Smith Nick: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14101] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 What the Minister did not acknowledge in his second reading speech is that this bill is really the “Fix Up the Chris Carter Botch-up Bill”. The provisions in respect of changing the Local Government Act and the Dog Control Act all arise because the Minister rushed through legislation under urgency— 
John Carter 
: He’s doing it again. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He is doing it again—and got it wrong and now Parliament has to fix up his errors. What is particularly frustrating—[ 
Interruption 
] Well in the Minister’s case he does not have any to do so—is that the Opposition parties warned the Minister at the time that the legislation was in difficulty. He ignored that advice and has taken us down this road of now being in urgency and having to pass patch-up legislation. 
The first of the provisions is in respect of the Local Government Act and the Local Electoral Act. The botch-up was that the Minister’s legislation inadvertently prevented a councillor from being able to stand both as mayor and as a councillor in a council ward. National was of the view that a councillor should be able to do that and to let the voters decide. We have always held that view and our only question is why the Minister got it wrong on the first occasion. 
The second thing we wish to make plain is that National firmly opposes Chris Carter’s view that every dog in New Zealand should be microchipped. It was a silly idea that he put in the original dog control legislation. It is still a silly idea and it is sad that the Government has chosen not to revisit it despite the number of submissions from councils around the country stating that it is a dopey idea. I find it ironic that the Minister stands in the House and says that this legislation is all about councils being allowed to manage themselves about the legislation not being prescriptive and about councils having the power of general competence. There is all that sort of rhetoric but then he says he will prescribe that every dog in New Zealand will be microchipped and even worse that we in this Parliament and on the select committee have to prescribe the individual fines for dog owners in respect of individual offences. The Minister is quite correct in saying we did receive submissions that the fines he put in his original legislation did not work. But the question I want to ask the Minister is this: why is he any more confident that we have got it right now? Why does he not trust councils—communities’ own elected representatives—to determine the fines? Is it not more simple for Parliament to say to the councils that they can prescribe a fine up to $1000 and can sort out the rates of appropriate fines for offences committed at different reserves in their communities. I think that would work far better than what is proposed. 
I also want to tackle the Minister with regard to the way he is wrecking local representation in rural communities. In the Local Government Act 2002 the Minister insisted that there be a narrow plus or minus 10 percent variation in determining the boundaries of wards. The Local Government and Environment Committee received many submissions from people who were concerned that that would not work and would disadvantage communities like the Wairarapa the Waitaki Tasman and the Rangitikei. [ 
Interruption 
] The member for Wairarapa does not even listen to her own constituents. She is so occupied with meeting every politically correct cause that she has forgotten about representing the people of the Wairarapa. I say exactly the same thing about the member for Otago who ignored the submissions of the Waimate District Council that that provision in the Act does not work because it cuts across community boundaries. 
I have visited many councils. I have gone to council after council—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the member for Otaki pokes his head up. Has he bothered to listen to the council in his own area which raised that serious deficiency in the Minister’s legislation with me? The council in that member’s community pleaded with me when I visited it to advance changes to that particular provision. But that member is more interested in following the instructions of the Minister than in representing the community on the coast north of Wellington. The provision in the Act is so narrow that it cuts across communities of interest and rural communities. 
Jill Pettis 
: He’s the one who beat Roger by 8000 votes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What is that screeching from the member for Whanganui? 
Jill Pettis 
: I said he’s the one who beat Roger what’s-his-name by 8000 votes. 
Government Member 
: Sowry. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: But why does he not do his job? That is the point. Why does the member not get on his feet and represent—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I have to say this. Roger Sowry supports the changes that his community wants which are for the ward boundaries— 
Government Member 
: He’s a list MP. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member from the Kapiti coast is such a hopeless member that he ignores the wishes of his own community in respect of wards so Roger Sowry has to do the job for him. I forget the member’s name as members hear so little from him. I would like him to get to his feet defend his own community and explain why he thinks the ward boundaries of his local council should be cut across rather than Parliament provide provisions that work for communities. 
The reality is that Labour does not give a stuff for rural communities. Those members do not want to see communities in those areas represented around the council table. They are interested only in their party hacks being on councils so they have ignored the wishes of communities all over New Zealand that want to see those provisions changed. I give notice now to the Minister—and it will be a test of that member as to whether he will vote for these amendments—that we will be moving amendments to make provision for communities of interest to get greater recognition in respect of the development of ward boundaries. 
The last point I want to make is with regard to the issue of rating database information. Again the Minister messed it up. His legislation in 2002 resulted in all the rating records from around New Zealand suddenly becoming private information. He goofed he got it wrong and again the select committee has had to fix up his mistake. I think the committee has done a good job of finding an appropriate balance between the practical necessity for people to be able to obtain the names of the owners of adjacent properties while at the same time allowing a limited mechanism for those owners who want privacy. I think we ended up with—this is so typical of this Minister—politically correct legislation overridden by the need for privacy. I have to ask the Minister why we passed a law in his name just 2 years ago banning citizens from having the right to get rating information on the ownership of properties. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: No not under my name—Sandra Lee’s. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister says it was all Sandra Lee’s fault. Well I looked at the record and I noticed that National members voted against that measure and Chris Carter voted for it. So it was all Sandra Lee’s fault! 
Darren Hughes 
: What did the High Court say about it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The truth is the Minister got it wrong; he made a mistake. Now the member for Otaki pipes up. He is interested in what the High Court said. Today the Government— 
Darren Hughes 
: What did the High Court say about this matter? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It said it was really interesting that every party in this Parliament has signed up to the changes that I advocated within the Family Court. I am very proud of that and I say to that Government member that I hope he is able to advance some changes rather than make his smart-arse comments— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member risks having his speech terminated with a comment like that. He knows that was out of order. He will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why is it possible that I can have comments made about my haircut and all sorts of issues raised in interjections that are totally irrelevant to the bill and you sit there doing nothing but the moment I respond you pull me up? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I have allowed a certain amount of interjection. The member is prone to interject frequently from his seat. I thought he liked it and I thought he was scoring quite well. I did not actually think he was losing on the deal. If people interject they run the risk of being replied to. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This bill as I have repeatedly stated is the “Fix Up Chris Carter’s Mess Bill”. The Minister passed the Local Government Act under urgency. Large portions of it now have to be amended. The dog control provisions and the rating information provisions have to be rehashed. Also the local government election provisions have to be rewritten. Members on the Opposition side of the House are getting tired of incompetent Ministers who cannot get their legislation right and who then expect this Parliament to fix up those messes under urgency. 
I think it is time we had a change and had a Minister of Local Government who is up to the job.