Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3)

I move, That the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to further ensure that the legislative framework in which local government operates is as comprehensive and clear as possible. The bill seeks to clarify and address a range of issues relating to local government legislation that are mostly technical in their nature. The reported-back bill achieves that aim, and deals with several additional issues raised in submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Since taking office, the Government has introduced a comprehensive package of legislative reforms, to bring New Zealand’s system of local government into the 21st century. We have delivered new local government legislation that is modern, innovative, and flexible. The package has included the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Electoral Act, and the Local Government (Rating) Act. As with any major legislative change, it is not unusual that some minor issues have arisen that need to be addressed. That fine-tuning will provide more certainty and clarity for councils, as they administer and work within the legislation to be amended by this bill. It will also provide communities with greater certainty in their dealings with their local authorities.

I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work put in by the Local Government and Environment Committee in meeting the tight timetable it had for its consideration of this bill, and to acknowledge my officials who worked so hard on it. The time frame was driven by one provision of the bill: a clarification of the right of a candidate to be able to stand for the positions of both mayor and ward councillor in the same territorial authority election. That right needs to be clarified before 23 July 2004, the opening date for nominations for this October’s local authority elections.

Over 40 submissions were received on the bill. The majority, as expected, came from local government, and I would like to thank the sector for its participation. There was widespread support from the sector for the intent of the bill, and for many of its specific provisions. However, there were some issues that councils raised about the bill’s provisions and some new issues that councils wanted the committee to consider. Recognising the value of the submissions, the select committee has responded by recommending some changes to the original bill. I would like to take this opportunity to outline some of those changes.

In respect of the Dog Control Act, adjustments are recommended to some of the infringement offences and fees, to provide greater consistency in the level of fees for like offences. Reductions are recommended for some fees in response to submissions that argued that while the fees are intended to give a strong message about the public’s expectations about the control of dogs, in some cases the fees are difficult to use effectively. The committee has also recommended that provision be made for the national dog control database to contain dog control – related data over and above that which councils are required to provide.

In respect of the Local Government Act, the committee received a number of submissions on the issue of the removal of the casting vote. The vast majority of those opposed its removal, and strongly urged the reinstatement of that tool for helping to ensure efficient local authority meeting processes. The committee recognised the practical difficulties that might arise from the absence of a casting vote, and recommended its reinstatement in limited circumstances. On further reflection, the Government believes that local authorities should have the discretion to provide in their own standing orders for a casting vote in any circumstances where there is an equality of votes. I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect, and also be including other technical drafting improvements during the Committee stage of this bill.

Subsidiaries of port companies are currently exempt from the definition of a council-controlled organisation. The committee has recommended extending that exemption to companies that are 50 percent or more owned by a port company. Also in respect of the Local Government Act, the committee has recommended a new clause to repeal the current prohibition on the delegation of a council’s power to warrant enforcement officers. That recommendation aims to overcome the practical difficulties being experienced by some councils having to wait up to 6 weeks for meetings, before a warrant can be issued.

In respect of the Local Government (Rating) Act, the committee has recommended that a new clause be added to make owners’ names and addresses held on a local authority’s rating information database available to the public under certain conditions. In order to protect privacy, a provision is recommended to allow the owner to have his or her name and postal address removed from the copy of the rating information database that is to be made publicly available.

Some councils raised issues that the committee felt were not appropriate for this bill, but would be better considered in the impending review of the new local government legislation. I endorse the committee’s view on those matters. The Local Government Commission is to undertake a review of the Local Government Act and the Local Electoral Act following the local authority elections in 2007. The committee also noted that the commission must report to the Minister of Local Government in July 2005 on any legislative amendments it considers are needed before the 2007 local authority elections.

As I mentioned earlier, it is highly desirable that this bill be enacted before 23 July, because of the one provision in it that will impact on the forthcoming local authority elections. I hope MPs will keep that in mind in the ensuing debate.

What the Minister did not acknowledge in his second reading speech is that this bill is really the “Fix Up the Chris Carter Botch-up Bill”. The provisions in respect of changing the Local Government Act and the Dog Control Act all arise because the Minister rushed through legislation under urgency—

💬 John Carter: He’s doing it again.

He is doing it again—and got it wrong, and now Parliament has to fix up his errors. What is particularly frustrating—[Interruption] Well, in the Minister’s case he does not have any to do so—is that the Opposition parties warned the Minister at the time that the legislation was in difficulty. He ignored that advice, and has taken us down this road of now being in urgency and having to pass patch-up legislation.

The first of the provisions is in respect of the Local Government Act and the Local Electoral Act. The botch-up was that the Minister’s legislation inadvertently prevented a councillor from being able to stand both as mayor and as a councillor in a council ward. National was of the view that a councillor should be able to do that, and to let the voters decide. We have always held that view, and our only question is why the Minister got it wrong on the first occasion.

The second thing we wish to make plain is that National firmly opposes Chris Carter’s view that every dog in New Zealand should be microchipped. It was a silly idea that he put in the original dog control legislation. It is still a silly idea and it is sad that the Government has chosen not to revisit it, despite the number of submissions from councils around the country stating that it is a dopey idea. I find it ironic that the Minister stands in the House and says that this legislation is all about councils being allowed to manage themselves, about the legislation not being prescriptive, and about councils having the power of general competence. There is all that sort of rhetoric, but then he says he will prescribe that every dog in New Zealand will be microchipped and, even worse, that we in this Parliament and on the select committee have to prescribe the individual fines for dog owners in respect of individual offences. The Minister is quite correct in saying we did receive submissions that the fines he put in his original legislation did not work. But the question I want to ask the Minister is this: why is he any more confident that we have got it right now? Why does he not trust councils—communities’ own elected representatives—to determine the fines? Is it not more simple for Parliament to say to the councils that they can prescribe a fine up to $1,000, and can sort out the rates of appropriate fines for offences committed at different reserves in their communities. I think that would work far better than what is proposed.

I also want to tackle the Minister with regard to the way he is wrecking local representation in rural communities. In the Local Government Act 2002, the Minister insisted that there be a narrow plus or minus 10 percent variation in determining the boundaries of wards. The Local Government and Environment Committee received many submissions from people who were concerned that that would not work and would disadvantage communities like the Wairarapa, the Waitaki, Tasman, and the Rangitīkei. [Interruption] The member for Wairarapa does not even listen to her own constituents. She is so occupied with meeting every politically correct cause that she has forgotten about representing the people of the Wairarapa. I say exactly the same thing about the member for Otago, who ignored the submissions of the Waimate District Council, that that provision in the Act does not work because it cuts across community boundaries.

I have visited many councils. I have gone to council after council—[Interruption] Well, the member for Otaki pokes his head up. Has he bothered to listen to the council in his own area, which raised that serious deficiency in the Minister’s legislation with me? The council in that member’s community pleaded with me, when I visited it, to advance changes to that particular provision. But that member is more interested in following the instructions of the Minister than in representing the community on the coast north of Wellington. The provision in the Act is so narrow that it cuts across communities of interest and rural communities.

💬 Jill Pettis: He’s the one who beat Roger by 8,000 votes.

What is that screeching from the member for Whanganui?

💬 Jill Pettis: I said he’s the one who beat Roger what’s-his-name by 8,000 votes.

💬 Government Member: Sowry.

But why does he not do his job? That is the point. Why does the member not get on his feet and represent—[Interruption] Well, I have to say this. Roger Sowry supports the changes that his community wants, which are for the ward boundaries—

💬 Government Member: He’s a list MP.

The member from the Kapiti coast is such a hopeless member that he ignores the wishes of his own community in respect of wards, so Roger Sowry has to do the job for him. I forget the member’s name, as members hear so little from him. I would like him to get to his feet, defend his own community, and explain why he thinks the ward boundaries of his local council should be cut across, rather than Parliament provide provisions that work for communities.

The reality is that Labour does not give a stuff for rural communities. Those members do not want to see communities in those areas represented around the council table. They are interested only in their party hacks being on councils, so they have ignored the wishes of communities all over New Zealand that want to see those provisions changed. I give notice now to the Minister—and it will be a test of that member, as to whether he will vote for these amendments—that we will be moving amendments to make provision for communities of interest to get greater recognition in respect of the development of ward boundaries.

The last point I want to make is with regard to the issue of rating database information. Again, the Minister messed it up. His legislation in 2002 resulted in all the rating records from around New Zealand suddenly becoming private information. He goofed, he got it wrong, and again, the select committee has had to fix up his mistake. I think the committee has done a good job of finding an appropriate balance between the practical necessity for people to be able to obtain the names of the owners of adjacent properties, while at the same time allowing a limited mechanism for those owners who want privacy. I think we ended up with—this is so typical of this Minister—politically correct legislation overridden by the need for privacy. I have to ask the Minister why we passed a law in his name just 2 years ago, banning citizens from having the right to get rating information on the ownership of properties.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: No, not under my name—Sandra Lee’s.

The Minister says it was all Sandra Lee’s fault. Well, I looked at the record, and I noticed that National members voted against that measure, and Chris Carter voted for it. So it was all Sandra Lee’s fault!

💬 Darren Hughes: What did the High Court say about it?

The truth is the Minister got it wrong; he made a mistake. Now the member for Otaki pipes up. He is interested in what the High Court said. Today, the Government—

💬 Darren Hughes: What did the High Court say about this matter?

It said it was really interesting that every party in this Parliament has signed up to the changes that I advocated within the Family Court. I am very proud of that, and I say to that Government member that I hope he is able to advance some changes, rather than make his smart-arse comments—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member risks having his speech terminated, with a comment like that. He knows that was out of order. He will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why is it possible that I can have comments made about my haircut and all sorts of issues raised in interjections that are totally irrelevant to the bill, and you sit there doing nothing, but the moment I respond you pull me up?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I have allowed a certain amount of interjection. The member is prone to interject frequently from his seat. I thought he liked it, and I thought he was scoring quite well. I did not actually think he was losing on the deal. If people interject, they run the risk of being replied to.

This bill, as I have repeatedly stated, is the “Fix Up Chris Carter’s Mess Bill”. The Minister passed the Local Government Act under urgency. Large portions of it now have to be amended. The dog control provisions and the rating information provisions have to be rehashed. Also, the local government election provisions have to be rewritten. Members on the Opposition side of the House are getting tired of incompetent Ministers who cannot get their legislation right, and who then expect this Parliament to fix up those messes under urgency.

I think it is time we had a change, and had a Minister of Local Government who is up to the job.

What a performance! The less and least said, the better. Unlike the multi-Minister display that there has been in local government over the previous 9 years—and as interesting as that may sound, I did have quite a bit of affection for Mr Banks—this is a very good Minister. I compliment this Minister, and I think this bill has proved that he is listening to local government.

Under this Government, local government, for the first time in a long time, actually feels listened to. Tick the box for the local government prime ministerial summit that is held during the year. Tick the box for the on-the-record compliments that the president and vice-president of Local Government New Zealand pay this Government. We have a really good local government leader in Basil Morrison—not some way-out left-winger, Dr Smith, but a very sound, excellent mayor from Hauraki. He is quite a conservative fellow, but very complimentary about this Government—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: A good man.

—and a very good man. He is full of praise for this Government.

There are two issues I want to deal with quickly in the time available. I look forward to being part of the Local Government and Environment Committee debate around electoral tolerance—the plus or minus 10 percent factor. In simple maths, all that means is that even under the 10 percent some communities can effectively be 20 percent worse off in terms of the vote. One has to work out what a reasonable vote per value in terms of the numbers per ward is, as is done in the general electorates with the plus or minus 5 percent factor. It is hardly rocket science.

There are two things. Firstly, I think it is very good that councillors can also stand for mayor and councillor. I think it is very wrong to blame the Minister for that. Quite bluntly, if I were to blame anyone, it would be some officials who perhaps did not do their homework well enough. [Interruption] I am saying that as a member of Parliament, but I was in local government for a number of years before coming here, and I thought it would have been an easy thing to do. But I thank those people who pointed out the error. It was a drafting error, an error by officials. [Interruption] One can hardly blame the Minister for wording like that. It has been fixed up, so tick the box.

Secondly, the casting vote issue—tick the box on that. Basil Morrison and others spoke to me quite strongly on that issue, and I went to Chris Carter. I found Chris Carter incredibly empathetic and ready to listen. He said: “Let’s listen closely to local government.” A compliment goes to Basil Morrison, Local Government New Zealand, my own council, and others in terms of the casting vote issue.

Personally, I have always believed that the mayor is a little bit different from other councillors. I commend to all members of the House a paper by former mayor Margaret Evans around the role of mayor, which she wrote for a recent degree thesis. Albeit the mayor is technically first among equals in this country, I do strongly believe that the mayor should have a casting vote. I acknowledge that the mayor has a district-wide or city-wide mandate, and I think the casting vote at least gives effect to that.

Without further ado, I want to say that this is a good bill, and I look forward to its speedy passage. Again, it is such a pleasure to be part of a wonderful reforming Government that has given us excellent local government legislation.

What an amazing speech in defence! Just over 2 years ago, local government legislation was passed under urgency and in haste. It was said then that that legislation was not ready for publication, as it were, and the fact that we are back here again today, looking at amendments to that legislation, proves it. The Minister has not had the fortitude to face up to the fact that the local government legislation of 2002 and the amendments to the Resource Management Act passed in 2003 are not yet in harmony, and that any serious attempt to amend the legislation before us now should have been done with far greater care, much more thought, and much more deliberation, rather than his suggesting to us that he will come back at some future date with a long-term look at the legislation.

Having said that, I commend the Minister for the fact that, at long last, after some days and weeks of thought—I am not sure why it took days and weeks—common sense has prevailed with regard to the casting vote provision. The previous speaker, Mr Gallagher, said the Minister came to that understanding, and he commended him for that. Instead, I say to the Minister that there is something seriously amiss in his department if a casting vote provision introduced on the day that the legislation will be passed is the final answer, given that that was the most common-sense approach right from day one. Whether it shows a certain fortitude on the part of his ministerial officials, in a very correct manner, or whether a single individual decided somewhere in the distant past that there should be wonderful, above-the-clouds consensus at all council meetings, I am not sure, but it is plain stupid that on the last day possible we get a common-sense answer to a straightforward problem. I commend the Minister for finally arriving there. Why it took so long is beyond my understanding.

The second thing I want to raise is that in the deliberations for the 2002 legislation, I raised the issue of council-owned organisations. Specifically, I mentioned the role of port companies, because many regional councils, in particular, have a role for them. There was no understanding by the Department of Internal Affairs, although, finally, there was a dim understanding that there was an issue there. I am very pleased to say that a company that is run on the basis of, say, Northport, the Northland port corporation, which is a joint venture with the Port of Tauranga, has finally had adequate provision for its reporting requirements accepted in this bill.

The last issue I want to raise is the database. I am not quite sure why, as the Hon Nick Smith said, it took so long to reach a common understanding.

In the course of submissions, the Marlborough District Council came to us on behalf of rural councils with issues in relation to lump-sum contributions. I draw members’ attention to my proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227, and say very quickly that it is highly deserving of attention. The Marlborough District Council came to us with the support of other councils such as the Far North District Council, the Nelson City Council, the Kaikoura District Council, the Whangarei District Council, the Grey District Council—I could go on with a long list. All those councils did so because in the Local Government (Rating) Act of 2002 the rating powers in the 1988 Act were, for some reason, changed, and there seems to be no reason why that was done.

It has been the common practice of councils in the past—in particular, rural councils—to invite lump sum contributions to fund special, localised infrastructural projects. There is a known community preference for a lump-sum contribution. It is well established and common. Under the provisions of the Rating Powers Act of 1988, councils would have had the option to do that, as they had in the past, and many councils did just that. What did the legislation cover? It covered the regime for allowing it and the potential methods of calculating the contribution as a lump sum, separate rate to finance the loan or fund the work. In other words, it was an elaborate procedure to establish a very fair balance. It provided for those who wanted to pay a lump sum and those who did not wish to take up that option. It was fair and equitable. The Local Government (Rating) Act of 2002 changed that, and caused some councils great concern. Although it was intended to provide more flexible policies for lump-sum contributions, serious issues were left in the residue of the Act that needed to be resolved. Those issues were presented to the committee, and for some strange reason—I apologise to members of the committee, as I was not there that day—they were not accepted.

I raise again the issue of how transparent and clear the system outlined in the Supplementary Order Paper is. It is very clear indeed. It raises the issue of how the contribution is raised and why. The Act sets out a far more deliberate—and, unfortunately, sometimes costly—procedure for consultation. Unlike earlier days when lump-sum contributions might have earned a council resolution, contributions today for a special, localised project, even when small, are the subject of a policy with a significant threshold, and therefore is not likely to take place unless two issues are overcome—firstly, whether it is significant, and secondly, whether it has been transparently explained and understood. The explanatory note covers why this is an issue of choice. It is a choice whether councils exercise it. There is a clear indication in the Act that greater choice is one of the rationales for that Act, and this Supplementary Order Paper fits into that long-term desire of local authorities to do their best for their local communities.

With regard to the dog legislation, my party supported microchipping, and we earnestly believe it is the way of the future for all stock. I have no doubt that if I were to come back in 10 years time, I would find that it was part of an established system for tracking animals. Today, a bill was passed that dealt with that. For dairy farmers, there is a clear tracking system for the product from the shed to the consumer, and microchipping fits into that system. Dogs fit into that system as well, so I make no apologies for our stance in 2002 and 2003 in relation to that.

Secondly, councils do have discretion with regard to dog issues. As councils set their rates, I followed, through the newspapers, the contributions made by locally elected people about how the dog legislation would be administered. When we come to the Committee stage, I will give members an example of an excellent dog policy from the Waitakere area. It is working, and most councils find the legislation agreeable. We support that part of the legislation.

The Local Government Act 2002 is a huge piece of legislation, and it is not surprising that, a year and a bit afterward, there are some technical changes to make. It may seem to those who entered Parliament part-way through the year 2002 that that legislation was being rushed through, and that may be assisted by the fact that it did eventually pass under urgency in an attempt to get the House’s business through before Christmas. In fact, the select committee had been considering that bill for almost a year. There was extensive hearing of submissions, and by the time the election came, we had got a long way through it. We then did our best to help new members catch up, but I acknowledge it was quite a big job for them. However, I really do not think we can say that that Act was rushed through without proper consideration. Actually, Nick Smith was a member of that committee at the time, and, had he picked up any of these technical changes, he would have been quite free to promote them at the select committee at the time. But he did not.

The bill in front of us now is an omnibus bill that amends seven Acts. The amendments are mostly technical and non-controversial, but there are four issues that I want to raise in the House. The first one is the question of the changes to the infringement offences in the Dog Control Act, which are made in the schedule, and there has been widespread misunderstanding about this. I was quite surprised to be rung by numerous radio stations after this bill was reported back. Obviously the public has a great interest in how much one gets fined if one does not do the right thing with one’s dog. But it was unfortunate that even people like the editor of the Waikato Times saw the lessening of some of these infringement amounts as an indication that Parliament had gone soft on dog control and simply did not understand that an infringement offence applies to the lesser offences and is more in the nature of an instant fine. If one actually endangers the public seriously with one’s dog, or one seriously breaks the law, one is prosecuted and goes to court. The sentences then can be very much more severe, including substantial periods of imprisonment. I think the public did not understand that when we stated in our report back that it is silly to set infringement fines that the public cannot pay, because then the council will have to take them to court anyway. The public did not understand that there is another route open to councils, and that is to take a prosecution in the first place for offences that are more serious.

Secondly, I want to talk about the casting vote. The Greens have believed for a long time that democracy is not well served by the old approach to voting: “51 percent I win; 49 percent you lose; eat that!”. We do not think that leads to good outcomes. We do not think it leads to community acceptance of the outcome. We think it leads to constant policy change and overthrow, as a different lot of people come in and want revenge on the ones who were there beforehand. We believe that striving for a greater degree of support for new ideas is worth doing. Seeking some consensus is never going to be complete—there will always be differences of ideas—but if we cannot actually get more than 51 percent support for something, then it may mean that there is something wrong with it and we ought to discuss it further to see whether a position of agreement can be reached.

So our intention, when the Act was passed, was that the possibility of mayors having casting votes would be taken away. A loophole in the legislation allowed them to do it if they passed it under their standing orders. The intention of this bill was to close that loophole. We heard numerous submissions from councils saying how important it was to them to have a casting vote, and we found a reasonable and sensible compromise. I shifted my position enough to support the select committee view that if it were the last meeting before a statutory deadline, and there was a fifty-fifty vote in council, that deadlock would have to be resolved, and the casting vote should be available for that. So we were all happy with that outcome. What happens? Local government gets on its horse and it lobbies the Minister, and it lobbies many Ministers. It lobbies the Government, and as a result of that intensive lobbying the Government has rolled over and restored a casting vote for all matters, provided it is put in the standing orders. So I do not think the Minister, or even his colleagues, particularly believed that this casting vote is always better, but they have clearly rolled over to the local government lobby.

I think it is unfortunate that local government cannot see that it will get much better acceptance by the public that it represents if local government goes to a bit more trouble to try to get the support of more than just half of the councillors for an important measure that it is passing. So we will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister is putting forward.

The third question I want to raise is the fine line to be drawn between the privacy of the individual and reasonable access to information for the public good. The select committee spent quite a bit of time trying to resolve this one and, I think, as Nick Smith said, we got it right. I think we did a reasonable job. I think what we came up with makes good sense.

On the one hand there are people who are afraid for their safety if the whole world can find out where they live, and they do not want to have their names and addresses on the database for anyone to see. On the other hand there are people who want to be able to contact their neighbours. They may have a combined drain, sewer, or fence about which they may want to come to a cooperative solution. Those people have to be able to contact each other to work that out. So providing an opt-out provision rather than a blanket ban on publishing the information seemed to offer a good way forward. We have taken extra precautions to make sure that the information cannot be made available to people who want to use it for bulk mail-outs and other advertising that is just a nuisance and an annoyance to people. So I think we have made progress on that matter.

The final issue is the question of what is fair representation in remote and rural areas. It may be that we do need to revisit that one in the future, and I am open to doing that. The question is how we weigh up the principle of one person, one vote, and all votes count equally towards the outcome, against the question of community representation whereby communities that are quite remote and distinct from the rest of the district may have their views completely overruled by larger groupings like cities, and we have to find a way between it. The 10 percent variation in the representation areas is meant to provide that. It is possible that in some areas it may not be enough, but whether it is or it is not, it is too late for this bill to affect the situation at this election. Therefore, it seemed to us to be sensible to allow a bit more time before deciding whether to revisit it. There is a built in review period after the 2007 election, anyway. There is an optional review period after this election. Let us wait and see what sorts of decisions the Local Government Commission makes and what sorts of anomalies might occur, then look again at whether in the light of more experience we can make a better decision. I think that is preferable to jumping in now on the basis of very little evidence and potentially getting it wrong again.

While it appears that this bill is quite simple and innocuous, it actually contains a number of elements that are quite serious in terms of local government democracy. To begin with I note that the Minister has backed down on what was a very, very foolish concept of doing away with the casting vote of the chairman or mayor. I do not know what pressures finally prevailed, but the Minister had persisted with this measure against all good advice, right through from the bill’s genesis, right through the select committee process, and here finally today in the report back and second reading he has tabled a Supplementary Order Paper saying that somehow something has prevailed. I think he probably had the cold steel of the local government mayors around the country and he finally buckled. I think that is the most likely explanation.

I know that the Greens would have preferred to retain the abolition of a casting vote, and that doubles my conviction that the ACT position of saying there should be a casting vote is the correct one. It is all very well to say that the council may be split, but, good grief, let us think of all the split votes we have in this House. Let us think of all the measures we pass into law on the basis of one, two, or three votes. It is a bit pious to say that it is a terrible breakdown of democracy when councils make decisions on the basis of one or two votes.

A recent vote in the Auckland Regional Council, when it reintroduced a differential in its rating, was passed by only one vote. It was an appalling decision. It would be one of the worst decisions any council has made in a number of years. But, nevertheless, on the basis of one councillor changing his mind, that change did occur. My prediction is that the remedy will be at the ballot box this October.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: He’ll be gone.

He will be gone. Maurice Williamson is an Auckland member and he knows the councillor I am talking about. He is a goner. He buckled against all good sense and logic, and he was responsible for reintroducing differential rating in Auckland.

Let us look at it. The regional council bit the bullet last year and it put rates up by 34 percent. It did that a year ago and its justification was that it was doing away with differential rating. The council has just put rates up again, by about 30 percent, and reintroduced differential rating. It cannot have it both ways. There is something seriously wrong there.

The other aspect I would like to canvass with the Minister—and I am certainly looking at introducing a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage—is that there has been a happy outcome for the port companies. Jim Peters referred to the Northport and the Port of Tauranga situation with the council-controlled organisation and the council organisation. My question to the Minister is: why on earth has he not agreed for Watercare in Auckland to become a council-controlled organisation, rather than a council organisation? He knows that every mayor in metropolitan Auckland wants that. Even his mate Bob Harvey, the “westie”, and former president of the Labour Party wants that. They all recognise the huge advantage if Watercare were to become a council-controlled organisation, rather than a council organisation. It would allow Watercare to do many things. For instance, it could pay a dividend, rather than be restricted, as it is now, to giving a rebate. That would be much more sensible. But, oh no, for some reason the Minister will not agree to that. All the advice is that that is what should happen, yet the Minister refuses to agree.

I note that the New Zealand First representative said that New Zealand First agreed with the dog control measures as they relate to microchipping. I put on record that the ACT party is totally opposed to microchipping. We think it is a gross intrusion into dog owners’ rights. Mr Peters said that all stock should be microchipped. Will he say that cats have to be microchipped? Mr Mallard would microchip every goldfish in the country. That is the sort of logic we would get from Mr Mallard if he were in control of local government in this country. Is it not interesting that under the dog control measures there is a national register for all dogs, yet there is not a national register for all convicted paedophiles. What is the biggest danger to society—dogs or convicted paedophiles? Yet we are forcing a national register of dog owners, and that seems a bit foolish to me.

We have had the rates database issue. I think the select committee made a sensible decision with the opt-out provision. There were genuine concerns. It is a new situation. Councils are just moving to electronic database forms. To make all those addresses and details available to the public on request could be an excessive breach of people’s rights to privacy. Therefore, they will have a right to opt out, and I do support that measure. Overall, I would have to say that there are too many bad features in this legislation. We will be watching it closely as it moves through the Committee stage. Even at this late stage I ask the Minister seriously to consider changing the status of Watercare so that there can be sensible, commercially based operations from that very important utility. The answer is to stop Watercare being a council organisation and make it a council-controlled organisation. It would then have much greater flexibility, and it would mean that water could be delivered in the Auckland region at a more competitive price, at a much cheaper price, and much more efficiently.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the second reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3). When we first began to look at this legislation and open it up for submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee, I was a little apprehensive that all the criticisms of the Local Government Act, which we passed around December 2002, could have opened the floodgates to an avalanche of submissions from people around the country who were upset with that legislation. That was the first legislation I worked on after coming to this House as a new MP, and I share the comments of Jeanette Fitzsimmons that we worked very hard on it, and in no way did we rush it through. There were many criticisms of that legislation and the fact that we received only 41 submissions on this bill, which deals with some of the minor technical issues that need to be looked at, is an indication that the Local Government Act is working reasonably well around the country, and that some of the dire predictions, particularly by National in opposing it so strongly, are not coming to fruition.

As I said, the select committee received 41 submissions, and we heard 15 of those orally. The submissions were all very sensible and, through this omnibus bill, will enable us to fix up some matters, most of them minor, in a number of Acts, such as the Dog Control Act, the Local Electoral Act, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and the Local Government (Rating) Act. Committee members worked well together in order to report this bill back to the House, and I would like to comment on some of the amendments we made.

First, as has been mentioned already in respect of the Dog Control Act and its adjustment of infringement offences and fees, I tell members that there is no way we wanted to send a message to the community that we were getting soft, after passing the Dog Control Act only last year with much stricter penalties. However, a number of submissions pointed out that some of the infringement fees were a little over the top. We always need to make sure that the punishment fits the crime and that there will be an effective deterrent, particularly with things like infringement fees that are instant fines.

In particular, a dog control officer from Tauranga pointed out the difficulty the council was experiencing in having to enforce the infringements but in not having discretion on the fines, and in finding that some people were being landed with rather severe amounts. I remember the case of one solo mother who foolishly denied that she had unregistered dogs. The next day she was found to have them, and she was also guilty of the further infringement of not complying with the dog control officer’s instructions. She ended up with a fine of something like $1,800, which was way over the top. So some adjustments have been made to those figures, and I believe we have come up with a much more sensible list of infringement fees.

The other problem for dog control officers is that if people have too high a cost with infringement fees, then the offenders simply go to court and are sometimes awarded costs that are less than the infringement fees. So, in fact, that process has been a complete waste of time. Councils have had to go through the process of representing the case in court, only to find that the person has been fined a cost less than the infringement fee. I believe we have made some sensible recommendations in that regard, and as we go through the Committee stage we will see how members address that issue.

It was important to clarify that the requirement for a person to carry a leash when taking out a dog would not affect councils that had already put by-laws in place whereby a person had to have the dog on a leash. It has been a simple matter to clarify that, in order for everyone to understand that a council by-law takes precedence in that regard.

A correction has been made to clarify that a person can have dual candidacy for mayor and councillor, particularly when that person is standing in a ward. Personally, I had some difficulty with that and tried hard to convince other committee members that that provision may have been worth removing from the bill. I believe that people around the country often stand for mayoral candidacy simply so that they can increase the amount of money they can spend on a particular campaign and also so that they can have a higher profile. When a person is standing in a small ward but has the money to fund a citywide campaign, I believe the opportunity is skewed for all candidates to have a fair go. It is not quite so important when candidates are standing at large, which is now occurring in a couple of cities since the Local Government Commission made some determinations after its review. However, the issue is of concern when people are standing in a small ward and then running for mayor, but are not seriously intending to be elected as mayor. However that provision will remain, and I will continue to watch how it develops. I would like to see that the Local Government Commission, in its reviews in 2005 and 2007, includes that issue in its report to the Minister, in order to see whether abuse is occurring on a wide scale.

Some submissions were concerned about the plus or minus 10 percent variation in the ratio of the population per elected member, which was brought in by the 2002 bill. A number of good points were made in that regard, but as a committee we felt that the appropriate time to look at the matter would be at the review of the bill to be undertaken by the Local Government Commission in 2007. If it is causing problems after this year’s elections there is an opportunity for the Local Government Commission to report also to the Minister in 2005, which will be before the next local body elections, and I think that that will be the appropriate time to make any adjustments. In a number of cases around the country it seems that that plus or minus 10 percent variation has become difficult to manage, and it is leaving some communities without the representation they should have. I am very pleased to have convinced the Minister in 2002 to include those reviews in 2005 and 2007, so that we can further address any concerns with this new local government Act.

On the issue of the casting vote, which has been spoken about already, I am very pleased to see that the Minister and the Labour caucus have had a rethink, and that they are prepared to restore it to what it was in our committee’s report. I had a small paragraph there to mention that United Future was not happy with the very limited allowance of the casting vote, and we certainly do not agree with Green members who would suggest that councils should always sit down in a circle and hold hands until they reach sufficient agreement. Politics does operate sometimes on a one-vote majority, as we are well aware in this House with such things as prostitution law reform going through on an abstention. That is the nature of democracy, and I do not see why local councils should be deprived of that. I see that it is a better outcome for the community to allow the elected mayor or chairperson to have that casting vote than it is to put the vote back to the council and have some kind of horse trading going on, by which one particular councillor might have the ability to get his or her wishes included in some draft by-law or other matter the council was looking at. So we are happy to see that that right of a casting vote will now be restored through the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper.

We are happy to see the council-controlled organisation accountability requirements addressed for the Port of Tauranga and for Northport. It was a rather crazy situation before, where there were different rules according to whether a company was 49 percent, 50 percent, or 51 percent owned. I am pleased to see an amendment that was able to satisfy that need.

We had a lot of discussion about privacy issues, and I think we have come up with something that is reasonable and balanced. People do have the option to opt off rates records so that other people cannot have their personal details, but in most cases I believe people are comfortable with those details being made known to the public. People did not want to see the whole rates records data being given to companies so they could be then deluged with bulk mails, and we have protected them from having that occur.

The requirements for the microchipping of dogs and the compulsory national database are essential if we are to have that database work. We simply cannot leave it up to councils to decide to opt into the database. We are a very small country, and we need to do some things nationally in order to make them work. It would be ridiculous to have some councils on the database and some councils off, so United Future still holds to the position that a national database should be the case. We look forward to further discussion on these points as we go through the Committee stage of the bill.

I thank other speakers from the Local Government and Environment Committee who have spoken previously in this second reading. The issues addressed by this bill have been well covered by members. As they have mentioned, the bill tidies up quite a broad range of matters that affect local government.

💬 Phil Heatley: What a mess!

That member could not be more wrong, as evidenced from the fact that after a very broad and detailed amendment of local government legislation in 2002—the Local Government Act is very comprehensive legislation—we had only 14 submissions to this next local government bill to come before Parliament. So it is not a mess; it is actually in very good shape.

I want to address a couple of the issues we looked at in some detail in the select committee. The first relates to the casting vote. We heard Mr Shirley of ACT criticise the decision of the Government to support the reintroduction of the casting vote. There was some sort of assertion that it was a giant backdown. I think it is true that all members in this House have changed their minds on the issue of the casting vote, because when the provision for it was taken away from councils in 2002 by the Local Government Act, that change had the unanimous support of every party on the select committee at that time. But after that change concerns were expressed by members of local government and, as the Hon Nick Smith just mentioned, there was a little bit of uncertainty as to whether the casting vote had been completely removed. The advice we had in the committee was that it had been, but it was certainly arguable.

The need for a casting vote in some situations was apparent in the cases where local government has a statutory duty to do something by a certain date. So we would be rather errant if we left local government in the position that it could not make a decision because it did not have a casting vote, yet had an obligation, for example, to strike rates by a certain date. There were then arguments as to whether the casting vote should be limited to those situations where there was a statutory duty. The committee thought about whether that was an appropriate place to draw the line. On further reflection, the Government agrees with National, ACT, United Future, and New Zealand First that that is a pretty fine line, and asks why we should not trust local government to exercise the casting vote in the manner it did, without great problems, in the past.

The next issue I would like to talk about is infringement fees. Under the Dog Control Act, councils have the power to impose fines by way of infringement notices on people who breach the Act. Those fines were a little bit inconsistent, and some of the advice we had from councils—working in the areas that have the most problems with owners who do not keep dogs properly under control—was that they thought the level of fines was so high that in practice the fines were not collectible. Councils thought that a lower level of fines would still act as an appropriate penalty against those who break the law, while at the same time make the fines more likely to be paid and collected. They said a lower level of fine would also mean that dog control officers would see it fair to render an infringement notice and be more likely to exercise their powers. We agreed with those submissions, and as a consequence we have again tried to rationalise those fees. We tried to do it late last year and did not get it quite right, but we hope we have done better this time.

On the matter of rating information, I remind members that access to the rates database was cut off in the 2002 Act, because there had been a developing practice whereby marketing companies had wholesale access to the rates records and used that database to market people—to spam them, to use the modern electronic equivalent—with information they did not want to receive. So at that stage access to rates records had been removed.

That was a step too far, because it is necessary to have access to such information. For example, people might want to know who else is using a common drain, or who they are dealing with in relation to a planning application. They need to know the postal address at which those people can be contacted. It is, of course, possible to get the name of other owners through other sources of information—for example, by doing a search of the title. That costs a bit of money, and it still does not show people’s addresses.

So we have reinstated the ability of councils to let people have access to that personal information on rates records. But we have made it clear that they do not have the right to the whole of the records; they have just the right to information on an inquiry-by-inquiry basis. And we have given people on the database the right to opt out from providing personal information. There was a proposal from officials that people had to give their permission to be on the database before they could be included, but we thought that that was making it too difficult for councils and I think we now have a proper and practical outcome. I recommend the legislation to the House.

I must say that it is with a sense of frustration that members of the National Party on this side of this House sit here, during urgency, tidying up Chris Carter’s legislation once again. He passed the Local Government Act 2002, and, of course, amendments to the Dog Control Act. He said at the time that he was front-footing the issues. However, because he did not do his homework, here we are, in urgency, spending taxpayers’ money on tidying up a whole lot of loose ends. I wish they were loose ends. Unfortunately, it is a lot more significant than that. We have had to go through sections of the Local Government Act and through the amendments to the Dog Control Act, and make some very serious changes indeed.

National would like to outline the concerns we put to the Local Government and Environment Committee on being faced with having to fix up this bill. Most of our concerns are about the errors the bill contains that drive a wedge of misunderstanding between New Zealand’s rural and provincial districts and its cities in respect of their different needs. Chris Carter comes from Auckland. He can live in his little suburb on his one-eighth of an acre, prune his roses in the weekends, and be oblivious to all those who live more than 20 kilometres away from a motorway.

The first example of this is the concerns raised in various districts where there is a plus or minus 10 percent variation in determining ward boundaries. For cities, it is pretty easy to calculate how many people within those variations can actually elect a ward member. We just draw a circle around a suburb and say that one councillor can represent them. But when we go to the provinces, to Whangarei, Whakatāne, Napier, and Hastings, or to the South Island provincial cities, such as Nelson, and all the little satellite towns around them that rely on them, we have a serious problem. This Minister would have us draw a line through the middle of all those little satellite towns surrounding provincial cities like Whangarei, Napier, and Nelson—little satellite towns like Brightwater, in the Nelson province, and Waipu, in Whangarei, which exist right throughout the country—and say: “You haven’t got enough people. You’re short of 500 people and you cannot have a councillor to represent you. We’ll chuck you in amongst one of the suburbs. You can just sit there and hope that that suburban councillor will represent your interests.” Clearly, they will not represent their interests. We are saying that a problem exists around the 2002 Act passed by the Labour Government because of a lack of interest or a lack of emphasis on communities of interest. That is one of the great misunderstandings about how rural New Zealand, provincial New Zealand, works, compared with metropolitan New Zealand where the Minister comes from.

The second misunderstanding is about the degree to which rural and provincial councils and their ratepayers can afford compliance costs. We are looking at the issues in this bill that constrain the role of the Audit Office in respect of long-term council community plans. Of course, we know that the costs of compliance will be excessive. There is clarification in clause 51 that refers to this. I can tell the Minister and the Labour Government that they may be able to draw from deep pockets in the big cities, but in the provinces and the rural towns people do not have deep pockets. They do not have the population to support huge compliance costs. They do not live in Wellington, where they can knock on the Government’s door or form a lobby group. They just cannot afford it. When these huge compliance costs are being created, the Minister should remember that rural provincial areas get hit harder for those reasons. It is not just because of socio-economic factors but also because of geography. I put it to the Minister that these are widespread areas and it costs a fortune to travel anywhere quickly, if we can. Often we cannot.

The third issue that drives a wedge of misunderstanding between rural and city needs is candidates for mayor being able to stand for the mayoralty as well as for council. We cannot understand why the Minister, in 2002, suddenly decided that candidates for the mayoralty could not stand as councillors as well. It is just appalling that he said to all the provinces and to all of rural New Zealand: “Listen, your candidate can stand only as mayor, not as a councillor.” I can tell the Minister that the problem is that provincial and rural New Zealand often do not have a large number of people putting up their hands to say they will stand for council. There is a smaller pool of people able to do that work. If they want to run for mayor and councillor, so that if they miss out on the mayoralty they can become councillors, that is OK with us. We want their skills. To close them down, simply because they entered two competitions, I think is appalling and quite short-sighted. I am glad that issue is being fixed in clause 28, and we will be discussing it in more detail when we come to the Committee stage.

We would also like to put on the record that we do not think every New Zealander should microchip his or her dog. We notice that the Minister thinks that grandma should microchip her poodle, just because some gang has a Rottweiler that it does not keep under control. I cannot understand why the Labour Government would have every single New Zealander microchip his or her puppy, just because it cannot control the gangs. I find that absolutely appalling. I talked to the Minister Trevor Mallard, who said in response to Gerry Eckhoff, that he would see every goldfish in this country microchipped. The Minister told me: “No, I wouldn’t microchip every goldfish, only the dangerous ones—the ones that, when you walk by the bowl, they jump out and bite you.” That is the attitude from this Government, and it is just pathetic. If it cannot get gangs and crime under control, if it will not approach gang members’ places and tell them to get their Rottweilers and their Dobermans under control, if it is too chicken to do that and would rather have people microchip every little puppy that comes into the world, then I find that short-sighted and absolutely appalling. We will oppose that, just as we oppose the compliance costs in this bill that address that issue.

I would also like to say that we do support the inclusion of a casting vote for mayors. Sometimes there is a deadlock in a city and district, and regional councils and mayors have to show leadership and give a casting vote. Sometimes people do not disagree. The Green Party would have them sitting around, holding hands, and singing “Khumbaya”, in the hope that in some way they would come to some agreement. It will not happen. A mayor has to show leadership and sometimes cast his or her vote, and we are more than happy to give the mayor those powers. With those things in mind, I look forward—as I know members on the other side of the House do—to hearing my arguments during the Committee stage. They wait with bated breath, I know. We commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Instruction to Committee