Roy Heather: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Roy Heather: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2523] 
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.