Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2525] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on this bill. A number of the issues that have been raised do require a response. But perhaps more important in order to put in context the intention here I will say this Government is committed to a close and collaborative working relationship with local government. That is important in going forward. We know that local decisions are best made locally and that the legislation we are looking at here today will enable local government to provide strong local leadership. Labour will continue to work closely with local government for the benefit of all our communities. I say that from the outset because there are provisions in the bill that I think will make a real difference. 
What are those provisions? The rates rebate provision is an example of one. From 1 July this year the maximum rebate available under the rates rebate scheme will rise from $200 to $500. There was some comment from across the House about that very issue—rates. I am concerned when members of the Maori Party say they will not support that measure because in some respects that provision alone will benefit at least 300000 more families in New Zealand including many Maori families as well as others. More important and connected to the issue of the rates rebate the income threshold under which people will become eligible for a full rebate is to increase from $7400 a year to $20000 a year. Again that is a really really useful step in the right direction. 
A number of comments have also been made in the House about the provisions around the Dog Control Act. Mr Copeland was right to point out that the New Zealand Veterinary Association is very supportive of the microchipping measures. He also pointed to comments in respect of the New South Wales example. I want to comment on that very example only because Mr Copeland would have received the same information as me regarding the issue of the exemption for farm dogs from microchipping in New South Wales. Let us bear in mind the statement that farm dogs in New South Wales constitute a very very small proportion of all the dogs in that population. That proportion is very different in the New Zealand context. So it is not simply a matter of saying it is done in New South Wales so therefore we should do it in New Zealand. In fact a regime for an exemption for farm dogs here in New Zealand would put onerous monitoring costs on local authorities. That issue will come out in the select committee process but it is an issue that needs to be highlighted in respect of the issue of the exemption regime. 
There does need to be a law that applies universally to microchipping. Why? Because if the regime is to work effectively we must get as many of the dogs as possible into it. I do not think that exemptions are the way forward. The honourable member has a different view on that. I hope that the select committee will put in context the examples that have been drawn on in this House because I do not think they apply here. We need to look at the New Zealand situation. We need to have an overriding framework that promotes public safety and achieves a balance between having a good information system in terms of the dog ownership regime—putting responsibility where it lies which is with the owner—and having an overarching suite of tools that will help to strengthen what we all seek: public safety in our communities around the ownership of dogs.