Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3)

Prior to the dinner break I was reflecting on the fact that it did not take very long at all for members in this House to be back debating and looking through proposed amendments to the Local Government Act that was passed in this House just 2 short years ago. I emphasise again that we debated that bill at real length at that time, and we came to the conclusion that we would be back in a very short space of time. Well, here we are, yet again. As Dr Nick Smith pointed out at some considerable length during his speech, we decide in haste in this Chamber, and we repent at the taxpayer’s and ratepayer’s leisure. We regret that we have to come back and debate this bill yet again, but nevertheless that is necessary in order to tidy up the cracks in the legislation and the mess that has been achieved.

The Business Committee and all parties have decided to vote in favour of this bill. It is an omnibus bill, but a number of issues still need looking at in some real depth. One of the great problems that the taxpayer and ratepayer of this country face is the cost structure that these bills impose, and that this House—or this Government, to be more precise—seems to impose on them ad nauseam. That is one of the great concerns. I personally have had people coming up to me and ringing me and asking, in relation to the costs that are being imposed, when enough is enough. We have the powers of general competence that were given to local government just 2 short years ago, and the cost structures are mounting already. Something like an 8 or 9 percent cost structure over and above the rate of inflation has been imposed on the ratepaying community, and that is not something we can blame the local councils for. It is an imposition by central government on local government. It is a requirement of this Labour Government, which directs local government to achieve this or that aim. And the power of general competence gives councils the ability virtually to do whatever they will. As we said 2 years ago, that is of huge concern to businesses, farmers, and ratepayers, whoever they may be. The Government ignored their entreaties at the time, and carried on. I suggest that this is an appropriate time to readdress some of those issues and some of the cost.

With regard to the power of general competence, I have certainly wished we could legislate to give this Government the power of competence. It is not competent when it comes to deciding what we can and should do for business and the productive sector of this country. It does not seem to understand that to impose costs takes out that sector’s profitability, and takes out the ability for this country to excel and to grow. It is not Governments, and it is not councils, that will determine that. The private sector will determine that, but if the private sector is constantly whacked with cost increases coming at it from all directions, from central government as well as local government, it makes matters extremely difficult for that sector.

Another problem in the legislation is, to use the old phrase, the paralysis by analysis that is happening in New Zealand—the consultative process that the Government has imposed upon everybody seeking to do anything these days. I note that the words “special order” in the legislation have been replaced with the words “special consultative procedure”. Those are weasel words, if ever I have heard them. I know what a special order is: it is an imposition from the Government or from the council. But what about the phrase “special consultative procedure’? I can only suggest that the paralysis that has gripped this country in recent years is causing us huge angst. It is also worth reflecting on the fact that no substantial industry has been created since the passing of the Resource Management Act, which is administered by local government. That is purely because of the hugely costly paralysis by analysis that, as I said, permeates the entire country. The words “special consultative procedure” are a sham. Councils all over this country have told me that they have to go through that process before they impose what they were going to do in the first place. If there was a special consultative process and it was genuine, that would not be so bad, but we all know it is a sort of nod, nod, wink, wink situation. We all know that local bodies do impose what they were going to do in the first place, and this thing called a special consultative procedure is nothing more, as I said earlier, than weasel words. We know that exactly the same result will occur as would have occurred if there had been no special consultative procedure.

The changes that are required to the Dog Control Act are interesting, also. As a farmer, I tell members there is a very, very simple way of controlling dogs. If farmers see one on their property, they shoot it. It does not last very long, so there are very few problems on farms with regard to wandering dogs. They are put down very, very quickly.

💬 Jim Peters: Twenty-four in 3 months.

Well is that so? That illustrates the point. But it makes individual dog owners, in our region anyway, hugely responsible. They train their dogs properly and do not let them roam willy-nilly. They exercise their dogs, but they do not let them roam. They train them properly, and that is the way it should be.

I am not suggesting that we have dog rangers go around the country with rifles and shoot dogs in the main streets of Auckland, Wellington, or wherever else there may be a problem, but we do not need legislation as much as we need dog owners to be far more responsible. The people who are the real problems, such as members of Black Power, of the Mongrel Mob, and of the other gangs that often have many of the pit bull terriers, will not take a blind bit of notice of this legislation—not one little bit. I find it quite extraordinary that in this country we now need a licence, because in order to own a dog in the first place a person becomes a probationary dog owner. What an extraordinary thing that is. We can bring children into the world without any restrictions or requirements, but we need a licence to own a dog, and we become a probationary dog owner. I think that is an absolute nonsense. It is reflective of the time that is totally wasted in this House on ridiculous, politically correct nonsense in terms of the consultation issue.

We will, reluctantly, support the passage of this bill, as has been indicated, but I emphasise that it is with some reluctance that we are doing so.

I rise in support of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3). It is an omnibus bill that amends a number of Acts. However, in my view there are no significant changes of policy and it remains a relatively uncontroversial bill. I will therefore not take up too much of the House’s time on this matter.

The bill first makes changes to the Dog Control Act 1996, and I will begin by noting that it was only late last year that the House amended this Act. It is therefore disappointing that here we are in April, already having to tidy up a whole lot of mistakes created by our last bout of interference. It is disappointing that the Minister is unable to get his officials to produce law that will not take up the House’s time for at least a couple of years after its enactment. In this case there appears to be no other reason for the changes except that “Oops, we mucked up and forgot to put these things in last time, but, now that we have discovered them, we desperately need to do something about this.” But United Future, being the party of common sense that is committed to stable government, is therefore happy to help the Government out on this one. There are some worthwhile amendments, and I will now take a moment to dwell on a few of them.

Firstly, the last time around we neglected to make it an offence to fail to undertake a dog education or obedience course if a person is so ordered following his or her classification as a probationary dog owner. Obviously if someone has been classified as a probationary dog owner there is a reason for it. Either an incident has occurred involving the person’s dog, which may have led to harm, or the owner has been shown to be neglectful in the ownership of a dog. However it was that these people came to find themselves in need of further education on dog ownership, they need to be compelled to undertake such a course. To not do so would not only be a blatant flouting of the rule of law, but it would also turn these rules we have into a farce. We have them for a reason: to protect the public and maintain safety, as well as for the good of the dogs themselves. In any event, to be ordered to brush up on one’s dogs skills, and then to be allowed to ignore such an order, is unacceptable, and it needs to be an offence to ignore it.

It also appears that while the fine for this offence upon summary conviction is put at the hefty figure of $3,000, there is no discretion for a dog control officer to issue an instant fine of a lesser amount—a remedy that would save the courts and everyone else a lot of time, I am sure. Although we will seek further clarification of this matter, it is an amendment that we will be looking to add while this bill is before the select committee. I think the instant fine system just makes life a lot simpler.

There is another amendment to the Dog Control Act that I will also comment on, and it relates to the instalment of the power for the recapture of dogs that are unlawfully free. This amazes me because I am unable to comprehend why, exactly, this is expressed in legislation. Is there a huge problem with renegade owners unlawfully springing their offending dogs from the doggy jail? Is there an elaborate canine network of dogs working to free one another from the pound? I think not, and it would seem very strange if this indeed were the case. The only other alternative that springs to mind is that the dogs are being deliberately let out prior to their intended or lawful release. In this circumstance one is bound to ask about the competence of dog pound management and those who handle the cases of impounded and dangerous dogs. Should we really have to legislate for their incompetence? My message would be simple: get it right the first time around so that Parliament can stop wasting its time on such matters.

The bill also deals with the Local Electoral Act 2001. In particular it provides for the election of our near cousins—the local body politicians. Specifically clause 28 of this bill amends section 57B of the principal Act. At present, section 57B prohibits a person from being a candidate for election in more than one ward or constituency of the same local authority at the same election, and rightfully so. We cannot have some local tyrant taking over the entire council. The amendment contained in this bill clarifies that the prohibition created by section 57B does not apply to a person who is a candidate for election as a member of a ward and as mayor of the territorial authority of which that ward forms part.

Aside from avoiding a disaster at the up and coming local body elections, might I say that it is hard enough to get good people interested in running in local body elections and interested in local authorities generally. It would therefore be a massive shame if we were to have a law that effectively ditched the worthy and experienced councillors we do have—who, incidentally, form the bulk of the pool of candidates who run for mayor—because they decided to stretch for a higher position. What a tragedy it would be if such hard-to-come-by individuals were given the heave-ho because of a drafting error in local electoral law. We are therefore pleased to support this particular aspect of the bill. The Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) is a worthy bill amending a number of pieces of useful legislation. United Future is pleased to support it to a select committee for hearing and I commend it to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Honourable members, just before I call the next member I will say that during the honourable Paul Adams’ speech a cellphone rang. It is a distraction, it is not necessary during debate in the Chamber, and I urge members to show restraint and good manners. It is discourteous to the House and all of those in it and is out of order. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 16/2.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I must admit that I have been guilty of this myself, but I think you may have cast aspersions on every member here. Maybe if one knew who the offender was, one should name him or her rather than accuse, in a general way, all MPs of having their cellphones go off.

I must fess up and say that it was my cellphone and I am going to make sure it is turned off. I am sorry about that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that if that happens at a select committee, the member has to shout morning tea.

In our caucus it is a $100 fine. Could he pay a cheque to each of the parties, perhaps?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Carter.

I support the bill.

It is an omnibus bill, and as it is widely supported I am not going to speak at great length. But having come out of local government, there are some questions I put on any piece of legislation regarding local government; first, whether it addresses some of the commonly expressed concerns in my community. Among those would be: does it undermine democracy? I do not think it does. There are a number of bits of this bill that in fact enhance democracy. The one that says the chair does not have a casting vote is one of those. The members of the committee will have to go back and talk about the issue until they can come to a decision. That is good for consensus, and I think that that is a plus.

The introduction of the single transferable vote, (STV), as an alternative to first past the post, is again a real plus, and having been one of those who tried to bring it into my own community and failed—sadly—I am hopeful that those communities that did manage to get it will talk loudly to the rest of the country about how successful it is and how it makes the process of voting for local authorities a simpler one. It takes the guesswork out of it. If anybody wants to see how STV works, they have only to look at Part 3 of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) and that will point it out to them.

Part 1 effectively turns the Chatham Islands into a unitary council. Obviously, if they do not have a regional council or any body performing regional council functions, that is an option. It is not my favourite, because coming from Nelson I live with a unitary council and, as others have put it before me, it is like being poacher and gamekeeper. To be the “poacher”, a local authority is a user of resources and has an impact, by its activities, on the environment. As well as that, to be the “gamekeeper”, the one supposed to look after it, is a conflict of interest, I think. But I am sure the people on the Chatham Islands have been looking after their islands for a while now, and will do that in no worse a way than before. Hopefully, this part of the bill will mean that they are a little more careful over the environmental obligations that regional council obligations will impose upon them.

Part 2, dealing with the Dog Control Act, is tidying up anomalies, as has been said before. We have debated that at length, and this part simply spells out what is required. It was legislation the community was asking for. It does not do a great deal more than the previous dog control legislation, but it does give a little more muscle to local authorities.

I have one last issue. We hear regularly from local authorities that frequently they find it an imposition, and a financial imposition, when Parliament passes legislation that imposes activities and the management of that legislation on to them. That has been a major cost to many local communities. Having said that, I think it is entirely appropriate that local government is the place for local decisions to be made. So I think that that is totally reasonable, and support the legislation, generally, because of that.

There are other bits in the bill that perhaps raise one or two questions, such as the fact that local authorities will be able to debate more serious issues without those issues being on their agendas. I think the select committee needs to look very closely at that issue and make sure that safeguards are in place to ensure that that is only done sparingly. Apart from that, the bill is tidying up some loose ends, and the Greens will support it.

I rise to speak to the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) and also to express the concern that has been expressed by most in this House who have spoken thus far on the bill—that so many pieces of legislation are being amended within such a short time of their enactment. There are actually six Acts in total being affected by these amendments. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the legislative guidelines, and refer to the recommendations in those guidelines with regard to preparing good legislation: “High-quality legislation is legislation that endures.” Well, some of these provisions have endured for only 2 years, so one could not regard them as high-quality legislation. “High-quality legislation is also legislation that does not need frequent amending.” Indeed, again, these are amendments to Acts that have been in force for only a couple of years.

So there we have guidelines that state time and care should be taken in developing policy and creating the legislation for that policy, and that a realistic timetable should also be allowed for the drafting of that legislation. There has been concern about how some of this legislation has been rushed through the process towards enactment.

I would like to comment on the different aspects of this local government law reform bill. Firstly, I presume that the amendments to the Chatham Islands Council Act were forgotten in the drafting of the principal Act. Then we come to Part 2, which amends the Dog Control Act. In the principal Act, the word “property” was used instead of the words “land or premises”. An amendment now corrects that, in line with the principal Act, and is repeated in clause 7(2).

In clause 8 there is not much change, but that clause amends section 21 of the principal Act because of changes to section 25. That is about territorial authorities classifying persons as probationary owners under Section 21.

There are a number of typos throughout this amendment bill. I express concern about the fact that those were not picked up during the original process. There is a quite substantial, new section in the bill. We went through a huge process, a very intense emotional process, for those dog control provisions. There was a lot of participation by people who were seriously affected by attacks from dogs, and the whole of clause 10 is about penalties being put into the principal Act that have been left out. So how is it, that with that huge concern over dog attacks, etc., the penalty provisions were left out of the original Act? In my mind, that is a huge oversight in the drafting of the original legislation and its enactment. Nobody, not even the Minister, spotted that omission. So under clause 10 are all those penalties that are a new addition to the Act. There is a $3,000 fine for those failing to comply with the requirements of this dog control legislation, which is one of the major amendments with regard to the Dog Control Act.

Another amendment is in relation to working dogs. The provision in the principal Act applies to the owner of a working dog, and clause 16 clarifies that the provision is “in relation to the working dog” and not in relation to the various pets that might be owned by somebody who has both working dogs and perhaps a pet chihuahua. Clause 16 is making sure the distinction is there so that owners are not excluded for their chihuahua, but are exempted because of the working dog. However, they could be exempted because of the Doberman that, if a guard dog, could be classified as a working dog. Its occupation is a guard dog, and, as such, the dog has a working role. I should know, because we have one. I would class it as a working dog, and so I would not see that dog as needing to be muzzled.

I see further typos in clause 17. I presume that clause 17(2) contains a typo. There is a big typo in clause 18, where the word “registered” has been put in, which means that law-abiding persons do not have the options of a first-time offender for transgressions of their dogs that have just happened to be picked up walking along the street. I think that that is a significant amendment, and one that would be welcomed.

Most of section 72A inserted by clause 19 is new, and I wonder whether there is a typo there already, in those new provisions. But on the whole it is interesting to look at some of the penalties. One is up by $600, and there are two new different penalty regimes of $300 each.

We then come to the Local Electoral Act, and this has had some significant changes. We are facing an election this year in only a few months’ time. I know from my local authority that it will be a single transferable vote election (STV) for both the local authority and for the district health board. We have here some significant amendments, and I have not gone through the detail of these amendments, but looking at them I see they are quite substantial. I am absolutely aghast that we have amendments to this degree on such a serious issue as our electoral system and the manner in which people will vote, and use the democratic process in just a few months’ time. These amendments are quite significant. The Minister is working on the assumption that we will get this through in time to meet the shortfall of the existing Act and addressing some of the necessary items for our electoral system. I do not know how many other councils are affected by STV processes, but, certainly, the district health board is also, as is our council in Coromandel.

💬 Jim Peters: Seven!

My learned colleague Jim Peters advises me that seven councils will be affected by this, so very definitely the amendments are absolutely vital to make sure that processes run smoothly. After all, if they do not, who will pick up the tab? It will be the ratepayers. What will they do? They will have to redo their processes. That would be an unconscionable burden on the ratepayers.

The Local Government Act 2002 also has some substantial amendments. I see the first one is a change from “organisation” to “entity”. I recall Jim Peters referring to that during his speech on this bill. If members look at clause 42 they will see that it is largely new.

In closing, one of the things I would like to refer to is the casting vote. I note the comments of Mike Ward from the Greens. The casting vote is absolutely necessary. If we get to the point where the decision is hung and it is based on finances to do with the council, the Standing Orders mean that we cannot revisit that decision within 6 months after the decision has been made. That is a general part of the Standing Orders. There can be situations where it is absolutely necessary that we have the ability to put a casting vote. The provision could have been made that we allowed councils to adopt that option as an addition to the Standing Orders. We could have allowed the option of a democratic process by which councils made that choice for themselves, instead of being guided by the Greens—being colour blind yet again with regard to the Greens and not really considering the situation—and allowing councils to make those choices for themselves if they did not find themselves in an untenable position. Hopefully, this matter will be addressed much more succinctly through this rather significant collection of amendments to six different pieces of legislation, which we find appalling but which we will support, none the less.

The Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) is an outstanding example of the legislator’s craft. It is brilliantly crafted by an outstanding Minister of Local Government, Chris Carter, and I have no hesitation in supporting it absolutely.

We cannot even call that a whip’s speech, because the member is not now a whip. To suggest that this is outstanding legislation is nearly as funny as the foreshore and seabed legislation. The reason why we are here is that this bill is correcting a whole lot of mistakes that were made by this Government when the bill was put through the House not so long ago. To be fair to Minister Chris Carter, I do not think that he has denied or tried to duck the fact that there are mistakes. To be fair to him he has not stood up here and said that it was not his fault, which is unusual.

“Swainy” does that; “Swainy” blames everybody else.

Minister Swain does, but I have not heard the Minister of Local Government try to duck the responsibility. It is worthwhile putting on the record that we are here. How long is it since the bill was put through?

💬 Sandra Goudie: A couple of years?

Was it not even less than that?

💬 Sandra Goudie: Dog control was last year.

Yes, the dog control legislation was last year, and I think the rating bill was just before the last election. Here we are dealing with a bill that corrects a whole lot of mistakes that have been made over the last 6, 12, and 15 months. Quite honestly, why should we be surprised? This is the standard of administration that this Government sets itself. Indeed, it is becoming more and more reflective of the standards the Government sets. Quite honestly, the public are starting to say: “Enough.” Indeed, it is starting to get to the stage where the public are saying that they want a group of people who are responsible, who can put through good legislation, and who make sure that the legislation before them is correct. We will not then have to go back and correct a whole lot of the bills that are before us.

I want to come to one or two issues in particular that are dealt with in this bill. In relation to the Local Government (Rating) Act, I am sure that most members of Parliament have got to the stage where we have been as frustrated as, indeed, have many members of the public of New Zealand in trying to get information out of local government. It is not local government’s fault. The legislation prevented the public from obtaining information from the local authority. We debated this bill when Sandra Lee was the Minister in charge of the particular part of this bill that we are now correcting. I remember arguing and debating whether this would be an end result—whether it might prevent people from having access to the records of local authorities so that they could find out names and addresses; the stuff that historically we have been able to do for—

Like the member’s mother does.

I think mum has got to the stage where she will get one of her sons to look after it now. Nevertheless, this has been something that people in New Zealand have done forever. It is part of what we are. All of sudden it was stopped. It was a mistake. It was pointed out to the Government that it was a mistake. And what did the Government do? It was not interested. We told the Government that we would probably have to come back and put legislation through. I hate to say: “I told you so.” It is a fact of life, and here we are correcting it.

This is an important thing for people to be able to get information on. If they want to know about a property they should be able to go to the local authority, obtain the name, address, and so on of the people who own it and have some interest in it. They have had to go through all sorts of machinations, arm wrestles, and all sorts of different systems to jolly well get the information they needed. The consequence is that we have to put this bill through to correct it. We should never have had to deal with it in the way we are tonight.

The second thing I want to talk about is the meeting issue and the casting vote. That will generate some interest. It is one of those fifty-fifty issues—that is, does one permit it, or does one not permit it? In our Parliament the convention is that a draw is a loss, and the status quo remains. If we do not have the numbers, legislation does not get through. It is as simple as that. We have had the occasion where we had a draw, but with one abstention, and that got the legislation through.

💬 Hon Member: Which legislation was that?

It was the prostitution legislation.

Who abstained?

I am trying to remember. It was Mr Choudhary who abstained. We really did have a draw.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member please call the member by his full name.

I would, but I think I would be pulled up for the fact that I did not pronounce it correctly, so it is probably better if I do not try. I do not want to embarrass him, or me for that matter. So let us just say that it was a member, whose name is well known, who decided to abstain from voting, which was rather unfortunate. But the point I am making is that the Standing Orders of our Parliament state that if a party does not get the majority it does not get the legislation through.

It has been the practice in local government that the mayor or the chairperson of the local authority, the committee, or whatever, has a casting vote. But, of course, at the moment there is now debate around whether that should remain. It will be interesting to see how we handle that. My understanding is that the bill provides for a casting vote—

No, it does not.

That is right, but there is representation to say that there should be a casting vote. It is an interesting debate—it is the sort of matter that should go before a select committee. There are some good reasons why a casting vote should be permitted, but there are also some good reasons why it should not. It will be one of those interesting issues on which I am sure there will be lots of submissions. My understanding is that local government is fifty-fifty on it.

💬 Pansy Wong: Do they have a casting vote?

No, that is the problem. If we asked local authorities we would probably have to end up with a casting vote, and they cannot have one, so we would not know who was on which side. But having said that, I think it is an issue that will certainly generate some submissions, and we will watch that with some interest.

I want to finish where I started by saying that the National Party is supporting this bill to select committee because there are issues that do need to be addressed, and should be addressed. But we should not be addressing them here tonight, for the very reason that too often we get to the stage of correcting legislation that has been mucked up by this Government, and it is not good enough. It costs the taxpayers of this country too much for us to have to bring legislation like this before the House. It is not as though this country is flush with money, although we know that the Government is sticking some away in its piggy bank so that it can do its best to influence some outcomes a bit later on when the Budget arrives—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Post-election bribes!

Well, I am not sure whether that is parliamentary, so we will not go there; we will save all that for the Budget. But the point I am making is, nevertheless, we do not need to waste taxpayers’ money on this sort of legislation.

If the Government had considered the legislation and taken the Opposition’s advice, which was given to it at the time, quite honestly we would not be here tonight debating this. People would not have had to put up with another 10 minutes of me making a contribution to the Parliament, and a lot of people will be wondering why I have made a contribution. But I am pleased I have. This law does need to go through. I want to express again the disappointing fact that we are correcting mistakes in legislation that the Government had put through in the past. It is most unfortunate. Let us hope it does not happen again.

I rise in support of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3). The previous speaker is right. There are a good number of issues in this bill that need to be changed quickly, particularly with local government elections coming up, and I am glad that he is going to support the bill and facilitate its speedy passage through the House.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Brownlee.

Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just want to say there are no speaking slots left, if the member is seeking to speak.

You have called me. [Interruption] No, no—I said: “Mr Speaker”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is not possible for me to give the member a call, unless it is a point of order. All opportunities have been used.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I do appreciate your gentle manner in letting me down. It is just sad that on day when local Government is being disenfranchised—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

—by the Government’s proposals over the seabed and foreshore—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Brownlee—

—that I cannot make a contribution.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am on my feet.

Bill read a first time.

I move, That the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for consideration, that the committee report the bill by 14 June 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 191, 193(a) and 194(1)(b) and (c).

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the detail that the Minister went through in moving the motion. But it was a machinery motion telling us of the time that he wished the bill to be reported, and the days on which the committee could sit. I wonder whether the Minister might also give us a reason as to why the time needs to be shortened, because it may influence how we vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That can only be done by leave.

I seek leave, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

As I explained in my opening address on this bill, there is some urgency because of the commitment that the Government has given to Local Government New Zealand, particularly on the issue of whether people can stand as mayors and ward councillors at the same time. This is something that local government feels very strongly about, and we are keen to allow that to happen, and this will clarify the issue.

Motion agreed to.