Shirley Ken: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14108] 
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.