Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2511] 
Local Government Law Reform Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government Law Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move at the appropriate time that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee and that the committee report the bill by 12 June 2006. The tight time frame for reporting the bill is because some of its provisions need to be enacted by 1 July 2006 if the Government’s policy in relation to the rates rebate scheme is to be fully implemented for the 2006-07 year. 
I am pleased to see that David Carter is so interested in the well-being of ratepayers. He is not showing the least bit of interest in this bill but that is par for the course. 
The purpose of the Local Government Law Reform Bill is to refine the legislative framework within which local authorities operate to reflect recent policy decisions to clarify existing provisions and to improve the effectiveness of regulatory tools. This bill implements some new policy decisions and better reflects past policy decisions. It also clarifies and addresses a range of issues relating to local government legislation that are mostly technical or minor in nature. It does not signal any major new policy initiatives. 
Successive Labour-led Governments have made it a priority to provide a robust and empowering local government framework for councils and communities to operate within. This has involved the development and introduction of legislation such as the Local Government Act 2002 the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and the Local Electoral Act 2001. It has also included the introduction of a number of legislative reforms to the Dog Control Act 1996 that are aimed at effective dog control and improved public safety. This comprehensive set of legislative reforms has modernised and revitalised New Zealand’s system of local government. 
The Government has been working collaboratively with the local government sector on the implementation of the local government legislation and it recognises the importance of this in helping to ensure that the legislation is achieving its intent and that its effectiveness is reflected in practice. As a result of this process and as with any major legislative changes and reforms it is not unusual that some issues have arisen that need to be addressed. This Government has an established and a vital working relationship with local government. This has allowed both local and central government to be better informed about each other’s key issues concerns and priorities resulting in improved policy legislation and perhaps most important positive outcomes for our communities. 
In this regard I note that many of the matters proposed for inclusion in this bill have been raised through consultation with the local government sector and arise from submissions made by Local Government New Zealand the Society of Local Government Managers the Local Government Lawyers Group and individual local authorities. I believe that this bill will among other things help to ensure that the legislative framework within which councils and communities operate is clearer and more certain and reflects Government policy for effective local government. 
The bill amends the Rates Rebate Act 1973 to update the definition of rates in order to ensure that uniform annual general charges and postponed rates are eligible for inclusion in the calculation of rebates under the Act. This change will help to ensure equitable treatment between ratepayers in respect of rates liability. The amendment will also ensure that the expansion of the rates rebates scheme from 1 July will appropriately reflect recent changes in rating legislation. 
The bill makes various amendments to the Dog Control Act 1996 including the recognition of dogs trained by the Mobility Assistance Dogs Trust as companion dogs provision for epilepsy assist dogs and the recognition of dogs trained by the New Zealand Epilepsy Assist Dogs Trust for that purpose. 
Hon David Carter 
: What about the database? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: If that member stayed awake and paid attention he would know that that legislation was passed by the previous Parliament. 
A range of other amendments are also proposed in order to ensure that councils have the appropriate range of tools and enforcement mechanisms for effective dog control and improved public safety. The bill makes various amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 including permitting councils to donate money and resources outside their district or region where it will benefit the district or the sector as a whole or for emergency relief purposes. This recognises the sector’s willingness to engage in all of these areas. 
Other amendments include clarifying processes around the amendment review and revocation of by-laws which will allow justices of the peace to preside over liquor by-law offences in order to reduce court pressures—that is certainly a measure welcomed by my colleague the Minister of Justice—altering the definition of incidental arrangements to enable councils to hedge against exchange rate risk in relation to foreign currency investments and the protection in perpetuity of regional parks. 
 The bill makes amendments to the Local Government Act 1974 to simplify and reduce the costs of dealing with abandoned cars by providing councils with new processes and powers including empowering councils to recover the costs of removal. The bill makes a number of amendments to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 including reintroducing valuation provisions that existed prior to 2002 to regularise the processes relating to valuation objections. Other amendments include empowering councils to offer lump-sum contributions as an option for ratepayers and providing transparency by requiring councils to state their definition of the term “separately used or inhabited” in their funding impact statements and in information supplied with rates assessments. 
This bill amends the Land Transport Act 1998 to provide some certainty around the enforcement of bus lanes and transit lanes—a matter of particular interest to Auckland members. The Land Transport Act creates a clear expectation that organisations other than the police such as local authorities would have the right to enforce various aspects of transport law. In fact local authorities in Auckland have been enforcing bus and transit lanes for some time. Recently doubt was cast on the integrity of the provisions in the Land Transport Act on which this enforcement has been based. We are moving quickly therefore to re-establish certainty. 
The provisions in this bill will expire on 1 July 2009 to coincide with the sunset clause contained in the Transport Act 1962 that deals with local authorities’ traffic and parking management powers. The expiry date of the provisions in this bill will allow those powers to be reviewed as part of the development of a new legislative framework to succeed the Transport Act. 
The bill also amends the Litter Act 1979 to clarify that offences under that Act are strict liability offences and to increase the maximum penalties for infringements and offences under that Act to enable councils to better deal with litter offences. The bill also contains a number of minor drafting alterations and corrections clarifications and consequential amendments to some of the Acts I have mentioned and to the Local Electoral Act 2001. It also consequentially repeals redundant references in the Local Government Amendment Act 1992 and the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996. 
These amendments will provide clarity and greater assurance for councils in the administration of the various Acts and should also provide communities with greater certainty in dealings with their local councils. As I noted earlier it is highly desirable that the legislation be enacted by 1 July 2006 if the Government’s policies in relation to the rates rebate scheme are to be fully implemented in time for the 2006-07 financial year. I acknowledge that this is a tight time frame for the committee and I thank the committee in advance for the hard work I know will follow in ensuring that we do meet this time frame. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The problem with the Minister’s speech is that he condemned himself with his own words by saying that this bill is insignificant. The problem is that the Minister takes that attitude to local government when it has never been more the case than it is right now that we need some action in local government. The tragedy is that the Minister will do little about the issues that concern local governments and ratepayers. 
I want to go back to the motion that led to the introduction of this bill. I remind the House that that motion displayed again the arrogance of the Government the Prime Minister and the Minister in not consulting other parties about this legislation. The upshot was that before the bill even came before the House as it has today changes were made to it because not enough consultation had taken place. Had proper consultation taken place this bill would have included the ability to make sure that a database could be established. The problem with the microchipping of dogs as the legislation stands is that the Government is really stuck as to how it will get a national database. I will be very interested to see what sort of answer the Minister comes up with in that regard. I remind the House that the Government had planned that this legislation would give the Department of Internal Affairs the authority to establish a database on microchipping. 
It is interesting that a member of another party spoke about that party’s intention to put forward an amendment to this bill but the only member who has actually put an amendment on the table is the Hon David Carter. Instead of going on about what might happen David Carter has actually done that. The National Party with David’s leadership has put forward an amendment to make sure that farm dogs are exempt from microchipping. I know that David Carter will want to talk more about that. 
The other speakers on this bill from our side will be the Hon Maurice Williamson and Eric Roy. Both of them but particularly Maurice will want to talk about issues relating to the transport section of the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Maurice Williamson. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The Hon Maurice Williamson. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The Hon Maurice Williamson will want to remind the House that the last thing we need is Transit New Zealand staff becoming policemen. The last thing we need is Transit staff out there trying to be cops. They cannot even get their roads right let alone police them. But I will leave Maurice and Eric to expand on that. 
While the Minister is in the House I want to take up another point regarding the broader aspect of this bill: the issue of civil defence. I know he is Minister of Local Government but he referred to a statement I had made about civil defence. I would have loved it if he had come with me today to see the trouble civil defence is in. While it has improved—things are happening—what this Government has not done in respect of civil defence is quite honestly an absolute disgrace. There is great need. We will be in real trouble if some problem arises in this nation in the next little while. 
The Minister can put out as many statements as he likes about me having my head in the clouds when it comes to civil defence but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. When some calamity occurs the Government will be unable to respond to the needs of the people. It will be an absolute disaster and the Government will bear the biggest responsibility for the consequences. 
I want to talk about what is happening in local government and why I am absolutely embarrassed and ashamed that the Minister says the bill we are debating today is just a small piece of legislation. In local government we are seeing what has been classified as “incremental creep”. [ 
Interruption 
] That is not a new nickname for the Minister. We are seeing the compliance costs borne by local government continuing to become more and more of a burden on ratepayers. This year we will see significant rates increases across the country from both regional and district councils. The significant majority of the costs underlying those rates increases can be laid right at the feet of the Labour Government. I will give a couple of instances. Microchipping of dogs is a classic example. The Government says it will impose microchipping of dogs right across the nation. A Treasury report has advised the Government not to do so. Treasury is absolutely opposed to the measure because of the significant cost of setting it up—$1.4 million—and ongoing costs of $400000 a year just to maintain the database. Who will pay for that? The Government will not—not on your Nelly! It will ask the ratepayers the dog owners to meet those costs. That is part of the incremental creep we see happening across the nation. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’ll be half the Working for Families package gone. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well exactly! Those who have dogs will suddenly find that instead of being able to spend the bit the Government has paid out on the extra things that are talked about they will be putting it into the control of dogs. Even worse is the fact that microchipping of dogs when it comes in—and it will come in shortly— 
Hon David Carter 
: We’ll beat it! 
JOHN CARTER 
: We will defeat it absolutely! 
Hon David Carter 
: Common sense will prevail. 
JOHN CARTER 
: We hope that is right—let us hope so. Microchipping of dogs will be seen as a deterrent and fewer dogs will be registered and microchipped than currently are. It will not work. It will be a failure and that failure will rest at the feet of the Government and of the Minister himself. 
We need to look at other areas in local government that are a real worry—costs that the Government has imposed on local government for things like food safety standards. Somebody—some bureaucrat in Wellington—came up with the theory that we should have the system right across New Zealand. Well that is fine but who has the Government said should meet the cost of making sure that it is monitored applied and certified? Who does that? It is the local authorities. Where do the local authorities get the costs from? Who will pay for that? It will not be this Government. The Government expects local government to pick up those things. Water quality is the same thing. Here we go again. The Government has come up with a standard across the nation. Many local authorities struggle to bring their water supplies up to the standard. I ask the Minister to tell me how many people have died from drinking water from a water supply. I have not heard of any. There may be some but there has not been a raft of them to my knowledge. Yet here we go again. This Government is saying to local government that it has to meet the costs. The ratepayers of this country will meet the costs of laws that are imposed on them by the Labour Government on to local government. 
Quite honestly the ratepayers of this country—the people of this country—need to understand that the reason why they are having increased rates demands this year falls fairly and squarely at the feet of the Labour Government. It continues to impose additional costs on to local government. The consequence of that is that local government has no alternative but to put those costs out to the ratepayers. So when people sit there and think that the Government is giving them more money in some sort of benefit they must remember that that same Government is taking it with the other hand because of the costs it is imposing on local government. 
I say to the House that the National Party is working with local government. The local government team in the National Party supported by other members of the caucus is going around the country and visiting local authorities. We want local authorities to know that at last there is a party that will listen to them that will work with them that understands the problems and that will be making sure we do not have a Government that merely hands out responsibilities without understanding the impact. The National Party is the one party that will be making sure that local government gets the support and the backing it needs. Members should remember that this bill will do nothing for local authorities. It does not help the ratepayers of this country and it certainly will not stop the cost escalation that this Labour Government has put on ratepayers in this country. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 It is rather sad to hear the usual carping rhetoric of the Opposition from a member who like many Labour members on the Local Government and Environment Committee has probably not been a district councillor. I recall that when I was a district councillor we had one visit from the then National Government. The mayor poured a cup of tea and we were told about the better roads better future policy—and the less said about that the better because that is partly the reason why Auckland is in need of assistance from our Government today. 
The Local Government Law Reform Bill is a very important bill. It amends nine Acts which are all related to the workings of local government. This Government has worked on developing a collaborative arrangement with local authorities and regional councils since we came into Government in 1999. One thing local authorities are applauding us for is our regional and local forums for mayors to come and meet with key Ministers of the Crown discuss their issues and call for reform to the local government legislation such as the changes reflected in this bill. We can get on with the business when we have heard from our consultation with them where the legislation needs to be better strengthened for them. That relationship will continue and it is one of the cornerstones of our values as a Labour Government. 
One of the aspects of the bill that I think is terribly exciting concerns yet another of our pledges from last year’s election: the pledge about rates rebates. We said we would deliver on that by July 2006 and as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee I am sure that we will get the measure through. Many people will be very pleased about the rates relief. Anyone who asks Grey Power members will find they will be thrilled to see their rebate rise from $200 to $500 and the top threshold for those entitled to apply for a rates rebate increase from earnings of $7400 a year to $20000 a year. That affects many senior citizens on a fixed income and they are thrilled about that. We are out there yet again delivering to the senior citizens of our country. 
I want to mention the uneasy partnership between National and local government. Dr Brash has already signalled that he does not support keeping to the intentions of local authorities as he has said about the Maori seats on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. Poor Dr Jonathan Coleman will be squirming when he goes home to his father-in-law the wonderful John Keaney who was the chair of that regional council because he will have to do a bit of explaining to his father-in-law about those racially-based seats. Their inception was his father-in-law’s idea. John Keaney came to the Government and asked Mita Ririnui to lead the very bill that has got us having good representation on our regional council. Poor old Jonathan! I wonder what goes on in the Keaney household. 
This bill is about our Government listening to local authorities and reasoning on whether to enact their wishes for law reform. There are lots of things that the bill will fix. It does not just contain a measure regarding dog microchipping; it also gives local authorities powers to neuter menacing dogs dispose of diseased dogs and provide for epilepsy assist dogs—very important aspects that we have considered after consultation with local government and are now fixing through this bill. 
In conclusion I say that there are some very good members on the select committee that will consider the bill. They have considerable experience on local authorities and will bring that to the table in a reasoned way. I am very confident that we will get this bill through so that the beneficiaries of the rates rebate will enjoy the fruits of that relief by July 2006. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Following on from the contribution made by my colleague John Carter on the Local Government Law Reform Bill I say that the National Party will of course oppose this legislation. 
It is worth the House recalling the true genesis of the legislation. The original mess was made in the year 2002 when none other than the Hon Chris Carter was the Minister of Local Government. As the Minister he left a legacy of absolute incompetence and mismanagement which although the Local Government Bill was passed in 2002 has come to the public’s attention only now 4 years later. I say to Chris Carter that if he had only taken note of the work done by the Local Government and Environment Committee in 2002 when the legislation was originally introduced into the House I have no doubt that we would not be dealing with the mess this amendment bill proposes we attempt to tidy up. 
The background to all this legislation in respect of microchipping is that there was a horrific dog attack in Auckland. No member of Parliament could not have been moved by that attack. The Government then took the initiative to move legislation into the select committee. The committee after hearing a substantial number of submissions determined that the problem was not with every dog or with every responsible dog owner in New Zealand but with the dangerous dogs that some people keep in this country. What the select committee recommended—unanimously as I recall—was that those dangerous dogs should be identified and microchipped as a means of managing where they are kept. 
 But what the Hon Chris Carter did as the then Minister of Local Government was to completely ignore the report of that select committee and when the report came back to the House he tabled an amendment that overrode the select committee’s deliberations in total. He then used Labour’s strength of numbers plus no doubt one or two of the supporting minor parties to pass legislation that New Zealanders only now realise is a mess. 
It is an absolute outrage that we are in Parliament today with the full ramifications of this legislation coming into force on 1 July this year 4 years after the original mess was made. I note that Chris Carter the original architect of this mess is not even about to take a call to explain his action. The public of New Zealand—and in particular the farmers of New Zealand—have finally woken up to the stupidity of this legislation whereby farmers will be required to take every dog they own down to the vet to get a microchip put in. How will that prevent one dog attack? The answer is that Labour knows that it will not. It is another cost that is unnecessarily being put on our farming industry simply because the Government does not like that industry. 
After the election we had the most unbelievable appointment of the Hon Jim Anderton as the Minister of Agriculture. The farmers in New Zealand were just astonished that Labour put Jim Anderton into this position. He said he had never known much about the farming industry but was prepared to learn and to listen. His first big test came with this legislation and its requirement to microchip dogs. Jim Anderton met with Federated Farmers and their president Charlie Pedersen and he said to him: “Don’t worry I’ll fix this for you. I am No. 3 in Cabinet.” Then the Minister said the famous words that will haunt him forever: “What part of No. 3 don’t you understand?”. 
So he went off to Cabinet a couple of weeks ago and presented the proposal whereby common sense would prevail and the microchipping of farm dogs would be exempt. What happened at Cabinet was that the all-powerful No. 3 the Hon Jim Anderton was rolled by the little-known Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta who is No. 18 in Cabinet. The sad thing is that Federated Farmers were hanging on to every promise that Jim Anderton had made only to be let down again. 
As National’s agricultural spokesperson I have a solution for all the farmers in New Zealand. I have a member’s bill waiting to be called in the ballot that will exempt all farm working dogs. On two occasions I have sought leave to introduce that legislation into the House and on both occasions Labour has denied leave. With this legislation now coming into the House I have been able to move my member’s bill as an amendment—Supplementary Order Paper 22—which will give Parliament the opportunity to revisit the issue. 
We know that Labour does not like the farming sector and is jealous of the contribution it makes so I do not expect its members to support my amendment. But I look to the other parties around this House for support. Gordon Copeland of United Future has already indicated he will be moving a similar amendment so I look forward to his support. The support of two other parties is needed for this to be successful in the House—either New Zealand First or the Green Party. I have not been able to ascertain at this stage the position of the Green Party but I know that its members are giving it serious consideration. 
I have not been able to ascertain the position of New Zealand First. When I talked to its agricultural spokesperson Doug Woolerton he said the party will not support my amendment but apparently the Rt Hon Winston Peters has gone around all the greyhound racing clubs and said he will be moving an amendment for greyhounds. I fail to see the logic—and not many members of this Parliament do see any logic in the Rt Hon Winston Peters—but he will apparently move an amendment to exempt greyhounds from the bill. Maybe that party will vote against my amendment to exempt farm working dogs. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: And poodles? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Maurice Williamson says we are not sure about Winston Peters’ attitude to poodles. I do not know yet whether an accurate policy has been formulated about the microchipping of poodles but I can see that Mr Brown is rather scared about the possibility of that happening. 
The legislation was stupid when it was introduced; it remains stupid today. If this measure is passed by this Parliament when it is finally voted on in the Committee stage a huge cost—an unnecessary cost—will be imposed on the farming industry of this country. It is a nonsense. There is a mechanism before this House today for Parliament to relook at this issue and I certainly look to the support of New Zealand First members. I hope that given another couple of weeks of deliberation within their caucus they can finalise their position. I certainly look to the support of the Green Party. I hope that with either of those two parties supporting us in conjunction with the Maori Party and the ACT party who will support my amendment this House can finally see the nonsense created by Chris Carter put to bed once and for all and we can move forward with sensible legislation that does not bind our farming community unnecessarily. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support the Local Government Law Reform Bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee with some misgivings. There are very many good aspects of this bill—which I will talk about—but Green members are a little bit worried that this is one of those omnibus bills whereby there are very positive aspects in it and then in the fine print we see a whole lot of things some of which slightly worry us. 
Clause 47 states: “Clause 10(1)(c) of Schedule 3 is amended by omitting ‘must’.” What does that mean? We really have no idea and the Local Government and Environment Committee will be looking very carefully at some of these clauses. As another example clause 41 is headed: “Power to restrict water supply”. What does this mean? We certainly would not wish to inadvertently support legislation that gives local authorities powers to restrict water supply in ways that would concern us. We have not had a chance to look at all of the many detailed amendments in the bill and in the schedules. We have concerns about some of those and we will look at them very carefully. 
However we strongly support other provisions and that is why we will support this legislation going to a select committee. Who would not support rates rebate relief? Who would not support the requirement for public consultation before a local authority disposes of sells or agrees to dispose of or sell a park? I would have thought that the public consultation provisions of the Local Government Act would require this but if they do not then it is a very good thing that we are including that provision. There is another provision for a regional park or reserve to be protected in perpetuity from sale or disposition. I gather that this would enable a regional council to apply for a ministerial Order in Council to preserve a park in perpetuity. Once again we think that is an excellent idea and we strongly support that provision. 
There are other provisions relating to things such as cycle lanes and bus lanes and we strongly support those. And of course we support the strengthening of dog controls so that if a dog is classified as dangerous in one local authority that finding will hold throughout New Zealand. Who would not support that? Who in this House is not interested in trying to reduce the number of dangerous menacing dogs in New Zealand? Another provision states that such a dog would have to be neutered within a certain period. That too we support. 
One other aspect we strongly support is the strengthening of the litter provisions in the Act. My understanding is that at present local authorities are able to take very few prosecutions in relation to litter because the present legislation is not strong enough in relation to the presenting of proof and as a result we have an incredible amount of litter in New Zealand and people are not being prosecuted. Indeed our lovely so-called clean green image is being undermined by the amount of litter we see all over New Zealand. In the street in which I live we have a constant litter problem. We have a section of our street where there is perpetual litter and it looks like a rubbish tip for much of the time. People in the street have been complaining about this on an almost weekly basis for several years and there have been no prosecutions. Nothing has happened; it continues to look like a tip. So it is our sincere hope that the strengthened provisions in the bill will give local authorities the ability to take prosecutions for litter and that this might result in our particular street and many other streets around New Zealand not looking like a rubbish tip. 
We are very very pleased to support the very many positive clauses in this bill. However we find other provisions that we really have not had the chance to look at. We know about fine print and we know it is very easy to slip some clauses that might cause real concerns into an omnibus bill like this bill which covers such a wide range of issues in local government. So we have certain reservations particularly about some of the amendments to the schedules and so forth. We think they need to be examined with a fine-tooth comb as they say—or with a microscope—and we will be doing that in relation to the Local Government Act. But we do sincerely support parts of these provisions and for that reason we support the bill’s referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki): 
 One would think that as the member for Waiariki I would be very proud to think that the centres of Maketu and Kawerau yesterday hit the world’s news-stands. Instead it is a matter of great shame that the Crown has been called to account for its treatment of Maketu and Kawerau by an international human rights expert Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen. The report from the special rapporteur recommended that the Crown should take an active interest in supervising the compliance of the paper company in cleaning up the waste site at Kawerau and the waste disposal build-up at Maketu. 
These are not new issues. The Kaituna claim was first lodged back in 1978. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is to speak to the bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I am leading to that. Our people have consistently presented their objections to the environmental abuse the contamination and the waste disposal build-up that is occurring at both Kawerau and Maketu over generations. 
I turn now to my northern whakapapa. We learnt today also of the situation of Ngati Wai who are suing the Minister of Conservation Chris Carter and the Department of Conservation for their handling of the consultation issues in Northland about marine reserves and offshore islands. Ngati Wai elder Hori Te Moanaroa Parata had this to say about the nature of the Crown’s consultation: “DOC and the Minister think they have been consulting with us. What they have been doing is insulting and almost assaulting us.” This simply cannot go on. How many international experts reports from United Nations committees and special rapporteurs and damning releases from iwi leaders can this Government simply disregard as the view of one man or respond to by saying that nothing much will happen? Remember Shrek and the “haters and wreckers”? Well it is all coming home to roost. 
The special rapporteur has brought to international attention the marginalisation of tangata whenua from local governance. His report states that little more than 5 percent of members elected to local councils are Maori. The special rapporteur reported how many Maori legal authorities had advised him that they consider it constitutionally improper to force claimants to waive their entitlement to the protection of the courts when they negotiate settlements especially as it is achieved through coercion. 
What we are getting as the kaumatua from Ngati Wai himself points out is that despite the willingness of people to engage in constructive dialogue and to work with the Government in the interests of responsible local governance and marine protection the Government continues to pull the rug from under their feet. Here we are again today with this minority Labour Government trying to coerce this Parliament into accepting an enormous omnibus bill amending the Rates Rebate Act 1973 the Dog Control Act 1996 the Litter Act 1979 the Local Electoral Act 2001 the Local Government Act 2002 the Local Government Act 1974 the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996 and the Land Transport Act 1998. 
The Maori Party will continue to voice the views of our people outside this House and inside on the critical matters of local government and of rating and as we mentioned in our speech during a previous debate on dog control and dog tax. We want to make special mention of the ratings issue included in this bill. The bill amends the provision in the Local Government (Rating) Act in relation to the information a local authority is required to include in its rating information database. We have to ask this House what purpose this information will be put to and whether it will be in the interests of Maori landowners. 
Members of this House will of course be aware that the imposition of rates on Maori land from 1871 until the Ratings Act 1908 was resisted. Speeches by Maori members of Parliament as each piece of legislation was introduced continued to articulate that resistance. Even as recently as 10 years ago in 1996 the Labour member for Southern Maori the Hon Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan continued this theme of resistance to imposed rating changes: “I am pleased that any thought of coercing or insisting on the Maori Land Court making charging orders over Maori freehold land to cover rates arrears was not imposed by the committee.” Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan made reference to Lake Rotokawau and the Ngati Rangiteaorere people within my electorate who were forced by the pressure of some local body members—that those Maori owners pay rates—to take their case to the Maori Land Court to seek a special exemption then to go on to the Waitangi Tribunal. Our people are often forced into unreasonable situations coerced into the courts and forced to file papers for judicial review when all that may be required is the recognition of rights of roles of mana whenua. 
I turn again to the north. Professor Margaret Mutu’s 1991 report on the rating and valuation of Maori land in Te Tai Tokerau stated that all the tribes from the area had longstanding grievances over the effects that rating and valuation have had on their ownership and occupation of their ancestral lands their whenua tupuna. Professor Mutu saw that the manner of levying and collecting rates was a clear breach of the treaty and that valuation processes failed to take account of “Maori cultural and spiritual values which are an integral part of all such land.” In her opinion this only served to exacerbate the problems faced by Maori landowners still further. 
This issue continues in Te Tai Tokerau where for example unemployed Maori returning to tribal lands to make a new life encounter rating problems and a lack of services. The Hon Dover Samuels when chairman of the Far North District Council’s Maori Affairs Committee is quoted in the  
Northern Advocate 
 on 21 August 1993 as saying that Maori believe ancestral land should not be taxed. Perhaps one more example might help. The Maori Party has been advised of record rating increases currently being imposed on residents in Te Tai Tokerau the East Coast. One property currently holding a land value of $13000 was revalued to $48000. Another property has a current land value of around $13000 and has been valued at $35000. Maori ratepayers who have approached our office have advised us that such an enormous rating increase is indicative of a cynical piece of land evaluation and potential rates extortion. 
There is a proud history in this land of tangata whenua advising local authorities of their concerns with local government decisions of their desire to retain management and authority over their tribal lands and of their frustration—in some cases fury—at being ignored sidelined or marginalised in the consultation process. Although attempts are being made to make the resource management legislation work for Maori the local government aspect the critical relationship with mana whenua has not been sorted out first. It was from that context of those wide-ranging and universal concerns that the special rapporteur recommended first that the MMP electoral system should be constitutionally entrenched to guarantee adequate representation of Maori at regional and local governance levels and secondly that iwi and hapu should be considered as likely units for strengthening the customary self-governance of Maori in conjunction with local and regional councils. Those are recommendations that respond entirely to the situations of our time. They reflect the aspirations and dreams of tangata whenua throughout Aotearoa. 
Te Tiriti o Waitangi requires a more direct relationship between local government and mana whenua. There needs to be a commitment to working with Te Ao Maori and we want to encourage constructive dialogue healthy relationships and debate—not coercion or relations built on insult or assault. The Maori Party believes that we need to address the issue of rating Maori land within the Treaty framework. The current bill does not go anywhere near this; instead it seeks to increase rates through introducing lump-sum payments or face paying certain targeted rates. 
The difficulty with the grab-bag pick-and-mix approach to legislation like this throwing everything together into the wash is simply not good enough. To that end the Maori Party will be moving to oppose this bill. We do so simply because along with the issues I mentioned earlier it will not advance and enhance the relationships between regional local authorities and mana whenua. 
Tangata whenua are watching the response of this Government to the United Nations report with great concern. The special rapporteur concluded in his report that the inherent rights of Maori were not constitutionally recognised. Whether the Government reacts to that finding with a calm considered response or a response that denies discredits or dismisses the validity of the analysis within it will be a matter of great import for tangata whenua and indeed for the nation as a whole. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I should signal at the beginning that United Future will support the first reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill. In particular I shall talk about two reasons why I believe this bill to be important. The first is one that has already been touched on by the Hon David Carter in relation to the microchipping of dogs. As we now know the question of whether all dogs should be microchipped has now been considered by Cabinet not once but twice. 
In response to questions in the House about whether working farm dogs should be exempted the Hon Nanaia Mahuta came up with a very humorous line—namely that there should be one law for all dogs. It is a good line and it certainly raised a degree of humour in the House. But we need to analyse whether that is a satisfactory response and I believe it is not. Let me just mention a few things to the House. First of all we can categorise between different breeds of dogs. The original intention of microchipping arose out of the heightened concern in the community about dangerous dog attacks when Carolina Anderson was attacked in Auckland. It was in that atmosphere that we decided to microchip all dogs. But if one says to a person: “Take a Labrador dog that is trained to be a guide dog for a blind person and put that dog alongside a Rottweiler or a pit bull are there in fact different categories of dogs?”. They will all say: “Yes of course there are.” From that point of view I also believe working farm dogs to be in a different category. 
Farm dogs are in a different category from another point of view as well and that is the attacks that we were concerned about on children and other people from savage breeds of dogs such as pit bulls and variations thereof occur mainly in suburban areas and we were particularly worried about attacks in Auckland. When it comes to working farm dogs Garrick Tremain’s cartoon which was well discussed on talkback radio last week in New Zealand hit the nail on the head. The cartoon shows a group of dogs in the back of a ute and the first dog says: “We’re going to be microchipped in case we bite anybody when we’re in town.” The second dog says: “But when are we ever in town?” and the third dog says: “Well we have to go to town in order to get the chip.” In other words working farm dogs do not in the normal course of events get to go to town very often. Therefore from that point of view too they are much less dangerous than the dogs we had in mind that are roaming the streets of South Auckland. 
A third factor that I bring to the attention of the House is a new piece of information. The Veterinary Association came to see me yesterday and it praised highly the microchipping regime in the state of New South Wales in Australia. It told me that that regime has been going for 7 years which is about how long it will take our regime when it starts on 1 July this year to achieve its goal of microchipping dogs. That is because of course on 1 July only puppies and new registrations are affected and the average dog lives about 7 years. So about 7 years from now most of our dogs will be microchipped with the exception that I want for working farm dogs. 
The Veterinary Association said that microchipping had been a great success in New South Wales. It spoke very very highly of the outcome. It has been successful in controlling dogs and anecdotally although it is hard to prove a negative the number of dog attacks on children and other people has gone down. However here is a significant thing. In New South Wales farm working dogs—dogs used primarily for the purpose of droving tending working or protecting stocks and dogs being trained to be working dogs—are exempt from microchipping. The regulation in New South Wales goes on to state: “However these dogs are valuable animals and owners are encouraged to have their dogs microchipped and registered for the dog’s own protection.” 
The Hon David Carter has already said that during the Committee stage I intend to move an amendment to exempt working farm dogs from microchipping. That is what I intend to do but I also want to put in my amendment a provision that is similar to that of New South Wales such as: “However we encourage farmers to microchip their dogs because they are valuable animals and it will also help them to control their dogs.” I think that that is the right message to give New Zealand farmers. What they are objecting to is compulsory unnecessary microchipping of a special category of dog. That is because it is an unnecessary cost and farmers say that they are already up to their necks in legislation and red tape. That is their fundamental objection. We should look at it from a common-sense point of view. We will get more working farm dogs microchipped in New Zealand if we say it is a voluntary registration but we encourage them to do so. I think that that is the way forward and I will move an amendment along those lines at the appropriate time. That of course is all to do with the amendments to the Dog Control Act 1966 that are proposed in this bill. 
I also want to talk on a quite different subject and that is the amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998. Part 8 of the bill brings in definitions and enforcement regulations in respect of what are now called “special vehicle lanes” on New Zealand roads. When the bill was first drawn to United Future’s attention by Dr Michael Cullen the Leader of the House mention was made of bus-only lanes. In Auckland in particular both the local authority and Transit New Zealand want to have a legal framework to enforce bus-only lane regulations. At the moment that is not there and that is what this bill will do. Immediately I drew it to Dr Cullen’s attention and eventually also to the attention of the Minister of Local Government the Hon Mark Burton and I will also write to the select committee to say that a parallel situation has also arisen on the Mana Esplanade on State Highway 1 out of Wellington. 
The situation on the Mana Esplanade on State Highway 1 is a very interesting one. Basically the highway has been four-laned through the township of Paremata. It is called the Mana Esplanade but I refer to it as Paremata. Most people know it as the township of Paremata. What happens there is that at peak hours of the day only vehicles carrying two or more people are permitted in the left-hand lane. So a person travelling in a car on his or her own is not permitted to go in that lane. That is the first thing. So it is a “two or more people only lane” during peak hours. However during non-peak periods people are allowed to park in that lane. That situation which is novel and innovative—and I think the intention was good; it was introduced to speed up the congestion on State Highway 1—is of course fraught with a number of difficulties. For example a truck with two or more people in it that is whizzing along that lane at peak times may suddenly find a parked car in the way. The driver may not be able to brake and may have to swerve to the right into a lane that is completely bumper to bumper with cars at peak hour. There have already been some nicks and bumps but a really serious accident is waiting to happen. 
As this bill goes through the select committee process it is very important that the opportunity is taken to also ensure that the Porirua City Council and Transit New Zealand have enforcement ability around those rules for those lanes. I might say as an aside to the Porirua City Council and Transit that I think they probably have to do more to make it very very clear to people going through the Mana Esplanade exactly what the rules are. For example I went through on Saturday and I noticed a sign that said something about Monday to Friday then there was another bit that referred to Sundays and public holidays. I was there on a Saturday and I had no clear indication what the rules are for Saturdays. So I think there is also some more work to be done around the signage and so forth to make the system work but I will as I mentioned write to the members of the select committee and ask them to make sure that this bill will cover that situation. It may now do so because I note when I look at the bill as opposed to the initial draft we were given—the initial draft as I mentioned referred to bus-only lanes—that it now refers to special vehicle lanes which presumably would cover the situation on the Mana Esplanade. With those remarks I am happy to say that United Future will support the first reading of this bill and I look forward to it coming back to the House in due course. 
I would also like to say a few words at this stage to New Zealand First and the Greens. I ask them to please consider carefully the situation of exempting working farm dogs from microchipping. I also include the Maori Party in that as I understand it may be sympathetic to that ideal as well. There is an example of that in New South Wales where people have said that it has worked extremely well. So why do we not give it a try? If some time in the future we find that yes we do need every single dog microchipped regardless we can always do that later. But it seems to me that we should start with a voluntary registration for working farm dogs which by the way are already defined as being dogs that are specifically trained to work with sheep and cattle. That is already in the Act. Therefore I ask those parties to give consideration to supporting the amendment at the appropriate time. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand will not be supporting the Local Government Law Reform Bill for a variety of reasons that will become apparent very soon. I shall go over the main features of the bill I particularly want to focus on. The bill will amend the regulations around dog control including that of a national register of dogs. It proposes that epilepsy assist dogs will be treated like guide dogs. The bill will require more consultation by local authorities—yet more talking around the issues—when disposing of parkland. It will allow local authorities to seek lump-sum contributions from ratepayers for projects provided that ratepayers agree. Its final purpose will be to fix drafting errors in the Local Government Act 2002. 
I want to address a couple of things in the short time I have and the first concerns dogs. Mr Gordon Copeland was busy trying rather loudly to persuade the Green Party that his amendment was necessary and should be addressed. We in the ACT party agree with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta when she says there should be one law for all dogs. It is a very good line and I have to agree with Mr Copeland’s comment that it is a very good line indeed. But when we say there should be one law for all dogs we say that the law should be that no dog should have to be microchipped. Microchipping of all dogs is a complete overreaction. It is a knee-jerk response to a couple of terrible incidents but a response that will not result in any resolution of the situation at all. With the microchipping of dogs we will see law-abiding people who already register their dogs as they are required to under the law continue to do so and microchip their dogs—taking their obligations very seriously—but those who do not currently register their dogs and do the right thing will not be about to microchip their dogs at all. 
The issue that has arisen in the House today addresses just some dogs—working dogs on farms that work mostly with sheep and cattle. ACT will support the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Hon David Carter because it is a move in the right direction. We would like to see a move that goes much further to exclude all dogs from microchipping but we will support David Carter’s Supplementary Order Paper because it is a step in the right direction. I have yet to see Mr Gordon Copeland’s amendment and the full implications of that but certainly his description of it today indicates that we could support that too. Voluntary microchipping would certainly be in line with our position on this matter. So no dogs should be microchipped and I think that the register proposed in the bill will achieve very little. I certainly do not think it would have prevented the terrible accident that befell Carolina Anderson. For that reason we will not support the bill but we will support David Carter’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
I come now to the question of what exactly we have local government for. Why do we have councils? I think it is a question that councils do not ask themselves frequently enough and that New Zealanders do not think about nearly enough except when it is local government voting time. Even then the turn out is usually much less than we would like to see so I think it is an issue that New Zealanders at large do not give nearly enough consideration to. 
Traditionally councils have been responsible for core issues like rubbish and roads and I contend that that is what councils should stick to. For councils to have the power of general competence which was introduced in the Local Government Act 2002 was a massive shift in the way that councils are managed. Councils can now carry out just about anything they like unless it is specifically prohibited by statute. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Well you would agree with that. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Not with public money! Councils should not be in the business of running businesses. Councils are not put in place and rates are not paid to subsidise businesses that a group of councillors would like to see up and running. The Local Government Act 2002 has been a recipe for increased rates and sadly reduced services in many cases. Residents have seen some very basic services increasingly being ignored by councils as they spend ratepayers’ money on what are probably considered more exciting things—things that are perhaps more visible than sewerage pipes under the ground the state of roads and rubbish collections. We do not have to look very far around this country to see the great deal of empire building that has gone on in particular areas. 
It is interesting to look at what has happened to rates in various areas since the Local Government Act 2002 came into being. There have been some huge rate increases—for example increases since 2002 of 60 percent in the Selwyn District 52 percent in the Tasman District 38 percent in the Banks Peninsula District 36 percent in the Ashburton District and 24 percent in Waitakere City. We should also look at how regional councils are doing because in many respects they too are guilty of the very same things. Since 2002 there have been increases of 52 percent in the Auckland Regional Council 41 percent in the Taranaki Regional Council and 32 percent in Environment Canterbury. It is the ratepayers of this country who are footing the bill. Are they getting good value for money? It would be great to think that they are but in most cases they certainly are not. 
Over the same period the rate of inflation has been 6.8 percent. We should keep in mind those rate increases in comparison with the rate of inflation over that time period. ACT New Zealand feels so strongly about that situation that it has put a member’s bill in the ballot. At the last ballot Rodney Hide’s Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill was drawn out. It will be debated in Parliament shortly. The bill is an attempt to stop this madness we are currently seeing by limiting any increases to local body rates to the rate of inflation plus 2 percent. Councils would be prevented from increasing their rates beyond the inflation rate plus 2 percent in any given year or the inflation rate plus 4 percent in any 3-year period if they choose to attack the rate increase in that manner. 
That would see a concentration in the minds of local bodies. If they were confined to that sort of increase in a given time frame they would have to consider much more carefully than they have had to up to now the way in which they spend ratepayers’ money—money that does not belong to councillors. It is very easy to spend somebody else’s money. People are very good at saving their own money and spending it wisely but it is actually very very easy to spend other people’s money. That limitation would concentrate councillors’ minds and make them look at their core business to see exactly where their efforts should be channelled. Ratepayers in this country would eventually thank their local councils for taking that into account. 
When one goes around New Zealand one hears about rate increases. In fact I walked over to the House this afternoon with Barbara Stewart and she was bemoaning the fact that her local rates are going up hugely in the coming year—by 12 percent I think she said. That is actually a huge increase. Here in Wellington we are facing similar increases. That is unacceptable when ratepayers are footing the bill yet get very little say as to how that money is spent. 
So ACT New Zealand will be opposing this bill. We think that it is a backward step and will do nothing to rectify the problems that currently exist at local body level. But we are very sympathetic to the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Hon David Carter. We would like to see it go further. We will be supporting it because it is a move in the right direction. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on this bill. A number of the issues that have been raised do require a response. But perhaps more important in order to put in context the intention here I will say this Government is committed to a close and collaborative working relationship with local government. That is important in going forward. We know that local decisions are best made locally and that the legislation we are looking at here today will enable local government to provide strong local leadership. Labour will continue to work closely with local government for the benefit of all our communities. I say that from the outset because there are provisions in the bill that I think will make a real difference. 
What are those provisions? The rates rebate provision is an example of one. From 1 July this year the maximum rebate available under the rates rebate scheme will rise from $200 to $500. There was some comment from across the House about that very issue—rates. I am concerned when members of the Maori Party say they will not support that measure because in some respects that provision alone will benefit at least 300000 more families in New Zealand including many Maori families as well as others. More important and connected to the issue of the rates rebate the income threshold under which people will become eligible for a full rebate is to increase from $7400 a year to $20000 a year. Again that is a really really useful step in the right direction. 
A number of comments have also been made in the House about the provisions around the Dog Control Act. Mr Copeland was right to point out that the New Zealand Veterinary Association is very supportive of the microchipping measures. He also pointed to comments in respect of the New South Wales example. I want to comment on that very example only because Mr Copeland would have received the same information as me regarding the issue of the exemption for farm dogs from microchipping in New South Wales. Let us bear in mind the statement that farm dogs in New South Wales constitute a very very small proportion of all the dogs in that population. That proportion is very different in the New Zealand context. So it is not simply a matter of saying it is done in New South Wales so therefore we should do it in New Zealand. In fact a regime for an exemption for farm dogs here in New Zealand would put onerous monitoring costs on local authorities. That issue will come out in the select committee process but it is an issue that needs to be highlighted in respect of the issue of the exemption regime. 
There does need to be a law that applies universally to microchipping. Why? Because if the regime is to work effectively we must get as many of the dogs as possible into it. I do not think that exemptions are the way forward. The honourable member has a different view on that. I hope that the select committee will put in context the examples that have been drawn on in this House because I do not think they apply here. We need to look at the New Zealand situation. We need to have an overriding framework that promotes public safety and achieves a balance between having a good information system in terms of the dog ownership regime—putting responsibility where it lies which is with the owner—and having an overarching suite of tools that will help to strengthen what we all seek: public safety in our communities around the ownership of dogs. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I want to speak specifically on Part 8 of this bill but first I want to say a little about dog microchipping because I sit here in this House in almost a delirious state not quite believing what people are saying. I hear people say that because of the dreadful attack on Carolina Anderson we can microchip dangerous dogs and prevent that from happening again. 
That is about as logical as what I heard from Pete Hodgson today in respect of the Kyoto Protocol. Basically he said if we send a cheque for a billion dollars to the Russians under the Kyoto Protocol it will mean the weather will be better. Well why do we not send a cheque for two billion dollars order some really good weather and ask for really neat sunny summers—great weather for the beach—or a cheque for three billion dollars and have the best weather the world has ever had and then all the tourists would come here? What nonsense! Sending a cheque for a billion dollars to the Russians will not change the weather one drop—not one drop. But that is what Pete Hodgson said. He said the Russians have decreased their emissions so we should send a billion dollars to them. The Russians have already done that; their emissions decreased because their whole economy collapsed. 
So when it comes to dog microchipping can a single member of this House tell me that because a dog happens to have a microchip in it there will be no further attacks? First of all we know that the real mongrel ratbag dogs out there will not be microchipped. If any member in this House wants to come with me and the dog control officer to the Mongrel Mob headquarters in Otara knock on the door and say: “Hello boys we’ve come to microchip your dog.” I want to see them do it. We know that the real ratbag dogs will not get touched. They are only a small percentage of the dog population but they are the ones that will normally be out in a park off a leash and attacking the Carolina Andersons of this world. 
But I found out something interesting the other week about dog microchipping. With these microchips we actually have to touch the fur of the dog with the scanner to read the microchip. So if we are in the park and we see in the distance a vicious Rottweiler race up attack a little girl and take a big chunk out of her we will have to run after the dog scanner in hand and try to catch it. We know this new regime is in place now and the dog is definitely microchipped; we just have to catch the little ratbag hold it down and run the scanner over its fur and we will find out who the owner is. 
 In this situation two outcomes can happen. First of all the dog can run faster than the dog catcher and that is normally the case or if we do happen to be fast enough or if there are enough of us to pin this ratbag dog down and hold it then bugger me it will be the one that did not get microchipped after all because it was owned by the Mongrel Mob or whoever. So how will that regime help anybody? How does that help anyone? 
Instead of the Labour Government going on about how this is a good measure and how we will have a database and we will keep records I want one member of the Labour Government to explain how having a microchip inside the most well-behaved dogs owned by good dog owners will help. All of those people out there who are law-abiding citizens—who keep their guns in a special cupboard the bolt action in another cupboard the ammunition in another drawer and it is all locked away and who keep their gun licences up to date according to the gun laws—are the same people who will have their dogs microchipped because they do not want to break the law. How will that stop the rotten Rottweiler or the various other vicious breeds that we know of from attacking? 
I do not think there is such a thing as a bad dog; it is just the way it has been treated and been brought up. If it is beaten kicked and so on it becomes savage. That dog will not be microchipped—and microchipping will not stop another Carolina Anderson being attacked. 
So Labour is doing this which is its standard trick. This is its big flagship legislation. It says it is on the side of those poor kids who are going to get attacked by vicious dogs. There is not a member in this House who is on the other side of that argument or who says: “I reckon I support vicious dogs attacking little girls in parks and ripping pieces off them.” But what we do say on the Opposition benches is let us put up something that will work. Let us put up something that is sensible. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Well what’s your proposal? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I have a proposal for the failed previous member for Napier straightaway and it is to support an amendment to get rid of compulsory microchipping for all dogs. I believe this provision should be removed for all dogs; it will not do anything. 
I heard Gordon Copeland talking about the Garrick Tremain cartoon. I think Garrick Tremain is one of the greatest cartoonists this country has ever produced. I think he is spectacular. I love his cartoons even when they are at my expense. The cartoon the other day which should be put on billboards all around the country showed a ute being driven down the road with three farm dogs on the back. Listen to what they said. One said: “We’re off to town to get microchipped so that we don’t bite children when we’re in the town.” The second dog said: “But when do we ever go to town?”. The third dog said: “Well we go when we go to get microchipped.” How bizarre is that? I know of a number of farm dogs whereby the only time they go to town will be when they go to be microchipped. But I have been diverted. 
I wanted to speak about Part 8 “Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998”. I feel just as passionately about this. There are members of this House who will remember back to the good old days when local authorities like Invercargill city or in my case Tamaki had a traffic enforcement unit. The Tamaki Borough Council had its own enforcement unit so did Mount Albert. The public’s view when surveyed was that those units were little Gestapo units out of control who made their own rules to suit themselves. They were rapacious revenue collectors because they were collecting it into their own coffers. 
The public said they would have much more faith if traffic enforcement duties were put into a centralised unit such as in those days the traffic cops or more important—after the merger—to the New Zealand Police. I am one who has faith that the New Zealand Police would act more sensibly more carefully and more properly in performing that duty. I would prefer that to giving traffic enforcement duties to local authorities and—wait for it—to Transit New Zealand as this bill will do. 
Anybody who knows how Transit is behaving in this country at present will be outraged. Transit has taken it on itself to become the de facto regulator of development. Transit is regularly saying so to a whole range of developers up and down the country. I got a couple of cases yesterday from Owen McShane that are classics. A man has decided to expand the kiwifruit orchard he owns. He has bought some land next door and he is expanding his orchard to grow some more kiwifruit. He has the kiwifruit up and running and now he has applied for consent to build a big packing shed. The local authority says it is OK the regional council says it is OK everyone says it is OK even the neighbours are fine but Transit has said no—he cannot build a packing shed on his kiwifruit orchard because he will be driving his truck on Transit’s roads. 
Eric Roy 
: What? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is what Transit said that he would be driving his truck on Transit’s roads. 
Another case Owen McShane brought up yesterday involves a guy who has quite a nice small private hotel. He has decided because he is doing such good business for tourism and so on that he would like to add on some rooms. Transit again is the de facto controller of growth. I would have thought that this House was looking for economic growth. 
Helen Clark wants us to be in the top half of the OECD. We will be lucky to be last in the OECD if Transit keeps doing what it is doing. Now with this legislation we will be giving Transit the power to issue infringement notices. But wait—there is more. 
Transit will not only have the power to issue infringement notices it will also have the power to retain some of the money it gets from that. Can members see Transit saying each year: “Oh boy the blowout in the budget for roading is so bad and the Ministers have cut our budget. I know what we will do. We will just get out there and issue a whole lot more tickets and in that way we can get our roading revenue back.”? 
I am totally opposed to that. Law enforcement should stay with the law enforcement agency—that is the New Zealand Police. If people are abusing traffic lanes the police should be pinging them. If the Government wants to do something about increasing resources for the police to do so I will listen with great interest and with great care. But when it comes to enforcement I do not want to see the tentacles of the State being pushed further and further out to unaccountable bodies like Transit—and Transit is totally unaccountable. One might say that there is some accountability in the case of local authorities but try working through one’s elected councillors to get anything changed. They just say: “Oh I give up. The full-time bureaucrats within the place run it.” 
For that reason alone I take issue with this whole Part 8 which extends the definition of which particular authority can issue infringement offences. This provision extends it to Transit New Zealand which I believe is now so out of control that the Minister should sack the entire board right now. I will not rest easy in bed at night knowing that Transit has the ability to start issuing infringement notices. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker as you will well know New Zealand First was entitled to a call earlier on in this debate but I deliberately sat it out because I wanted to hear the Hon Maurice Williamson. To a large degree and I did not know this until he spoke we share his concerns on Part 8. We have been a firm advocate of a properly constructed police force to administer traffic and roading enforcement. As a result we have real concerns about a local authority or indeed Transit taking on that responsibility. That is not to say we fail to recognise there is an area that has to be enforced and policed but we would be happier if the police had the responsibility for it. 
In addition we would prefer the traffic arm of the police to be separated from the police service proper and would prefer that there was a nationwide traffic enforcement agency. We have not lost sight of that and we hope that in the fullness of time we will get other parties to concur with that view. We know a very large number of the public concur with us. The public do not like the police themselves being traffic enforcers and would prefer that there was a separate entity. I understand from many police officers that although they cannot speak publicly about the issue they also would support that move. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee but that is not to say we have no major concerns with various parts of the bill. I have demonstrated the one concern we have with respect to Part 8 which amends the Land Transport Act. We have yet to be convinced about the argument for microchipping dogs. We have listened intently to the arguments from Opposition members that they do not agree with farm dogs—working dogs—being microchipped. Gordon Copeland who seemed to lead the attack on that issue quoted the experiences in New South Wales. He said that dogs there are now being microchipped on a voluntary basis. 
The principal reason for microchipping a dog is not to stop it from attacking people. Microchipping a dog as I think everybody will know will not stop that dog from attacking anybody if it is inclined to attack people. It is simply to identify the dog to track it down pretty quickly and to deal with it pretty quickly. We know there will be people who will not microchip their dogs. They will think it is safe to be outside the law. But when their dogs are rounded up for whatever reason they will be dealt with accordingly—and by that I mean they will in all likelihood be exterminated. 
There have been a number of cases where young children have been attacked by dogs. We have to do something to put some controls into the situation. We are told that in Australia microchipping works and that the Veterinary Association believes it is a correct measure. That association goes along apparently with making working farm dogs exempt. But it then goes along apparently with saying that even if farm dogs are exempted farmers should be encouraged to microchip their dogs on a voluntary basis. If we are to require people to microchip their dogs then there is a good argument to say we should do it once and for all and make it compulsory. As the Minister outlined a few moments ago if everybody gets in so to speak it makes the cost cheaper on an individual basis right across the board. 
Eric Roy 
: Will it fix the problem? 
PETER BROWN 
: As I have just said it will not stop dogs from attacking people. 
Eric Roy 
: Well why support it? 
PETER BROWN 
: The point I would like to make to the honourable member is that that is not in this bill. There is already legislation on that in the Dog Control Act. This bill has nothing to do with microchipping dogs. 
Eric Roy 
: But it is about controlling dangerous dogs. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not wish to have a debate with the member. I know that he is going to take the last call and he can refute everything I say. 
The point is there is a good argument for being able to identify a dog quite readily and promptly after an event. Hopefully—and there is a degree of hope in this—it will make owners take more responsibility for where their dogs go and how they are trained. I have to say that the farming community microchips cattle now as far as I am aware. Farmers microchip animals in the ear now— 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Horses. 
PETER BROWN 
: And horses so they can tell exactly where they are where they have been and what have you. Microchipping farm dogs will be a lot cheaper for farmers than microchipping cattle and horses and will comply with the law as it stands. 
In terms of local bodies I could not come to grips with what the ACT member was saying. She seemed to say that she thought local bodies should be confined to building roads and sewerage. Well I say to her that if local bodies and councils confined their activities to those areas only New Zealand would be an awfully dull place to live in. I can recall many years ago Sir Clement Freud came here when everything was closed including the hotels after 6 o’clock and on a Sunday. He said: “I called into New Zealand on a weekend but it was shut.” I think if he came and found local bodies were confined just to matters of roading and sewerage he would say: “I came but it was not there.” 
I am very proud of the local council in Tauranga where I come from. It has built a massive swimming pool which is well patronised. We have a library a theatre and parks galore. The council has enhanced the downtown area and it looks magnificent. That local body is doing what the local people want. It is now on the verge of building an art gallery and I have absolutely no doubt that it will be an asset to Tauranga. If anybody thinks the council is doing the wrong thing then can he or she tell me why just about every person and his or her dog wants to come and live in Tauranga? Why do all the people come? Because it is such a go-ahead place with such a go-ahead council. For us MPs to stand up here and take local body politicians to task because they are doing a good job is really not on. 
I will conclude on Gordon Copeland’s reference to Mana Esplanade or Paremata as he said. I had the unfortunate pleasure of driving through that place some months ago. As my wife was with me we went in the lane for cars with two occupants. But I did not realise because I did not see the appropriate sign—there were signs up everywhere telling me what this was and what that was—that we were outside the hours for that lane and people were allowed to park in it. I was behind two other cars and a truck I think when we came across a parked car. We came to a grinding halt and everything we had overtaken while in that lane overtook us and we had to sit there seemingly for ages to get out into the correct lane. I could not make head nor tail of the signs. I thought if someone had thought that situation through then that person had not done his or her homework. 
New Zealand First will support the referral of this bill to the select committee unlike the National Party which will not. But National has put in Supplementary Order Paper 22 in the name of the Hon David Carter to correct the bill. I cannot make any logic out of that either. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 It is good to have the opportunity to take what I guess will be the final call on the Local Government Law Reform Bill. I am disappointed in the previous speaker Mr Peter Brown. Normally he is a man who speaks sense. I do not know why he is in Parliament. I will tell members why I am here: I came here to make a difference. What the bill actually proposes in Part 1 “Amendments to Dog Control Act 1996”—which is the enactment of those things around control over dogs biting people—will not make one scrap of difference. I ask the member to reflect on the words that the Hon Maurice Williamson used. He stole quite a bit of my thunder so I will not repeat his words. But I have to simply say that putting a microchip in a dog will not stop it biting anybody. I will talk some more about that in a minute. 
But firstly can I just speak broadly about the bill. My local mayor Tim Shadbolt—I think it is probably appropriate to mention his name because he is in hospital after having a car accident and I hope that Tim has a speedy recovery—and I have had a number of discussions over how Parliament makes rules and says “Fix that!” or “Implement that!” in a local government situation. Layer upon layer of costs have gone to local government and it has had to front up to its ratepayers and say for example: “Yep an 8 percent rate increase this year.” Ratepayers are saying: “Why are the rates going up if inflation’s X?”. It is simply because we are loading layer and layer of actual compliance costs upon local authorities. If the member is at all concerned about that he will not support the microchipping of dogs and all of the costs that actually go with that. Tomorrow our select committee is going to Manurewa to talk to its council about prostitute management and there is a local bill because they want to deal with that— 
Peter Brown 
: Microchipping! 
ERIC ROY 
: Do not go there. This is layer upon layer of costs that we are downloading on to local authorities. I have to say that that is entirely inappropriate. If the member wants to make a difference he ought to give scrutiny to the legislation that we pass in the House. If legislation will be effective sure let us do it; if it will not be effective let us not do it. Let us not go for what I call placebo legislation where we kid ourselves that we are actually doing something of benefit when we are not. Maurice Williamson made a very valid point about the Kyoto Protocol in his speech today. 
Peter Brown 
: He did. 
ERIC ROY 
: Yes absolutely. If it is not going to fix it let us not impose a cost. Let us not go there; let us not put people through a whole lot of issues that they do not actually have to face. 
There are some good things in this part about dog legislation especially in the provisions for companion dogs and dogs that are developing a range of skills that actually help people. We need to go through whatever we need to do to let those dogs go into restaurants on public transport or go into places they normally do not go. We need to tidy that bit up and support that element of the bill. 
But the rest of it is a load of nonsense. I could mount a case in this House that says it is more important to microchip cats than dogs. In terms of zoonosis—diseases that people catch from animals—cats are the worst. The average cat in its lifetime kills 700 birds—many of them natives. There are a raft of things that I could put up in the House to say: “We should be microchipping cats.” but that is a nonsense. It is a nonsense to say that we should microchip dogs when one could have a pet bull and take it to town. That is much more dangerous and it does not have to be microchipped. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
ERIC ROY 
: I inform the House that I am I think the last speaker on the Local Government Law Reform Bill. The area of the bill I have been canvassing is Part 1 which principally deals with menacing and dangerous dogs. The point I was making before the dinner break was that the legislation will not fix the problem. That is essentially the message I have been bringing to the House. 
Because I am the last speaker I will sum up one point that I think is appropriate to canvass. One or two members have mentioned specific breeds of dogs—even Rottweilers have been mentioned. It is dangerous to try to brand a breed of dog; it is more important that we say there are inappropriate owners. My own experience with Rottweilers particularly with the pure-breds is that they are certainly no greater threat than most other dogs and certainly less threat than some. It would be a wee bit inappropriate if we left the message that Rottweilers are dangerous dogs. There are dog breeders who have a set breeding programme and also an environment that can make any dog dangerous. Those are the people whom we need to deal with. If a person has an intention to breed and develop a macho-type dog then he or she will certainly not be lining up to register it and will be even less likely to line the dog up to have it microchipped. 
The other point I made before the dinner break was that this bill will load more costs on to local authorities. But it does not stop just at local authorities because the bill states that there are rights of appeal so we are also loading up the District Courts. New section 71B to be inserted by clause 11 states there can be appeals. That brings in a range of other questions. Will there be legal aid to defend one’s dog should some activity that is dealt with in the bill impact on one’s dog? If one is not happy with the District Court I guess one could appeal to the High Court. This provides more and more layers that will be seriously ineffectual. 
I say to the House that if we have a problem—and I believe we do—we should not have a knee-jerk reaction because Carolina Anderson was bitten by a dog whose owners we knew about and were subsequently charged. We should do something about dogs that are largely unregistered. If the House wants to be serious then it has to consider passing legislation that would destroy dogs that cause the problem. That would send a very very clear message. 
Parts of the bill are almost humorous to me. New section 33EB to be inserted by clause 9 states that the “Territorial authority … may require neutering of menacing dog”. I have to say to the House that the issue is not bestiality; it is about dogs biting people. We have a mixed message here. I am not sure who dreamt up that particular provision— 
Hon David Carter 
: Chris Carter. 
ERIC ROY 
: I have to say it is certainly ineffectual. I have mentioned before my experience in dog control measures being on the National Hydatids Council and the problems with unregistered dogs. Last week I rang up my next-door neighbour who is a bit poorly in hospital and I asked what I could do to help. His wife asked me to shear their rams. I went and borrowed his dog. It was not microchipped and it never bit me. I ran the rams into the yards on Saturday. Lo and behold the first ram I approached charged me—maybe it should be microchipped. It is an absolute nonsense to say that microchipping dogs will actually stop the problem. 
A number of issues about this bill absolutely concern me including the loading up of costs on to the local authorities and the efficacy of the approach of microchipping. Maurice Williamson spoke about having to virtually rub the scanner over the dog. I have talked to people who have tried to find microchips in rough-coated dogs and they have not been able to read them. This provision is an absolute nonsense. I support my colleague David Carter who will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s there now. 
ERIC ROY 
: It is there now but we will deal with it in the Committee stage. I have to say that if we wanted to be sensible we would simply say no to microchipping any dogs and we would bring in some serious provisions that would deal with menacing dogs and the people who own them. Only obedient citizens will microchip their dogs. It is a process about which there are serious questions of efficacy and it will not stop dogs menacing or savaging people. 
National will not support the bill. We do not believe the numbers will be there to carry it through but we will determinedly progress the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of David Carter. We look forward to that and to receiving further support from the House in seeing some sensible solutions in that regard. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government Law Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Local Government 
: I move  
That the Local Government Law Reform Bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee and that the Committee report finally to the House on or before 12 June 2006. 
referred to Local Government and Environment Committee 
Motion agreed to. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I seek leave that it be an instruction of the House to the committee that it consider Supplementary Order Paper 22 during its deliberations. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Local Government 
: I seek leave for the committee to have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 192 194(a) and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.