Smith Nick: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14124] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Clause 26 in Part 3 deals with the issue of fair representation for wards. That was a change made by the Government in the year 2001 which put quite rigid population criteria on the allocation of wards. I on behalf of the people of Waimate and the people of the Kapiti Coast want to point out to the Government the errors it has made with that provision. When the communities of New Zealand and particularly of its rural areas developed they did not develop in a nice neat systematic way with the sorts of grid boundaries that would suit our statisticians. The communities built up and now there are areas that are quite severely disadvantaged by what this Labour Government put into law. The Government rather than having communities of interest as the primary driver of ward boundaries for councils introduced a rigid population criterion. Now that might work in a Hamilton a Christchurch or an Auckland where a line can be drawn along particular street boundaries to ensure that each ward has a population approximately the same. But out in rural New Zealand where we have isolated communities that provision has undermined communities quite badly. 
I want particularly to refer to a community in my own area. Everybody knows the isolated community of Golden Bay. It currently has two councillors. It is a community that is very clearly defined by the large Takaka Hill that separates if off from the rest of the Tasman district. Previously its community has been able to have two councillors. There is also the community of Murchison which is to the south of Nelson. It too was able under the old law to have its own separate ward. But because of what the Government did in that 2001 Act—completely ignoring the views of rural New Zealand and putting a rigid population criterion into law—those communities are disenfranchised from having councillors who can truly represent those sorts of areas. 
I would like to know from Government members whether they are going to revisit and change that. We had submissions at the Local Government and Environment Committee that the law was not working. I actually think there was a pretty strong consensus on the committee that the law was not working. It is true that it is too late to affect the local body elections to be held in October this year because boundaries have already been formed. So if people are to be disenfranchised in communities like that of Waimate and those on the Kapiti Coast we at least seek some commitment from the Government that this issue will be fixed for the 2007 local body elections. 
I give notice right now that National will fix it. It is not fair; it is not working; communities of interest are more important than statistical lines that may be imposed on maps. I was disappointed earlier to hear a Government member vigorously defending the changes and I wonder whether that member has visited any of those rural communities that are adversely affected by this legislation. So I request members opposite to visit Waimate and the Kapiti Coast and to visit areas like rural Nelson and rural Bay of Plenty and to talk to some of the councillors who represent those communities. Those members should talk to some of the people who are affected and they would realise they have got it wrong. Clause 26 of this part does not fix the problem and it does need to be revisited. 
We have the extraordinary situation where the Government has given the power to the Local Government Commission in Wellington simply to write ward boundaries without any connection to communities and National says that that is wrong. National wants that provision fixed and we hope that someone on the Government benches will take a reasoned approach to the issue so that before the 2007 local body elections we do not have a whole lot more small communities being disenfranchised from their effective ward representations around council tables. I ask again whether some Minister or some member of the Government is prepared to give a commitment to this Committee that that provision will be fixed because for every moment it is not we see isolated communities disenfranchised from fair representation. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to.