Eckhoff Gerrard: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12484] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 Prior to the dinner break I was reflecting on the fact that it did not take very long at all for members in this House to be back debating and looking through proposed amendments to the Local Government Act that was passed in this House just 2 short years ago. I emphasise again that we debated that bill at real length at that time and we came to the conclusion that we would be back in a very short space of time. Well here we are yet again. As Dr Nick Smith pointed out at some considerable length during his speech we decide in haste in this Chamber and we repent at the taxpayer’s and ratepayer’s leisure. We regret that we have to come back and debate this bill yet again but nevertheless that is necessary in order to tidy up the cracks in the legislation and the mess that has been achieved. 
The Business Committee and all parties have decided to vote in favour of this bill. It is an omnibus bill but a number of issues still need looking at in some real depth. One of the great problems that the taxpayer and ratepayer of this country face is the cost structure that these bills impose and that this House—or this Government to be more precise—seems to impose on them ad nauseam. That is one of the great concerns. I personally have had people coming up to me and ringing me and asking in relation to the costs that are being imposed when enough is enough. We have the powers of general competence that were given to local government just 2 short years ago and the cost structures are mounting already. Something like an 8 or 9 percent cost structure over and above the rate of inflation has been imposed on the ratepaying community and that is not something we can blame the local councils for. It is an imposition by central government on local government. It is a requirement of this Labour Government which directs local government to achieve this or that aim. And the power of general competence gives councils the ability virtually to do whatever they will. As we said 2 years ago that is of huge concern to businesses farmers and ratepayers whoever they may be. The Government ignored their entreaties at the time and carried on. I suggest that this is an appropriate time to readdress some of those issues and some of the cost. 
With regard to the power of general competence I have certainly wished we could legislate to give this Government the power of competence. It is not competent when it comes to deciding what we can and should do for business and the productive sector of this country. It does not seem to understand that to impose costs takes out that sector’s profitability and takes out the ability for this country to excel and to grow. It is not Governments and it is not councils that will determine that. The private sector will determine that but if the private sector is constantly whacked with cost increases coming at it from all directions from central government as well as local government it makes matters extremely difficult for that sector. 
Another problem in the legislation is to use the old phrase the paralysis by analysis that is happening in New Zealand—the consultative process that the Government has imposed upon everybody seeking to do anything these days. I note that the words “special order” in the legislation have been replaced with the words “special consultative procedure”. Those are weasel words if ever I have heard them. I know what a special order is: it is an imposition from the Government or from the council. But what about the phrase “special consultative procedure’? I can only suggest that the paralysis that has gripped this country in recent years is causing us huge angst. It is also worth reflecting on the fact that no substantial industry has been created since the passing of the Resource Management Act which is administered by local government. That is purely because of the hugely costly paralysis by analysis that as I said permeates the entire country. The words “special consultative procedure” are a sham. Councils all over this country have told me that they have to go through that process before they impose what they were going to do in the first place. If there was a special consultative process and it was genuine that would not be so bad but we all know it is a sort of nod nod wink wink situation. We all know that local bodies do impose what they were going to do in the first place and this thing called a special consultative procedure is nothing more as I said earlier than weasel words. We know that exactly the same result will occur as would have occurred if there had been no special consultative procedure. 
The changes that are required to the Dog Control Act are interesting also. As a farmer I tell members there is a very very simple way of controlling dogs. If farmers see one on their property they shoot it. It does not last very long so there are very few problems on farms with regard to wandering dogs. They are put down very very quickly. 
Jim Peters 
: Twenty-four in 3 months. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well is that so? That illustrates the point. But it makes individual dog owners in our region anyway hugely responsible. They train their dogs properly and do not let them roam willy-nilly. They exercise their dogs but they do not let them roam. They train them properly and that is the way it should be. 
I am not suggesting that we have dog rangers go around the country with rifles and shoot dogs in the main streets of Auckland Wellington or wherever else there may be a problem but we do not need legislation as much as we need dog owners to be far more responsible. The people who are the real problems such as members of Black Power of the Mongrel Mob and of the other gangs that often have many of the pit bull terriers will not take a blind bit of notice of this legislation—not one little bit. I find it quite extraordinary that in this country we now need a licence because in order to own a dog in the first place a person becomes a probationary dog owner. What an extraordinary thing that is. We can bring children into the world without any restrictions or requirements but we need a licence to own a dog and we become a probationary dog owner. I think that is an absolute nonsense. It is reflective of the time that is totally wasted in this House on ridiculous politically correct nonsense in terms of the consultation issue. 
We will reluctantly support the passage of this bill as has been indicated but I emphasise that it is with some reluctance that we are doing so.