Prasad Rajen: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Prasad Rajen: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15556] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It is very clear that the views on this side of the Chamber and those on that side are quite different. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: We’ve read the bill. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I want to address clauses 8 9 and 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. If the member Mr Auchinvole would like to listen I shall address those clauses and I hope the member will keep on listening. 
Essentially the way in which the Government has constructed clauses 8 9 and 10 shows that it thinks that councils know best and that the community does not need to be involved. Actually that attitude is endemic through all of the local government legislation that the ACT-National Government has imposed on New Zealand since it came into power. It has used the particular style of the Hon John Carter. The Hon John Carter has become the salesperson for this way of thinking throughout the local government reform legislation. He is the placater and he does that with some style I will give him that. But he couches the Government’s ideology which is privatisation and no community involvement in a particular form. The particular phrase John Carter used today was “What’s the harm in that?”. Well I can apply that phrase to a whole series of changes in the social area over the last 25 years that went past that particular Minister. 
Community consultation is the hallmark of best practice in the 21st century. Many many methods are being designed internationally now to make it possible for communities to participate in the systems that organise their own lives. That is the hallmark of best practice. International models have been developed. Let us look at the Canadian example. They are world-beaters when it comes to community engagement and community consultation. Australia is a country that this Government wants to catch up to. Well we will be far behind when it comes to community consultation and community engagement to involving people in those things that matter. Somehow this Government thinks business can do it better can do everything better and that is it. In this particular bill the community is taken out of far too many things. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Here we go again! He was all right until he went off sideways. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: There is growing demand I say to Mr Auchinvole from our communities to be involved but Mr Auchinvole and his Government turn a deaf ear to that. They are not interested yet many jurisdictions are addressing it in very very powerful ways. 
In this bill there really is a general desire to limit community participation and consultation. Clause 8 repeals section 78(2) of the principal Act. Section 78(2) is a very powerful section. This amendment makes it possible for local authorities to undertake perfunctory community consultation. It enables a tick-the-box approach. Councils can virtually do what they like call it community consultation and that is what it will be. Labour members agree that section 78(2) could be streamlined and an amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 180 which we have put forward does just that. But repealing section 78(2) enables local authorities to engage in perfunctory community consultation. Maybe that is what the ACT Party wants and maybe that is what National wants but it certainly is not what this side of the Chamber wants. It brands us quite differently. Those who have been listening to this debate over the last 2 days ought to know very clearly that there is a fundamental difference between what this side of the Chamber does which is take the community seriously and consult it and what that side of the Chamber is doing. Members opposite cannot deny that repealing section 78(2) is a major change. 
Nicky Wagner 
: No it’s not major. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Yes it is. The member does not realise what it means. There is far too much perfunctory community consultation and that is what this change will do. And it runs contrary to public expectation. The expectation is for meaningful consultation. The member has not read the original provision. I invite the member to read the original provision. That is precisely what it does and repealing it runs contrary to the expectations of the community. Members on this side of the Chamber take the community very very seriously. That side of the House is used to doing the opposite and no doubt will continue to do so.