Third Readings

Before I call the third reading, I want to advise members that I will put each bill separately at the end of the debate.

I move, That the Chatham Islands Council Amendment Bill (No 2), the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2), the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2), the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

The purpose of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) was to further ensure that the legislative framework in which local government operates is as comprehensive and clear as possible. These bills achieve the same. Collectively, they will provide more certainty for councils as they administer, and work within, the existing legislation. They will also provide communities with greater certainty in their dealings with their local authority.

These bills are part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to bringing New Zealand’s local government legislation into the 21st century. They address some minor, largely technical issues that have arisen in the larger legislative changes of recent years. The bills, and the changes that have been made to them throughout the parliamentary process, are further evidence of the cooperation between local and central government that has taken place for the last 5 years. As Minister of Local Government, I am confident that this cooperation and sense of partnership will remain strong and continue to serve us in our communities into the future.

The National Party outlined earlier that it would support the passage of this bill, but we tempered that with concerns about why we are here at all. Members will recall that we outlined the fact that the Local Government Act 2002 was rushed through this House in that particular year. Lots of mistakes were made, and we are here sweeping up that mess now, and that is unfortunate. Amendments were also made to the Dog Control Act by this Government. We are here now, of course, to tidy up the mess made there, and it is of concern to us. Although we are disappointed, we are more than willing to fix those particular problems.

It is of interest to us in particular to see the Chatham Islands representatives take up the role of having the delegated authorities associated with regional councils. They will be involved in environmental management, coastal management, coastal plans, and all the types of things that would normally go to regional councils and were previously under the auspices of another regional council. They can now dictate their own terms, and that is a good thing. Already, the Chatham Islands District Council carries out territorial authority responsibilities.

We are a little concerned about the small ratepayer base on the Chatham Islands. There are only 700 people there, most of them kids, and we are concerned that they will be subject to extra costs. I do not know whether the Chatham Islands will be able to deal with that without some sort of Government assistance. I hope that this Government will smile upon the Chatham Islands, having presented them with greater ability to govern their own affairs, but also with more bureaucracy. That has to be supported either out of the rate base, or out of some generous gift from a Government that is keen to throw lollies about. I am pleased to hear that $2.5 million will be going towards a sewage scheme there. We hope the Government will support the Chatham Islands practically as well as legislatively in this legislation.

There are also other issues of concern to us, and we outlined those. One was the fact that the Labour Government had taken away the right of candidates in provincial and rural New Zealand to stand for both council and the mayoralty. Unfortunately, the pool of good candidates in New Zealand is small. Those people could stand only for mayoralty or council, and were concerned that if they ran for the mayoralty and did not get in, under the Government’s laws, they would not have a place on the council.

National has changed that. We are delighted to be able to go to rural and provincial New Zealand and say: “Look, if you’re good and the people back you, and you’re credible and able, and if you win on election day, you might be the mayor. But if you miss out you, can still be a councillor, because we recognise that you’ve got something to contribute. You’ve got the skills.” National does want good people on local government. We do not necessarily want hand-picked people from the Labour Government who will promote all sorts of liberal agendas. We want the people to be able to choose who is their mayor, who are their councillors, and give those people the opportunity to both stand and win and represent good New Zealanders.

We have also outlined concerns about ward boundaries, and the plus or minus 10 percent variation to the population base in governing how many councillors there can be and what wards they represent. We were concerned that satellite towns in rural and provincial New Zealand would simply be cut in half by ward boundaries, and that there would be no representation for communities and interests, particularly in those satellite towns. We think that issue should have been addressed by this legislation, and we are disappointed that the Government has not fronted on that.

We are pleased that the casting vote for mayors has been returned to them. We know that mayors shoulder some responsibility, certainly in the public’s perception. They do not often have to throw those authorities around, but when it comes to a split vote, we see no reason why an elected representative of the whole district, who has a mandate from the people, cannot make a decision based on the facts and his or her knowledge of the town. So we are pleased to see the casting vote returned to mayors—not just when it comes to providing a vote or an outcome so that statutory duties can be met, but also over a wider range of council issues.

Lastly, I would like to mention once again that National certainly opposes the Government’s idea of putting a microchip into every puppydog in this country, regardless of the breed of the dog, regardless of the dog’s history of behaviour, and regardless of who is the owner of the dog. We find it absurd that many families in New Zealand—young families with kids who want pets, older families where elderly people want companionship from a well-behaved animal— should in some way have to face compliance costs and the hassle of microchipping their dogs.

If we need to microchip dangerous dogs, so be it. We need to microchip dogs that belong to irresponsible gang members, which this Government seems to be too afraid to confront. So be it, but the National Party cannot see why every dog owner in this country—rural, provincial, or in the city areas—should have to have his or her little puppy microchipped. It is absolutely absurd. It will create all sorts of compliance costs—an industry of its own. With the rest of New Zealand, we just shake our heads in disgust at that. However, we have put our minority view forward, and it can be seen in the commentary on the bill.

Clearly, Mr Speaker, you will have listened to all the speeches—certainly to mine—with some intent. We appreciate that. We have fought the good fight, and we have made some very positive changes. There is no doubt that we would have gone further, but we commend this bill, and we will support its passing.

The remarks of the last speaker reminded me of the Waitaki River catchment legislation. When that bill came to the House and was passed, virtually every member of the Local Government and Environment Committee took personal praise for the outstanding parts of the bill. But when Project Aqua was abandoned, there was a quick change of mind. It is rather strange that one member claims that the National Party was responsible for that, when any sane and sound approach would have come up with the same result.

I refer first of all to the amendments to the Chatham Islands Council Act. I do not see that as a lolly, by the way, to the Chatham Islands. Over the years the Chatham Islands have had their natural wealth denuded and taken away, year by year, with millions of dollars of catches being sent to mainland New Zealand. The fact that the present Government has finally recognised that $2.5 million is needed—in order to put the Chatham Islands Council into the unitary authority regime and enable it to do things there—is only a just recognition of the wealth of those islands, which was shared not by their residents but mostly by mainlanders over decade after decade. I think it is highly appropriate that that has been recognised—not as a lolly, as was said by the last speaker, but as a fair contribution to that council, in endeavouring to bring itself up to the requirements of the Resource Management Act with regard to regional planning, district planning in its district, and particularly with regard to the coastline—the purity of waters and the enhancement of the natural environment.

Secondly, with regard to the Dog Control Act, interesting comments have been made about microchipping. The comments about these minor amendments to the Act do not illustrate the fact that the Act has worked. I understand that today the Timaru District Council is rethinking its whole stance. In past years about 600 dogs were known to have remained unregistered as at 1 August. Last year, that number dropped to 120. It then dropped to probably about 40. That is quite a remarkable achievement for a small district, and it shows how the Act and the large infringement fees have worked. I could go through what has occurred at Auckland City Council and other councils, as well. In other words, the intention of the Act to emphasise far greater regulation, and to place far greater onus upon irresponsible dog owners, is working and will continue to work. Therefore, microchipping is a natural outcome—not this year but in the year set in the Act—starting with puppies. I feel sorry for Mr Heatley’s little boy, who is 4. I know, of course, that all the stories he told us about his son were really, as a responsible parent, upon his shoulders and affected his pocket. Nevertheless, it was an illustration of how things have changed, not least in our rural economy. That Act is one that, in the country districts, is probably more appreciated with regard to what it is doing and will do than in any other part of the country.

It is just unfortunate that I was a bit distracted in the course of the Committee stage, because I want to leave one issue with the House. New Zealand First does not believe that in the amendments to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act clarity has necessarily been achieved on what was a difficult issue—the issue of the reconfiguration of new business in councils, and so on. In passing I say that I am not entirely satisfied that the amendments, which were meant to rectify that situation, have clarified it. But I will wait and see whether that is so.

With regard to the amendments to the Local Government (Rating) Act, it seems that I may have to bring that matter back in a member’s bill. The council that came to us with a submission, and the councils that supported it, have come with a righteous cause. The Local Government (Rating) Act of 2002 did change, and although it was not intentional, the actual ability to do a proper lump-sum scheme is no longer there in the way that those councils believe it is. I will need to get back to those councils in order to check that matter further. I hope to see whether the issue can be revisited in the House by bringing it back in a member’s bill.

Broadly speaking, New Zealand First is satisfied with what is before the House. What we are not satisfied with is that one would have expected the known industry knowledge that the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act are not in harmony to be the first subject of any review. That was not promised by the Minister. There are issues there that were not addressed in 2002, that are known in the industry to be still there, and that will probably have to be the subject of legislative change or court action in order to resolve them. The time was ripe, 2 years after 2002, not to give us a piecemeal reform bill but to come back to the House with something that addressed the problems created by the haste—and it was indecent haste—of the late days of 2002, in passing that Act. The haste was so indecent, I remind members, that the councils that were most affected had no opportunity to see the finished form, the language and the narrative of the legislation, at all. That was a mistake then.

We are again sitting under urgency, as has already been mentioned, and looking at a considered review of a number of Acts, but not at the core fact that the Local Government Act 2002 is not in harmony with the Resource Management Act. Whether that will be a further task of the Minister in charge of the Resource Management Act, I do not know. But I do know—and I will say this because it is germane to this issue—that there are issues before councils now, particularly as a result of the decision with regard to Genesis Power, that are urgent, that need to be addressed, and that should have been part of the thinking in this supposedly short-term reform.

New Zealand First supports the passage of these bills. We hope that they clarify things. We particularly support the casting vote as it was. We believe as a party that it could have been much more than it is. Personally, I would have favoured exactly what the Hon Nick Smith stated: that councils should be given the power to themselves adopt under their Standing Orders what is reasonable in current practice. The fact that they were not given that power illustrates to me there are still some obstacles somewhere in the chain of development. Again, it was an obvious oversight that someone could not stand for the mayoralty or the chairmanship of a council, and also be a member of it. That has now been overcome.

But I come back to the last matter that was mentioned in the Committee. The fact that there is to be a reform or a review of the Local Government Commission does not take away the disquiet, which the Hon Nick Smith has already mentioned, that is there in the distant rural areas with regard to their representation. That is becoming even more so, as we start to see some of the rates demands for this current year—2004-05—and analyse where some of those rates are being paid from. We find the burden of rates being paid by the rural part of a district is more often than not far higher than that being paid by the urban part of the district—in one council, it is 67 percent rural and 33 percent urban. It must alarm people in the rural areas that they have seen the Local Government Commission take away some of their voting strength, that the legislation does not recognise a community of interest, and most of all, that they have placed on them a considerable rates impost. That issue needs to be addressed further, and to wait until the 2007 review is really too late. Ratepayers as citizens need to know that they have a democratic right not just to pay the rates but to be heard, and right now there is a feeling in some of our districts, as has already been mentioned in the House, that that has not been so.

We hope that this catch-up—the wash-up as it were—will do the job in two areas. I believe that we may need to look at amending the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act again, and also I believe that the amendments to the Local Government (Rating) Act should come back to the House in a different form. We intend to bring that matter back to the House for a further look.

This is just a brief call on behalf of United Future on the third reading of this legislation. We do not intend to repeat things that have been said already, since they appear in Hansard in sequence when we handle legislation like this. But I will just mention that it was pleasing, during the Committee stage of the bill, to vote for the casting vote to be fully restored to councils.

I want to make a couple of comments regarding the National member Phil Heatley’s concerns about microchipping. He was concerned earlier that he would have to train his son to do all those things with his new puppy. I suggest that in 2 years’ time, when microchipping becomes a requirement, Mr Heatley’s little boy will probably be an expert on technology and will be training his father. He will be wondering why his father did not support the very sensible approach of inserting microchips in dogs across the country, so that we can keep track on them and assist dog control officers in making sure that dogs are registered and appropriately taken care of by their owners. In 2 more years’ time, I believe, technology will assist in many, many areas of society, so microchipping is a sensible approach. United Future is willing to support the national database, which will be of assistance to councils, as well.

I want to thank the officials for their assistance throughout the process with regard to this legislation, and it is now with pleasure that we can commend this legislation to local government. I also commend local government across the country for the very good work it does in administrating many, many issues in our local communities., Councils can now give their best attention to those issues because of the amendments we have provided for in this legislation.

I want to make a few comments in the third reading of this legislation, further to the Committee stage and the debate that has gone before. The first is that this legislation is about fixing up mistakes made in rushed legislation in respect of dog control—legislation that was introduced by Chris Carter. We warned against the rushed process, and now we are having to make over 20 changes in the amendments to the dog control legislation, to try to make it workable. National wishes to state on record its opposition to the compulsory microchipping of all dogs in New Zealand, which is reinforced by these amendments. It is our view that the expense to dog owners and to councils of having to put a microchip in every single dog will not be matched by the benefits provided by the extra control that that makes provision for. We also want to put on record our opposition to the prescriptive fines that are provided for in the amendments to the Dog Control Act. It is our view that councils are quite capable of setting the levels of fines. Parliament should go no further than to set the maximum fines, and should let the councils themselves work out the fines for particular matters.

In respect of the local government electoral provisions, we want to put on record our concern about the pot-pourri of different electoral systems that will be used in the October local body elections this year. It is our view that voters will be confused by the range of single transferable vote, MMP, and first-past-the-post elections that are provided for. While we support the change that will allow council candidates to stand for both the mayoralty and council, it is not our view that these are optimal local government election provisions, and we would want to re-examine that area when we are next in Government.

We note that in respect of the local government rating records, we are again fixing an error in the 2002 rating legislation, which prohibited councils from being able to make rating and ownership information about properties available to the public. We support the more common-sense approach that is provided for in this legislation, to fix up that botch. We express concern only about the 2½ years of confusion that has occurred as a consequence of the Government blocking access, by its bungled legislation, to that information since 2002. So yes, this legislation—

💬 Jill Pettis: Keep talking!

Does the member want me to keep talking, so she can get the Government’s speakers organised? Such is the Government’s legislative programme, and its mess. The Government is in disarray, as illustrated—[Interruption] The Minister notes that this legislation does not provide for any of the innovative policy that is required in local government.

We support this legislation, but express concern that rushed legislation has resulted in all these amendments having to be considered.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I want to advise members that I will put each bill separately.

Chatham Islands Council Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time.

Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time.

Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time.

Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill read a third time.

Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill read a third time.

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time.

Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 5.27 to 7.00