Williamson Maurice: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Williamson Maurice: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:630;Page:2199] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I want to make it clear to those who are listening that we are not debating the bill that will I understand be called the Local Government Law Reform Bill; what we are actually debating is Government motion No. 1 which states: “That Standing Order 261 be suspended to permit the introduction of the Local Government Law Reform Bill to amend …”. I say to the Minister that I am not very comfortable with that as a process under any circumstances but when I see the list of Acts that are to be amended—the Rates Rebate Act 1973 the Dog Control Act 1996 the Litter Act 1979 the Local Electoral Act 2001 the Local Government Act 2002 the Local Government Act 1974 the Local Government Amendment Act 1992 the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996 and the Land Transport Act 1998—I am distinctly concerned about a process whereby the Government is trying to suspend a Standing Order and pass such legislation through the House. 
For the benefit of people listening—and my adoring drive-time audience will be starting their long trek home in Auckland—I point out that because we do not have a copy of the actual bill we must try to guess what is states. The Government seeks here to suspend the Standing Orders to permit the introduction of the bill without our having a copy of it. Does that sound like complete insanity? Members are being asked to suspend the Standing Orders so that the Government can introduce a bill but as we do not have a copy of the bill we do not know what it states. We do know that it amends a huge number of Acts and I have a little briefing note that suggests something. Obviously there is stuff in the legislation on the microchipping of dogs that my colleague John Carter has covered—and that other colleagues on this side of the House who are to follow me will cover—exceedingly well. 
I will add only 1 minute of comment on the microchipping of dogs. As a member of Parliament I have always worried about any rules or laws that impact on the general public. What they normally end up doing is to make law-abiding citizens go through hoops and bend over quadruple in order to comply with the law while the ratbags whom the law is trying to target get away scot-free. I think that that is the case on the whole. For example under gun-licensing rules the law-abiding citizen has his rifle in one locked cabinet the firing mechanism in another locked cabinet and the ammunition on another floor and he keeps his licence up to date. Meanwhile the mongrel mob drive around in their HK Holdens with sawn-off shotguns under the front seat unaware even that there is a law let alone comply with it. That is the case with a whole lot of things. 
I will give another example. When I first entered Parliament in 1987 Labour put me on a transport committee that was inquiring into compulsory third-party insurance. On the surface it was terribly seductive. I thought it was a good idea. I was a big fan of it. Members can read my speeches. I said that compulsory third-party insurance was a great idea. Then we got submissions from a whole lot of people including representatives of the Royal Automobile Club in Britain and the Insurance Council of New Zealand who said that all it would do was force unbelievable compliance costs on the normal law-abiding citizens who would register their vehicles anyway and increase the number of unregistered vehicles. It would increase the number of hoons who would say: “To hell with this! I can’t afford all the extra cost that’s associated with licensing so I just won’t do it.” 
I have a grave fear—and I am sure Jim Sutton secretly shares it—that if we tell rural communities that they have to get their dogs microchipped we will not get an outcome that is any better because compliance will actually reduce— 
John Carter 
: Less! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: We will get less—that is right. 
Hon Member 
: We can’t get less if they’re not complying. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well we cannot get less as the member says. That is why I am very concerned about any such process but even more concerned about a process that tries to suspend the Standing Orders. 
Let us come to areas of portfolio interest to me. There is something at the end of the briefing note—and really “briefing note” is a very good term because it is about three sentences long—about an amendment Act that should have a lot in it. The bit about the Land Transport Act states: “amends the definition of ‘enforcement authority’ in the case of infringement offences in respect of special vehicle lanes or infringement offences issued by an employee of Transit or on behalf of Transit.” As soon as I read that I felt cold shivers run up my spine at the thought we were looking to give Transit even more powers than those it has taken unto itself without any law telling it to do so. 
The Minister Mark Burton knows full well from what has been going on in Taupo that Transit has decided it will say where development occurs who can subdivide properties and who can put traffic on its road. It used the words “our road”. It said the development would spill traffic out on to its road and that it would not let that happen so it lodged objections through the Environment Court and so on. This absolutely unelected unaccountable body is absolutely out of control. It is stopping development across the country. Guess whose road it actually is? Let us guess. The road belongs to the people who paid for it—the motorists who pay petrol tax and road-user charges. It is not Transit’s road. And now I believe the Minister will give Transit little Hitler-type policing powers to issue infringement notices. I can see Transit operatives out there in their little uniforms—they will get a uniform. For them it will be even better than operating in their unofficial capacity as the State police as they will have a uniform and an infringement notice book. I say to the Minister: “No way!” Absolutely no way on these grounds alone will the National Party support legislation that gives those sorts of powers to Transit. 
The briefing note also states: “It will enable the likes of local authorities to continue to enforce the use of these lanes by infringement notices and allow them to report illegal acts to the police.” Who is prevented from reporting an illegal act to the police now? Any human being in this country can report an illegal act to the police. And the Minister says this legislation will enable “the likes of local authorities” to report illegal acts to the police. The Minister must be able to do better than this. The note goes on: “It will enable the Minister of Finance to approve from time to time of the portion of infringement fees received by local authorities in respect of special vehicle lanes or by Transit that may be retained by them.” 
Here lies the rub. Any member of this House who was in Auckland when local authorities had their own traffic forces out there as an absolute law unto themselves—and Judith Tizard will remember this with great passion—will know that if we did anything really good it was to take away the traffic officer powers of the Tamaki Borough Council the Panmure council and all those local councils and state that law enforcement road safety enforcement and traffic policing responsibilities really should lie with the police—or with traffic officers in the first instance before traffic services merged into the police. Now we have legislation whereby we are to not only let them enforce and issue infringement notices but also allow the Minister to decide how much of the money they keep. 
We can guess what the incentive will be when councils do not have the rate base to fund things. I am sorry to say that all council staff will be out on the motorway in the morning issuing infringement notices because they will have a little windfall—the Minister will allocate them a big chunk of this money and they will catch everyone they can. Any member who thinks that this will not happen that it is ridiculous and that I am being stupid should look at what it was like when local councils in Auckland—and in Canterbury I think—were the Gestapo or the local mafia in the sense of how they ran things. They were unaccountable they were unelected in terms of how they ran things and most New Zealanders just despised what went on. 
The good news is that both Labour and the National Party agreed that that should not be part of local government’s role. I am now very very concerned. I do not know the specifics—let me say that again. Without a copy of the bill this debate is like punching fog—we do not know whether we have hit and we do not get any bounce-back. So I might be wrong. I would have loved the Minister to come clean with the House and say he would do this through a normal process of introducing proper legislation. 
Finally on the issue of dog tagging I ask the Government to get Nanaia Mahuta some media training please because her performance on National Radio this morning when she read out the same stock standard answer to every question was appalling. I would be happy to chip in some money if members would like me to. We will have a whip-round for some media training for Nanaia Mahuta because her performance on National Radio was nothing short of abysmal.