Standing Orders—Suspension

I move, That Standing Order 261 be suspended to permit the introduction of the Local Government Law Reform Bill to amend: the Rates Rebate Act 1973, the Dog Control Act 1996 Litter Act 1979, Local Electoral Act 2001, Local Government Act 2002, Local Government Act 1974, Local Government Amendment Act 1992, Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996 and the Land Transport Act 1998. Standing Order 261 relates to omnibus bills and requires that: “Except as otherwise permitted by Standing Orders, a bill must relate to one subject area only.” I propose that the Standing Order be set aside on this occasion so that the bill may be introduced as an omnibus bill.

The purpose of the Local Government Law Reform Bill is to refine the legislative framework within which local authorities operate, to reflect recent policy decisions, to clarify existing provisions, and to improve the effectiveness of regulatory tools. This bill implements some new policy decisions and better reflects past policy decisions. It also clarifies and addresses a range of issues relating to local government legislation that are mostly technical or minor in nature. It does not signal any major new policy directions.

All the issues raised in this bill relate to local government roles and responsibilities. Although 10 Acts are being amended, there are many common themes and issues across the proposed amendments. Some amendments provide consistency with similar mechanisms in other local government legislation, and enforcement tools are made more effective and more useful. Some of the proposed amendments are interrelated, and changes to proposed amendments to one Act may need to be reflected in those of another Act. In this case it does not make sense to view the amendments separately. They all relate to making existing local government legislation work more effectively and should be viewed together by the select committee to ensure that consistency is indeed achieved.

Many of the matters proposed for inclusion in the bill have been raised through consultation with the local government sector. It is also my view that an approach other than an omnibus bill will result in compliance costs for local government, for other organisations, and, indeed, for members of the public wishing to engage in the select committee process on those issues. It will be much easier for the committee to assess common issues and requirements and ensure that a consistent approach to these is applied.

The approach will also make best use of the House’s time by dealing with interrelated issues together in a local government law reform bill. Accordingly, it is appropriate that Standing Order 261 be suspended on this occasion to permit the introduction of the Local Government Law Reform Bill, combining amendments to the Rates Rebate Act 1973, the Dog Control Act 1996, the Litter Act 1979, the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government Act 1974, the Local Government Amendment Act 1992, the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996, and the Land Transport Act 1998.

In addressing this motion, I start with the point that the Government has just shown us another example of its absolute arrogance. We have an arrogant Government led by an arrogant Prime Minister. New members of the House, and those who have been here a while, should listen to some of what I am about to say on matters of procedure in this House, because today we are seeing a Government that is trying to manipulate the Standing Orders of this Parliament—something that all of us should be absolutely aware of—and we should be absolutely certain that we understand what it is this Government is trying to railroad, to ram, through this House. I say to the likes of Peter Brown, and to the Greens, the United Future Party, the Māori Party, and ACT: please understand what the process is here, because we need to be mindful of it.

I make this point: the Standing Orders do not permit omnibus bills for the reason that a Government could decide to bring to the House 10 pieces of legislation—legislation relating to transport, local government, health, and the police—put them all into one bill, and have only one debate. The reason the Standing Orders prevent that is to ensure we have proper debate on one subject at any one time. What this Government is doing today is railroading an omnibus bill through the House. That has happened before. Normally, omnibus bills are non-controversial. In fact, Statutes Amendment bills have to be non-controversial and agreed to by all parties; omnibus bills do not, but normally they are non-controversial.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Well, what’s controversial about this?

We will come to that in a minute. Part of what happens when a Government introduces an omnibus bill—and this has always been a convention—is consultation; it talks to other parties about the legislation and about what is proposed. Well, I consulted other parties in this House yesterday and found that a good number of them were surprised about this bill. They were surprised about it being brought forward by this motion and about what was in it. When I told a number of the members of the various parties about the bill, they did not know about it. Indeed, I make the point that I was the one who initiated finding out about this bill. I rang the Minister’s office, he spoke to me about it—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: That was 2 weeks ago. That was a third copy.

—if the Minister would just listen—then yesterday morning he allowed a conference call so that one of his officials and one of his staff members could advise me of it. At quarter to eight this morning I finally got a paper that gave some explanation—given that I had been given a paper on Thursday that gave just headings. I tell the Minister that that is sheer arrogance. If he expects this House just to roll over and put through legislation, particularly omnibus legislation, then I say “forget it”. The parties in this House deserve to be consulted—they deserve to know what is going on—but they have not been.

The Minister asked what was controversial about this bill. Well, I refer to the motion, because we are hearing all sorts of stories about what may be in the bill. I particularly draw the House’s attention to the reference in the motion to the Dog Control Act 1996. I had a number of officials ring this morning to say that that part is not going to be in the bill. I do not know—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: It is.

It is going to be in the bill?

💬 Hon Mark Burton: It is guide dogs.

It is guide dogs in the bill. The original papers I saw referred to microchipping. Now the Minister says we have to believe him. Well, if the Minister gives us some papers that state that microchipping is referred to in the bill—a bill that is yet to be tabled, because we debating the motion to introduce it—and then he interjects across the House and tells us not to worry about it because reference to microchipping will not be in it, what are we to do? We were told that it might be. I asked specifically to be given papers that show that microchipping would not be in the bill. We have come down to the House today to find here in the wording of the motion reference to the Dog Control Act 1996—and the Minister says it is to do with seeing-eye dogs. Well, I tell the Minister that I will wait and see the bill, because I do not like the way in which he has gone about this whole issue of presenting this omnibus bill to the House. The way the Minister has done this is an absolute disgrace. He should be ashamed of himself for allowing this process to be trampled over in this way.

Actually, this House is guided by a whole lot of conventions and by a whole lot of Standing Orders. A responsible Minister would want to see that they were upheld. I feel embarrassed that Mr Burton is trying to railroad this legislation, to ram it through, and ignore the Standing Orders and conventions of this House. It just shows the arrogance of this Government. We have an arrogant Minister led by an arrogant Prime Minister and, quite honestly, this process is just not acceptable.

I want to talk a little about the microchipping of dogs, because it is hugely controversial.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: It’s not in the bill.

How are we to know? The Minister interjects and tells us that microchipping is not in the bill. He should tell us what is in the bill, then we could debate it. In the meantime I have to assume from the motion, in respect of the Dog Control Act 1996 and its subsequent amendments, that the legislation obviously has some reference in it to microchipping, because initially the papers we were given stated that.

I have here some Treasury documents that we got under the Official Information Act. In fact, my friend and colleague Craig Foss, to his credit, obtained these. They are startling. Other members of the House may be interested to read them. These Treasury documents, which advise the Government, state that the cost just of managing the national database—which is nothing to do with the microchipping of the dogs, registration, and all the stuff that councils have to do—will cost the Department of Internal Affairs, or the taxpayer, $1.3 million just for the capital costs, then over $400,000 per annum to maintain it. The documents also go on to state—and I think this is absolutely important for the House to understand this: “We note that Treasury is concerned that the national dog database will not address the issue of dog control and comes with significant cost and risk of technological obsolescence.” When the Government starts ignoring it’s own Treasury’s advice—advice that it has asked for—and when it has been given good advice by Treasury and been told what the costs are likely to be, then, unfortunately, once again it is displaying its arrogance.

Again, although we do not know for sure, we are led to believe that there are other matters in this bill that are also important.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: How come you don’t know?

Because we have not been given enough papers yet. At a quarter to eight this morning I got an email. On Thursday I got—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Where’s the bill?

That is exactly right.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: You can’t table the bill until—

But the Minister could actually give us a copy to read. He has not done that. There are things in it that relate to roading, for example. We would like to know what they mean, because they could be controversial. We are not sure. We do not know. It has things in it relating to litter control. Surely to goodness the Minister could have told us about that. There are things in it relating to regional parks. Surely to goodness the Minister could have given us the bill so we could understand what he is trying to do. It may be that had he done so, we would have been happy to support the motion, and we may well have supported the legislation. It may well be that it actually makes common sense—unlikely with this lot, but it could be so.

It is a great shame to get a Government that is so arrogant—led by an arrogant Prime Minister—that it tends to railroad, override, not to care, not to consult, and cannot be bothered to inform us. I hope it has consulted with the other parties, but I am not sure that it has. I hope the other parties understand what is happening here today, because what we are seeing is a Government that is trying to change, by its own actions, our Standing Orders and our conventions, and we should not tolerate it.

I want to begin by saying for the record that 2 weeks ago, on 14 March, Dr Michael Cullen, Leader of the House, brought the Local Government Law Reform Bill to the Business Committee. He tabled with the Business Committee—and it was subsequently circulated with the minutes—a copy of the main provisions of the bill. In addition, he advised the Business Committee in detail about a further part of the bill in relation to the Transport Act of 1962 that would enable local authorities, particularly in the Auckland area, to enforce bus-only lanes and to set and collect infringement fees, etc., and that was recorded in the minutes of the Business Committee for 14 March, exactly 2 weeks ago today.

It is useful to put the facts on the table so that we can allow, for once, the facts to intrude on people’s preconceived notions. In contrast to the National Party, United Future looks upon the bill as an opportunity to advance some things that are very, very important to this nation and to its people. The first one of those is to build on the matter I have just mentioned—that is, the bus-only lanes that have been set aside not only in cities within the Auckland area but also, I think, in other cities throughout New Zealand—to enable those to be enforced by way of by-laws, to be able to set infringement fees for them, and to collect those infringement fees, etc., all of which will add to decongestion in the Auckland area and other places.

I can tell the Minister of Local Government that a roughly similar issue has arisen in Paremata, here in Wellington. State Highway 1, through the township of Paremata on the Mana Esplanade, has also been widened to four lanes. It is a very unusual situation because the lane on the left-hand side, going both ways, works along the following lines: during peak time in the morning and peak time in the evening, those lanes are reserved for use by vehicles with two or more passengers, and are limited to those vehicles. However, in non-peak time, parking is permitted in those lanes. It is an innovative solution to try to decongest State Highway 1. We are talking here about State Highway 1, the main access to Wellington and its main connection to the rest of the country. So it is used by literally thousands of vehicles a day.

The Porirua City Council has taken legal advice from both Chapman Tripp and Simpson Grierson, and that advice suggests that it is not able to put in place by-laws to control those things—to have infringement notices and, maybe, infringement fees—without the risk of a High Court challenge under the existing law. So today Dr Roger Blakeley, the Chief Executive Officer of Porirua City Council, has written to me outlining the problem and asking that this matter should also be addressed by the Government as part of the Local Government Law Reform Bill. I have today forwarded that information on to Dr Michael Cullen, as Leader of the House, copied it to the Hon Mark Burton, Minister of Local Government, and asked the Government to action this opportunity. There will be an opportunity, of course, to ask the select committee to amend the bill to cover the Paremata situation. The other possibility, which is probably just as good, would be to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper covering the situation.

I urge the Government, not only on behalf of the people of Porirua and the whole Wellington area but also all the other New Zealanders who use State Highway 1 whenever they visit Wellington or try to leave it, to take this opportunity to straighten that issue out, as well. It is in tune with the bus-only situation in Auckland and it will decongest the situation out of Wellington.

United Future is gaining a reputation as the party that will fix the decongestion issues on the northern access route from Wellington. Our recent actions in regard to Transmission Gully are well known. I think that when Transmission Gully is eventually built I will propose that it be called the “Peter Dunne Highway” because he has worked tirelessly on this issue for more than two decades, unlike one or two others who have come to the issue in recent times and now want to claim credit for it, and I will name no names in that regard.

The second thing I draw to the attention of the House is the opportunity also for a Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the issue raised by John Carter—that is, the microchipping of dogs. The Local Government Law Reform Bill will, amongst other things, be looking to amend the Dog Control Act of 1996. Because it will, I hope as a result of this debate and the subsequent vote, become an omnibus bill, then it would be within the Standing Orders for this Parliament to address the issue of dog microchipping by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. I give notice today that I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper at the relevant time during the Committee stage of the bill to exempt farm dogs from microchipping. Jim Anderton had it right; they are a separate category of dogs, by any reasonable analysis of the situation. I find the Government’s rhetoric on this matter entirely unsatisfactory. There is no reason why farmers should pay $100 per dog, plus all of the other compliance costs, to have their dogs microchipped. I thought the question today from Doug Woolerton of the New Zealand First Party about these dogs savaging the farmers’ stock absolutely ridiculous. There is an old saying that I would like to put to the member, Mark Woolerton—

💬 Ron Mark: Doug Woolerton.

I beg the member’s pardon. It was because Ron Mark was interjecting so strongly when I was trying to get my words out that I got the names muddled.

If one has a guard dog, there is no real point in doing one’s own barking. Really, whether a person has farm dogs is a decision that is quite within the competence of any farmer in this country. It is ridiculous for Doug Woolerton to come here and say: “I am wiser. They must microchip their dogs because they could attack their stock.” I think the farming community is quite capable of sorting that issue out themselves, so I give notice to the House of my intention to introduce that Supplementary Order Paper and to test the will of the House. I ask the Māori Party, in particular, to give some thought to supporting the Supplementary Order Paper to exempt farm dogs from microchipping, because if it does that and we can convince Doug Woolerton to see light on the subject, then we might get the Supplementary Order Paper through this House. That would be good for the farmers of this country, because it is just an expression of common sense. So with those remarks I signal that we will be supporting the introduction of this bill. I seek the leave of the House to table the letter from Dr Blakeley of the Porirua City Council on this matter, which I received today.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I seek leave to table two documents: first, the minutes of the House of Representatives Business Committee of Tuesday, 14 March—as confirmed on 21 March—to which is attached the second document, the description of the Local Government Law Reform Bill, which was tabled at that meeting and circulated to members, who were to consult with their colleagues about it. Mr Brownlee and Mr Tisch presumably did not consult Mr Carter about it 2 weeks ago.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

I seek leave to table the Local Government Law Reform Bill when I get it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I stand to discuss the suspension of Standing Order 261 to hasten through a fair bit of legislation that is encompassed within the Local Government Law Reform Bill. I appreciate the comments made by other members this afternoon, but the Māori Party is a little bit concerned about the processes being used. The Māori Party stands for accountability, and we take our responsibility very seriously, as we stand up for the survival of Māori and to defend Māori rights for the benefit of the nation. We stand up for genuine progress as a nation—progress that is understood by all—for debate and dialogue being open and dynamic, and for outcomes being reached that we can all have a part in. The Māori Party will encourage an opportunity for people to participate, and for voices to be heard and to be involved in the laws of the land.

I will take one issue to be included in this massive omnibus bill, the Dog Control Act 1996. The aim of the legislation is to instantly identify dogs that are involved in attacks and picked up by dog control officers. More than 60,000 dogs will need to be implanted with a microchip under the skin. Some might say “So what?”. Clearly, the Prime Minister sees it as a critical issue, proclaiming to the public that there is one law for all dogs. Immediately this morning the Taranaki Federated Farmers President, Bryan Hocken, challenged this direction, stating that the Prime Minister will have a battle ahead of her.

As this House will know, the Māori Party always appreciates the wisdom of history and how it leads us into the future. Thinking about the Dog Control Act 1996 leads me to take us back in history to May 1898. At that time the Hokianga County Council, in an effort to control the increasing dog population and its impact on the local farm stock at the time, recommended that the dog tax of 2s 6d per dog apply to all dog owners. The people of the north were outraged at the imposition of the dog tax, and the people of Waimā refused to pay. They were threatened with arrest. Under the leadership of the Māhurehure chief Hone Tōia, they stood firm and continued to refuse to pay. They were threatened with being banished to other regions of the area.

They then decided to march upon the county council at Rāwene in a show of force to settle the matter. Reaction was swift and fierce. The Government sent out 120 members of the Permanent Force armed with two Nordenfeldt field guns, two Maxim guns, and the gunboat Torch. The women and children of Rāwene were evacuated, and, back in Parliament, the Northern Māori MP Hone Heke left Parliament in session and returned home to join other elders in an attempt to diffuse the situation. Eventually, Māhurehure leaders laid down their arms and surrendered. They were arrested, taken to Auckland for trial on the grounds of treason, and imprisoned for a term in Mount Eden Prison. Hone Heke lost his parliamentary pay for the period of time he was absent. The dog tax remained in force.

It is not the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill that I am talking to at this point in time; this is just one element of the massive omnibus bill for which we are being asked to suspend Standing Order 261. When the Taranaki Federated Farmers president challenged the Prime Minister to battle, it made me think again about Te Māhurehure. We must be transparent. We must look at all the issues that confront legislation. We must consider what Federated Farmers have to say, just as we must listen to the Kennel Club, the Veterinary Association, the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and all others who have an opinion on the matter. The only way we can do this is through a thorough and contestable process. We must not speed through the process, as that could create further injustice. We hear this issue about one law for all—in this case, as it applies to dogs. One law for all has been expanded in this motion to real extremes of meaning—that saying yes to one bill is saying yes to them all. It is a bit like buying a lucky dip ticket; we do not know what we are getting, and the bag may not even have anything in it.

As a matter of contrast, perhaps we can compare this matter with another item in the motion on the Order Paper to do with the Local Government Law Reform Bill—the issues associated with rates. There are hefty issues for Māori associated with local body legislation. Māori have never really had a positive relationship with local government. The almost total absence of Māori representation at local government level has a long, historic whakapapa. It remains one of the root causes of many of today’s difficulties amongst Māori communities in their struggle to determine and manage their own local affairs. To be fair to local bodies, today there is a trend for central government to dump its Treaty of Waitangi obligations on to local bodies. The local bodies, however, did not sign the Treaty. Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Resource Management Act, and the Local Government Act all give clarity to the notion of Crown obligations. The principles of respectful relationships, good faith, cooperation, and information sharing, models for tangata whenua representation, and the need for effectiveness and efficiency in delivering resource management for the wider communities are all issues that need far greater discussion than this bill allows.

We need to ask some fundamental questions about what use rates can be put to. One of the high-achieving kura, Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Mana Tamariki, in Manawatū, this week embarks on a study tour to the internationally renowned early childhood centre in Reggio Amelia, in Italy. The Māori Party congratulates, in particular, Brenda Soutar, who is the inaugural recipient of a scholarship to study that centre. The centre is a distinctive example of local government dedicating a significant percentage of its rates revenue to fostering early childhood education. The centre stands as an example of innovation in the relationship between a local body, the community it serves, and the private and voluntary sectors of childcare provision. The philosophy behind that local government support is that priority is given to the early childhood sector; babies and young children are seen as the future. In encouraging these children to be critical thinkers, it believes that it is laying the foundation for well-being and growth as a community. I use this example as an illustration of the type of use that our ratings revenue could be put to—initiatives that truly promote and reflect the foundation for genuine progress as a nation.

We in the Māori Party believe that the many amendments to bills encompassed within the Local Government Law Reform Bill are simply too enormous to be gathered together in the one sweeping motion before the House. The Crown’s current approach to working with the Treaty of Waitangi effectively marginalises Māori perspectives from debate and decision making. Local government directly affects the well-being of people, the community, and the land. Te Tiriti o Waitangi requires a more direct relationship between local government and mana tangata whenua. It is therefore critical that local government relates directly to Māori in terms of article 1, as well as articles 2 and 3, of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. These are weighty issues. They are significant issues, and they must not be sidelined or camouflaged within the omnibus bill foreshadowed in the motion before the House today. To this end, the Māori Party will not support the motion.

I want to make it clear to those who are listening that we are not debating the bill that will, I understand, be called the Local Government Law Reform Bill; what we are actually debating is Government motion No. 1, which states: “That Standing Order 261 be suspended to permit the introduction of the Local Government Law Reform Bill to amend …”. I say to the Minister that I am not very comfortable with that as a process under any circumstances, but when I see the list of Acts that are to be amended—the Rates Rebate Act 1973, the Dog Control Act 1996, the Litter Act 1979, the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government Act 1974, the Local Government Amendment Act 1992, the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996, and the Land Transport Act 1998—I am distinctly concerned about a process whereby the Government is trying to suspend a Standing Order and pass such legislation through the House.

For the benefit of people listening—and my adoring drive-time audience will be starting their long trek home in Auckland—I point out that because we do not have a copy of the actual bill we must try to guess what is states. The Government seeks here to suspend the Standing Orders to permit the introduction of the bill without our having a copy of it. Does that sound like complete insanity? Members are being asked to suspend the Standing Orders so that the Government can introduce a bill, but as we do not have a copy of the bill we do not know what it states. We do know that it amends a huge number of Acts, and I have a little briefing note that suggests something. Obviously, there is stuff in the legislation on the microchipping of dogs that my colleague John Carter has covered—and that other colleagues on this side of the House who are to follow me will cover—exceedingly well.

I will add only 1 minute of comment on the microchipping of dogs. As a member of Parliament I have always worried about any rules or laws that impact on the general public. What they normally end up doing is to make law-abiding citizens go through hoops and bend over quadruple in order to comply with the law, while the ratbags, whom the law is trying to target, get away scot-free. I think that that is the case on the whole. For example, under gun-licensing rules the law-abiding citizen has his rifle in one locked cabinet, the firing mechanism in another locked cabinet, and the ammunition on another floor, and he keeps his licence up to date. Meanwhile, the mongrel mob drive around in their HK Holdens with sawn-off shotguns under the front seat, unaware even that there is a law, let alone comply with it. That is the case with a whole lot of things.

I will give another example. When I first entered Parliament in 1987, Labour put me on a transport committee that was inquiring into compulsory third-party insurance. On the surface it was terribly seductive. I thought it was a good idea. I was a big fan of it. Members can read my speeches. I said that compulsory third-party insurance was a great idea. Then we got submissions from a whole lot of people, including representatives of the Royal Automobile Club in Britain and the Insurance Council of New Zealand, who said that all it would do was force unbelievable compliance costs on the normal law-abiding citizens, who would register their vehicles anyway, and increase the number of unregistered vehicles. It would increase the number of hoons who would say: “To hell with this! I can’t afford all the extra cost that’s associated with licensing, so I just won’t do it.”

I have a grave fear—and I am sure Jim Sutton secretly shares it—that if we tell rural communities that they have to get their dogs microchipped, we will not get an outcome that is any better, because compliance will actually reduce—

💬 John Carter: Less!

We will get less—that is right.

💬 Hon Member: We can’t get less if they’re not complying.

Well, we cannot get less, as the member says. That is why I am very concerned about any such process but even more concerned about a process that tries to suspend the Standing Orders.

Let us come to areas of portfolio interest to me. There is something at the end of the briefing note—and really, “briefing note” is a very good term, because it is about three sentences long—about an amendment Act that should have a lot in it. The bit about the Land Transport Act states: “amends the definition of ‘enforcement authority’ in the case of infringement offences in respect of special vehicle lanes or infringement offences issued by an employee of Transit or on behalf of Transit.” As soon as I read that, I felt cold shivers run up my spine at the thought we were looking to give Transit even more powers than those it has taken unto itself without any law telling it to do so.

The Minister, Mark Burton, knows full well from what has been going on in Taupō that Transit has decided it will say where development occurs, who can subdivide properties, and who can put traffic on its road. It used the words “our road”. It said the development would spill traffic out on to its road and that it would not let that happen, so it lodged objections through the Environment Court, and so on. This absolutely unelected, unaccountable body is absolutely out of control. It is stopping development across the country. Guess whose road it actually is? Let us guess. The road belongs to the people who paid for it—the motorists who pay petrol tax and road-user charges. It is not Transit’s road. And now, I believe, the Minister will give Transit little Hitler-type policing powers to issue infringement notices. I can see Transit operatives out there in their little uniforms—they will get a uniform. For them it will be even better than operating in their unofficial capacity as the State police, as they will have a uniform and an infringement notice book. I say to the Minister: “No way!” Absolutely no way, on these grounds alone, will the National Party support legislation that gives those sorts of powers to Transit.

The briefing note also states: “It will enable the likes of local authorities to continue to enforce the use of these lanes by infringement notices and allow them to report illegal acts to the police.” Who is prevented from reporting an illegal act to the police now? Any human being in this country can report an illegal act to the police. And the Minister says this legislation will enable “the likes of local authorities” to report illegal acts to the police. The Minister must be able to do better than this. The note goes on: “It will enable the Minister of Finance to approve from time to time of the portion of infringement fees received by local authorities in respect of special vehicle lanes, or by Transit, that may be retained by them.”

Here lies the rub. Any member of this House who was in Auckland when local authorities had their own traffic forces out there as an absolute law unto themselves—and Judith Tizard will remember this with great passion—will know that if we did anything really good it was to take away the traffic officer powers of the Tāmaki Borough Council, the Panmure council, and all those local councils, and state that law enforcement, road safety enforcement, and traffic policing responsibilities really should lie with the police—or with traffic officers in the first instance, before traffic services merged into the police. Now we have legislation whereby we are to not only let them enforce and issue infringement notices but also allow the Minister to decide how much of the money they keep.

We can guess what the incentive will be when councils do not have the rate base to fund things. I am sorry to say that all council staff will be out on the motorway in the morning issuing infringement notices, because they will have a little windfall—the Minister will allocate them a big chunk of this money, and they will catch everyone they can. Any member who thinks that this will not happen, that it is ridiculous, and that I am being stupid should look at what it was like when local councils in Auckland—and in Canterbury, I think—were the Gestapo or the local mafia in the sense of how they ran things. They were unaccountable, they were unelected in terms of how they ran things, and most New Zealanders just despised what went on.

The good news is that both Labour and the National Party agreed that that should not be part of local government’s role. I am now very, very concerned. I do not know the specifics—let me say that again. Without a copy of the bill this debate is like punching fog—we do not know whether we have hit and we do not get any bounce-back. So I might be wrong. I would have loved the Minister to come clean with the House and say he would do this through a normal process of introducing proper legislation.

Finally, on the issue of dog tagging, I ask the Government to get Nanaia Mahuta some media training, please, because her performance on National Radio this morning when she read out the same stock standard answer to every question was appalling. I would be happy to chip in some money if members would like me to. We will have a whip-round for some media training for Nanaia Mahuta, because her performance on National Radio was nothing short of abysmal.

I have arrived at somewhat short notice to participate in this debate, but I am concerned enough about process to willingly pick up the cudgels and make some points in relation to Government motion No. 1. In reality this is a debate about whether we should have a debate. To make it somewhat absurd, we really do not know the content of the debate that we are going to have if we lose the vote on this motion and the debate is agreed to. That is absolutely a travesty of justice in terms of the process of how this House normally works. We normally have a bill laid on the Table, so we can read it and then debate it.

Why are we concerned in this particular instance? The issue that I wish to pick up and highlight my concerns about this afternoon is dog control, which is in the Local Government Law Reform Bill, one of the bills that is mentioned in the motion to suspend the Standing Orders so we can debate them. Over the last few days, we have had a number of questions to the Minister of Agriculture about his intentions in regard to the microchipping of dogs, and particularly farm dogs. We had some assurances from him that he would take the matter to Cabinet. Then today in the House he said he did his best, but there is to be no change to that requirement. If there is to be no change, why is dog control one of the issues to be amended by the Local Government Law Reform Bill? If there is to be no change whatsoever—as we were assured today in the House—why are we doing it?

There is a sense of concern among our team as to why that issue should be in the motion. There are some principles here about the whole issue of dog control that I think are extraordinarily important. We know that the Minister has had meetings with Federated Farmers. The organisation made the case that the proposal is a nonsense, and it is a nonsense. The microchipping of farm dogs—I presume that is the issue about dog control that is in the Local Government Law Reform Bill—will do absolutely nothing to protect New Zealanders at large.

The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), for example, keeps very precise records of where the money goes. In 2002 or 2003—I am not absolutely sure of the year; I do not have my notes with me—ACC paid out to farmers, musterers, and people associated with farm dogs the sum of $1,300 for dog bites. Four people had received dog bites. The $1,300 was for medical expenses and time off work. It will cost about $1.3 million a year to microchip farm dogs. Those are the figures. I do not know what the percentage is, but it is a minuscule percentile of a percentile, in terms of the damage done. But microchipping will not stop dog bites from happening, because the people who were bitten by their dogs were bitten for two reasons: they were breaking up fights between their own dogs, so they knew who the owner was, or their dogs were hooked up in electric fences and they went to uncouple their own dogs—which they knew. So the dogs did not have to be microchipped.

This proposal is an absolute nonsense. Time after time—and when Labour was in Opposition and we were in Government—we have had members talk in this House about the cost of compliance. Yes, we have to deal with the cost of compliance. Here we have a situation of an impost of another $1.3 million on one sector of the community. But it does not stop there, because it is not just dog owners who will pay. There is now a responsibility upon every single local government body to have some kind of database. If there is microchipping there has to be a database, and there is a cost involved in that. There is a cost involved in monitoring. I have not seen the bill that is to be introduced and I have not had time, because of the short notice, to look at the penalty provisions for those who do not have their dogs microchipped.

💬 Hon David Carter: There’s no bill introduced.

I know that no bill has been introduced. I have some understanding of matters of dog registration. I spent 6 years on the National Hydatids Council, so I know a little about dog registration and what it involves. In the late 1970s, in the south Otago district, an attempt was made to assess how many unregistered dogs there were. Officials went around and inspected killing facilities and dog housing, and asked whether dogs were being fed frozen or treated home-kill. That is what the officials said they were doing, but they were actually counting dogs. They found 1,343 unregistered dogs in the south Otago district. They belonged to law-abiding, good sons of the soil—southern men and cockies—who had no reason to avoid the law. If one wishes to create a system where people will break the law on more occasions over registration, it would be by increasing the degree of difficulty of registration and bringing in a nonsensical law that will not solve the problem. There will be more unregistered dogs.

The issue that keeps being raised by Government members is that they cannot tell whether or not dogs are farm dogs. That raises a very interesting issue. I am yet to have explained to me in rational terms why town dogs need to be microchipped. I ask somebody to take a call and tell me how many dogs whose owners we do not know have savaged people or children, so we have some measure about whether the cost of all this is actually worth it. In actual fact, we are creating some impediments that will make it even more difficult to get people to comply with the registration procedures.

This motion on the microchipping of dogs—allowing the Local Government Law Reform Bill to amend the Dog Control Act—is a nonsense. This House should be serious about dogs attacking people. I am one of those people whom dogs bite. I have been bitten several times by dogs, probably more than members of this House collectively. For whatever reason, dogs bite me and I know about being bitten by dogs. I have a permanent scar on my left calf from the last election campaign from a Dobermann pinscher; I know about being bitten. We do have a responsibility to deal with that issue, not by a nonsensical placebo, such as placing a microchip in a dog, but by getting serious about people who have dogs that are dangerous by nature—by getting serious about macho dogs, dog fighting, and unregistered dogs. That, rather than doing something that is nonsensical, will resolve the issue about people being bitten by dogs.

I will finish on a point that members of the Government who have previously been in Opposition have made on a regular basis. The cost of compliance is an issue, and this measure will impose a cost in two ways: one, to dog owners and, two, to local authorities. In addition, it will not do anything to solve the problem that this House should be dealing with. I say microchipping is a nonsense and I want to see the detail of what is in the bill, which we have not seen. I will vote against the motion.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just before the question is put, I seek the indulgence of the House and seek leave to make one contribution to this debate. As the agriculture spokesperson I have had a long interest in this subject, as noted by the House today when questions were raised during question time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to do so. Leave has been sought, given the member’s position as agriculture spokesperson. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.