Heatley Phil: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14113] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I must say that it is with a sense of frustration that members of the National Party on this side of this House sit here during urgency tidying up Chris Carter’s legislation once again. He passed the Local Government Act 2002 and of course amendments to the Dog Control Act. He said at the time that he was front-footing the issues. However because he did not do his homework here we are in urgency spending taxpayers’ money on tidying up a whole lot of loose ends. I wish they were loose ends. Unfortunately it is a lot more significant than that. We have had to go through sections of the Local Government Act and through the amendments to the Dog Control Act and make some very serious changes indeed. 
National would like to outline the concerns we put to the Local Government and Environment Committee on being faced with having to fix up this bill. Most of our concerns are about the errors the bill contains that drive a wedge of misunderstanding between New Zealand’s rural and provincial districts and its cities in respect of their different needs. Chris Carter comes from Auckland. He can live in his little suburb on his one-eighth of an acre prune his roses in the weekends and be oblivious to all those who live more than 20 kilometres away from a motorway. 
The first example of this is the concerns raised in various districts where there is a plus or minus 10 percent variation in determining ward boundaries. For cities it is pretty easy to calculate how many people within those variations can actually elect a ward member. We just draw a circle around a suburb and say that one councillor can represent them. But when we go to the provinces to Whangarei Whakatane Napier and Hastings or to the South Island provincial cities such as Nelson and all the little satellite towns around them that rely on them we have a serious problem. This Minister would have us draw a line through the middle of all those little satellite towns surrounding provincial cities like Whangarei Napier and Nelson—little satellite towns like Brightwater in the Nelson province and Waipu in Whangarei which exist right throughout the country—and say: “You haven’t got enough people. You’re short of 500 people and you cannot have a councillor to represent you. We’ll chuck you in amongst one of the suburbs. You can just sit there and hope that that suburban councillor will represent your interests.” Clearly they will not represent their interests. We are saying that a problem exists around the 2002 Act passed by the Labour Government because of a lack of interest or a lack of emphasis on communities of interest. That is one of the great misunderstandings about how rural New Zealand provincial New Zealand works compared with metropolitan New Zealand where the Minister comes from. 
The second misunderstanding is about the degree to which rural and provincial councils and their ratepayers can afford compliance costs. We are looking at the issues in this bill that constrain the role of the Audit Office in respect of long-term council community plans. Of course we know that the costs of compliance will be excessive. There is clarification in clause 51 that refers to this. I can tell the Minister and the Labour Government that they may be able to draw from deep pockets in the big cities but in the provinces and the rural towns people do not have deep pockets. They do not have the population to support huge compliance costs. They do not live in Wellington where they can knock on the Government’s door or form a lobby group. They just cannot afford it. When these huge compliance costs are being created the Minister should remember that rural provincial areas get hit harder for those reasons. It is not just because of socio-economic factors but also because of geography. I put it to the Minister that these are widespread areas and it costs a fortune to travel anywhere quickly if we can. Often we cannot. 
The third issue that drives a wedge of misunderstanding between rural and city needs is candidates for mayor being able to stand for the mayoralty as well as for council. We cannot understand why the Minister in 2002 suddenly decided that candidates for the mayoralty could not stand as councillors as well. It is just appalling that he said to all the provinces and to all of rural New Zealand: “Listen your candidate can stand only as mayor not as a councillor.” I can tell the Minister that the problem is that provincial and rural New Zealand often do not have a large number of people putting up their hands to say they will stand for council. There is a smaller pool of people able to do that work. If they want to run for mayor and councillor so that if they miss out on the mayoralty they can become councillors that is OK with us. We want their skills. To close them down simply because they entered two competitions I think is appalling and quite short-sighted. I am glad that issue is being fixed in clause 28 and we will be discussing it in more detail when we come to the Committee stage. 
We would also like to put on the record that we do not think every New Zealander should microchip his or her dog. We notice that the Minister thinks that grandma should microchip her poodle just because some gang has a Rottweiler that it does not keep under control. I cannot understand why the Labour Government would have every single New Zealander microchip his or her puppy just because it cannot control the gangs. I find that absolutely appalling. I talked to the Minister Trevor Mallard who said in response to Gerry Eckhoff that he would see every goldfish in this country microchipped. The Minister told me: “No I wouldn’t microchip every goldfish only the dangerous ones—the ones that when you walk by the bowl they jump out and bite you.” That is the attitude from this Government and it is just pathetic. If it cannot get gangs and crime under control if it will not approach gang members’ places and tell them to get their Rottweilers and their Dobermans under control if it is too chicken to do that and would rather have people microchip every little puppy that comes into the world then I find that short-sighted and absolutely appalling. We will oppose that just as we oppose the compliance costs in this bill that address that issue. 
I would also like to say that we do support the inclusion of a casting vote for mayors. Sometimes there is a deadlock in a city and district and regional councils and mayors have to show leadership and give a casting vote. Sometimes people do not disagree. The Green Party would have them sitting around holding hands and singing “Khumbaya” in the hope that in some way they would come to some agreement. It will not happen. A mayor has to show leadership and sometimes cast his or her vote and we are more than happy to give the mayor those powers. With those things in mind I look forward—as I know members on the other side of the House do—to hearing my arguments during the Committee stage. They wait with bated breath I know. We commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time.