Pettis Jill: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12482] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 That was a speech from the Hon Nick Smith a man who has never made a mistake in his life. This is a good bill. It responds to the needs of local government communities which are doing a superb job in New Zealand and will assist them in their governance. I am pleased to support this bill. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I well recall especially as the Hon Nick Smith was speaking the fevered haste of the passage of the Local Government Bill in the last hours of the 2002 sitting period particularly as councils did not see the bill. The bill was so rushed through on the Friday and the Monday that when we came into the House the bill had been unseen. One council I know well suffered financial loss as a result of that indecent haste. 
Secondly although there have been some suggestions of a lack of duty in the preparation of that bill one matter does not really lie with the Minister but with his advisers. That is the meaning of “council-controlled organisation” and “council organisations”. The impact of the suggested clause and its meaning was specifically raised in the select committee at least twice and was denied by the advisers at the time. Clause 38 should have been drafted by advisers who knew what they really meant. 
Last year companies that were subsidiaries of port companies were asked by the Audit Office to produce their books. For some companies that issue alone has been costly. In view of the fact that advisers were told that that would be so and that the Hon Dave Cunliffe was there at that time—and as a commercial person should have known better—it should have been realised that that would be the end. We had the unusual situation that resulted in port companies being exempt but in their subsidiary companies being under the overall monitoring and call of the Audit Office. Therefore I am very pleased to see this patch-up section in the bill. 
I called the Chatham Islands Council and I did that because I was concerned knowing something of its recent financial inability due to funding to meet the needs of a normal local authority particularly when I saw that it was given the functions views and powers of a regional council. I was very pleased to be reassured by the council that those powers related to resource management and biosecurity functions that it felt it had to exert on the island. Secondly I was also pleased to find that the Government will fund the council in the execution of those duties. Without that funding the bill would have a rather shallow induction into the House. 
With regard to the Dog Control Act I was pleased that yesterday the Auckland City Council said it was pleased with the Act and saw it as an improvement. The council is catching unregistered dogs and has been able to implement those parts of the Act that relate to absentee dog owners. Its overall impression as of yesterday was that the Dog Control Act of last year was a considerable improvement. Therefore I commend these sections of the Act—with the odd part that needs to be further clarified—that give greater authority to dog control authorities if needed. 
The only other section I wish to draw to the House’s attention relates to the electoral system. Again those parts of the Act could have been clarified at the time it was debated. We need them amended in time for the elections this year and I understand the Minister’s urgency. 
But again in closing this is not the first time—and will not be the last—that we are back here looking at amendments because of the way the Leader of the House has managed the business of the House. I know that amendments are part of the daily realm of Parliament but in these cases with more care there could have been a more considered response. Therefore I was sorry this afternoon to see that a very major matter—that of the Auckland region which has just been discussed—was once again the subject of indecent haste. The end result will not be pleasing because of the way the House orders that area of business. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I want to say that we support these additions to the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) which will improve the execution of the various sections of the Act. I hope that with adequate Government funding the Chatham Islands Council can carry out its duties. 
With regard to local government I know that those ambitious people who wish to stand for both the mayoralty and council roles will be pleased not to be denied that chance at present. To that degree we support the bill being forwarded to the select committee.