Baldock Larry: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14110] 
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.