Peters Jim: Third Readings 
Peters Jim: Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:14136] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The remarks of the last speaker reminded me of the Waitaki River catchment legislation. When that bill came to the House and was passed virtually every member of the Local Government and Environment Committee took personal praise for the outstanding parts of the bill. But when Project Aqua was abandoned there was a quick change of mind. It is rather strange that one member claims that the National Party was responsible for that when any sane and sound approach would have come up with the same result. 
I refer first of all to the amendments to the Chatham Islands Council Act. I do not see that as a lolly by the way to the Chatham Islands. Over the years the Chatham Islands have had their natural wealth denuded and taken away year by year with millions of dollars of catches being sent to mainland New Zealand. The fact that the present Government has finally recognised that $2.5 million is needed—in order to put the Chatham Islands Council into the unitary authority regime and enable it to do things there—is only a just recognition of the wealth of those islands which was shared not by their residents but mostly by mainlanders over decade after decade. I think it is highly appropriate that that has been recognised—not as a lolly as was said by the last speaker but as a fair contribution to that council in endeavouring to bring itself up to the requirements of the Resource Management Act with regard to regional planning district planning in its district and particularly with regard to the coastline—the purity of waters and the enhancement of the natural environment. 
Secondly with regard to the Dog Control Act interesting comments have been made about microchipping. The comments about these minor amendments to the Act do not illustrate the fact that the Act has worked. I understand that today the Timaru District Council is rethinking its whole stance. In past years about 600 dogs were known to have remained unregistered as at 1 August. Last year that number dropped to 120. It then dropped to probably about 40. That is quite a remarkable achievement for a small district and it shows how the Act and the large infringement fees have worked. I could go through what has occurred at Auckland City Council and other councils as well. In other words the intention of the Act to emphasise far greater regulation and to place far greater onus upon irresponsible dog owners is working and will continue to work. Therefore microchipping is a natural outcome—not this year but in the year set in the Act—starting with puppies. I feel sorry for Mr Heatley’s little boy who is 4. I know of course that all the stories he told us about his son were really as a responsible parent upon his shoulders and affected his pocket. Nevertheless it was an illustration of how things have changed not least in our rural economy. That Act is one that in the country districts is probably more appreciated with regard to what it is doing and will do than in any other part of the country. 
It is just unfortunate that I was a bit distracted in the course of the Committee stage because I want to leave one issue with the House. New Zealand First does not believe that in the amendments to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act clarity has necessarily been achieved on what was a difficult issue—the issue of the reconfiguration of new business in councils and so on. In passing I say that I am not entirely satisfied that the amendments which were meant to rectify that situation have clarified it. But I will wait and see whether that is so. 
With regard to the amendments to the Local Government (Rating) Act it seems that I may have to bring that matter back in a member’s bill. The council that came to us with a submission and the councils that supported it have come with a righteous cause. The Local Government (Rating) Act of 2002 did change and although it was not intentional the actual ability to do a proper lump-sum scheme is no longer there in the way that those councils believe it is. I will need to get back to those councils in order to check that matter further. I hope to see whether the issue can be revisited in the House by bringing it back in a member’s bill. 
Broadly speaking New Zealand First is satisfied with what is before the House. What we are not satisfied with is that one would have expected the known industry knowledge that the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act are not in harmony to be the first subject of any review. That was not promised by the Minister. There are issues there that were not addressed in 2002 that are known in the industry to be still there and that will probably have to be the subject of legislative change or court action in order to resolve them. The time was ripe 2 years after 2002 not to give us a piecemeal reform bill but to come back to the House with something that addressed the problems created by the haste—and it was indecent haste—of the late days of 2002 in passing that Act. The haste was so indecent I remind members that the councils that were most affected had no opportunity to see the finished form the language and the narrative of the legislation at all. That was a mistake then. 
We are again sitting under urgency as has already been mentioned and looking at a considered review of a number of Acts but not at the core fact that the Local Government Act 2002 is not in harmony with the Resource Management Act. Whether that will be a further task of the Minister in charge of the Resource Management Act I do not know. But I do know—and I will say this because it is germane to this issue—that there are issues before councils now particularly as a result of the decision with regard to Genesis Power that are urgent that need to be addressed and that should have been part of the thinking in this supposedly short-term reform. 
 New Zealand First supports the passage of these bills. We hope that they clarify things. We particularly support the casting vote as it was. We believe as a party that it could have been much more than it is. Personally I would have favoured exactly what the Hon Nick Smith stated: that councils should be given the power to themselves adopt under their Standing Orders what is reasonable in current practice. The fact that they were not given that power illustrates to me there are still some obstacles somewhere in the chain of development. Again it was an obvious oversight that someone could not stand for the mayoralty or the chairmanship of a council and also be a member of it. That has now been overcome. 
But I come back to the last matter that was mentioned in the Committee. The fact that there is to be a reform or a review of the Local Government Commission does not take away the disquiet which the Hon Nick Smith has already mentioned that is there in the distant rural areas with regard to their representation. That is becoming even more so as we start to see some of the rates demands for this current year—2004-05—and analyse where some of those rates are being paid from. We find the burden of rates being paid by the rural part of a district is more often than not far higher than that being paid by the urban part of the district—in one council it is 67 percent rural and 33 percent urban. It must alarm people in the rural areas that they have seen the Local Government Commission take away some of their voting strength that the legislation does not recognise a community of interest and most of all that they have placed on them a considerable rates impost. That issue needs to be addressed further and to wait until the 2007 review is really too late. Ratepayers as citizens need to know that they have a democratic right not just to pay the rates but to be heard and right now there is a feeling in some of our districts as has already been mentioned in the House that that has not been so. 
We hope that this catch-up—the wash-up as it were—will do the job in two areas. I believe that we may need to look at amending the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act again and also I believe that the amendments to the Local Government (Rating) Act should come back to the House in a different form. We intend to bring that matter back to the House for a further look.