Goudie Sandra: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12488] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) and also to express the concern that has been expressed by most in this House who have spoken thus far on the bill—that so many pieces of legislation are being amended within such a short time of their enactment. There are actually six Acts in total being affected by these amendments. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the legislative guidelines and refer to the recommendations in those guidelines with regard to preparing good legislation: “High-quality legislation is legislation that endures.” Well some of these provisions have endured for only 2 years so one could not regard them as high-quality legislation. “High-quality legislation is also legislation that does not need frequent amending.” Indeed again these are amendments to Acts that have been in force for only a couple of years. 
So there we have guidelines that state time and care should be taken in developing policy and creating the legislation for that policy and that a realistic timetable should also be allowed for the drafting of that legislation. There has been concern about how some of this legislation has been rushed through the process towards enactment. 
I would like to comment on the different aspects of this local government law reform bill. Firstly I presume that the amendments to the Chatham Islands Council Act were forgotten in the drafting of the principal Act. Then we come to Part 2 which amends the Dog Control Act. In the principal Act the word “property” was used instead of the words “land or premises”. An amendment now corrects that in line with the principal Act and is repeated in clause 7(2). 
In clause 8 there is not much change but that clause amends section 21 of the principal Act because of changes to section 25. That is about territorial authorities classifying persons as probationary owners under Section 21. 
There are a number of typos throughout this amendment bill. I express concern about the fact that those were not picked up during the original process. There is a quite substantial new section in the bill. We went through a huge process a very intense emotional process for those dog control provisions. There was a lot of participation by people who were seriously affected by attacks from dogs and the whole of clause 10 is about penalties being put into the principal Act that have been left out. So how is it that with that huge concern over dog attacks etc. the penalty provisions were left out of the original Act? In my mind that is a huge oversight in the drafting of the original legislation and its enactment. Nobody not even the Minister spotted that omission. So under clause 10 are all those penalties that are a new addition to the Act. There is a $3000 fine for those failing to comply with the requirements of this dog control legislation which is one of the major amendments with regard to the Dog Control Act. 
Another amendment is in relation to working dogs. The provision in the principal Act applies to the owner of a working dog and clause 16 clarifies that the provision is “in relation to the working dog” and not in relation to the various pets that might be owned by somebody who has both working dogs and perhaps a pet chihuahua. Clause 16 is making sure the distinction is there so that owners are not excluded for their chihuahua but are exempted because of the working dog. However they could be exempted because of the Doberman that if a guard dog could be classified as a working dog. Its occupation is a guard dog and as such the dog has a working role. I should know because we have one. I would class it as a working dog and so I would not see that dog as needing to be muzzled. 
I see further typos in clause 17. I presume that clause 17(2) contains a typo. There is a big typo in clause 18 where the word “registered” has been put in which means that law-abiding persons do not have the options of a first-time offender for transgressions of their dogs that have just happened to be picked up walking along the street. I think that that is a significant amendment and one that would be welcomed. 
Most of section 72A inserted by clause 19 is new and I wonder whether there is a typo there already in those new provisions. But on the whole it is interesting to look at some of the penalties. One is up by $600 and there are two new different penalty regimes of $300 each. 
We then come to the Local Electoral Act and this has had some significant changes. We are facing an election this year in only a few months’ time. I know from my local authority that it will be a single transferable vote election (STV) for both the local authority and for the district health board. We have here some significant amendments and I have not gone through the detail of these amendments but looking at them I see they are quite substantial. I am absolutely aghast that we have amendments to this degree on such a serious issue as our electoral system and the manner in which people will vote and use the democratic process in just a few months’ time. These amendments are quite significant. The Minister is working on the assumption that we will get this through in time to meet the shortfall of the existing Act and addressing some of the necessary items for our electoral system. I do not know how many other councils are affected by STV processes but certainly the district health board is also as is our council in Coromandel. 
Jim Peters 
: Seven! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: My learned colleague Jim Peters advises me that seven councils will be affected by this so very definitely the amendments are absolutely vital to make sure that processes run smoothly. After all if they do not who will pick up the tab? It will be the ratepayers. What will they do? They will have to redo their processes. That would be an unconscionable burden on the ratepayers. 
The Local Government Act 2002 also has some substantial amendments. I see the first one is a change from “organisation” to “entity”. I recall Jim Peters referring to that during his speech on this bill. If members look at clause 42 they will see that it is largely new. 
In closing one of the things I would like to refer to is the casting vote. I note the comments of Mike Ward from the Greens. The casting vote is absolutely necessary. If we get to the point where the decision is hung and it is based on finances to do with the council the Standing Orders mean that we cannot revisit that decision within 6 months after the decision has been made. That is a general part of the Standing Orders. There can be situations where it is absolutely necessary that we have the ability to put a casting vote. The provision could have been made that we allowed councils to adopt that option as an addition to the Standing Orders. We could have allowed the option of a democratic process by which councils made that choice for themselves instead of being guided by the Greens—being colour blind yet again with regard to the Greens and not really considering the situation—and allowing councils to make those choices for themselves if they did not find themselves in an untenable position. Hopefully this matter will be addressed much more succinctly through this rather significant collection of amendments to six different pieces of legislation which we find appalling but which we will support none the less.