Third Readings

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to bring to your attention that during this debate National will be taking four calls, and the twelfth call will be split between two members, with each having 5 minutes.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As one of those who were ejected for interjecting, I seek clarification. I thought that the ejection was until the end of question time.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: No, because the questions had ended, in effect.

I move, That the Dog Control Amendment Bill, the Litter Amendment Bill, the Local Electoral Amendment Bill, the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill, the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill, the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, and the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. The purpose of the Local Government Law Reform Bill was 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. These bills clearly show the wide array of interests and responsibilities that local government administers, and consequently make changes to eight pieces of legislation. Those Acts range from the Litter Act 1979 to the Local Government Acts of 1974 and 2002, and to the Land Transport Act 1998.

Perhaps the most important of the amendments are those to the Rates Rebate Act of 1973, to ensure that eligible ratepayers are able to receive their full entitlement under the expanded rates rebate regime that comes into force on 1 July 2006. This bill ensures that rebates will be able to be applied to uniform annual general charges, to charges levied by councils, and to postponed rates. As I indicated to the House at the time of the second reading, from 1 July there will be a significant increase in the number of people eligible for assistance to pay their rates. In most cases, the income threshold under which people will be eligible for a full rebate is to increase from $7,400 up to $20,000. For people on incomes above $20,000 the rebate is progressively abated, meaning, however, that a couple receiving only Government superannuation as their income will in many cases still qualify for a rebate. In addition, there will be increases in the maximum rebate from $200 currently to $500, and in the additional income allowance for each dependant from $156 to $500.

Whereas in the 2004-05 rating year fewer than 4,000 people actually received a rebate, up to 300,000 New Zealanders will be eligible for rates rebate as a result of these excellent changes. These changes will have a positive impact on many New Zealanders, particularly on older people and others on low incomes. It may surprise some listeners—but perhaps not—that both the ACT party and the National Party voted against Part 7 of the original bill, which dealt with the rates rebate. That perhaps reflects, en masse, the attitude well described by the Sunday Star-Times, when describing National’s leader, Don Brash, as “the voice of ignorance, narrow political advantage, and selfishness.” Certainly, their voting against that provision was bewildering for most other members of this Parliament. But I digress.

In regard to other elements of this bill, I say that the amendment to the Land Transport Act clarifies a number of technical issues raised through legal advice.

Although much of the debate at the Committee stage focused on microchipping, the new Dog Control Amendment Bill actually contains many other positive changes to the Dog Control Act that will help to further improve public safety around dogs. Those include clarifying the fact that dangerous and menacing dog classifications apply across New Zealand, providing enhanced abilities for dog control officers to seize dogs that have actually made an attack, and dealing with disqualifications and increased penalties for irresponsible dog owners. Although not voting for comprehensive microchipping, the House has none the less ensured that microchipping for other than working dogs will come into force, as planned, from 1 July. Microchipping will significantly increase the probability that the owners of dogs that attack or menace will be identified, so creating a strong incentive for those owners to make sure that their dogs do not have the opportunity to cause harm.

These bills collectively are part of the Government’s ongoing work to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness in New Zealand’s local government legislation. Though many of the provisions in the bills are technical in nature, they continue and refine the platform of local government that this Labour-led Government enacted in 2002, thus acknowledging the responsibilities of the sector and providing for its ongoing, constructive development. The key goal for both central and local government is positive outcomes for communities and their citizens. The working relationship established between our two spheres of government is vital to achieving that goal. These bills further advance the relationship. With the upcoming Commonwealth Local Government Forum conference to be hosted by New Zealand in the city of Auckland next year, I am also mindful that international local government relationships can be advanced, with the ability of our local authorities to provide the benefit of their experience and expertise—beyond their boundaries—to local government bodies overseas, if they so wish.

These bills, and the changes that have been made throughout the parliamentary process, are further evidence of cooperation between local and central government, which has developed well over the past 6 years, and which will continue to grow, with this Government, in the future. I am in no doubt that the changes provided by these bills will provide more certainty for councils as they administer and work within the existing legislation, and they will also provide communities with greater certainty in their dealings with their local authorities. As I indicated at the outset, it is highly desirable that the local government law reform legislation be enacted before 1 July, to ensure that ratepayers eligible for a rates rebate are able to receive their full entitlement. In conclusion, I want to acknowledge the hard work of the Local Government and Environment Committee, of all my officials, and of the select committee staff to ensure that that can in fact occur.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee staff who are involved with this legislation—Beth Watson and Pavan Sharma, who have done a great job for us—and also the staff of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who I think yesterday went through all sorts of gymnastics in trying to get the legislation right. Of course there are also the advisers and a number of other staff involved, and I think it should be put on record—as I am sure the Minister would want to do—that they have given great assistance to the select committee and to Parliament in getting us this far. I want also to take the opportunity to thank the Green Party, whose member was with us on the select committee. That is not to deny thanks to members of any other parties who have been involved in getting us this far. But working with Metiria Turei in the select committee was very useful. The work we did was productive, because of course we have now got to the stage where we are at least able to stop the microchipping of working dogs.

I just want to make one point. Although it is not my place to defend the Greens or to speak for them—I am sure they will do so themselves—I notice that it seems a surprise to some people in this House that last night we saw a split vote. Members might like just to reflect on the fact that one party more than any other—the Greens—has persistently and continuously supported MMP. That is unlike latecomer parties like New Zealand First, which has suddenly decided that MMP is not a bad idea. What we saw happening last night was the reality of MMP working in the way it should and does work. Whatever spin people might like to put on it, I say that that is what we saw, and I suggest members might like to reflect on that.

I want to speak on three parts of this legislation, and my colleagues will pick up other parts of it. But first of all I want to speak on the matter of microchipping. I make the point that the Government some time ago—I think it was in 2003—introduced microchipping, through a Supplementary Order Paper by the then Minister of Local Government, Chris Carter. Of course at that stage it was opposed by the National Party—and by other parties, like ACT for example—and National has consistently opposed it. It is true and on the record, though, that once when I was younger and not so thoughtful I may have spoken in support of it, but people do things when they are young, and they learn as they grow older. It is a rare thing—[Interruption] Some of us do not learn—like the Minister—but some of us do.

The point is that through this whole debate we have not been convinced of the value of microchipping dogs. Indeed, the Minister himself said that the microchipping of dogs would not stop one dog attack. I tell him it is not proven that the microchipping of dogs will mean that more dogs will be registered. In fact, the public need to know, as the legislation proceeds in whatever form it does, that not only will people have the cost of microchipping dogs but they will still have the cost of continuing to register those dogs. So there will be a double cost on dog owners. I must say that when the public finally become aware of what will be foisted on them, plus the cost added into the rates because councils will have to administer this law, people will not be happy.

Then there will be the gymnastics of trying to figure out what this Parliament has actually passed, and what the law now means because of the way the legislation is structured. Does it mean that, as the 1996 legislation says, the territorial authorities themselves can decide what are working dogs and have the right to pass a resolution to say that all dogs in the area can be working dogs? The lawyers will have a field day on working through this, at great cost to local government and at great cost to the ratepayers. For people who are grumpy about having to microchip their dogs I can see a huge amount of litigation for councils coming up because somebody’s dog somewhere will not be recognised as a working dog, as he or she thought it was. I think the Government would do better now to admit defeat and pull this whole thing out. However, that will not happen.

I want to go on to another part of this legislation that refers to the long-term community council plans. Some people who came before the select committee this morning told us about the cost that has been imposed on local government. I said earlier in this debate that long-term community council plans, or councils looking at their infrastructural needs and planning ahead, were actually started in 1995 by the National Government. It makes good sense. I have not heard anybody say that the principle of what is to be achieved should not be achieved. Looking at what one has, and looking at what one’s needs will be, is sensible. We do that in our everyday lives—we think ahead, and we plan ahead; so should local government, and, indeed, so should Government for that matter. Unfortunately this Government does not do that enough.

But the problem is that the way in which this Government has asked local government to administer long-term community council plans is costing ratepayers huge and unnecessary amounts of money. To date it is estimated that just the audit of the draft schemes is likely to cost ratepayers somewhere between $5 million and $8 million. But that pales into insignificance when one starts looking at the cost of preparing the draft schemes. For example, Whangarei District Council has told me that the cost of preparing its draft scheme—not the audit—was in excess of half a million dollars; in excess of $500,000. If one extrapolates that out over local government across the country we are talking somewhere between $50 million and $100 million. I say that that was a dreadful waste of money. It was unnecessary. We did not have to go through the whole issue of the draft scheme, then the final scheme, and then audits upon audits, except we had to work out a system of presenting these things to the public and discussing the issues with the public. But, nevertheless, the way in which this Government has asked local government—not asked, but directed it; forced it—to take this thing—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: No option.

There was absolutely no option at all. This Government directed local government to undertake the process in the way it has, and then it did not trust local government to do that. It directed the Audit Office to check, to look at whether local government was doing it right. As it transpires there are only three local government agencies that, according to the Audit Office, did not follow the process correctly and one in particular of those three took a deliberate decision not to comply because it believed it could not guess what the rate of inflation would be in 10 years’ time! Well, I have to say that I am not surprised. I would like anyone in this House to stand up and accurately predict what the rate of inflation will be in 10 years’ time. I would like it put on record because we—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Nobody knows.

Well, of course, nobody does actually; they just do some forecasting.

I want to finish on this note—the legislation is to make changes to the Transport Act. We are now shifting the responsibility of fines and infringements from police to Transit and local government. That is seriously dopey. Local government is not structured to carry out infringements and neither is Transit New Zealand. We do not need to go back to those days. We should not be asking local government to go back to the days when it was involved in policing. That is what this legislation will do.

The problem with this legislation is that most of the measures will add extra costs on to local government and, as a consequence, on to ratepayers. Ratepayers in this country are already suffering from the burden of extra compliance that this Government has imposed on them. We are now seeing too many local authorities having to increase their rates well above inflation to meet the demands this Government is making of them. I say that local government is finally standing up and rebelling against what is happening. Local government knows that it is not its responsibility. It knows that these sorts of measures, which the Helen Clark Labour-led Government is passing today, will put more costs on to local government and, as a consequence, on to ratepayers. Local government around this country is saying “Enough!”.

I rise to speak to the third reading debate and I want to acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I particularly want to thank the select committee clerks, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and also the officials who advised on this legislation, and, given the decisions made last night, I want to acknowledge the hard work and effort that everyone has made to get the legislation here so we can discuss it.

There have been a lot of issues, in particular relating to microchipping. As this House knows, Parliament, with the exception of ACT, originally voted in support of the Dog Control Amendment Bill in 2003, which included the introduction of microchipping along with a range of other strengthened dog control measures. However, it has now voted to exclude farm working dogs from that requirement. We acknowledge that and will move on, and will work with local authorities to try to get that through.

Let me reiterate that we will be proceeding with the dog microchipping law in the form passed through Parliament last night, to ensure the safety of the public as best we can. This law will still support the wide range of strengthened dog control measures introduced in 2003. These measures, which for the large majority of the dog population still include microchipping, give councils more power to deal with dangerous, threatening, lost, or problem animals, as well as give greater certainty about ownership by linking animals with their rightful owners. In fact, we know already that some owners are voluntarily microchipping their dogs, because they are pets and if they get lost, they want to be able to track them.

Our focus is now to move forward and make the legislation as effective and painless as possible for those who will be required to administer and enforce it. Let me also say that we are committed to continuing to work closely with local authorities to ensure that they and the majority of dog owners who will still have their animals microchipped over time have good and accurate information about what is required under the latest changes to the Dog Control Amendment Act. Although any exemption is not favourable, as it will add costs and have other implications for councils, the reality is that over time the majority of newly registered dogs will still be microchipped. It may also be that farmers, in time, will see the benefit of that. In the meantime I reiterate that for the majority of dog owners who have newly registered dogs after 1 July, the microchipping requirements have not changed.

Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation is still being circulated about microchipping, which is not helpful to either the public or those who must implement the Act as it now stands. For one, let me reiterate that inserting a microchip in a dog will not, by itself, stop dog attacks, and the Government has never said that it would. The whole point that we have been trying to stress is that microchipping will support a raft of other strengthened dog control measures that are designed to ensure more responsible dog ownership. If we have responsible dog owners, they are more likely to train their dogs so that their dogs do not act in an irresponsible way. Ultimately, we want to work in that manner to create a safer environment around dogs. If we look at the example of New South Wales, which has had microchipping since 1998, we see that has certainly been achieved.

There is another misconception, and this is something that others continue to get wrong, but it is only dogs that are first registered after 1 July this year, and those currently classified as menacing or dangerous dogs, that will have to be microchipped—apart from the latest exemption for farm working dogs. This means that one’s little dog at home—Mark Blumsky’s dog or nanny’s dog at home—that is already registered, which one is also proud of and fond of, will not have to be microchipped, unless, of course, it has never been registered. We are talking only about new puppies.

The other misconception is around the issue of costs. The Government has agreed to support local councils in meeting approximately half the $1.1 million cost of introducing the national dog database, with smaller councils’ costs levied according to their size. With microchipping itself, let me reiterate that vets have consistently said they can provide a complete microchipping service—that is, inserting the microchip and verifying it—for somewhere between $35 to $70, which will reduce if combined with other procedures such as vaccinations. This is nowhere near the erroneous figures that were referred to in the House last night. When compared with the overall costs of owning a dog, microchipping is still a relatively small one-off cost. However, some councils such as in Christchurch have actually embraced the new technology and agreed to offer free microchipping in order to encourage compliance with legislation. The Government is committed to doing all it can to improve dog control in response to calls from the public for improved safety around dogs. And, exemptions or not, we have not wavered from that commitment. We will work with local authorities to achieve that.

I turn to one small part concerning the rates rebate scheme, because although National was more concerned about dogs than people, we actually believe it is important to invest in people. The rates rebate scheme was introduced in the 1973-74 financial year by the Rates Rebate Act. It gave effect to the Labour Government’s manifesto pledge at the time to provide assistance to ratepayers on low incomes who paid rates. The scheme is particularly suited to helping those ratepayers who have low incomes, high rates, and own their property outright. Superannuitants form a significant group within that set of criteria. Financial assistance for housing costs such as rent, board, or mortgage payments is also provided via the Government’s accommodation supplement, administered by Work and Income. Eligible ratepayers will be able to apply to their city or district council for a rebate. The council will then process the application and deduct an amount from the rates bill. The council will then apply to the Department of Internal Affairs for a payment equal to the rebates that have been granted. This will help a lot of people; over 300,000 people will benefit from the rates rebate scheme, as of 1 July. It is somewhat concerning that the Opposition chose to vote against that particular part of the legislation. The fact that its members spent more time talking about dogs than people really does show where their priorities lie.

However, my final comment is in relation to the Dog Control Act. We look forward to moving on. We want to work with councils and dog owners, and other relevant groups, to ensure that the Act can be administered in a way that will be effective. In time, farmers will see the benefits of microchipping, I am sure, and voluntarily microchip their dogs.

Just to follow on from some comments made by the Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, if she had had the opportunity either to take advice from her Local Government and Environment Committee members or to sit in on the committee, she would have understood that there were some fantastic debates about people; dogs took up only a very small part of the select committee process, which went on for a very long time, because it was a very complicated, extensive bill before us. I can say from my own personal point of view that it was a wonderful challenge. It was my very first, shall we say, bill before the House select committee period. I was very impressed with the officials and the quality of advice. I was impressed also by the, I suppose, desire of the select committee as a whole to look at making good changes. It was nice to work across the table from some of my colleagues in the House, whom I now find are nearly as human as one would hope.

It was a baptism of fire, because it was interesting for me that the very first legislation I considered in the select committee was an omnibus bill on local government. It had to be! Local government, as I am sure many in the House would know, is a passion of mine, having been 6 years as mayor of the best city in New Zealand—a fact—and being a member of Local Government New Zealand. It was surely, I can attest, a baptism of fire; it was one heck of a challenge and it was a fantastic learn.

I was surprised we could put so much into one bill. I was surprised that one bill can affect so many, and in very different ways, of the day-to-day activities of just about every single New Zealander. People must understand that a heck of a lot was crammed into this omnibus bill, so much of which I agreed with, so much of which I had sympathy with, so much of which I could take issue with, and so much of which I thought was just plain dumb. It was what one could call a real smorgasbord, and does it not make a difference when one brings a smorgasbord into the House?

How could members support a bill when they disagreed with so much of what was in it, yet agree with so much more that was in it? A cynic would tend to be of the mind that if we wanted to pervert the course of proceedings, a good way to do it would be to bring in an omnibus bill, because it mixes the good with the bad, and if we put in just a little more of the good than the bad so that members will support it, members may tend to overlook the bad. So when members vote on an omnibus bill, they may end up supporting it in principle, but later they may find that, because they supported the bill in principle, they may be hung out to dry on some of the issues in the bill that they appear to have agreed with.

However, as I am not a cynic, I will take this opportunity to highlight in a light way—and to have noted in Hansard—some areas of the bill that I felt, substantively, we supported. As I said earlier, in many ways the omnibus bill touched on many parts of our day-to-day activities. Many of us have dogs. I can assure the House—and I am delighted to put on record—that Winston Blumsky is a working dog. I am delighted that he and his kin will at no stage be forced to partake of a microchipping process now. I suggest that he would be just as confused as damned near everyone else has been when trying to sort out the mess that has been generated by this Government through its introduction of what is stupid legislation. I acknowledge the good people of Hamilton who took the time and effort at the Fieldays to queue up and sign a petition about the provision in the legislation that, last night, Parliament decided needed to be changed.

Moving on, not only was the issue of microchipping dogs part of the omnibus bill, but the issue of litter and the dumping of rubbish was also a part of it. I think it is fantastic that Parliament has taken the opportunity today to increase fines for littering. Those fines have not been touched since 1990, and the fact that some of them are going up tenfold, in an attempt to discourage people from dumping rubbish or even to drop litter on the streets, is to be applauded.

We talked about parks and reserves. We talked about the need to consult on the disposal of reserves and parks, and I think that was an important aspect of the bill. It was not talked about very much in the House, but it is important to those in the Auckland region. We did take exception to what the Government called a minor part of the bill—that is, boundary changes and the need for each council to consult at length on any minor boundary change that relates to their reserves. We suggested that that provision was an absolute waste of money.

Being a justice of the peace, I would like to put on record that justices of the peace will look forward to presiding over by-law offences through the liquor laws. The issue of abandoned cars was touched on. We have simplified the ability of councils to move on abandoned cars. Abandoned cars are a disgrace and a blight on the environment, and I think it was important that the bill took the opportunity to make it easier for councils to move on that issue.

We talked about rates and the need for lump-sum contributions. The omnibus bill tidied up that issue, and that is to be applauded. Many people submitted on that issue, and they will be delighted with the decision we made. We also came to the conclusion—well, certainly, members on our side of the fence did—that councils should not go back to being traffic officers. Councils should not go back to traffic enforcement and writing tickets, and that is an important fact.

We even had a discussion on developers’ levies. Yes, they are fair, but the message to all councils out there is that they have to be fair. We started receiving submissions from the public that claimed developers’ levies were becoming a little outrageous, and I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee, and the National members on it, are watching with interest the way developers levies are being set. We want some transparency around the fact that those levies should be fair.

While I was sitting on the select committee that was deliberating on this bill, I actually found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the Minister of Local Government. The Minister was quoted in the local government newsletter that came out recently, and I will repeat his comments. At a meeting of the Local Government New Zealand metro sector, he acknowledged that over the past few years it has been a very challenging time for councils. The Minister made the point that councils have had to contend with major legislative reform and other ongoing reviews and initiatives. In other words, the Government has kept local government incredibly busy. I will repeat the Minister’s comment: “This raises questions about whether and when central government should assume some responsibility for funding local infrastructure, and the relationship between such funding and the local expenditure priorities of each council.” He acknowledged that there is a difficult task in front of councils, and he also stated: “I have no details on how I see the challenges being met.”—and I have a concern about that.

How on earth can councils rein in their expenditure when their rates are going up because of major legislative reform coming from this Parliament? It became very clear during submissions before the select committee how this Government’s legislation and regulations are forcing rates up. We had submissions from a number of councils that talked about the cost of administering the dog microchipping programme. It will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per council. We had submissions from councils talking about the cost of administering the rates rebate scheme—the Government has asked local government to pay $150,000-plus per council. We heard my colleague John Carter talk about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that councils have to spend on their long-term council community plans, and the audits for it, which are separate, cost up to $80,000 per council.

A disgracefully high amount of dollars is being forced on local government by this Labour-led Government—and I have not even talked about the Gambling Act, the Prostitution Reform Act, the Building Act, food regulations legislation, and so on. They just keep coming from this Labour-led Government. These are costs incurred and forced on local government by this Labour-led Government. These costs are being thrown at local government and they will increase, and do increase, rates, which results in ratepayers paying for what taxpayers should be paying for.

To finish, it is just too easy for this Labour-led Government to create legislation. Unfortunately, it is even easier for the Government to get others to pay for it.

New Zealand First supports this legislation, in all of its parts. The main part that we have heard about—and I have been as guilty as anybody—has been the microchipping of dogs. I think what we will see is the playing out of the old adage: “Be careful what you wish for, because you may receive it.” Last night an exemption was granted for working dogs. This makes things very difficult for the modern registration of dogs, which we always believed dog microchipping to be about. Whether we like it or not, we will have a bit of a rural-urban split along those lines. I know that the will is there to make it work, and I know that the Labour Government will do its very best to make it work and will go out with good intention.

I hope, as the Minister hopes, that farmers will come along and see the worth of dog microchipping and engage in it on a voluntary basis. But I hope, most of all, that we do not have the situation that I am hearing hints of from the National Party. Its members are saying that the mess that will ensue will be a problem of the Labour Government and that National had nothing to do with it. In fact, National, and Federated Farmers, had everything to do with it and sadly this was backed up by four members of the Green Party last night. New Zealand First, I can say, will hold the National Party to account for what it has done.

💬 John Carter: Who?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Members of the National Party can well say “Who?”, as I heard John Carter say one time during this debate that New Zealand First would be dog tucker. There was another guy from the National Party who said that, called the Hon “Dog” Kidd—Doug Kidd.

💬 John Carter: “Dog” Kidd!

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Well he is dog tucker now! He said New Zealand First would be dog tucker. In fact he is not here, but I still am, the Rt Hon Winston Peters still is, and we will be here for a wee while yet, but that is for us to worry about. Throwing cheap shots around the House serves only to motivate us, rather than the other way round. I will not say much more than that about dog microchipping. New Zealand First has been consistent. We agreed with it 3 years ago, we agree with it now, and we will agree with it in the future when somebody has the presence of mind to bring it back.

But in the meantime I want to talk a little about the interface between local government and central government, and it was right for Mr Blumsky to bring that up. I think there is a growing tension there. A problem I hear many people in the rural community talking about is increased rates. We all know in this House that this has come about from the reforms of the 1980s when Roger Douglas, followed by Ruth Richardson, and both Labour and National embarked on a right-wing reform programme that in fact shrank central government. The people of the day saw no role for government in the community. They promised no increase in taxes, but what they did, by sleight of hand in my view, was then hand a lot of devolved responsibility—those were the words they used—to local bodies, but they did not devolve money along with the responsibilities that were handed to local councils.

That is a problem still to this day. So we have rates being imposed on local people to pay for the services required by local government. They may well make the argument that they are another form of tax. I would agree with them on that, because they are. I believe, quite frankly, that it is time—because I have never been one to say that small government is great—for central government to start administering some of these things itself, and thus take the burden off local government, thus allowing it to hold rates, and if transparency is the name of the game, then levy taxes as it must. But to pass responsibilities continually to local governments and then have them levy their consumers—not always fairly, I might add—their ratepayers, I believe is wrong.

I think a more responsible attitude needs to be taken. Some of the laws we pass in this House should be retained in their administration by central government and in my view uplifted from local government. This is a growing issue because local government is growing like Topsy. I am not talking about taking away responsibility from mayors. I am not talking about taking responsibility away from local councils. I am saying we should not give them more responsibility. Some of the laws we pass here we should keep unto ourselves and administer them through central government mechanisms.

Like Mr Blumsky I am pleased to see that something is being done about litter. I do not believe, particularly, that continual penalties are the way to go. I think there are far more sophisticated methods. New Zealand First has not made a decision, but we are not looking very favourably on Mr Nandor Tanczos’s litter amendment bill at this point, but we are looking forward to the debate that will ensue when it comes into the House. I think local government issues will then come to the fore as well because, again and again, we are in danger of passing those things down to local government without the money to administer them.

I am disappointed in the outcome of the Committee stage of the Dog Control Amendment Bill; I think National will rue the day it acted as it did, but that is its decision. I think—most certainly—farmers will rue the day they were conned into supporting that. Those things are not for me to worry about. Suffice to say that New Zealand First will watch with interest how that legislation progresses and whether people, in fact, will believe that having a two-tier system—which is basically what it is going to be; one rule in an urban environment and another rule in the rural environment—is the way responsible parties want to go about things in this country. From New Zealand First’s point of view, I say once again, that it is not the way we wish it were.

Who would have thought that this little Local Government Law Reform Bill—full of good words about abandoned cars, national parks, and littering—would be so controversial?

I want to add my thanks to the Local Government and Environment Committee and its staff, Office of the Clerk staff, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I thank my National colleagues on the select committee who supported our amendment to get rid of compulsory microchipping, except for dangerous and menacing dogs. I thank Labour members of the committee, as well. The process in our select committee was very constructive, despite our differences—it really was good democracy in operation. I also thank Federated Farmers, kennel clubs, and all those in the community who have supported the Green Party position as being the most rational and reasonable response to the issue of trying to prevent dogs from biting.

The microchipping of dogs has remained a fierce political issue since 2003, and compulsory microchipping of the general dog population will remain an issue for as long as it is on the law books. The House will no doubt have to deal with this issue again sometime in the future. I am sorry this process has been such a monumental waste of time, when it really could have been sorted out properly this time.

In the vote on the Dog Control Amendment Bill later this afternoon, the Green Party will split its vote, with two votes opposed and four in favour. The principled position that Jeanette Fitzsimons and I have been advocating on behalf of the Green Party is that compulsory microchipping will not stop attacks on any child, stock, or wildlife. It cannot, in any physical or practical way, stop an attack from happening. If the truth is at all important, I point out that nothing can really stop a dog from attacking, if it intends to do so.

The question here is whether microchipping will save a child’s life. If the answer is truly yes, then the only principled position to take is to immediately enact legislation to make sure that every single dog in this country—whether it is currently or newly registered, and regardless of what it does—is immediately microchipped. But if the answer is that, no, microchipping will not save children’s lives, then no dog should be chipped unless there is a reason to suspect that it might pose a danger—hence the amendment in respect of dogs that are classified as dangerous or menacing. That is the position we have tried to put into the law—first, through Jeannette Fitzsimons’ member’s bill, which was defeated by only one vote; second, at the select committee where, with the support of National, we had the bill changed; and third, at the Committee stage, where we put up six amendments to this part of the bill, to try to find some solution that could gain cross-party support. No other position is a principled position.

Other positions, such as the one that is supported by my four colleagues—who are here with me today in the House—might be pragmatic, and I support their right to take the vote they have taken, but I continue to strongly disagree with them. The amendment passed in the House yesterday will exempt dogs that are “kept solely or principally for the purposes of herding or driving stock”. Maybe there is validity in the argument that if those dogs are exempt, then the system will be unworkable. That may come to pass sometime in the future, but in the meantime this law is very unfair to those who have dogs as pets—whether they live on farms, in towns, or in cities. They will now have to bear the full burden of the cost of the microchipping regime.

What about all those people who are beneficiaries or on low incomes? What about the elderly on superannuation, who will now not only have to pay for registration and inoculations but up to $100 for a microchip? Why should those people have to pay, while other people in unspecified kinds of businesses will not have to? If those people do not have their puppy microchipped, they will be subject to a fine of $300 from the council and, quite possibly, a $3,000 fine through the courts. Does this simply mean that dog ownership is now a privilege of the wealthy?

What about dogs that are used for disability support? The exemption does not include disability assist dogs, or those used by charitable organisations like the Pets for Love Outreach Programme, which takes dogs into rest homes and special needs schools to provide love and companionship to people who are there. Those dogs still need to be microchipped. All other working dogs—police dogs, biosecurity dogs, Department of Conservation pest management dogs, civil defence dogs—have to be microchipped. Where is the principled policy in choosing one subsection of working dogs but excluding all others? Dogs whose job is to protect the environment and dogs who save lives will still be microchipped.

Maybe there is a real threat that microchipping could be used on people. Maybe this is actually the thin end of the wedge. Damien O’Connor certainly made it clear in his speech in the House that microchipping is already being used on other animals, and could be extended to even more animals in this country. In the US at the moment farmers are fighting the Government, which is trying to microchip every farm animal in the country. In the US and the UK the microchipping of people has the support of a number of major business leaders, including Bill Gates of Microsoft. But how does excluding only dogs involved with stock provide a principled basis for a crucial opposition to the microchipping of people?

What this House has done pleases one sector of the community. That is fine for that sector. But in the process we have created a bad law in the hope that it will achieve some other aim. That is not good lawmaking under any circumstances. Law should be based on evidence, should not unduly or unfairly burden the community, and must produce real, identifiable outcomes. Compulsory microchipping fails this test. Exemptions for stock dogs fails this test. The law cannot and must not be based solely on hope.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou te Whare. This year, 2006, will always be remembered as the year that Parliament was hounded by politicians prattling on about their pets. We have had Tau Henare’s mongrel, Jacqui Dean’s Jack Russell, Metiria’s grandma’s poodle, and United First’s lapdog. We have heard Labour howling on about its “one law for all dogs”, we have seen National chasing votes on this issue like a bitch on heat, and, of course, we have been graced intermittently by the presence of New Zealand First’s very own poodle.

According to Chinese astrology, 2006 is the Year of the Dog. They reckon that people born in the Year of the Dog can be a little selfish, kind of eccentric, and very bloody stubborn. The insane debate over the last few months suggests that these traits are particularly true of many of the politicians in this House. Yet, through all of that insanity, we have had the cool, calm voice of the Māori Party reminding the House of the historical insanity of this law, harking back to the imposition of the dog tax in Hokianga, and warning of the perils of dog whistling—pitching a political message to a group of voters that other voters cannot even hear.

We know, too, that some of those who proposed the microchipping of dogs had no idea at all about the reality of farming communities or even the expectation on local authorities to manage this measure. I do, though. I asked a mate of mine who used to be a dog ranger about policing it. He said it would be a lot to expect someone to monitor the microchipping laws, and that in a lot of places people would simply ignore them unless they had a squad of cops alongside them. So I asked one of the cops up north about police support for the legislation. He said that they would help out if they had to, but he asked whether that was what Parliament really wanted policemen to be doing when they were already stretched.

Parliament received a petition of 6,000 signatures from Waikato calling for an exemption for working dogs. We took heed of the Kennel Club President, Lesley Chalmers, who said that it was not dangerous dogs that people should be concerned about but dangerous owners. We also noted the increase in costs for local bodies and the extra taxes imposed on dog owners. We noted all of this because anybody with half a brain knows that microchipping dogs will not stop dog attacks. In fact, the Māori Party has been very clear that the most effective—not the only but the most effective—way to control dangerous and menacing dogs is to muzzle them, not to wait for an attack to occur and hope the scanner will find the bad dog later. People with menacing dogs who do not control them will not bother to microchip them. Responsible people with potentially dangerous dogs will get lazy, thinking that the microchip will do the work, when in fact the key to the solution is education of the owners and control of the dogs.

So we were happy to support David Carter’s amendment exempting farm dogs—and on behalf of the Māori Party I congratulate Federated Farmers, National, and also the Greens on supporting the vote. The Green Party split vote—which is what we ourselves in the Māori Party have done—shows the unique diversity that is possible in parties that are brave enough to welcome and embrace open and free debate. I listened carefully to the comments of Jeanette Fitzsimons last night, and was glad to hear her speak proudly of the respect the Greens have for different points of view. Would that the rest of Parliament could be so bold, for that is the sort of open thinking this Parliament needs.

While microchipping dominated the debate on the Local Government Law Reform Bill, a number of other matters in it of real interest to the Māori Party almost drowned in the saliva of the great dog debate of 2006. I refer to the amendment to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, for example, so that local bodies can sting ratepayers for more money for capital projects. The Local Government and Environment Committee suggested that the lump-sum contributions—as it called them—not be called rates. But taking more money from ratepayers and not calling it rates is kind of like taking more Māori land under the Public Works Act and not calling it theft. It is a Clayton’s rate increase—the rates increase we get when we are not paying more rates.

Land rates have been a curse of Māoridom since they were first illegally used back in the 1800s for the express purpose of getting Māori into debt and forcing them off their lands. As Shane Jones’ relation Professor Margaret Mutu pointed out about the rating and valuation of Māori land in Tai Tokerau in 1991, the impact on the well-being of the tribe through longstanding grievances stemming from the rating and valuation of ancestral lands has been substantial. Indeed, the Māori Party would welcome a review of the land valuation legislation, because it appears that Māori land that can never be sold, such as Waitangi, is still valued the same as all coastal property. This means that the value goes up, and the rates go up faster than the Māori owners can keep up, and before we know it the land has gone up for sale to pay the rates. Although councils can give rebates, most of them do not.

Last night when the issue of Māori constituencies came up, I had to sit through the contributions of a whole lot of people telling me how bad I feel about having Māori seats on councils, how demeaning it is to me to have Māori seats in Parliament, and how humiliating it is for Māori to have their rights protected under law. I can just see the Tui ad now: “Hey, bro! Isn’t it cool that they stole our foreshore and seabed? Yeah, right!”. I support Māori constituencies, not because I believe in a process whereby councils can act like God, giving Māori seats and taking them away, but because, for Māori to grow, they need to experience governance at every level of society. My own personal view, though, is that Māori should simply stop paying rates to councils, pay them to iwi, and make councils negotiate with iwi for them. That way our contribution is maintained, but our desires have been genuinely met, as well. I agree with the comments from some of the National Party speakers who said that Māoris do not want tokenism. We do not. But we do not want anybody else telling us what we want, either. Hello? Try asking us! Māori have a voice. We even have a voice in Parliament; it is called the Māori Party.

This House will recall that earlier this year a United Nations special rapporteur recommended that Te Tiriti o Waitangi be entrenched in the constitution, and that the MMP electoral system be entrenched to guarantee adequate representation of Māori in Parliament and on regional and local bodies. This nation continues to grow, but it will never flourish until we recognise the validity of the Treaty and the status of Māori as tangata whenua. The Treaty is a contract to be honoured in the deed, not just in the spirit. It should not be a simple whim, to be renegotiated to suit the political colours of the day. For Māori, it will ever be our right to be so—to know and to live as tangata whenua.

We are delighted that farm dogs have now been exempted from microchipping, but fundamental flaws remain in this legislation. In the interests of highlighting the need for improving relationships between Māori and local council authorities, and for enhancing the rights of Māori to full recognition as Treaty partners in Aotearoa, the Māori Party cannot, on balance, support this legislation. Kia ora tātou.

United Future was, of course, delighted but, I must say, extremely surprised that Parliament last night adopted our own party’s position—namely, a continuance of the microchipping regime for dogs but with an exemption for working farm dogs. For me personally, it has been an interesting 4 months. This debate has aroused passions from one end of our country to the other. Members should look at my in-box some time and see the volume of email I have received from people in every conceivable part of the country. The issue has aroused great passions. That has made me reflect that there is a unique relationship in New Zealand between human beings and their canine friends, which is an integral part of our culture. We only have to think of Footrot Flats or Country Calendar, which has been broadcast now for 42 consecutive years, or of the dog wars in Northland in the 19th century, or, in fact, of the almost mythical dog that worked with one Mr Mackenzie in the South Island back in the 19th century, rustling other people’s sheep.

When Federated Farmers came to us about 4 months ago, seeking an exemption from microchipping for working farm dogs, United Future was quickly convinced that working farm dogs—that is, dogs trained to work with stock—are actually a different class of dog from other dogs. Why? For a start, they are working dogs—not only in the sense that they earn their own keep, unlike pet dogs, but also in the sense that they make an enormous contribution to the agricultural, and particularly pastoral, economy of this nation, which remains the backbone of our economy. So, for that reason alone, they come into a special class. Secondly, those dogs are on farms. They are away from urban playgrounds, parks, and streets, and certainly not in people’s backyards. And thirdly, as I mentioned to the Committee today, the figures show they are not involved in the majority of dog attacks—they are 40 percent of dogs, but are responsible for just 2 percent of dog-biting attacks, as reported to the Accident Compensation Corporation.

I have no doubt that Parliament has made the right decision, because I think that a voluntary regime, which is what we now have for farmers and their working dogs, is far more likely to succeed than if we had gone ahead and foolishly insisted, in the face of a good evidence-based case from Federated Farmers, that farmers must microchip their dogs. Now we are saying that they may microchip their dogs, and I think that will make a lot of difference.

I want to thank National, ACT, the Māori Party, and four members of the Green Party for voting with United Future in order to make last night’s result possible. I was greatly disappointed by the attempt by National and the Greens to overturn the microchipping regime. I am glad it has failed. I thought their response to the law that was passed by Parliament 3 years ago, with the support of all parties except ACT, was simply reactionary.

I remember being at a meeting in the Waikato with a group of farmers early in May. We were talking about microchipping, and they were giving me a pretty hard time, to some degree. In the end I said that all we were really talking about was the difference between a collar and a chip. Collars get lost, dogs slip their collars, and collars wear out and have to be replaced. A microchip put into a puppy, on the other hand, is there for that dog’s whole life.

This issue is simply about a new technology. I said earlier the National Party had been reactionary about it. I would have thought the National Party would be progressive in its thinking about new technology. We should have the best system we can for controlling our dogs, and if that involves new technology, then so be it. I foresee the day, maybe a few years from now, when we discover we can track a microchip through a Global Positioning System so we are able to see exactly where every microchipped dog is at every moment of every day and every night. That really will be important for this country. We should be a forward-looking country. We should not be frightened to embrace new technology, and we should go forward on that basis.

Microchipping is now to happen, and in that regard I want to thank Labour, Progressive, and New Zealand First for holding fast, along with United Future, to the concept of a microchipping regime. I really deeply regret the comments that have been made by the Greens in this debate, along the lines of saying it is dogs today and will be humans tomorrow. I do not agree with the politics of fear, nor with the politics of conspiracy. United Future is a party that believes in the politics of hope, and the politics of the potential to release the greatness of New Zealand. For me personally, the gulf between dogs and humans is total, as it is for my party. Dogs and humans are not the same. Our party is not into speciesism; we actually believe that human beings are unique in their dignity. To suggest that microchipping dogs will somehow lead to microchipping humans is, plainly, the politics of fear. I have said to a number of people since I have been in Parliament that if I received 10 bucks for every time I heard the Greens bring up the subject of fear in this House, then I would be quite a wealthy man.

At the end of the day I believe Parliament has done well. Let us now come together and keep working to make the playgrounds, parks, streets, and backyards of our country safe. We need to make those places safe for our beautiful children, because that, after all, is what we set out to do 3 years ago. These measures have come in response to the Carolina Anderson attack, and in response to an understanding of what happened in New South Wales, where there has been a microchipping regime since 1999.

I would like to mention that Moana Mackey has made a very important contribution to the debate over the last couple of days. It seems that Moana and myself are about the only two MPs here who have actually bothered to find out what has happened in New South Wales. Routinely in New South Wales now, as puppies arrive in this world, they are immediately microchipped by the breeder. People simply go along and buy a puppy with a microchip in it. There is no hassle. As I have told the House, the number of dog attacks has come down from 521 in 1997 to only 167 in 2003. I know that microchipping is worthwhile, because fewer children are being attacked by dogs in New South Wales as a result of microchipping. Victoria will follow suit. All we have done is to catch up with the real world. We have got real for once, and it has been a really, really good outcome.

With those few words I signal, once again, that United Future will be voting for the third reading of not only the Dog Control Amendment Bill but also the seven other bills—we will be supporting them all. I must say it has been an enjoyable 4 months, as we have got to grips with the very real issue of microchipping.

I rise to speak to the third reading of this legislation on behalf of the ACT party. As we know, this whole debate has focused largely around the first bill on the list of the Order Paper today, the Dog Control Amendment Bill. Three years ago, in 2003, we had the tragic experience of one little girl who was attacked by a dog. As a result of that, there was a knee-jerk reaction from the Government that was not really aimed at treating the cause of the problem, but was, in fact, only an attempt at treating the symptoms. I think it is something of a reassurance today that this House has come at least part of the way towards recognising common sense by amending the Dog Control Amendment Bill.

ACT has always remained consistent on this matter. We opposed the bill in 2003 for the reasons I outlined during the Committee stage, and for the reasons that have been voiced by other parties in the House today. The proceedings have also been reassuring in that they have highlighted one of the strengths of MMP, which has also been outlined by the Green Party. Parties, particularly small parties, from across the political spectrum joined together last night to allow common sense to prevail, so that at least some dogs in this country would not have to be microchipped. However, the ACT party finds it sad that all the other dogs in this country will have to be microchipped. We have done only part of the job and I hope that in the future we can address the rest of this issue. Unfortunately, there were not sufficient numbers in the House last night to do that. But ACT will be supporting this Dog Control Amendment Bill, because it goes a long way towards doing the right thing.

It does not hurt to mention, yet again, that the Dog Control Amendment Act 2003 would not have prevented any attacks, and it would not have saved any children’s lives or have prevented them from being mauled or physically maimed for the rest of their lives. That legislation is not a safety measure. It will not save lives; it merely addresses the symptom of the problem, not the cause. So it is a shame that since 2003 there has been a huge amount of political distraction around this whole issue. Hopefully, the passing of this Dog Control Amendment Bill today will see an end to that.

Of course, there were many other parts to the Local Government Law Reform Bill as it was introduced into the House. It has now been divided into eight separate bills, and ACT is taking a variety of stances on those bills. As I said, we will be supporting the Dog Control Amendment Bill. We will be supporting two of the other bills—the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill—but we will be opposing the other bills that have been put forward in the omnibus legislation.

ACT has been very consistent in opposing all local government bills that impose further regulation on local bodies that will, in turn, be passed on to New Zealanders, and that will impose further compliance costs—firstly, on local bodies and, secondly, in turn, on New Zealanders. We have always said that people, particularly when they are doing things on their own property and are usually making improvements to it, should not be impeded by unnecessary regulation and excessive compliance.

Unfortunately, in the past 7 years under this Labour Government, we have seen bill after bill after bill doing exactly that to New Zealanders—denying them their freedom and making it harder and harder to take care of, and make improvements to, their own property. ACT will continue to oppose any measures this Government puts forward in order to do those things. Yet again, in some of those bills, we have central government imposing more and more regulation on local government authorities, too, which is unnecessary and creates a further burden on them. That always seems to result in ordinary New Zealanders bearing the brunt of that, usually in terms of financial cost.

I wanted to take just a short call and voice our support for those three bills, which are sensible and move in the right direction. In respect of the Dog Control Amendment Bill, we would have liked to see a complete abolition of the ridiculous situation where dogs in this country will have to be microchipped. But we will be supporting that bill, because it moves at least part of the way in the right direction.

We are debating the third readings of the eight separate bills that were formerly part of the Local Government Law Reform Bill. I certainly will not have time to cover all those bills, but there are some salient points I wish to make, principally around what has been seen as being the fundamental issue that has captivated and captured New Zealand over the last few weeks—that is, the Dog Control Amendment Bill and the aspects of that relating to the microchipping of dogs.

I begin by acknowledging the work that was done on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I acknowledge the select committee clerks for their diligence and for the work they did for the submitters who submitted from all over New Zealand. By and large, the submitters took a very rational approach. Some submitted by way of videoconferencing, and they made some very clear and reasonably articulate points. It is interesting that, from memory, only three local authorities made some claim to the fact that they wanted to see the microchipping of dogs proceed. Almost everybody else was against it. So we thank them for their contribution. A couple of petitions were also reported back with the bill. A number of people around New Zealand signed petitions under the names of a number of people and organisations, saying that the bill was a nonsense.

So my next acknowledgment would be to those individuals and parties who listened to the voice of the public. They articulated very clearly a number of issues about efficacy, about longevity, about actually fixing the problem, and about the costs. Concerns were raised about a number of issues, and the National Party was one that clearly considered all the facts and wanted to make an absolutely unequivocal stand to say that microchipping was a nonsense. We said that if we could not have that, then we would support an exemption for working dogs, and we got there.

I also acknowledge some of my parliamentary colleagues in other parties, particularly in ACT, the Māori Party, and the Green Party—in fact, all of the Greens; they actually had some principles around which they made their decision. I concurred with their initial position. Then, when it looked as though we were at an impasse and were going to make no progress whatsoever, four Green Party members shifted their position so that we actually got some resolution. I think the decision is quite a sensible one—and I will come to that. A lot of people had an expectation that MMP would deliver the kind of decision we achieved out of this, and I acknowledge those members who shifted their position and listened, and those parties that divided and allowed that to happen.

I want to comment that New Zealand First members took a very intransigent position right through. If I were to use an analogy in the dog world, I think it would be that they ended up like a little dog surrounded by four tyres: in the end, they did not have a leg to stand on. They completely misread the public and were quite uninformed in a number of the comments they made throughout the process of the bill. In the second reading debate, members of the New Zealand First Party were telling us about hydatids control. Well, for goodness’ sake, how far out of touch could they have been!

On reflection, I think there is an interesting question about why we need to register dogs at all, particularly farm dogs. I pay a $15 dog registration fee, and for that I get a little disc I can attach to the dog’s collar. That is all I get. The management of animal health issues, both hydatids and sheep measles, whatever form it is in—Taenia ovis or Cysticercus ovis—is my responsibility, and the trace-back is from the freezing works. If it occurs on my sheep, I have to answer to that. But registration does nothing other than provide me with a little disc, and that raises questions about just how important registration actually is.

I mentioned earlier that I think we achieved not a bad resolution. If we listened to the people of New Zealand, we would have heard some local authorities say they wanted microchipping. I honestly do not know why they want it, but if that is the case, then that is fair enough. To me, local authorities having a permissive regime whereby they could decide whether they wanted microchipping probably was not a bad answer, and that is what we have ended up with. Section 5 of the Dog Control Act of 1996 states that local authorities must determine a dog management policy, but after that it gets prescriptive and tells them a whole lot of things they can and cannot do. A range of costs have come out of that, and people get grumpy about the costs that central government lays on local authorities. That, largely, was another reason why there was such an outcry about the process of microchipping. It would incur costs without actually doing anything to solve the problem, which was dogs biting people, and, particularly, in response to the Carolina Anderson incident, savaging young children.

The definitions under Section 2 of the Act state that a local authority can determine what is a working dog. This legislation is giving us the permissive environment that I thought perhaps we should have got to. So we have had a win. In my area, in the southern zones, the local authorities held up their hands and said they would not enforce microchipping. They actually took the Government on and said they would not enforce it. I do not know what would have happened had microchipping progressed through as a mandatory requirement. I think they would have just waited for it to be reeled back after a change of Government. But now local authorities do not have to break the law, because they can actually determine that all dogs in their areas are working dogs. They will now be able to do some things with quite enthusiastic initiative, because one of the issues we have talked about, but never dealt with, is allowing dogs into this country that have no right to be here. Those dogs, by their nature, are macho, aggressive dogs. They include the Brazilian fila, and a whole lot of others. So local authorities could have their own registers and say that those dogs shall not be working dogs and that all others are. So they could now require the menacing dangerous dog, by breed, to be microchipped. But they could also say that anybody who has had an offence for the ill-treatment of a dog, or anybody who has been known to keep dogs for the purpose of dogfights or anything else, is not eligible for an exemption as having a working dog.

So we have actually put in place something that I think is quite innovative. We probably did it quite by accident—and I see the Green members are nodding; they concur with the decision we finally reached. I tell those Green members that they are largely responsible for the brilliant outcome we have achieved, and I again acknowledge them for that. So we have now ended up with something whereby central government has provided a permissive regime that can be determined by local authorities. I think, honestly, that that is a pretty good outcome.

💬 John Carter: We did well.

We did exceptionally well. I think it says a lot about the understanding of the Government and its members not to have picked up on that situation.

💬 John Carter: But we did—we cunning ones who saw it.

Oh, yes, we saw it, but we did not want to raise it earlier because the Government would have closed it down. I look forward to working with local authorities now, and encouraging them to put in place regimes that will deal with the problem.

I conclude by saying there are some other harsher things that I think we should have done. Dogs are an intrinsic part of this society. We have changed the legislation to recognise “disability assist” as a term, and have had a small part in that. We recognise such dogs as companions, as working dogs, as dogs for protection, and as dogs that find people who are lost in avalanches. We use dogs for a multiplicity of reasons. But there are some people who use dogs for inappropriate things.

One of the amendments I introduced at the Committee stage stated that we should have zero tolerance towards dogs that attack and bite children. Members who seriously wanted to do something that would have put a line in the sand about what was or was not acceptable behaviour could have voted for that amendment. That would have put an unequivocal message before this nation of dog owners as to what would happen if their dogs misbehaved. The opportunity has gone, but I hope members reflect that that is something they should have given more thought to during the Committee stage.

I thank the House for the opportunity of making these points through this third reading speech. Of course a number of other areas were dealt with, and they have been mentioned by other members. They include littering, issues around the policing of special transport lanes, and the rates rebate. But there is an overriding factor that does concern National, in that many of the things included in this local law reform legislation—which is now divided into eight bills—have a cost implication that has to be picked up by the ratepayer. I want to conclude on that note, that as central government, as a Parliament, we have the responsibility to be aware of just handing on costs—shovelling them out of here and letting someone else worry about them—and there are significant cost imposts in this legislation. As a member of the National Party, I want to register our concern about that.

Well, has this legislation not shown the true colours of the National Party? Whenever the tough issues come before it and whenever the pressure becomes a little too much, National wimps out. There are many different parts to this local government law reform legislation—now split into many different bills—as we have seen throughout the process of debating it, that show us exactly what National is really like. We have talked a lot about microchipping, and I will come to that shortly. But let us take one of the matters that has not received a lot of attention in the House.

We are to pass the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill, which amends the Land Transport Act of 1998. That bill brings in some provisions around transit lanes. On the North Shore of Auckland there has been a bus transit lane for 23 years. It has been a way of ensuring that public transport is promoted and that those who take public transport to work or to their place of study are given priority in the traffic flows. The council, quite sensibly, tried to enforce that provision—to make sure that people who were not entitled to be in the lane did not use it. There are other areas around New Zealand where such lanes are used, as well, and where a driver with two or more passengers in the car can use a priority lane, in order to encourage people to car-pool.

The National members of Parliament from the North Shore went to the Mayor of North Shore City, and can members guess what they told him?

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What?

They said they would support that bill in Parliament. They said they would support priority being given to transit lanes, and would make sure that they got their fair share of funding in Parliament.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Did Maurice say that?

Oh, no—not Maurice Williamson! My colleague asked whether that came from Maurice Williamson, a member of Parliament who has been here for some time—the old warhorse of the National Party, whose shameful conduct around Paraparaumu Airport was under the spotlight again in question time today. No, it was the big, flash North Shore MPs—Dr Wayne Mapp, the Hon Murray McCully, and Dr Jonathan Coleman—who were all tough at home to the Mayor of North Shore City, telling him not to worry and saying they were good local MPs. They said they would go to Wellington and support the legislation.

But what happened? Maurice Williamson got hold of those members and said: “No, no, chaps. There’s room for politics here. There’s a bit of pressure on here. Let’s do the old National Party wimp-out routine, and when the bill comes before Parliament, we will vote against it—we will vote against the transit lanes.” There is a word for that; I ask Mr Okeroa what that word is.

💬 Hon Mahara Okeroa: The truth.

That is right. That is the way those North Shore National MPs behaved—and, boy, will they have some explaining to do to the Mayor of North Shore City, George Wood!

Then we come to the microchipping issue, where National conveniently forgot it had joined with 109 members of Parliament in 2003 to support not just one measure on dog control but many measures on dog control—many, many measures; a whole suite, a whole package of things we could do, to try to give the community reassurance that we were taking the issue seriously. Why did we have to do that? We had to do that because, when there were all those dog attacks against children, the National MPs could not wait—they were falling over themselves—to get to the meeting we had at Bowen House with some of the families of the victims of those attacks, to show how concerned they were about dog attacks. Some of the National members can burst into tears at the drop of a hat, and sure enough, at the meeting that is what they did. I was at the meeting, and I saw National MPs ingratiate themselves and say they would join together with other parties and get tough on dog attacks. Do members know that at that meeting the National members said we had to get the politics out of the issue? I mean, do some things not make one sick? Now, as soon as a bit of time has elapsed and there is some wiggle room, those members cannot wait for the politics.

The National members try to paint the situation as being one where one measure by itself would stop dog attacks. How ridiculous is that? No one has ever argued that. If we took just one measure on its own out of the whole suite of measures we had, we would find none of them would do that. This Parliament has voted to ban some people from owning dogs if they are proven to be irresponsible dog owners. That is one of the measures we took. Will that on its own stop dog attacks? Of course it will not. But we did that because we were building things together to make sure we had a sensible approach to the issue.

How many times in the last Parliament did over 100 MPs vote together on the third reading of a bill? Only on a handful of issues—only a handful of times—and dog control was one of them. But when the pressure came on the National Party members, they wimped out. They could not stand and hold together a decent argument. If they cannot do that in Opposition, how on earth could they ever stand the pressure if they were in Government? Every time someone came to them and said he or she was a bit unhappy about something, they would buckle under the pressure and say they would unpick everything. They do that while they are in Opposition, but how could they do that in Government?

💬 Sandra Goudie: Oh, rubbish!

The fact that it is only Sandra Goudie who says “rubbish” tells me a lot about the point I am trying to make.

If we, sadly—and I hope it does not happen—have another spate of attacks by dogs on children, there had better not be one Tory MP who gets up and says the Government has to address the issue. When the pressure was on back in 2003, the National MPs were full of bravado when the problem was there. They had part of the solution: we were all going to hold hands together and do something about dog control. Now that we have gone through a period where, thank goodness, children have not been attacked in large numbers by dogs, so the pressure is not on in that regard, the National Party members bow to other pressure they are under from outside this Parliament, and that tells people a huge amount about them.

The most important part of this legislation—I will get to John Carter later on—was hardly talked about by the National Party members throughout the debate. They spent 3½ hours talking about one part of the dog control legislation: microchipping, which is just one part of our suite of measures. But how long did they talk on the most important part: the rates rebate scheme? They spoke for 20 minutes about 300,000 low-income people receiving a rates rebate and for 3½ hours on one part of the dog control measures. As Sandra Goudie yaps away, it becomes clearer to me why those members sit over there on the Opposition benches.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: She must be in pain!

I do not know about that, and I do not think any of our measures could assist in that regard. But the most important thing we are doing is to increase, for the first time in 30 years, the threshold around the rates rebate—a fantastic measure for people who live in this country. Can members guess who opposes that? The New Zealand National Party. The National Party opposes us helping 300,000 low-income New Zealanders.

John Carter is presently National’s spokesperson on local government, and interestingly enough Sandra Goudie has just had to check with John Carter as to whether National is supporting the rates rebate scheme. That is how informed she is about the process. Despite the fact that she sits on the Local Government and Environment Committee, and did so during the previous Parliament, she did not even know what the National Party’s position was. That just sums up those people. Anyway, John Carter got up last night and told us one of his long, rambling stories. He said the reason National had to oppose the rates rebate being increased from $200 to $500 a year was that it would impose costs on local government. I ask Mr Carter: who imposed the costs on local government caused by the microchipping changes that the National Party made on Wednesday night? Which party made sure that councils throughout New Zealand will have to go around their areas to find out which dogs are working dogs? What costs for local government could there be from what John Carter has done in that regard?

The second point John Carter made in his very thoughtful contribution was that there was a cost in administrating the rates rebate scheme, and that that was why the National Party had to vote against it. This, of course, is the rates rebate scheme that has been going for 30 years, 18 years of which the National Party was in Government. Throughout the majority of those 18 years, did National say it should abandon the rates rebate scheme because it was too much of a cost on councils? Oh, no, no. Those members are grasping at straws in looking for reasons to oppose a policy that will help 300,000 people.

On our commitment card at the last election, we put down as one of our top priorities being able to increase the rebate from $200 to $500 a year. That will help lots of pensioners in our country and people on a fixed income who are trying to make their dollars go as far as they can—and not many people in the National Party would know about that. We are proud to support that policy; we are proud to have campaigned on it. That policy will make a difference for lots of nanas and poppas across New Zealand, and for those on low incomes, as well. It is to the eternal shame of the National Party that it will vote against this legislation, which will help out all those people whom it claims to be so concerned about. It really is typical of National that it focuses on the trivial, is juvenile, and spends time on things that will make us giggle a bit. But when it comes to really substantial issues, such as putting 500 bucks a year in the hands of poor pensioners, the National Party does not know its position—that was pretty clear—and then spends 20 minutes debating it, before coming up with the most pathetic reasons for opposing it that there could possibly be.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What did National do for the pensioners when it was in Government?

Well, National had a close relationship with pensioners when it was in Government. One has to have that when one is booting people in the guts like that. National cut the pension three times on people when it was in Government. We came to Parliament with a proposal to put 500 bucks a year in the pockets of those people in order to help them to pay their rates, and the National Party said no, that should all be hoovered up so that it could give tax cuts to its rich mates. That is an absolute disgrace.

This debate has been about rates rebates, and there is a website where people can check out their eligibility for them. It is www.ratesrebates.govt.nz, and it is far more important than a lot of the puerile nonsense we have had to put up with from the National Party these last few hours.

I would just like to commend the sterling efforts from my colleagues in this House to blow the whistle on a Government that the people of New Zealand are rapidly concluding has gone stark, barking, raving mad. David Carter and Kate Wilkinson have done a magnificent job to highlight microchipping—a ludicrous part of the legislation, which is a glaring symptom of a Government forcing more control over people and dumping ever more costs and work on to local authorities. That was referred to by my most excellent colleagues John Carter, Mark Blumsky, and Eric Roy.

We are being inundated with reports of escalating local authority rates, yet in spite of that we have the Government, courtesy of the arch - cash-grabber Cullen, telling Aucklanders to cough up more money for roads. Waiheke Island residents are promising a rates boycott if they are forced to pay recommended increases of at least 50 percent. Another group is saying that rates increases are unsustainable when looking at a 9 percent rate increase with more in years to come. A Federated Farmers survey revealed huge rate increases throughout the country. One council chief executive has even resigned, citing mounting frustration at the increasing financial burden being put on councils by central government.

This Government is one of the arch-villains, as I have already said, through the call by Michael Cullen for councils to start increasing their rates to pay for roads. Throughout the country there has been the suggestion that councils raise rates to fund State highways. We will not support that. Yet the Government thinks that is OK. No wonder, with the Government continuing to shift responsibilities on to local government resulting in increased workloads, increased compliance costs, and no alternative for them but to pass those costs on to ratepayers.

Councils have faced costs associated with the prostitution law, gambling, and microchipping, but by far the greatest cost has been long-term council community plans. A scoping survey by a group from Lincoln University found that some councils specifically budgeted for the cost of long-term council community planning but some did not. Many councils had to put aside more money in their budgets, at the request of staff, to help pay for that whole round of community planning, courtesy of this Government. Five main areas presented difficulties—that is, funding, staffing, direction, guidance, meaning, interpretation, capability, and buy-in. Actually, that is more than five. But all those areas were really difficult to deal with in terms of long-term council community plans, which were foisted on communities by the Government. No wonder, when the process cost, which many councils have to face, was $500,000 - plus.

All of that just gets dumped on to ratepayers, but the Government is saying: “They’re doing very well, thank you very much.” But they are not. Even Tim Shadbolt, Mayor of Invercargill, has described the process as complex and bureaucratic and, of course, costly. Then there is the cost arising from the Government forcing councils to meet compulsory water quality standards, which impose unbearable costs on communities, instead of the Government allowing communities to determine their own needs. Microchipping is just another cost to ratepayers, and the Government does not care.

The Government loves the idea of developing joint ventures with local authorities, because that keeps authorities busy, and too busy to fight back. How many central government departments do members know of that are working with local government? I tell members there are heaps. They are all trying to develop these partnerships, but all that does is keep councils busy—too busy to fight back. But they will fight back, and they are fighting back. The Christchurch City Council has said it will leave the governance of gambling to central government—to this Labour Government—because it brought in the legislation, it is the Government’s job, and the council will let the market decide.

As for microchipping of dogs, councils may well decide to class all dogs as “working dogs” and not do any microchipping. The fact is they can. That will be a signal to the Government that it is failing the people of New Zealand.

In speaking on the Dog Control Amendment Bill, I must admit that National’s first preference was to exempt all dogs from microchipping. Our second preference was to at least exempt farm dogs. Microchipping is still dopey and will not stop dog attacks, but at least some dogs now are not subject to that stupid law, and for that we must be partially thankful.

I do wonder what it takes for the Government to listen to New Zealanders, to listen to local authorities, to listen even to Treasury, and to listen to common sense. I have to acknowledge the huge support received nationwide for my own petition, which was to exempt farm dogs. It got nearly 10,500 signatures. Nearly 10,500 New Zealanders—dog owners and non - dog owners—petitioned the Government to exempt farm dogs from microchipping. And now they are exempt! Then again, over 6,500 New Zealanders also signed a petition to exempt all dogs from microchipping, but would the Government listen? No chance! We have heard arguments that microchipping is a one-off cost. Listen to this true story from New Zealand First, which supported microchipping, just like obedient poodles: “Inserting a microchip is a one-off identification for the dog and owner. Therefore, microchipped dogs would not need to be registered annually. The annual fee is a hangover from the days of hydatids and is no longer relevant.”

💬 John Carter: Who said that?

New Zealand First.

💬 John Carter: Ron Mark?

Not Ron Mark. Oh, was it Ron Mark? Nothing in the bill says that. The bill is about microchipping and registration. It is not about microchipping instead of registration. It is not about having one lifelong fee. Dogs still have to be registered annually, and the registration fee still has to be paid.

We have heard arguments about the microchip being a lifelong means of identifying the dog, and that it involves a one-off visit to the vet. We have also heard about Mr Roy’s friend Hank, the 8-year-old Rottweiler that was microchipped at 10 months, and later scanned by the vet but the vet could not locate the microchip. In fact, the vet said that microchips should be checked every year to ensure that they have not moved and that they are still functioning. So much for a one-off visit, and so much for a one-off cost!

We have heard arguments that it is easier to identify a dog through a microchip than through a registration tag and collar; that is, if one happens to have the appropriate scanner—and the specifications of scanners can vary from country to country. Indeed, one needs to get close enough to scan the dog, and provided the microchip is where it should be and has not moved or disappeared. What is the point of microchipping a dog to get through the Customs Service and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry at the airport, if the ministry does not even have the scanner available to do the check, in the first place?

We have heard arguments about the mess that is now being given to local authorities, because of the differentiation between working farm dogs and other dogs. Under the Dog Control Act, as all members should have read, the definition of a working dog includes any dog that the council so resolves can be a working dog. Any dog or class of dog can now be resolved just by a straightforward resolution of the local authority as a working dog and, therefore, become exempt from being microchipped. The local authority, as my colleague Eric Roy said, has the discretion. It has the choice over whether to enable all dogs to be microchipped.

Microchipping, whether of urban dogs or of rural dogs, will not stop a dog attack. Microchipping will not turn a dangerous dog into a harmless dog, and it will not turn an irresponsible owner into a responsible owner. Those Treasury figures—which this Government does not listen to—suggest that 7 to 8 percent of New Zealand dogs are never registered. Of those unregistered dogs, 50 percent are responsible for the dog attacks. Those unregistered dogs are even less likely to be microchipped now. This bill is right and it is wrong, and the words of the former MP Michael Bassett apply to the situation. I quoted his words last night, but I think they are worth repeating. He said: “Microchipping dogs is a pathetic political distraction to disguise the paralysis that afflicts this government, preventing it from doing anything worthwhile.”

I have to say that even after the passing of this bill, that paralysis will still be there, and it will still be preventing the Government from doing anything worthwhile. At least now some New Zealanders have been saved from this dopey microchipping law, and that is something. The question that still remains is whether the Government is the dog or the fire-hydrant, and whether it resides in the Beehive or the “pee-hive”.

Dog Control Amendment Bill read a third time.