Young Auckland Politician's Parting Challenge
Logan Soole, 25, (Ngāti Kahu, Te Rarawa), was first elected to the Franklin Local Board at just 19 years old and served two terms with the south Auckland board.
He resigns to join his partner in London, after years of a long-distance relationship.
Addressing the other eight members of the local board in his valedictory speech, Soole asked them not to forget their partners, whānau, history, and future.
"Do not forget our commitment to young people and the generations that will follow, long after we are gone.
"Make mokopuna decisions—choices that always prioritise the needs of our grandchildren, ensuring they inherit a place where they can survive and thrive.
"Think climate change, future focused-infrastructure and mentoring the next generation."
The small local board meeting room filled with people on Tuesday, who came to see the Pukekohe-resident off.
Also present was former Auckland mayor, Phil Goff.
Soole's position would not be filled, with the local elections looming in September.
"I cannot help but feel some guilt for leaving at a time that is so crucial for our future.
"A time where things not just in our own backyard but internationally seem to be in decline."
He said the Franklin ward was not a perfect community, but one that cared and worked together to get things done.
"To my local board colleagues and staff, thank you for your tireless work for Franklin. Thank you for the disagreements, the compromise and a willingness to challenge the status quo."
Soole will spend his last day in office in early June.
"As I step away from this role, I carry with me a massive sense of pride in serving this place, lessons learned, and a few more grey hairs than I started with."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Election meeting to be held
PHOTO: SUPPLIED The Gore District Council is encouraging people to put their hands up for the local body elections and is holding a public meeting to explain what they are all about. Whether you are a potential candidate or just want to understand the process, the council will be hosting an evening tomorrow to answer all your burning questions. Starting at 5.30pm, it will aim to arm prospective candidates with information such as who is eligible to stand, nomination rules, what being a councillor involves and campaign basics. In general, Gore District Māori engagement lead Vanessa Whangapirita (left) and deputy electoral officer Frances Shepherd are also available for any questions regarding October's elections. The council wants to remind the people of Gore: "Don't forget, it's your place. Your vote. Your future."
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Communities Can't Foot The Bill For Climate Crisis
Te Pāti Māori sends aroha to whānau, and communities impacted by the recent severe weather across Nelson Tasman, Banks Peninsula, Northland and beyond. While dozens of people are still unable to return home, National and Labour are already hinting at a Climate Adaptation plan that would see impacted communities pay for their own recovery. 'These so-called 'once in a lifetime' events are now happening every year. It's only been one year since Wairoa flooded, and a year before that we had Cyclone Gabrielle' said MP for Te Tai Tonga, Tākuta Ferris. 'Communities need more than short-term fixes. They need urgent, sustained investment in both recovery and long-term climate adaption. 'The corporations who are fuelling the climate crisis should be the ones paying for adaptation and recovery – it's not the community's fault that their houses are flooded, why should they have to pay?' Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, MP for Te Tai Tokerau, says the government's continued failure to resource Māori communities is a symptom of Māori being too resilient. 'What we are seeing today is the perverse consequence of our resilience. When our communities are this resilient, their hardship becomes invisible. 'It is our Māori communities who bear the brunt of these climate disasters-isolated and under-resourced. But despite being the most impacted, they are also the first to respond. 'But this resilience is not new, it is a natural part of our Māori ecosystem, an in-built response born of whakapapa, whanaungatanga, and the knowledge that no one else is coming.' Te Pāti Māori will empower Māori to implement our own climate adaptation solutions, we will provide funding to impacted communities, and we will ensure that Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Mātauranga Māori form the basis of our climate adaptation strategy. 'Recovery must be driven by those who know their whenua, whakapapa, and communities, not dictated by distant bureaucrats with no connection to the realities on the ground' concluded Ferris.
NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Why the Regulatory Standards Bill matters for property rights
Every member of the United Nations has pledged to uphold the Declaration. Most have embedded property rights into their constitutions. Property rights are a cornerstone of liberal democracy: a principle of Magna Carta, enshrined in the US Constitution, required for membership in the European Union, affirmed by the Canadian Supreme Court and protected in the Australian Constitution. The two major exceptions? Communist states, where the state owns everything – and New Zealand. In 1990, a Labour Government deliberately excluded property rights from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That omission is no accident. It has consequences. Taking property without compensation is not an aberration. It is a recurring feature of New Zealand governance – from settler governments seizing Māori land to modern 'regulatory takings'. Often, Māori land that remains undeveloped is designated as an 'Outstanding Natural Landscape' – in effect, a park – rendering it useless to the owners but still subject to rates. Councils have even sold ancestral Māori land for unpaid rates, often for a fraction of its true value. Now, those who want to continue these regulatory takings urge Māori to oppose the Regulatory Standards Bill – because it lacks a Treaty clause. Yet the bill upholds the Crown's Treaty promise to respect property, restrains the state's claim to unfettered sovereignty, and enforces the citizenship guarantee. It is not only Māori who suffer. Under the Public Works Act, private land is seized for 'public purposes'. Compensation is often delayed or set below market value. Ask the owners of land taken for Transmission Gully or the Waikato Expressway. After the Christchurch earthquakes, homeowners in the red zone were presented with take-it-or-leave-it 'voluntary' buyouts. Those who refused were cut off from basic services. Only years later did the courts rule the red zoning unlawful. These are not historical wrongs. They are present-day injustices. The Regulatory Standards Bill does not create new rights. It simply restates principles that our governments claim to uphold but routinely ignore. Critics say the Cabinet manual offers sufficient protection. But the manual can be amended – or ignored – at the whim of ministers. History shows it often is. The European Union's robust climate policies disprove the notion that property rights and environmental protection are incompatible. The bill should be much stronger. Courts should have the power to strike down legislation that breaches its principles. Governments can ignore it. What message will be sent if the bill is not passed? The critics are not objecting to process. They object to principle. What they oppose is private ownership. Their vision is one of 'collective rights' – where property belongs to the state and citizens live on sufferance. This is not a technical debate. It is a fundamental question: What kind of country do we want to be? The Regulatory Standards Bill proposes six principles that all laws should meet: To most people, this reads like common sense. To the critics, it's dangerous ideology. Our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, sees the bill – as he sees everything – as a management issue: 'Improving the long-term quality of regulation.' But this is not about better drafting. It's about what we believe: individual liberty – or the tyranny of the majority. Opposing the bill are a who's who of the political class: Much of the bureaucracy, a coterie of activist academics and Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Their goal? Unfettered state power. Christopher Luxon wants efficient government. But the real question is not whether government should be efficient. It is whether its power should be limited. If the bill is defeated it will be a licence for the state by regulatory taking to expropriate property; to trample on the principles we helped draft in 1948 and pledged to uphold. It is time we practised what we preach.
