Local Government Law Reform Bill

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) Link to this

I move, That the Local Government Law Reform Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move at the appropriate time that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee, and that the committee report the bill by 12 June 2006. The tight time frame for reporting the bill is because some of its provisions need to be enacted by 1 July 2006 if the Government’s policy in relation to the rates rebate scheme is to be fully implemented for the 2006-07 year.

I am pleased to see that David Carter is so interested in the well-being of ratepayers. He is not showing the least bit of interest in this bill, but that is par for the course.

The purpose of the Local Government Law Reform Bill is to refine the legislative framework within which local authorities operate to reflect recent policy decisions, to clarify existing provisions, and to improve the effectiveness of regulatory tools. This bill implements some new policy decisions and better reflects past policy decisions. It also clarifies and addresses a range of issues relating to local government legislation that are mostly technical or minor in nature. It does not signal any major new policy initiatives.

Successive Labour-led Governments have made it a priority to provide a robust and empowering local government framework for councils and communities to operate within. This has involved the development and introduction of legislation, such as the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, and the Local Electoral Act 2001. It has also included the introduction of a number of legislative reforms to the Dog Control Act 1996 that are aimed at effective dog control and improved public safety. This comprehensive set of legislative reforms has modernised and revitalised New Zealand’s system of local government.

The Government has been working collaboratively with the local government sector on the implementation of the local government legislation, and it recognises the importance of this in helping to ensure that the legislation is achieving its intent and that its effectiveness is reflected in practice. As a result of this process, and as with any major legislative changes and reforms, it is not unusual that some issues have arisen that need to be addressed. This Government has an established and a vital working relationship with local government. This has allowed both local and central government to be better informed about each other’s key issues, concerns, and priorities, resulting in improved policy, legislation, and, perhaps most important, positive outcomes for our communities.

In this regard, I note that many of the matters proposed for inclusion in this bill have been raised through consultation with the local government sector and arise from submissions made by Local Government New Zealand, the Society of Local Government Managers, the Local Government Lawyers Group, and individual local authorities. I believe that this bill will, among other things, help to ensure that the legislative framework within which councils and communities operate is clearer and more certain, and reflects Government policy for effective local government.

The bill amends the Rates Rebate Act 1973 to update the definition of rates in order to ensure that uniform annual general charges and postponed rates are eligible for inclusion in the calculation of rebates under the Act. This change will help to ensure equitable treatment between ratepayers in respect of rates liability. The amendment will also ensure that the expansion of the rates rebates scheme from 1 July will appropriately reflect recent changes in rating legislation.

The bill makes various amendments to the Dog Control Act 1996, including the recognition of dogs trained by the Mobility Assistance Dogs Trust as companion dogs, provision for epilepsy assist dogs, and the recognition of dogs trained by the New Zealand Epilepsy Assist Dogs Trust for that purpose.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this

The problem with the Minister’s speech is that he condemned himself with his own words by saying that this bill is insignificant. The problem is that the Minister takes that attitude to local government, when it has never been more the case than it is right now that we need some action in local government. The tragedy is that the Minister will do little about the issues that concern local governments and ratepayers.

I want to go back to the motion that led to the introduction of this bill. I remind the House that that motion displayed again the arrogance of the Government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister in not consulting other parties about this legislation. The upshot was that before the bill even came before the House, as it has today, changes were made to it because not enough consultation had taken place. Had proper consultation taken place, this bill would have included the ability to make sure that a database could be established. The problem with the microchipping of dogs, as the legislation stands, is that the Government is really stuck as to how it will get a national database. I will be very interested to see what sort of answer the Minister comes up with in that regard. I remind the House that the Government had planned that this legislation would give the Department of Internal Affairs the authority to establish a database on microchipping.

It is interesting that a member of another party spoke about that party’s intention to put forward an amendment to this bill, but the only member who has actually put an amendment on the table is the Hon David Carter. Instead of going on about what might happen, David Carter has actually done that. The National Party, with David’s leadership, has put forward an amendment to make sure that farm dogs are exempt from microchipping. I know that David Carter will want to talk more about that.

The other speakers on this bill from our side will be the Hon Maurice Williamson and Eric Roy. Both of them, but particularly Maurice, will want to talk about issues relating to the transport section of the bill.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) Link to this

It is rather sad to hear the usual carping rhetoric of the Opposition from a member who, like many Labour members on the Local Government and Environment Committee, has probably not been a district councillor. I recall that when I was a district councillor we had one visit from the then National Government. The mayor poured a cup of tea and we were told about the better roads, better future policy—and the less said about that the better, because that is partly the reason why Auckland is in need of assistance from our Government today.

The Local Government Law Reform Bill is a very important bill. It amends nine Acts, which are all related to the workings of local government. This Government has worked on developing a collaborative arrangement with local authorities and regional councils since we came into Government in 1999. One thing local authorities are applauding us for is our regional and local forums for mayors to come and meet with key Ministers of the Crown, discuss their issues, and call for reform to the local government legislation, such as the changes reflected in this bill. We can get on with the business when we have heard, from our consultation with them, where the legislation needs to be better strengthened for them. That relationship will continue, and it is one of the cornerstones of our values as a Labour Government.

One of the aspects of the bill that I think is terribly exciting concerns yet another of our pledges from last year’s election: the pledge about rates rebates. We said we would deliver on that by July 2006, and as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee I am sure that we will get the measure through. Many people will be very pleased about the rates relief. Anyone who asks Grey Power members will find they will be thrilled to see their rebate rise from $200 to $500, and the top threshold for those entitled to apply for a rates rebate increase from earnings of $7,400 a year to $20,000 a year. That affects many senior citizens on a fixed income, and they are thrilled about that. We are out there yet again, delivering to the senior citizens of our country.

I want to mention the uneasy partnership between National and local government. Dr Brash has already signalled that he does not support keeping to the intentions of local authorities, as he has said about the Māori seats on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. Poor Dr Jonathan Coleman will be squirming when he goes home to his father-in-law, the wonderful John Keaney, who was the chair of that regional council, because he will have to do a bit of explaining to his father-in-law about those racially-based seats. Their inception was his father-in-law’s idea. John Keaney came to the Government and asked Mita Ririnui to lead the very bill that has got us having good representation on our regional council. Poor old Jonathan! I wonder what goes on in the Keaney household.

This bill is about our Government listening to local authorities, and reasoning on whether to enact their wishes for law reform. There are lots of things that the bill will fix. It does not just contain a measure regarding dog microchipping; it also gives local authorities powers to neuter menacing dogs, dispose of diseased dogs, and provide for epilepsy assist dogs—very important aspects that we have considered, after consultation with local government, and are now fixing through this bill.

In conclusion, I say that there are some very good members on the select committee that will consider the bill. They have considerable experience on local authorities and will bring that to the table in a reasoned way. I am very confident that we will get this bill through, so that the beneficiaries of the rates rebate will enjoy the fruits of that relief by July 2006.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this

Following on from the contribution made by my colleague John Carter on the Local Government Law Reform Bill, I say that the National Party will, of course, oppose this legislation.

It is worth the House recalling the true genesis of the legislation. The original mess was made in the year 2002, when none other than the Hon Chris Carter was the Minister of Local Government. As the Minister, he left a legacy of absolute incompetence and mismanagement, which, although the Local Government Bill was passed in 2002, has come to the public’s attention only now, 4 years later. I say to Chris Carter that if he had only taken note of the work done by the Local Government and Environment Committee in 2002, when the legislation was originally introduced into the House, I have no doubt that we would not be dealing with the mess this amendment bill proposes we attempt to tidy up.

The background to all this legislation, in respect of microchipping, is that there was a horrific dog attack in Auckland. No member of Parliament could not have been moved by that attack. The Government then took the initiative to move legislation into the select committee. The committee, after hearing a substantial number of submissions, determined that the problem was not with every dog or with every responsible dog owner in New Zealand but with the dangerous dogs that some people keep in this country. What the select committee recommended—unanimously, as I recall—was that those dangerous dogs should be identified and microchipped as a means of managing where they are kept.

But what the Hon Chris Carter did as the then Minister of Local Government was to completely ignore the report of that select committee, and when the report came back to the House, he tabled an amendment that overrode the select committee’s deliberations, in total. He then used Labour’s strength of numbers, plus, no doubt, one or two of the supporting minor parties, to pass legislation that New Zealanders only now realise is a mess.

It is an absolute outrage that we are in Parliament today, with the full ramifications of this legislation coming into force on 1 July this year, 4 years after the original mess was made. I note that Chris Carter, the original architect of this mess, is not even about to take a call to explain his action. The public of New Zealand—and, in particular, the farmers of New Zealand—have finally woken up to the stupidity of this legislation, whereby farmers will be required to take every dog they own down to the vet to get a microchip put in. How will that prevent one dog attack? The answer is that Labour knows that it will not. It is another cost that is unnecessarily being put on our farming industry, simply because the Government does not like that industry.

After the election we had the most unbelievable appointment of the Hon Jim Anderton as the Minister of Agriculture. The farmers in New Zealand were just astonished that Labour put Jim Anderton into this position. He said he had never known much about the farming industry but was prepared to learn and to listen. His first big test came with this legislation and its requirement to microchip dogs. Jim Anderton met with Federated Farmers and their president, Charlie Pedersen, and he said to him: “Don’t worry, I’ll fix this for you. I am No. 3 in Cabinet.” Then the Minister said the famous words that will haunt him forever: “What part of No. 3 don’t you understand?”.

So he went off to Cabinet a couple of weeks ago and presented the proposal whereby common sense would prevail and the microchipping of farm dogs would be exempt. What happened at Cabinet was that the all-powerful No. 3, the Hon Jim Anderton, was rolled by the little-known Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who is No. 18 in Cabinet. The sad thing is that Federated Farmers were hanging on to every promise that Jim Anderton had made, only to be let down again.

As National’s agricultural spokesperson, I have a solution for all the farmers in New Zealand. I have a member’s bill waiting to be called in the ballot that will exempt all farm working dogs. On two occasions I have sought leave to introduce that legislation into the House, and on both occasions Labour has denied leave. With this legislation now coming into the House, I have been able to move my member’s bill as an amendment—Supplementary Order Paper 22—which will give Parliament the opportunity to revisit the issue.

We know that Labour does not like the farming sector and is jealous of the contribution it makes, so I do not expect its members to support my amendment. But I look to the other parties around this House for support. Gordon Copeland of United Future has already indicated he will be moving a similar amendment, so I look forward to his support. The support of two other parties is needed for this to be successful in the House—either New Zealand First or the Green Party. I have not been able to ascertain at this stage the position of the Green Party, but I know that its members are giving it serious consideration.

I have not been able to ascertain the position of New Zealand First. When I talked to its agricultural spokesperson, Doug Woolerton, he said the party will not support my amendment, but apparently the Rt Hon Winston Peters has gone around all the greyhound racing clubs and said he will be moving an amendment for greyhounds. I fail to see the logic—and not many members of this Parliament do see any logic in the Rt Hon Winston Peters—but he will apparently move an amendment to exempt greyhounds from the bill. Maybe that party will vote against my amendment to exempt farm working dogs.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

The Green Party will support the Local Government Law Reform Bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee, with some misgivings. There are very many good aspects of this bill—which I will talk about—but Green members are a little bit worried that this is one of those omnibus bills whereby there are very positive aspects in it and then in the fine print we see a whole lot of things, some of which slightly worry us.

Clause 47 states: “Clause 10(1)(c) of Schedule 3 is amended by omitting ‘must’.” What does that mean? We really have no idea, and the Local Government and Environment Committee will be looking very carefully at some of these clauses. As another example, clause 41 is headed: “Power to restrict water supply”. What does this mean? We certainly would not wish to inadvertently support legislation that gives local authorities powers to restrict water supply in ways that would concern us. We have not had a chance to look at all of the many detailed amendments in the bill and in the schedules. We have concerns about some of those, and we will look at them very carefully.

However, we strongly support other provisions, and that is why we will support this legislation going to a select committee. Who would not support rates rebate relief? Who would not support the requirement for public consultation before a local authority disposes of, sells, or agrees to dispose of or sell a park? I would have thought that the public consultation provisions of the Local Government Act would require this, but if they do not, then it is a very good thing that we are including that provision. There is another provision for a regional park or reserve to be protected in perpetuity from sale or disposition. I gather that this would enable a regional council to apply for a ministerial Order in Council to preserve a park in perpetuity. Once again, we think that is an excellent idea, and we strongly support that provision.

There are other provisions relating to things such as cycle lanes, and bus lanes, and we strongly support those. And, of course, we support the strengthening of dog controls so that if a dog is classified as dangerous in one local authority, that finding will hold throughout New Zealand. Who would not support that? Who in this House is not interested in trying to reduce the number of dangerous, menacing dogs in New Zealand? Another provision states that such a dog would have to be neutered within a certain period. That, too, we support.

One other aspect we strongly support is the strengthening of the litter provisions in the Act. My understanding is that at present local authorities are able to take very few prosecutions in relation to litter, because the present legislation is not strong enough in relation to the presenting of proof, and, as a result, we have an incredible amount of litter in New Zealand and people are not being prosecuted. Indeed, our lovely, so-called clean green image is being undermined by the amount of litter we see all over New Zealand. In the street in which I live, we have a constant litter problem. We have a section of our street where there is perpetual litter, and it looks like a rubbish tip for much of the time. People in the street have been complaining about this on an almost weekly basis for several years, and there have been no prosecutions. Nothing has happened; it continues to look like a tip. So it is our sincere hope that the strengthened provisions in the bill will give local authorities the ability to take prosecutions for litter and that this might result in our particular street, and many other streets around New Zealand, not looking like a rubbish tip.

We are very, very pleased to support the very many positive clauses in this bill. However, we find other provisions that we really have not had the chance to look at. We know about fine print, and we know it is very easy to slip some clauses that might cause real concerns into an omnibus bill like this bill, which covers such a wide range of issues in local government. So we have certain reservations, particularly about some of the amendments to the schedules and so forth. We think they need to be examined with a fine-tooth comb, as they say—or with a microscope—and we will be doing that in relation to the Local Government Act. But we do sincerely support parts of these provisions, and for that reason we support the bill’s referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

One would think that as the member for Waiariki I would be very proud to think that the centres of Maketū and Kawerau yesterday hit the world’s news-stands. Instead, it is a matter of great shame that the Crown has been called to account for its treatment of Maketū and Kawerau by an international human rights expert Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen. The report from the special rapporteur recommended that the Crown should take an active interest in supervising the compliance of the paper company in cleaning up the waste site at Kawerau and the waste disposal build-up at Maketū.

These are not new issues. The Kaituna claim was first lodged back in 1978.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) Link to this

I should signal at the beginning that United Future will support the first reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill. In particular, I shall talk about two reasons why I believe this bill to be important. The first is one that has already been touched on by the Hon David Carter in relation to the microchipping of dogs. As we now know, the question of whether all dogs should be microchipped has now been considered by Cabinet not once, but twice.

In response to questions in the House about whether working farm dogs should be exempted, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta came up with a very humorous line—namely, that there should be one law for all dogs. It is a good line and it certainly raised a degree of humour in the House. But we need to analyse whether that is a satisfactory response, and I believe it is not. Let me just mention a few things to the House. First of all, we can categorise between different breeds of dogs. The original intention of microchipping arose out of the heightened concern in the community about dangerous dog attacks when Carolina Anderson was attacked in Auckland. It was in that atmosphere that we decided to microchip all dogs. But if one says to a person: “Take a Labrador dog that is trained to be a guide dog for a blind person and put that dog alongside a Rottweiler or a pit bull, are there, in fact, different categories of dogs?”. They will all say: “Yes, of course there are.” From that point of view, I also believe working farm dogs to be in a different category.

Farm dogs are in a different category from another point of view as well, and that is the attacks that we were concerned about on children and other people from savage breeds of dogs such as pit bulls and variations thereof, occur mainly in suburban areas, and we were particularly worried about attacks in Auckland. When it comes to working farm dogs, Garrick Tremain’s cartoon, which was well discussed on talkback radio last week in New Zealand, hit the nail on the head. The cartoon shows a group of dogs in the back of a ute and the first dog says: “We’re going to be microchipped in case we bite anybody when we’re in town.” The second dog says: “But when are we ever in town?”, and the third dog says: “Well, we have to go to town in order to get the chip.” In other words, working farm dogs do not, in the normal course of events, get to go to town very often. Therefore, from that point of view, too, they are much less dangerous than the dogs we had in mind that are roaming the streets of South Auckland.

A third factor that I bring to the attention of the House is a new piece of information. The Veterinary Association came to see me yesterday, and it praised highly the microchipping regime in the state of New South Wales in Australia. It told me that that regime has been going for 7 years, which is about how long it will take our regime, when it starts on 1 July this year, to achieve its goal of microchipping dogs. That is because, of course, on 1 July only puppies and new registrations are affected, and the average dog lives about 7 years. So about 7 years from now most of our dogs will be microchipped, with the exception that I want for working farm dogs.

The Veterinary Association said that microchipping had been a great success in New South Wales. It spoke very, very highly of the outcome. It has been successful in controlling dogs, and anecdotally, although it is hard to prove a negative, the number of dog attacks on children and other people has gone down. However, here is a significant thing. In New South Wales farm working dogs—dogs used primarily for the purpose of droving, tending, working, or protecting stocks, and dogs being trained to be working dogs—are exempt from microchipping. The regulation in New South Wales goes on to state: “However, these dogs are valuable animals and owners are encouraged to have their dogs microchipped and registered for the dog’s own protection.”

The Hon David Carter has already said that during the Committee stage I intend to move an amendment to exempt working farm dogs from microchipping. That is what I intend to do, but I also want to put in my amendment a provision that is similar to that of New South Wales, such as: “However, we encourage farmers to microchip their dogs, because they are valuable animals and it will also help them to control their dogs.” I think that that is the right message to give New Zealand farmers. What they are objecting to is compulsory, unnecessary microchipping of a special category of dog. That is because it is an unnecessary cost, and farmers say that they are already up to their necks in legislation and red tape. That is their fundamental objection. We should look at it from a common-sense point of view. We will get more working farm dogs microchipped in New Zealand if we say it is a voluntary registration but we encourage them to do so. I think that that is the way forward, and I will move an amendment along those lines at the appropriate time. That, of course, is all to do with the amendments to the Dog Control Act 1966 that are proposed in this bill.

I also want to talk on a quite different subject, and that is the amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998. Part 8 of the bill brings in definitions and enforcement regulations in respect of what are now called “special vehicle lanes” on New Zealand roads. When the bill was first drawn to United Future’s attention by Dr Michael Cullen, the Leader of the House, mention was made of bus-only lanes. In Auckland in particular both the local authority and Transit New Zealand want to have a legal framework to enforce bus-only lane regulations. At the moment that is not there, and that is what this bill will do. Immediately, I drew it to Dr Cullen’s attention, and eventually also to the attention of the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Mark Burton, and I will also write to the select committee to say that a parallel situation has also arisen on the Mana Esplanade on State Highway 1 out of Wellington.

The situation on the Mana Esplanade on State Highway 1 is a very interesting one. Basically, the highway has been four-laned, through the township of Paremata. It is called the Mana Esplanade, but I refer to it as Paremata. Most people know it as the township of Paremata. What happens there is that at peak hours of the day, only vehicles carrying two or more people are permitted in the left-hand lane. So a person travelling in a car on his or her own is not permitted to go in that lane. That is the first thing. So it is a “two or more people only lane” during peak hours. However, during non-peak periods people are allowed to park in that lane. That situation, which is novel and innovative—and I think the intention was good; it was introduced to speed up the congestion on State Highway 1—is, of course, fraught with a number of difficulties. For example, a truck with two or more people in it that is whizzing along that lane at peak times may suddenly find a parked car in the way. The driver may not be able to brake and may have to swerve to the right into a lane that is completely bumper to bumper with cars at peak hour. There have already been some nicks and bumps, but a really serious accident is waiting to happen.

As this bill goes through the select committee process, it is very important that the opportunity is taken to also ensure that the Porirua City Council and Transit New Zealand have enforcement ability around those rules for those lanes. I might say as an aside to the Porirua City Council and Transit that I think they probably have to do more to make it very, very clear to people going through the Mana Esplanade exactly what the rules are. For example, I went through on Saturday, and I noticed a sign that said something about Monday to Friday, then there was another bit that referred to Sundays and public holidays. I was there on a Saturday and I had no clear indication what the rules are for Saturdays. So I think there is also some more work to be done around the signage and so forth to make the system work, but I will, as I mentioned, write to the members of the select committee and ask them to make sure that this bill will cover that situation. It may now do so, because I note when I look at the bill, as opposed to the initial draft we were given—the initial draft, as I mentioned, referred to bus-only lanes—that it now refers to special vehicle lanes, which presumably would cover the situation on the Mana Esplanade. With those remarks I am happy to say that United Future will support the first reading of this bill, and I look forward to it coming back to the House in due course.

I would also like to say a few words at this stage to New Zealand First and the Greens. I ask them to please consider carefully the situation of exempting working farm dogs from microchipping. I also include the Māori Party in that, as I understand it may be sympathetic to that ideal, as well. There is an example of that in New South Wales, where people have said that it has worked extremely well. So why do we not give it a try? If some time in the future we find that, yes, we do need every single dog microchipped regardless, we can always do that later. But it seems to me that we should start with a voluntary registration for working farm dogs, which, by the way, are already defined as being dogs that are specifically trained to work with sheep and cattle. That is already in the Act. Therefore, I ask those parties to give consideration to supporting the amendment at the appropriate time.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this

ACT New Zealand will not be supporting the Local Government Law Reform Bill, for a variety of reasons that will become apparent very soon. I shall go over the main features of the bill I particularly want to focus on. The bill will amend the regulations around dog control, including that of a national register of dogs. It proposes that epilepsy assist dogs will be treated like guide dogs. The bill will require more consultation by local authorities—yet more talking around the issues—when disposing of parkland. It will allow local authorities to seek lump-sum contributions from ratepayers for projects, provided that ratepayers agree. Its final purpose will be to fix drafting errors in the Local Government Act 2002.

I want to address a couple of things in the short time I have, and the first concerns dogs. Mr Gordon Copeland was busy trying, rather loudly, to persuade the Green Party that his amendment was necessary and should be addressed. We in the ACT party agree with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta when she says there should be one law for all dogs. It is a very good line, and I have to agree with Mr Copeland’s comment that it is a very good line, indeed. But when we say there should be one law for all dogs, we say that the law should be that no dog should have to be microchipped. Microchipping of all dogs is a complete overreaction. It is a knee-jerk response to a couple of terrible incidents, but a response that will not result in any resolution of the situation, at all. With the microchipping of dogs, we will see law-abiding people, who already register their dogs as they are required to under the law, continue to do so and microchip their dogs—taking their obligations very seriously—but those who do not currently register their dogs and do the right thing will not be about to microchip their dogs, at all.

The issue that has arisen in the House today addresses just some dogs—working dogs on farms that work mostly with sheep and cattle. ACT will support the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Hon David Carter, because it is a move in the right direction. We would like to see a move that goes much further to exclude all dogs from microchipping, but we will support David Carter’s Supplementary Order Paper because it is a step in the right direction. I have yet to see Mr Gordon Copeland’s amendment, and the full implications of that, but certainly his description of it today indicates that we could support that, too. Voluntary microchipping would certainly be in line with our position on this matter. So no dogs should be microchipped, and I think that the register proposed in the bill will achieve very little. I certainly do not think it would have prevented the terrible accident that befell Carolina Anderson. For that reason we will not support the bill, but we will support David Carter’s Supplementary Order Paper.

I come now to the question of what exactly we have local government for. Why do we have councils? I think it is a question that councils do not ask themselves frequently enough, and that New Zealanders do not think about nearly enough, except when it is local government voting time. Even then, the turn out is usually much less than we would like to see, so I think it is an issue that New Zealanders at large do not give nearly enough consideration to.

Traditionally, councils have been responsible for core issues like rubbish and roads, and I contend that that is what councils should stick to. For councils to have the power of general competence, which was introduced in the Local Government Act 2002, was a massive shift in the way that councils are managed. Councils can now carry out just about anything they like, unless it is specifically prohibited by statute.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) Link to this

I rise to take a short call on this bill. A number of the issues that have been raised do require a response. But, perhaps more important, in order to put in context the intention here, I will say this Government is committed to a close and collaborative working relationship with local government. That is important in going forward. We know that local decisions are best made locally, and that the legislation we are looking at here today will enable local government to provide strong, local leadership. Labour will continue to work closely with local government for the benefit of all our communities. I say that from the outset, because there are provisions in the bill that I think will make a real difference.

What are those provisions? The rates rebate provision is an example of one. From 1 July this year, the maximum rebate available under the rates rebate scheme will rise from $200 to $500. There was some comment from across the House about that very issue—rates. I am concerned when members of the Māori Party say they will not support that measure, because in some respects that provision alone will benefit at least 300,000 more families in New Zealand, including many Māori families as well as others. More important, and connected to the issue of the rates rebate, the income threshold under which people will become eligible for a full rebate is to increase from $7,400 a year to $20,000 a year. Again, that is a really, really useful step in the right direction.

A number of comments have also been made in the House about the provisions around the Dog Control Act. Mr Copeland was right to point out that the New Zealand Veterinary Association is very supportive of the microchipping measures. He also pointed to comments in respect of the New South Wales example. I want to comment on that very example only because Mr Copeland would have received the same information as me regarding the issue of the exemption for farm dogs from microchipping in New South Wales. Let us bear in mind the statement that farm dogs in New South Wales constitute a very, very small proportion of all the dogs in that population. That proportion is very different in the New Zealand context. So it is not simply a matter of saying it is done in New South Wales, so therefore we should do it in New Zealand. In fact, a regime for an exemption for farm dogs here in New Zealand would put onerous monitoring costs on local authorities. That issue will come out in the select committee process, but it is an issue that needs to be highlighted in respect of the issue of the exemption regime.

There does need to be a law that applies universally to microchipping. Why? Because if the regime is to work effectively, we must get as many of the dogs as possible into it. I do not think that exemptions are the way forward. The honourable member has a different view on that. I hope that the select committee will put in context the examples that have been drawn on in this House, because I do not think they apply here. We need to look at the New Zealand situation. We need to have an overriding framework that promotes public safety and achieves a balance between having a good information system in terms of the dog ownership regime—putting responsibility where it lies, which is with the owner—and having an overarching suite of tools that will help to strengthen what we all seek: public safety in our communities around the ownership of dogs.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) Link to this

I want to speak specifically on Part 8 of this bill, but first I want to say a little about dog microchipping, because I sit here in this House in almost a delirious state, not quite believing what people are saying. I hear people say that because of the dreadful attack on Carolina Anderson, we can microchip dangerous dogs and prevent that from happening again.

That is about as logical as what I heard from Pete Hodgson today in respect of the Kyoto Protocol. Basically, he said if we send a cheque for a billion dollars to the Russians under the Kyoto Protocol, it will mean the weather will be better. Well, why do we not send a cheque for two billion dollars, order some really good weather, and ask for really neat, sunny summers—great weather for the beach—or a cheque for three billion dollars and have the best weather the world has ever had, and then all the tourists would come here? What nonsense! Sending a cheque for a billion dollars to the Russians will not change the weather one drop—not one drop. But that is what Pete Hodgson said. He said the Russians have decreased their emissions, so we should send a billion dollars to them. The Russians have already done that; their emissions decreased because their whole economy collapsed.

So when it comes to dog microchipping, can a single member of this House tell me that, because a dog happens to have a microchip in it, there will be no further attacks? First of all, we know that the real mongrel, ratbag dogs out there will not be microchipped. If any member in this House wants to come with me and the dog control officer to the Mongrel Mob headquarters in Ōtara, knock on the door, and say: “Hello boys, we’ve come to microchip your dog.”, I want to see them do it. We know that the real ratbag dogs will not get touched. They are only a small percentage of the dog population, but they are the ones that will normally be out in a park, off a leash, and attacking the Carolina Andersons of this world.

But I found out something interesting the other week about dog microchipping. With these microchips, we actually have to touch the fur of the dog with the scanner to read the microchip. So if we are in the park and we see in the distance a vicious Rottweiler race up, attack a little girl, and take a big chunk out of her, we will have to run after the dog, scanner in hand, and try to catch it. We know this new regime is in place now and the dog is definitely microchipped; we just have to catch the little ratbag, hold it down, and run the scanner over its fur, and we will find out who the owner is.

In this situation two outcomes can happen. First of all, the dog can run faster than the dog catcher, and that is normally the case, or if we do happen to be fast enough, or if there are enough of us to pin this ratbag dog down and hold it, then, bugger me, it will be the one that did not get microchipped after all because it was owned by the Mongrel Mob or whoever. So how will that regime help anybody? How does that help anyone?

Instead of the Labour Government going on about how this is a good measure, and how we will have a database and we will keep records, I want one member of the Labour Government to explain how having a microchip inside the most well-behaved dogs, owned by good dog owners, will help. All of those people out there who are law-abiding citizens—who keep their guns in a special cupboard, the bolt action in another cupboard, the ammunition in another drawer, and it is all locked away, and who keep their gun licences up to date according to the gun laws—are the same people who will have their dogs microchipped, because they do not want to break the law. How will that stop the rotten Rottweiler or the various other vicious breeds that we know of from attacking?

I do not think there is such a thing as a bad dog; it is just the way it has been treated and been brought up. If it is beaten, kicked, and so on, it becomes savage. That dog will not be microchipped—and microchipping will not stop another Carolina Anderson being attacked.

So Labour is doing this, which is its standard trick. This is its big flagship legislation. It says it is on the side of those poor kids who are going to get attacked by vicious dogs. There is not a member in this House who is on the other side of that argument or who says: “I reckon I support vicious dogs attacking little girls in parks and ripping pieces off them.” But what we do say on the Opposition benches is, let us put up something that will work. Let us put up something that is sensible.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this

Mr Assistant Speaker, as you will well know, New Zealand First was entitled to a call earlier on in this debate, but I deliberately sat it out because I wanted to hear the Hon Maurice Williamson. To a large degree, and I did not know this until he spoke, we share his concerns on Part 8. We have been a firm advocate of a properly constructed police force to administer traffic and roading enforcement. As a result we have real concerns about a local authority, or indeed Transit, taking on that responsibility. That is not to say we fail to recognise there is an area that has to be enforced and policed, but we would be happier if the police had the responsibility for it.

In addition, we would prefer the traffic arm of the police to be separated from the police service proper, and would prefer that there was a nationwide traffic enforcement agency. We have not lost sight of that, and we hope that in the fullness of time we will get other parties to concur with that view. We know a very large number of the public concur with us. The public do not like the police themselves being traffic enforcers, and would prefer that there was a separate entity. I understand from many police officers that although they cannot speak publicly about the issue, they also would support that move.

New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee, but that is not to say we have no major concerns with various parts of the bill. I have demonstrated the one concern we have with respect to Part 8, which amends the Land Transport Act. We have yet to be convinced about the argument for microchipping dogs. We have listened intently to the arguments from Opposition members that they do not agree with farm dogs—working dogs—being microchipped. Gordon Copeland, who seemed to lead the attack on that issue, quoted the experiences in New South Wales. He said that dogs there are now being microchipped on a voluntary basis.

The principal reason for microchipping a dog is not to stop it from attacking people. Microchipping a dog, as I think everybody will know, will not stop that dog from attacking anybody if it is inclined to attack people. It is simply to identify the dog, to track it down pretty quickly, and to deal with it pretty quickly. We know there will be people who will not microchip their dogs. They will think it is safe to be outside the law. But when their dogs are rounded up, for whatever reason, they will be dealt with accordingly—and by that I mean they will, in all likelihood, be exterminated.

There have been a number of cases where young children have been attacked by dogs. We have to do something to put some controls into the situation. We are told that in Australia microchipping works, and that the Veterinary Association believes it is a correct measure. That association goes along, apparently, with making working farm dogs exempt. But it then goes along, apparently, with saying that even if farm dogs are exempted, farmers should be encouraged to microchip their dogs on a voluntary basis. If we are to require people to microchip their dogs, then there is a good argument to say we should do it once and for all, and make it compulsory. As the Minister outlined a few moments ago, if everybody gets in, so to speak, it makes the cost cheaper on an individual basis, right across the board.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) Link to this

It is good to have the opportunity to take what I guess will be the final call on the Local Government Law Reform Bill. I am disappointed in the previous speaker, Mr Peter Brown. Normally he is a man who speaks sense. I do not know why he is in Parliament. I will tell members why I am here: I came here to make a difference. What the bill actually proposes in Part 1, “Amendments to Dog Control Act 1996”—which is the enactment of those things around control over dogs biting people—will not make one scrap of difference. I ask the member to reflect on the words that the Hon Maurice Williamson used. He stole quite a bit of my thunder, so I will not repeat his words. But I have to simply say that putting a microchip in a dog will not stop it biting anybody. I will talk some more about that in a minute.

But, firstly, can I just speak broadly about the bill. My local mayor, Tim Shadbolt—I think it is probably appropriate to mention his name because he is in hospital after having a car accident, and I hope that Tim has a speedy recovery—and I have had a number of discussions over how Parliament makes rules, and says “Fix that!” or “Implement that!”, in a local government situation. Layer upon layer of costs have gone to local government, and it has had to front up to its ratepayers and say, for example: “Yep, an 8 percent rate increase this year.” Ratepayers are saying: “Why are the rates going up if inflation’s X?”. It is simply because we are loading layer and layer of actual compliance costs upon local authorities. If the member is at all concerned about that, he will not support the microchipping of dogs and all of the costs that actually go with that. Tomorrow our select committee is going to Manurewa to talk to its council about prostitute management, and there is a local bill because they want to deal with that—

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) Link to this

I move, That the Local Government Law Reform Bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and that the Committee report finally to the House on or before 12 June 2006.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this

I seek leave that it be an instruction of the House to the committee that it consider Supplementary Order Paper 22 during its deliberations.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) Link to this

I seek leave for the committee to have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting, despite Standing Orders 192, 194(a), and 195(1)(b) and (c).