Blumsky Mark: Third Readings 
Blumsky Mark: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3864] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 Just to follow on from some comments made by the Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta if she had had the opportunity either to take advice from her Local Government and Environment Committee members or to sit in on the committee she would have understood that there were some fantastic debates about people; dogs took up only a very small part of the select committee process which went on for a very long time because it was a very complicated extensive bill before us. I can say from my own personal point of view that it was a wonderful challenge. It was my very first shall we say bill before the House select committee period. I was very impressed with the officials and the quality of advice. I was impressed also by the I suppose desire of the select committee as a whole to look at making good changes. It was nice to work across the table from some of my colleagues in the House whom I now find are nearly as human as one would hope. 
It was a baptism of fire because it was interesting for me that the very first legislation I considered in the select committee was an omnibus bill on local government. It had to be! Local government as I am sure many in the House would know is a passion of mine having been 6 years as mayor of the best city in New Zealand—a fact—and being a member of Local Government New Zealand. It was surely I can attest a baptism of fire; it was one heck of a challenge and it was a fantastic learn. 
 I was surprised we could put so much into one bill. I was surprised that one bill can affect so many and in very different ways of the day-to-day activities of just about every single New Zealander. People must understand that a heck of a lot was crammed into this omnibus bill so much of which I agreed with so much of which I had sympathy with so much of which I could take issue with and so much of which I thought was just plain dumb. It was what one could call a real smorgasbord and does it not make a difference when one brings a smorgasbord into the House? 
How could members support a bill when they disagreed with so much of what was in it yet agree with so much more that was in it? A cynic would tend to be of the mind that if we wanted to pervert the course of proceedings a good way to do it would be to bring in an omnibus bill because it mixes the good with the bad and if we put in just a little more of the good than the bad so that members will support it members may tend to overlook the bad. So when members vote on an omnibus bill they may end up supporting it in principle but later they may find that because they supported the bill in principle they may be hung out to dry on some of the issues in the bill that they appear to have agreed with. 
However as I am not a cynic I will take this opportunity to highlight in a light way—and to have noted in  
Hansard 
—some areas of the bill that I felt substantively we supported. As I said earlier in many ways the omnibus bill touched on many parts of our day-to-day activities. Many of us have dogs. I can assure the House—and I am delighted to put on record—that Winston Blumsky is a working dog. I am delighted that he and his kin will at no stage be forced to partake of a microchipping process now. I suggest that he would be just as confused as damned near everyone else has been when trying to sort out the mess that has been generated by this Government through its introduction of what is stupid legislation. I acknowledge the good people of Hamilton who took the time and effort at the Fieldays to queue up and sign a petition about the provision in the legislation that last night Parliament decided needed to be changed. 
Moving on not only was the issue of microchipping dogs part of the omnibus bill but the issue of litter and the dumping of rubbish was also a part of it. I think it is fantastic that Parliament has taken the opportunity today to increase fines for littering. Those fines have not been touched since 1990 and the fact that some of them are going up tenfold in an attempt to discourage people from dumping rubbish or even to drop litter on the streets is to be applauded. 
We talked about parks and reserves. We talked about the need to consult on the disposal of reserves and parks and I think that was an important aspect of the bill. It was not talked about very much in the House but it is important to those in the Auckland region. We did take exception to what the Government called a minor part of the bill—that is boundary changes and the need for each council to consult at length on any minor boundary change that relates to their reserves. We suggested that that provision was an absolute waste of money. 
Being a justice of the peace I would like to put on record that justices of the peace will look forward to presiding over by-law offences through the liquor laws. The issue of abandoned cars was touched on. We have simplified the ability of councils to move on abandoned cars. Abandoned cars are a disgrace and a blight on the environment and I think it was important that the bill took the opportunity to make it easier for councils to move on that issue. 
We talked about rates and the need for lump-sum contributions. The omnibus bill tidied up that issue and that is to be applauded. Many people submitted on that issue and they will be delighted with the decision we made. We also came to the conclusion—well certainly members on our side of the fence did—that councils should not go back to being traffic officers. Councils should not go back to traffic enforcement and writing tickets and that is an important fact. 
We even had a discussion on developers’ levies. Yes they are fair but the message to all councils out there is that they have to be fair. We started receiving submissions from the public that claimed developers’ levies were becoming a little outrageous and I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee and the National members on it are watching with interest the way developers levies are being set. We want some transparency around the fact that those levies should be fair. 
While I was sitting on the select committee that was deliberating on this bill I actually found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the Minister of Local Government. The Minister was quoted in the local government newsletter that came out recently and I will repeat his comments. At a meeting of the Local Government New Zealand metro sector he acknowledged that over the past few years it has been a very challenging time for councils. The Minister made the point that councils have had to contend with major legislative reform and other ongoing reviews and initiatives. In other words the Government has kept local government incredibly busy. I will repeat the Minister’s comment: “This raises questions about whether and when central government should assume some responsibility for funding local infrastructure and the relationship between such funding and the local expenditure priorities of each council.” He acknowledged that there is a difficult task in front of councils and he also stated: “I have no details on how I see the challenges being met.”—and I have a concern about that. 
How on earth can councils rein in their expenditure when their rates are going up because of major legislative reform coming from this Parliament? It became very clear during submissions before the select committee how this Government’s legislation and regulations are forcing rates up. We had submissions from a number of councils that talked about the cost of administering the dog microchipping programme. It will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per council. We had submissions from councils talking about the cost of administering the rates rebate scheme—the Government has asked local government to pay $150000-plus per council. We heard my colleague John Carter talk about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that councils have to spend on their long-term council community plans and the audits for it which are separate cost up to $80000 per council. 
A disgracefully high amount of dollars is being forced on local government by this Labour-led Government—and I have not even talked about the Gambling Act the Prostitution Reform Act the Building Act food regulations legislation and so on. They just keep coming from this Labour-led Government. These are costs incurred and forced on local government by this Labour-led Government. These costs are being thrown at local government and they will increase and do increase rates which results in ratepayers paying for what taxpayers should be paying for. 
To finish it is just too easy for this Labour-led Government to create legislation. Unfortunately it is even easier for the Government to get others to pay for it.