Woolerton R Doug: Third Readings 
Woolerton R Doug: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3866] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this legislation in all of its parts. The main part that we have heard about—and I have been as guilty as anybody—has been the microchipping of dogs. I think what we will see is the playing out of the old adage: “Be careful what you wish for because you may receive it.” Last night an exemption was granted for working dogs. This makes things very difficult for the modern registration of dogs which we always believed dog microchipping to be about. Whether we like it or not we will have a bit of a rural-urban split along those lines. I know that the will is there to make it work and I know that the Labour Government will do its very best to make it work and will go out with good intention. 
I hope as the Minister hopes that farmers will come along and see the worth of dog microchipping and engage in it on a voluntary basis. But I hope most of all that we do not have the situation that I am hearing hints of from the National Party. Its members are saying that the mess that will ensue will be a problem of the Labour Government and that National had nothing to do with it. In fact National and Federated Farmers had everything to do with it and sadly this was backed up by four members of the Green Party last night. New Zealand First I can say will hold the National Party to account for what it has done. 
John Carter 
: Who? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Members of the National Party can well say “Who?” as I heard John Carter say one time during this debate that New Zealand First would be dog tucker. There was another guy from the National Party who said that called the Hon “Dog” Kidd—Doug Kidd. 
John Carter 
: “Dog” Kidd! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Well he is dog tucker now! He said New Zealand First would be dog tucker. In fact he is not here but I still am the Rt Hon Winston Peters still is and we will be here for a wee while yet but that is for us to worry about. Throwing cheap shots around the House serves only to motivate us rather than the other way round. I will not say much more than that about dog microchipping. New Zealand First has been consistent. We agreed with it 3 years ago we agree with it now and we will agree with it in the future when somebody has the presence of mind to bring it back. 
But in the meantime I want to talk a little about the interface between local government and central government and it was right for Mr Blumsky to bring that up. I think there is a growing tension there. A problem I hear many people in the rural community talking about is increased rates. We all know in this House that this has come about from the reforms of the 1980s when Roger Douglas followed by Ruth Richardson and both Labour and National embarked on a right-wing reform programme that in fact shrank central government. The people of the day saw no role for government in the community. They promised no increase in taxes but what they did by sleight of hand in my view was then hand a lot of devolved responsibility—those were the words they used—to local bodies but they did not devolve money along with the responsibilities that were handed to local councils. 
That is a problem still to this day. So we have rates being imposed on local people to pay for the services required by local government. They may well make the argument that they are another form of tax. I would agree with them on that because they are. I believe quite frankly that it is time—because I have never been one to say that small government is great—for central government to start administering some of these things itself and thus take the burden off local government thus allowing it to hold rates and if transparency is the name of the game then levy taxes as it must. But to pass responsibilities continually to local governments and then have them levy their consumers—not always fairly I might add—their ratepayers I believe is wrong. 
I think a more responsible attitude needs to be taken. Some of the laws we pass in this House should be retained in their administration by central government and in my view uplifted from local government. This is a growing issue because local government is growing like Topsy. I am not talking about taking away responsibility from mayors. I am not talking about taking responsibility away from local councils. I am saying we should not give them more responsibility. Some of the laws we pass here we should keep unto ourselves and administer them through central government mechanisms. 
Like Mr Blumsky I am pleased to see that something is being done about litter. I do not believe particularly that continual penalties are the way to go. I think there are far more sophisticated methods. New Zealand First has not made a decision but we are not looking very favourably on Mr Nandor Tanczos’s litter amendment bill at this point but we are looking forward to the debate that will ensue when it comes into the House. I think local government issues will then come to the fore as well because again and again we are in danger of passing those things down to local government without the money to administer them. 
I am disappointed in the outcome of the Committee stage of the Dog Control Amendment Bill; I think National will rue the day it acted as it did but that is its decision. I think—most certainly—farmers will rue the day they were conned into supporting that. Those things are not for me to worry about. Suffice to say that New Zealand First will watch with interest how that legislation progresses and whether people in fact will believe that having a two-tier system—which is basically what it is going to be; one rule in an urban environment and another rule in the rural environment—is the way responsible parties want to go about things in this country. From New Zealand First’s point of view I say once again that it is not the way we wish it were.