions
Performance
Monitoring
• Need basic information/data to
support industry going forward
• Changes have purpose but are
based on conjecture/perception
• No basis to negotiate change
with Government
• Efficiencies? How to
demonstrate that Government
objectives met
Performance
Monitoring cont
• Trialling to avoid onerous
requirements - collection
• Government wants industry to
decide but will demand at some
stage
• Want to stay ahead of the game
Feedback
• Are we providing enough?
• What else do you want to see?
• Is website enough or the wrong
method?
• Do you want it supplemented?
• How? Newsletters? Seminars?
• Availability of expert advice?
Funding
• Government expects industry to
support itself – self funding
• Need to find equitable funding
solution – across sectors
• Suggested solution based on
add-on cost per CAR/WAN
• Corridor Manager collects and
pays on basis of requests
Review of the day
•
•
•
•
Review of sessions
Parking Lot
Evaluation and feedback forms
Next steps
Thanks to the presenters
Thanks for your attendance
Please complete the Evaluation
form
Have a safe journey home
Get in behind!
Contact us
www.nzuag.org.nz
[email protected]