Smith Nick: Third Readings 
Smith Nick: Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:14139] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to make a few comments in the third reading of this legislation further to the Committee stage and the debate that has gone before. The first is that this legislation is about fixing up mistakes made in rushed legislation in respect of dog control—legislation that was introduced by Chris Carter. We warned against the rushed process and now we are having to make over 20 changes in the amendments to the dog control legislation to try to make it workable. National wishes to state on record its opposition to the compulsory microchipping of all dogs in New Zealand which is reinforced by these amendments. It is our view that the expense to dog owners and to councils of having to put a microchip in every single dog will not be matched by the benefits provided by the extra control that that makes provision for. We also want to put on record our opposition to the prescriptive fines that are provided for in the amendments to the Dog Control Act. It is our view that councils are quite capable of setting the levels of fines. Parliament should go no further than to set the maximum fines and should let the councils themselves work out the fines for particular matters. 
In respect of the local government electoral provisions we want to put on record our concern about the pot-pourri of different electoral systems that will be used in the October local body elections this year. It is our view that voters will be confused by the range of single transferable vote MMP and first-past-the-post elections that are provided for. While we support the change that will allow council candidates to stand for both the mayoralty and council it is not our view that these are optimal local government election provisions and we would want to re-examine that area when we are next in Government. 
We note that in respect of the local government rating records we are again fixing an error in the 2002 rating legislation which prohibited councils from being able to make rating and ownership information about properties available to the public. We support the more common-sense approach that is provided for in this legislation to fix up that botch. We express concern only about the 2½ years of confusion that has occurred as a consequence of the Government blocking access by its bungled legislation to that information since 2002. So yes this legislation— 
Jill Pettis 
: Keep talking! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Does the member want me to keep talking so she can get the Government’s speakers organised? Such is the Government’s legislative programme and its mess. The Government is in disarray as illustrated—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister notes that this legislation does not provide for any of the innovative policy that is required in local government. 
We support this legislation but express concern that rushed legislation has resulted in all these amendments having to be considered. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to advise members that I will put each bill separately. 
Chatham Islands Council Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
Sitting suspended from 5.27 to 7.00