Peters Jim: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14105] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 What an amazing speech in defence! Just over 2 years ago local government legislation was passed under urgency and in haste. It was said then that that legislation was not ready for publication as it were and the fact that we are back here again today looking at amendments to that legislation proves it. The Minister has not had the fortitude to face up to the fact that the local government legislation of 2002 and the amendments to the Resource Management Act passed in 2003 are not yet in harmony and that any serious attempt to amend the legislation before us now should have been done with far greater care much more thought and much more deliberation rather than his suggesting to us that he will come back at some future date with a long-term look at the legislation. 
Having said that I commend the Minister for the fact that at long last after some days and weeks of thought—I am not sure why it took days and weeks—common sense has prevailed with regard to the casting vote provision. The previous speaker Mr Gallagher said the Minister came to that understanding and he commended him for that. Instead I say to the Minister that there is something seriously amiss in his department if a casting vote provision introduced on the day that the legislation will be passed is the final answer given that that was the most common-sense approach right from day one. Whether it shows a certain fortitude on the part of his ministerial officials in a very correct manner or whether a single individual decided somewhere in the distant past that there should be wonderful above-the-clouds consensus at all council meetings I am not sure but it is plain stupid that on the last day possible we get a common-sense answer to a straightforward problem. I commend the Minister for finally arriving there. Why it took so long is beyond my understanding. 
The second thing I want to raise is that in the deliberations for the 2002 legislation I raised the issue of council-owned organisations. Specifically I mentioned the role of port companies because many regional councils in particular have a role for them. There was no understanding by the Department of Internal Affairs although finally there was a dim understanding that there was an issue there. I am very pleased to say that a company that is run on the basis of say Northport the Northland port corporation which is a joint venture with the Port of Tauranga has finally had adequate provision for its reporting requirements accepted in this bill. 
The last issue I want to raise is the database. I am not quite sure why as the Hon Nick Smith said it took so long to reach a common understanding. 
In the course of submissions the Marlborough District Council came to us on behalf of rural councils with issues in relation to lump-sum contributions. I draw members’ attention to my proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 and say very quickly that it is highly deserving of attention. The Marlborough District Council came to us with the support of other councils such as the Far North District Council the Nelson City Council the Kaikoura District Council the Whangarei District Council the Grey District Council—I could go on with a long list. All those councils did so because in the Local Government (Rating) Act of 2002 the rating powers in the 1988 Act were for some reason changed and there seems to be no reason why that was done. 
It has been the common practice of councils in the past—in particular rural councils—to invite lump sum contributions to fund special localised infrastructural projects. There is a known community preference for a lump-sum contribution. It is well established and common. Under the provisions of the Rating Powers Act of 1988 councils would have had the option to do that as they had in the past and many councils did just that. What did the legislation cover? It covered the regime for allowing it and the potential methods of calculating the contribution as a lump sum separate rate to finance the loan or fund the work. In other words it was an elaborate procedure to establish a very fair balance. It provided for those who wanted to pay a lump sum and those who did not wish to take up that option. It was fair and equitable. The Local Government (Rating) Act of 2002 changed that and caused some councils great concern. Although it was intended to provide more flexible policies for lump-sum contributions serious issues were left in the residue of the Act that needed to be resolved. Those issues were presented to the committee and for some strange reason—I apologise to members of the committee as I was not there that day—they were not accepted. 
I raise again the issue of how transparent and clear the system outlined in the Supplementary Order Paper is. It is very clear indeed. It raises the issue of how the contribution is raised and why. The Act sets out a far more deliberate—and unfortunately sometimes costly—procedure for consultation. Unlike earlier days when lump-sum contributions might have earned a council resolution contributions today for a special localised project even when small are the subject of a policy with a significant threshold and therefore is not likely to take place unless two issues are overcome—firstly whether it is significant and secondly whether it has been transparently explained and understood. The explanatory note covers why this is an issue of choice. It is a choice whether councils exercise it. There is a clear indication in the Act that greater choice is one of the rationales for that Act and this Supplementary Order Paper fits into that long-term desire of local authorities to do their best for their local communities. 
With regard to the dog legislation my party supported microchipping and we earnestly believe it is the way of the future for all stock. I have no doubt that if I were to come back in 10 years time I would find that it was part of an established system for tracking animals. Today a bill was passed that dealt with that. For dairy farmers there is a clear tracking system for the product from the shed to the consumer and microchipping fits into that system. Dogs fit into that system as well so I make no apologies for our stance in 2002 and 2003 in relation to that. 
Secondly councils do have discretion with regard to dog issues. As councils set their rates I followed through the newspapers the contributions made by locally elected people about how the dog legislation would be administered. When we come to the Committee stage I will give members an example of an excellent dog policy from the Waitakere area. It is working and most councils find the legislation agreeable. We support that part of the legislation. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Local Government Act 2002 is a huge piece of legislation and it is not surprising that a year and a bit afterward there are some technical changes to make. It may seem to those who entered Parliament part-way through the year 2002 that that legislation was being rushed through and that may be assisted by the fact that it did eventually pass under urgency in an attempt to get the House’s business through before Christmas. In fact the select committee had been considering that bill for almost a year. There was extensive hearing of submissions and by the time the election came we had got a long way through it. We then did our best to help new members catch up but I acknowledge it was quite a big job for them. However I really do not think we can say that that Act was rushed through without proper consideration. Actually Nick Smith was a member of that committee at the time and had he picked up any of these technical changes he would have been quite free to promote them at the select committee at the time. But he did not. 
The bill in front of us now is an omnibus bill that amends seven Acts. The amendments are mostly technical and non-controversial but there are four issues that I want to raise in the House. The first one is the question of the changes to the infringement offences in the Dog Control Act which are made in the schedule and there has been widespread misunderstanding about this. I was quite surprised to be rung by numerous radio stations after this bill was reported back. Obviously the public has a great interest in how much one gets fined if one does not do the right thing with one’s dog. But it was unfortunate that even people like the editor of the  
Waikato Times 
 saw the lessening of some of these infringement amounts as an indication that Parliament had gone soft on dog control and simply did not understand that an infringement offence applies to the lesser offences and is more in the nature of an instant fine. If one actually endangers the public seriously with one’s dog or one seriously breaks the law one is prosecuted and goes to court. The sentences then can be very much more severe including substantial periods of imprisonment. I think the public did not understand that when we stated in our report back that it is silly to set infringement fines that the public cannot pay because then the council will have to take them to court anyway. The public did not understand that there is another route open to councils and that is to take a prosecution in the first place for offences that are more serious. 
Secondly I want to talk about the casting vote. The Greens have believed for a long time that democracy is not well served by the old approach to voting: “51 percent I win; 49 percent you lose; eat that!”. We do not think that leads to good outcomes. We do not think it leads to community acceptance of the outcome. We think it leads to constant policy change and overthrow as a different lot of people come in and want revenge on the ones who were there beforehand. We believe that striving for a greater degree of support for new ideas is worth doing. Seeking some consensus is never going to be complete—there will always be differences of ideas—but if we cannot actually get more than 51 percent support for something then it may mean that there is something wrong with it and we ought to discuss it further to see whether a position of agreement can be reached. 
So our intention when the Act was passed was that the possibility of mayors having casting votes would be taken away. A loophole in the legislation allowed them to do it if they passed it under their standing orders. The intention of this bill was to close that loophole. We heard numerous submissions from councils saying how important it was to them to have a casting vote and we found a reasonable and sensible compromise. I shifted my position enough to support the select committee view that if it were the last meeting before a statutory deadline and there was a fifty-fifty vote in council that deadlock would have to be resolved and the casting vote should be available for that. So we were all happy with that outcome. What happens? Local government gets on its horse and it lobbies the Minister and it lobbies many Ministers. It lobbies the Government and as a result of that intensive lobbying the Government has rolled over and restored a casting vote for all matters provided it is put in the standing orders. So I do not think the Minister or even his colleagues particularly believed that this casting vote is always better but they have clearly rolled over to the local government lobby. 
I think it is unfortunate that local government cannot see that it will get much better acceptance by the public that it represents if local government goes to a bit more trouble to try to get the support of more than just half of the councillors for an important measure that it is passing. So we will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister is putting forward. 
The third question I want to raise is the fine line to be drawn between the privacy of the individual and reasonable access to information for the public good. The select committee spent quite a bit of time trying to resolve this one and I think as Nick Smith said we got it right. I think we did a reasonable job. I think what we came up with makes good sense. 
 On the one hand there are people who are afraid for their safety if the whole world can find out where they live and they do not want to have their names and addresses on the database for anyone to see. On the other hand there are people who want to be able to contact their neighbours. They may have a combined drain sewer or fence about which they may want to come to a cooperative solution. Those people have to be able to contact each other to work that out. So providing an opt-out provision rather than a blanket ban on publishing the information seemed to offer a good way forward. We have taken extra precautions to make sure that the information cannot be made available to people who want to use it for bulk mail-outs and other advertising that is just a nuisance and an annoyance to people. So I think we have made progress on that matter. 
The final issue is the question of what is fair representation in remote and rural areas. It may be that we do need to revisit that one in the future and I am open to doing that. The question is how we weigh up the principle of one person one vote and all votes count equally towards the outcome against the question of community representation whereby communities that are quite remote and distinct from the rest of the district may have their views completely overruled by larger groupings like cities and we have to find a way between it. The 10 percent variation in the representation areas is meant to provide that. It is possible that in some areas it may not be enough but whether it is or it is not it is too late for this bill to affect the situation at this election. Therefore it seemed to us to be sensible to allow a bit more time before deciding whether to revisit it. There is a built in review period after the 2007 election anyway. There is an optional review period after this election. Let us wait and see what sorts of decisions the Local Government Commission makes and what sorts of anomalies might occur then look again at whether in the light of more experience we can make a better decision. I think that is preferable to jumping in now on the basis of very little evidence and potentially getting it wrong again.