Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14100] 
Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) be now read a second time 
. The purpose of this bill is to further ensure that the legislative framework in which local government operates is as comprehensive and clear as possible. The bill seeks to clarify and address a range of issues relating to local government legislation that are mostly technical in their nature. The reported-back bill achieves that aim and deals with several additional issues raised in submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Since taking office the Government has introduced a comprehensive package of legislative reforms to bring New Zealand’s system of local government into the 21st century. We have delivered new local government legislation that is modern innovative and flexible. The package has included the Local Government Act 2002 the Local Electoral Act and the Local Government (Rating) Act. As with any major legislative change it is not unusual that some minor issues have arisen that need to be addressed. That fine-tuning will provide more certainty and clarity for councils as they administer and work within the legislation to be amended by this bill. It will also provide communities with greater certainty in their dealings with their local authorities. 
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work put in by the Local Government and Environment Committee in meeting the tight timetable it had for its consideration of this bill and to acknowledge my officials who worked so hard on it. The time frame was driven by one provision of the bill: a clarification of the right of a candidate to be able to stand for the positions of both mayor and ward councillor in the same territorial authority election. That right needs to be clarified before 23 July 2004 the opening date for nominations for this October’s local authority elections. 
Over 40 submissions were received on the bill. The majority as expected came from local government and I would like to thank the sector for its participation. There was widespread support from the sector for the intent of the bill and for many of its specific provisions. However there were some issues that councils raised about the bill’s provisions and some new issues that councils wanted the committee to consider. Recognising the value of the submissions the select committee has responded by recommending some changes to the original bill. I would like to take this opportunity to outline some of those changes. 
In respect of the Dog Control Act adjustments are recommended to some of the infringement offences and fees to provide greater consistency in the level of fees for like offences. Reductions are recommended for some fees in response to submissions that argued that while the fees are intended to give a strong message about the public’s expectations about the control of dogs in some cases the fees are difficult to use effectively. The committee has also recommended that provision be made for the national dog control database to contain dog control – related data over and above that which councils are required to provide. 
In respect of the Local Government Act the committee received a number of submissions on the issue of the removal of the casting vote. The vast majority of those opposed its removal and strongly urged the reinstatement of that tool for helping to ensure efficient local authority meeting processes. The committee recognised the practical difficulties that might arise from the absence of a casting vote and recommended its reinstatement in limited circumstances. On further reflection the Government believes that local authorities should have the discretion to provide in their own standing orders for a casting vote in any circumstances where there is an equality of votes. I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect and also be including other technical drafting improvements during the Committee stage of this bill. 
Subsidiaries of port companies are currently exempt from the definition of a council-controlled organisation. The committee has recommended extending that exemption to companies that are 50 percent or more owned by a port company. Also in respect of the Local Government Act the committee has recommended a new clause to repeal the current prohibition on the delegation of a council’s power to warrant enforcement officers. That recommendation aims to overcome the practical difficulties being experienced by some councils having to wait up to 6 weeks for meetings before a warrant can be issued. 
In respect of the Local Government (Rating) Act the committee has recommended that a new clause be added to make owners’ names and addresses held on a local authority’s rating information database available to the public under certain conditions. In order to protect privacy a provision is recommended to allow the owner to have his or her name and postal address removed from the copy of the rating information database that is to be made publicly available. 
Some councils raised issues that the committee felt were not appropriate for this bill but would be better considered in the impending review of the new local government legislation. I endorse the committee’s view on those matters. The Local Government Commission is to undertake a review of the Local Government Act and the Local Electoral Act following the local authority elections in 2007. The committee also noted that the commission must report to the Minister of Local Government in July 2005 on any legislative amendments it considers are needed before the 2007 local authority elections. 
As I mentioned earlier it is highly desirable that this bill be enacted before 23 July because of the one provision in it that will impact on the forthcoming local authority elections. I hope MPs will keep that in mind in the ensuing debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 What the Minister did not acknowledge in his second reading speech is that this bill is really the “Fix Up the Chris Carter Botch-up Bill”. The provisions in respect of changing the Local Government Act and the Dog Control Act all arise because the Minister rushed through legislation under urgency— 
John Carter 
: He’s doing it again. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He is doing it again—and got it wrong and now Parliament has to fix up his errors. What is particularly frustrating—[ 
Interruption 
] Well in the Minister’s case he does not have any to do so—is that the Opposition parties warned the Minister at the time that the legislation was in difficulty. He ignored that advice and has taken us down this road of now being in urgency and having to pass patch-up legislation. 
The first of the provisions is in respect of the Local Government Act and the Local Electoral Act. The botch-up was that the Minister’s legislation inadvertently prevented a councillor from being able to stand both as mayor and as a councillor in a council ward. National was of the view that a councillor should be able to do that and to let the voters decide. We have always held that view and our only question is why the Minister got it wrong on the first occasion. 
The second thing we wish to make plain is that National firmly opposes Chris Carter’s view that every dog in New Zealand should be microchipped. It was a silly idea that he put in the original dog control legislation. It is still a silly idea and it is sad that the Government has chosen not to revisit it despite the number of submissions from councils around the country stating that it is a dopey idea. I find it ironic that the Minister stands in the House and says that this legislation is all about councils being allowed to manage themselves about the legislation not being prescriptive and about councils having the power of general competence. There is all that sort of rhetoric but then he says he will prescribe that every dog in New Zealand will be microchipped and even worse that we in this Parliament and on the select committee have to prescribe the individual fines for dog owners in respect of individual offences. The Minister is quite correct in saying we did receive submissions that the fines he put in his original legislation did not work. But the question I want to ask the Minister is this: why is he any more confident that we have got it right now? Why does he not trust councils—communities’ own elected representatives—to determine the fines? Is it not more simple for Parliament to say to the councils that they can prescribe a fine up to $1000 and can sort out the rates of appropriate fines for offences committed at different reserves in their communities. I think that would work far better than what is proposed. 
I also want to tackle the Minister with regard to the way he is wrecking local representation in rural communities. In the Local Government Act 2002 the Minister insisted that there be a narrow plus or minus 10 percent variation in determining the boundaries of wards. The Local Government and Environment Committee received many submissions from people who were concerned that that would not work and would disadvantage communities like the Wairarapa the Waitaki Tasman and the Rangitikei. [ 
Interruption 
] The member for Wairarapa does not even listen to her own constituents. She is so occupied with meeting every politically correct cause that she has forgotten about representing the people of the Wairarapa. I say exactly the same thing about the member for Otago who ignored the submissions of the Waimate District Council that that provision in the Act does not work because it cuts across community boundaries. 
I have visited many councils. I have gone to council after council—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the member for Otaki pokes his head up. Has he bothered to listen to the council in his own area which raised that serious deficiency in the Minister’s legislation with me? The council in that member’s community pleaded with me when I visited it to advance changes to that particular provision. But that member is more interested in following the instructions of the Minister than in representing the community on the coast north of Wellington. The provision in the Act is so narrow that it cuts across communities of interest and rural communities. 
Jill Pettis 
: He’s the one who beat Roger by 8000 votes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What is that screeching from the member for Whanganui? 
Jill Pettis 
: I said he’s the one who beat Roger what’s-his-name by 8000 votes. 
Government Member 
: Sowry. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: But why does he not do his job? That is the point. Why does the member not get on his feet and represent—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I have to say this. Roger Sowry supports the changes that his community wants which are for the ward boundaries— 
Government Member 
: He’s a list MP. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member from the Kapiti coast is such a hopeless member that he ignores the wishes of his own community in respect of wards so Roger Sowry has to do the job for him. I forget the member’s name as members hear so little from him. I would like him to get to his feet defend his own community and explain why he thinks the ward boundaries of his local council should be cut across rather than Parliament provide provisions that work for communities. 
The reality is that Labour does not give a stuff for rural communities. Those members do not want to see communities in those areas represented around the council table. They are interested only in their party hacks being on councils so they have ignored the wishes of communities all over New Zealand that want to see those provisions changed. I give notice now to the Minister—and it will be a test of that member as to whether he will vote for these amendments—that we will be moving amendments to make provision for communities of interest to get greater recognition in respect of the development of ward boundaries. 
The last point I want to make is with regard to the issue of rating database information. Again the Minister messed it up. His legislation in 2002 resulted in all the rating records from around New Zealand suddenly becoming private information. He goofed he got it wrong and again the select committee has had to fix up his mistake. I think the committee has done a good job of finding an appropriate balance between the practical necessity for people to be able to obtain the names of the owners of adjacent properties while at the same time allowing a limited mechanism for those owners who want privacy. I think we ended up with—this is so typical of this Minister—politically correct legislation overridden by the need for privacy. I have to ask the Minister why we passed a law in his name just 2 years ago banning citizens from having the right to get rating information on the ownership of properties. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: No not under my name—Sandra Lee’s. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister says it was all Sandra Lee’s fault. Well I looked at the record and I noticed that National members voted against that measure and Chris Carter voted for it. So it was all Sandra Lee’s fault! 
Darren Hughes 
: What did the High Court say about it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The truth is the Minister got it wrong; he made a mistake. Now the member for Otaki pipes up. He is interested in what the High Court said. Today the Government— 
Darren Hughes 
: What did the High Court say about this matter? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It said it was really interesting that every party in this Parliament has signed up to the changes that I advocated within the Family Court. I am very proud of that and I say to that Government member that I hope he is able to advance some changes rather than make his smart-arse comments— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member risks having his speech terminated with a comment like that. He knows that was out of order. He will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why is it possible that I can have comments made about my haircut and all sorts of issues raised in interjections that are totally irrelevant to the bill and you sit there doing nothing but the moment I respond you pull me up? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I have allowed a certain amount of interjection. The member is prone to interject frequently from his seat. I thought he liked it and I thought he was scoring quite well. I did not actually think he was losing on the deal. If people interject they run the risk of being replied to. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This bill as I have repeatedly stated is the “Fix Up Chris Carter’s Mess Bill”. The Minister passed the Local Government Act under urgency. Large portions of it now have to be amended. The dog control provisions and the rating information provisions have to be rehashed. Also the local government election provisions have to be rewritten. Members on the Opposition side of the House are getting tired of incompetent Ministers who cannot get their legislation right and who then expect this Parliament to fix up those messes under urgency. 
I think it is time we had a change and had a Minister of Local Government who is up to the job. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 What a performance! The less and least said the better. Unlike the multi-Minister display that there has been in local government over the previous 9 years—and as interesting as that may sound I did have quite a bit of affection for Mr Banks—this is a very good Minister. I compliment this Minister and I think this bill has proved that he is listening to local government. 
Under this Government local government for the first time in a long time actually feels listened to. Tick the box for the local government prime ministerial summit that is held during the year. Tick the box for the on-the-record compliments that the president and vice-president of Local Government New Zealand pay this Government. We have a really good local government leader in Basil Morrison—not some way-out left-winger Dr Smith but a very sound excellent mayor from Hauraki. He is quite a conservative fellow but very complimentary about this Government— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: A good man. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: —and a very good man. He is full of praise for this Government. 
There are two issues I want to deal with quickly in the time available. I look forward to being part of the Local Government and Environment Committee debate around electoral tolerance—the plus or minus 10 percent factor. In simple maths all that means is that even under the 10 percent some communities can effectively be 20 percent worse off in terms of the vote. One has to work out what a reasonable vote per value in terms of the numbers per ward is as is done in the general electorates with the plus or minus 5 percent factor. It is hardly rocket science. 
There are two things. Firstly I think it is very good that councillors can also stand for mayor and councillor. I think it is very wrong to blame the Minister for that. Quite bluntly if I were to blame anyone it would be some officials who perhaps did not do their homework well enough. [ 
Interruption 
] I am saying that as a member of Parliament but I was in local government for a number of years before coming here and I thought it would have been an easy thing to do. But I thank those people who pointed out the error. It was a drafting error an error by officials. [ 
Interruption 
] One can hardly blame the Minister for wording like that. It has been fixed up so tick the box. 
Secondly the casting vote issue—tick the box on that. Basil Morrison and others spoke to me quite strongly on that issue and I went to Chris Carter. I found Chris Carter incredibly empathetic and ready to listen. He said: “Let’s listen closely to local government.” A compliment goes to Basil Morrison Local Government New Zealand my own council and others in terms of the casting vote issue. 
 Personally I have always believed that the mayor is a little bit different from other councillors. I commend to all members of the House a paper by former mayor Margaret Evans around the role of mayor which she wrote for a recent degree thesis. Albeit the mayor is technically first among equals in this country I do strongly believe that the mayor should have a casting vote. I acknowledge that the mayor has a district-wide or city-wide mandate and I think the casting vote at least gives effect to that. 
Without further ado I want to say that this is a good bill and I look forward to its speedy passage. Again it is such a pleasure to be part of a wonderful reforming Government that has given us excellent local government legislation. 
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. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 While it appears that this bill is quite simple and innocuous it actually contains a number of elements that are quite serious in terms of local government democracy. To begin with I note that the Minister has backed down on what was a very very foolish concept of doing away with the casting vote of the chairman or mayor. I do not know what pressures finally prevailed but the Minister had persisted with this measure against all good advice right through from the bill’s genesis right through the select committee process and here finally today in the report back and second reading he has tabled a Supplementary Order Paper saying that somehow something has prevailed. I think he probably had the cold steel of the local government mayors around the country and he finally buckled. I think that is the most likely explanation. 
I know that the Greens would have preferred to retain the abolition of a casting vote and that doubles my conviction that the ACT position of saying there should be a casting vote is the correct one. It is all very well to say that the council may be split but good grief let us think of all the split votes we have in this House. Let us think of all the measures we pass into law on the basis of one two or three votes. It is a bit pious to say that it is a terrible breakdown of democracy when councils make decisions on the basis of one or two votes. 
A recent vote in the Auckland Regional Council when it reintroduced a differential in its rating was passed by only one vote. It was an appalling decision. It would be one of the worst decisions any council has made in a number of years. But nevertheless on the basis of one councillor changing his mind that change did occur. My prediction is that the remedy will be at the ballot box this October. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He’ll be gone. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: He will be gone. Maurice Williamson is an Auckland member and he knows the councillor I am talking about. He is a goner. He buckled against all good sense and logic and he was responsible for reintroducing differential rating in Auckland. 
Let us look at it. The regional council bit the bullet last year and it put rates up by 34 percent. It did that a year ago and its justification was that it was doing away with differential rating. The council has just put rates up again by about 30 percent and reintroduced differential rating. It cannot have it both ways. There is something seriously wrong there. 
The other aspect I would like to canvass with the Minister—and I am certainly looking at introducing a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage—is that there has been a happy outcome for the port companies. Jim Peters referred to the Northport and the Port of Tauranga situation with the council-controlled organisation and the council organisation. My question to the Minister is: why on earth has he not agreed for Watercare in Auckland to become a council-controlled organisation rather than a council organisation? He knows that every mayor in metropolitan Auckland wants that. Even his mate Bob Harvey the “westie” and former president of the Labour Party wants that. They all recognise the huge advantage if Watercare were to become a council-controlled organisation rather than a council organisation. It would allow Watercare to do many things. For instance it could pay a dividend rather than be restricted as it is now to giving a rebate. That would be much more sensible. But oh no for some reason the Minister will not agree to that. All the advice is that that is what should happen yet the Minister refuses to agree. 
I note that the New Zealand First representative said that New Zealand First agreed with the dog control measures as they relate to microchipping. I put on record that the ACT party is totally opposed to microchipping. We think it is a gross intrusion into dog owners’ rights. Mr Peters said that all stock should be microchipped. Will he say that cats have to be microchipped? Mr Mallard would microchip every goldfish in the country. That is the sort of logic we would get from Mr Mallard if he were in control of local government in this country. Is it not interesting that under the dog control measures there is a national register for all dogs yet there is not a national register for all convicted paedophiles. What is the biggest danger to society—dogs or convicted paedophiles? Yet we are forcing a national register of dog owners and that seems a bit foolish to me. 
We have had the rates database issue. I think the select committee made a sensible decision with the opt-out provision. There were genuine concerns. It is a new situation. Councils are just moving to electronic database forms. To make all those addresses and details available to the public on request could be an excessive breach of people’s rights to privacy. Therefore they will have a right to opt out and I do support that measure. Overall I would have to say that there are too many bad features in this legislation. We will be watching it closely as it moves through the Committee stage. Even at this late stage I ask the Minister seriously to consider changing the status of Watercare so that there can be sensible commercially based operations from that very important utility. The answer is to stop Watercare being a council organisation and make it a council-controlled organisation. It would then have much greater flexibility and it would mean that water could be delivered in the Auckland region at a more competitive price at a much cheaper price and much more efficiently. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the second reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3). When we first began to look at this legislation and open it up for submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee I was a little apprehensive that all the criticisms of the Local Government Act which we passed around December 2002 could have opened the floodgates to an avalanche of submissions from people around the country who were upset with that legislation. That was the first legislation I worked on after coming to this House as a new MP and I share the comments of Jeanette Fitzsimmons that we worked very hard on it and in no way did we rush it through. There were many criticisms of that legislation and the fact that we received only 41 submissions on this bill which deals with some of the minor technical issues that need to be looked at is an indication that the Local Government Act is working reasonably well around the country and that some of the dire predictions particularly by National in opposing it so strongly are not coming to fruition. 
As I said the select committee received 41 submissions and we heard 15 of those orally. The submissions were all very sensible and through this omnibus bill will enable us to fix up some matters most of them minor in a number of Acts such as the Dog Control Act the Local Electoral Act the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and the Local Government (Rating) Act. Committee members worked well together in order to report this bill back to the House and I would like to comment on some of the amendments we made. 
First as has been mentioned already in respect of the Dog Control Act and its adjustment of infringement offences and fees I tell members that there is no way we wanted to send a message to the community that we were getting soft after passing the Dog Control Act only last year with much stricter penalties. However a number of submissions pointed out that some of the infringement fees were a little over the top. We always need to make sure that the punishment fits the crime and that there will be an effective deterrent particularly with things like infringement fees that are instant fines. 
In particular a dog control officer from Tauranga pointed out the difficulty the council was experiencing in having to enforce the infringements but in not having discretion on the fines and in finding that some people were being landed with rather severe amounts. I remember the case of one solo mother who foolishly denied that she had unregistered dogs. The next day she was found to have them and she was also guilty of the further infringement of not complying with the dog control officer’s instructions. She ended up with a fine of something like $1800 which was way over the top. So some adjustments have been made to those figures and I believe we have come up with a much more sensible list of infringement fees. 
The other problem for dog control officers is that if people have too high a cost with infringement fees then the offenders simply go to court and are sometimes awarded costs that are less than the infringement fees. So in fact that process has been a complete waste of time. Councils have had to go through the process of representing the case in court only to find that the person has been fined a cost less than the infringement fee. I believe we have made some sensible recommendations in that regard and as we go through the Committee stage we will see how members address that issue. 
It was important to clarify that the requirement for a person to carry a leash when taking out a dog would not affect councils that had already put by-laws in place whereby a person had to have the dog on a leash. It has been a simple matter to clarify that in order for everyone to understand that a council by-law takes precedence in that regard. 
A correction has been made to clarify that a person can have dual candidacy for mayor and councillor particularly when that person is standing in a ward. Personally I had some difficulty with that and tried hard to convince other committee members that that provision may have been worth removing from the bill. I believe that people around the country often stand for mayoral candidacy simply so that they can increase the amount of money they can spend on a particular campaign and also so that they can have a higher profile. When a person is standing in a small ward but has the money to fund a citywide campaign I believe the opportunity is skewed for all candidates to have a fair go. It is not quite so important when candidates are standing at large which is now occurring in a couple of cities since the Local Government Commission made some determinations after its review. However the issue is of concern when people are standing in a small ward and then running for mayor but are not seriously intending to be elected as mayor. However that provision will remain and I will continue to watch how it develops. I would like to see that the Local Government Commission in its reviews in 2005 and 2007 includes that issue in its report to the Minister in order to see whether abuse is occurring on a wide scale. 
Some submissions were concerned about the plus or minus 10 percent variation in the ratio of the population per elected member which was brought in by the 2002 bill. A number of good points were made in that regard but as a committee we felt that the appropriate time to look at the matter would be at the review of the bill to be undertaken by the Local Government Commission in 2007. If it is causing problems after this year’s elections there is an opportunity for the Local Government Commission to report also to the Minister in 2005 which will be before the next local body elections and I think that that will be the appropriate time to make any adjustments. In a number of cases around the country it seems that that plus or minus 10 percent variation has become difficult to manage and it is leaving some communities without the representation they should have. I am very pleased to have convinced the Minister in 2002 to include those reviews in 2005 and 2007 so that we can further address any concerns with this new local government Act. 
On the issue of the casting vote which has been spoken about already I am very pleased to see that the Minister and the Labour caucus have had a rethink and that they are prepared to restore it to what it was in our committee’s report. I had a small paragraph there to mention that United Future was not happy with the very limited allowance of the casting vote and we certainly do not agree with Green members who would suggest that councils should always sit down in a circle and hold hands until they reach sufficient agreement. Politics does operate sometimes on a one-vote majority as we are well aware in this House with such things as prostitution law reform going through on an abstention. That is the nature of democracy and I do not see why local councils should be deprived of that. I see that it is a better outcome for the community to allow the elected mayor or chairperson to have that casting vote than it is to put the vote back to the council and have some kind of horse trading going on by which one particular councillor might have the ability to get his or her wishes included in some draft by-law or other matter the council was looking at. So we are happy to see that that right of a casting vote will now be restored through the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
We are happy to see the council-controlled organisation accountability requirements addressed for the Port of Tauranga and for Northport. It was a rather crazy situation before where there were different rules according to whether a company was 49 percent 50 percent or 51 percent owned. I am pleased to see an amendment that was able to satisfy that need. 
We had a lot of discussion about privacy issues and I think we have come up with something that is reasonable and balanced. People do have the option to opt off rates records so that other people cannot have their personal details but in most cases I believe people are comfortable with those details being made known to the public. People did not want to see the whole rates records data being given to companies so they could be then deluged with bulk mails and we have protected them from having that occur. 
The requirements for the microchipping of dogs and the compulsory national database are essential if we are to have that database work. We simply cannot leave it up to councils to decide to opt into the database. We are a very small country and we need to do some things nationally in order to make them work. It would be ridiculous to have some councils on the database and some councils off so United Future still holds to the position that a national database should be the case. We look forward to further discussion on these points as we go through the Committee stage of the bill. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I thank other speakers from the Local Government and Environment Committee who have spoken previously in this second reading. The issues addressed by this bill have been well covered by members. As they have mentioned the bill tidies up quite a broad range of matters that affect local government. 
Phil Heatley 
: What a mess! 
DAVID PARKER 
: That member could not be more wrong as evidenced from the fact that after a very broad and detailed amendment of local government legislation in 2002—the Local Government Act is very comprehensive legislation—we had only 14 submissions to this next local government bill to come before Parliament. So it is not a mess; it is actually in very good shape. 
I want to address a couple of the issues we looked at in some detail in the select committee. The first relates to the casting vote. We heard Mr Shirley of ACT criticise the decision of the Government to support the reintroduction of the casting vote. There was some sort of assertion that it was a giant backdown. I think it is true that all members in this House have changed their minds on the issue of the casting vote because when the provision for it was taken away from councils in 2002 by the Local Government Act that change had the unanimous support of every party on the select committee at that time. But after that change concerns were expressed by members of local government and as the Hon Nick Smith just mentioned there was a little bit of uncertainty as to whether the casting vote had been completely removed. The advice we had in the committee was that it had been but it was certainly arguable. 
The need for a casting vote in some situations was apparent in the cases where local government has a statutory duty to do something by a certain date. So we would be rather errant if we left local government in the position that it could not make a decision because it did not have a casting vote yet had an obligation for example to strike rates by a certain date. There were then arguments as to whether the casting vote should be limited to those situations where there was a statutory duty. The committee thought about whether that was an appropriate place to draw the line. On further reflection the Government agrees with National ACT United Future and New Zealand First that that is a pretty fine line and asks why we should not trust local government to exercise the casting vote in the manner it did without great problems in the past. 
The next issue I would like to talk about is infringement fees. Under the Dog Control Act councils have the power to impose fines by way of infringement notices on people who breach the Act. Those fines were a little bit inconsistent and some of the advice we had from councils—working in the areas that have the most problems with owners who do not keep dogs properly under control—was that they thought the level of fines was so high that in practice the fines were not collectible. Councils thought that a lower level of fines would still act as an appropriate penalty against those who break the law while at the same time make the fines more likely to be paid and collected. They said a lower level of fine would also mean that dog control officers would see it fair to render an infringement notice and be more likely to exercise their powers. We agreed with those submissions and as a consequence we have again tried to rationalise those fees. We tried to do it late last year and did not get it quite right but we hope we have done better this time. 
On the matter of rating information I remind members that access to the rates database was cut off in the 2002 Act because there had been a developing practice whereby marketing companies had wholesale access to the rates records and used that database to market people—to spam them to use the modern electronic equivalent—with information they did not want to receive. So at that stage access to rates records had been removed. 
That was a step too far because it is necessary to have access to such information. For example people might want to know who else is using a common drain or who they are dealing with in relation to a planning application. They need to know the postal address at which those people can be contacted. It is of course possible to get the name of other owners through other sources of information—for example by doing a search of the title. That costs a bit of money and it still does not show people’s addresses. 
So we have reinstated the ability of councils to let people have access to that personal information on rates records. But we have made it clear that they do not have the right to the whole of the records; they have just the right to information on an inquiry-by-inquiry basis. And we have given people on the database the right to opt out from providing personal information. There was a proposal from officials that people had to give their permission to be on the database before they could be included but we thought that that was making it too difficult for councils and I think we now have a proper and practical outcome. I recommend the legislation to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I must say that it is with a sense of frustration that members of the National Party on this side of this House sit here during urgency tidying up Chris Carter’s legislation once again. He passed the Local Government Act 2002 and of course amendments to the Dog Control Act. He said at the time that he was front-footing the issues. However because he did not do his homework here we are in urgency spending taxpayers’ money on tidying up a whole lot of loose ends. I wish they were loose ends. Unfortunately it is a lot more significant than that. We have had to go through sections of the Local Government Act and through the amendments to the Dog Control Act and make some very serious changes indeed. 
National would like to outline the concerns we put to the Local Government and Environment Committee on being faced with having to fix up this bill. Most of our concerns are about the errors the bill contains that drive a wedge of misunderstanding between New Zealand’s rural and provincial districts and its cities in respect of their different needs. Chris Carter comes from Auckland. He can live in his little suburb on his one-eighth of an acre prune his roses in the weekends and be oblivious to all those who live more than 20 kilometres away from a motorway. 
The first example of this is the concerns raised in various districts where there is a plus or minus 10 percent variation in determining ward boundaries. For cities it is pretty easy to calculate how many people within those variations can actually elect a ward member. We just draw a circle around a suburb and say that one councillor can represent them. But when we go to the provinces to Whangarei Whakatane Napier and Hastings or to the South Island provincial cities such as Nelson and all the little satellite towns around them that rely on them we have a serious problem. This Minister would have us draw a line through the middle of all those little satellite towns surrounding provincial cities like Whangarei Napier and Nelson—little satellite towns like Brightwater in the Nelson province and Waipu in Whangarei which exist right throughout the country—and say: “You haven’t got enough people. You’re short of 500 people and you cannot have a councillor to represent you. We’ll chuck you in amongst one of the suburbs. You can just sit there and hope that that suburban councillor will represent your interests.” Clearly they will not represent their interests. We are saying that a problem exists around the 2002 Act passed by the Labour Government because of a lack of interest or a lack of emphasis on communities of interest. That is one of the great misunderstandings about how rural New Zealand provincial New Zealand works compared with metropolitan New Zealand where the Minister comes from. 
The second misunderstanding is about the degree to which rural and provincial councils and their ratepayers can afford compliance costs. We are looking at the issues in this bill that constrain the role of the Audit Office in respect of long-term council community plans. Of course we know that the costs of compliance will be excessive. There is clarification in clause 51 that refers to this. I can tell the Minister and the Labour Government that they may be able to draw from deep pockets in the big cities but in the provinces and the rural towns people do not have deep pockets. They do not have the population to support huge compliance costs. They do not live in Wellington where they can knock on the Government’s door or form a lobby group. They just cannot afford it. When these huge compliance costs are being created the Minister should remember that rural provincial areas get hit harder for those reasons. It is not just because of socio-economic factors but also because of geography. I put it to the Minister that these are widespread areas and it costs a fortune to travel anywhere quickly if we can. Often we cannot. 
The third issue that drives a wedge of misunderstanding between rural and city needs is candidates for mayor being able to stand for the mayoralty as well as for council. We cannot understand why the Minister in 2002 suddenly decided that candidates for the mayoralty could not stand as councillors as well. It is just appalling that he said to all the provinces and to all of rural New Zealand: “Listen your candidate can stand only as mayor not as a councillor.” I can tell the Minister that the problem is that provincial and rural New Zealand often do not have a large number of people putting up their hands to say they will stand for council. There is a smaller pool of people able to do that work. If they want to run for mayor and councillor so that if they miss out on the mayoralty they can become councillors that is OK with us. We want their skills. To close them down simply because they entered two competitions I think is appalling and quite short-sighted. I am glad that issue is being fixed in clause 28 and we will be discussing it in more detail when we come to the Committee stage. 
We would also like to put on the record that we do not think every New Zealander should microchip his or her dog. We notice that the Minister thinks that grandma should microchip her poodle just because some gang has a Rottweiler that it does not keep under control. I cannot understand why the Labour Government would have every single New Zealander microchip his or her puppy just because it cannot control the gangs. I find that absolutely appalling. I talked to the Minister Trevor Mallard who said in response to Gerry Eckhoff that he would see every goldfish in this country microchipped. The Minister told me: “No I wouldn’t microchip every goldfish only the dangerous ones—the ones that when you walk by the bowl they jump out and bite you.” That is the attitude from this Government and it is just pathetic. If it cannot get gangs and crime under control if it will not approach gang members’ places and tell them to get their Rottweilers and their Dobermans under control if it is too chicken to do that and would rather have people microchip every little puppy that comes into the world then I find that short-sighted and absolutely appalling. We will oppose that just as we oppose the compliance costs in this bill that address that issue. 
I would also like to say that we do support the inclusion of a casting vote for mayors. Sometimes there is a deadlock in a city and district and regional councils and mayors have to show leadership and give a casting vote. Sometimes people do not disagree. The Green Party would have them sitting around holding hands and singing “Khumbaya” in the hope that in some way they would come to some agreement. It will not happen. A mayor has to show leadership and sometimes cast his or her vote and we are more than happy to give the mayor those powers. With those things in mind I look forward—as I know members on the other side of the House do—to hearing my arguments during the Committee stage. They wait with bated breath I know. We commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Chatham Islands Council Act 1995 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Part 1 deals with the Chatham Islands and has its council take up the functions of a regional council. We heard submissions at the Local Government and Environment Committee and that seemed to be well supported. But the question I have for the Minister in respect of the Chatham Islands is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Isn’t it  
There’s Something About Mary 
? Isn’t that the haircut? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: At least I have some hair which is more than I can say about either of those two Ministers. My question for the balding Minister seeing there seems to be a focus on hairdos—which is about as sophisticated as the Labour Party gets these days—is: what funding will be provided to the Chatham Islands Council to enable it to pick up the regional council functions? Everybody knows that it has a small ratepayer base. It would be interesting to hear from the member who represents the Chatham Islands and who has not participated in this debate to date to tell us how the Government will assist the Chatham Islands Council meet the extra costs associated with dealing with the regional council functions provided for in clauses 3 4 and 5. 
Members on this side of the Committee are concerned about the imposition on ratepayers which is something that does not seem to be of great concern to the Labour Party and noting the huge increase in rates throughout New Zealand under the term of this Minister— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister objects. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no I don’t believe the member. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He does not believe me? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That the member could do that to his hair! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister is more interested in hairdos than he is about rates. Well the vast majority of members are actually quite concerned about their rates bill and the huge increase in rates. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why has the member got his hands in his pockets? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister is now all excited about where my hands might be. What a pathetic Minister of Education— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am just trying to work out whether the member has pockets. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well actually I do and I tell Mr Mallard that I think most of us in the Committee have pockets. Does it not say something about the intellectual grunt of the Minister of Education that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No he is just bored by a useless tired and hopeless Opposition. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The hopeless Minister of Education is not interested in whether the Chatham Islands Council will get any funding for the extra responsibilities the Minister wants to dump on it. That is a very fair question and I hope the Minister will take a call and advise the Committee as to how these extra responsibilities will be funded by the very small number of ratepayers. Those ratepayers want to know who will get the bill. 
Members on this side of the Chamber are concerned about rating costs unlike the Government. They want to know why the ratepayers will have to pick up the extra responsibilities he wants to impose on this council. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The member Nick Smith asked a fair enough question as to how with the very limited rating base the Chathams will survive with the regional functions it has to carry out such as biosecurity dealing with waste and the provision of fresh water. The Government recognises very much the challenges that small region of only some 700 people faces so the Government has provided a one-off payment of $2.5 million to provide for a new fresh water and sewerage system on the Chathams and will also pay for the development of a new tip on the island. In addition the Chatham Islands Council has sought an expression of interest from other regional councils such as the Wellington Regional Council the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Environment Canterbury to tender for a collaborative role where the facilities of those larger regional councils will contract out to provide the services to the Chatham Islands that are required from that regional role. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Dog Control Act 1996 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate is on Part 2 clauses 6 to 20A including debate on schedule 1AA. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 These 25 clauses in Part 2 deal with the Dog Control Act and it is somewhat amazing that only 12 months after the Minister put through changes in the dog control legislation Parliament is dealing with not one mistake two mistakes or three mistakes but 25 areas in which we are having to rewrite this Minister’s legislation. Earlier in the debate the Minister said: “It is not my fault. It is all Sandra Lee’s. That is why there was a mess with the local government law.” Well the Minister cannot pass the buck in respect of the Dog Control Act. It was entirely this Minister’s doing. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the Minister pleads guilty. I would like to know from the Minister for legislation that has been in force for only— 
Government Member 
: No that’s the guilty member—before the court. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well it is the Government’s dirty work and it wants to relitigate that. It did not have the courage when I offered a by-election in Nelson. It did not want to contest. It was quite happy to have the argument in the High Court but did not want to have the debate with the people of Nelson. Those are the sorts of wimps on the Government benches. 
But this is a Minister who has pleaded guilty to having the— 
Government Member 
: Who was challenging the decision? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Sorry—what does the Minister want to talk about? Does he want to debate family law? Does the member want to debate family law? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the member losing his hearing? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Does the member want to have a debate about family law? I would be delighted to have a debate about family law and the huge changes the Government has now conceded should be made in that area and it is nice to know that one can win an argument. 
I want to talk about the—[ 
Interruption 
] What a pathetic bunch on the Government benches. This is a law to do with dog control and they want to interject about everything else but the legislation. The 25 clauses of this part make a whole series—[ 
Interruption 
] Do I have to put up with this crap Mr Chairperson? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No the member does not. I am warning those who are interjecting that if they interject again they will be out of this Chamber. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The provisions in these 25 clauses are a patch-up job on the dog control legislation that the Minister advanced and there are a number of things that National disagrees with. 
The first of those is with regard to the compulsory microchipping of dogs. As my colleague Phil Heatley pointed out earlier in the debate what sort of control freaks are there in the Government that they want to have every single dog in New Zealand microchipped? That is the policy being advanced by Chris Carter. It is a huge expense for the ratepayers and dog owners of New Zealand. It is not a good policy move and we think the Minister should admit that—as with so many other things he has got wrong—the provision should be changed. 
The second area I want to challenge the Minister on is why within 12 months of prescribing fines for dog offences the Government has to change them and third why the Government is not prepared to trust local councils to determine the appropriate fines for dog offences. Why is it necessary for this Parliament to prescribe the fines that should apply in dog-related offences up and down New Zealand? Surely it is enough for Parliament simply to say: “Look your council can set fines up to 1000 bucks. You describe the offences. You apply the fines at the level at which you think they are going to be the most effective enforcement tools in your particular area.” rather than have schedule 4 in this bill which sets out every individual fine that will be provided. I just think it is so rich for the Government to rave on all the time particularly this Minister: “We trust councils. We believe in the power of general competence.” Councils can best judge for their communities. But when it comes to setting fines over something as small as dog control we say it is unnecessary to have to prescribe that in Parliament. We say it should not be done and we oppose that provision. The last question I have for the Minister is do we have any definitive figures yet as to what it will cost the average dog owner with regard to the Minister’s mad plan of microchipping every dog in New Zealand? We were given widely varying figures at the select committee. I think that before Parliament makes a decision we need to know the cost. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I go to the next speaker I have been reflecting and I think that I was a little harsh earlier on. Of course interjections are accepted; they put a bit of life into the Chamber. Certainly if a speaker says anything that is controversial then another member is fully entitled to interject and I expect members to be reasonable. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 I reiterate what I said in the debate on the second reading—that New Zealand First supports microchipping. If the members who have spoken so far about microchipping had any understanding of the rural economy and farming and the way in which these trends are developing in farming given the legislation that was passed earlier today—tracking for the dairy farmer from the shed to the consumer—then they would understand why microchipping will come in time. 
Secondly in respect of clause 15 the fact is that the bill does not provide for microchipping to take effect from tomorrow. It allows local authorities an adequate time-span to allow for the contracts and for the process to be put in place. It takes into account puppies yet to be born and allows for them to be microchipped in sequence. I am absolutely certain from the Local Government and Environment Committee’s experience of submissions made last year by such rural councils as the Opotiki District Council which has worked with this over some years and from the advice given to the committee by veterinarians and other vet groups that the process can take place and will be able to be achieved by contract at a reasonable rate. 
The issue is really whether those who own a dog realise what it means. In doing some brief calling around and speaking to councils about Part 2 I went to the Waitakere City Council and I saw there a few words in the council’s draft policy statement that I will pass on to the Committee. That draft statement starts with an excellent comment which puts us into the context of what we are talking about. First of all it asserts: “It is a privilege to be able to own a dog. Dog control problems are a symptom of community social and individual people problems. The impact of a dog on others is determined by the owner of the dog. To be a successful owner any dog owner must take a daily and active interest in the welfare of the dog with attention given to the physical emotional and mental needs of the dog.” and so on. It is a long elaborate and very carefully drawn up policy. The last bullet points of the draft foreword again assert: “It is in the interests of the community that Council’s Animal Welfare Officers maintain interaction with dog owners.” and “The ownership of a dog brings with it a twenty four hour a day seven day per week social responsibility towards other people (including their property and animals) and towards the dog itself.” If one begins with a sound dog policy as other councils have and puts the amendments to the Act in this bill in context it makes sound and reliable sense. 
To come back to the issue of microchipping it is the way of the future with regard to tracking and identifying animals. The microchipping of dogs is part of the sequence. The whole of our primary produce is dependent upon what overseas markets deem to be so not necessarily what we would wish to be so and the rural community understands more than most what tracking of animals means in terms of that community’s livelihood. New Zealand First commends this part of the bill. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 We heard a lot of rhetoric from Dr Nick Smith the MP from Nelson—of course much of it was nonsense and simply distorted the realities of what this legislation stands for and represents. For example he posed the question—and I guess it must have been rhetorical—about why we should not allow councils to set their own fines. Actually he should know that the law does not provide the ability to do that at all. The Ministry of Justice is looking at that process but at the moment the law as it stands provides for a set fine a threshold and that is it. 
When I surveyed local governments in New Zealand a year ago asking them whether they thought that current dog legislation was adequate to deal with public safety the overwhelming response I got from the 76 councils that deal with this issue was that it was not; that the fines are too low. I listened. I fixed it up. 
Dr Nick Smith also asked why we have compulsory microchipping. Mr Jim Peters explained it very well. Another thing was revealed when I surveyed councils about what records they kept about dog attacks. What I discovered is that some kept records and some did not. There was no consistent record-keeping anywhere in the country. There was no ability for a council to track a dangerous dog. If somebody from Whangarei has a dangerous dog up there that is a menace and attacks people and it moves with its owner to Manukau City or wherever the local council has no way of tapping in and finding out what the record and history of that dog is. I can hear one or two members in the Opposition sniggering away. Having a child's face ripped off by a dog in a park is not something to snigger about. 
That has been a very draconian change to the dog legislation in New Zealand to deal with that very issue—the issue of public safety. It was a very comprehensive change; right from the microchipping issue to entry and seizure provisions to dealing with fines to banning certain breeds. It was a very big piece of legislation. There were some technical issues that had to be sorted through—issues that revealed themselves as councils put this law into practice. 
This is a Government that listens. We engage with animal control officers. We engage with local government to see how effective the new law is. There are indeed a number of changes that need to be made to the law—most of them very minor and some of them a little bit more significant. They are all designed to make the law work better in order to keep the public safer. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I am pleased the Minister acknowledged that it was somewhat draconian to introduce a dog control law whereby every dog in New Zealand is microchipped regardless of its owner regardless of what threat it could be to anyone regardless of its history—regardless of anything. Because it is draconian and it just makes me a little sad I guess when one considers that grandma cannot now keep a dog as company as perhaps some comfort should her husband die. It is sad to me that I cannot now go and buy a little puppy for my 3-year-old and my 4-year-old without them being served with papers to fill in lots of boxes to tick and heaps of compliance costs. 
I consider that my two little blondies—one aged 3 and one aged 4 gorgeous little kids more like their mother granted than their father—would love to have a little puppy this Christmas. Unfortunately because of this Minister and of what he acknowledges are his draconian laws I see in this bill that my little boy will be faced with the following: he will be faced with the power of a dog control officer or dog ranger to feed and shelter his little dog. My little boy will be classified as an owner and the territorial authority the district council may require my little boy to undertake some sort of training. Gee! He just got a puppy for Christmas and he has to undertake some training! 
There will be the obligation on him to dispose of the dog if it is unregistered and my 4-year-old would be disqualified as an owner. Under clause 11A he now will have to maintain records and provide information that affects the classification of his dog as to whether it is dangerous. The territorial authority the district council may visit our place on 26 December the day after Christmas and ask for Bryn. The 4-year-old will come to the door and the dog control officer will say: “We want to classify your dog as menacing. What breed is it? Is it a breed that is menacing? We are deciding.” The dog will have to be registered of course—we do not oppose that—and my boy will have to supply register information. There will be a national dog control information database that may contain additional information about my son. The microchip transponder must be implanted in my son’s little puppy. And on it goes. 
I am just pointing out the absurdity of not targeting dangerous breeds menacing dogs with a particular history and dogs that belong to owners like gang members and are trained only to fight kill and attack other dogs and perhaps other people. Rather this legislation targets grandma with her poodle and my 4-year-old son with his little Labrador puppy. I point out to the House the absurdity of that. I am sure that when the country faces the fact and wakes up one morning and realises that this law or laws associated with it have come into effect and that hundreds of thousands of people will have to microchip their dogs the absurdity of it will not be beyond the comprehension of most sensible New Zealanders. That idea should be challenged. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I will take a short call as I am sitting in for Mr Shirley on this bill. I could not help but be bewildered by the comments of the Minister when he said as I recall—and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—that councils have no records of dog attacks. Why should the Minister be surprised at that? Why should a regional or district council have those sorts of figures—on dog bites for example? And what is the difference between a dog bite and a dog attack? I have not heard that explained. Let me explain this to the Minister: I have been bitten numerous times by dogs but I have not been attacked by a dog. If a dog is caught up in a barbed wire fence for example and its leg is about to snap the instinctive reaction is to reach in grab the dog and relieve the pressure on that leg. Of course the dog will fasten its jaws on one’s hand or anything else that it can get at thinking that that is how the harm is being caused. That is quite a different situation from a dog attack. That is a dog bite as distinct from a dog attack yet there appears to be little or no understanding of that point by the Minister. I am sure the Minister for ACC could have told the Minister for Local Government—had he spoken to her—as Federated Farmers have told me that there has been as I recall something less than $1800 paid out in accident compensation for people who have been attacked by a dog. So the real issue is: where is the problem? For the Minister to say that young Carolina’s horrific injuries—and we do not want to minimise that appalling attack in any way—are indicative of every dog bite or attack is quite wrong. 
I would also ask the Minister this. Since this legislation has come through and was passed some months ago to my knowledge at least four children have needed hospitalisation after attacks by dogs so how has microchipping stopped those dogs attacking children? The reality is that it has not and it never will. This is just a politically correct piece of nonsense by this Government to look as though it is doing something about a problem that it really has no intention of addressing. As one of my colleagues in the House said the issue is about the really dangerous dogs—the pit bull terriers and so on. If the Government really wants to address that issue it should ban them. It should send the dog control officers out to shoot every one of those dogs. Let the Government get rid of those breeds if it is actually serious about dog attacks. But the nonsense of having to microchip farm dogs who offer absolutely no threat to the public is just ludicrous. 
That is all I need or wish to say on this particular issue at this time but I wish that the Minister would understand the extent of the problem before rushing into legislation. That is something we have come to expect from a Government that understands nothing more than political correctness. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Local Electoral Act 2001 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This part of the bill makes 18 changes to the Local Electoral Act 2001. Again this is a patch-up job on legislation passed only 3 years ago. The substantive issue dealt with in this part is allowing a council candidate to also stand for the mayoralty. There was a botch-up in the Government’s earlier local government electoral legislation that ended up prohibiting that and one of the reasons we are in urgency is that the Minister wants to ensure that this provision—this change or this fix—is in place prior to the local body elections scheduled to take place in 3 months’ time. It certainly is National’s view that a person should be able to stand both for the mayoralty of a district and as a councillor and we support that provision. But I want to express a concern about the mess we will have in terms of the local body elections in 3 months’ time as a consequence of the whole series of amendments and of the mishmash of different electoral systems that will affect voters as they participate in the local government elections in October. 
In the election of district health boards regional councils mayors and councillors we will have an enormous potpourri of different electoral systems used for different votes. It is my view that voters will be quite confused by the different voting methods used for the different local authorities and it is a direct consequence of Government legislation that we have ended up with this mess. It will result in more voting papers being in error and as a consequence being discarded. It will also result in a lower level of participation. I would like to know that the Minister Chris Carter will take responsibility for the mess this Government has made of the local government electoral system. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Democracy! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The man calls it democracy. Is democracy such a mess that when people go to vote for their district health board they will use a single transferable vote system and when they vote for their council and their mayor they are likely to use a first-past-the-post system? They may under the amendments that the Minister and this Government put through use an MMP system whereby some councillors are elected at large and some are elected in specific wards. That sort of a botch-up is the sort of approach that I notice Mr Dover Samuels supports. On the Opposition side of the House we think it will be a mess. Surely the Government can state what it thinks is the appropriate method by which we in New Zealand should elect our community representatives without having a different system for every different form of local election whether it be for a district health board council or the like. National thinks this bill is a mess. We think it will cause problems and we will hold the Minister and this Labour Government responsible for that mess. 
The last thing I would note is a quite extraordinary revolution. Today the vast bulk of our local body elections are run by private businesses. The reality is that with the complexity the Government has introduced into the running of our local body elections that is generally contracted to a Christchurch firm. That firm now has a contract to manage over 50 local authorities’ elections because the only way we can conduct a local body election under the complexity of the legislation this Government has advanced is to contract it out and have someone else do it by computer. 
Phil Heatley 
: It has become an industry. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It has become a bureaucratic industry at the expense of the ratepayer. I express some concerns about whether such a degree of complication and cost is really warranted and ask whether a degree of simplicity in our elections would not make for a better system. 
National does support councillors being able to stand also as mayors but we are concerned about the degree of complication and complexity within our local body elections. It ends up costing ratepayers and does not help the local government process. We would hope to see some simplification rather than the complexity that we see in Part 3. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I comment very quickly that New Zealand First like other parties supports this change to the local government legislation. It was needed particularly for smaller areas. The ability to knock good candidates out because they chose to stand for one office or another would have been a difficulty. On behalf of New Zealand First I commend the Local Government and Environment Committee for that. Let the democratic choice be made. 
We are concerned though that the comments and submissions made with regard to ward requirements for small or rural communities appear to have been disregarded. It may be that those comments were made to the committee against the bruising impact that some people have felt as a result of the recent determinations by the Local Government Commission. Some rural communities felt bruised that the commissioners set varying standards with regard to the decisions and that smaller communities were forcibly pushed into larger amalgamations against their best wishes and strongly against their long-term heritage and history of dealing with their own problems. I hope that the review mentioned in the preamble will take place earlier rather than later because there is a real need to define what communities’ interests are and a real need to define delegations. 
All of these issues were part I believe of the focus of the submissions that came to us whereby people were increasingly feeling that larger councils effectively disenfranchised them day to day. To that degree New Zealand First supports the amendments and I know that some candidates will have a longer life in local government than they would have had if they had to choose one or other of the offices. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It is disappointing that we have to tidy up the change that the Labour Party put through back in 2002 whereby good members of the community could not stand for both council and the mayoralty. Subsequently a whole lot of them decided that they would stand just for council and their skills could not be used as mayors. A whole lot of others decided that they would stand for the mayoralty and because of course only one mayor could be chosen and they could not stand as councillors as well they were lost to the cities and districts. That was a huge disappointment to areas throughout New Zealand. In the provinces and rural areas in particular the pool from which to select good and able people is smaller—not because of ability but simply because of population issues. 
If people are willing enthusiastic and able and if they can earn an electoral mandate why should they not stand as representatives on the council? Why can they not put up their hand and say that they could do a good job as mayor that this is what they stand for that this is what they stand against and to vote for them? Unfortunately in 2002 the Labour Party decided that people could stand only for council or for the mayoralty. We will fix that. The National Party is very proud to vote for this particular clause which allows any person simply to be a candidate for both positions. A person could be a member in a ward in a council election or could be a candidate for the mayor of the district council of which that ward forms a part. National will support this bill. I know that in Whangarei where now we have a four-horse race for the mayoralty— 
Darren Hughes 
: Is the member running for the community board? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is true. The Otaki member is quite right. I have been lobbied by local Whangarei constituents to be mayor as well as MP. But I will not do it. I will not be double-dipping. We have a four-horse race out there but one particular person who is very able has been holding back because he is concerned that if he puts his hand up for mayor—he is very able—and does not get the nod from the public he will not be able to sit for council as well. I will be calling him tonight if this bill passes and saying that the National Party fixed it for him and for Whangarei and we know he will be delighted about that. The member for Otaki might very well— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Who? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I think his name is Darren Hughes. In his electorate he is called “Darren Who” not Darren Hughes. In Parliament he is called “Little Red”. I think it is time that Darren Hughes walked out from under the shadow of Judy Keall—I know it is a long crawl to walk out from under the shadow of Judy Keall—and actually stood for something in this Parliament. “Little Red” should stand for something in this Parliament and crawl out from the shadow of Judy Keall regardless of how long that might take because she casts a shadow indeed. 
We will support this clause for the reasons I outline. We want good people in the provinces and in rural New Zealand to put up their hands and know they have a good shot either to lead a council as mayor or to be a councillor. We want the pool of skilled people in rural and provincial New Zealand to be large so that electors have a choice. We are not interested in closing down the pool as the Labour Party would have us do so that only their whipping boys get to stand. We will support this clause and no doubt the Government is pleased about that. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will make a brief contribution on the clause we have been discussing the clause about being able to stand for both council and mayoralty. I appreciate the contribution of the member who spoke before me. I have no doubt whatsoever that he will be on the phone only a few minutes after this bill is passed taking the credit for having had the amendment passed that clarifies the issue. But the member is somewhat mistaken in his speech when he says that in the past people have been denied the opportunity to stand for both council and mayoralty. I stood in the 2001 local body elections and there were a number of people in the Tauranga area who stood for both mayoralty and council. This provision was introduced in the 2002 legislation and it has not yet had an effect upon any local body elections. So the member was slightly awry of the truth in that regard but we understand what he was talking about. Perhaps they do different things up in the north and perhaps they did not allow people to stand for both but people in the rest of the country were able to. 
This clause makes it clear that someone can stand as a candidate for a ward and also for a mayoralty. In our area we have another situation arising where we have members standing at large. We have seven councillors being elected at large and three councillors being elected as ward members. That is one per ward as there are three wards in the Tauranga area. I have had a number of submissions from sitting councillors about why they cannot stand for both ward candidate and councillor at large which is currently prohibited. We have had a number of reasons given to us by officials as to the complications that occur there but that is a new phenomenon. There are only two councils that I am aware of after the Local Government Commission’s review where there will now be members standing at large as well as in wards. 
Some of the arguments put forward to me made some sense. It did seem that there was a bias in favour of those who were standing at large—being able to do that and stand for the mayoralty as well. People who wanted to stand at large had no aspirations to be mayor. They wanted to stand for the ward but were prohibited from doing that. I trust that the Local Government Commission will evaluate how these elections go this year and see whether some of the arguments that have been raised about that prohibition are in fact valid. Perhaps recommendations need to be made in order to have consistency in this whole area. 
I said earlier that I am personally not in favour of people being allowed to stand for both. I believe that if a person is a councillor and wants to have a shot at the mayoralty then he or she should have a shot. But if the person misses out then he or she should spend a bit of time out in the real world again learning what is going on and not clinging to his or her seat as a councillor. The converse argument of course is that some good councillors might be lost but one of the great things about local body politics is that it is a great place for people to step into politics and have an opportunity to get involved in public service. I do not think it is a negative for us to see some people of experience stepping aside for a while and allowing some new blood to come in. Who knows? A person could end up going from there straight to Parliament. It does happen. Those sorts of things occur and that cannot always be a bad thing. So I hope we might look at reviewing the legislation after a few more local body elections and seeing whether it is wise to allow dual candidacy. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Clause 26 in Part 3 deals with the issue of fair representation for wards. That was a change made by the Government in the year 2001 which put quite rigid population criteria on the allocation of wards. I on behalf of the people of Waimate and the people of the Kapiti Coast want to point out to the Government the errors it has made with that provision. When the communities of New Zealand and particularly of its rural areas developed they did not develop in a nice neat systematic way with the sorts of grid boundaries that would suit our statisticians. The communities built up and now there are areas that are quite severely disadvantaged by what this Labour Government put into law. The Government rather than having communities of interest as the primary driver of ward boundaries for councils introduced a rigid population criterion. Now that might work in a Hamilton a Christchurch or an Auckland where a line can be drawn along particular street boundaries to ensure that each ward has a population approximately the same. But out in rural New Zealand where we have isolated communities that provision has undermined communities quite badly. 
I want particularly to refer to a community in my own area. Everybody knows the isolated community of Golden Bay. It currently has two councillors. It is a community that is very clearly defined by the large Takaka Hill that separates if off from the rest of the Tasman district. Previously its community has been able to have two councillors. There is also the community of Murchison which is to the south of Nelson. It too was able under the old law to have its own separate ward. But because of what the Government did in that 2001 Act—completely ignoring the views of rural New Zealand and putting a rigid population criterion into law—those communities are disenfranchised from having councillors who can truly represent those sorts of areas. 
I would like to know from Government members whether they are going to revisit and change that. We had submissions at the Local Government and Environment Committee that the law was not working. I actually think there was a pretty strong consensus on the committee that the law was not working. It is true that it is too late to affect the local body elections to be held in October this year because boundaries have already been formed. So if people are to be disenfranchised in communities like that of Waimate and those on the Kapiti Coast we at least seek some commitment from the Government that this issue will be fixed for the 2007 local body elections. 
I give notice right now that National will fix it. It is not fair; it is not working; communities of interest are more important than statistical lines that may be imposed on maps. I was disappointed earlier to hear a Government member vigorously defending the changes and I wonder whether that member has visited any of those rural communities that are adversely affected by this legislation. So I request members opposite to visit Waimate and the Kapiti Coast and to visit areas like rural Nelson and rural Bay of Plenty and to talk to some of the councillors who represent those communities. Those members should talk to some of the people who are affected and they would realise they have got it wrong. Clause 26 of this part does not fix the problem and it does need to be revisited. 
We have the extraordinary situation where the Government has given the power to the Local Government Commission in Wellington simply to write ward boundaries without any connection to communities and National says that that is wrong. National wants that provision fixed and we hope that someone on the Government benches will take a reasoned approach to the issue so that before the 2007 local body elections we do not have a whole lot more small communities being disenfranchised from their effective ward representations around council tables. I ask again whether some Minister or some member of the Government is prepared to give a commitment to this Committee that that provision will be fixed because for every moment it is not we see isolated communities disenfranchised from fair representation. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Local Government Act 2002 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 When the Government passed the Local Government Act of 2002 it created a bureaucratic nightmare for our home communities in terms of defining what a council organisation and a council-controlled organisation are and introduced a whole set of performance criteria and special consultative procedures which those organisations are required to do. What members are being asked to do now with these 20 clauses is patch up the mess for those organisations and make some additional amendments. Members on this side of the Chamber would simply say that the amendments do not resolve the problem because the problem is the very core of the legislation that was passed by that Minister in December 2002. 
What is particularly ironic in this part is that members will effectively make a special exemption for Northport. We do not have any bugbear with Northport nor with the fact that it will not be tied up in the bureaucratic provisions in those 20 clauses but we would ask the Minister how many other examples will come out of the woodwork where his Act will be unworkable and where the Act that was put through Parliament under urgency—as it is in urgency now—in December 2002 gets itself in trouble. 
The costs associated with all those extra bureaucratic requirements fall on ratepayers. Over the last 3 years there have been rate increases well above the rate of inflation. This Government is passing bureaucratic requirements down from central to local government without the funding and ratepayers get that bill in their rate demands. There is very little in those 20 clauses that will make any difference to the increasing costs that Labour and Chris Carter are imposing on ratepayers out there in our 84 district and regional councils. 
I also want to put to the Minister the increasing concern of local authorities about the costs of Audit New Zealand associated with those long-term council community plans. Now only a Minister such as Chris Carter could come up with a phrase as wonky as “long-term community plans”. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: No council community plans. You must get it right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh I must get it right—long-term community council plans. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Council community plans. You still haven’t got it right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well it says something about the bureaucracy this Minister is imposing on the councils of New Zealand that the planning industry is booming out there as it develops those long-term council community plans and their district plans and their regional plans. There is an excessive amount of planning requirements on councils that is adding hugely to the rates bills that citizens out there have to pay. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Not true! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister says: “Not true.” Well looking at the information that is provided by Statistics New Zealand since this Minister has been in the chair rate increases have been three times the rate of inflation. Why is that? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: The member’s made it up. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well actually Statistics New Zealand for which this Government is responsible has been the provider of those rates figures which are well above the rate of inflation for every year that he has been Minister and he does not give a hoot. At none of the meetings that he participated in has he ever expressed any concern for those average citizens on fixed incomes facing another round of record rate increases. The responsibility for those rate increases falls right back on this Minister who continues to pass legislation that puts an extra bureaucratic burden on the councils of New Zealand which is then passed on to ratepayers. The special consultative procedures long-term council community plans etc. are just part of that bureaucracy. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 4 I am very pleased to see that provision was made for Northport the company that the Hon Dover Samuels had a substantial part in creating and developing in his early years before he came to this Parliament. It is a progressive and inter-regional company as it now has a joint working arrangement with the Port of Tauranga. By the way this was something that the Local Government and Environment Committee ought not have had to amend as that very issue was brought to the mind of the select committee at the time of the first bill. Nevertheless time passes and the improvement is there. 
The other issue that I want to speak about is that because of some of its parts New Zealand First did not support the 2002 bill. The issue I particularly want to mention right now is the one just covered by the Hon Dr Nick Smith—the number of plans and processes that that bill required. One does not need to go to Statistics New Zealand; if one did a search of local papers now as councils are setting rates one would see the thousands and thousands of dollars—hundreds of thousands of dollars in the case of some councils—that ratepayers are paying for an imposed Wellington process layer by layer. That is only the beginning because there is provision in that 2002 Act for the process to be redeveloped at least twice before 2007. I do not think those issues were fully understood by all when bravely they set out this whole process. 
New Zealand First is a party that believes in the democratic process but this planning issue which had been gone through council by council will be the most costly impost that any Government has imposed upon local government in our time. I do not think that is reasonable. Even recent Acts such as the activities that now have to be covered under the Prostitution Reform Act would not have covered even a tenth of the cost of ratepayers’ involvement in this process. At the end of it all that process has only marginally I believe improved ratepayers’ knowledge of what happens in their councils day-to-day. So with those words the select committee’s change allowing Northport an understanding that was not there before is finally recognised. 
The cost of the long-term planning and other plans that were a part of the work of the 2002 Act needs to be analysed and measured. Certainly I know that as some councillors set the rates for 2005-06 and go back to the costs further incurred in this next financial year they will be surprised at how much this imposed solution to democracy locally has had upon them. To that degree though we support this part. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I just have a couple of comments with regard to the long-term council community plan and the comments made by the member speaking before me. I just hope that when that analysis of costs is done it takes a bit of a long view because I think there will be some initial costs for councils. However I believe that the real savings of having done a long-term council community plan will be realised as we go through that 10-year period. 
One of the things that costs councils a lot of money is the change of direction that occurs every 3 years when newly elected members come in with their new ideas and projects and old projects are ditched after a lot of work has been done on them. I think the concept of a long-term council community plan is to try to smooth that process out and allow the community to have some certainty about where it is going. 
I will make a few comments about the restoration of the casting vote which I touched on in my second reading speech. It is welcome news that the Minister and the Government have agreed to restore the status quo for councils. After the end of the committee’s deliberations United Future was really not prepared to accept the limited restoration of the casting vote and we were working to develop a Supplementary Order Paper to at least expand it to include new bylaws. It is important that after going through the process of a draft bylaw and consultation with the community councils do not end up in a situation whereby a tied vote means that nothing happens and there is no status quo to fall back on. All that effort would be wasted if there were no opportunity for the mayor or chair to put in a casting vote. 
One of the reasons for the opposition to councils having a casting vote is of course that here in the Chamber we do not have a casting vote. It is often said that there should be equity between the two forms of government but there are clearly differences between local government and central government. I remember that when I was first elected to local government in 2001 I had a concept that the real evil down here in Parliament was party politics and that we really ought to have 120 independent elected MPs who would make up their minds not on the basis of party policy but on the merits of each case. Given a local council with 14 independently minded councillors it did not take me very long to realise that such a system would be a nightmare down here. We would go round and round in circles as some councils tend to do when there is no willingness to get together and form a consensus on various council directions. So some things are different. 
The Government never introduces legislation into this Chamber unless it is fairly sure it has a majority so it is never left in a situation where it would need to rely on a casting vote—except when we have conscience votes and then a casting vote exercised by the Speaker would be unfair because every member has an equal right to vote. That is the only time we get anywhere near to what councils go through every time councillors have to vote on issues. It is important that councils can make decisions and move forward the plans they have made for the community. If a vote is tied at council level it is defeated and then the council has to go through a process before the vote can be brought back. One cannot just nip out to the back room have a little discussion and bring it straight back on to the agenda. 
We are very wise to restore the status quo on that issue and I commend the Minister and the Government for listening to the heavy lobbying from Local Government New Zealand. I do not think there is anything wrong with the fact that that organisation has lobbied hard because it passionately believes in what it is trying to achieve on behalf of councils. I will be pleased to vote for the amendments the Minister is putting forward in his Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I thank Mr Baldock from United Future for his comments which are very helpful and informative. It is astonishing how the whole story of the casting vote and the issues around it have been recast in the Chamber not least of all by the member for Nelson Dr Nick Smith. Members may recall that when the Local Government Bill was passed in this House—under urgency as bills often are—the issue of the casting vote was contained within it. I had been very interested in the issue because that was legislation I had inherited after being appointed not long before that to the position of Minister of Local Government. There were two issues in the bill that had been quite contentious with Local Government New Zealand: the casting vote and non-resident franchise. In my travelling around and meeting with mayors and councils I said that I was quite relaxed on both issues but that the bill was before the Local Government and Environment Committee and I would go with the decision of the select committee. The select committee in its wisdom restored non-resident franchise and that was fine but unanimously—from the ACT party to the Green Party—every party in this House voted not to have a casting vote for local government. I accepted that as the decision—not by a majority but unanimously—of every party in this House. 
Now when local government looked at the issue after the passage of the bill its representatives felt for some of the very good reasons Mr Baldock and others have explained that it would make their job harder to do. We listened. I said to them that they would have an opportunity to raise that in the tidy-up legislation because in any legislation that is the size of the Local Government Act there is some fixing up to do. It is a massive Act and no one ever gets it 100 percent right down to the last comma. So I said we would fix up those little bits. Some of them were a bit bigger than others but there were some bits to fix up. I said that local government had the chance to relitigate the position of the casting vote that I was prepared to listen again and that it should make its case. Local government representatives made their case we have listened to them we have fixed the legislation up and I hope they will be happy. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 Unfortunately I did not sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I suppose that might be something of a blessing; I am not too sure about that. As I listen to the debate I am somewhat stunned at some of the phraseology in Part 4 such as clause 44B “Use of special consultative procedure in relation to annual plan” and clause 45 “Long-term council community plan”. It is almost as though the Government believes that if one has a plan that automatically means one will be successful. There is nothing in here that I can see about benchmarking the success of the plans. Plans last for 10 years or thereabouts. Where in the bill does it state that councils will stop at some stage and assess whether the plans are working? 
I am absolutely stunned at the level of bureaucracy that this Government is imposing on communities. Whether they be in Auckland or Coal Creek it does not really matter. The level of control is literally out of control. I had occasion to speak with a Russian doctor recently at my home. He came enjoyed a wonderful meal and said he was stunned on coming back to New Zealand after being educated in Australia at the level of control that has been applied and the difficulties that people—and indeed including himself in the medical profession—were now facing following that gap of 5 or so years. It is all because Governments tend to believe that if they plan people’s lives for them things will be great. Let me ask the Minister in the chair Chris Carter whether anyone planned the city of Paris or the city of London. Was there a planning department that wrote down how people were going to develop Prague? Some of the great cities in the world did not have planners I say to the Minister. 
Hon Member 
: Yes they did! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Not to the same extent as we do now. They probably had someone who said where to site developments but they did not control and restrict matters to the same degree as we do today. What do we have in Auckland? We have planners but we do not have anything that actually works. We have gridlocking. We have a thing about getting a plan and putting it in place at a cost to the taxpayer and the ratepayer of millions of dollars. Then when a plan is in place we get the Department of Conservation in to appeal the plan. It does that on a constant basis and that has cost this country about half a billion dollars. And then all of a sudden once we write the plan off we say everything is going to be sweet. 
That is just not the case. It is a nonsense and people around the country are waking up to the fact that we cannot have the layers of government in this country planning people’s lives. It is a nonsense and sooner or later it will have to stop. We just cannot afford the level of “planning” that goes on in this country. It is to me something of an abomination to see in Part 4 that we are seeking to impose the will of a handful of people on the constituents who pay their wages. It seems to me that the Government should never forget who actually pays the piper. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have to respond to the attempt of the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Carter to rewrite history around the issue of the casting vote. In my 14 years in this Parliament I have seen few occasions when a Minister has so much wanted to distance himself from his own legislation. How often is it that we hear a Minister saying: “Oh it wasn’t my fault—it was the select committee. My name is on the front of the bill but it is the select committee’s fault that the casting vote was removed in that legislation back in 2002.” I say to the Minister that it does not wash. He must take responsibility. He has flip-flopped so many times on this issue that his credibility is really starting to be in question. Is it not interesting how a Government starts to listen when it gets trouble in the polls? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is true! For 5 years the Government has said there is no problem with the Resource Management Act that it is beautifully written and beautifully crafted and the Government is not going to make any change. The first poll that came out showing Labour was behind and—oops—we are in for a Resource Management Act review. When it came to school closures the Minister of Education was absolutely stuck on track and was closing schools all around the country but after one bad poll he did a U-turn. So it is with this Minister the Hon Chris Carter. The Minister has steadfastly defended the issue relating to the casting vote as we note from the original bill. If the Minister was so open-minded such a “listening caring loving” Minister if he was— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Ask Local Government New Zealand. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I do and I have to say they are somewhat critical of the Minister’s capacity to be able to weasel and worm his way out of anything. If the Minister truly believed that a casting vote was fair and proper why did he not introduce it in the original bill? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I said let the select committee decide on the evidence. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister is so lacking in leadership. Most Ministers would give their initial thoughts to a select committee when introducing a bill. Not this Minister. The Minister’s initial thought was that there should be no casting vote—or I assume it was. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Why is he getting a Minister’s salary? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is a very good question. Here is a man who collects his ministerial salary gets a ministerial car and gets all the ministerial perks for his partner—spending a fortune—but when it comes to House matters he says: “Oh it is not my responsibility. It is nothing to do with me. The bill might be in my name but it is just not me.” I say to the Minister that it does not wash. He has done a flip-flop. He has made a U-turn. We are actually pretty comfortable in relation to what National has consistently said on this issue— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: No you voted for— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member says “You”. I did not think that was within the Standing Orders. I was not on the select committee and what is more if the Minister goes back and checks the record and looks at the bill it is actually unclear whether there is a casting vote. That is what the commentary to the Minister’s bill states. Is the commentary incorrect? The Minister does not want to talk about the commentary’s statement that there is a mess in the Local Government Act 2002 which was in his name that does not make it plain whether a casting vote is possible. National’s view has been quite consistent which is that— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member might want to explain his own position— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: That is an oxymoron please! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The incompetent member for Taupo interjects. The Government passed legislation getting rid of the casting vote in 2002. Mark Burton voted to get rid of the casting vote in 2002. When this bill was introduced last year he voted to reinforce getting rid of the casting vote. The Government has now done a flip-flop and decided that the casting vote is quite appropriate. Well National’s view is quite straightforward. We say that councils should decide. For all the rhetoric that we get from Government members about trusting local authorities—they want to prescribe them to death—we simply say: “Let the council decide what is best working within its own standing orders just as this Parliament determines its own Standing Orders.” We are continuously amazed at the degree to which this Government will do backward flips when the heat comes on. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4A Local Government Act 1974 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I must use this opportunity in debating Part 4A which deals with a whole lot of minor amendments in relation to council infrastructure issues to point out what a growing crisis we have and what an inadequate response we have in this bill to the issue of public infrastructure. There are infrastructure issues whether one lives in the city of Auckland with its huge traffic worries that become worse with every year of this Labour Government or whether one lives in my own community of Nelson where there is a daily risk between 5 and 7 o’clock each night that the lights will go out because of inadequate infrastructure. 
There are some challenges out there in respect of the infrastructure required for drainage and waterworks systems and we would expect to see some decent legislation from the Minister of Local Government to address those issues. Rather we are seeing the humbug in Part 4A which makes some very minor and insignificant changes. The Minister is failing as this Government is to provide the sort of legislation that would allow the issues to be dealt with. 
I also point out the concern raised at the select committee by the Marlborough District Council in respect of the funding of infrastructure. I would like to know from the Minister whether the Government will support amendments that will allow lump-sum payment for infrastructure as had long been provided before his Local Government Act 2002 effectively abolished it. It meant that if there was to be a new waterworks scheme or some other new infrastructure in a community a ratepayer had the choice of being able to write out a lump-sum cheque. Let us say it was a waterworks scheme and ratepayers could pay $3000 rather than having an extra $200 a year on their rates for 25 years with the council taking out a loan. To me it has been a good mechanism in our local government system that residents have had the option of making a lump-sum payment as an alternative to having to meet an annual extra increase in their rates for that sort of infrastructure. 
I am not sure whether it was intentional that the Local Government Act 2002 abolished those lump-sum payments but it was not sensible. It is certainly something that National members would like to see retained. I particularly pay tribute to Lynda Scott who as the member for Kaikoura raised this issue with me on behalf of her good people of Marlborough. They would like to have the option with this sort of infrastructure to be able to make a lump-sum payment to deal with those sorts of costs. 
My question for the Minister is whether the Government will entertain an amendment to address that concern from the people of Marlborough; and if not why not? Can he also clarify whether they are correct and whether under the 2002 Act the ability to make those lump-sum payments was a deliberate or an inadvertent change to prevent local authorities from being able to fund their infrastructure in that way. It may sound like a small point but it is an important one. Certainly National comes from the point of view that councils need that flexibility. It would seem entirely inconsistent with the Government’s rhetoric about the power of general competence to take away from councils the capacity to be able to charge lump sums for that sort of infrastructure. 
I would be very interested in a response from the Minister to the point raised by the Marlborough District Council. 
Part 4A agreed to. 
Part 5 Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jim Peters to clause 59 be agreed to: 
to omit the words after “Section” and substitute the words “46A(7A) of the principal Act is repealed.”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to and Part 5 agreed to. 
Part 6 Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate is on Part 6 clauses 61 to 67 including debate on schedule 1. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This part deals with the issue of rating information. Again it highlights the problems with legislation that the Government passed in 2002. It has been a long-established custom and practice that when one goes to one’s local council office one can see a list of properties their ratings and the listed owners of each of those properties. That has been really important public information. For instance if I want to know who my neighbours are so that I can sort out a fencing problem then I need to know their address because there may be an issue about sharing the cost of that fence. Or I might want to put a drain through the adjoining property and I need to know who the owner is. It may be that I need to contact my neighbour in respect of changes I might be proposing to make under the Resource Management Act to the use of my own property. There are many quite legitimate reasons why people would want to know the names of the owners of particular properties. 
In 2002 the Government either deliberately or accidentally removed the capacity for the public to have access to that information. I have to say that it has been something of an over-reaction to issues of privacy whereby a whole lot of custom and practice that has worked very well for New Zealanders has resulted in all of this secrecy around information as basic as people’s ownership of land. The bill as drafted is intended to address that and National is supportive of the provisions as they have been rewritten by the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
I have to say that National has saved the ratepayer a fortune by defeating and changing some of the politically correct and bureaucratic proposals that came from the Government in dealing with that issue. There was going to be an opt-in system whereby every damn ratepayer had to get a letter from the council seeking permission as to whether their land would be allowed on a database. National thought that was foolish. We thought the presumption should be in favour of disclosure and of people knowing that. 
We think that a very low-level mechanism by which people can remove themselves from the list of ratepayers is the sort of approach we would favour and we think that the select committee has done a far better job than the Government to provide the proper balance between pragmatic provisions that allow the public to have access to information that is required for them to get on with life. Whereas if for reasons of domestic violence or for some other quite narrow reason people want their names removed they can do so. A person can register his or her property in the name of a trust company or some other identity so I am doubtful that we need to go even as far as this legislation goes but it is certainly a big step forward from what we have currently in terms of being able to provide this information to the public at large. 
So National would argue that this information should be available. It will be a huge relief to real estate agents and the general public to again be able to go to their council office and see the registered list of landowners in their particular area and to do so without great expense. I think that is appropriate and that is why National is supporting Part 6. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to raise the matter in Part 6 that I mentioned in the second reading debate—namely that on the Table lies my amendment regarding new clause 63AA which covers lump-sum contributions. Again I apologise to the Local Government and Environment Committee for not being there at the time that matter was raised because the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill was also being debated at the same time or rather was being looked at in another area of the House. 
The issue is one that is well known to rural councils. Although the submission came from the Marlborough District Council a number of rural councils all of a like mind gave support to it. I want to quickly run through them: the Far North District Council Nelson City Council Kaikoura District Council Whangarei District Council Grey District Council Thames-Coromandel District Council Kawerau District Council Tasman District Council Selwyn District Council and Central Hawke’s Bay District Council all supported this change. Because I was not present during the committee discussions I know no reason why this well-supported submission was not given further understanding as it ought to have been. 
The Rating Powers Act of 1988 contained a very prescriptive regime that allowed for lump-sum contributions that the council could offer in two ways—namely for a particular works situation or towards the capital cost of those works. The other way was to refinance an existing loan. However the Act of 1988 was largely repealed in 2002 and in the repeal of the Act although the specific issues of flexibility and lump-sum contributions were part of the select committee discussions the actual end result was the inability to work through lump sums. 
I have a very simple not very complex amendment for members to look at that meets the need of a number of councils and that historically has been a method that rural councils in particular have used to allow lump-sum contributions. The system is calculated to be equitable and is fair on those who pay a lump sum up front and on those who pay charge by charge. Again because I was not at the select committee I am at some pains to understand why this very sensible amendment was not given further thought. I commend this amendment to the Committee. New Zealand First supports this amendment. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 in the name of Jim Peters to insert new clause 63AA be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 6 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 6 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1AA agreed to.  
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Schedule 1A agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 Commencement   
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Chatham Islands Council Amendment Bill (No 2) the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 234 
Bill reported with amendment.