Ward Mike: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Ward Mike: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12487] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 It is an omnibus bill and as it is widely supported I am not going to speak at great length. But having come out of local government there are some questions I put on any piece of legislation regarding local government; first whether it addresses some of the commonly expressed concerns in my community. Among those would be: does it undermine democracy? I do not think it does. There are a number of bits of this bill that in fact enhance democracy. The one that says the chair does not have a casting vote is one of those. The members of the committee will have to go back and talk about the issue until they can come to a decision. That is good for consensus and I think that that is a plus. 
The introduction of the single transferable vote (STV) as an alternative to first past the post is again a real plus and having been one of those who tried to bring it into my own community and failed—sadly—I am hopeful that those communities that did manage to get it will talk loudly to the rest of the country about how successful it is and how it makes the process of voting for local authorities a simpler one. It takes the guesswork out of it. If anybody wants to see how STV works they have only to look at Part 3 of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) and that will point it out to them. 
Part 1 effectively turns the Chatham Islands into a unitary council. Obviously if they do not have a regional council or any body performing regional council functions that is an option. It is not my favourite because coming from Nelson I live with a unitary council and as others have put it before me it is like being poacher and gamekeeper. To be the “poacher” a local authority is a user of resources and has an impact by its activities on the environment. As well as that to be the “gamekeeper” the one supposed to look after it is a conflict of interest I think. But I am sure the people on the Chatham Islands have been looking after their islands for a while now and will do that in no worse a way than before. Hopefully this part of the bill will mean that they are a little more careful over the environmental obligations that regional council obligations will impose upon them. 
Part 2 dealing with the Dog Control Act is tidying up anomalies as has been said before. We have debated that at length and this part simply spells out what is required. It was legislation the community was asking for. It does not do a great deal more than the previous dog control legislation but it does give a little more muscle to local authorities. 
I have one last issue. We hear regularly from local authorities that frequently they find it an imposition and a financial imposition when Parliament passes legislation that imposes activities and the management of that legislation on to them. That has been a major cost to many local communities. Having said that I think it is entirely appropriate that local government is the place for local decisions to be made. So I think that that is totally reasonable and support the legislation generally because of that. 
There are other bits in the bill that perhaps raise one or two questions such as the fact that local authorities will be able to debate more serious issues without those issues being on their agendas. I think the select committee needs to look very closely at that issue and make sure that safeguards are in place to ensure that that is only done sparingly. Apart from that the bill is tidying up some loose ends and the Greens will support it.