10. JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this
to the Associate Minister of Local Government
What publicity has she, or the Department of Internal Affairs, run explaining the microchipping of working dogs to farmers?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) Link to this
Since the Dog Control Amendment Act was passed in 2003, including provisions relating to microchipping, the Department of Internal Affairs has provided information to all relevant parties about the microchipping requirements coming into force from 1 July 2006. The department has not run any publicity specifically relating to the exemption of working dogs from microchipping.
What right did she ever have to arrogantly assume the outcome of the parliamentary legislative process before authorising the expenditure of thousands upon thousands of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA Link to this
I reiterate that the decision to amend the Dog Control Act in 2003 included provisions regarding microchipping.
Hon Marian HobbsWhat is the Government going to do, given the very recent changes concerning the exemption of working dogs from microchipping requirements?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA Link to this
The Government is working closely with Local Government New Zealand and the local government sector to ensure that they are prepared to deal with the new changes from 1 July 2006. The department has prepared a one-page information sheet for councils setting out the changes and possible issues that they will need to consider over the next few days. This will be circulated this afternoon.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Could I ask the Minister whether the real answer to Mr Carter is that until last night, that precisely was the law—voted for by National—and perhaps he should get some legal advice from some of his colleagues, as that was the law until last night and that is why putting out the advertising would be justified?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA Link to this
I can confirm that. Last night National successfully argued that we can have one law for some and one law for others. It just does not like the implications of that. [ Interruption]
Madam SPEAKERIf some members wish to remain in the Chamber would they please respect the requirement that those who are asking questions are heard in silence.
Did the Minister consult the Prime Minister for the Prime Minister’s approval on spending taxpayers’ money on a farm dog microchipping campaign before Parliament had even worked its way through the legislative process, or did she decide to waste thousands upon thousands of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars all by herself?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA Link to this
I reiterate that the decisions affecting microchipping were made in 2003, and decisions around ensuring that people had accurate information were made from that time on. The clarification around advertising in this regard was set out in answer to written question 6358 from David Carter.
Eric RoyDid the Minister consult the Minister of Agriculture about how to spend taxpayers’ money on this brochure on farm dog microchipping before Parliament had even worked its way through the legislative process, or did she decide to waste thousands upon thousands of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars all by herself?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA Link to this
As the question has been repeated I am happy to repeat the answer. The decisions affecting microchipping were actually made in 2003. From that time until this time any responsible Government would ensure that people had accurate information around the laws on this particular matter.
Peter BrownWould this be an issue at all if it had not been necessary to amend the local government legislation at this point in time?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA Link to this
Regarding the information campaign, the decisions on making sure that people had accurate information would have continued. When National successfully argued only last night that we can have one law for some and one law for others, that raised issues, but we will work with local government to make sure that it gets accurate information regarding exemption provisions for working dogs.
Are the reasons for the Minister’s assumption that microchipping legislation would be passed the Labour Government’s blind fixation on imposing microchipping on an unwilling public and the fact that she, Helen Clark, and the Labour-led Government are so arrogant that they thought they could ignore public opinion?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA Link to this
The decisions around making sure people received accurate information were based on decisions made by Parliament in 2003. Last night Parliament—or a number of parties—changed its mind. We need to make sure that people receive accurate information. We are working with local government in this regard.
Moana MackeyHas the Minister seen any reports on the opinions of the member who asked the question, John Carter, expressed in a speech he gave in this House in 1996 on the Dog Control Act in which he said that microchipping was a sensible way of identifying dogs, that New Zealand should move towards microchipping of all dogs, and that local government would inevitably take this up as a sensible way of identifying and controlling our dog population; and does she believe that this is another example of a National flip-flop?
Is the Minister aware that under the Dog Control Act any local authority may be able to exempt all dogs from microchipping?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA Link to this
The Dog Control Act and any amendments made thereto are the responsibility of the local authority to implement. Just last night decisions were made exempting working farm dogs, and the local authorities will be obliged to implement the Act as it reads.
Hon Maurice WilliamsonRt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Is it not the case that in connection with the question asked by Mr Williamson, the answer lay in providing him with a mirror?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA Link to this
Most certainly. If the definition applies to National flip-flops then it would be quite accurate.