Carter John: Third Readings 
Carter John: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3860] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to take this opportunity to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee staff who are involved with this legislation—Beth Watson and Pavan Sharma who have done a great job for us—and also the staff of the Parliamentary Counsel Office who I think yesterday went through all sorts of gymnastics in trying to get the legislation right. Of course there are also the advisers and a number of other staff involved and I think it should be put on record—as I am sure the Minister would want to do—that they have given great assistance to the select committee and to Parliament in getting us this far. I want also to take the opportunity to thank the Green Party whose member was with us on the select committee. That is not to deny thanks to members of any other parties who have been involved in getting us this far. But working with Metiria Turei in the select committee was very useful. The work we did was productive because of course we have now got to the stage where we are at least able to stop the microchipping of working dogs. 
I just want to make one point. Although it is not my place to defend the Greens or to speak for them—I am sure they will do so themselves—I notice that it seems a surprise to some people in this House that last night we saw a split vote. Members might like just to reflect on the fact that one party more than any other—the Greens—has persistently and continuously supported MMP. That is unlike latecomer parties like New Zealand First which has suddenly decided that MMP is not a bad idea. What we saw happening last night was the reality of MMP working in the way it should and does work. Whatever spin people might like to put on it I say that that is what we saw and I suggest members might like to reflect on that. 
I want to speak on three parts of this legislation and my colleagues will pick up other parts of it. But first of all I want to speak on the matter of microchipping. I make the point that the Government some time ago—I think it was in 2003—introduced microchipping through a Supplementary Order Paper by the then Minister of Local Government Chris Carter. Of course at that stage it was opposed by the National Party—and by other parties like ACT for example—and National has consistently opposed it. It is true and on the record though that once when I was younger and not so thoughtful I may have spoken in support of it but people do things when they are young and they learn as they grow older. It is a rare thing—[ 
Interruption 
] Some of us do not learn—like the Minister—but some of us do. 
The point is that through this whole debate we have not been convinced of the value of microchipping dogs. Indeed the Minister himself said that the microchipping of dogs would not stop one dog attack. I tell him it is not proven that the microchipping of dogs will mean that more dogs will be registered. In fact the public need to know as the legislation proceeds in whatever form it does that not only will people have the cost of microchipping dogs but they will still have the cost of continuing to register those dogs. So there will be a double cost on dog owners. I must say that when the public finally become aware of what will be foisted on them plus the cost added into the rates because councils will have to administer this law people will not be happy. 
 Then there will be the gymnastics of trying to figure out what this Parliament has actually passed and what the law now means because of the way the legislation is structured. Does it mean that as the 1996 legislation says the territorial authorities themselves can decide what are working dogs and have the right to pass a resolution to say that all dogs in the area can be working dogs? The lawyers will have a field day on working through this at great cost to local government and at great cost to the ratepayers. For people who are grumpy about having to microchip their dogs I can see a huge amount of litigation for councils coming up because somebody’s dog somewhere will not be recognised as a working dog as he or she thought it was. I think the Government would do better now to admit defeat and pull this whole thing out. However that will not happen. 
I want to go on to another part of this legislation that refers to the long-term community council plans. Some people who came before the select committee this morning told us about the cost that has been imposed on local government. I said earlier in this debate that long-term community council plans or councils looking at their infrastructural needs and planning ahead were actually started in 1995 by the National Government. It makes good sense. I have not heard anybody say that the principle of what is to be achieved should not be achieved. Looking at what one has and looking at what one’s needs will be is sensible. We do that in our everyday lives—we think ahead and we plan ahead; so should local government and indeed so should Government for that matter. Unfortunately this Government does not do that enough. 
But the problem is that the way in which this Government has asked local government to administer long-term community council plans is costing ratepayers huge and unnecessary amounts of money. To date it is estimated that just the audit of the draft schemes is likely to cost ratepayers somewhere between $5 million and $8 million. But that pales into insignificance when one starts looking at the cost of preparing the draft schemes. For example Whangarei District Council has told me that the cost of preparing its draft scheme—not the audit—was in excess of half a million dollars; in excess of $500000. If one extrapolates that out over local government across the country we are talking somewhere between $50 million and $100 million. I say that that was a dreadful waste of money. It was unnecessary. We did not have to go through the whole issue of the draft scheme then the final scheme and then audits upon audits except we had to work out a system of presenting these things to the public and discussing the issues with the public. But nevertheless the way in which this Government has asked local government—not asked but directed it; forced it—to take this thing— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: No option. 
JOHN CARTER 
: There was absolutely no option at all. This Government directed local government to undertake the process in the way it has and then it did not trust local government to do that. It directed the Audit Office to check to look at whether local government was doing it right. As it transpires there are only three local government agencies that according to the Audit Office did not follow the process correctly and one in particular of those three took a deliberate decision not to comply because it believed it could not guess what the rate of inflation would be in 10 years’ time! Well I have to say that I am not surprised. I would like anyone in this House to stand up and accurately predict what the rate of inflation will be in 10 years’ time. I would like it put on record because we— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Nobody knows. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well of course nobody does actually; they just do some forecasting. 
I want to finish on this note—the legislation is to make changes to the Transport Act. We are now shifting the responsibility of fines and infringements from police to Transit and local government. That is seriously dopey. Local government is not structured to carry out infringements and neither is Transit New Zealand. We do not need to go back to those days. We should not be asking local government to go back to the days when it was involved in policing. That is what this legislation will do. 
The problem with this legislation is that most of the measures will add extra costs on to local government and as a consequence on to ratepayers. Ratepayers in this country are already suffering from the burden of extra compliance that this Government has imposed on them. We are now seeing too many local authorities having to increase their rates well above inflation to meet the demands this Government is making of them. I say that local government is finally standing up and rebelling against what is happening. Local government knows that it is not its responsibility. It knows that these sorts of measures which the Helen Clark Labour-led Government is passing today will put more costs on to local government and as a consequence on to ratepayers. Local government around this country is saying “Enough!”.