Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3791] 
Local Government Law Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 20 June. 
Part 1 Amendments to Dog Control Act 1996  
(continued) 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 Members will recall that when the debate was interrupted last night I was speaking to two handwritten amendments in my name in relation to the dog control clauses of the Local Government Law Reform Bill. I will refresh members’ minds as to what those two amendments are about. The first seeks to amend clause 8A by adding a new paragraph that states: “Any dog savaging a child under 13 years must be put down.” We have listened to speech after speech from the other side all repeating the same mantra: “Microchipping will not stop dogs biting but we will impose the measure because we all said we would.” How realistic is that in dealing seriously with the issue facing us—dog attacks on young people like Carolina Anderson who was the genesis of this piece of legislation? The Government has brought out a concept about registration not about dealing with dogs. 
The Hon Damien O’Connor last night said that he wanted to see dogs that savaged people put down. Well I tell him that this is the day when he should support my amendment because that is exactly what it proposes. If the Government is serious about actually dealing with the problem then it will support my amendment because that would change the behaviour of dog owners. It will change the way in which dogs are handled in public. It is the most proficient step I can think of in doing something positive to stop dogs biting children. I ask members to consider the amendment as a very positive way forward in sending the strongest possible message to deal with the issue. It is simply not good enough to say: “We know that microchips will not stop dogs biting but we will impose the measure anyway.” That is the reason for the first amendment in my name—to stop dogs that actually bite children. Anybody who does not support that amendment—anybody who is not prepared to vote for that amendment—is saying that dogs are more valuable than children. 
The second amendment in my name which I want to bring to members’ attention proposes to delete the dead dog clause. Local authority after local authority fronted up to the Local Government and Environment Committee and to individual members in their electorates around New Zealand saying that this bill adds costs and includes a lot of unnecessary measures. I will refresh members’ minds as to what the Dog Control Act states. Section 10 of the principal Act states that it is the duty of territorial authorities to adopt a policy on dogs. That is fair enough. Why then does the Government want to be specific and precise and implement a whole lot of other measures? My second amendment would delete new section 41A inserted by clause 9D. 
Then I saw that the Minister had introduced an amendment that I thought did the same thing. When I saw it I thought: “Hello the Government is listening.” But no—it gets worse. The Minister wants to insert an even more prescriptive provision that imposes a 28-day requirement to comply with the measure. That is absolute nonsense! Members should consider the practicality for farmers and other dog owners who could be engaged in a range of things when their dogs die. They could be overseas having left the dog in the care of someone else who might not be as diligent in reporting the death of the dog. They could be mustering or in the middle of lambing. They could be occupied by a range of things that make it simply impractical to report a death within 28 days. 
I ask any member on the other side of the Chamber to tell me what damage a dead dog can do. What is the mischief in not reporting a dog as having died? The identity of a dog cannot be transferred—particularly if it is microchipped. When the time comes to renew registration the dog owner will simply not pay for another registration. Have members ever looked at a local authority registration form? It lists the dogs registered in the person’s ownership—those listed on the previous year’s form—and provides spaces to record newly acquired dogs dogs sold and dogs deceased. It is as simple as that. So why are we now requiring local authorities to enforce this measure—and prescriptively so; within 28 days—whether or not that is practical? The Minister’s amendment says that a dog owner must provide notification if it is “requested to do so by the territorial authority;”. If we are to devolve to local authorities the power to say whether they need notification ought they not to be the ones who decide whether the time limit should be 28 days 6 months or the next time of registration? Why do we want to be so prescriptive and have another add-on of costs? 
We heard a lot of submissions in regard to dog control. One of the most impressive was from the Marlborough District Council and it expressed something to bear in mind when we vote on the amendment proposing to remove the necessity to microchip working dogs. The council deals with that matter now in Marlborough and it is not an issue. It simply says that if someone claims that his or her chihuahua—or Alaskan malamute or Great Dane or whatever—is a farm dog the dog control officer requires a test. It is as simple as that. If the officer is not satisfied then the dog is not registered as a farm dog—no ifs no buts no maybes and no correspondence entered into. It is interesting to see from the statistics on the management of dogs—stray dogs dogs worrying stock and dogs biting people—that the Marlborough district is a fine example. It has shown initiative. It is not for the Minister or for Parliament to tell local authorities what to do. We should go back to section 10 of the original Act—the territorial authority must develop a dog management policy. It is as simple as that; that is the common-sense approach to take. Instead we start getting prescriptive and imposing measures that require costs. 
Today I received a letter from the Tasman District Council expressing its concern and making a couple of points. I will table this letter because I want other people to read it. The Tasman District Council says that the levy should be set at zero and that the Government must carry the responsibility for the matter. 
I seek leave to table a letter from the Tasman District Council with regard to dog management and microchipping. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I take a brief call at this point to indicate to the House that I will seek prior to voting to have the provision relating to dead dogs removed. Having heard the good sound arguments of Doug Woolerton last night and considered the issue I think that that is the right course to take on this particular issue. Common sense prevails in this case. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a point of clarification. Just to be absolutely clear is the Minister taking away the reference to the dead dog provision—new section 41A(2) in clause 9D in Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton? Has that been withdrawn? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
:  
I wish to inform the Committee that I will not proceed with the amendment to clause 9D in Supplementary Order Paper 43. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 We are debating Part 1 and in particular microchipping. Microchipping is not the only measure in this part—it includes some good things—but it is primarily about microchipping. The point is that in a debate in the House the proposer—in this case the Government plus its supporters: New Zealand First United Future in this case and Jim Anderton’s Progressive party or whatever it is called—should be able to put up good cogent arguments to persuade Opposition members that our point of view is wrong. I have to say that in the 2 hours or so we have been debating this bill I have not heard one argument of substance that would convince me or any of the listeners who are against microchipping that we are wrong and the Government is right. 
The Minister took a call some time last night and said that one of the main reasons why we want to microchip dogs is so that when a dog is found worrying stock and the farmer shoots the dog we will be able to identify the owner of the dog as a consequence of its being microchipped. That is true; I have no argument with that. If we assume that the dog has been microchipped—because if there is a dog attack on stock it is likely that a good number of the dogs that attack stock will not necessarily be microchipped anyway as they are likely to be pig dogs or some other sort of dog owned by people who would not necessarily register or microchip their dogs—and if the farmer shoots the dog we can identify the owner. The question I have is that if the same dog is registered with a tag on it why can we not identify the owner? When a dog is dead what makes microchipping better able to identify it than if it has a collar? The Minister will say it is because the dog is microchipped and it does not have a collar. Well of course if we microchip dogs we are not going ask that they have a collar also but one assumes that if a person is responsible enough to put a microchip in a dog he or she will be responsible enough to put a collar and tag on the dog as is required now. So that puts away that argument. 
I have been listening now for the best part of 2 hours expecting to hear better arguments. The only argument I have heard is that microchipping means we can identify the owners of dogs that are shot if they worry and kill stock. Well if that is the only reason then we really have to ask ourselves what we are doing debating this. The Minister of Local Government the Hon Mark Burton said in his second reading speech that microchipping will not stop one dog attack. Indeed New Zealand First members have said exactly the same thing. Gordon Copeland of United Future has also said exactly the same thing—that microchipping in itself will not stop one dog attack. Therefore the only reason to have microchipping is not to stop dog attacks because we have all agreed—everyone so far: the Minister on behalf of Labour New Zealand First United Future—that microchipping will not stop dog attacks. We are all agreed on that; the whole Parliament agrees on that. Therefore the next thing is it must be all about identifying dogs. Well if it is about identifying dogs then one asks oneself the question what is wrong with a dog collar and a tag? Will we get more people microchipping their dogs and will we be able to read the microchip and identify the dog more easily than if it has a collar and tag? Actually the answer to that question is that all the evidence everywhere says no it will not happen. 
If the Minister had been able to stand up and give us proof that by microchipping dogs we can identify the dog and the owner more easily and if microchipping had been more practical and sensible and more people were encouraged by it then the National Party members might have been persuaded by that argument. But actually that has not happened. In fact we know that the only way one can read a microchip on a long-haired dog is by grabbing it sticking it between one’s legs and waving the wand over it. I have to tell members that I do not want to know the owner of a dog that badly—I seriously do not. There are parts of my anatomy that I would not want to put a dog’s head near thank you very much. So I will not be waving any sort of wand—mine or anyone else’s quite honestly—over a dog to identify its microchip. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I am going to make this a kind of omnibus speech in the sense that I want to wrap up a few points that have not really been mentioned too much in this debate yet. The first is to speak directly to my own Supplementary Order Paper and to make the point that my Supplementary Order Paper—as I hope everyone in the Committee is now aware—brings in a voluntary microchipping regime for working farm dogs. A working farm dog is a dog that is a working dog that is “kept solely or principally for the purposes of herding or driving stock;”. That is a definition that is already in the Dog Control Act which we are amending tonight. 
The other thing to mention is that it also provides that any working farm dog that has been classified as menacing dangerous or impounded will automatically be microchipped. So that is not voluntary. That second part of my Supplementary Order Paper has been lifted directly out of Jeanette Fitzsimons’ member’s bill. It is virtually word for word because I think she makes a valid point in saying that all of those dogs should be microchipped as quickly as possible. 
I still find that members of the public do not realise that 10 days from now the only thing we will be microchipping will be new puppies. Some people seem to think that on 1 July all the dogs in New Zealand are suddenly going to be microchipped. No that is not the case. As somebody pointed out to me today what has actually happened in New South Wales for example is that the breeder of puppies normally puts microchips in and then sells them on to people. The dogs are already microchipped for life. We need to dispel some of the myths around that point. 
The other thing I would like to mention is the Green Party’s position in relation to this bill. The Green Party’s position is that the only dogs they want to see microchipped are those that are classified as being dangerous or menacing. They have endeavoured twice to achieve that goal—once through a member’s bill in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons and once by way of a majority report from the select committee. Those initiatives have been voted down by this House not once but twice—by a vote of 61 to 60. Tonight the Greens intend to try again knowing that they will for the third time have that motion rejected by this Committee—again I imagine by a margin of 61 to 60. At that point they intend to accept the policy of Labour that all dogs be microchipped. 
Sue Bradford 
: We certainly don’t. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Yes they do. That is going to be the practical consequence of the action the Greens have decided to take. That is the exact opposite of what they say their policy is. They want no dogs microchipped. Believe you me it will become clear very shortly that we are going to end up in this Parliament with every dog microchipped. Why? It is because the Greens have not figured out that they should actually be voting in favour of the Hon David Carter’s Supplementary Order Paper to exempt working farm dogs from microchipping. That is 250000 dogs—40 percent of all dogs. It therefore gets the Greens and the Maori Party far far closer to their own policy goals than having every single dog chipped. Also in the process both parties seem to have missed the point that this will be an opportunity to actually defeat the Government so that only 60 percent of dogs in this country are microchipped. If I am found to be wrong on that point then it will become clear very very shortly. 
Given that these parties want no microchipping at all except for dangerous and menacing breeds how is it therefore that they do not support something that will exempt 40 percent knowing that the alternative is to have all dogs microchipped? How could they do that? This Supplementary Order Paper of David Carter’s will give them 40 percent of what they want—250000 dogs. Instead they say that they will reject that Supplementary Order Paper and with it they will then accept inevitably that all dogs will be microchipped. Such a policy has no credibility. It will be a great disappointment to Federated Farmers and when they experience that disappointment—as I am sure they will later this evening—they can squarely sheet that home to the shallow posturing of the Greens. 
I must say I am extremely disappointed personally to say that the Maori Party also has not figured out that simple point. They will end up with all dogs microchipped later tonight. They still have the opportunity by voting for David Carter’s Supplementary Order Paper to see 40 percent of all dogs exempted from microchipping. It is close to their goal. Why do they not consider that and why do they not do it? 
I want to go to one other point before I finish which is to try to just clarify things for John Carter. As I mentioned we start microchipping puppies on 1 July. It will take 6 or 7 years before the dogs in New Zealand are microchipped. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 In the late 1970s I used to drive from one side of the city in which I lived to the other to pick up my mother’s pedigree corgi and take it to the dog-dosing strip in London Street Wanganui to be dosed for hydatids. Lisa our corgi never went anywhere other than around the street for a walk or to the local park. She had no more chance of coming into contact with hydatids than she did of flying to the moon under her own power. I do not remember one single person from the rural community in New Zealand in the 1970s saying: “I don’t think city dogs should have to be treated for hydatids because city dogs are not likely to catch it.” Is it not strange that it was a case of one law for all dogs when it related to hydatids in the 1970s and 1980s but now several decades down the track it is different? 
I would like to know how those members opposite who have suddenly gone jelly-legged in respect of this legislation would cope in a real crisis. How would they cope if they were part of a governing party that had to make a decision in the interests of all New Zealanders particularly an issue that related to international matters? I would say National members’ jelly-legged behaviour in respect of this bill is indicative of the fact that they are not fit to govern. If those members cannot be sensible on a matter relating to the microchipping of dogs it proves they are not capable of governing and should never get anywhere near the seat of Government again. 
Part of this angst and mock protesting is all about National members assuaging their guilt for voting for the 2003 bill in its third reading. Those of us who have been in Parliament for more than a couple of years know that the third reading debate is a party’s last chance to object to a bill. What did National members do? They all stuck their hands up and voted for it. But then when the pressure— 
Hon Members 
: No! 
JILL PETTIS 
: Yes they did. The only people who did not vote for it were ACT members and at least ACT has stuck to its guns. But you Tories all voted for it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
JILL PETTIS 
: Now those members have got all jelly-legged when the pressure is on which shows they could not cope in a real emergency. Labour will not support Eric Roy’s amendment which proposes that only dogs that bite should be destroyed. But what about the question of whether it is a big bite or a little bite? What if the dog is auntie’s little nipper that is a chihuahua a corgi—those dogs can bite quite seriously—or a Pomeranian? People could say: “Auntie’s Pomeranian didn’t really break much more than a first layer of skin.” or: “It’s not a menacing or dangerous dog. Don’t destroy the chihuahua or Pomeranian—just those ugly big dogs.” 
So the grandstanding of the amendment put forward by the National Party in Eric Roy’s name is just superficial window dressing so that National members look like they are doing something. Those members have left it too late to do anything; they had their opportunity at the third reading debate in 2003—that is when they could have done something but they did not. National members did not mind trotting up when the Minister of Local Government at the time the Hon Chris Carter was responding to the tragedy of the Carolina Anderson incident. Those Tories did not mind trotting up for the photo opportunity to say to the public: “Look what we’re doing. This is terrible. We’ll do whatever we can.” This Government did want to do whatever it could which is why it has introduced a package of measures. We have never said that microchipping alone will stop dogs from biting—nobody has said that. 
Hon David Carter 
: Helen Clark did. 
JILL PETTIS 
: David Carter is on record in  
Hansard 
 as saying he supported microchipping as part of the package. 
Hon David Carter 
: Rubbish! 
JILL PETTIS 
: I will come over and show the member the exact dates on which he said that. I cannot find the exact quote in my pages but he is on record as saying that. The statement is a direct quote from  
Hansard 
 to the effect that when microchipping became available he would vote for it. They microchip other animals— 
Moana Mackey 
: He said “Rubbish!” but he is still checking. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Yes because David Carter knows only too well that he did say that and  
Hansard 
 will prove it. This is flim-flam window dressing from National. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 We are talking about the Local Government Law Reform Bill and in doing so it is very important to remember that when we talk about microchipping dogs it is a question of safety. That point often gets overlooked when we start to debate this topic. Last night all we heard was a muddying of the waters. As my learned friend John Carter mentioned we did not hear any compelling evidence to suggest that dog microchipping should be carried out. Will the public feel any safer if it knows that a dog is microchipped? I think not. 
In referring to the question about the third reading of the last bill on this matter I find it interesting to note that many recognised and credible bodies have reviewed their situation and changed their view. I would like to draw the attention of the list member from Wanganui Jill Pettis to the comments of the New Zealand Kennel Club which said: “Scrapping compulsory microchipping is excellent news.” It said microchipping is a nonsense and asked why when councils have not been doing a number of things they should do that now. The club’s president Lesley Chalmers said the best solution was to license the owners not the dogs and added: “We do not agree with the microchipping of dogs.” It is a moving situation to see that the New Zealand Kennel Club which originally supported the Government’s move to have all dogs microchipped came to the view after reflection and consideration led to clarity that microchipping was not necessary. 
We have to ask ourselves why the Government is so desperately holding on to this situation. In the light of everything all I can come up with is that the Government feels threatened that this situation is the nearest possible thing to a vote of no confidence. This is another nail in the coffin of a tired and mean-spirited Labour Government. 
When we start to look around the landscape of this Parliament we see a very good approach by those who have taken a position against microchipping. I was very moved to hear the Maori Party bring history into the House in respect of the issues around dog control in the 1890s. I can fully understand how the Greens feel aggrieved. It was quite moving to get a phone call from Stefan Browning a Green member from Marlborough who wanted to check my position and make sure we were on the same wavelength. I was able to tell him that indeed we were on the same wavelength on that issue—maybe not on one or two others. National has been as solid as a rock on this matter throughout this period in the House. It is opposed to the microchipping of farm dogs and for that matter of all dogs. It is only this tired mean-spirited Government that is acting like a dog with a bone and that is the most dangerous sort of dog to deal with. 
Let us look at the Government side of the House and see what is happening to Labour’s circus of dog obedience. New Zealand First is on the Government’s choke chain. United Future has been running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Of course in the Progressive party there is Jim Anderton who is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Labour the microchip master is the dog in the manger. I will go back to show members some of the behaviour we have had during this period. Gordon Copeland talked earlier about principles and morals and where he stood in trying to shift the blame on to the Greens. I quote a media report: “They say that every dog has his day. But for United Future MP Gordon Copeland his tough talk over microchipping lasts only a few hours. In the morning Copeland claims to have the Government in a corner saying that they will have to back his claims to exempt farm dogs or face total defeat. By the afternoon he rolls over and plays dead.” What a shameful situation that is. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of John Carter’s  
Hansard 
 of 27 March 1996 for his speech on the Dog Control Bill. Can I also table with the Committee’s permission the comment made by David Carter last night—this is not from  
Hansard 
; he said this on the radio—that it would be too hard to roll back this bill once it was passed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You have identified it well enough. 
Document not tabled. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I would like to bring a view from the Wairarapa electorate. My electorate covers five councils and all of the mayors from those five councils—Central Hawke’s Bay Tararua Masterton Carterton and south Wairarapa—came to Parliament to meet the Associate Minister of Local Government Nanaia Mahuta and give her a message. The message they gave her was that this proposal of hers was a nonsense they do not support it their communities do not support it and if it is passed those councils will put it at the bottom of their list of priorities. 
I have come to this Committee today to talk some sense on behalf of the people of New Zealand. I want to tell this Committee the truth—that this legislation to microchip dogs is a nonsense. I have been getting calls to my office all day the last one as recently as 20 minutes ago from people telling me to put an end to this nonsense. Well let me tell this Committee— 
Jill Pettis 
: So why did you vote for it? 
JOHN HAYES 
: —and my learned friend from Wanganui who is on her last jelly legs—that this legislation will not stop any dog from biting any child or any adult. But there is a cost in relation to this legislation. Roger Barton from my electorate a farmer from Woodside says it will cost a minimum of $100 a dog and a total of at least $8 million a year. I am really concerned about this. What I have seen happen in this Chamber—and I have seen it very clearly this afternoon—is people like Winnie Laban our colleague from Mana telling us that we are making investments in communities. She has forgotten the word “subsidy” and the word “benefit”. This Government is trying to work out the long-run perpetual Labour administration and it is copying the Swedish model. which is that a Government should tax like hell then give it back to the middle class which will vote for it. This Government is doing that; the same amount of money will be recycled. 
The second thing the Government is doing through these silly damn policies is putting costs on an increasingly aged community. More people are moving on to fixed incomes and they cannot afford these policies. A couple of weeks ago I was in Dannevirke at a Grey Power meeting in a room where there were 5000 years of accumulated wisdom. These people who are on fixed incomes are saying to me that they have to pay more for freight more for fuel and more for electricity and they have to pay a 10 percent rate increase because the stupid Government in Wellington is doubling the cost of their town debt by a water policy they do not need and a dog microchipping policy they do not need. This Government is taking ideas and forcing them down the throats of the community which cannot afford them. We are an ageing community. More people are on fixed incomes— 
Jill Pettis 
: Show me a poor farmer. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I am talking about people in my community of all ages who are ageing and who are on fixed incomes. They cannot afford the constant load of costs from a Labour Government that is trying to bribe people by giving benefits to people who do not need them. It is trying to destroy initiative and enthusiasm. When it cannot find enough people here in New Zealand to give money to with its silly policies it adopts stupid policies in the Pacific. Two weeks ago the learned Minister of Foreign Affairs gave US$179000 to the people of Niue and they did not need it either. 
We have a serious problem in this country. Whether it is water charges dog microchipping or wasted aid we are promulgating legislation here that has no value but imposes increasing costs on communities that cannot afford them. This Government is killing productive enterprise. What is the result? People are leaving for Australia because they are sick and tired of the nonsense being imposed on them by this Government. 
The five mayors of my electorate have come here to see the Maori Party the Green Party the ACT party and the Associate Minister. I ask Nanaia Mahuta who is in the chair whether that is right. They gave the Associate Minister the message that they would put this legislation at the bottom of their list of priorities. In my electorate 2883 people signed a petition asking that this House get rid of this legislation because it is a nonsense. They want us to chuck it out. They want to see common sense. I ask the Associate Minister to get rid of this policy. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I came down to the Chamber last night and made a speech that appears to have been lost on most people because what I have been hearing is so ridiculous. 
I will start by reading from someone else’s speech: “Sooner or later given the new technology that is upon us we will have microchips introduced for all dogs in New Zealand. Many local authorities in New Zealand are already starting to introduce microchips as a means of identification of dogs. It is a sensible way of identification. It is a way in which it can be done cheaply. When a microchip is put into a dog it is there for life. It would cost less than $10 per dog for the life of the dog. It is a ready means of identification.” The speech goes on to say: “I think an important thing for us in the future as the microchip is developed and as local authorities have better means of identifying the dog through the mode of microchips is that Parliament passes legislation that allows for dogs throughout the country to have microchips implanted. When that happens we will have a proper means of identifying dogs.” The person who made that speech was the honourable John Carter in 1996. I noticed that David Carter when we thought the speech was made by him hurriedly went through his notes to see whether he had made that statement—which just goes to show the absurdity of this debate. 
In the 1990s National MPs thought microchipping was a good idea and they were right. It is a sensible means of identification it is a low-cost solution and the rest of the world is rapidly heading in that direction. But of course now that those members have seen there might be a few votes to be won in opposing microchipping they have given up on common sense entirely and have gone in exactly the opposite direction. We are used to National Party flip-flops in this Chamber but this goes beyond the pale. 
Last night I referred to the experience in New South Wales and I once again say to members who oppose this bill for the reasons they have given that they should google the information on the Companion Animals Act of New South Wales. They will find some very useful information on that Act because it is pretty much the same package that has been introduced in New Zealand. The difference here is that the Government will provide far more financial support for developing the national dog database. Also we are not requiring dogs that are currently registered to be microchipped. In New South Wales people were given 3 years to have all dogs microchipped. In that state in 1997 there were 521 dog attacks. In 2001 that figure dropped to 150. 
I shall refer to the report on the Companion Animals Act which was delivered to the Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers 4 years after the Act was passed. It states that in the early days the critics were very vocal the owners would not microchip their dogs the microchip was not good enough there were no good microchip readers it would not work and the whole system was flawed. Those are the same things we are hearing at the moment. But now New South Wales is recognised as having the most effective dangerous dog provisions of any state in Australia if not the world. 
The reason the system has worked so well is not that farm dogs which comprise less than 5 percent of the total dog population are exempt—they still have problems with farm dogs that attack stock and the rural-urban divide in Australia is a lot easier than it is here—[ 
Interruption 
] Members might want to listen because they might learn something. They do not like the facts. No longer can the behaviour of dogs—dogs that are being shifted around territorial regional authorities that are having their collars taken off and that are being given to other people and registered under different names—be hidden from a new local authority. When a dog is brought in for menacing behaviour the microchip is zapped and it can be seen whether in a neighbouring territorial authority that dog had done exactly the same thing five times before. Local authorities now have the power to put that dog down before it goes on to commit a serious attack maybe on a child on another animal or on stock—we do not know. What has happened is that the number of dog attacks has plummeted because more dangerous dogs are being destroyed before they get to the point of committing a serious attack. 
At the moment when a dog goes into a new territorial local authority it is a completely new entity. That authority has no idea where that dog has come from or what it has done in its previous life because the registration system does not allow us to know that. But by microchipping the dog and bringing the system into the 21st century we will be able to track those dogs and destroy them earlier. It is quite simple really. The microchip can be inserted when the dog is 6 weeks old and has to have its vaccinations or at 12 weeks when it has its second dose of vaccinations. It would be interesting to know whether members think dogs should not have vaccinations or that those vaccinations should not be carried out by a vet. But it will be a one-off visit to the vet which can be done at the same time as the dog’s vaccination. 
It is also interesting to note that in New South Wales there have been no instances whatsoever of a dog reacting adversely to a microchip of a microchip moving in a dog or of a microchip causing any kind of medical problem in a dog. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Mr Chairman thank you very much for allowing me after 3 hours to take a call. I would like to answer the question of my learned colleague Mr John Carter which is a great question. He asked what we were doing debating this issue. I can quote from a newspaper the words of a Labour MP Mr Michael Bassett who stated: “Microchipping dogs is a political distraction to disguise the paralysis that afflicts this Government preventing it from doing anything worthwhile.” That is what this is all about; it is about disguising the paralysis that afflicts this Government preventing it from doing anything worthwhile. 
I will rebut some of the arguments. The former Minister of Agriculture Mr Sutton said last night—and it has been suggested again today—that it is easier to identify a dog through a microchip than a registration tag and collar. That is rather interesting because a scanner is needed to identify a dog by a microchip and scanners actually have different specifications depending on whether they are English or American—and no doubt in New Zealand we will have a third one as well. 
I have a further quote in relation to that from a member of the Canterbury Labrador Retriever Club which shows the absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous nature of having those microchips. The person said: “An interesting scenario happened to me earlier this year. I imported a dog from England. MAF regulations required him to be microchipped. This microchip had to be checked each time he had the various tests required to comply with entrance regulations to New Zealand. The microchip cost approximately $200. When the dog arrived in New Zealand MAF did not have a scanner available to even check if it were the dog that had had all the checks.” The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did not even have a scanner so she was able to walk out of the terminal dog in hand with a microchip not scanned. Yet Labour members are saying that it is easier to identify a dog through a microchip than a registration tag. 
The other issue I have relates to the fact that when we see a dog on the street without a collar we think yes that dog is probably not registered. If we see it with its collar and little tag we know it is registered. We do not all have scanners to see whether a dog is microchipped. 
The other falsity was to say that the microchip stays for life. Mr Sutton said that the microchip is a lifelong means of identifying the dog and as was said before a microchip involves only a one-off visit to the vet. We know about Hank; Hank is a good friend of my other colleague Mr Eric Roy. Members know about Hank who is a 70 kilogram Rottweiler. He is 8-years-old valuable and had a microchip inserted by a vet at 10 months of age. But the vet was unable to locate the microchip or get any reading on what Hank’s inserted microchip was supposed to be communicating. The vet responded by saying that microchips should be checked every year to ensure that they have not moved and that they are still functioning. That is not a one-off cost. That cost is a ridiculous tax a ridiculous compliance cost. It is not common sense— 
Hon Member 
: Dog-tax law. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: It is a dog-tax law. Then this morning on TV we heard that Mr Copeland—who holds the balance of power in this debate—takes his canine advice from his mother with the inference that all fox terriers are killers. So there we are—someone holding the balance of power in this Parliament is taking his canine advice from his mother who I am sure is lovely but he should listen to his own judgment his own common sense rather than any poodle politics. He also seemed to suggest that in 7 years all dogs in New Zealand would be microchipped. But some dogs last 14 years or even longer than that and as my colleague Mr Roy has pointed out it may be 2025 before all dogs in New Zealand are microchipped. Where is the sense in that? 
Treasury says that this legislation is stupid. Local authorities think it is stupid and farmers think it is stupid. I have a petition with over 10000 signatures of people who think it is stupid. There is a petition from Federated Farmers that says it is stupid so why is it that the only people who do not think this legislation is stupid are on the other side of the Chamber? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call in this discussion because a lot of it really is just flimflam and I believe that Doug Woolerton our spokesperson on this issue has very eloquently put New Zealand First’s position. That position of course is to be resolute and stick with the way we have voted in the past in terms of the package—the catalyst first and foremost being Carolina Anderson and this Parliament getting together. 
In reaction to some of the jibes that came across—I think Colin King talked about New Zealand First having a choker chain on it—I want people to reflect on what the Minister told us earlier about what has happened with clause 9D and the subsequent Supplementary Order Paper. The original provision would have required dog owners to inform local authorities within 28 days when their dogs died and if they did not there would be a $100 fine. I am not too certain about all the things that went on behind the scenes but the Minister certainly referred to the persuasive arguments of Doug Woolerton in the Chamber yesterday about why that was quite stupid legislation. What I do know is that New Zealand First made a decision yesterday. We looked at that particular provision for the first time yesterday and made a decision then that we would not be supporting it. Discussions were held and in fact the Government has agreed—I do not know whether it was already planning this—to have the provision pulled out. 
I want to contrast the behaviour of New Zealand First in actually achieving things. There is no choker chain on here; those are baubles we quite accept. A stupid law may have gone through if it had not been for the timely intervention of New Zealand First. I also ask just how effective all that noise coming from the other side of the Chamber will be in making any changes whatsoever. So I will finish with one question: can New Zealand First fix it? The answer is that once again we have. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak— 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh here she is—“Sergeant Dan”. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I tell Jill Pettis that she can make fun of the army but who will defend her in times of misfortune? I am very proud of what I have done thank you very much! 
I rise to speak about this ridiculous legislation on the microchipping of dogs. This Government seems to think it is providing a sense of security for New Zealanders. Well there is nothing in this sense of security except falseness. Unfortunately this legislation will not make any change to what happens at the moment. As a result of a very tragic and unfortunate accident—one involving Carolina Anderson—this Government in a knee-jerk reaction has provided this Parliament and the country with legislation whereby absolutely no children nobody will be prevented from again being the result of that sort of accident. It is very disappointing that both New Zealand First and United Future are joining the Government in this legislation. It is very disappointing indeed that United Future has flip-flopped so much in this whole debate. I call on United Future and on Mr Copeland who is sitting here with us today to forget about their “no surprises” deal with the Government. Instead Mr Copeland should engender his common sense—forget “no surprises” but call on his common sense—because this Government needs a surprise. It needs a wake-up call and a reality check. 
As members of the National Party said in this debate all last night and have been saying all today nobody wants this legislation. It is absolutely silly legislation. Local authorities do not want it. I received an email 20 minutes ago from somebody who works for a council to ask me to go to the debating chamber to vote against this legislation. I could assure the person that that is exactly what I would be doing. ACT has always opposed this legislation. We have never been in favour of the microchipping of dogs. This is a desperate attempt by a very very desperate Government that wants to be seen to be doing something. The sad reality is that this bill will do absolutely nothing. It is a desperate attempt by a desperate Government to do something. 
I have heard also that the SPCA is reporting that dogs are being abandoned while this debate goes on amongst the general public. Many people do not realise that it is new dogs that will have to be microchipped. But no matter what has to be microchipped dogs are already being abandoned as a result of the thought that this legislation is about to be put in place. It is also very sad that every time there is an unfortunate accident such as occurred to Carolina Anderson there is a knee-jerk reaction by this Government which puts in place more and more unnecessary legislation in order to deal with problems that exist in only a very few cases. Suddenly everybody—in this case all dogs but in other cases all New Zealanders—bears the brunt of a few unfortunate episodes. 
Kate Wilkinson should be congratulated on reading out the comments made by Michael Bassett. The comments were absolutely right. I cannot quite remember them exactly but the paralysis of this Government is very evident. This desperate measure by the Government is a result of that paralysis. The Government has run out of ideas—I am not sure it actually had any to start with but there are even fewer now almost 6 or 7 years down the track and there will be no more. We need to see less not more of this sort of knee-jerk legislation being put in place. ACT will support all the amendments from members on this side of the Chamber. We want no microchipping at all but the amendments from members on this side of the Chamber make good sense because they move in the right direction. We will oppose the amendments of Mark Burton. 
I call again on United Future members to put on their common-sense hats for once abandon that no-surprises deal they have with the Government and do the right thing for New Zealand dogs and New Zealanders. They should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. New Zealand deserves nothing less than that. This bill will bring no safety for New Zealand children as poor little Carolina Anderson can probably attest to. Microchipping will bring no resolution to the problem she faced. It is a problem that is really very small. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Having been in the Chamber throughout this debate I say that what staggers me are the contributions we have heard from the Government side and the realisation of how out of touch United Future New Zealand First and Labour Party politicians are with the depth of feeling around this issue. New Zealanders are totally opposed to microchipping because although the impetus for this legislation was around a horrific dog attack all sensible New Zealanders know that a microchip in the neck of a dog will not stop a single dog attack. New Zealanders know that and that is why this has become such an important issue. 
Equally frustrating is the amount of misinformation that has been presented to this Committee by Labour members over the last few hours of this debate. Let us take the contribution from Moana Mackey. She kept talking about how successful the New South Wales microchipping regime has been. Yet she knows full well that in New South Wales farm dogs are exempt. That farm dogs should be exempted is one of the amendments the National Party has put forward in the Committee today and that we will certainly be voting for obviously. Moana Mackey who used to be a rural electorate member of this Parliament should remember that farmers are under tremendous pressure. Incomes have come off and expenses continue to increase—many of them imposed by the Labour Government. But here we have an expected $3 million annual cost being foisted on the farmers of New Zealand for absolutely no purpose. 
The other misinformation was from the Minister in the chair herself from Nanaia Mahuta who said during the debate that the cost of microchipping would be somewhere around $35 to $70. Well I went back through  
Hansard  
to when Chris Carter the then Minister in charge of microchipping slammed this amendment into the House. He said that the cost would be from $12 to $20. In actual fact neither Minister is right. Many of the vets I have spoken to are talking about a cost of up to $100. Moana Mackey may say that is insignificant and Ron Mark certainly said it was insignificant but for the farmers of New Zealand—young guys with mustering teams of 10-plus dogs—$1000 is a lot of money. 
Then we had the contribution from one Steve Chadwick who is the member of Parliament for Rotorua. She said that councils around New Zealand want this legislation. How then can she explain to me the letter I received this week from the Tasman District Council? It states that the council moved a resolution expressing its opposition to the microchipping of rural and urban dogs first registered after 1 July 2006. Councils do not support this legislation and they will not enforce it. That is why New Zealanders are totally upset about this legislation. New Zealanders know that the legislation is dopey and that it is unenforceable so why do New Zealand First the poodle party United Future and the Government attempt to continue with it? 
I will speak to my two amendments. My first amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41 seeks to achieve what the farmers of New Zealand want and it is totally sensible. It means that no farm working dog would have to be mindlessly microchipped just to satisfy the wishes of Helen Clark. I have another amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40 that moves to exempt all dogs from microchipping. 
I congratulate the work done by the Green Party. I have enjoyed dealing with the Greens. They have been absolutely consistent. They have moved an even better amendment that exempts all dogs with the exception of menacing and dangerous dogs. I congratulate the Greens on the position they have come to. 
Today we have clearly a very close vote in the Committee. It would be interesting to ask why Jim Anderton has not even bothered to take a call. The Minister of Agriculture went around the country saying: “What Jim says Jim does.” Well here is his chance today. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I note that the Minister Nanaia Mahuta is sitting in the chair. I remind that Minister of some history. One hundred years ago in the far north—the home of New Zealand First—there was an incident in our history that became known as the dog tax war. The New Zealand First members may scoff but I ask what that was about. It was about Maori New Zealanders saying they did not want the Government bureaucracy to impose taxes and controls on their people. Is it not an irony that the member for Te Tai Hauauru is basically saying today that she wants to have taxes on dogs? 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair is not the member for Te Tai Hauauru; she is the member for the Tainui electorate. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I apologise to the member for making that mistake. I find it ironic that this Government would make the same error yet again of imposing taxes on the people of New Zealand. It is true that the cost will be $100 on average per dog and obviously more for some owners. 
Who will bear that cost? Owners will. Have we not been hearing week after week in recent times that local government is complaining about the costs that this Government is loading on to New Zealanders? Rates are going up by 7.5 percent this year. What is this Government’s response to that? Does the Government seek to reduce costs for local government? No it does not. It wants to load yet more and more costs on to the people of New Zealand and on to local government. That is exactly what one would expect from a party that can think only about loading more taxes on to people. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Forcing people to pay! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Forcing people to pay for things. It is a feature of this Government that it will always go for bureaucratic control. I tell this Committee that the most consistent theme about political correctness is bureaucratic excess. One can always identify the politically correct by how much bureaucracy they want to load on to New Zealanders. 
This legislation is a classic case of political correctness. I have received numerous emails and letters that pursue precisely that point. People ask in a fundamentally common-sense way why someone would want to microchip a dog and impose the excessive cost of that on them. They ask which bureaucratic mind could have come up with such an absurd proposition. Well I will tell them. The Labour Party because Labour and bureaucracy go together. 
Sandra Goudie 
: And the poodles! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: And the poodles. And is that not remarkable? We have heard the support party New Zealand First which generally tends to support the Government say it has had a victory. I tell that member and that party that if they had had a victory they would be voting against this legislation. 
I want to say this. The way to defeat political correctness is to vote against bureaucracy and the way to defeat this legislation is for the parties to vote for the amendments because frankly they are common sense. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I spoke with the office yesterday and asked for advice as to how the amendments would be moved. The advice that was given to me was that it would be helpful to facilitate the votes if I seek leave for the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 41 to be taken as one question and I so do. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That would be most helpful. Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? Leave is denied. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sandra Goudie to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in the definition of  
disability assist dog 
 in section 2 in subclause (1) after the words “a person with a disability” the words “to be exempted from microchipping”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Eric Roy to clause 8A be agreed to: 
to add to subsection (3) of section 33A the following new paragraph:  
(e)Any dog savaging a child under 13 years must be put down. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41 in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 9A to insert new subclause (1A) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 4 (Bradford Kedgley Locke Tanczos); Maori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 2 (Fitzsimons Turei); Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I noticed during that vote that the Green Party gave a split vote. I just wanted to get an assurance that in accordance with the Standing Orders they will give the names of the people voting for and the names of people voting against. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes that is the Standing Order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41 in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 9A to add new subclause (3) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 4 (Bradford Kedgley Locke Tanczos); Maori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 2 (Fitzsimons Turei); Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41 in the name of the Hon David Carter to insert new clauses 9B and 9BA be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 4 (Bradford Kedgley Locke Tanczos); Maori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 2 (Fitzsimons Turei); Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
9BMicrochip transponder must be implanted in certain dogs 
Section 36A(1)(c) is repealed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
9BMicrochip transponder must be implanted in certain dogs 
Section 36A(1)(c) is amended by omitting the expression “2006” and substituting the expression “2007”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
9BMicrochip transponder must be implanted in certain dogs 
Section 36A(2) is amended by adding “unless the owner advises the territorial authority in writing that the dog provides social practical or economic services or support to the owner including but not limited to the purpose of herding or driving stock”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to insert new clause 9B be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and to omit from subclause (2) the expression “(7)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of Hon Mark Burton to insert new clause 9B be agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have just voted for a Green amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 43. Are we now voting on a new clause in Supplementary Order Paper 43 or on an amended clause? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The previous amendment was not successful and we are now voting on the amendment as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Minister. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We simply need clarification. With the Committee voting earlier to exempt farm dogs from the necessity to microchip can we please have an explanation as to what this amendment—the Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister—attempts to do. We do not want to end up with a bigger mess than what the Government gave us to start with. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This amendment amends section 36A. The reason it is in here is that there are quite a number of amendments to clause 9B and the Minister’s one comes first. Is that clear? 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The issue is that I am still not clear—and I do not know whether anyone else in the Chamber is judging by the looks of the Minister and the discussions that are going on—exactly what the situation is. Given that we have passed legislation to exempt working dogs we now need to know whether this amendment in a roundabout way upsets anything that has been done with regard to that vote. We do not want to suddenly find that we are negating the wish of Parliament with regard to working dogs. We probably need to get advice from the Minister when he has obtained advice from his officials—because he is as puzzled as we are. It may be useful for the Committee to be patient and wait until we have advice as to exactly what we are doing. That would be a rare thing for this Committee to know under the present administration but it will be useful nevertheless. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This amendment does not in any way affect the amendments that were agreed to in the name of the Hon David Carter. It is on a different part from those. I will go back through the amendment. It is the Minister’s amendment to insert new clause 9B amending subsections (4) and (7) of section 36A as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
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. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendment is to insert new clause 9B which inserts new subsection (5B) in section 36A as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 39 in the name of Gordon Copeland. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a similar point of order to the last one. As we have already now voted to exempt working farm dogs and my Supplementary Order Paper covers the same ground pretty much will we not end up with a confused situation—with two different ways of exempting farm dogs? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If the amendment that has been agreed to satisfies the member then he is free to withdraw his similar amendment. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: In that case I will withdraw the Supplementary Order Paper. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Seek leave please. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw that Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon CLEM SIMICH 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is not. We will move on. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
9BMicrochip transponder must be implanted in certain dogs 
Section 36A(6) is amended by omitting the expression “subsection 2”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendment is to insert new clause 9B repealing section 36A and new clause 9BA as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40 in the name of the Hon David Carter. It seeks to abolish microchipping requirements for all dogs. This amendment is out of order; it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can you explain how it can be that that is inconsistent with a previous decision because this amendment looks to be on a slightly different aspect of that same issue. I think David Carter has put a lot of time into this and the issue of all dogs is quite important to it. I do not think the amendment is inconsistent across the board; it is inconsistent in only one small aspect. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is right. The Committee has just agreed to certain amendments and it would be inconsistent to now deal with an amendment that would repeal what has already been agreed to several minutes ago. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The reason that it is not inconsistent— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Are we satisfied that the Hon David Carter has this issue well in hand? Thank you. 
We will move on to an amendment to insert new clause 9B repealing and substituting section 36A as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 46 in the name of Metiria Turei. This amendment is out of order because again it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
We come now to clause 9D and the Hon Mark Burton’s typescript amendment to omit new section 41A(1). 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Are we voting on clause 9D new section 41A on Supplementary Order Paper 43? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are indeed voting on an amendment to clause 9D. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Is this the one that the Minister indicated earlier relates to dead dogs which was to be removed? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: So which one is it? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is a consequence of the Minister withdrawing an amendment. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Could you say that again please? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is a consequence of the Minister withdrawing an amendment. Is that clear? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Mr Chairman it is not clear. Could I ask that an explanation be given as to the implications of that? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Earlier in the debate I sought by way of point of order the ability not to move clause 9D so in seeking that particular agreement we have to vote that it can be removed. 
Hon Member 
: We’re voting on whether it can be removed? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: This is to vote to remove clause 9D. In clarification I say to members that I am seeking through the process of the Committee to withdraw clause 9D. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Which is what we’re doing. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Which is what we are doing. 
Eric Roy 
: Just a point of clarification— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is quite clear and I will actually ask the Clerk to explain to you so you will understand and so I will understand what it is. 
Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want some clarification on clause 9D. The Minister in the chair Nanaia Mahuta has moved that she wants to withdraw that but I originally thought that the part she wants to withdraw was new section 41A(3) inserted by clause 9D on Supplementary Order Paper 43. That is to do with a fine not exceeding $100 when a dog dies and the council is not notified. The way I think you were putting it to us before the dinner break was that all of clause 9D would come out so I just want some clarification around that point. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 Perhaps I can be of some assistance. There are several references to dead dogs in the bill. In the bill itself there is a reference in new section 41A(1) which is inserted by clause 9D. I had an amendment to remove that but my amendment will be overtaken by the Minister’s typewritten amendment. But the Minister also had on Supplementary Order Paper 43 further references to the requirement to report a dead dog. The Minister then withdrew those sections which leaves in clause 9D the provision that has not been removed. That is what we are voting on. The amendment is essentially the same amendment as the one I had because I wanted to see that provision removed as well. I hope that is an explanation. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 9D be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (1) from section 41A. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We now come to a typescript amendment in the name of Eric Roy to omit section 41A(1) inserted by clause 9D. This amendment is now out of order. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 During the dinner break I had the opportunity to talk to ministry officials and they have asked that I seek leave to change one point of reference on my Supplementary Order Paper 41. The reference to section 36(1A) should read “section 46(1)”. I seek leave to make that change. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to insert new clause 9G be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to insert new clause 9G as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 46 is now out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision we have made. 
The next two amendments have been withdrawn. Those were to insert new clause 12AA and to insert new clauses 13A and 13B as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40 both in the name of the Hon David Carter. 
The question was put that the amendments except the amendment to insert new clause 9D set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 4 to insert new clause 9B and to clause 9E(2) be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Litter Act 1979 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I have pleasure in speaking on Part 2 which concerns the Litter Act 1979. Just before I talk about this specific legislation I will take the chance—which I did not previously because of the dog microchipping part—to say how much I have enjoyed working on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am new to the select committee and I have been very impressed by the quality of the official advice we have had. I have also been very impressed with the committee’s work ethic and in this specific case it has had to do a heck of a lot of work to cover this omnibus bill in a very short space of time. How well the committee has done that has exceeded my expectations—ably led by the committee secretariat of Beth and co. I want to put that on record. 
When I walk around the city with my not-to-be-microchipped dog there are a couple of things that very much get my goat: litter and graffiti. In this case I will specifically talk about litter. “Pride” is a wonderful word. When people have pride in their city they talk about it and become absolutely positive about it. Is it not disappointing when we see that people have unashamedly littered the street and ignored the receptacles that are in place and have just abused the pride that others have in their city? Those people have no concern at all about the mess they leave—in this case on the Wellington City streets but I am sure what I am saying will strike a chord with most towns and cities in New Zealand. 
People who have no pride litter and they need to be totally held to account for that littering. Part 2 is a very good opportunity for Parliament to send a very strong message to those who litter that they jolly well should not because goodness me if they go down that path it will cost them a heck of a lot. So I was very very pleased to be part of the select committee that has totally endorsed the opportunity to lift the fines in particular. The fines that are put in place via this legislation are quite considerable and send a very clear message. 
At the same time I also take the opportunity to applaud those city councils out there that spend a lot of energy and time on picking up and cleaning up after people who just make a jolly mess. A clear message is being sent to those who litter that we will not tolerate it through the very significant lift in fines. In many cases we are increasing tenfold the fine we are looking to apply to those people. That applies not just to those who litter the streets but also to those who dump their rubbish over the fence. Unfortunately many people do dump rubbish over the fence or drive out into the wilderness and throw it down a bank which is a disgraceful course of action that unfortunately far too many take. I assure members now that clause 18 in Part 2 specifically addresses those people and very much lifts the fine for those who deposit or leave litter in a public place or on private land without the consent of its occupier. 
In the select committee we discussed the need to lift the fine in this area because as waste becomes more of a topic of conversation and as waste minimisation becomes very much where we need to head in the future there will be a temptation by some to throw their rubbish over the fence or on the way to the tip to have it accidentally fall off the back of their trolley car truck and so on and unashamedly leave it. In section 15 of the Litter Act that we are referring to there will be a fine not exceeding $20000 for body corporates or $5000 for individuals. That should very much be a blockage to those people wanting to throw rubbish away in that manner. 
One of the other things I would like to take the opportunity to talk about in relation to Part 2 is liability and prosecution. I will let the Minister of Local Government attend to that because it is quite an important piece of the legislation. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I sense the debate on this part is reaching a conclusion and I thought it appropriate to take a short call. I want to echo the comments of the member Mark Blumsky. Part 2 does deal very effectively with the blight on many of our communities of litter—particularly broken glass. I suppose that if I have a favourite target it is that one. 
The tenfold increase in fine from $750 to a $7500 maximum is a good move. It sends all the right messages and I think it is something that members have been universally supportive of. On the matter the member was just getting to I agree that toughening up on issues of liability makes it much clearer for local authorities. 
All in all this part of the bill enjoys wide support from members and I am sure we are keen to see it enacted and for progress to be made. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to insert new clause 17A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 As this is my first opportunity to speak in the debate since we dealt with Part 1 I just want to acknowledge the support of those who have changed the shape of this bill. We had a win in Part 1 on exempting farm dogs. National was going to oppose this legislation at the third reading. Given the turn of events that has taken place we desire at this time to support it. I just want that recorded.  
However that does not mean to say that we agree with every item in the Local Government Law Reform Bill. Our view is contrary to that expressed in Part 3 and we will not support this part. Part 3 requires territorial authorities or regional councils to resolve to establish Maori wards for Maori constituencies. Our view on this is consistent with National Party policy. We have expressed from time to time the “one standard of citizens” argument. Members may recall a member’s bill 3 or 4 years ago on the Bay of Plenty on which we dragged out the argument for quite some members’ days. We stand on that as a point of principle. 
Let me restate some of those principles. This is not to say that Maoridom tikanga Maori and the issues that are important to Maori should be ignored. We do not say that; we say that there is a better way to deal with those issues. Any local authority has to deal with issues affecting a diverse number of groups. It is responsible for canvassing their opinions examining them and incorporating them where necessary. We say that that model should apply to all things. We believe that Maori do not need this special protection. They are assimilated are part of society and are represented now on most or many local authorities throughout the country. We say that the idea that this provision needs to be put in the bill is somewhat denigrating. 
Let me speak from my own experience as someone who resides in Southland in Invercargill. Who would the Maori representative be if we were to apply this measure to the Invercargill City Council? Some would mount an argument that this is the rohe of Ngai Tahu. Yes one could mount that argument and say that that is in fact the case. Yet another group of people would say no this is the rohe of Kati Mamoe and it is they who should be represented. Invercargill is not complicated in this regard. For some territorial authorities the question would be which of the iwi covered by the territorial authority should be represented. I believe that we would have some difficulty there. We cannot prescribe in the legislation which iwi it would be because we have 77-odd local authorities and each has its own set of quite complicated circumstances. We simply cannot say which iwi should be represented. So to say just that Maori should be represented raises I think another problem. 
The second problem is that we have not defined what Maori is. I do not want to be cute about this but let me give an example quite close to me. 
 In our family on my wife’s side and my side sadly the whakapapa of both our families has no Maori representation whatsoever. Most of our boys—my wife and I have three boys—know how to play rugby. We do not have to turn them round at half time and point them in the other direction. They have actually got a fair grasp of it. One of our sons was asked to represent Maori rugby for a province. It surprised people when he said: “Actually I’m not Maori.”; they said: “Yes you are; you understand.” He has some appearance— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Was he a good rugby player? That’s the main thing. 
ERIC ROY 
: He is a very good rugby player. But he chose not to play for the province. 
My point is simply that today there is a renaissance of Maoridom. When we heard members’ maiden speeches we heard wonderful examples of how that renaissance is actually fitting. Today we are really one people. We represent all kinds of backgrounds. I have to say that to start putting in those divisions again is taking us seriously backwards. We are one people and that is where we want to go. We want to listen to each other and work through the situation of seeing what needs to be represented in each area by listening to the issues and not saying that it is one iwi or one hapu or this person or that person who can represent each area. There are some significant dangers in taking a step backwards when we are a nation that is going forward. We are working together and we have a desire to listen and deal with the issues. We should not prescribe that any one single ethnic background or individual has a prior right to be in local authorities and territories. 
So the National Party does not support Part 3. I have mentioned that we are going to support this bill at the third reading—that is our intention—but this we feel very strongly about. It is crucial that we express that here. Let me just restate that this is not saying the issues in Maoridom are not important or that our contractual obligations to the Treaty of Waitangi should not be fulfilled. It is not saying that; it is just saying that they can be fulfilled and that there is a better way of achieving it rather than requiring Maori representation specifically on territorial authorities and regional councils. So we will not be supporting Part 3. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I feel the need to take this call because anyone who is listening to this debate might have gained a completely wrong impression from Mr Roy. What this part does—nothing more nothing less—is to correct minor drafting errors in order to put right a provision that already exists in law. That provision is that councils can make on their own behalf and on behalf of and with full consultation with their communities a decision as to whether this sort of representation is part of their community—not this Parliament’s community. That is all this part does; it tidies up the drafting errors. I think anyone who is listening might have been given the impression—it was a bit reminiscent of another measure earlier in the evening—that this is something we are enacting tonight. It is not; it is a tiny minor drafting correction. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I appreciate the comments of the Minister of Local Government about the bill—that it is tidying up inaccuracies—but I would still like to stand to speak against Part 3 of the Local Government Law Reform Bill which would allow regional councils or territorial authorities to establish Maori wards or constituencies. 
I have the greatest respect for the preservation of Maori culture but I cannot see the value of Part 3. The amendment is potentially divisive and I cannot see how it can add value to New Zealand society. New Zealand is very small. We have a population of only 4 million. I understand that we have approximately 10 regional councils and over 70 territorial authorities. We have separate Maori seats in Parliament and in an MMP environment they are redundant as we have the Maori Party with four members of Parliament. We have specific Maori representation on district health boards and a requirement for local authorities to consult with their communities and with iwi. 
As a medical practitioner and a person who has a health background I am very concerned about the disparity of Maori in respect of health statistics. Maori have appalling health statistics. They have appalling cancer statistics. That is really quite a scandal and it must be addressed. I accept fully the need for a separate Maori health strategy for Maori and I fully endorse a strategy to address the dreadful health disparities. But I cannot see for the life of me how separate Maori wards will add value or improve disparities. 
A law change to allow local bodies to set up special Maori-only wards will divide New Zealanders even more on the basis of race and that is quite appalling. With the so-called browning of New Zealand over time it will also become increasingly farcical as more and more New Zealanders will have Maori ancestry. 
If the reason for Maori wards and counsellors is that Maori do not fare well in local body elections then the reasons behind that need to be addressed—rather than our introducing the tokenism in Part 3. Establishing Maori wards does a disservice to Maori and serves only to hide the real problems. 
Part 3 in my opinion is patronising and offensive to Maori. The legislation is tokenism. It basically sidesteps the real issues of socio-economic inequities and it creates and perpetuates more issues for Maori with its idealism of the principles of the Treaty. Maori are not genetically inclined to be less likely to be involved in local body decision-making than any other ethnicity. The real reasons why they possibly fare poorly or do not put themselves up for office are socio-economic educational and aspirational. Maori are one of the biggest low socio-economic groups and if this Labour Government is so concerned about their participation then it should concentrate more on addressing the disparities of low socio-economic groups—not only Maori. 
The creation of separate Maori wards perpetuates the perception that Maori are somehow mediocre or inferior and need extra-special treatment. The legislation also perpetuates resentment against Maori as it will be seen as another case of special privilege being given to Maori when socio-economically the opposite is true. Tokenism devalues the worth of every hard-working Maori in the State sector as it casts doubt in people’s minds as to whether a person was hired because of their ethnicity or their competence. 
This Government’s objectives should be to settle all Treaty claims within 10 years unite the country and remove the redundant Maori seats—not create more seats. The bureaucracy and the millions of dollars that it would take to create Maori wards and elect Maori counsellors would be better spent on addressing the disparities that Maori face. The National Party’s blueprint is a way forward for all New Zealanders to move on to unite the country and not to hold back groups as this Government seems intent on doing. National wants to lift our living standards improve literacy and numeracy skills reduce welfare dependency stop racial separatism and ensure security. National wants to ensure that all New Zealanders are treated equally. 
In conclusion Part 3 of the Local Government Law Reform Bill will not unite New Zealanders; it will create and divide the citizens of New Zealand. It will not address the real problems of why Maori are not faring well in local body elections and why they do not put themselves up for office. It will not solve the issues; it is only a band-aid solution. The real problem has yet to be addressed which is the disparity the socio-economic issues that Maori people face. I stand and support the National Party values as the only way forward. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. Ahua rangirua ana au ki tenei kaupapa e te whanaunga Dover. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all in the House. I am somewhat uncertain about this topic I say to Dover the relative. 
]  
I feel a bit in two minds over this one on the one hand because as a party we are bound to support the right of Maori to independent and autonomous development although on the other hand I also have a view that in terms of local authorities Maori should not necessarily push for wards particularly in rural areas. Instead we should simply refuse to pay our rates until such time as local authorities are willing to deal with the iwi authorities in their particular areas on issues concerning resource management and a whole lot of other areas. 
The issue is not about tokenism—and I agree with the previous speaker Jackie Blue. Maori do not want this because of an act of tokenism. We want our right to independent and autonomous development as a Treaty right. And it is a Treaty right. The issue is not about race; it is about the Treaty. Regardless of how many people may say it is about race and they will do away with the Treaty I ask members to believe me when I say Maori will never forget about the Treaty. The fact that Treaty claims are being foisted upon Maori people and Treaty settlements are being signed off at less than 3 percent of their value will not make this issue go away. 
It is important if we are to flourish and go forward as a positive nation that we do so on the basis that a contract is a contract is a contract and that a treaty is a treaty is a treaty. To sign a treaty and then assume it does not need to be honoured afterwards simply gets up the noses of those whom it was signed with—in this case Maori people. We will not accept suggestions that those things should be forgotten. 
I heard Dr Jackie Blue talking about the importance of having a specific Maori focus in health. I can raise the same point in terms of education—that because of how far behind the gain line Maori are there should be a specific focus for Maori in that area—and in terms of housing justice and a whole lot of the areas that this Government is working to push Maori out of when it tries to make all people one people. We are not one people. I am Maori. I was born Maori and I will die Maori. Unless there is genuine recognition of the right of Maori to be Maori there will never ever be one true nation in this country. When I hear the korero about whether we are Maori or whether we are assimilated I point out that we are not assimilated and we will never be assimilated. The fact that kohanga reo has given the opportunity for young Maori people to become more productive citizens because of their ability to be comfortable in both their own language and lifestyle as well as in those of Pakeha is reason enough why we should support independent Maori initiatives. 
In terms of our status as tangata whenua that status is guaranteed by the fact that we are the first nation of Aotearoa. We will not accept that Maori can simply be written off whether it be through the tokenism—and I believe it to be tokenism—of the establishment of Maori wards or through other means. Although people may laugh I have recommended—and I will continue to recommend this in my home area—that Maori people consider not paying their rates to the local authority but pay them to the local iwi authority so that the council will be required to negotiate with it on all issues in terms of water resource management the foreshore and seabed roading sewerage and everything. By doing so we will then be able to create in my view a genuine partnership that is the basis of the partnership that I would like to see happen in this House and in all other aspects of management and leadership in this country. 
Koi nano taku korero mo tenei po; tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
And that is my address for this evening; greetings to you and good health to us all. 
] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. I will take a short call. Some of the issues raised by Hone were very pertinent but I think we have to look at something that is more fundamental. I am reminded of the arguments that took place when the original legislation came before the House and of the adverse reaction from the National Party to Maori having separate regional or local council representation. It is very pertinent that National members actually have some consistency in their argument. 
I do not believe that Maori representation in this Parliament is tokenism and I want to say that very clearly. Our people fought for a long time to be represented in the House of Representatives in this Parliament and to say that that Maori representation is tokenism undermines and degrades Maoridom’s intelligence. Local government may be considered a separate stratum in terms of democratic representation. I for one have represented my people at the local and regional government level over many years but I never saw it as tokenism; I saw it as a different stratum in terms of the democratic right of Maori to be represented at all levels of government. If it is good enough for Maori to be represented in this House from the perspective of parliamentary representation democratic representation it is good enough to accord the same rules to our people in terms of local or regional government. 
It is an absolute turn-round and unacceptable to hear from the National Party that in fact Maori representation is OK on a parliamentary basis. I remind the people of New Zealand and Maoridom that at the last election the National Party tried to cosy up to the Maori Party so that it could get the numbers to be the Government of this country. I am reminded by my colleague in New Zealand First of the “h” word. I will not say that word but one has to be consistent in one’s argument. If someone says it is not good enough for Maori to be represented at the local government level that person is actually saying it is not good enough for them to be represented at the parliamentary level. Members should be consistent in their arguments because the argument is a democratic one. If Maori can be represented in this House democratically then they can be represented at the other level—local government—through exactly the same system. 
So what is wrong with setting up these wards? The argument I heard in terms of Maori development is valid but we have to look at the sets of values we are talking about. I appreciate the endeavours of some colleagues to lessen Maori disparities and to ensure that Maori have the same opportunities—economically socially and culturally—at that level. But what we are talking about here is democratic representation. It is very important in terms of achieving the goals of the legislation which we require local government to acknowledge and put into place that we allow our people to have democratic representation on our local authorities. 
I look across the room to my colleague John Carter. John and I have been in local government for many years. We have encouraged our people to stand for Parliament. We have always encouraged our Maori constituents to stand and be represented at the local government level. I ask colleagues to be consistent in their arguments. If our people wish to have local government representation and separate local government wards then I think they should be given the opportunity to be consulted about that. At the end of the day the community will make the decision. It is up to the local authorities or the regional councils to make the decision after conducting a fully democratic consultative process. If that is not democracy I ask what is. It is not a matter of our coming down arbitrarily and saying what people shall have. Rather after going through the process in a constituency like that of my colleague John Carter and me the far north if it is considered prudent and if the people of our Far North District Council democratically decide to put into place separate wards why should it not do that? That is the democratic process and I believe as a matter of principle that Parliament should support it. Thank you Mr Chairman. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 3 on behalf of ACT New Zealand. ACT has always been very consistent on the matter of separate representation so we will be opposing Part 3. 
Mr Samuels has taken exception to the use of the word “tokenism” and we could probably stand here tonight and have a long debate about whether this situation is a case of tokenism. I acknowledge what Dr Jackie Blue said in her speech—I agree with everything she said. I believe that separate representation is derogatory to Maori and is divisive.  
I also acknowledge many of the comments Mr Harawira made particularly about Maori achieving what they want to achieve in New Zealand and about the sort of New Zealand he wants for Maori. I agree with many of the comments he made but I do not think this legislation is the way to get there. I agree with much of what Maori Party members say particularly about welfare reform and health disparities which have already been mentioned but again separate Maori representation is not the way for Maori to move ahead in New Zealand so that we have one nation for all and one rule of law. 
 New Zealand now is a multicultural nation. We have a growing Asian population in this country. My youngest children go to a primary school where there are 30 different nationalities represented. Children of many cultures are learning together under that one roof. That is a New Zealand I celebrate. I welcome the fact that my children participate in an area where they are subject to many many different cultures. I think they will grow up to be much better New Zealand citizens as a result. 
The point I particularly want to make—and it is one that ACT has consistently made since its representation in Parliament in 1996—is that when special privilege or special treatment is offered to one group in society another group is automatically disenfranchised. 
In the future it might well be that some wards in our local territories and authorities are predominantly Maori. What do we do then? Do we then give special privilege to other groups so that they have representation and are not disadvantaged? 
Jacqui Dean 
: It’s a farce. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right; it is a farce that will never end. We want to see one rule of law—one law for all New Zealanders. We want to see all New Zealanders being treated equally. That is the way to make New Zealanders equal—to help them with welfarism and with those health disparities that we spend a lot of time discussing in this Chamber. 
So for those very reasons ACT will be opposing Part 3. We hope to see in the future a New Zealand where everybody is treated equally. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I take a call in response to my colleagues Hone Harawira and Dover Samuels. I am pleased to say we are proud to be Northlanders. The three of us work together for Northland as MPs without letting our politics get in the way and that is how it should be. We are three proud Northlanders. Both Dover and Hone are of Maori descent; I am non-Maori. 
I want to make a point about an issue that Hone and Dover talked about today. They talked about New Zealand as we see it now and they talked about assimilation. They talked about the fact that the common view is that Maori have to assimilate into our white society—the society we brought here 160-odd years ago. I want to make this point to both of them and also to the Committee because I think it is a seriously important point to make. I have a mokopuna who is obviously of my blood but is also of Dover’s and Hone’s blood. She is the future of this country. She is New Zealand. She is what we are becoming. She is what this country will be. She is not assimilated into the white people of this country; we are assimilating into the Maori of this country and as time progresses—as the ocean of time waves over this country—so too will our blood mingle. 
I see a time in the future when we will all be part of the Treaty and that is a day I look forward to. It will be the day when our blood cannot be distinguished or defined because we are New Zealanders. The problem we have at the moment is that it is quite easy to define ourselves. But as time washes over this nation and as our bloods mingle a lot of these issues will disappear because people like my mokopuna will look at themselves and say: I’m a New Zealander.”; “I’m a Kiwi.”; “I’m of New Zealand blood.” They will not say: “I’m of overseas heritage.” or “I’m of Maori heritage.”; they will say: “I’m a New Zealander.” We will find that happening more and more. 
I want to make another point in the Committee tonight. Dover Samuels was elected to the Northland Regional Council and indeed to the Far North District Council and he is Maori. But he was not elected on a special ward; he was elected because he had the ability to represent the people and he was recognised for that. Quite honestly I think it is insulting to the people—who are good people—to say: “Nevertheless we’re going to have to protect you.” I do not believe that that should be the case. Although we look at these issues in today’s environment I say to this Parliament that we need to look ahead to what the future will bring and to what New Zealand will be in time. We should not strap ourselves with laws that in time will be a barrier to our future. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4 Amendments to Local Government Act 2002 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 Part 4 is a substantial part of this bill and the National Party wants to record its opposition to it. I want to say again as we go through this bill given the changes that have been made to Part 1 that it is very likely—although the final decision has not yet been made—the National Party will support this bill in its third reading. But that is yet to be considered and confirmed. In doing so however we want to make it very clear—when members’  
Hansards 
 are pulled out in future debates and we are told that we voted for this bill in the third reading—that there are parts of this bill we are adamantly against. We want to register our view just as we did for instance in Part 3. 
My other colleagues will talk about other parts in relation to changes to legislation affecting parks and to contribution development levies. I want to talk about long-term community plans and about the way in which this Government has gone about imposing this huge cost on local government and as a consequence on ratepayers. The genesis of the idea of a long-term community plan actually started in 1995 with the National Party. It was the National Party that said that both central government and local government needed to have a good look at infrastructure right across the country to see what its infrastructural needs were to see what we had and to see what the likely costs would be in the future—and the concept is good because we used to ignore what was underground until it busted out on us. 
So we started the process a number of years ago. But then this Government came along and put all sorts of fancy requirements and compliance costs on to local government and as a consequence huge costs on to ratepayers. The system we have now is silly. Local government has to sit there and work out a draft long-term community plan. It is required to take a note of inflation over the next 10 years it has to look at all sorts of other costs over a 10-year period then to consult with the people in the way it does. Councils have huge numbers of meetings around the community and they are lucky to get two or three people turn up to them. There are huge costs great staff costs and a lot of council time for little benefit and little involvement of the community—and that is just the draft. Then there is the auditing by the Audit Office—by people from overseas because they do not have enough auditors. It is silly. The process is silly; the concept is fine. The Greens actually saw that thing through. Jeanette Fitzsimons to her credit as chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee passed the thing last term and again to her credit the concept was fine. It was the bits this Government put around it that made it a silly idea and imposed huge costs on local government. 
Quite honestly I say that this Government is starting to be recognised by the ratepayers and councils of this country as putting in too much compliance and too many costs. Rates are going up with little return and it is because this Government this Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton and this Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark are imposing unnecessary requirements on local government and communities so that they are not delivering services. Why could we not have gone straight to a long-term community plan got the figures and facts out there in front of the people then started working on it? When we think about the audit the Government has required to be done on draft schemes the problem is that the Government does not trust local government. That is really the issue when we think about it. Is that not the logic of it? Why otherwise would the Government have something audited if it were not that it did not trust local government to do its job? I do. Out of all the things that have been audited only three have qualifications and the councils took those decisions deliberately. They disagreed with the Minister for example when he said that councils were required to put in an estimate and judge what inflation will be in 10 years’ time. 
It is that sort of stupidity and those sorts of idiot decisions that have meant this Government has put extra costs on local government. Quite honestly I think that it is unnecessary. As I say to the best of my knowledge only three councils out of all those audited have got qualifications and the three were for minor details. There was no need for audit; local government authorities and their officers were doing a good job. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I have to respond— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Great to hear the Minister respond on that issue. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Look this Minister responds on every issue—the member should know that I make a practice of trying to engage sensibly on sensible points. The previous speaker has raised some interesting and important points but I have to challenge what he has said. In relation to the planning process he said that on the one hand it was a sensible idea but he said that on the other hand authorities should have a plan go out there and get on with it. Well the process is about consultation and transparency. The process is about authorities saying that there is a proposal of what they intend to do and just as important there is what it will cost. Let us get some feedback on what people want: do they want this or want more or less of it and are they willing to pay for it? 
The member himself raised a very important point about part of what drives this process. That is for a couple of generations councils—generally but not always; there are some notable exceptions— 
Hon Member 
: And Governments. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: —and Governments have largely ignored what was underground and could not be seen until it was broken. Then it has fallen to some other generation to fix it. That is what is happening around the country now because things are wearing out about now. Many communities are faced with massive infrastructure costs just in order to stand still. Most communities are not all that content with standing still; they want to improve. They want to develop and they want new opportunities and new facilities. Those are the challenges that councils face. That process invites communities to be very much part of an open and transparent process in which they make value judgments about their priorities and on what they are willing to pay. That has to be a process of genuine engagement and consultation—not simply someone flicking off a report and saying: “This is what we are going to do. Thought we would tell you about it and by the way you were consulted.” That will not do. 
Secondly in relation to the issue of audit I say to the member that I am pleased that at the end of the audit process it looks as if there are three possibly four qualified audits. But I can equally say—because of course I have kept a careful watch on this issue; I have engaged with local government and I have certainly engaged with the auditors—that had it not been for a process of engagement with the auditors there would have been many many more qualified audits than there will be. That tells me that the audit function is adding value to the process. Some of that cost may well in the case of some councils save ratepayers—for the price of say $30000 extra—a million dollars of unnecessary expenditure. 
So I caution members when talking about the cost and benefit of audit to be careful not to get too far ahead of the facts because I think that at the end of this cycle it will become clear to many members that the audit function has added significant value and has saved considerable cost and unnecessary expense for many ratepayers around New Zealand. I would hope that the next time the audit cycle takes place it will be a lot smoother because the lessons will have been learnt. But it is clear from this cycle that it has been helpful to many councils. It has cost a little bit but it could have cost ratepayers a great deal more of unnecessary and unwise expenditure without it. 
So all in all I think this is good progress and I am confident the process will continue to improve over time. It engages communities in making quality decisions on their own behalf and it includes communities working with their councils to determine their priorities and what they are willing to pay for. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 When I spoke to Part 2 earlier I alluded to how much I have enjoyed working through this particular omnibus bill. However as my colleague John Carter just mentioned it is difficult when we have such a wide range of items coming through in one bill to agree totally with some of them but disagree with one or two. We end up voting against certain parts when in the main they are actually not bad but the Government just stuffed them up a little in the process. That is when it gets a bit difficult. 
I suppose what I want to do in this opportunity to speak to Part 4 is to comment on a couple of provisions we agree with and a couple we disagree with. We certainly agree with new section 138 inserted by clause 33 which talks about parks. It talks about the need for a local authority to consult the public before selling or disposing of parks. That is not an issue at all—we can buy into that. Parks are very important to the community and it makes a heck of a lot of sense to have a solid consultative process when one is to embark on disposal. Where we think the bill gets a little bit off-track is in clause 34 which talks about minor boundary changes. If a council has a park and it wants to make an itsy-bitsy teeny-weeny little boundary change to the park the bill suggests that the council has to go through the full consultative process on that itsy-bitsy teeny-weeny boundary change. The word is “minor”. It could be that just a footpath is being put in or a wee bit of road is being widened but a full consultation process has to be gone through. That is incredibly expensive and National thinks that is stupid. 
Development contributions are also alluded to in Part 4. We do not have an issue with development contributions per se but the provision is a warning to authorities to be careful that their development contributions are fair. We believe that development contributions—as the Property Council of New Zealand indicated to me just the other day—have a role in funding but there is a fairness issue. One of the things I am glad we did park in the select committee was the issue of giving development contributions to regional councils. They want them but we have said that we should have a good talk about it and look at this issue which is highly complex. A report is coming through from the Local Government Forum and we agree with that. 
The third and final matter in Part 4 that I would like quickly to talk to is the long-term council community plans. There is consultation fatigue I tell the Minister. He talked about how fantastic it is that communities are being consulted on their long-term plans. We do not have a problem with that. But the Minister should not forget that every year they have to do an annual plan. Asset management plans are also done by law and there is now a 3-year review of the long-term council community plan. I can assure the Minister that every time a new council gets elected its members go through the whole thing all over again to make sure that the new council buys into the strategy and vision of that plan. The community is very tired of consultation. I tell the Minister that I think we have to be careful that we do not lose the community in this work we are asking it to do—at a very expensive cost. The Queenstown mayor made a point of telling me that it has cost $350000 and has taken one person 6 months just to do the council’s little bit through the long-term council community plan process. The mayor is actually not sure of how much the community really knows is happening. That is where we have an issue. 
I hear what members say about the need to be transparent and the need for councils to be audited but I assure them that the audit does not look at what the community is deciding but at whether the council has dotted the i’s crossed the t’s and followed the process. I do not believe that this will result in any long-term big savings because the other costs in the process happen when councils spend their money on things. The audit does not look at what councils are spending their money on. It looks at whether inflation was included and whether all the bits and bobs were done—bits and bobs that actually have very little relevance in the long term to the community but they are very much relevant to auditors who get right into that. National members like a lot of what this bill does but there are bits and bobs throughout it that we think are wrong. We will be voting accordingly. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I place on record National’s opposition to Part 4. It is good to hear the Minister in the chair Mark Burton acknowledge that there will be in his words a little bit of cost associated with the audit process of long-term council community plans. Not only have I engaged with local government but I have also been part of local government and I have sat through a number of consultation rounds to do with long-term council community plans. I made a quick call to one of my former colleagues and I asked him how much so far the 2006 audit of the long-term council community plan of the Waitaki District Council has cost. His answer was that the council had received an account for about $30000 and another account for around $60000 or a wee bit more than that perhaps—he was not quite sure what else was still to come—so I think it hurts. A bill of $100000 for a small local authority of 22000 people hurts. 
That bill of $100000 for the audit of a long-term council community plan is just for the audit. It represents just the very beginning of the cost associated with long-term council community plans. Months and months of officer time is taken up with writing reports. A number of meetings are held and multiple subcommittees are formed because we all know that local government committees must discuss the various aspects of long-term council community plans. I say to the Minister that consultation and transparency are laudable objectives within local government but they also come at a cost. 
To the ratepayers of the Waitaki District Council that 10-year long-term council community plan is just a document. In the words of one local businessman who spoke to me I ask: who reads it? That is probably a fairly good question. Who does read a long-term council community plan apart from those people who are connected with its writing or auditing? In my time as an elected representative on the Waitaki District Council I spent an awful lot of lost hours involved in consultation and in working up a long-term council community plan—and for what? It was for no gain for the district I venture to add. All that those plans do in my experience is tie up local authorities ever more in red tape. Those plans are a recipe for achieving nothing. 
I will tell members why I hold that view. As soon as a local authority wants to get on with some kind of major project that then triggers that magical significance clause. That special significance clause then triggers the special consultative process. That special consultative process might be transparent but it is also costly lengthy and a recipe for very very slow progress in a local authority. I tell the Minister that a community does not stand still. It does not want to stand still but in terms of infrastructure and any major projects if it is not moving forward spending money and planning for the future then it is surely moving backwards. 
I refer to another provision in Part 4 which is the requirement to review bylaws every 10 years. The Waitaki district until recently still had bylaws in force about hitching horses to hitching rails along the historic part of town. Actually there was nothing terribly wrong with those bylaws—they did not do anybody any harm. There is also nothing wrong with a review of bylaws except that we keep coming back to the cost. Do members know what the major gripe is with local government that ratepayers have? It is the level of their rates. I suggest that a lot of the anxiety and pain felt by ratepayers in New Zealand is caused because of the level of rates imposed by the costs brought down by this Labour Government. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I will take a short call on Part 4. Some points have been made by our team and I pretty much concur with all of them. Mark Blumsky made the point that inside the bill are some things we will go for and some bits we will not go for. Those bits and some of the things we are for have been outlined by the previous three National speakers. I can look as a businessman at clause 32 regarding the removal of the prohibition on a local authority from borrowing foreign currency. An authority might be going to buy a container crane that comes from Germany or somewhere and want to take a forward position. It seems fine to me that we allow those sorts of provisions. So there are bits and pieces in this part that look OK. 
But I want to pick up a theme and I would like the Minister in the chair Mark Burton to respond to it. I want to explain to him the position I was put in last week when I met with my local mayors and chairs which I do on a reasonably regular basis. We talked about the long-term council community plans. Four local authorities were represented and some said that the plan gave them a bit of focus. They said that the plans were quite expensive and that they did not agree with some of the decisions made about the audit process but that the plans gave them some focus. I have to say that that was not the majority decision. There was a general view that the plans cost a lot and that some bits just do not make sense. For example the representatives asked how they could value stuff—they said they could not look forward and say where some of the costs would go so they got into trouble with the audit process. 
The Invercargill City Council said that its plan had cost one point something million dollars that it had still not got through the process and that the plan had not added anything. It said it did not hold assets and that it just wanted to get on and do the job. So there was a mixture of views. But I say to the Minister that the question put to me was why we in Parliament have a distinctly different system from that in local government. When we read Part 4 we see that the word that comes up all the way through is “consult”—“consult” here and “consult” there. There is a high level of consultation on a long-term council community plan. The questions directed to me were why we in Parliament do not have to consult like local authorities do and why we are using local authorities like guinea pigs when they have to do all this consulting and we just do what we want to do. They said that we have a system whereby when we get into Parliament we are the winners for 3 years and if people do not like it they can have a go in 3 years. But local authorities are not allowed to do that. Members of Parliament head off to Wellington for 4 days a week or whatever but local authority members cannot even buy bread or milk without facing people on a daily basis. So members of local authorities are accountable on a daily basis. They cannot get away with anything that would cause the public to lose understanding of where they are going. 
The question was why elected members of Parliament do not undertake the same consultation process. Local authority members made those very points. Why do members of Parliament not have a consultation process about the size of the surplus we have? Why do members of Parliament not have a consultation process about whether we should have tax cuts? Why do members of Parliament or the Government not have a consultation process about the Kyoto Protocol the free-trade agreement with China or any of those other things that they just go and do? Why are there two systems? Why does the Government have experiments on local government that it is not prepared to do itself? 
I thought that those were very pertinent questions and I look forward to the Minister’s response to explain why it is that the Government puts layer after layer of consultation requirements on to local government when essentially people are elected with the same motivation to do the right thing for their patch and to manage their affairs in the way that they are required to do. Yet we have loaded up an extraordinarily expensive process of consultation consultation consultation. I look forward to the Minister’s response. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
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. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
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. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Part 5 Amendments to Local Government Act 1974 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 5 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to. 
Part 6 agreed to. 
Part 7 Amendments to Rates Rebate Act 1973 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 Rates rebates and the way in which this Government is putting them to local government are a perfect example of the comments that I and my colleagues have made with regard to this Government continually putting on to local government more compliance costs. The Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton will stand up and wax lyrical about the wonderful thing the Government has done for elderly folk and the poor people who cannot afford to pay their rates—that this wonderful Government has taken money out of the pockets of hard-working taxpayers so it can give it to some people who cannot pay their rates. But the Minister does not tell the ratepayers of this country who is paying the cost of administering that. They should ask the Minister that. 
The situation is the same as when the Minister said people should not worry about the long-term community consultation plans because the audit was not too much of a cost. But as my colleagues have said the Minister does not tell the ratepayers of this country what it cost local government to put the long-term community consultation plans together. For instance it cost Whangarei District Council over $500000 to put its plan together. On top of that the district council will have to meet the administration of the dog law that the Government has just put through and all sorts of things such as the earthquake and war damage measure the Building Act and the prostitution law reform legislation. The list goes on and on. On top of that here we go with the rates rebate. The Government is loading that on to local government. 
Do members know what is really disappointing with regard to this Government? It is not a matter of whether it cares about that; it does not even know what it is doing. It never occurs to the Government that someone actually has to administer these things. When somebody goes to the council and asks to have a rates rebate local government has to have a clerk to provide the application and get the papers filled out. The clerk then has to vet the application go through it and make sure it is right. There is time involved and then the application has to be processed. The council then has to put a claim in to the Government and it goes on and on—[ 
Interruption 
] It takes three people to do rates rebates? It takes one person in Waitaki and three in Invercargill; I bet there is a whole department in Auckland. 
Mark Blumsky 
: I will tell you. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Our colleague is even going to tell us how many people there are there. 
Do members know what the real worry is? My mother will go along to the council and say she wants a rates rebate. The problem is that she will not know whether she is eligible. That will cause more time and more cost. Who will pay for that? 
Jacqui Dean 
: The ratepayers. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No my mother will pay because she is a ratepayer. She will actually pay for something that she is trying to get for herself from this Government that she has already paid for in the first place. She has paid her taxes. She has given that money to this Government to hand to local government so that she can then go and apply for it. How dopey is that? 
That is the trouble with this Government. It never thinks about where money comes from. It never thinks about who pays. It does not care about the costs it imposes on people. It does not care about the fact that there are compliance costs and they cost ratepayers a whole heap of money. What does the Government do? Oh no this cosy warm Government likes to hand out our money and to put its hands in our pockets—I can think of some hands in my pocket that I do not actually want to be in there but the Government puts them there anyway. I bet that sometimes it gets a bit of a surprise but that is its problem. Then the Government takes the money out—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Williamson should think about my dear old mum who pays her taxes. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I think about her every morning when I wake up. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No the member does not. But the point is that she pays her taxes. Mark Burton takes them from her writes out a cheque and gives it to local government. Then Mum goes in to the council and applies for the rebate. So she has paid taxes and then she pays rates to administer that process so that she can get the money back again. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It is no wonder the elderly are confused. 
JOHN CARTER 
: My mother is so confused she is having problems getting the roller door up and down let alone getting a rates rebate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I call the Minister I advise the Committee that the vote on Part should have been called as 111 for not 110. With the permission of the Committee that will be amended? Thank you. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 One of the tests of being a good MP is that one has to know when to give a bit of credit. It would have been perfectly fair for John Carter to take on the long-term council community plan process at the appropriate stage of the debate but this is the time for a bit more generosity of spirit. 
Mr John Carter is from a party whose last act in office in 1999 was to reach deep into the pockets of the pensioners in my electorate and attempt to take out $38000 every week in pension cuts. 
Darren Hughes 
: Including his mum! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is no wonder Mr Williamson wakes up every morning and thinks about the member’s dear old mum—he is still worried about her. 
Let us be fair. This provision which in my view is overdue lifts the threshold for those who are eligible for a rates rebate and it lifts the amount. It increases the income threshold from $7500 to $20000 and the maximum amount eligible has been increased from $200 to $500. That will mean the difference between 4000 people making a claim this year and 300000 people being eligible to make a claim in the coming year. Members should be happy to support this provision. I simply ask the National members whether they will support this provision or oppose it; and if they are going to oppose it will they make a pledge to reverse it at the next election? 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I am sure that—picking up the comments of the Minister of Local Government—we will have a very interesting debate in caucus. As he talked I reflected on what I would have done. Would I have voted for this rates rebate scheme in its current form? If the Working for Families package had been put forward at the same time I would not have voted for the rates rebate. I suggest that the Minister is putting even more people on to a benefit. 
I take this opportunity to quote from one of the papers the Local Government and Environment Committee received. The departmental report to the select committee included a very clever little comment from officials: “It has also been noted by the Office for Senior Citizens that many elderly citizens feel comfortable making applications at their local council for the Rates Rebate Scheme but would feel somewhat alienated if the Scheme were perceived as income support that they had to apply for at a government office.” That tells me that if the Minister puts this provision through his Government agencies the elderly—of whom this provision will capture many—will perceive it as income support and will not like it and that is a concern. 
The main thing I do not like about this measure going through the House is the cost to local government. A number of city councils made a point during the submission process of saying that they had concerns about the cost of administering the extended rates rebate scheme—in particular the Auckland City Council the Waitaki District Council and the Manukau City Council. I thought I would pick up a point from the Auckland City Council submission as to why it has concerns about the implications and impacts of the Minister’s rates rebate scheme. I quote: “A review of the 2001 census data indicates Auckland City may be required to process around 20000 rate rebate applications annually.” So 20000 applications will have to be processed by the Auckland City Council which currently processes 250. I suggest that it will be an incredible imposition on the workforce at the Auckland City Council who currently work on the rates rebate scheme. The submission also states: “It is likely that these costs will not be able to be absorbed at present staffing levels and will require additional resources.” That will come at a cost and the council has figured out that the increased cost to its ratepayers will be up to $160000. It continues: “We are disappointed by the fact that yet another Government bill is putting imposition and cost on to the ratepayer.” 
Another very interesting point came through in the submissions to the select committee. A number of councils now send out a separate bill for water and waste-water services amongst other things and of course they will not be captured by the rates bill. Those councils were concerned that there needs to be a look at what is captured by the rates rebate scheme. The Government has requested further policy work on this issue and it will be reported back in 2007. 
Finally the other issue that came up at the select committee concerned superannuitants who live in a retirement village. A number of submissions talked about the fact that because of the structure of the retirement homes that some superannuitants live in and the way their living arrangements are worked out—that is they have a licence to occupy—they are not officially classed as ratepayers. I suggest there is an anomaly there. Those people have made that investment and have very little income and no doubt the costs of rates come through in the annual charges attached to the licence. We note those issues in relation to superannuitants and their retirement village arrangements. I hear that the Government through the select committee has noted that issue and again the officials have been asked to report back on the matter. I look forward to being on the select committee when that information comes forward. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 7 agreed to. 
Part 8 Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am delighted to be able to take a call on Part 8 which is only four clauses—clauses 69 70 71 and 72. Basically in my view this part takes us back to yesteryear to a time—as those in this Chamber who were around then will recall—that was one of the worst possible times for traffic enforcement on our roads. 
We had a department of traffic officers which was part of the Ministry of Transport. That was bad enough. Fortunately when it merged with the police we got a better standard of behaviour and traffic officers began trying to work cooperatively and collaboratively with motorists. I am delighted that that is what we got. But we also had a number of local authorities with their own traffic enforcement units. I know that Darren Hughes would not have been around in those days but if he had I would have loved to take him— 
Mark Blumsky 
: He wouldn’t have been born. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: He would not have been born at that stage but I would have loved to take him to see some of the local authority traffic enforcement units and show him how they operated. We had a number in Auckland. Mount Albert had one and Tamaki had one. It was quite clear that the public’s perception was that those units ended up being just little Gestapo-type units that were heavily focused on revenue raising were not too fussed about anything to do with road safety and pinged anybody and everybody whenever they could. I know of a mayor in Auckland who got pinged for doing about 5 kilometres over the speed limit by one of these “Flash Harries” driving up behind him hauling him over and pinging him when just about everybody drove at that speed on that road. 
One of the best things that happened because of the local government reform by Dr Michael Bassett a Labour Minister—and I give him credit for what he did—in 1989 when he forced a whole lot of amalgamations was that he actually got rid of what I think was a scourge. Eric Roy from Invercargill might remember there was an Invercargill traffic enforcement unit. Fortunately I never drove around Invercargill enough back in those days to know— 
Eric Roy 
: It was awful. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: There we go. The experience at the exact other end of the country at the bottom of the South Island was exactly what we experienced in Auckland. 
Now the definition of an enforcement authority—either the police or in some cases Land Transport New Zealand which used to be the Land Transport Safety Authority—is being repealed and the ability to issue infringement offence notices in this case relating to the use of special vehicle lanes is being given to employees of local authorities or Transit or a public road controlling authority. It is being given to a whole range of people—what I would call basically Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. I do not actually think there are too many local authorities out there right now that if they were given some powers of enforcement and the ability to issue infringement notices would want to go back to those bad old days. 
John Carter 
: It’s the last thing they would want. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I do not think any of them would want to but I signal caution to this Committee that the moment we start enabling that to be the case we will get slippage. Eventually some little empire builder within one of the little operations will decide that hey it would not be too bad if they could— 
John Carter 
: What the local authority? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I know that John Carter is surprised to hear there could be some empire building going on within local government. I know that it has not happened to date. It certainly did not happen in Wellington City when Mayor Blumsky was in charge—that is for sure. In fact if anything the place was— 
John Carter 
: Not in the Hokianga county it didn’t. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I do not know where Hokianga county was so I cannot comment on that. 
John Carter 
: Neither did I. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Neither did the member—OK. But all I want to say is that the reason for the National Party’s opposition to this provision is that it is really not needed. If there are breaches of all sorts of things—such as a car with just one person in it driving down a special transit lane for vehicles with heavy occupancy of say three people and blocking up the lane or a car using a bus-only lane and causing trouble—there very clearly is a proper authority to enforce those laws just like there is an authority to enforce speed limits and to take dangerous cars and drink-drivers off the road and it is called the New Zealand Police. 
We heard the Minister of Police who also happens to be the Minister of Transport waxing lyrical in the House today about the 1000 new front-line police officers. There was no question about it. In fact she was berating any member who questioned whether we would get that huge increase in the number of front-line enforcement officers. If it is the case that there will be this huge ramping up of the numbers of front-line officers to go out and do enforcement duties—and I presume the Minister is to be taken at her word—then does it not make far more sense to task those people who are trained and who have the respect of the New Zealand public to do this work? Despite some slip-ups by a few bad policemen from time to time—and we have all heard a few examples—I still think that in the main the police are well respected in this country. I certainly believe they are much higher up the pecking order than politicians or secondhand-car salesmen in terms of the public’s respect for them. 
John Carter 
: Not as much as they were. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is true. My colleague John Carter makes an interesting interjection. The public’s respect for them is not quite as much as it used to be. I think the police need to be ever-vigilant and on guard. But let me tell members that any slippage we might witness in police standards ethics behaviours and so on will be multiplied tenfold if every man and his dog can run an enforcement agency and issue infringement notices. 
A gleeful look will come across the eyes of some local authorities—revenue revenue revenue! They cannot pull back on the rates lever because they just cannot get any more blood out of some stones. For example some elderly people who live in Bucklands Beach in my electorate now pay rates of $5000 per annum for a small cottage—what used to be a beach house. Members who can remember back as far as I can will recall that Bucklands Beach was a holiday location for people who lived in Auckland. It was a long drive out to Bucklands Beach. Actually since road congestion has got as bad as it is now it takes as long to get to Bucklands Beach as it used to back when there were no roads. We often set out in the afternoon in the hope that we will make it there. But these people who have lived in a little crib for some time are paying unbelievable rates. Now of course we will have local authorities saying: “Well we pretty much can’t squeeze much harder on the rates lever. How about we start a fantastic little revenue job here with infringement notices being given out left right and centre for all sorts of things?”. 
I admit there are some limits to Part 8 but I say to the Minister of Local Government that I am always nervous about thin ends of wedges. What will happen the moment we give local authorities as we do here—public road controlling authorities—this power? The Labour Government keeps saying that it is looking forward to one day having private participation in our roading. So are we but it does not look like it is going to happen. What about a private roading authority? What will happen if we do what Tony Blair’s Government has done in the UK? It let Macquarie Bank go ahead and build the M6 toll road in Birmingham. It is completely privately owned and privately built. If we are to let public road controlling authorities have an enforcement role on public roading why do we not say in this legislation that if a road is built by a private company with its own money it will have the right to enforce standards in road safety lane controls and management? 
The reason of course is that we would never allow that. Even the National Party—even me from the right-wing end of the National Party—would not allow a private company to have an infringement enforcement— 
[Interruption] 
 Oh yes I am. I am a good old right-wing Tory. Even I would not want private companies having their own little police force out there running around and issuing infringement notices. So private road controlling authorities are not included in this part. Public road controlling authorities are but they should not be. 
Transit’s behaviour in recent years has been nothing short of disgusting in a whole range of areas. Road control is the one thing I would not task Transit with right now based on its inability to do even its core function which is to build roads. Its inability to do even its core function of building roads is so legendary now that I would not want Transit to become an infringement-issuing police force in its own right. 
National is very very opposed to Part 8. I am going to get very confused later because I think National will support the bill but without doubt we will be voting against Part 8. 
Mark Blumsky 
: It will be on the basis of  
Hansard. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: All right; it will be on the basis of  
Hansard 
. Well at least we will have on record so that the good motorists out there the public of New Zealand will know that while National has any fire in its belly at all on this matter it does not want to see anybody other than the New Zealand Police have control of this issue. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 For the sake of the  
Hansard 
 and so that we have the record very clear when someone wants to go back and have a look at what was said I tell the Committee that National opposes Part 8 of this Local Government Law Reform Bill. I want to make that very clear because there is a real possibility that because of the changes that have been made to the microchipping provisions National might support the third reading. That does not mean to say that we support all of the bill. Certainly we do not support a good number of parts. I want to make that very clear. For anyone looking in the  
Hansard  
record I say that National does not support this bill. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I’m not going to support this part. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I am sorry—National does not support this part. I will correct it in the  
Hansard 
. It will be OK. It will read all right when I get the  
Hansard 
. 
I want to take us back to 1998 when the previous member who spoke my good friend and colleague Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport. He actually brought this amendment through. It was never intended to give authorities other than the New Zealand Police the right to issue infringement notices. That was never the intention of the bill. If anybody in this House—or indeed in the general public—is interested they can go and look at the  
Hansard 
. The whole purpose was to allow Transit New Zealand to set up some bus lanes and some freeways for buses and passenger transport etc. But infringements by people were the responsibility of the police. Members can go back and have a look at that provision. What happened of course was that some local authorities thought that because they had been given that responsibility it had to mean they were in charge. So away they went. They started thinking that they were enforcement agencies and that they would issue a ticket or two—they would start to do this and that. But Transit came along and said— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Show them you’re like Rick Barker. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well—it must be the snow! Transit came along and said that if local authorities could do that so could they. So away went Transit and had a jolly old time until somebody said: “Hang on a minute; where’s your authority?” Transit said it did not have any and so it stopped doing it. But then Transit came to the Minister of Local Government and said that it had been in the habit of doing it and that it actually needed to do it. So the Minister instead of going back to the history and seeing what was intended and more important what was needed— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He was disgruntled—under pressure. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well no. He just followed his old rule of giving more to local government at more cost to ratepayers. You know it was the silly attitude of just transferring responsibilities from central to local government. It was a small chink a small step but it was the thin end of the wedge. 
The people of New Zealand need to know that what is happening now is that the Labour Government is putting in place something that was never intended in the original legislation. I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton that if he is uncertain about that he should go back and have a look at the history of the legislation. I have read it. I actually remember putting the bill through. In fact I remember putting a number of bills through. There was something to do with water at some stage a bit earlier on when the Minister— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Maritime transport I think. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Is that what it was called? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I’m still getting counselling. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The member thinks he is! The point is that in the history of this bill it was never intended that anyone other than the New Zealand Police should have the authority to issue infringement notices. But this Government is now putting that responsibility on to somebody else and that is nuts. [ 
Interruption 
] Well it is not even an issue that would worry my mother. 
What would worry my mother is the fact that giving Transit New Zealand anything to do at all would be the problem—because it sure as hell cannot build roads. It sure as hell cannot do anything at all. So why should we expect it to be able to issue tickets properly? It cannot it should not—but it has been doing it illegally. Now the Government wants to tidy up the situation but the Government should stop. The best thing it could do is go back to Transit New Zealand and start getting it working and carrying out its core responsibility—tidying up the congestion in Auckland would be a good start. So would tidying up the congestion in Wellington in Christchurch and in other places—[ 
Interruption 
] Whangarei—can members believe that in Whangarei there are traffic jams now? We have cars and people have started to drive them—and it is nuts. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I feel inspired by my two colleagues Mr Williamson and Mr Carter. I must say some things about the Local Government Law Reform Bill as well. After days and days spent fighting the evils of certain elements of this legislation I have to say this part is worse than the one on dog chipping. This is seriously bad for all sorts of reasons and my colleagues have outlined some of them. There has been concern about the mechanism of providing the option of collecting fines to others than the police and I will give members a couple of examples. The select committee received submissions about this. Someone said they had 3 years of fines they had actually been doing this and they needed to revalidate backwards in case someone came along and wanted their fine back. So they have been involved ultra vires in the collection of money. What is this about? In places like Auckland where— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Lucky there’s someone listening tonight. 
ERIC ROY 
: Lucky Auckland where everybody wants to be in their cars has bus lanes and people can drive on a bus lane. They are not supposed to but what is done with them if they do? The local authority says it wants to have the right to impose fines. It wants to have the responsibility for it. There may be a car lane that requires a car to have passengers before it can be used. If someone drives in that lane alone or with a blow-up dummy in the car— 
Darren Hughes 
: What? 
ERIC ROY 
: That would be for the purposes of looking as if there is a passenger I say to Mr Hughes. In that case an offence would be committed. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask members to settle down. The question is not whether there should be specific-purpose lanes; it is who gets to police those who offend. Let me state again that there is an issue of concern about this being a “click the ticket” provision. Section (3A) inserted by clause 71 provides that the local authority can go to the Minister and say that not only is it policing but it deserves the right to retain a portion of the fine. We say that is the thin end of the wedge and we have some significant concerns about it. National in its minority report sets out quite clearly that we think this is inappropriate. We think the people who should do the policing are the police and that neither local authorities nor Transit New Zealand should become enforcement agencies. We make that point quite clear. 
Another issue I wish to raise here that makes it a little more acceptable is that the provisions in Part 8 are locked in only until 30 June 2009 because there is to be a review of the Transport Act 1962. So that review should enable us to look at the whole issue. Nevertheless the principle that we stand on is that it should be only the police who do the enforcing. The points that the Hon Maurice Williamson made about private roads and a whole lot of other arrangements are not where we want to be going. The issue is quite clear. It is a matter of principle and there is an opportunity for people who are given enforcement jobs outside of the police to overstep the mark. There are no monitoring provisions outlined— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What about those private security firms doing the minding for the police now? 
ERIC ROY 
: Exactly. There are no provisions in this bill that say if they break the laws we will do X. There is no audit process; there is nothing. This is a hugely dangerous provision and we will certainly be voting against it. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I can assure those who are listening that at no stage did the Wellington City Council want to have its own traffic department—certainly not while I was the mayor. At no stage did we have a group of people wanting to put on uniforms and go marching through the streets catching people out on traffic lanes and issuing them tickets. I would suggest to members though that the council did have some initiatives that made a difference. We put people on the streets who looked after the safety aspects of the city because we felt that there was a shortage of people keeping an eye on the crime scene. But at the end of the day there was no desire for us to have a traffic department. 
It became very clear through the submission process in the Local Government and Environment Committee that the enforcement issue has to be addressed. I remember asking the Ministry of Transport officials whether if this bill were passed by the House councils could retrospectively challenge and ticket people whom they had captured on some infringements. If I am right the officials made it clear that there was no chance of this bill bringing in a retrospective ability to charge those people. 
It is quite clear that areas like the North Shore have issues to deal with. The North Shore has a problem with its bus lanes; that is quite clear. The mayor made a presentation to the select committee and made it clear to us that people are abusing the bus lanes. Cars are using the bus lanes and they should not do that. He also made it clear to the select committee that the enforcement of those lanes made a difference and did have an impact on how many people actually broke the law. He made it clear also that his ability to issue infringement notices has made a difference. When asked though he did acknowledge that the police resource shortage is one of the reasons why the council wants the ability to issue tickets. It is a pity to find yet again that where there is a central government problem with resourcing local government feels that it has to step up and fill the gap. We see in this legislation the way local government wanted to do that. 
We in the National Party do not want to see local authorities given the ability to issue infringement notices. We believe that such an ability would have the potential to grow. I note that among the number of councillors who made submissions a couple of councillors wanted to be able to issue infringement notices on traffic lights. They wanted their officers to be able to stand on corners and capture cars going through traffic lights. I suggest that that is if you like phase two of the opportunity this legislation provides. I would not mind if the Minister made a comment on that—it was an actual submission to the select committee. 
With those types of submissions coming through the process the Minister should understand the National Party’s concern as to where this will end. Before we know it the council officers standing at the traffic lights capturing cars going through red lights and writing down licence plate numbers would want to have cars so that they could follow offenders in case they had not written the numbers down correctly—and they could capture offenders when they parked. So we might well have little city council cars running around operating as enforcement cars. Obviously I am taking the idea a lot further than the Minister or I would ever want to see it taken but my point is that when we open a door in situations like this we become concerned as to how far that door can be opened. 
I have real sympathy for those who made submissions to the select committee. They have a problem. In this case their bus lanes—Transit lanes or whatever we call them—are being abused. I do not believe that giving councils the authority to dish out infringement notices is the answer. I believe that this is an issue for central government its resourcing of police and its prioritisation to put councils in a position where they can handle the problem in a much better way. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 Listening to my colleague Mark Blumsky speak has prompted me to take another call. He has brought to my mind an issue that has not been covered. I want to put it in this context. What we are doing now is to give local authorities and Transit the ability to issue infringement notices. Earlier we had a debate on the Government’s proposals to change the laws around dog control. It says not enough dogs are registered and it wants to bring in a microchipping regime because local government is having trouble in policing dogs. That is the Government’s rationale for that measure. 
The question that comes to mind is why the Government thinks local government will be able to do any better in policing traffic infringements than it does in dog control. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Microchip the drivers. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I ask the member to hang on. We will get to how the Government may manage that issue in a minute and I ask the member not to give my story away. Twenty percent or 30 percent of the dogs in this country are not registered. The Government has said that local government cannot cope and is not dealing with the matter properly—it has all the laws but the system is still not working—so it will introduce microchipping. Fortunately we have managed to stymie that a bit by managing to get the bill amended so that farm dogs do not have to be microchipped. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Working dogs. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Farm working dogs. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: My chihuahua’s a working dog. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Of course—absolutely. Lots of dogs work. When we walk down the street we can see them working all the time. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Winston is. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes Winston works—Winston works a lot actually. 
The point is this: where does it logically take us if local authorities—organisations throughout the country—cannot do the job we have imposed on them? Where do we go next if we tell them to issue infringement notices and they come back and say they are having trouble in enforcing them? What is the next logical step? The next thing that will happen is that it will be decided the best thing we can do is to microchip buses. That will be the next thing we debate in Parliament. Obviously if the Government cannot microchip the dogs and wants to be consistent the next thing it will do is to say that we do not know who drove a particular bus so we had better microchip drivers. 
Where do we go to from there? The next thing is that instead of having drivers and passengers we will have blow-up dolls and— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Are those working bus drivers? 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is the point. Then we will have a debate on whether the drivers are working bus drivers urban bus drivers or rural bus drivers and whether they have to be microchipped in the country. Where do we go next? What happens if an urban bus driver is microchipped but goes to the country? Do we take the chip out? What logically follows? 
The point is that what we are doing is silly. We can make this whole debate stupid. What I have just said is silly because the problem we are talking about is that the Government is doing something jolly silly. It is not focusing on where responsibility should lie which is with the police. If the police have a problem with regard to administering infringement notices then they should be given more resources. If that is the issue we should make sure that the authority with the responsibility for the job can do it. 
We should not pass the buck to local government. The Government is already continually moving a stream of responsibilities to local government and local government is finally starting to wake up and say it does not like all the stuff the Government is shifting to it. In fact the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton is himself—and my colleague will talk more about this—starting to acknowledge that fact yet tonight he supports the passing of this bill. It was never intended in the original legislation to allow local government and Transit to have this responsibility. But the Minister happily says that we should we should pass it over to local government. Rates rebates prostitution law reform building controls and anything we can think of are shifted away from central government so that the Government cannot be blamed for them and are handed over to ratepayers and local government. 
I say to the Minister that the National Party opposes this measure. We oppose it because it was never intended and because it is just another compliance cost—an unnecessary burden on local government. We do not support it and we will vote against this part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 8 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 8 agreed to. 
Schedule 1AA 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to schedule 1AA be agreed to: 
to omit the item relating to section 41A(3) in new schedule 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment in the name of Eric Roy to schedule 1AA is out of order because it is the same as the previous amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to schedule 1AA be agreed to: 
to omit from the first column in new schedule 1 the expression “36A(5)” and substitute the expression “36A(6)”. 
to omit from the item relating to section 36A(5) in the second column of new schedule 1 the words “dangerous or menacing”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 1AA as amended  agreed to.  
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the title. I want to make the point that tonight in this Parliament for the first time in 7 or 8 years we have actually had a victory for common sense. Sadly it is a partial victory but it is a victory nevertheless. I am proud and excited that the National team—David Carter Eric Roy Mark Blumsky and a whole number of different people— 
Darren Hughes 
: You can’t remember her name. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Whose name? 
Darren Hughes 
: That woman behind you. He’s thinking. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is not a woman—the member needs to go and clean his glasses and get his hair coloured. 
The fact is that the National team with the support of other parties in this House can proudly stand up tonight and say we have had a victory for common sense. What is just as good is that it is a huge political disaster for the Labour Government and particularly for Jim Anderton. He stood up there and said he was going to back the farmers. He said he was their man. He said he would speak up for them. And then he came down here and voted with the Government and got riled because there was common sense amongst enough of the parties in this Parliament to defeat the Government tonight. I have to say that it shows a huge loss of faith in the Labour Government. 
I also make the point having been a former whip—as was Mark Burton the Minister in the chair—that the whips in the Labour Government at the moment Tim Barnett and Darren Hughes should be feeling absolutely ashamed of themselves. They had absolutely no idea of what was going on when the vote was being taken. They did not know. Their job as whips should come under close scrutiny because they should have been advising the Prime Minister that this bill which amended and changed dog microchipping laws was at risk. They did not say anything because they did not know anything. They got caught—I was going to say “with their pants down” but that is probably not appropriate. Nevertheless they got caught out. The fact is that as whips they failed their Government their Prime Minister and their team. They let their side down and they should be damn well ashamed of themselves. They should be taken to the cleaners and whipped until such stage as they are out of their job quite honestly. It is an absolute disgrace. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not know about their being microchipped; we want to lose them not keep them. 
The fact is that this has been a great victory for National tonight. This team over here has worked so well to make sure it happened. We worked closely with the other parties to make sure it happened and we listened to the voters out there and to the people who were interested. At the end of the day we have come up with and given them what they wanted. 
Unfortunately as hard as we tried we only managed to get working dogs exempted from having to be microchipped. The fact is that urban dogs will still have to be microchipped—the little chihuahuas— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We’ll find jobs for those urban dogs; they’ll all end up working dogs. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well they could all end up being working dogs although I am not sure what sorts of thing a chihuahua can round up but I am sure there is something— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Look at Winston. Look at what he can do. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well can Winston Peters round anything up? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Yes! 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well there we go. The point is that lots of urban voters will be really dissatisfied now that their rural counterparts do not have to microchip their dogs. But urban dog owners will have to front up and cough up the money it will cost in consequence of having to have their dogs microchipped. 
The point is that the Government has lost out politically and I have to say again that it is a great victory for common sense tonight. I am proud to be part of the National Party and to be one of the people on this side of the Chamber who actually decided to vote on common-sense lines. 
 We need to address two or three other things in this bill including the long-term council community plans. Those plans are costing local government and ratepayers far too much money. The way in which they are being administered and delivered as a consequence of this Labour Government is just unacceptable. The Minister should be ashamed of himself for imposing those sorts of costs on local government. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow on from my colleague John Carter who also played an important role in what has occurred in the Committee tonight. He was extolling the rest of the team but we should acknowledge him too. I also acknowledge the Greens. The Greens came into the debate on microchipping from a point of principle that I totally agreed with—that microchipping is nonsense and we ought to get rid of it per se. But the Greens instead of taking an intransigent position when at the 11th hour it looked like there would be no progress said: “Let’s go for a small gain.”—at least some of their members said that. I acknowledge the way in which those Green members must have discussed that and come to a decision. The Greens’ principle was right: microchipping is nuts and we should have defeated it. That is the position that the Greens took and I understand that. I also acknowledge and place on record the movement that some of the Green members made in order to make some progress. 
This legislation is similar to that of an omnibus bill. It deals with a whole lot of things. Largely microchipping of dogs has been the area about which there has been debate. That is because the Government’s position on dog microchipping has been symbolic of a lot of errors it has made in terms of local authorities costs and prescriptive rules that have applied difficulties to local authorities. So microchipping is perhaps not the biggest cost issue out there but it is one that is synonymous with an infringement on cost and on people’s rights. More significantly microchipping will not do a jolly thing to stop the problem of dogs biting people and particularly children. 
In seeing this as a summary debate I make the following point. The Hon Damien O’Connor made a point that I totally agree with. He said we ought to be shooting or destroying dogs that bite people. He was not to know that I had a Supplementary Order Paper that proposed we should do precisely that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We do that now. 
ERIC ROY 
: It would be a mandatory requirement for any dog that bit a child to be destroyed—no ifs no buts no maybes. If Lianne Dalziel is so enthusiastic about that provision why did she not vote in favour of my Supplementary Order Paper? The attack on Carolina Anderson was a tragedy and we should be doing something about it. But it worries me that after 2 days of debate and several days of hearing submissions in the select committee we have not come up with a solution that deals with dogs that savage children—we have not done that as a Parliament. In that respect the Government must take some responsibility. It has frittered around with a microchipping bill that will not do anything to resolve the problem. 
In the debates earlier on I made a point that I want to make again. On 1 July we will start microchipping those dogs that are registered from 1 July. The life of a dog is variable. I gave examples of dogs I have had and owned that have reached 19 years of age. I currently have a dog that is 17. In the year 2025 there will still be dogs that are not microchipped in the urban area even if we get 100 percent compliance. I have to ask how realistic it is to say this will be a tool of effectiveness. 
We had a lot of examples of the efficacy of the microchip itself. People have a completely false understanding of what this is about. What we do to cattle beasts or sheep is put a transponder on their eartags. It is about the size of a thimble or a 20c piece; it is something that has a bit of substance and yes it can be read from a distance. But what are the chances of finding and reading a microchip that is the size of a grain of rice—7 millimetres by 1.5 millimetres—and buried under the thick skin on a large rough of some dog? The Local Government and Environment Committee heard that some of the microchips are not reliable and do not last very long at all. Those illustrations were given in the select committee yet the Government forged ahead. So the microchipping of dogs was a principle around this local government law reform that just said that much of what this Government has done in loading costs and prescriptive behaviour on to local authorities is inappropriate. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I often use Garrick Tremain’s cartoons as a guiding mentor in life. I find them to be particularly insightful about what is going on in the world of politics. One of the best cartoons I have ever seen that pertains to this legislation depicted an old farm ute driving along the road with three dogs on the back. The first dog says: “We’re off to town to get microchipped so that if we ever bite the kids in the town they’ll know who we are.” the second dog asks: “But when do we ever go to town?” and the third dog says: “We go there to get microchipped.” That is how crazy this legislation was for working farm dogs that do not ever go to town other than to get microchipped—in the process of which they might jump off the ute bite a kid and then get blamed for it. 
I am delighted that some common sense has prevailed in this Chamber tonight. It is very unusual for that happen in this place but it has happened tonight. We at least have a small victory. I do not understand for the life of me why Labour Ministers were hanging out so strongly to include all dogs in the microchipping provisions of the bill when it was absolute stupidity to have farm dogs included in the microchipping process. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Why did the member vote for it? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I did not vote for it. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Yes you did. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Oh no I did not vote for it at all. I am one of those who believes that microchipping will do nothing for the safety of anybody. 
I found that out when I learnt that in order to read the microchip the dog officer cannot just get the scanner stand 20 or 30 metres back ask what the dog’s number is and then maybe push press a button and the dog explodes. No the dog control officer has to hold the dog down and rub the scanner over the fur until he or she can find the chip because the chip—as the vets told us—can move. 
 The vet says: “Nice pooch nice pooch; let me find your chip.” This is a dog who has just mauled some kid in the park ripped pieces off his or her flesh and has blood dripping from its mouth. I can see an ordinary dog control officer saying: “Oh yippee! I can chase another savage savage vicious beastly dog across the park hold it down get out my wand scan over its fur and try to find its chip.” How stupid! No one believes that will protect children like Carolina Anderson—no one. Absolutely not! 
A number of other measures could be taken that would make at least a small inroad. But I say to the Government that most legislation such as this covers law-abiding citizens who would comply. They would all trundle off to the vet pay their $100 and do everything they are supposed to. But it is not their dogs that are the problem. Some vicious half-breed mongrel dog that has been kicked beaten whipped with a chain badly fed and is sitting at some Mongrel Mob headquarters will be the dog that goes out and does the attacking. And guess what? Members of the Mongrel Mob will not even know this legislation has been passed let alone do anything about microchipping their dogs. So what are all the law-abiding citizens out there doing spending their $100? 
No wonder the Veterinary Association backed this bill. Self-interest is alive and well. The Veterinary Association thought this legislation was a good idea. Why? The reason is that every dog represents $100 for vets. How good a deal is that? Laying aside all personal and private interests—not on your life! But like the gun laws and a whole range of other laws this legislation covers the 99 percent of people who are law-abiding and who get all the costs and all the impost. And I am yet to hear one member of the Government say how a vicious wild beast running through the bushes in the parks of Auckland after having mauled a little girl will be stopped or how that problem will be fixed. 
The first question is to ask how this legislation will stop another Carolina Anderson incident. We all know that was dreadful. We all feel badly for that family and for that girl and we would love to do things about it. I do not think there is a member in this Chamber who would not love to do things that would prevent that sort of attack from happening again. But I say again that not one thing in this bill—especially the microchipping side of it—would ever ever have prevented it. So now Cabinet’s No. 3 Jim Anderton who made a promise to farmers—“Do you not understand where No. 3 is relative to No. 18?”—then comes along buckles to pressure and votes for it. He has actually had it completely gazumped. Government members must be highly embarrassed. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This afternoon Parliament is certainly creating a dog’s breakfast. We are passing a law that is unenforceable. We have been told by council dog control officers that distinguishing between farm dogs working dogs and other dogs simply will not be feasible. I predict that this issue will be back here before very long and Parliament will be revisiting what has happened today. 
I certainly hope that is so and I imagine that is why four of my colleagues decided in the end to support the amendment to exempt farm dogs even though none of us actually believes we should have exemptions for one category of dog and not for others. The only principled position here is that either microchipping will save children’s lives and therefore every dog should be microchipped or microchipping will not save children’s lives and no dog should be microchipped except for those dogs that have been classified as menacing or dangerous. One can make a case for microchipping them; such dogs have not yet done enough to deserve to be shot but they are on notice and they need to be watched. 
That is what the Green Party tried to achieve with a member’s bill which failed by one vote. That is what we did achieve in the Local Government and Environment Committee with an amendment which then got knocked out in the House. That is what we tried to achieve throughout the debate on the Committee stage of this bill. Only when all of those options had been exhausted and there was no possibility of knocking out microchipping for all harmless dogs did four of my colleagues decide they would go with the amendment to exempt farm dogs. It was not because they thought it was a good idea—one could argue that it was because they thought half a loaf was better than none—but mainly I believe because they thought it would make the law unworkable and we would then have another chance to knock out microchipping for other dogs as well. 
We know that having a microchip will not prevent a dog from savaging a child. We know that it will not make it any easier to find out what dog savaged the child. If people see the dog do it they know the dog; if they do not see the dog do it the fact that it has a microchip in it will not help to identify it. It is not a locator beacon; it will not help people find the dog. We know that we cannot distinguish between farm dogs and other dogs. But it seemed to have become an article of faith with some that once this legislation had got as far as this it had to be driven through. 
It was possible for four of my colleagues to decide to vote differently from Metiria and myself because in the Green Party if a matter is not a policy that has been determined by the party and that members signed up to when they came here then after a debate in caucus we are free to disagree. That is what has happened today. I do not agree with my four colleagues but I absolutely uphold their right to vote in the way they did this afternoon. 
I fear that that provision may make things more difficult for urban dog owners because the strongest lobby group against microchipping has now been silenced. I challenge Federated Farmers to join with urban dog owners to continue to oppose this legislation rather than their just feeling relief that they are out of jail and never mind anybody else. However I predict that the legislation will be back here. It is bad law and the Greens have done what we can. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes if United Future and New Zealand First had been prepared to listen to the facts maybe we would have had a different outcome. But this is where we are and we have done our best. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Dog Control Amendment Bill the Litter Amendment Bill the Local Electoral Amendment Bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill and the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 42. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.