Fenton Darien: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11549] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Talofa lava. I also support my colleague Phil Twyford’s amendment that would refer local body power allocation to the Local Government Commission to determine a set of minimum activities for the local boards. I will go through some parts of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill to do with local boards that cause Labour particular concern. I will start with clause 17 in Part 1. The initial allocation of the powers of the boards will be made by the Auckland Transition Agency. Other colleagues have said that the powers will be allocated by an unelected body and that is a significant concern for Labour. The agency will allocate responsibility for the non-regulatory activities of the Auckland Council between the local boards and the governing body. Here it is in black and white—our first concern about the local boards. 
Clause 35 in Part 2 deals with the membership of the local boards. It sets out a statutory minimum of five members and a maximum of 12. We have concerns about this. The report of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee notes that the maximum membership of a community board is 12. It goes on to state that the local boards will have more responsibilities than the community boards do and will serve a larger population and that is the rationale for lifting the membership of the local boards. It then sets the maximum membership at the same level as that of the community boards. It does not make any sense. If the local boards really will have more responsibility than the community boards would it not make more sense to ensure they have more representation than the community boards do? 
Another area of concern is clause 40A in Part 2 which deals with local board agreements. Local board agreements are agreed between the governing body and the local board and outline the activities and powers of the local board. This clause will limit the scope of local board agreements to activities within the purview of the local boards. It also requires that the local board plan not be inconsistent with the strategies plans policies and objectives of the governing body. Our concern about that clause is that the effect could be to allow the governing body to indirectly limit the actions of the local board. In other words it could constrain a local board’s operation by outlining a regional policy. The effect of this clause is to further underline that the local boards will be subservient to the governing body. That is not putting “local” back into local communities. 
Another clause of concern in Part 2 is clause 40C “Local board may propose bylaws”. We are concerned about this because the Minister of Local Government made a big deal of the local boards being able to make by-laws as a way of illustrating how influential they would be in his new Auckland City. However that has never been the case. The local boards are able only to propose by-laws and the sad truth of Minister Hide’s super-city model is that the local boards can only advocate that the super-council make a by-law and lobby it to pass it just like any other lobby group in Auckland can. 
Another concern is new section 77 which is inserted by clause 45. It deals with disputes relating to local board agreements. This clause provides an avenue for local boards if they disagree with the Auckland Council regarding the allocation of decision-making responsibilities or proposed by-laws. We are concerned about this because the select committee has removed the right of the local boards to contest the local board agreement if they disagree with it. This underlines the dominant position of the Auckland Council and once again takes local decision-making out of the hands of local people. 
We have a concern about clause 87A in Part 3. It is about the initial allocation of power to the local boards. This clause allows the local boards to retain their initial allocation of powers from the Auckland Transition Agency until the Auckland Council adopts its long-term council community plan or LTCCP for the period beginning July 2012. This amendment allows the governing body to give the local boards additional functions and powers but it will prevent them from eroding the non-regulatory functions allocated by the Auckland Transition Agency and they are likely to have very little say over the operations to be corporatised by the council-controlled organisations. 
I hope I have demonstrated that Labour members have looked at this legislation. I know that Government members think they are the only ones who understand it and the people of Auckland are completely wrong but there are many areas of concern. I hope my contribution shows that we have taken this matter seriously. Thank you.