Heatley Phil: Third Readings 
Heatley Phil: Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:14135] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party outlined earlier that it would support the passage of this bill but we tempered that with concerns about why we are here at all. Members will recall that we outlined the fact that the Local Government Act 2002 was rushed through this House in that particular year. Lots of mistakes were made and we are here sweeping up that mess now and that is unfortunate. Amendments were also made to the Dog Control Act by this Government. We are here now of course to tidy up the mess made there and it is of concern to us. Although we are disappointed we are more than willing to fix those particular problems. 
It is of interest to us in particular to see the Chatham Islands representatives take up the role of having the delegated authorities associated with regional councils. They will be involved in environmental management coastal management coastal plans and all the types of things that would normally go to regional councils and were previously under the auspices of another regional council. They can now dictate their own terms and that is a good thing. Already the Chatham Islands District Council carries out territorial authority responsibilities. 
We are a little concerned about the small ratepayer base on the Chatham Islands. There are only 700 people there most of them kids and we are concerned that they will be subject to extra costs. I do not know whether the Chatham Islands will be able to deal with that without some sort of Government assistance. I hope that this Government will smile upon the Chatham Islands having presented them with greater ability to govern their own affairs but also with more bureaucracy. That has to be supported either out of the rate base or out of some generous gift from a Government that is keen to throw lollies about. I am pleased to hear that $2.5 million will be going towards a sewage scheme there. We hope the Government will support the Chatham Islands practically as well as legislatively in this legislation. 
There are also other issues of concern to us and we outlined those. One was the fact that the Labour Government had taken away the right of candidates in provincial and rural New Zealand to stand for both council and the mayoralty. Unfortunately the pool of good candidates in New Zealand is small. Those people could stand only for mayoralty or council and were concerned that if they ran for the mayoralty and did not get in under the Government’s laws they would not have a place on the council. 
National has changed that. We are delighted to be able to go to rural and provincial New Zealand and say: “Look if you’re good and the people back you and you’re credible and able and if you win on election day you might be the mayor. But if you miss out you can still be a councillor because we recognise that you’ve got something to contribute. You’ve got the skills.” National does want good people on local government. We do not necessarily want hand-picked people from the Labour Government who will promote all sorts of liberal agendas. We want the people to be able to choose who is their mayor who are their councillors and give those people the opportunity to both stand and win and represent good New Zealanders. 
We have also outlined concerns about ward boundaries and the plus or minus 10 percent variation to the population base in governing how many councillors there can be and what wards they represent. We were concerned that satellite towns in rural and provincial New Zealand would simply be cut in half by ward boundaries and that there would be no representation for communities and interests particularly in those satellite towns. We think that issue should have been addressed by this legislation and we are disappointed that the Government has not fronted on that. 
We are pleased that the casting vote for mayors has been returned to them. We know that mayors shoulder some responsibility certainly in the public’s perception. They do not often have to throw those authorities around but when it comes to a split vote we see no reason why an elected representative of the whole district who has a mandate from the people cannot make a decision based on the facts and his or her knowledge of the town. So we are pleased to see the casting vote returned to mayors—not just when it comes to providing a vote or an outcome so that statutory duties can be met but also over a wider range of council issues. 
Lastly I would like to mention once again that National certainly opposes the Government’s idea of putting a microchip into every puppydog in this country regardless of the breed of the dog regardless of the dog’s history of behaviour and regardless of who is the owner of the dog. We find it absurd that many families in New Zealand—young families with kids who want pets older families where elderly people want companionship from a well-behaved animal— should in some way have to face compliance costs and the hassle of microchipping their dogs. 
If we need to microchip dangerous dogs so be it. We need to microchip dogs that belong to irresponsible gang members which this Government seems to be too afraid to confront. So be it but the National Party cannot see why every dog owner in this country—rural provincial or in the city areas—should have to have his or her little puppy microchipped. It is absolutely absurd. It will create all sorts of compliance costs—an industry of its own. With the rest of New Zealand we just shake our heads in disgust at that. However we have put our minority view forward and it can be seen in the commentary on the bill. 
Clearly Mr Speaker you will have listened to all the speeches—certainly to mine—with some intent. We appreciate that. We have fought the good fight and we have made some very positive changes. There is no doubt that we would have gone further but we commend this bill and we will support its passing.