Local Government Law Reform Bill

Members will recall that when the debate was interrupted last night, I was speaking to two handwritten amendments in my name in relation to the dog control clauses of the Local Government Law Reform Bill. I will refresh members’ minds as to what those two amendments are about. The first seeks to amend clause 8A by adding a new paragraph that states: “Any dog savaging a child under 13 years must be put down.” We have listened to speech after speech from the other side, all repeating the same mantra: “Microchipping will not stop dogs biting, but we will impose the measure because we all said we would.” How realistic is that in dealing seriously with the issue facing us—dog attacks on young people like Carolina Anderson, who was the genesis of this piece of legislation? The Government has brought out a concept about registration, not about dealing with dogs.

The Hon Damien O’Connor last night said that he wanted to see dogs that savaged people put down. Well, I tell him that this is the day when he should support my amendment, because that is exactly what it proposes. If the Government is serious about actually dealing with the problem, then it will support my amendment, because that would change the behaviour of dog owners. It will change the way in which dogs are handled in public. It is the most proficient step I can think of in doing something positive to stop dogs biting children. I ask members to consider the amendment as a very positive way forward in sending the strongest possible message to deal with the issue. It is simply not good enough to say: “We know that microchips will not stop dogs biting but we will impose the measure anyway.” That is the reason for the first amendment in my name—to stop dogs that actually bite children. Anybody who does not support that amendment—anybody who is not prepared to vote for that amendment—is saying that dogs are more valuable than children.

The second amendment in my name, which I want to bring to members’ attention, proposes to delete the dead dog clause. Local authority after local authority fronted up to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and to individual members in their electorates around New Zealand, saying that this bill adds costs and includes a lot of unnecessary measures. I will refresh members’ minds as to what the Dog Control Act states. Section 10 of the principal Act states that it is the duty of territorial authorities to adopt a policy on dogs. That is fair enough. Why, then, does the Government want to be specific and precise, and implement a whole lot of other measures? My second amendment would delete new section 41A inserted by clause 9D.

Then I saw that the Minister had introduced an amendment that I thought did the same thing. When I saw it, I thought: “Hello, the Government is listening.” But, no—it gets worse. The Minister wants to insert an even more prescriptive provision that imposes a 28-day requirement to comply with the measure. That is absolute nonsense! Members should consider the practicality for farmers and other dog owners, who could be engaged in a range of things when their dogs die. They could be overseas, having left the dog in the care of someone else who might not be as diligent in reporting the death of the dog. They could be mustering, or in the middle of lambing. They could be occupied by a range of things that make it simply impractical to report a death within 28 days.

I ask any member on the other side of the Chamber to tell me what damage a dead dog can do. What is the mischief in not reporting a dog as having died? The identity of a dog cannot be transferred—particularly if it is microchipped. When the time comes to renew registration, the dog owner will simply not pay for another registration. Have members ever looked at a local authority registration form? It lists the dogs registered in the person’s ownership—those listed on the previous year’s form—and provides spaces to record newly acquired dogs, dogs sold, and dogs deceased. It is as simple as that. So why are we now requiring local authorities to enforce this measure—and prescriptively so; within 28 days—whether or not that is practical? The Minister’s amendment says that a dog owner must provide notification if it is “requested to do so by the territorial authority;”. If we are to devolve to local authorities the power to say whether they need notification, ought they not to be the ones who decide whether the time limit should be 28 days, 6 months, or the next time of registration? Why do we want to be so prescriptive and have another add-on of costs?

We heard a lot of submissions in regard to dog control. One of the most impressive was from the Marlborough District Council, and it expressed something to bear in mind when we vote on the amendment proposing to remove the necessity to microchip working dogs. The council deals with that matter now in Marlborough, and it is not an issue. It simply says that if someone claims that his or her chihuahua—or Alaskan malamute, or Great Dane, or whatever—is a farm dog, the dog control officer requires a test. It is as simple as that. If the officer is not satisfied, then the dog is not registered as a farm dog—no ifs, no buts, no maybes, and no correspondence entered into. It is interesting to see from the statistics on the management of dogs—stray dogs, dogs worrying stock, and dogs biting people—that the Marlborough district is a fine example. It has shown initiative. It is not for the Minister or for Parliament to tell local authorities what to do. We should go back to section 10 of the original Act—the territorial authority must develop a dog management policy. It is as simple as that; that is the common-sense approach to take. Instead, we start getting prescriptive and imposing measures that require costs.

Today I received a letter from the Tasman District Council expressing its concern and making a couple of points. I will table this letter, because I want other people to read it. The Tasman District Council says that the levy should be set at zero and that the Government must carry the responsibility for the matter.

I seek leave to table a letter from the Tasman District Council with regard to dog management and microchipping.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I take a brief call at this point to indicate to the House that I will seek prior to voting to have the provision relating to dead dogs removed. Having heard the good, sound arguments of Doug Woolerton last night, and considered the issue, I think that that is the right course to take on this particular issue. Common sense prevails in this case.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a point of clarification. Just to be absolutely clear, is the Minister taking away the reference to the dead dog provision—new section 41A(2) in clause 9D in Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton? Has that been withdrawn?

I wish to inform the Committee that I will not proceed with the amendment to clause 9D in Supplementary Order Paper 43.

We are debating Part 1, and in particular microchipping. Microchipping is not the only measure in this part—it includes some good things—but it is primarily about microchipping. The point is that in a debate in the House the proposer—in this case the Government plus its supporters: New Zealand First, United Future in this case, and Jim Anderton’s Progressive party, or whatever it is called—should be able to put up good cogent arguments to persuade Opposition members that our point of view is wrong. I have to say that in the 2 hours or so we have been debating this bill I have not heard one argument of substance that would convince me or any of the listeners who are against microchipping that we are wrong and the Government is right.

The Minister took a call some time last night and said that one of the main reasons why we want to microchip dogs is so that when a dog is found worrying stock, and the farmer shoots the dog, we will be able to identify the owner of the dog as a consequence of its being microchipped. That is true; I have no argument with that. If we assume that the dog has been microchipped—because if there is a dog attack on stock it is likely that a good number of the dogs that attack stock will not necessarily be microchipped anyway, as they are likely to be pig dogs or some other sort of dog owned by people who would not necessarily register or microchip their dogs—and if the farmer shoots the dog, we can identify the owner. The question I have is that if the same dog is registered with a tag on it, why can we not identify the owner? When a dog is dead, what makes microchipping better able to identify it than if it has a collar? The Minister will say it is because the dog is microchipped and it does not have a collar. Well, of course, if we microchip dogs we are not going ask that they have a collar also, but one assumes that if a person is responsible enough to put a microchip in a dog, he or she will be responsible enough to put a collar and tag on the dog, as is required now. So that puts away that argument.

I have been listening now for the best part of 2 hours, expecting to hear better arguments. The only argument I have heard is that microchipping means we can identify the owners of dogs that are shot if they worry and kill stock. Well, if that is the only reason then we really have to ask ourselves what we are doing debating this. The Minister of Local Government, the Hon Mark Burton, said in his second reading speech that microchipping will not stop one dog attack. Indeed, New Zealand First members have said exactly the same thing. Gordon Copeland of United Future has also said exactly the same thing—that microchipping, in itself, will not stop one dog attack. Therefore, the only reason to have microchipping is not to stop dog attacks, because we have all agreed—everyone so far: the Minister on behalf of Labour, New Zealand First, United Future—that microchipping will not stop dog attacks. We are all agreed on that; the whole Parliament agrees on that. Therefore, the next thing is it must be all about identifying dogs. Well, if it is about identifying dogs then one asks oneself the question, what is wrong with a dog collar and a tag? Will we get more people microchipping their dogs, and will we be able to read the microchip and identify the dog more easily than if it has a collar and tag? Actually, the answer to that question is that all the evidence everywhere says no, it will not happen.

If the Minister had been able to stand up and give us proof that by microchipping dogs we can identify the dog and the owner more easily, and if microchipping had been more practical and sensible, and more people were encouraged by it, then the National Party members might have been persuaded by that argument. But, actually, that has not happened. In fact, we know that the only way one can read a microchip on a long-haired dog is by grabbing it, sticking it between one’s legs, and waving the wand over it. I have to tell members that I do not want to know the owner of a dog that badly—I seriously do not. There are parts of my anatomy that I would not want to put a dog’s head near, thank you very much. So I will not be waving any sort of wand—mine or anyone else’s, quite honestly—over a dog to identify its microchip.

I am going to make this a kind of omnibus speech, in the sense that I want to wrap up a few points that have not really been mentioned too much in this debate, yet. The first is to speak directly to my own Supplementary Order Paper and to make the point that my Supplementary Order Paper—as I hope everyone in the Committee is now aware—brings in a voluntary microchipping regime for working farm dogs. A working farm dog is a dog that is a working dog that is “kept solely or principally for the purposes of herding or driving stock;”. That is a definition that is already in the Dog Control Act, which we are amending tonight.

The other thing to mention is that it also provides that any working farm dog that has been classified as menacing, dangerous, or impounded will automatically be microchipped. So that is not voluntary. That second part of my Supplementary Order Paper has been lifted directly out of Jeanette Fitzsimons’ member’s bill. It is virtually word for word, because I think she makes a valid point in saying that all of those dogs should be microchipped as quickly as possible.

I still find that members of the public do not realise that 10 days from now the only thing we will be microchipping will be new puppies. Some people seem to think that on 1 July all the dogs in New Zealand are suddenly going to be microchipped. No, that is not the case. As somebody pointed out to me today, what has actually happened in New South Wales, for example, is that the breeder of puppies normally puts microchips in and then sells them on to people. The dogs are already microchipped for life. We need to dispel some of the myths around that point.

The other thing I would like to mention is the Green Party’s position in relation to this bill. The Green Party’s position is that the only dogs they want to see microchipped are those that are classified as being dangerous or menacing. They have endeavoured twice to achieve that goal—once through a member’s bill in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons, and once by way of a majority report from the select committee. Those initiatives have been voted down by this House not once but twice—by a vote of 61 to 60. Tonight the Greens intend to try again, knowing that they will, for the third time, have that motion rejected by this Committee—again, I imagine, by a margin of 61 to 60. At that point they intend to accept the policy of Labour that all dogs be microchipped.

💬 Sue Bradford: We certainly don’t.

Yes, they do. That is going to be the practical consequence of the action the Greens have decided to take. That is the exact opposite of what they say their policy is. They want no dogs microchipped. Believe you me, it will become clear very shortly that we are going to end up in this Parliament with every dog microchipped. Why? It is because the Greens have not figured out that they should actually be voting in favour of the Hon David Carter’s Supplementary Order Paper to exempt working farm dogs from microchipping. That is 250,000 dogs—40 percent of all dogs. It therefore gets the Greens and the Māori Party far, far closer to their own policy goals than having every single dog chipped. Also in the process, both parties seem to have missed the point that this will be an opportunity to actually defeat the Government so that only 60 percent of dogs in this country are microchipped. If I am found to be wrong on that point, then it will become clear very, very shortly.

Given that these parties want no microchipping at all, except for dangerous and menacing breeds, how is it, therefore, that they do not support something that will exempt 40 percent, knowing that the alternative is to have all dogs microchipped? How could they do that? This Supplementary Order Paper of David Carter’s will give them 40 percent of what they want—250,000 dogs. Instead, they say that they will reject that Supplementary Order Paper, and with it they will then accept, inevitably, that all dogs will be microchipped. Such a policy has no credibility. It will be a great disappointment to Federated Farmers, and when they experience that disappointment—as I am sure they will, later this evening—they can squarely sheet that home to the shallow posturing of the Greens.

I must say I am extremely disappointed personally to say that the Māori Party also has not figured out that simple point. They will end up with all dogs microchipped later tonight. They still have the opportunity, by voting for David Carter’s Supplementary Order Paper, to see 40 percent of all dogs exempted from microchipping. It is close to their goal. Why do they not consider that, and why do they not do it?

I want to go to one other point before I finish, which is to try to just clarify things for John Carter. As I mentioned, we start microchipping puppies on 1 July. It will take 6 or 7 years before the dogs in New Zealand are microchipped.

In the late 1970s I used to drive from one side of the city in which I lived to the other, to pick up my mother’s pedigree corgi and take it to the dog-dosing strip in London Street Wanganui to be dosed for hydatids. Lisa, our corgi, never went anywhere other than around the street for a walk or to the local park. She had no more chance of coming into contact with hydatids than she did of flying to the moon under her own power. I do not remember one single person from the rural community in New Zealand in the 1970s saying: “I don’t think city dogs should have to be treated for hydatids, because city dogs are not likely to catch it.” Is it not strange that it was a case of one law for all dogs when it related to hydatids in the 1970s and 1980s, but now, several decades down the track, it is different?

I would like to know how those members opposite, who have suddenly gone jelly-legged in respect of this legislation, would cope in a real crisis. How would they cope if they were part of a governing party that had to make a decision in the interests of all New Zealanders, particularly an issue that related to international matters? I would say National members’ jelly-legged behaviour in respect of this bill is indicative of the fact that they are not fit to govern. If those members cannot be sensible on a matter relating to the microchipping of dogs, it proves they are not capable of governing and should never get anywhere near the seat of Government again.

Part of this angst and mock protesting is all about National members assuaging their guilt for voting for the 2003 bill in its third reading. Those of us who have been in Parliament for more than a couple of years know that the third reading debate is a party’s last chance to object to a bill. What did National members do? They all stuck their hands up and voted for it. But then, when the pressure—

💬 Hon Members: No!

Yes, they did. The only people who did not vote for it were ACT members, and at least ACT has stuck to its guns. But you Tories all voted for it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

Now those members have got all jelly-legged when the pressure is on, which shows they could not cope in a real emergency. Labour will not support Eric Roy’s amendment, which proposes that only dogs that bite should be destroyed. But what about the question of whether it is a big bite or a little bite? What if the dog is auntie’s little nipper that is a chihuahua, a corgi—those dogs can bite quite seriously—or a Pomeranian? People could say: “Auntie’s Pomeranian didn’t really break much more than a first layer of skin.”, or: “It’s not a menacing or dangerous dog. Don’t destroy the chihuahua or Pomeranian—just those ugly big dogs.”

So the grandstanding of the amendment put forward by the National Party in Eric Roy’s name is just superficial window dressing so that National members look like they are doing something. Those members have left it too late to do anything; they had their opportunity at the third reading debate in 2003—that is when they could have done something, but they did not. National members did not mind trotting up when the Minister of Local Government at the time, the Hon Chris Carter, was responding to the tragedy of the Carolina Anderson incident. Those Tories did not mind trotting up for the photo opportunity to say to the public: “Look what we’re doing. This is terrible. We’ll do whatever we can.” This Government did want to do whatever it could, which is why it has introduced a package of measures. We have never said that microchipping alone will stop dogs from biting—nobody has said that.

💬 Hon David Carter: Helen Clark did.

David Carter is on record in Hansard as saying he supported microchipping as part of the package.

💬 Hon David Carter: Rubbish!

I will come over and show the member the exact dates on which he said that. I cannot find the exact quote in my pages, but he is on record as saying that. The statement is a direct quote from Hansard to the effect that when microchipping became available he would vote for it. They microchip other animals—

💬 Moana Mackey: He said “Rubbish!”, but he is still checking.

Yes, because David Carter knows only too well that he did say that, and Hansard will prove it. This is flim-flam window dressing from National.

We are talking about the Local Government Law Reform Bill, and in doing so it is very important to remember that when we talk about microchipping dogs, it is a question of safety. That point often gets overlooked when we start to debate this topic. Last night, all we heard was a muddying of the waters. As my learned friend John Carter mentioned, we did not hear any compelling evidence to suggest that dog microchipping should be carried out. Will the public feel any safer if it knows that a dog is microchipped? I think not.

In referring to the question about the third reading of the last bill on this matter, I find it interesting to note that many recognised and credible bodies have reviewed their situation and changed their view. I would like to draw the attention of the list member from Wanganui, Jill Pettis, to the comments of the New Zealand Kennel Club, which said: “Scrapping compulsory microchipping is excellent news.” It said microchipping is a nonsense, and asked why, when councils have not been doing a number of things, they should do that now. The club’s president, Lesley Chalmers, said the best solution was to license the owners, not the dogs, and added: “We do not agree with the microchipping of dogs.” It is a moving situation to see that the New Zealand Kennel Club, which originally supported the Government’s move to have all dogs microchipped, came to the view, after reflection and consideration led to clarity, that microchipping was not necessary.

We have to ask ourselves why the Government is so desperately holding on to this situation. In the light of everything, all I can come up with is that the Government feels threatened that this situation is the nearest possible thing to a vote of no confidence. This is another nail in the coffin of a tired and mean-spirited Labour Government.

When we start to look around the landscape of this Parliament, we see a very good approach by those who have taken a position against microchipping. I was very moved to hear the Māori Party bring history into the House, in respect of the issues around dog control in the 1890s. I can fully understand how the Greens feel aggrieved. It was quite moving to get a phone call from Stefan Browning, a Green member from Marlborough, who wanted to check my position and make sure we were on the same wavelength. I was able to tell him that indeed we were on the same wavelength on that issue—maybe not on one or two others. National has been as solid as a rock on this matter throughout this period in the House. It is opposed to the microchipping of farm dogs and, for that matter, of all dogs. It is only this tired, mean-spirited Government that is acting like a dog with a bone, and that is the most dangerous sort of dog to deal with.

Let us look at the Government side of the House and see what is happening to Labour’s circus of dog obedience. New Zealand First is on the Government’s choke chain. United Future has been running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Of course, in the Progressive party there is Jim Anderton, who is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Labour, the microchip master, is the dog in the manger. I will go back to show members some of the behaviour we have had during this period. Gordon Copeland talked earlier about principles and morals, and where he stood in trying to shift the blame on to the Greens. I quote a media report: “They say that every dog has his day. But for United Future MP Gordon Copeland, his tough talk over microchipping lasts only a few hours. In the morning Copeland claims to have the Government in a corner, saying that they will have to back his claims to exempt farm dogs or face total defeat. By the afternoon he rolls over and plays dead.” What a shameful situation that is.

I seek leave to table a copy of John Carter’s Hansard of 27 March 1996 for his speech on the Dog Control Bill. Can I also table, with the Committee’s permission, the comment made by David Carter last night—this is not from Hansard; he said this on the radio—that it would be too hard to roll back this bill once it was passed.

You have identified it well enough.

Document not tabled.

I would like to bring a view from the Wairarapa electorate. My electorate covers five councils, and all of the mayors from those five councils—Central Hawke’s Bay, Tararua, Masterton, Carterton, and south Wairarapa—came to Parliament to meet the Associate Minister of Local Government, Nanaia Mahuta, and give her a message. The message they gave her was that this proposal of hers was a nonsense, they do not support it, their communities do not support it, and if it is passed, those councils will put it at the bottom of their list of priorities.

I have come to this Committee today to talk some sense on behalf of the people of New Zealand. I want to tell this Committee the truth—that this legislation to microchip dogs is a nonsense. I have been getting calls to my office all day, the last one as recently as 20 minutes ago, from people telling me to put an end to this nonsense. Well, let me tell this Committee—

💬 Jill Pettis: So why did you vote for it?

—and my learned friend from Wanganui, who is on her last jelly legs—that this legislation will not stop any dog from biting any child or any adult. But there is a cost in relation to this legislation. Roger Barton from my electorate, a farmer from Woodside, says it will cost a minimum of $100 a dog and a total of at least $8 million a year. I am really concerned about this. What I have seen happen in this Chamber—and I have seen it very clearly this afternoon—is people like Winnie Laban, our colleague from Mana, telling us that we are making investments in communities. She has forgotten the word “subsidy” and the word “benefit”. This Government is trying to work out the long-run, perpetual Labour administration, and it is copying the Swedish model. which is that a Government should tax like hell, then give it back to the middle class, which will vote for it. This Government is doing that; the same amount of money will be recycled.

The second thing the Government is doing through these silly damn policies is putting costs on an increasingly aged community. More people are moving on to fixed incomes, and they cannot afford these policies. A couple of weeks ago I was in Dannevirke at a Grey Power meeting, in a room where there were 5,000 years of accumulated wisdom. These people, who are on fixed incomes, are saying to me that they have to pay more for freight, more for fuel, and more for electricity, and they have to pay a 10 percent rate increase because the stupid Government in Wellington is doubling the cost of their town debt by a water policy they do not need and a dog microchipping policy they do not need. This Government is taking ideas and forcing them down the throats of the community, which cannot afford them. We are an ageing community. More people are on fixed incomes—

💬 Jill Pettis: Show me a poor farmer.

I am talking about people in my community of all ages, who are ageing and who are on fixed incomes. They cannot afford the constant load of costs from a Labour Government that is trying to bribe people by giving benefits to people who do not need them. It is trying to destroy initiative and enthusiasm. When it cannot find enough people here in New Zealand to give money to with its silly policies, it adopts stupid policies in the Pacific. Two weeks ago, the learned Minister of Foreign Affairs gave US$179,000 to the people of Niue, and they did not need it, either.

We have a serious problem in this country. Whether it is water charges, dog microchipping, or wasted aid, we are promulgating legislation here that has no value but imposes increasing costs on communities that cannot afford them. This Government is killing productive enterprise. What is the result? People are leaving for Australia, because they are sick and tired of the nonsense being imposed on them by this Government.

The five mayors of my electorate have come here to see the Māori Party, the Green Party, the ACT party, and the Associate Minister. I ask Nanaia Mahuta, who is in the chair, whether that is right. They gave the Associate Minister the message that they would put this legislation at the bottom of their list of priorities. In my electorate, 2,883 people signed a petition asking that this House get rid of this legislation, because it is a nonsense. They want us to chuck it out. They want to see common sense. I ask the Associate Minister to get rid of this policy.

I came down to the Chamber last night and made a speech that appears to have been lost on most people, because what I have been hearing is so ridiculous.

I will start by reading from someone else’s speech: “Sooner or later, given the new technology that is upon us, we will have microchips introduced for all dogs in New Zealand. Many local authorities in New Zealand are already starting to introduce microchips as a means of identification of dogs. It is a sensible way of identification. It is a way in which it can be done cheaply. When a microchip is put into a dog, it is there for life. It would cost less than $10 per dog for the life of the dog. It is a ready means of identification.” The speech goes on to say: “I think an important thing for us in the future, as the microchip is developed and as local authorities have better means of identifying the dog through the mode of microchips, is that Parliament passes legislation that allows for dogs throughout the country to have microchips implanted. When that happens we will have a proper means of identifying dogs.” The person who made that speech was the honourable John Carter, in 1996. I noticed that David Carter, when we thought the speech was made by him, hurriedly went through his notes to see whether he had made that statement—which just goes to show the absurdity of this debate.

In the 1990s National MPs thought microchipping was a good idea, and they were right. It is a sensible means of identification, it is a low-cost solution, and the rest of the world is rapidly heading in that direction. But, of course, now that those members have seen there might be a few votes to be won in opposing microchipping, they have given up on common sense entirely and have gone in exactly the opposite direction. We are used to National Party flip-flops in this Chamber, but this goes beyond the pale.

Last night I referred to the experience in New South Wales, and I once again say to members who oppose this bill for the reasons they have given that they should google the information on the Companion Animals Act of New South Wales. They will find some very useful information on that Act, because it is pretty much the same package that has been introduced in New Zealand. The difference here is that the Government will provide far more financial support for developing the national dog database. Also, we are not requiring dogs that are currently registered to be microchipped. In New South Wales people were given 3 years to have all dogs microchipped. In that state in 1997 there were 521 dog attacks. In 2001 that figure dropped to 150.

I shall refer to the report on the Companion Animals Act, which was delivered to the Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers 4 years after the Act was passed. It states that in the early days the critics were very vocal, the owners would not microchip their dogs, the microchip was not good enough, there were no good microchip readers, it would not work, and the whole system was flawed. Those are the same things we are hearing at the moment. But now New South Wales is recognised as having the most effective dangerous dog provisions of any state in Australia, if not the world.

The reason the system has worked so well is not that farm dogs, which comprise less than 5 percent of the total dog population, are exempt—they still have problems with farm dogs that attack stock, and the rural-urban divide in Australia is a lot easier than it is here—[Interruption] Members might want to listen, because they might learn something. They do not like the facts. No longer can the behaviour of dogs—dogs that are being shifted around territorial regional authorities, that are having their collars taken off, and that are being given to other people and registered under different names—be hidden from a new local authority. When a dog is brought in for menacing behaviour, the microchip is zapped, and it can be seen whether in a neighbouring territorial authority that dog had done exactly the same thing five times before. Local authorities now have the power to put that dog down before it goes on to commit a serious attack, maybe on a child, on another animal, or on stock—we do not know. What has happened is that the number of dog attacks has plummeted, because more dangerous dogs are being destroyed before they get to the point of committing a serious attack.

At the moment, when a dog goes into a new territorial local authority, it is a completely new entity. That authority has no idea where that dog has come from or what it has done in its previous life, because the registration system does not allow us to know that. But by microchipping the dog and bringing the system into the 21st century, we will be able to track those dogs and destroy them earlier. It is quite simple really. The microchip can be inserted when the dog is 6 weeks old and has to have its vaccinations, or at 12 weeks when it has its second dose of vaccinations. It would be interesting to know whether members think dogs should not have vaccinations, or that those vaccinations should not be carried out by a vet. But it will be a one-off visit to the vet, which can be done at the same time as the dog’s vaccination.

It is also interesting to note that in New South Wales there have been no instances whatsoever of a dog reacting adversely to a microchip, of a microchip moving in a dog, or of a microchip causing any kind of medical problem in a dog.

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me, after 3 hours, to take a call. I would like to answer the question of my learned colleague Mr John Carter, which is a great question. He asked what we were doing debating this issue. I can quote from a newspaper the words of a Labour MP, Mr Michael Bassett, who stated: “Microchipping dogs is a political distraction to disguise the paralysis that afflicts this Government, preventing it from doing anything worthwhile.” That is what this is all about; it is about disguising the paralysis that afflicts this Government, preventing it from doing anything worthwhile.

I will rebut some of the arguments. The former Minister of Agriculture, Mr Sutton, said last night—and it has been suggested again today—that it is easier to identify a dog through a microchip than a registration tag and collar. That is rather interesting, because a scanner is needed to identify a dog by a microchip, and scanners actually have different specifications, depending on whether they are English or American—and no doubt in New Zealand we will have a third one, as well.

I have a further quote in relation to that, from a member of the Canterbury Labrador Retriever Club, which shows the absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous nature of having those microchips. The person said: “An interesting scenario happened to me earlier this year. I imported a dog from England. MAF regulations required him to be microchipped. This microchip had to be checked each time he had the various tests required to comply with entrance regulations to New Zealand. The microchip cost approximately $200. When the dog arrived in New Zealand, MAF did not have a scanner available to even check if it were the dog that had had all the checks.” The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did not even have a scanner, so she was able to walk out of the terminal, dog in hand, with a microchip not scanned. Yet Labour members are saying that it is easier to identify a dog through a microchip than a registration tag.

The other issue I have relates to the fact that when we see a dog on the street without a collar, we think, yes, that dog is probably not registered. If we see it with its collar and little tag, we know it is registered. We do not all have scanners to see whether a dog is microchipped.

The other falsity was to say that the microchip stays for life. Mr Sutton said that the microchip is a lifelong means of identifying the dog and, as was said before, a microchip involves only a one-off visit to the vet. We know about Hank; Hank is a good friend of my other colleague Mr Eric Roy. Members know about Hank, who is a 70 kilogram Rottweiler. He is 8-years-old, valuable, and had a microchip inserted by a vet, at 10 months of age. But the vet was unable to locate the microchip or get any reading on what Hank’s inserted microchip was supposed to be communicating. The vet responded by saying that microchips should be checked every year, to ensure that they have not moved and that they are still functioning. That is not a one-off cost. That cost is a ridiculous tax, a ridiculous compliance cost. It is not common sense—

💬 Hon Member: Dog-tax law.

It is a dog-tax law. Then this morning on TV we heard that Mr Copeland—who holds the balance of power in this debate—takes his canine advice from his mother, with the inference that all fox terriers are killers. So there we are—someone holding the balance of power in this Parliament is taking his canine advice from his mother, who I am sure is lovely, but he should listen to his own judgment, his own common sense, rather than any poodle politics. He also seemed to suggest that in 7 years all dogs in New Zealand would be microchipped. But some dogs last 14 years or even longer than that and, as my colleague Mr Roy has pointed out, it may be 2025 before all dogs in New Zealand are microchipped. Where is the sense in that?

Treasury says that this legislation is stupid. Local authorities think it is stupid, and farmers think it is stupid. I have a petition with over 10,000 signatures of people who think it is stupid. There is a petition from Federated Farmers that says it is stupid, so why is it that the only people who do not think this legislation is stupid are on the other side of the Chamber?

I was not going to take a call in this discussion, because a lot of it really is just flimflam, and I believe that Doug Woolerton, our spokesperson on this issue, has very eloquently put New Zealand First’s position. That position, of course, is to be resolute and stick with the way we have voted in the past in terms of the package—the catalyst, first and foremost, being Carolina Anderson and this Parliament getting together.

In reaction to some of the jibes that came across—I think Colin King talked about New Zealand First having a choker chain on it—I want people to reflect on what the Minister told us earlier about what has happened with clause 9D, and the subsequent Supplementary Order Paper. The original provision would have required dog owners to inform local authorities, within 28 days, when their dogs died and if they did not there would be a $100 fine. I am not too certain about all the things that went on behind the scenes, but the Minister certainly referred to the persuasive arguments of Doug Woolerton in the Chamber yesterday about why that was quite stupid legislation. What I do know is that New Zealand First made a decision yesterday. We looked at that particular provision for the first time yesterday, and made a decision then that we would not be supporting it. Discussions were held, and in fact the Government has agreed—I do not know whether it was already planning this—to have the provision pulled out.

I want to contrast the behaviour of New Zealand First in actually achieving things. There is no choker chain on here; those are baubles we quite accept. A stupid law may have gone through if it had not been for the timely intervention of New Zealand First. I also ask just how effective all that noise coming from the other side of the Chamber will be in making any changes whatsoever. So I will finish with one question: can New Zealand First fix it? The answer is that, once again, we have.

I rise to speak—

💬 Jill Pettis: Oh, here she is—“Sergeant Dan”.

I tell Jill Pettis that she can make fun of the army, but who will defend her in times of misfortune? I am very proud of what I have done, thank you very much!

I rise to speak about this ridiculous legislation on the microchipping of dogs. This Government seems to think it is providing a sense of security for New Zealanders. Well, there is nothing in this sense of security, except falseness. Unfortunately, this legislation will not make any change to what happens at the moment. As a result of a very tragic and unfortunate accident—one involving Carolina Anderson—this Government, in a knee-jerk reaction, has provided this Parliament and the country with legislation whereby absolutely no children, nobody, will be prevented from again being the result of that sort of accident. It is very disappointing that both New Zealand First and United Future are joining the Government in this legislation. It is very disappointing indeed that United Future has flip-flopped so much in this whole debate. I call on United Future, and on Mr Copeland who is sitting here with us today, to forget about their “no surprises” deal with the Government. Instead, Mr Copeland should engender his common sense—forget “no surprises” but call on his common sense—because this Government needs a surprise. It needs a wake-up call and a reality check.

As members of the National Party said in this debate all last night, and have been saying all today, nobody wants this legislation. It is absolutely silly legislation. Local authorities do not want it. I received an email 20 minutes ago from somebody who works for a council to ask me to go to the debating chamber to vote against this legislation. I could assure the person that that is exactly what I would be doing. ACT has always opposed this legislation. We have never been in favour of the microchipping of dogs. This is a desperate attempt by a very, very desperate Government that wants to be seen to be doing something. The sad reality is that this bill will do absolutely nothing. It is a desperate attempt by a desperate Government to do something.

I have heard also that the SPCA is reporting that dogs are being abandoned, while this debate goes on amongst the general public. Many people do not realise that it is new dogs that will have to be microchipped. But no matter what has to be microchipped, dogs are already being abandoned as a result of the thought that this legislation is about to be put in place. It is also very sad that every time there is an unfortunate accident, such as occurred to Carolina Anderson, there is a knee-jerk reaction by this Government, which puts in place more and more unnecessary legislation in order to deal with problems that exist in only a very few cases. Suddenly everybody—in this case all dogs, but in other cases all New Zealanders—bears the brunt of a few unfortunate episodes.

Kate Wilkinson should be congratulated on reading out the comments made by Michael Bassett. The comments were absolutely right. I cannot quite remember them exactly, but the paralysis of this Government is very evident. This desperate measure by the Government is a result of that paralysis. The Government has run out of ideas—I am not sure it actually had any to start with, but there are even fewer now, almost 6 or 7 years down the track, and there will be no more. We need to see less, not more, of this sort of knee-jerk legislation being put in place. ACT will support all the amendments from members on this side of the Chamber. We want no microchipping at all, but the amendments from members on this side of the Chamber make good sense because they move in the right direction. We will oppose the amendments of Mark Burton.

I call again on United Future members to put on their common-sense hats for once, abandon that no-surprises deal they have with the Government, and do the right thing for New Zealand dogs and New Zealanders. They should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. New Zealand deserves nothing less than that. This bill will bring no safety for New Zealand children, as poor little Carolina Anderson can probably attest to. Microchipping will bring no resolution to the problem she faced. It is a problem that is really very small.

Having been in the Chamber throughout this debate, I say that what staggers me are the contributions we have heard from the Government side and the realisation of how out of touch United Future, New Zealand First, and Labour Party politicians are with the depth of feeling around this issue. New Zealanders are totally opposed to microchipping, because although the impetus for this legislation was around a horrific dog attack, all sensible New Zealanders know that a microchip in the neck of a dog will not stop a single dog attack. New Zealanders know that, and that is why this has become such an important issue.

Equally frustrating is the amount of misinformation that has been presented to this Committee by Labour members over the last few hours of this debate. Let us take the contribution from Moana Mackey. She kept talking about how successful the New South Wales microchipping regime has been. Yet she knows full well that in New South Wales farm dogs are exempt. That farm dogs should be exempted is one of the amendments the National Party has put forward in the Committee today, and that we will certainly be voting for, obviously. Moana Mackey, who used to be a rural electorate member of this Parliament, should remember that farmers are under tremendous pressure. Incomes have come off and expenses continue to increase—many of them imposed by the Labour Government. But here we have an expected $3 million annual cost being foisted on the farmers of New Zealand for absolutely no purpose.

The other misinformation was from the Minister in the chair herself, from Nanaia Mahuta, who said during the debate that the cost of microchipping would be somewhere around $35 to $70. Well, I went back through Hansard to when Chris Carter, the then Minister in charge of microchipping, slammed this amendment into the House. He said that the cost would be from $12 to $20. In actual fact, neither Minister is right. Many of the vets I have spoken to are talking about a cost of up to $100. Moana Mackey may say that is insignificant, and Ron Mark certainly said it was insignificant, but for the farmers of New Zealand—young guys with mustering teams of 10-plus dogs—$1,000 is a lot of money.

Then we had the contribution from one Steve Chadwick, who is the member of Parliament for Rotorua. She said that councils around New Zealand want this legislation. How, then, can she explain to me the letter I received this week from the Tasman District Council? It states that the council moved a resolution expressing its opposition to the microchipping of rural and urban dogs first registered after 1 July 2006. Councils do not support this legislation, and they will not enforce it. That is why New Zealanders are totally upset about this legislation. New Zealanders know that the legislation is dopey and that it is unenforceable, so why do New Zealand First, the poodle party United Future, and the Government attempt to continue with it?

I will speak to my two amendments. My first amendment, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41, seeks to achieve what the farmers of New Zealand want, and it is totally sensible. It means that no farm working dog would have to be mindlessly microchipped just to satisfy the wishes of Helen Clark. I have another amendment, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40, that moves to exempt all dogs from microchipping.

I congratulate the work done by the Green Party. I have enjoyed dealing with the Greens. They have been absolutely consistent. They have moved an even better amendment that exempts all dogs with the exception of menacing and dangerous dogs. I congratulate the Greens on the position they have come to.

Today we have, clearly, a very close vote in the Committee. It would be interesting to ask why Jim Anderton has not even bothered to take a call. The Minister of Agriculture went around the country saying: “What Jim says, Jim does.” Well, here is his chance today.

I note that the Minister Nanaia Mahuta is sitting in the chair. I remind that Minister of some history. One hundred years ago in the far north—the home of New Zealand First—there was an incident in our history that became known as the dog tax war. The New Zealand First members may scoff, but I ask what that was about. It was about Māori New Zealanders saying they did not want the Government bureaucracy to impose taxes and controls on their people. Is it not an irony that the member for Te Tai Hauauru is basically saying today that she wants to have taxes on dogs?

💬 Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair is not the member for Te Tai Hauauru; she is the member for the Tainui electorate.

I apologise to the member for making that mistake. I find it ironic that this Government would make the same error, yet again, of imposing taxes on the people of New Zealand. It is true that the cost will be $100 on average per dog, and obviously more for some owners.

Who will bear that cost? Owners will. Have we not been hearing week after week in recent times that local government is complaining about the costs that this Government is loading on to New Zealanders? Rates are going up by 7.5 percent this year. What is this Government’s response to that? Does the Government seek to reduce costs for local government? No, it does not. It wants to load yet more and more costs on to the people of New Zealand and on to local government. That is exactly what one would expect from a party that can think only about loading more taxes on to people.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Forcing people to pay!

Forcing people to pay for things. It is a feature of this Government that it will always go for bureaucratic control. I tell this Committee that the most consistent theme about political correctness is bureaucratic excess. One can always identify the politically correct by how much bureaucracy they want to load on to New Zealanders.

This legislation is a classic case of political correctness. I have received numerous emails and letters that pursue precisely that point. People ask, in a fundamentally common-sense way, why someone would want to microchip a dog and impose the excessive cost of that on them. They ask which bureaucratic mind could have come up with such an absurd proposition. Well, I will tell them. The Labour Party, because Labour and bureaucracy go together.

💬 Sandra Goudie: And the poodles!

And the poodles. And is that not remarkable? We have heard the support party, New Zealand First, which generally tends to support the Government, say it has had a victory. I tell that member and that party that if they had had a victory, they would be voting against this legislation.

I want to say this. The way to defeat political correctness is to vote against bureaucracy, and the way to defeat this legislation is for the parties to vote for the amendments, because frankly they are common sense.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I spoke with the office yesterday and asked for advice as to how the amendments would be moved. The advice that was given to me was that it would be helpful to facilitate the votes if I seek leave for the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 41 to be taken as one question, and I so do.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That would be most helpful. Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? Leave is denied.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sandra Goudie to clause 4 be agreed to:

to insert in the definition of disability assist dog in section 2 in subclause (1), after the words “a person with a disability”, the words “to be exempted from microchipping”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I noticed during that vote that the Green Party gave a split vote. I just wanted to get an assurance that, in accordance with the Standing Orders, they will give the names of the people voting for and the names of people voting against.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, that is the Standing Order.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41 in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 9A, to add new subclause (3), be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have just voted for a Green amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 43. Are we now voting on a new clause in Supplementary Order Paper 43 or on an amended clause?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The previous amendment was not successful and we are now voting on the amendment as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Minister.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We simply need clarification. With the Committee voting earlier to exempt farm dogs from the necessity to microchip, can we please have an explanation as to what this amendment—the Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister—attempts to do. We do not want to end up with a bigger mess than what the Government gave us to start with.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): This amendment amends section 36A. The reason it is in here is that there are quite a number of amendments to clause 9B, and the Minister’s one comes first. Is that clear?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The issue is that I am still not clear—and I do not know whether anyone else in the Chamber is, judging by the looks of the Minister and the discussions that are going on—exactly what the situation is. Given that we have passed legislation to exempt working dogs, we now need to know whether this amendment, in a roundabout way, upsets anything that has been done with regard to that vote. We do not want to suddenly find that we are negating the wish of Parliament with regard to working dogs. We probably need to get advice from the Minister, when he has obtained advice from his officials—because he is as puzzled as we are. It may be useful for the Committee to be patient and wait until we have advice as to exactly what we are doing. That would be a rare thing for this Committee to know, under the present administration, but it will be useful nevertheless.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): This amendment does not in any way affect the amendments that were agreed to in the name of the Hon David Carter. It is on a different part from those. I will go back through the amendment. It is the Minister’s amendment to insert new clause 9B, amending subsections (4) and (7) of section 36A, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton.

The next amendment is to insert new clause 9B, which inserts new subsection (5B) in section 36A, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 39 in the name of Gordon Copeland.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a similar point of order to the last one. As we have already now voted to exempt working farm dogs and my Supplementary Order Paper covers the same ground, pretty much, will we not end up with a confused situation—with two different ways of exempting farm dogs?

If the amendment that has been agreed to satisfies the member, then he is free to withdraw his similar amendment.

💬 GORDON COPELAND: In that case I will withdraw the Supplementary Order Paper.

Seek leave, please.

💬 GORDON COPELAND: I seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw that Supplementary Order Paper.

💬 Hon CLEM SIMICH: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is not. We will move on.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause:

9B Microchip transponder must be implanted in certain dogs

Section 36A(6) is amended by omitting the expression “subsection 2”.

The next amendment is to insert new clause 9B, repealing section 36A, and new clause 9BA, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40 in the name of the Hon David Carter. It seeks to abolish microchipping requirements for all dogs. This amendment is out of order; it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can you explain how it can be that that is inconsistent with a previous decision, because this amendment looks to be on a slightly different aspect of that same issue. I think David Carter has put a lot of time into this, and the issue of all dogs is quite important to it. I do not think the amendment is inconsistent across the board; it is inconsistent in only one small aspect.

That is right. The Committee has just agreed to certain amendments, and it would be inconsistent to now deal with an amendment that would repeal what has already been agreed to several minutes ago.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The reason that it is not inconsistent—

Are we satisfied that the Hon David Carter has this issue well in hand? Thank you.

We will move on to an amendment to insert new clause 9B, repealing and substituting section 36A, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 46 in the name of Metiria Turei. This amendment is out of order because again it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

We come now to clause 9D, and the Hon Mark Burton’s typescript amendment to omit new section 41A(1).

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Are we voting on clause 9D, new section 41A, on Supplementary Order Paper 43?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): We are indeed voting on an amendment to clause 9D.

Is this the one that the Minister indicated earlier relates to dead dogs, which was to be removed?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No.

So which one is it?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is a consequence of the Minister withdrawing an amendment.

Could you say that again, please?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is a consequence of the Minister withdrawing an amendment. Is that clear?

Mr Chairman, it is not clear. Could I ask that an explanation be given as to the implications of that?

Earlier in the debate I sought, by way of point of order, the ability not to move clause 9D, so in seeking that particular agreement, we have to vote that it can be removed.

💬 Hon Member: We’re voting on whether it can be removed?

This is to vote to remove clause 9D. In clarification, I say to members that I am seeking, through the process of the Committee, to withdraw clause 9D.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Which is what we’re doing.

Which is what we are doing.

💬 Eric Roy: Just a point of clarification—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is quite clear, and I will actually ask the Clerk to explain to you so you will understand, and so I will understand, what it is.

Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want some clarification on clause 9D. The Minister in the chair, Nanaia Mahuta, has moved that she wants to withdraw that, but I originally thought that the part she wants to withdraw was new section 41A(3), inserted by clause 9D, on Supplementary Order Paper 43. That is to do with a fine not exceeding $100 when a dog dies and the council is not notified. The way, I think, you were putting it to us before the dinner break was that all of clause 9D would come out, so I just want some clarification around that point.

Perhaps I can be of some assistance. There are several references to dead dogs in the bill. In the bill itself there is a reference in new section 41A(1), which is inserted by clause 9D. I had an amendment to remove that, but my amendment will be overtaken by the Minister’s typewritten amendment. But the Minister also had, on Supplementary Order Paper 43, further references to the requirement to report a dead dog. The Minister then withdrew those sections, which leaves, in clause 9D, the provision that has not been removed. That is what we are voting on. The amendment is essentially the same amendment as the one I had, because I wanted to see that provision removed as well. I hope that is an explanation.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 9D be agreed to:

to omit subsection (1) from section 41A.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): We now come to a typescript amendment in the name of Eric Roy to omit section 41A(1), inserted by clause 9D. This amendment is now out of order.

During the dinner break I had the opportunity to talk to ministry officials, and they have asked that I seek leave to change one point of reference on my Supplementary Order Paper 41. The reference to section 36(1A) should read “section 46(1)”. I seek leave to make that change.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to insert new clause 9G be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to insert new clause 9G, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 46, is now out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision we have made.

The next two amendments have been withdrawn. Those were to insert new clause 12AA, and to insert new clauses 13A and 13B, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40, both in the name of the Hon David Carter.

The question was put that the amendments, except the amendment to insert new clause 9D, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 4, to insert new clause 9B, and to clause 9E(2) be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Litter Act 1979