Prasad Rajen: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Prasad Rajen: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6495] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I was listening very very hard to what the Minister in the chair John Carter was saying a little earlier and I was wondering how he would design a car. I suspect that Mr Carter would perhaps design the steering wheel first and say that he has the steering wheel. Having done that he might have stage two where he might decide what the body of the car might look like and he then would take another 6 months to decide on the body. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. This cross-exchange here has nothing to do with the member speaking. I ask those members to show courtesy to the member speaking. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. A very controversial point about the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill is the entitlement of Maori to be represented in the system of governance. I have challenged a member on the other side of the Chamber— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you Mr Jones. You brought that up when you were speaking and there will other opportunities to take further calls. I ask you to respect Dr Rajen Prasad. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Then Mr Carter would wonder what kind of engine would be required at stage three and he would then set about designing an engine. In the end he would have a dog’s body. When Mr Carter talks about this legislation being well designed—that we will have stage one stage two and stage three—and somehow expects at the end of it that some logic will emerge he is defying logic and good science. 
I think that anybody who designs such a major constitutional change ought to accept the responsibility and the National Government ought to internalise its responsibility to really give a much broader sense of where all the parts would fit so we could at any one point look at the whole thing at the same time. I think that is a responsibility the Government has failed in so we now have to do stage two of the reforms and come back in a few months’ time to do stage three. We are promised that in stage three all these problems will be solved. It will be too late by then because some of the problems of stage three are being enshrined in stage two in this particular legislation right now. I think that is a silly way of designing social policy and designing such a major constitutional change. 
I will talk about community boards for a minute. When the Government came up with its idea that there would be 20 to 30 boards the range of that figure immediately reflects to anybody listening hard enough that the Government does not know how many boards there will be. It is a guess at the moment. There is no logic or science to that. 
Nikki Kaye 
: You’ve got a range of 40 to 50. How is that different from your range? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Nikki Kaye can say for as long as she likes that we accepted the unitary authority but we do not accept it at any price. The member has been talking about that today but this is different. One looks for the logic of 20 to 30 boards as I am sure my colleagues are looking. What is the logic? There is none and there was none. The logic we applied to the number of community boards as has just been explained by Mr Twyford is viable. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Which is what? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: What is viable? I am telling the member now; it is the logic behind the decisions we have made and what we will support. Communities and their interests are important and we should not chop them up. We can find a way for them to maintain as much of that as possible. That is the logic that leads us to say that we do not take west Auckland and chop it up so that we may have 30 boards. There is nothing illogical about what we are saying. We are saying quite clearly that there is a lot that is illogical about this bill. We have been taking it and deconstructing it limb by limb all day and we will do it all night all of next week and all of the week after if we need to. 
This bill is important. It is about the city we love the city where our children have grown up and where our grandchildren will grow up. It is important for us. One can see quite clearly that when it comes to representation the process and the range of decisions there is a lack of logic around the whole thing. The same applies when we look at the role of the community boards. This worries me a great deal because this will be the tier that will be closest to our families and to those for whom a particular locality is very special. They ought to be involved in the fundamental decisions that have to be made. We are not talking about not taking out those things that have to be centrally organised. Under the current system the boards do not have enough power. If we read clause 13D(2)(b)(i) (ii) and (iii) we see that therein lies the constraints on the board.