Local Government Law Reform Bill

I move, That the Local Government Law Reform Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the bill is to refine the legislative framework within which local authorities operate in order to reflect recent policy decisions, clarify existing provisions, and improve the effectiveness of regulatory tools.

I first acknowledge the hard work of the Local Government and Environment Committee, in hearing submissions and preparing the report we are discussing today, within a relatively tight time frame, and I also acknowledge the excellent work of the officials from the Department of Internal Affairs local government policy group, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Ministry of Transport. The time frame was driven by the provisions of Part 7 of the bill, which deal with two anomalies in the Rates Rebate Act 1973. Those amendments must be passed by 1 July in order to ensure that those eligible for assistance are able to receive their full entitlement, as intended.

From 1 July there will be a significant increase in the number of people eligible for assistance to pay their rates. In most cases, the income threshold under which people will be eligible for a full rebate is to increase from $7,400 to $20,000. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr Burton. There really is just far too much chatter. Would those people who are standing up please move and talk to others outside the Chamber. Please be seated, everyone.

I am sure members will want to hear this part; it is of great interest to their constituents. In addition, there will be increases in the maximum rebate from $200 to $500, and the additional income allowance for each dependant is to increase from $156 to $500. Therefore, whereas in the 2004-05 rating year fewer than 4,000 people actually received a rebate, members will be thrilled to know that up to 300,000 New Zealanders will be eligible for a rates rebate as a result of these changes. These changes will have a positive impact on many New Zealanders, particularly on older people and others on low incomes. I am pleased to note this part of the bill has been reported back without amendment. A number of complex issues were raised in submissions; they will be the subject of further policy work.

Much of this bill is technical in nature, reflecting the robust nature of the policy and legislative process this Labour-led Government ran in 2001-02. That process led to the rewriting of the three main pieces of local government law: the Local Government Act, the Local Government (Rating) Act, and the Local Electoral Act.

The committee has responded to the 49 submissions it received by recommending several changes to the bill as introduced. I will now address some of the more important of them.

Part 1 deals with amendments to the Dog Control Act. A number of changes were introduced in this bill in order to help to further improve public safety around dogs. Those changes include clarifying that dangerous and menacing dog classifications apply across New Zealand, which provides enhanced abilities for dog control officers to seize dogs that have attacked; dealing with disqualification; and increasing the penalties for irresponsible dog owners. The Government does not agree with the amendments made by the select committee that would limit microchipping to only dangerous or menacing dogs. Microchipping is not—and never was—intended to be the complete answer to dangerous dog issues. A microchip cannot stop a dog from biting or mauling, nor can a microchip stop a dog from behaving in a menacing fashion. The value of microchipping, however, is as a simple and permanent way of identifying dogs and linking them to a particular owner. That makes it easier for councils to keep track of lost, stolen, roaming, menacing, or dangerous dogs.

The committee has amended Part 2 on litter control, to allow local authorities to retain an infringement fee where a litter control officer appointed by the local authority issues the notice. I concur with the committee’s concerns about littering and the unlawful dumping of waste, and I concur that a local authority should be able to retain the infringement fees to help offset the costs associated with enforcement, without recourse to the courts.

Part 4 makes amendments to the Local Government Act 2002. The committee has reported this part of the bill with several additional amendments. The committee has recommended that council-controlled organisations formed in the last half of a financial year should not be required to complete a statement of intent for the balance of that year. The committee recommended clarifying the scope of local authority powers to donate money and resources outside of the district, to include donations of money and resources to support international initiatives that share information and experience. The committee also recommended clarifying the consultation requirements around the disposal of parks, in recognition of the special nature of parks as a source of recreation and visual amenity for all. The committee has made amendments to clarify that development contributions levied under the Local Government Act 2002 are not available to be challenged through the processes under the Resource Management Act 1991 or the Building Act 2004. It was always the intent of the legislation that like should be treated as like, and that all challenges in respect of funding mechanisms should be treated in the same way.

Most members will be aware that local authorities are in the final steps of adopting long-term council community plans for the period from 2006 through to 2016. Some of the changes in this bill would require further information to be included in those plans, though most of them will be finalised in the coming days and weeks. I note that the committee has addressed this issue by including transitional provisions that clarify that those plans do not have to immediately incorporate amendments that are otherwise required by this bill. Rather, local authorities will be expected to attend to such matters when they first amend their new plans, and I think that makes sense.

Part 6 contains amendments to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. In particular, the bill empowers local authorities to offer ratepayers the option of making a lump-sum contribution towards the cost of a capital project. The provisions are quite detailed, but, as the committee notes, that is necessary in order to provide the clarity and certainty that local authorities were looking for. A lump-sum contribution is a contract, in effect, between a ratepayer and the local authority. The ratepayer undertakes to pay the contribution, and the local authority commits to funding the project in a certain way. Those decisions are binding on the future ratepayers of the relevant land, and on future councils. All parties must be very clear about that and have full information on the costs, benefits, and risks involved in taking up an option to make a contribution.

Part 8 contains amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998. The select committee has confirmed this part of the bill as introduced, clarifying that local authorities and Transit New Zealand may enforce bus and transit lanes, and that the police may issue infringement notices where a third party, such as a local authority or Transit New Zealand, provides the police with evidence of a breach. The committee also confirms that the Minister of Finance has discretion as to the amount of the infringement fee that an enforcement authority may retain for infringement of the rules relating to special vehicle lanes.

The committee has also noted that the amendments contained in Part 8 expire on 1 July 2009. That is the expiry date of the Transport Act 1962, which contains local authorities’ traffic enforcement powers. The timing of the expiry will allow the transit lane enforcement powers under the Land Transport Act 1998, and the traffic enforcement powers under the Transport Act 1962, to be reviewed at the same time.

In the course of deliberating on Part 8, relating to offences in special vehicle lanes, the committee received requests from three councils to validate infringement notices issued for those offences in the period from August 2002 to December 2005. Validation in those circumstances would undermine the principles of natural justice.

It is highly desirable that this bill be enacted before 1 July, so that those who need and deserve support under the expanded rates rebate scheme are able to receive the full level of entitlement. I trust members will bear that in mind during the coming debate.

The Local Government Law Reform Bill is typical of a lazy, hopeless, tired, out-of-touch Government that has lost its way. The bill absolutely reflects a Minister who has no sense of what is happening in local government in New Zealand. The tragedy with this bill is that it touches on little, minor details, when local government is crying out for the need to have a Government that gives leadership and lets local government do things that the people want. And this Minister comes up with a few dribs and drabs! It is an absolute disgrace.

Local government authorities around this country are finally waking up to what this Government is doing to it. When the Government started out, it promised local government so much. It promised to allow local authorities to make decisions on behalf of their communities. It gave local government a thing called “the power of general competence”. Ever since then, local government has become more and more bogged down in compliance, rules, regulations, and costs that have been imposed on them by this Government, this Minister, and previous Ministers of this Helen Clark - led, socialist Labour Government.

I have to say that local authorities are at last waking up across the country. We are beginning to see local authorities starting to tell their ratepayers why the rates local authorities impose on them are going up so much, and it is absolutely sheeted home to this Government that it is continuing to pass responsibilities, costs, and laws that local government has to enforce. This Government is being found out. It knows that, at last—and it has taken a while—local government is starting to expose this Government for what it is.

I now turn to two or three things in this bill that are seriously alarming. The matter of microchipping dogs I will leave to my colleagues Eric Roy and David Carter, who will talk about that matter, but I make this one point on microchipping. One thing the Minister has said is absolutely right: microchipping a dog will not stop one dog biting one person. It will not stop one dog attack.

💬 Hon Member: Is that what the Minister said?

The Minister said that just now. We could just about have supported microchipping if this Minister had said that, after a period of time, every dog that was found not to be microchipped would be put down. Then maybe there would be some sense in the measure. But, quite honestly, that Minister will never do that, and we will have a microchipping regime that does nothing except cost people money and encourage less enforcement.

I will talk about other important things, such as the Local Electoral Act 2001, and the fact that in that Act territorial authorities and regional authorities were given the authority to establish Māori wards or Māori constituency. There is no place for discrimination in our society, but in local authorities that is exactly what is happening—and it works against all races. In the communities of some authorities where the majority of people are Māori, it actually works against them and precludes them from having the say they should rightly have on a democratic basis. In other communities where the majority of people are non-Māori, it works against them. It works against the whole of society. The National Party has consistently spoken out against this issue and, when given the opportunity, it will certainly change that Act. The Minister referred to that Act.

This bill will allow local government to make decisions to spend ratepayers’ money in order to give cash donations to other authorities and to other countries. The National Party is adamantly opposed to ratepayers’ money being spent in that way. If the good citizens of every local authority, or any local authority in New Zealand, wanted to make a cash donation, then good on them—so they should and so they do. But we do not need to have good, hard-earned ratepayers’ money being spent by the council on behalf of their community when members of the community can do it for themselves.

New sections 139 and 139A, to be inserted in the Local Government Act 2002 by clause 34 of the bill, are about minor boundary changes within regional parks. The hoops the local authorities will have to go through to make some minor change, as a consequence of this law, are just another example of this Government imposing silly, senseless costs on local government—

💬 Anne Tolley: On ratepayers.

—on ratepayers—when just a modicum of common sense could have and should have applied. We would have to go through a huge cost to achieve a minor boundary change, or a realignment, involving an area of 10, 20, or 5 square metres. It is just a nonsense and should not be in the bill.

Then we come to the matter of the long-term council community plans.

That sounds expensive.

The member had better believe it. I will use the example of just one local authority up north. For that council to produce the long-term council community plan—people should remember that this is a draft, mind, not the final thing; it has to go through all the final stuff—

💬 Mark Blumsky: Then it has to be audited.

—finally, it has to be audited, as well—cost its ratepayers in excess of $500,000. That was for just one draft. Mark Blumsky, Sandra Goudie, other members, and I have gone around local government authorities throughout New Zealand, and some local authorities have told us it has cost in excess of $1 million to produce this book. The local authority had to go out and consult. It had to advertise that it was going out with this million-dollar document—and three people turned up. It would have been better if the Government had given the council a few bob and told it to go and address three people.

Well, the fact is—here we go again. The principle of the long-term council community plans is actually fine. It makes local government have a look underground and up top and to see what is going on, which is a good thing, so that we do not have any shocks or surprises in the future and can plan ahead. There is nothing wrong with that concept. The National Party actually introduced it in 1995. It is a good concept and it has been working fine.

But the way in which this Government has since insisted it be implemented is so compliance-costly that it is causing huge costs. So far it is estimated to have cost ratepayers across this country—and this is not the audits, but the actual production of the long-term council community plans—in excess of $50 million. It would probably be as much as $100 million to produce a draft booklet. All but three of those booklets have had to be signed off by the Audit Office, and the auditors have said that their costs will now be up around $8 million. Quite honestly, those sorts of things will be addressed by the next National Government when it is in power after the next election.

Finally, I will make one point with regard to the Land Transport Act—and my colleagues might talk about the Rates Rebate Act, because I have run out of time to talk about the costs of implementing that Act. The fact is that this Government is now going to allow the staff of Transit New Zealand to become policemen. That is dopey. The police cannot actually do their job at all properly anyway, and now the Government is giving them the authority to issue tickets for all sorts of silly things. It is nonsense. That was never intended in the Land Transport Act.

There are lots of issues, and we will be discussing those when we come to the Committee stage—probably next week. I conclude by saying that the National Opposition has lots of issues of concern, and we are representing the ratepayers of this nation. But we have been immensely pleased with, and helped by, the staff of the Local Government and Environment Committee. We thank Beth Watson and the people who worked with us for all they did to help, because without them we would not have made the progress that we have. We are very pleased they have assisted us in the way they have done, and I say that especially from an Opposition point of view. But I say to that Minister, and to the Government, that local government is finally finding them out. As we go around the country we are getting more and more negative comments about Helen Clark, Mark Burton, and the Labour Government.

If National members think that 300,000 people finding they may be eligible for a rates rebate of up to $500 as at 1 July is a trivial thing, then that shows where their priorities are. They are certainly not with the good citizens of New Zealand—certainly not with the ratepayers of New Zealand. The Government is committed to a close and collaborative working relationship with local government, and we certainly value and treasure our investment, and our combined effort, in that regard.

I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee members for their hard work on the Local Government Law Reform Bill—to Steve Chadwick and her team, I say thank you. I would also like to thank the officials, the select committee clerks, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who met tight deadlines to ensure that the bill could be reported back here today in the second reading.

To a large extent, I really want to focus my comments on my particular interest around the amendments made to the Dog Control Act 1996, which are covered in Part 1. As reported back, that part makes a number of changes designed to improve the administration of the Act and to better reflect the intentions of provisions in the original legislation. We support those changes, which include the committee’s recommendations relating to entry into houses for enforcement purposes. They provide further tools and powers for dog control officers to be able to effectively achieve the objectives of the Act.

The committee has also made some useful changes relating to the definition of “disability assist dogs”, which means that all the types of dogs listed in that definition—guide dogs, companion dogs, epilepsy assist dogs—are entitled to enter public places and to travel on planes and buses, for example. So that is a good thing. The system for approving new types of disability assist dogs is now much simpler as a result of the committee’s changes. Now, new types are added to the list by Order in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Local Government after consultation with the Minister for Disability Issues—and that is as it should be. Changes have also been made to the schedule of infringement offences and fines in order to fill some gaps in the current Act, and as a result of some of the gaps identified by submitters as additional suggestions.

These changes will enhance the existing comprehensive package of dog control measures aimed at improving drug control and public safety around dogs. However, the select committee also recommended an amendment that we believe would severely undermine the effectiveness of these changes, which are aimed at ensuring more responsible dog ownership and improving public safety. That amendment proposes to replace universal microchipping with microchipping for only dangerous or menacing dogs.

All dogs have the capacity to bite. Only a small proportion of dogs would be classified as dangerous because of their breed or menacing because of their behaviour. It is the Government’s view that a comprehensive microchipping regime covering all dogs is the best way to identify dogs and their owners. I reiterate that all dogs have the capacity to bite, and the Government does not agree with that amendment recommended by the select committee.

We acknowledge that microchipping by itself is not able, and was never intended, to stop dog attacks—just as the current system of having a collar and dog tag will not stop a dog biting. But when used in conjunction with a full range of strengthened dog control measures, such as the national dog database, enhanced powers to seize dogs, and tougher penalties for irresponsible dog owners, the full benefits of microchipping will be felt, and will continue to have effect over time.

The value of microchipping is that it is a simple, permanent, and reliable way of identifying dogs and linking them to particular owners, thus making it easier for councils to keep track of lost, stolen, roaming, menacing, or dangerous dogs. Microchipping also allows councils to take effective action against an owner, in the event of a dog attack, as part of enforcing that owner’s responsibilities. Good owners are responsible—and that means taking full responsibility for a dog’s behaviour. This measure will also mean better dog owner education and, in the case of badly behaved dogs that may bite, there will be strengthened enforcement provisions to hold dog owners to account so that overall public safety can be improved.

Microchipping means that people will be less likely to sell or give away a dog without the new owner being aware of the dog’s history. Microchipping will make it harder for people to pass off someone else’s dog as their own. Lost dogs will be more readily connected with their owners. Owners of microchipped dogs, including collarless dogs that have been seized after attacking people or stock, will be more easily identified and have enforcement provisions applied to them.

Having an integrated national dog database means that councils can share information about problem dogs easily and identify roaming animals that may be from outside their areas or districts. Farmers would benefit from the greater likelihood of tracing and taking action against owners of dogs involved in attacks on stock. Speaking anecdotally, many of those attacks involve registered dogs that are not wearing their collars. At present, dogs are merely shot if they are found to have worried stock. A microchipped dog would enable a dog’s owner to be identified, and enforcement measures could then be taken to recoup costs for the damage done.

Dogs first registered from 1 July will be affected. Let me just say that again: all existing dogs that are registered now will not need to be microchipped. People will not have to take in their already registered farm dog or family pet to be microchipped unless it is classified as a dangerous or menacing dog—I think that point may have escaped the Opposition.

Microchipping is a very small, one-off cost in overall dog ownership, and for farm owners in particular, it is tax deductible. In the event of universal microchipping, that cost is likely to reduce over time as technology improves and the competition to provide services increases. The insertion of a microchip can be done by anyone, as long as a vet or council officer verifies the implant. Both councils and vets may provide an implant verification service.

The Government is committed to doing all it can to stop more vicious attacks from occurring by implementing tighter controls around dog ownership, including, but not limited to, microchipping, and by ensuring dog owners are more accountable in the event of attacks. This measure is being taken in response to public calls for action to improve public safety in relation to dogs. Parliament has also responded to calls from councils that wanted greater powers to take decisive action against irresponsible dog owners. For this reason, the Government continues to assert that microchipping, in conjunction with a range of strengthened dog control provisions, aims to achieve this. I hope that common sense on the matter will prevail.

I am very keen to take a call on the Local Government Law Reform Bill, as well. This bill amends several Acts of Parliament—in fact nine different Acts, ranging from the Dog Control Act, the Litter Act, through several local government Acts, and the Land Transport Act—and a number of minor amendments take place. There is one exception. This bill has quite a major impact in relation to dogs, which I will get on to in a moment. I have to say, from hearing submissions on this bill, that there are obviously some other areas that submitters were quite keen to see the Government move on, as well.

This bill does not really address the concerns of local government at large. It fritters with some of the minor areas, in terms of management. It does allow for an increase in a rates rebate scheme, and although that in itself is something we understand and we support for those who cannot manage their rates, this bill does not make any allocation at all on the administration. Therefore, it imposes another significant cost on local government. In fact, that is what this bill does. It increases the costs of local government. That should be the name of the bill, and I may move an amendment when we get to the Committee stage because I think that more accurately describes what this bill does.

If this Government were serious about addressing some of the needs of local government, it should have addressed issues like the Resource Management Act. It could have engaged in a number of things, rather than frittering around the edges. Last week I met with my local mayors in a mayoral forum, which I have on a reasonably regular basis. They asked me this question, and members of the Labour Government might like to respond: “Why do you as a Parliament impose standards upon local government that you don’t do yourselves as Government?”. I said: “Please explain.” They said: “We have this consultation process coming out of our ears. We have a formula, a prescribed methodology, and a process of consultation, consultation, consultation, but when Cabinet decides whether to have a tax cut it just makes a decision within Cabinet. Cabinet does not go through the process that you require local government to go through. This all adds costs, and we have to rate our citizens, our local people, in order to deliver all of these things.” Local government is not happy with this Government, and to a large extent it is not happy with this reform legislation that we are discussing today.

Let me give a specific example. There is no better example of where this Government has lost the plot than with what it has done over the microchipping laws and the management of menacing dogs. Yes, there is an issue. No one wants to see little Carolina Andersons, or any other child or any adult, chomped on by a dog. Let us be quite clear about that. It is inappropriate that people even keep those kinds of dogs in New Zealand. That is probably what we should be addressing. But to put in place placebo legislation and say that will fix it, when in actual fact it will do absolutely nothing, is wrong.

The Minister who spoke first said that this bill will not stop dogs from biting people. Absolutely it will not. He went on to say that it gives a method, or words to that effect, of identifying dogs to owners. That is the first point I want to address. About three metropolitan local authorities said that they think this is a good idea. It is fine if they think it is a good idea. I think they are Auckland, Wellington, and I cannot remember the other one. But to each of those authorities that were supporters, I asked this question during the submission process: “How many dogs that have bitten or menaced people have you not been able to identify the owners thereof?”. I thought that was a reasonable question. There was not one. No one came up and said: “We have a problem with 21 dogs, or we have a problem with one dog, or whatever.” When they were questioned before the select committee, not one authority could say it could not identify an owner. That is the first point.

The second point is that most people have an expectation that microchipping works. They have the view that if they see a dog and want to know who the owner is, then they point a thing like a woman’s hairdryer at it and it gives a number. That is not how it works. Firstly, if we have a problem identifying the owner of a dog, most probably it is not registered. If it is not registered, it will not be microchipped. If we are going to impose a greater cost on registration by microchipping, there is even less reason to register a dog. That is a crucial point. Secondly, the actual microchip reader is a little portable gadget. It is about 125 centimetres across; it is a half sphere. One can hold it in one’s hand and then get the dog to be stationary, then one virtually has to hold the microchip reader at skin contact—

💬 Mark Blumsky: Above the Rottweiler?

We will get to Hank in a minute. One has to virtually hold it on the dog’s skin, and directly above. So the dog has to be stationary, it has to be contained, and the microchip is then read. [Interruption] Let us not get ahead of the story here.

The other thing about the microchips is that they are 7 millimetres long and 1 millimetre in diameter. Their efficacy and longevity is another question we will come to. It is significantly harder to read a microchip implanted into long-haired dogs. In dogs with a wet coat it is almost impossible. That is where the woman’s hairdryer is needed—the menacing dog is caught, dried off with a woman’s hairdryer, then searched for the microchip, which may or may not be viable. Why do I say “may or may not be viable”? It is for this reason—and I will give members the example of a lady who imported two golden retrievers from England to Nelson. The dogs had to be microchipped before they could travel internationally and the microchips were read as the dogs left Heathrow. But when they arrived in New Zealand one of the microchips would not work. It could not be read.

Then there is the issue experienced by a farmer who decided that he must try this. He took his dog to the vet to get it microchipped. Immediately afterwards, it could not be read. He tried for half an hour to get a reading, holding the dog in all positions. Thinking the microchip was a dud, another microchip was implanted, and the result was that he got two readings. How reliable is that? It simply is not reliable—and I can see that the Minister is interested, so he should pay attention to this. I actually conducted a trial myself. I took a Rottweiler that had been microchipped to the vet for a reading—and I have to tell members that this was some Rottweiler. It weighed 70 kilograms and was under very good control. It was not my dog; I borrowed it. It had been microchipped about 7 years beforehand. After three-quarters of an hour we could not find the microchip. I said that this brought up the matter of efficacy, and the technician told me—and nobody has told members this—that if people want to be sure that the microchip in their dog is working, then they have to check it at least once every year.

We have had demonstration after demonstration all over the country by dog owners on the issues of efficacy and cost. It is not a matter of just one trip to the vet. If the microchipping of dogs is to have any effect at all, we need a warrant of fitness on the microchip. That just shows what a nonsense this is. The Government ought to be listening to those people who have some practical experience. Those people are the dog owners, Federated Farmers—the biggest group of dog owners in this country—and New Zealand kennel clubs, all of whom have come out against microchipping.

One of the many issues in the bill is the reporting of dead dogs clause, which I will have to get into during the Committee stage. Again, that clause is another nonsense. There are a number of things about this bill that will not fix the problem. If this Government is serious about menacing dogs—and it should be—then it ought to ban menacing dogs and ban people from owning them. Dogs should not be microchipped with an ineffective means of identification. This bill contains a number of things that we will get into during the Committee stage. The bill is a nonsense.

Listening to that speech made by the honourable Eric Roy—an MP whom I do actually admire and respect, for a range of reasons—is like listening to a farmer complaining about his antiquated tractor; it has only a crash gearbox, he cannot change gear on the move unless he double-declutches, there is no canopy, no windscreen wiper, no central heating, and it exposes him to too much dust to plough in certain weather conditions. The answer is that he should buy a new tractor. He should get upskilled. He should upgrade with technology. If that member honestly believes that some of the problems that existed with early microchipping will still exist in 1, 2, or 5 years’ time, then it is time he bought some of those old magazines that could help him upskill himself in science and technology. Popular Mechanics is the magazine he might be familiar with.

I have here a photograph of Carolina Anderson. Lest we forget, this is where it all started. This whole issue really came to a head—despite other attempts that had been made—when Carolina Anderson was mauled and seriously injured. Members should look at the photograph and remember we where started. Everyone in this House got upset. There was not one politician who did not want something done. So the Government looked at the dog registration system. It found that it was messy and non-compliant. It decided that a new system was needed, and it made sense to have that new system electronically based.

Members across this House participated in the select committee that considered the matter. Jim Peters, who participated on behalf of New Zealand First, was probably the most experienced local government man ever to set foot in this House. The House decided that it needed a dog registration system that was effective. It decided that the old system was rubbish, and it decided that if it was to put in place a new system, then it should use an electronic mechanism.

This new system does away with the questions of ownership. We all know how that works. When a cocky’s dog slips his leash on the farm and goes straying because a bitch down the road is on heat, it does not have its collar on. There starts the argument. The dog is picked up, and the owner finally fronts up to get it. The dog control officer tells him his dog is not registered, and out come the excuses—“Oh, yes, it is.”; “Oh, we lost the collar.”; “Oh, the tag broke.”; “Oh, I did get it registered. We lost it.” The question of ownership is removed immediately, with a chip, and, if there is no chip, the dog can be shot—finish, end of discussion. The point is either we have a registration system in this country or we do not, gentlemen. We should make up our minds. If we are to do away with dog registration, well, heck, stop registering marriages, stop registering cars, stop registering everything—because one could apply the same argument over and over again if one wanted to. Either we want a registration system or we do not, and all of this House decided we did. That is the point.

The next point is whether there should be exemptions. We say that there should be no exemptions. We say we should have one law for all. We should have consistency in law. One law applies to every human being, regardless of colour, race, socio-economic background, ethnicity, or religion. It should be the same for dogs. To those who say that working dogs should be exempt, I ask them which working dogs. Do we mean pig dogs? Pig dogs are working dogs. Pig hunters rely on pig dogs to earn money. Rabbiters, who work for the Animal Health Board, have working dogs. Will they be exempt? No, we do not hear that argument. All we hear about are farm dogs.

Well, what is a farm dog? Does a casually employed farmer, a person who actually lives in town and works out in the country, have a farm dog if it is at home? How does one differentiate? What differentiates a huntaway from another dog found wandering around Aranui’s backstreets or in any suburb? I can just imagine Mr Roy turning up with a dog control officer to have a look at what is going on and finding a Mongrel Mob member standing there in front of the dog control officer, and, of course, if a dog is not registered, the mobster will say: “It is a working dog. It is a farm dog, because in the weekends the dog is out on our farm.” Come on! Where is the explanation? How does one define a farm dog, if one wants to exempt him? The bottom line is if nana’s poodle has to be chipped, so does the farm dog. I say: “Get over it; get on with it; no exemptions; one law for all.”

In terms of costs, I hear Mr David Carter, the multimillionaire, blabbing on about cost and about his farm. I would say that Mr Carter writes off, on his business expenses, more on a bottle of wine, on a night out with his cocky mates, than he would ever pay for one chipped dog, and he would zap it on his credit card, and he will not even blink. He would spend more on wine in one evening than it would take to chip 100 dogs. Because that man enjoys the fine life, he enjoys the best that money can buy, and where he can write it off to expenses, he will; and where he can get it back in GST, he will.

Mr Carter is successful in business. He has been a successful farmer, because he knows how to work the system, and he knows that bleating on out there on the hustings about the expense of a $50 or $70 charge, is rubbish. He knows that. He is more intelligent than that, he is more business-wise than that, but it is a helluva political drum to be beating today, is it not? But if his business is as bad as that, if he is in as much trouble as that, then I suggest he get out of it. Because this expense is not going to break his already overflowing bank balance or his portfolios. He knows that. Mr Roy might be having more trouble down south, where it is harder to grow grass, except if he is dairying. But Mr Carter knows that farmers in this country will spend 10 times the amount to chip one dog, on going to a “conference” with a big dinner and where Colin Meads is a guest speaker! His talk about chipping being expensive is baloney, and he will get the GST back. He will get the GST back. Do we really want to address the problems and stop more Carolina Anderson - type incidents from occurring? Yes, we do.

The Minister is quite right: putting a chip in a dog will not stop the dog attacking, if it is going to. I say to Mr Blumsky that finding a stray dog that is owned by the type of person who has violent dogs that are not chipped, will allow the dog control officer to kill it. End of story! Therein the problem finishes. That really is what we are after. Farmers also know that since mad cow disease and foot-and-mouth disease the Europeans and Americans have become more selective about the products they buy. They insist now on traceability of product from the supermarket shelf right back to the farm gate and through the gate. They want to know everything that is happening on that farm in the way of best practice.

I am involved with a Māori incorporation. We are in sheep and beef. We have 7,500 dairy cows. By the way, 1,200 of our dairy cows are chipped. That is the first process towards chipping the whole lot. We do that because we want traceability and to be able to prove to our buyers overseas that our products are good and safe. I say to farmers in the National Party that the valuable quota markets that we are attempting to access and continue to maintain, want traceability from the paddock to the plate, on all products. Dogs, as farm animals, are part of that overseas market, where people want to know all about everything that happens. Members should not get wound up about not wanting to chip dogs, when farmers chip racehorses, pig dogs, and cows and that allows us to monitor and control what we produce and to prove the quality.

Lest we forget where this whole issue started, and for those people who want to play politics purely for the gain of politics, I just ask them to remember that Carolina Anderson was the starting point.

The Greens will be supporting the second reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill, because many of the changes made to it by the Local Government and Environment Committee are very good changes, in our view. Some are not, however, and I will deal with them in just a moment.

One of the very good amendments inserts new clause 9B, which substitutes a new section 36A of the Dog Control Act. The clause provides that only dogs classified as menacing or dangerous will be required to be microchipped. We have also inserted new clause 9G to require that any impounded dogs that are also menacing or dangerous are registered and microchipped before they are released. And, helpfully—on the advice of parliamentary counsel, I understand—territorial authorities will be able to recover the full cost of microchipping and registering those impounded dogs. I must say thank you to David Carter, who raised this issue initially, when the bill was introduced into the House, and notified members that microchipping was an issue that could be dealt with.

The Greens are enormously pleased that the National members on the select committee saw fit to get in behind the Greens and our amendment to the bill to repeal, effectively, the compulsory microchipping of dogs. That support from National clearly showed that the Greens provide solutions to community problems that transcend political boundaries, old and useless dichotomies. We develop solutions that are rational, responsible, and well considered, and we gather support for those solutions from across the House and the community. To that end, we welcome the support of Federated Farmers for the changes we have made, with the help of National, to the bill.

Compulsory microchipping of dogs is a serious issue. We must not impose on ordinary New Zealanders unnecessary costs or burdens that do not provide a demonstrable benefit to them or to their community. Despite the rhetoric from other parts of the House, not one single argument during the debate on this bill, or the debate on my co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons’ member’s bill, clearly proved that compulsory microchipping of all dogs would prevent one more tragedy. We cannot make law based on the hope that the changes we make will work. That is very poor lawmaking, indeed.

We have repeatedly heard the arguments in favour of compulsory microchipping. One is that it forms just one part of a suite of dog control measures and without it the others will not succeed. That is demonstrably untrue. We have had a large suite of measures in place, including microchipping of menacing and dangerous dogs but without compulsory microchipping, for some years now. Those other measures are working to manage dogs better—absolutely they are. So where is the evidence that compulsory microchipping, starting from July this year, will significantly add to the existing effective measures? There is no evidence, because compulsory microchipping simply will not make much difference. Microchipping will not identify a dog that has worried stock or hurt a person or a child. Microchipping will not identify or manage unregistered dogs. And, most important, a microchip will not, and cannot, stop a dog from hurting or killing a child. It simply cannot.

But the microchipping of dogs is not the only provision in this bill. This bill makes important changes to the Litter Act to increase penalties for littering, and we think that is a great thing. The provision to clarify that regional parks can be protected in perpetuity by Order in Council is welcome. It is a welcome relief for many communities. It will not resolve serious issues like those at Long Bay in Auckland, but it does mean that regional parks can be protected from inappropriate development and maintained for the benefit of future generations.

I have two areas of major disagreement with the bill. The first is the $100 fine for failing to notify a council that one’s dog has died. There has been some media coverage about this recently. The imposition of such a fine is unjust and is not reasonable. It is simply a means by which councils can make extra funds, for no significant public purpose, and I was very disappointed that that provision received support from members across the committee.

Finally, we are very strongly opposed to the change that allows a council to impound a car for the simple and sole reason that it does not display a current registration, a current warrant of fitness, or both. This is not about safety. Car registration, for example, is simply a car tax, and there are already provisions for ticketing these vehicles—fines up to or exceeding $400. The Government’s argument is that impounding those cars is necessary to deal with abandoned cars, but a car with registration is not, by definition, abandoned. A car might be old, it might be rusty, but it might be the one single means of transport for that family. This provision will allow a council to impound a car even though it obviously is being used—it might be full of groceries, it might contain a booster seat, and it might obviously be an essential part of a family’s asset base. Just because a family is poor and cannot afford to register their car does not mean that local government has the right to take that asset off them. That is an active attack on low-income people and cannot be justified.

This bill has highlighted a number of issues, and the debate on microchipping in particular has been a long and protracted one. There are lots of opportunities for parties in this House now to support the repeal of compulsory microchipping of all dogs. The community clearly does not want it. The farming community clearly does not want it. Not a single person, throughout all of the debate, has been able to demonstrate that it would protect a single child. Let us be responsible lawmakers. Thank you.

United Future will be supporting the second reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill, and I want to confine my remarks to just two areas: one to do with the microchipping of dogs, which has been very much on the agenda this afternoon, and the other one to do with the amendment to the Land Transport Act. I would like to say to Metiria Turei, who has just resumed her seat and who talked about evidence, that she should listen on, because that is exactly what I want to do in this debate in relation to dog attacks and the impact of microchipping on dogs.

Let us put some figures on the record, to start with. Dog attacks in New Zealand both in homes and on the streets are increasing, and increasing rapidly. In the 2 years to July 2003 we had 217 such attacks. In the 2 years to July 2005 we have had 300 such attacks, which is an increase of 38 percent. The number of attacks on roads and streets has gone from 46 to 65—an increase of 41 percent. It is quite relevant in this debate to fix the date when Carolina Anderson was attacked. She was attacked in January of 2003. As Ron Mark has said, those of us who were in Parliament at the time remember that vividly. We remember the reaction of the nation and the demand by the citizens of this nation that we, as a Parliament, address that problem. Since the date on which Carolina Anderson was attacked, the number of dog attacks has gone up significantly. In my view, Parliament would fail in its duty to communities, and especially to our children, were we to fail to act. For that reason, United Future will continue to support a dog microchipping regime in New Zealand.

With regard to that, I want to produce some evidence that I think Metiria Turei and others should listen to very carefully, regarding the situation in the state of New South Wales in Australia. Microchipping was introduced into New South Wales by an Act of its Parliament in 1998, based on the same system that we are now adopting in New Zealand—namely, that puppies from 1999 onwards would have to be microchipped. So 7 years have now gone by since microchipping was introduced in the state of New South Wales. Therefore, we have some evidence now as to whether it has made a difference in terms of the number of attacks by dogs.

What have the results of microchipping been in New South Wales? It is vitally important to have some accurate evidence on this matter, because of the anecdotal evidence that has been produced by so many people, without reference to any research or basis for their remarks. We have heard many of them—from both National and now the Greens—in this House today. So let us look at what has happened in New South Wales. Here are the figures. In 1997, before microchipping was introduced in that state, there were 521 dog attacks. By the way, there are about 1.3 million dogs in New South Wales. By 2001, when the microchipping regime was only about 3 years old, so therefore only about half complete, that number had dropped to 294 dog attacks. In 2003, which is the latest figure I have been able to get, the number of dog attacks in New South Wales had reduced to—I ask members to listen to this figure—167. The figure went from 521 in 1997 to 167 in 2003. What a contrast that is to our situation in New Zealand.

In New Zealand, as I have said, dog attacks have gone up by 40 percent since Carolina Anderson was attacked. This year alone, I have seen on television at least four stories about dog attacks on children. They continue to happen. Dog attacks are up by 40 percent on the figure that applied when Carolina Anderson was attacked. Across the Tasman in New South Wales, dog attacks under microchipping are down by a massive 70 percent. Attacks are up by 40 percent in New Zealand and down by 70 percent in New South Wales. The state of Victoria is now following the New South Wales example, because microchipping has been proven. It works, and it reduces the number of attacks, including those on children. I place that evidence before Parliament today. United Future is a party that likes to base its policy position on firm evidence. We should follow evidence, and not rhetoric, when we come to these matters.

Having said all that, I also say—this is well known to this nation and to this House—that at the Committee stage of this bill, the Hon David Carter will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to exempt working farm dogs from the microchipping regime. United Future will vote for that Supplementary Order Paper. Again, let us look at the evidence to see whether there is a case for exempting working farm dogs.

Ron Mark, who is no longer with us, rattled on about the definition of working farm dogs. They are already defined in the Act. The Act already states that a working farm dog is one that is kept solely or principally for the purposes of herding or driving stock. The word “principally”, by the way—for the benefit of those who may not know what it means—means 51 percent or more. So Ron Mark’s story about the Mongrel Mob guy who just takes his dog on the farm at the weekends is completely invalid. That dog is not a working farm dog under the New Zealand law at the moment, and nothing will change in that direction. It is quite clear to anyone with any common sense what a working farm dog is.

There are 250,000 working farm dogs in this country—40 percent of all dogs. Here are the figures about that 40 percent of all dogs. Those 250,000 dogs are responsible, on average, for 2 percent of dog attacks in this country each year. On average, that is four attacks a year. There are 250,000 dogs and four attacks a year. Again, that is the kind of evidence that this House should take into consideration. To put it the other way around, 60 percent of our dogs, the ones that are not working farm dogs, are responsible for 98 percent of all dog attacks and all dog bites. Those figures are based on ones provided by the Accident Compensation Corporation. There are similar figures for the number of dog attacks where people end up going to hospital after being attacked. It will be found that working farm dogs basically do not feature at all in those figures.

Ron Mark talked about religion. I do not know whether there are Muslim farm dogs. I do not know whether there are Muslim dogs, or Christian dogs, or dogs of any other sort of religion. I think Ron Mark went really wide of the mark when he came out with that very simplistic slogan, invented by Nanaia Mahuta—to my knowledge—that there should be one law for all dogs. It sounds great, but when one digs and gets down to some evidence, one realises the slogan is invalid. Therefore, United Future will definitely support the Supplementary Order Paper coming in from David Carter. By the way, I will have a Supplementary Order Paper as well. If David’s does not get through, there will be another chance—I hope—for Parliament in the Committee stage to vote twice on that issue.

I also want to mention the amendments to the Land Transport Act that are also part of this bill. The amendments to the Act in this bill deal mainly with what are called “special vehicle lanes”. At the time this bill was introduced—in fact, when I first heard about it—I was also concurrently aware that Porirua City Council and Transit New Zealand were working through an issue to do with the new four-lane arrangements going along Mana Esplanade, through what we commonly call the township of Plimmerton. New lanes, called T2 lanes, have been established. They are quite complex: drivers can park there sometimes, but not at other times. But essentially what has been done is to create four lanes in State Highway 1 along Mana Esplanade. People were saying we needed to have some law changes around the enforcement of by-laws for those new lanes; they are a unique set of lanes anywhere in the country, as far as I know. So I immediately drew it, firstly, to the Government’s attention and, secondly, to the attention of the Local Government and Environment Committee that it would be good if we could also address that issue in this bill, for the benefit of the citizens of Porirua City and, indeed, of all the people that go along State Highway 1.

Unfortunately, the Clerk’s Office has ruled that out of order. I do not quite understand that ruling, but that is what has been ruled, so it will not happen. I continue to urge the Government, and particularly the Minister of Local Government, to address quickly the issue that has arisen on Mana Esplanade, because lives are being endangered as we speak. As I said earlier—I think, in the first reading debate—it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured. We need some action to be taken regarding Mana Esplanade. Notwithstanding that it is not addressed in this bill, it is an issue that still needs to be addressed. Thank you.

Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa i te Whare. Recently across the Tasman the Liberal Party’s comments about Aboriginals, migrants, asylum seekers, and the people on board the Tampa were described as dog whistling. Prime Minister Howard was accused of “pitching a political message to a group of voters that other voters do not necessarily hear”. On these shores that same accusation was levelled at Dr Don Brash; his Ōrewa speech represented a similar type of dog whistling that catered to those who are predisposed to prejudice about the Treaty industry and race-based policies. Now, in this House, over these last few months, we have been witness to a curious form of dog whistling that draws on the emotive appeal of our most vulnerable—namely, the children.

The Māori Party will always speak up for, and on behalf of, the best interests of our tamariki. We are devastated like everyone else by the statistics that revealed that in the 7-year period from 1995 to 2002, 2,736 visits were made to public hospitals as a result of dog bites, the biggest majority of the victims being children under 10. Such figures should not be news to anyone here. The media have capitalised on the public fascination factor, with the typecast villains being bull mastiffs, American pit bulls, bull terrier crosses, Staffordshire crosses, and German shepherds taking centre stage for their vicious mauling of innocent children. In this context we absolutely accept the Local Government and Environment Committee’s recommendations that dogs classified as menacing or dangerous should be implanted with a microchip.

We were particularly impressed with the submission from the Gore District Council, which described the heavy burden that this bill would place on dog owners and local authorities. The Gore District Council urged us to limit the microchipping law to dogs that have been classified as dangerous or menacing, and to exempt rural working dogs from the microchipping requirement. It is a position that we would support. New Zealanders have had enough of the puncture wounds, the grazed faces, and the stitches and tears that flood our screens.

But the peculiar form of dog whistling that has accompanied the microchipping debate should not cloud our judgment to the mixture inherent in this omnibus bill. Because once the dogs are called off, there is a huge amount of other legislation to consider in this bill: the Rates Rebate Act 1973, the Litter Act 1979, the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Local Government Acts of 1974 and 2002, the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996, and the Land Transport Act 1998. In fact we note with some irony that, despite such a wide range of issues, the submissions raised even more issues for consideration—things such as waste management and levies, and fairness and justice in establishing constituencies and wards.

We were pleased to see a sensible recommendation from the select committee regarding long-term council community plans, which appear in the Local Government Act 2002. The select committee, I understand, suggested that no long-term council community plan for the period 2006 to 2016 can be rendered invalid on the grounds that it does not comply with any amendments made by this bill. That is a good thing—a long-term vision allowed to progress. It was, however, disappointing to see National’s comment that it believes the costs of auditing these long-term plans are too high for the added value they bring to the community. The Māori Party has been extremely interested in the local government results of the 2004-05 audits recently released by the Controller and Auditor-General. A key focus of those audits is that ratepayers have to a large extent focused on the consultation and decision-making processes of local government. A key concern in the 2004-05 report was that 12 local authorities had not complied with the requirement to make their summary report available by the statutory time frame, and, indeed, they were urged to lift their game and inform their communities promptly.

The Māori Party has been raising for quite some time the fact that there are significant issues with regional local authorities and their relationships with mana whenua. We had thought this bill would provide a chance to focus on that. As recently, however, as last night we had yet another example of the discriminatory effects of council actions, or, in this case, inaction, being revealed through the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill—a call for validation of illegal actions without so much as a 45c postage stamp being invested in consulting with the mana whenua, Rongowhakaata. This bill, while making broad changes to improve the effectiveness of regulatory tools, does nothing to address the status of council - tangata whenua relationships, or to solidify obligations for councils to recognise mana whenua status. In this respect we are greatly disappointed.

The select committee inserts a new section 356A into the Local Government Act 1974. The new section empowers local councils to remove any abandoned vehicle when that vehicle has no current evidence of vehicle inspection or no current licence label. The Māori Party is acutely aware that motor vehicle traffic crashes are a leading cause of injury, mortality, and hospitalisation amongst Māori, particularly young Māori. Professor Mason Durie has commented that the effect of injury to rangatahi is accentuated by the loss of the benefits that can flow from competent, healthy, and skilled whānau members. That is a long-term cost that we can ill-afford. Yet there has been little research identifying factors associated with crashes involving Māori, and no associated urgency in having available comprehensive crash data on safety measures such as occupant protection and driver’s-licence status. Until that information is available we believe that the recommendation to remove abandoned vehicles, or to impound a vehicle simply because it does not have a current vehicle inspection or licence, or both, is overly heavy-handed.

It also bears little comparison with the fact that about 20 percent of Māori are below the poverty line and situated in the bottom income bracket. In other words, the Māori poverty rate is over 50 percent more than that of non-Māori. On this day, International Justice for Cleaners Day, it is particularly timely to be considering the context of poverty as we consider the below-poverty wages earned by cleaners around the country—pay rates that keep them trapped in cycles of poverty. Keeping up to date with licensing requirement is virtually impossible when it comes to battling with income, employment, education, and health disparities.

There is also a potential issue under section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—the right to natural justice—in that car owners cannot be heard prior to their vehicle being seized. Section 25(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act also gives everyone who is charged with an offence the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law. The Māori Party believes that the right to natural justice and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty are important principles of justice, and require far more consideration than the select committee or the bill has given them.

There is no denying that the Local Government Law Reform Bill is a right dog’s breakfast. The Māori Party will agree to dangerous, menacing, and intimidating dogs being microchipped in the interests of children and their safe well-being, but our preference would have been for such beasts to be muzzled or restrained. Simply microchipping dogs will never prevent the savage dog attacks that we have seen in the last few years. But there are other great concerns that we have about this bill. The decision to remove abandoned vehicles without giving the owners a right of reply is one; the complete and utter denial of the importance of consultation with mana whenua is the other. The Māori Party will not fall in line with the dog whistling that this Parliament has been subjected to—the pitching of a political message to one group of voters that other voters do not necessarily hear. We want to vote in the interests of all New Zealanders, and to really consider the impact of this bill—as with any—and how it achieves genuine progress for Aotearoa. Such a move requires that we will vote against this bill. Kia ora tātou.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak against the Local Government Law Reform Bill and to say what a sad day it really is for parliamentary process. This bill was sent off to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Submissions were heard, and they were overwhelmingly against microchipping dogs. The committee heard those submissions and recommended to the House that not all dogs be microchipped, just those that were menacing and dangerous, which seems sensible and common sense. But we have just had Nanaia Mahuta stand up in this House and say that what will happen now is that when this bill gets to the Committee stage, the Government will ignore the submissions, ignore the concerns of the people of New Zealand, and, with the support of New Zealand First and United Future, jam through this bill, against the wishes of New Zealanders.

So the first concern that one has to have is why we have select committees at all. Why should New Zealanders make submissions when this Government just ignores them?

There is a second concern, which I will ask Ron Mark about. He spoke out wildly in support of this bill and microchipping—I think if Ron Mark had his way we would all be microchipped as well so New Zealand First could keep an eye on us. I ask Ron Mark how having all dogs in New Zealand microchipped would have helped Carolina Anderson on that day. How would it have helped in that situation, at all? [Interruption] He has had his opportunity; he can take a speech later.

💬 Ron Mark: I seek leave to answer Rodney Hide’s question without any further allocation of time being deducted from any other party. Mr Hide has asked me a question and I am prepared to answer it if he will yield the floor.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): It is a debating point, but you have sought leave. Is there any objection to leave being granted? There is.

The reality is that of course it would not have helped, at all. The reason it would not have helped is that Carolina did not have a scanner. Also, it is typical that when dogs bite they do not hang around, lay their heads down, and allow a scanner to be put on top of their heads so we can find out who they belong to. In fact, we heard from Mr Eric Roy that councils have not been unable to locate the owners of dogs that have bitten people—that has not been the issue. The issue has been the dogs biting, and the microchip does not stop the biting. That is the trouble.

I also say about the farm dogs that it would be good to exclude them, but the reality is that farm dogs do bite, too. All dogs can bite. That is the reality of dogs anywhere in the world. They are all dogs that can potentially bite. The issue that we are dealing with here is that we want to stop dogs from biting and to protect, particularly, our kids, but does microchipping do that? The answer is, no, it does not.

💬 Gordon Copeland: It has in New South Wales.

Gordon Copeland can go on about New South Wales. A typical response from the busybodies in Government is that there is a problem out there because there are irresponsible dog owners who do not take care of their dogs. There are dogs that will bite, and, sadly, people get bitten and often badly, badly hurt. The response of the Government is to come along with the idea that it knows what it will do; it will microchip all dogs. That is impossible. I can promise this House that not all dogs will be microchipped.

Ron Mark was talking about the Mongrel Mob dogs being microchipped. Well, I would like to see him and Gordon Copeland go up to the Mongrel Mob headquarters and microchip their dogs. [Interruption] He said he would, but he would not. The Mongrel Mob are not going to microchip their dogs. The problem with the dogs that are biting people is that they are not registered because the owners are not prepared to pay the money. Ron Mark is expecting such owners suddenly to come along and get their dogs microchipped, and the police—who are under-resourced with Ron Mark in Government—are suddenly going to be spending their effort, along with the local council, going along to the headquarters of the Mongrel Mob and saying: “Excuse me! Is your poodle microchipped?”. It ain’t going to happen.

So not all dogs will be microchipped. I can also predict that dog owners who are the problem—that is to say, the fraction of dog owners who are irresponsible—are precisely the ones who will not microchip their dogs. So we will have 99 percent of dog owners having to go through the expense and trouble of microchipping their dogs, and the 1 percent who cause the problems not caring less. Those are the same people who do not have a licence when they drive a car, who do not register their cars, and whose dogs are not registered. This Government expects that somehow those people will leap up on a Monday morning and rush off to get their puppies microchipped. It ain’t going to happen!

I predict that the Government will not run a very satisfactory database, because that has been the experience with any database that has been run by Governments. In a situation where a dog bites someone—which is terrible—I ask how microchipping helps matters. It does not. The dog will run off, so that is no help. We will have a situation whereby responsible dog owners will have to pay the expense of having their dogs microchipped, for no discernable gain. The Government will face the expense of monitoring who has microchipped their dogs and who has not, and it will be unable to get anywhere near 100 percent compliance. Then the Government will face the expense of maintaining a database of microchipped dogs. We then have the absurdity that a dog will probably have to be killed in order to work out who it belongs to, because if the dog is the rabid dog that everyone says it is, I would not expect the dog control officer to wander up and stick a scanner on its head in order to find out who it belongs to. It just does not work like that in the real world.

So what is the solution? It is not to come up with a grand Government scheme that in order to begin to work, would require that everyone behaved themselves and microchipped their dogs, that the database worked flawlessly, and that when there was a dog attack a scanner would somehow be on hand and someone would manage to get close enough to the dog’s head—within an inch of it—in order to scan it and see who it belonged to, and, wow, find that the dog had a microchip in it. All of those things would need to fall into place for that plan to work.

What we need to do is concentrate on those few dog owners—and it is a few—who are irresponsible, and hold them to account. Let us not, yet again, penalise law-abiding citizens of New Zealand whose dogs do not bite, whose dogs are well behaved, who enjoy having their dogs, and who now have to go to the unnecessary expense of microchipping them. Auntie Flo’s poodle is not a problem, yet Auntie Flo will have to go off and get her dog microchipped. But the Mongrel Mob members next door will not get their dogs microchipped. Irresponsible dog owners will not get their dogs microchipped. So once again we see the absurdity of a Government response that is costly, cumbersome, ineffective, and fails to address the problem we have.

In 5 years’ time the problems will still be there, and I am afraid that this House will probably be addressing them again with even more draconian measures for law-abiding citizens, rather than focusing its attention on holding to account those irresponsible New Zealanders who do not look after their dogs and their families, and who do not care for their neighbours. Thank you.

I will take a very short call as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which dealt with the Local Government Law Reform Bill. The committee did well, and I thank the select committee staff for shepherding us through what could have been quite a complex process. The select committee’s consideration of the bill could have been overtaken by highly emotional issues—but it was not. All this bill really does is look at the framework for local authorities and how they operate and reflect their recent decisions. The bill only clarifies things for local authorities and improves the effectiveness of their regulatory tools.

All of the amendments in the bill came about because of the Government’s ongoing relationship and partnership with local government, whereby local government meets central government on a regular basis and says: “Please help us. Give us the tools to fix the Local Government Act and get it up to speed.” So all of the positive aspects in this bill, apart from the issue of microchipping dogs—which the entire select committee consideration of the bill was nearly swamped by—have been completely overlooked.

In respect of microchipping, I point out that 95 percent of dog attacks occur on the properties of registered dog owners, so the attacks are not committed only by roving mongrel dogs. As Gordon Copeland mentioned, microchipping has had stunning success in New South Wales, and members of the committee were quite surprised when they realised New Zealand was one of the few countries in the world that does not have microchipping. I bring to the House’s attention the fact that when the Carolina Anderson attack occurred, every member—every party—in this House poured up to get photos with Mr Anderson. Those members put their hands across their hearts and said they would do everything they could within their powers, while they were in Parliament as elected members, to stop the horrific dog attacks on people like Carolina Anderson. Microchipping is part of a comprehensive package that will complete the undertaking in the previous Act that every party voted for.

We are pleased to be debating the bill. One really good reason we are keen to get the bill passed by July is that it will mean the Government has kept another promise—which the Government considers hugely important, but which does not worry the Opposition, at all—and that is the promise about rates rebates. From 1 July the rates rebate will be put up from $200 to $500—another promise kept by this Government. We are prepared to stay here and forego a select committee trip to Australia next week, because we want to debate this bill and get it through the House. We will keep a promise to those 300,000 people in New Zealand who are waiting for that rates rebate. I am looking forward to debating this bill clause by clause, and I am sure we will realise then that there is far more substance to it than microchipping alone. Thank you.

I am delighted to take a call on the Local Government Law Reform Bill, and I want to speak about only one part of that bill—that is, the part concerning microchipping. I say to the House that New Zealanders know that we are seeing a Government on its way out over an issue like this. This Government is completely missing the representation and the feeling out there in the community, because the people of New Zealand know full well that putting a microchip in a dog dooes not stop dog attacks. The issue is as simple as that. A microchip in the neck of a dog will not stop one single dog attack.

We observe today the Government with absolute arrogance accepting a select committee report—a very good select committee report—and saying right up front that it will disregard the work of that select committee; disregard the many people who made submissions to that select committee; and disregard the thousands of New Zealanders who signed petitions all around the country and said to the Government: “For God’s sake, wake up and listen and realise that a microchip in the neck of a dog will not stop a dog attack.”

Last Saturday, at a rally in Christchurch organised by my colleague Kate Wilkinson, about 250 dogs and dog owners turned up to protest against this Government move. I was struck by a bumper sticker that the organisers launched at that rally—and I think I am right in saying that it has been launched by the Kennel Club—that stated: “Dog owners will vote—2008”. If the Government arrogantly thinks that this issue will go away next week if it muscles the legislation through Parliament and uses its numbers in the House to disregard the wishes of many New Zealanders, I say to Helen Clark that her arrogance will cost her. The arrogance of Helen Clark and the Labour members will cost the Government at the next election, because New Zealanders know how stupid this legislation is.

I have listened today to speeches from people like Ron Mark, Nanaia Mahuta, and Gordon Copeland. Following the Carolina Anderson case, they all tried to argue that if we successfully instituted a compulsory microchipping regime in this country, we would stop dog attacks. [Interruption] I say to Gordon Copeland that that is just stupid.

💬 Ron Mark: Reduce.

Well, now those members are saying that it will not stop it; it will reduce it. That is equally stupid, I say to Mr Ron Mark, to think that the dog’s behaviour would be affected by a microchip in its neck. That is just absolutely stupid.

Next week, at the Committee stage, we will have the opportunity for a debate. At this stage it looks as if the Government will ignore those amendments that I have tabled on behalf of the National Party—one to exempt farm working dogs and one to exempt all dogs—because we do not have the numbers. That will occur despite the fact that on Monday night Gordon Copeland gave an interview on TV3 in which said he was now prepared to vote against the Government.

💬 Shane Jones: He was misquoted.

Now he says he was misquoted. I saw the interview, I say to Mr Jones, and it did not look to me as if he was misquoted. But I must say that immediately afterwards the interviewer, Ingrid Hipkiss, said she did not think Gordon Copeland would have the gumption—

💬 Eric Roy: Fortitude.

—the fortitude to carry on and actually vote against the Government. So National has two amendments, one to exempt farm working dogs and the other to exempt all dogs, and those amendments are likely to be lost because the “Poodle Party” of United Future is not prepared to support common sense.

This Government has its priorities totally wrong, when we have a Minister in the House—Nanaia Mahuta—whose ministerial responsibility is microchipping. I would have thought there were far more important issues in this country.

💬 Rodney Hide: Auckland issues.

Auckland issues and power blackouts are far more important.

💬 Hon Member: Snow down in the South Island.

Well, do members know what Helen Clark said on breakfast TV on Monday morning? When asked to comment about the snow, Helen Clark said: “I love the snow, because I am a skier.” Many South Islanders did not get to see that, because they had no power, but I will make sure they all know that at the next election. But I come back to the “Minister for Microchipping”, which is Nanaia Mahuta’s job. We now have a situation where Helen Clark and Heather Simpson have cleverly mustered the numbers—although they did not have to work very hard on New Zealand First; those members are absolute poodles and will do exactly what they are told. The two parties they had to work on were United Future and the Greens.

I say right up front that the Greens have been absolutely consistent with their position. They said they would support getting rid of compulsory microchipping for all dogs. They have since done better than that in the Local Government and Environment Committee, supported by National. The position brought back from the select committee, which would enforce the microchipping of dangerous and menacing dogs, is exactly where we should be. We need to identify the dogs that are dangerous and menacing, and microchip them.

💬 Ron Mark: Oh, how do you do that?

But the Government wants to inflict the cost on everybody else—250,000 farm dogs—and Ron Mark said, in his vitriolic way, that the cost was not important. He said that if people could afford a bottle of wine, they could afford to microchip their dog. That is what Ron Mark said. He said the cost was unimportant. Well, I say to Ron Mark that when he goes back to the electorate he hails from, around Waimakariri, the farmers of that electorate have been trying to get an appointment with that member for a long time in order to tell him the facts about microchipping. One of the things they want to do is to take the opportunity to tell the member that he does not understand the legislation.

💬 Ron Mark: Give me the name.

I am happy to give the name, if the member wants to be embarrassed. This member—Ron Mark—sent an email to Kirstyn Barnett in which he stated: “Inserting a microchip is a one-off identification for the dog and owner. Therefore, microchipped dogs would not need to be registered annually.” That is what Ron Mark told his constituent—and that is absolute rubbish! I tell Ron Mark that that is absolute rubbish, because there is no proposal here for the annual registration to be done away with. So I tell Mr Ron Mark that he should not mislead his constituents. He should make an effort to understand the legislation.

In the debate we last had on this issue, another New Zealand First member, Brian Donnelly, suggested that the only reason we continued to register our dogs was for hydatids control. That is what Brian Donnelly said. Well, we have not been doing that for 30 years. So I say to New Zealand First that its members should get to understand the legislation. They should not come into the House preaching to us, talking about Carolina Anderson, and attempting to use her case as a reason we should all be supporting this legislation, when that member does not even understand how the legislation works.

💬 Ron Mark: But you voted for it.

And then he says we voted for it. Well, let me explain that again to the member, because I am quite happy to do that. There was—

💬 Rodney Hide: ACT never did.

Nor did National. An amendment was moved by Chris Carter, on Supplementary Order Paper 67, and National voted against it, the ACT party voted against it, and one member of United Future, Paul Adams, voted against it. So those are the facts, I tell Mr Mark, and it is time the truth was told in this House. National did not support microchipping when that amendment was moved—independently of the select committee report. It was put forward on a Supplementary Order Paper by the Minister at that time, Chris Carter, but it was not voted for by National. So the truth today prevails, I tell Mr Mark.

In conclusion, I say we should make sure the public of New Zealand understands—and Labour members should understand—that putting a microchip in a dog does not change its behaviour. For any member of Parliament to vote on the basis that it will, is just plain stupidity. I look forward to the debate next week, and I hope that in the meantime pressure can be brought by the many dog owners around New Zealand—like the thousands whom I met yesterday alone, at the Fieldays at Hamilton. We should let those people have their say before we pass this stupid legislation next week.