Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this

I move, That the Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. When the time comes I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee.

This bill is the first opportunity for Parliament to consider whether the compulsory microchipping of all dogs is either necessary or useful. It is also an opportunity for the public to be heard on this issue at a select committee. It is a totally common-sense amendment that is supported by most councils, vets, dog owners, farmers, and many others. I hope all members will vote for the bill to go to a select committee so that there can be democratic consideration on it.

The current law is that menacing, dangerous, or unregistered impounded dogs can and should be microchipped, and that is happening. This bill does not change that. The current law also requires that from 1 July this year all dogs that are newly registered must be microchipped. That is what my bill repeals. The public and Parliament were horrified a few years ago by a series of vicious attacks on children that left them seriously injured and maimed. The poster child was Carolina Anderson, and I acknowledge the shocking nature of her injuries. The outcry over those attacks led to the passing of a package of measures to improve the powers of local authorities to control dogs. Those measures were well-thought-through. They have been working, and councils already report a reduction in the number of incidents involving dogs, although the provisions to microchip all dogs have not yet taken effect.

The Greens argued in the House at the time that we did not see the microchipping of all dogs as useful or necessary, but it was not possible to separate it from the rest of the package at that time. So, with some misgivings, we voted for the bill as a whole. We are pleased we did, because there has been some improvement in the control of dangerous dogs. But, since then, the issue has raised its head again, and in the calmer environment that prevails now it is easy to see that universal microchipping will not improve child safety, but will impose costs and bureaucracy on hundreds of thousands of dog owners. So it is time to think again. I do not think Parliament should be ashamed of having another think about a decision it made in the heat of the moment, when that decision has since been shown to be questionable.

If I thought there was the remotest chance of children being protected from what happened to Carolina by the current microchipping law, I would not be promoting this bill. But logic prevents anyone from drawing that conclusion. Let us look at the arguments. Will the existence of a microchip in a dog prevent it from attacking a child? Clearly not. Even the Government is not making that claim. Will a microchip help to determine which dog has attacked a child, so that it can be caught and destroyed? Clearly not. A microchip is not a locator beacon, it is not a Global Positioning System mechanism, and it is not a miniature camera; it is just a record of ownership and age. So when a dog attack occurs and the dog cannot be found, a chip will not help to find it.

I remember the trouble we had on the farm when a neighbouring dog—a farm dog, as it happens, and I will come back to that later—savaged 15 of our prime lambs. Half of them were killed, and the others were so horribly mutilated that we had to shoot them. We eventually identified the dog because it had wool between its teeth, which is what one looks for when trying to find the dog that did the damage in that situation. A microchip would not have helped.

What about when a dog attacks and is caught? The chippers argue that the chip will identify the owner, who can then be held accountable. That is the one argument that does work, but it will not help the child and it will not help any child in the future, either. A dog that is found guilty of a savage attack, such as the one on Carolina Anderson, will be destroyed. A dog that is found guilty of a less serious offence will be microchipped under existing law before it is released, or it will be destroyed if its owner will not agree to pay for the chip. A second offence will always be known to be a second offence. We do not need universal microchipping to achieve that.

The chippers argue that if a dog that is classed as dangerous or menacing moves around the country, it will be hard to track and recognise as a potentially dangerous dog. That is right, and that is why we fully support the chipping of dogs after a first offence or menacing behaviour. My bill does not change the law in that respect. Then there is the argument that a chip will help to reunite a straying dog with its anxious owner. That is true. That is why all owners will retain the option of chipping their dog if they are worried about its safety and if it has a tendency to stray. That is a good idea. I think it is great that dog owners have that option, but there is no point in making it compulsory.

One problem that occurs now is that many of the worst-behaving dogs, which have been trained to be badly behaved, are not registered at all. Some figures suggest that half of the dogs that carry out attacks are not registered—they have no collars, and the law does not know about them at all. Do we really think that people who will not register their dogs for a comparatively low fee will microchip them for an extra $70? I doubt it—not when it is going to cost extra, and not when the owners know they have trained those dogs to be menacing. The remedy for those dogs, when they are found to be menacing or dangerous, is that they are either put down or microchipped compulsorily at that stage.

There has been a very strong lobby for a special exemption to this law for farm dogs or working dogs. Why do the Greens not support that? Should we not support half a loaf, instead of no bread? Not when it makes the other half taste really bad. How are we to decide what is a working dog and what is a farm dog? What about dogs for the blind? How will hunting dogs on farms, which are sometimes the worst offenders, be classified? Are they working dogs? In fact, at the public meetings that Federated Farmers conducted around the Waikato, the animal control officer from south Waikato described the amendment as unworkable and said that when trying to exempt farm dogs, the line between working or farm dogs and other dogs cannot be defined. She ought to know. She is right there on the front line dealing with dogs now.

Secondly, what evidence has been put forward to show that farm dogs are less dangerous than other dogs? There is no evidence that I have seen. And if farm dogs are exempted, the costs to owners of all other dogs would be increased. Those owners would then have to, among themselves, pay for the total costs of the national dog database. Why should farm dogs be exempted when farmers already have tax deductibility for their charges, and grandma with her poodle in the city does not?

Federated Farmers changed their position and they now support the Greens’ view. Federated Farmers said at the meetings in the Waikato that they had made a tactical mistake by seeking an exemption initially, and that restricting microchipping to notifiable dogs was the better position morally, politically, and tactically.

I thank the National Party members for coming round on this and supporting our bill, as I understand they will do. I think they have adopted a good position. I thank the Māori Party and ACT for supporting the bill, and I urge United Future to think about what it is really doing when it votes at the end of this debate.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this

I have looked forward for some time under an MMP Parliament to when the Greens could put forward a member’s bill that the National Party would agree was a very sensible initiative and could proudly support. I take this opportunity of congratulating Jeanette Fitzsimons on picking up the depth of concern in both rural and urban New Zealand against the stupidity of the legislation that had been advanced by the Labour Government. I further congratulate Jeanette Fitzsimons on drafting a bill by 10 o’clock in the morning and being able to secure it out of the ballot, in the archaic system we still operate for members’ bills, by about 12 o’clock the same day.

The bill does give New Zealand a chance to debate the stupidity of the issue yet again. If we do not have success in Parliament tonight, depending on the votes of United Future and New Zealand First, this will not be the end of the matter. The legislation will still come back before Parliament with the local government amendment legislation that is currently before the select committee. Parliament has already accepted two further amendments in my name, which will further debate this issue and give parliamentarians the chance to reconsider the stupid position that Labour has got itself into.

The current legislation imposes a huge cost on all dog owners, for absolutely no advantage. I have seen some costings recently that suggest rural New Zealand alone will face a cost of $3 million each and every year, because of the legislation advanced by the Labour Government. Labour originally argued that a microchip in the neck of a dog would stop dog attacks. We now have about 40 or 50 people in New Zealand, all Labour members of Parliament, who are still stupid enough to believe that. But all other New Zealanders who have given thought to this issue know that a microchip in the neck of a dog will not stop one dog attack whatsoever. So the question needs to be asked as to why all dog owners will be saddled with a huge compliance cost when it will not achieve what Helen Clark said it was going to achieve.

The other argument that I have heard from Helen Clark is that it will not really cost very much money, because people will be able to insert the microchip themselves. Can members imagine people being able to put a huge needle into the neck of a dog themselves without seriously hurting that animal? But then if people were to do that, the stupidity of the legislation that Helen Clark passed means that people then have to take the dog down to the vet anyway, to get the vet to verify that the microchip is there in the first place. In other words, Helen Clark should wake up. Her suggestion will not cut the compliance costs at all.

But the next issue that worries me is that if the legislation remains as is, it will be totally unenforceable. We have now had councils coming to Parliament over recent weeks, saying that they will either completely ignore the law or give it low priority. I ask members of Parliament what the point is of persisting with a law that puts a compliance on to local councils, when the local councils say themselves they simply will not enforce it.

The third reason I support Jeanette Fitzsimon’s bill tonight is that, in actual fact, the legislation of the Labour Government will be counter-productive. I have been speaking to thousands of New Zealand farmers who now regularly register their dogs on an annual basis and get absolutely nothing for it.

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

Well, there we have it. We have had two contributions to this debate so far. The first was from the member whose bill this is, and although the Labour Government does not agree with Jeanette Fitzsimons on this issue, I acknowledge that this bill is a genuine attempt to find a position that she believes is correct. I think that attempt is genuine; I acknowledge that. By absolute contrast with that we then had Mr David Carter’s speech. Mr David Carter is from the National Party. It may surprise many people to know—in fact, it may surprise many members of the public to know—that we are not actually enacting legislation about dog microchipping in Parliament tonight. People would not know that from listening to some of the comments Mr Carter has been making around the countryside, helpfully confusing people. In fact, far from that being the case, it may interest many members of this House to know that he was the spokesperson for one of the many parties in the House that voted for the current legislation. Even some of Mr Carter’s own colleagues—the new National members—may not know that.

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am looking through the Standing Orders right now, and I seek your guidance in respect of the rules or the Standing Order that prevent or prohibit a member of the House from calling another member a liar. I would like you to assist me with that, because I have a question with regard to that rule. Although I acknowledge, understand, and would always comply with the Standing Orders, the question is, simply, what redress there is to ensure that a member who has blatantly lied in this House is called to account.

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just heard the National Party member of Parliament the Hon David Carter state to the House neither he nor National voted for the Dog Control Amendment Bill. I have in my hand Hansard, Volume 613, dated 4 November to 20 November 2003. At page 10041, dated 13 November 2003, is the voting record that shows National voted for the Dog Control Amendment Bill.

LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member is trifling with the Chair. He knows that those are debating points and not points of order, and he is trifling with the Chair. While he continues to challenge the ruling—because he is going for another call now—that is a challenge to your authority and to what you have deliberated on.

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I seek leave to table Hansard, Volume 613, at page 10041, specifically dated 13 November 2003.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) Link to this

I will start by demonstrating just how political this debate has become. David Carter made a statement during his speech that dog owners have annual costs that they are getting nothing for. I actually agreed with him. Then I got a barrage of abuse from that side of the House, when I had actually agreed with the statement David Carter had made. That demonstrates that National members are not even listening; they are just playing politics. I will make another statement to demonstrate how political this issue has become. David Carter said Brian Donnelly and New Zealand First members have stitched up a deal with Labour. He made that statement at 7.55. I tell members that at 6.55 I was in conversation with his leader, Don Brash, and Mr Carter was nowhere in the room. Mr Carter said: “an hour … ago”, and 1 hour before 7.55 is 6.55. I was talking to Don Brash.

I think we need to get back to what this issue is about. In 2002 the father of Carolina Anderson came to Parliament. Any politician who had any drop of care and concern in their blood met with him. We were shown photographs. They were horrific and horrendous, and they galvanised this House to a resolve that it would do something about dog attacks on humans, but in particular dog attacks on children. Never before have I seen this House so galvanised to a unified resolve as I saw at that particular time. The resolve was to prevent or reduce those dog attacks. We have a horrendous level of dog attacks, and they are still continuing.

A select committee worked together on a whole package of things. It was not just microchipping; it was a whole package of amendments to the Dog Control Act that this House saw fit to bring in to reduce dog attacks. The legislation went through, and the resolve was cross-party. The legislation went through, and this House put it in place. It was a package. We have here today an attempt to send the package back to the sender before it has even been opened up and looked at. New Zealand First does have some questions around microchipping, but it seems absolutely stupid to take that package to bits before it has even been delivered. The legislation does not come into force until July; it is not until July this year that we start making any steps in this direction.

Microchipping is part of the package. I think Mark Burton made a very, very good point: National voted for that package. It voted against the amendment but it voted for that package at the third reading, and Mr Carter has to tell the world he voted for that package. New Zealand First is saying we have to give the opportunity for the package to go forward. A mate who represents New Zealand in dog trials rang me the other day. He went to Ireland, and the dogs all had to be microchipped. When they got to Ireland, there were dogs whose microchips could not be read because they had been damaged. There are some problems—we are not denying that—but the point is that this House agreed to this package and it needs to be put into practice. The package then needs to be assessed as to whether it is achieving its objective.

We should not forget that that objective is to minimise dog attacks on humans, but especially—[Interruption] It is a package; we are not just talking about one thing. It is especially about our children. I think at the moment we are more concerned about sheepdogs and chihuahuas than we are about the children of our nation. Anybody who can remember those photographs of Carolina Anderson should not be here voting for this legislation at this time. New Zealand First will insist on a review of the legislation. That is what I said, because if it is not working, we will need to re-look at it. We will insist on that, but at this particular point in time we have to put in place the package that this House decided, cross-party, would meet its objectives, as it determined it would do, back in 2002.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

On behalf of the Māori Party I say that we would be happy to support any bill that will put a stop to this microchipping of dogs mania that is sweeping through the House. Unfortunately though, I do not think this bill will achieve that. As Jane Clifton recently noted, the debacle around microchipping has been a regular dog’s breakfast, with National and United Future begging for scraps through their various amendments and exemptions, Labour howling at the moon over the one law for all dogs, and even the normally serene Greens seemingly being caught up in it, as well. Indeed, the frenzy and ferocity of the debate reminds me of the song “Who Let the Dogs Out?”. That line is a Caribbean reference to disrespectful men who hit on women, and it is now a Kiwi reference to disrespectful politicians who hit on poor, defenceless, dumb dogs.

Well, the Māori Party will not be party to this madness, because Māori have been there before. I refer to the infamous dog registration legislation of the late 1800s. I am the member for Te Tai Tokerau, and I know that the history of the dog tax and its forceful imposition in the Hokianga is etched on our tribal memory. The Hokianga County Council decided to impose a dog tax of 2s 6d per dog per owner. Back in those days that was big money. The people of Waimā rightfully refused to pay. Their dogs were their own, not the property of the Government or the council. The people were threatened with arrest and even with banishment from their homelands. And that was over a dog tax, for Christ’s sake! The people eventually marched on the county headquarters in Rāwene to make their case, and the Government responded with its usual overdose of power by despatching 120 soldiers, two field guns, two Maxim guns, and a gunboat to deal with the natives.

That is a little like a politician in 2003 who misread the feeling of “natives” here, tried to stop a hīkoi of 40,000 by calling everyone “haters and wreckers”, and then, when she realised she had failed, closeted herself away with a daggy old sheep she called Shrek. She overdosed in her response by ramming through the Foreshore and Seabed Act, from which the Māori Party was born—the members of which rise every day to remind her of the foolishness of her ways.

In the midst of the “dog tax war” my whanaunga Hone Heke Ngāpua left Parliament and headed home to help diffuse the situation. Yet it was all in vain. Some people were arrested and imprisoned in Mount Eden Prison for treason. The dog tax remained, and the Government stopped Hone Heke’s parliamentary pay while he was away, even though the Premier of the time, Dick Seddon, said he “could recognise the patriotic and pure motives that prompted him, and the interest he had in his race.”

I refer to that incident in Hokianga because I know that in another hundred years people will look back at this microchipping lunacy, and wonder what on earth was going through our minds, for us to spend so much time trying to keep tabs on dogs while hundreds and thousands of our own citizens are living below the poverty line. I can see Federated Farmers marching against this madness, just as my tūpuna did 100 years ago. I can see local councils doing everything they can not to comply with this stupidity, just as the Waimā police refused to collect the dog tax in 1898. Unless some sanity prevails in this House, I can see some poor bugger ending up in jail in order to satisfy the cravings of some lunatic for whom the microchipping of dogs has a higher priority than the health of the nation’s humans.

This proposed microchipping mess is like the movie Dumb and Dumber. Microchipping dogs is a dumb idea anyway, and trying to identify dangerous and menacing dogs so that we microchip only them is even dumber. I can just see it now—and I know the Hon Parekura Horomia will understand this. Some poor, weedy little dog control officer will knock on the gate of the local Mongrel Mob pad and say: “Excuse me sir, but I’ve come to see whether your dogs are dangerous and menacing, in line with the Government’s requirement that they be microchipped.” The reply will be: “Who do you think you are, you little nerd? Get out of here before I microchip you!”. The dog controller, of course, will rush off to change his or her pants, and will summon up the courage to get the local cop to come along as protection—as if the cops have time for that sort of silliness! The next day they will turn up, to find one of two scenarios: the first is that no dogs are there because the mob members have moved them somewhere else, and the other is that the whole chapter is there with every dog they can get their hands on, and they are all spoiling for a fight.

Yes, the Māori Party wants a healthy society where the public are not threatened by dangerous and menacing dogs and, yes, we will support this bill’s first reading, to try to generate some light on this sad affair. But out of respect to Hone Heke Ngāhua and his whanaunga, who stood against a similar madness in 1898, the Māori Party urges the House to oppose this madness in 2006.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) Link to this

I begin by informing the member Hone Harawira, who has just resumed his seat, that this bill is not about a tax on dogs. It is about repealing and overturning the decision taken by Parliament in 2003, with the support of all parties except ACT, to introduce a microchipping regime. I have already signalled quite clearly to this House that when we come to the Local Government Law Reform Bill, I will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to exempt working farm dogs from the microchipping regime. In that debate and at that time I will spell out to the House in great detail the very, very good and numerous reasons why that class of dog should be exempt.

But that is not to suggest United Future agrees with a total repeal of microchipping for all dogs—with the single exception of dangerous, menacing, and impounded dogs—which is what Jeanette Fitzsimons’ bill would bring in. In talking about dangerous, menacing, and impounded dogs, I must say that when I was listening to the Hon David Carter’s speech in the House, I thought to myself it was a pretty menacing kind of speech. It almost got to the stage of being a dangerous kind of speech, and I would say to the member that if he keeps going down that line, the day will arrive when he will probably be impounded. I think he should turn down the volume a bit and actually concentrate on some facts.

Let us now look at some factual situations. As others, particularly Brian Donnelly, have pointed out, this all came about because of the attack on little Carolina Anderson in Auckland in 2002. In July 2003 this House, with the single exception of the ACT party, agreed to bring in a microchipping regime for all dogs. Why? It was with the intention of reducing and rolling back the number of dog attacks on New Zealand children. Let me tell the House that that date is now almost 3 years ago. In that time the number of dog attacks on children in this country has increased by a further 38 percent. There has been a 38 percent increase in the number of dog attack claims since we agreed, as a Parliament, to bring in microchipping. I tell members that if microchipping actually reduces the number of dangerous attacks by dogs on children by even one attack, then I think it is worth doing. Therefore, I have no hesitation at all in saying United Future will not support the roll-back of that regime.

Let me turn to the issue that has been raised by farmers, and by many New Zealanders. They say microchipping will not stop a dog from attacking a child. Of course, it will not, and no one has ever said it will. I was with a group of farmers the other night in Hamilton, and when they pressed me on that point, I said that the impact of microchipping was simply the difference between a collar and a microchip. That is the difference. Those farmers all said to me they conceded that point.

Let me read to the House what the state of New South Wales has said. That state has had a microchipping regime for 7 years. The legislation was introduced in 1999—incidentally, it does exempt working farm dogs. The Government of New South Wales said to people about microchipping: “Collars can be lost or removed and tattoos can be changed, but microchipping is a once-only form of identification which is designed to last for an animal’s lifetime. The introduction of compulsory microchipping ensures that all owned animals”—with the exception of working farm dogs—“have a means of permanent identification which cannot be lost or tampered with.” This matter is simply about adopting today’s technology, which is microchipping, instead of yesterday’s technology, which is collars. Collars can be lost, dislodged, and so forth. They are not as good as microchips when it comes to dog control, and that is why I believe microchipping will reduce the number of attacks on children.

Let me make just a brief comment about the politics of the issue. The Hon David Carter tends to say United Future’s vote is critical to this debate, and if we dare to vote against Jeanette Fitzsimons’ bill, then we are being a poodle to Labour. However, we are opposing Labour in its intention to bring in microchipping for farm dogs. Therefore, Mr Carter’s logic is that if we roll over and adopt National’s position, somehow that does not make us a poodle to National. Well, United Future is a party that is a poodle to no one. We are our own party—we have brains, we can think the facts through, and we can make our own conclusions. We fundamentally disagree with the position advanced in this bill; therefore we will vote against it to ensure that it does not go any further in this House.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

I think the amendment to the original legislation in respect of the microchipping of dogs is like a case study of poor legislation. I am sure that if the microchipping of dogs amendment proceeds, students in universities will study it as a classic case of where Parliament had a rush of blood to the head and came up with poorly drafted legislation. Carolina Anderson came along, her case tugged on our heartstrings, and, for all the right reasons, we passed the wrong legislation.

The Greens have already explained that we voted for this amendment because it was slipped into a whole suite of amendments, the rest of which we supported. I think it is now time, after a bit of calm reflection in this House, to admit we got it wrong. This has happened before in this House. We are hearing comments today that admit that. We heard from Minister Burton, who said that this legislation will not stop a dog from biting a child. Gordon Copeland said that, too. New Zealand First’s Brian Donnelly said he had reservations about the legislation and if it was not working we should look at it again in a few years. All that members are saying is that we are starting to admit we got it wrong. It would be a terrible, cruel thing for New Zealand First if people had to go to all the expense and hassle of microchipping dogs all around New Zealand, only for this Parliament to then say we got it wrong. That is what we will say at the end of the day—we got it wrong.

When we get it wrong in this Parliament, there tends to be a rising tide of opposition to the legislation. That is exactly what we are seeing now—a rising tide of opposition throughout New Zealand. Throughout New Zealand society—including sensible councils—people are telling us the legislation is unenforceable. When a large percentage of society is opposed to a law, it will not work. We have seen it with cannabis legislation and we have seen it with many other laws. When we come up with legislation that is widely opposed and that society thinks is stupid, it will not work. So why are we going to all this trouble and expense? Let us admit we got it wrong.

Another issue that has not been raised today in the debate was hinted at by Ron Mark. He yelled out a witty quip: “Let’s microchip the National Party members!”. It was said as a joke, but it is absolutely true. We have to acknowledge that this is a surveillance technology—an Orwellian technology. As Tariana Turia said some time ago, it is dogs today, humans tomorrow. Actually, it is not even a case of it being humans tomorrow. In Mexico the Attorney-General has ordered that all of his 160 employees be microwaved—I mean microchipped, although microwaving might be next! He has ordered that his employees be fitted with a microchip that is the size of a grain of rice. Humans are also being microchipped in America. George Orwell warned about this. Let us realise that microchipping is a way of legitimising surveillance; it is Orwellian technology—dogs today, humans tomorrow.

But there is a wider issue we need to address. Whatever happened to the relaxed, trusting, friendly New Zealand society, where we trusted each other and communities got on with each other? What has happened that makes us run around microchipping dogs, even when we know it will not work? Someone already wants cats to be microchipped. Then it will be humans. Whatever happened to our relaxed, trusting New Zealand society that we are fast turning into an authoritarian, Orwellian society?

The Minister has admitted that the Local Government Law Reform Bill will not stop a dog from attacking a child. Therefore it will not work. United Future has a policy of supporting members’ bills going to a select committee, so that they can be debated there. Why will it not allow this issue to be re-debated? If we listen to the views of New Zealanders, we will hear overwhelming opposition to the Government’s stupid legislation. It will not work; people will not microchip their dogs. All we are doing is creating a problem. If the bill is passed, we will look back in a little bit of time and say we got it wrong. Why can we not admit that fact honestly now? We got it wrong. Let us pass the Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill today. All it requires is for New Zealand First and United Future, which already admit that the microchipping of dogs will not work, to be honest and say to the people of New Zealand that they are sorry, they got it wrong, and they are big enough and wise enough to admit that and change their minds.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) Link to this

I start by saying that bad cases create bad law. The case of Carolina Anderson galvanised this Parliament, and I acknowledge the members’ comments to that effect. If I thought the proposal in the Local Government Law Reform Bill would, in some way, prevent a further attack, such as the one on Carolina Anderson, I would vote for it. In fact, I would cross the floor of the House to do so—as would most members of Parliament. But the fact is that bill will not prevent further attacks.

I congratulate Jeannette Fitzsimons. She chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee, which listened to the submissions and looked at the facts around the issue. Jeanette has come to a very honourable position, based on those facts. In fact, submissions were made to the select committee—although I was not there throughout the whole process—that the legislation might hinder the prevention of dog attacks on children, because it would add a cost of compliance to the registration of dogs, and would therefore be likely to drive more dogs into an unregistered position. Therefore, councils would not have a record of where dangerous dogs were. Of course, if a dangerous dog were to attack a child, such as in the case of Carolina Anderson, once it was apprehended it would be destroyed. So, in my view, the argument that the dog would come back for a second dose, and that therefore it would help in some way if it were microchipped, is a very slim one.

I ask Labour members why they do not just look at the facts, instead of being driven by this brainless, mindless, ideological view that somehow that legislation would help. As I said, bad cases make bad law. So I ask Labour to vote down that bill. The National Party supports the member’s bill of Jeanette Fitzsimons with some reservations about the exemptions in it—but we support it none the less.

I say to the House tonight that people in rural New Zealand have looked at this issue, and they are not, generally, unreasonable. It is an unusual circumstance when rural New Zealanders rise up and say they will protest to Parliament. That does not happen in the way that some members imply it does. In fact, that group does not come here regularly; its last major protest on Parliament grounds, before the “flatulence tax” protest, took place in 1984 under the previous Labour Government. That protest was because of the major, major changes Labour was making to the rural sector at that stage. Rural New Zealanders, through their lobby group called Federated Farmers, have estimated that the Local Government Law Reform Bill will cost up to $3 million a year. It will not prevent one single attack and it will potentially result in more dogs—not fewer—being unregistered in New Zealand. The legislation will not achieve a single thing.

Further, the microchipping technology itself was debated in the select committee. One submitter said a microchip could be inserted into a 6-month-old dog, and by the time it is 12 months old the microchip might have disappeared. It would have gone into the body fat of the dog—depending on the breed of dog, of course—and no transponder or reader of that microchip would work any more. I will explain to the House why that may be the case. Each and every member of this House, I imagine, has been to a supermarket—although I suspect that some Ministers with high salaries on the Government side of the House have not. Members will know that, occasionally, the reader at the checkout does not work, so the shop assistants have to go back and check. Exactly the same thing applies with this technology. Therefore, it is not even foolproof. So microchipping is faulty technology, it is expensive, it will not prevent dog attacks, it will raise the cost of compliance substantially—particularly in rural New Zealand—and it will not prevent one attack on one child. If a member on the Government side of the House can take a call and explain to the House tonight the logic in proceeding with that legislation, then we will be all ears.

I tell the honourable Minister Mark Burton, who spoke earlier, that he should get up to speed with the facts around this issue, for goodness’ sake! He should not be dragged along by the very junior Government whip—who clearly has no understanding of this issue—and be whipped into voting for something that, ultimately, as the member for Taupo, he will regret.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this

I have listened very carefully in order to hear whether some evidence would be offered in rebuttal of the points I made in my speech, and I have heard none. The arguments that have been put forward are that microchipping was part of a package of dog control measures and that if we remove it, the package will somehow unravel. But the rest of the package has been in force for 3 years, and it is working quite well without the bit that will come into force on 1 July. Nobody has offered any argument as to why that situation cannot just continue.

Then, of course, we heard about the children who have been attacked. All of us feel deeply about that, as any human being would. Gordon Copeland said that if the legislation prevented one attack on a child, it would be worth passing. I agree, but nobody in this House tonight has offered one shred of evidence that the legislation would do so. Nobody has come up with a single skerrick of evidence, let alone proof—and I have been listening for it—that microchipping would make children any safer. I would be prepared to change my vote right now if someone could convince me microchipping would work, but nobody has actually even tried to do so.

Then, of course, New Zealand First negotiated that there would be a review. A review is what the Government always offers people to try to get them to support something for a while, because who knows where those people will be in 3 years’ time anyway, when it is time for a review. What do members think a review after 3 years would find, given that the national dog database would be up and running, the money would have been spent, microchippers would be in all the council rooms and vet rooms, and 3 years’ worth of young puppies would have been chipped? It would be very hard to overturn the practice at that stage. If members can vote for a bill tonight without a shred of evidence that it will work, they can just as easily vote, in a review in 3 years’ time, to do nothing.

This bill is about dogs, and clearly it is about poodles, because I can only conclude that the poodles are in the House tonight—three in one party and seven in another. Those parties are subjecting dog owners to this totally unnecessary fuss because they have promised the Prime Minister. I tell farmers, dog owners, and common-sense members of the public that United Future and New Zealand First have let them down tonight.

But it is not the end. The Local Government and Environment Committee still has a Local Government Law Reform Bill before it. Metiria Turei has put up at the select committee an amendment that will do basically the same as this bill, and so, I understand, has David Carter. There will be a majority in that committee for Ms Turei’s amendment. It will come back to the House. There is time for those members who have voted against the bill tonight to reconsider. I challenge them to come up with one shred of evidence that the microchipping of dogs will protect one child in any situation whatsoever, because they have not done so tonight.