Local Government Law Reform Bill

I rise to take a call on the title. I want to make the point that tonight in this Parliament, for the first time in 7 or 8 years, we have actually had a victory for common sense. Sadly, it is a partial victory, but it is a victory, nevertheless. I am proud and excited that the National team—David Carter, Eric Roy, Mark Blumsky, and a whole number of different people—

💬 Darren Hughes: You can’t remember her name.

Whose name?

💬 Darren Hughes: That woman behind you. He’s thinking.

That is not a woman—the member needs to go and clean his glasses and get his hair coloured.

The fact is that the National team, with the support of other parties in this House, can proudly stand up tonight and say we have had a victory for common sense. What is just as good is that it is a huge political disaster for the Labour Government, and particularly for Jim Anderton. He stood up there and said he was going to back the farmers. He said he was their man. He said he would speak up for them. And then he came down here and voted with the Government, and got riled because there was common sense amongst enough of the parties in this Parliament to defeat the Government tonight. I have to say that it shows a huge loss of faith in the Labour Government.

I also make the point, having been a former whip—as was Mark Burton, the Minister in the chair—that the whips in the Labour Government at the moment, Tim Barnett and Darren Hughes, should be feeling absolutely ashamed of themselves. They had absolutely no idea of what was going on when the vote was being taken. They did not know. Their job as whips should come under close scrutiny, because they should have been advising the Prime Minister that this bill, which amended and changed dog microchipping laws, was at risk. They did not say anything, because they did not know anything. They got caught—I was going to say “with their pants down”, but that is probably not appropriate. Nevertheless, they got caught out. The fact is that, as whips, they failed their Government, their Prime Minister, and their team. They let their side down, and they should be damn well ashamed of themselves. They should be taken to the cleaners and whipped until such stage as they are out of their job, quite honestly. It is an absolute disgrace. [Interruption] I do not know about their being microchipped; we want to lose them, not keep them.

The fact is that this has been a great victory for National tonight. This team over here has worked so well to make sure it happened. We worked closely with the other parties to make sure it happened, and we listened to the voters out there and to the people who were interested. At the end of the day, we have come up with, and given them, what they wanted.

Unfortunately, as hard as we tried, we only managed to get working dogs exempted from having to be microchipped. The fact is that urban dogs will still have to be microchipped—the little chihuahuas—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: We’ll find jobs for those urban dogs; they’ll all end up working dogs.

Well, they could all end up being working dogs, although I am not sure what sorts of thing a chihuahua can round up, but I am sure there is something—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Look at Winston. Look at what he can do.

Well, can Winston Peters round anything up?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Yes!

Well, there we go. The point is that lots of urban voters will be really dissatisfied now that their rural counterparts do not have to microchip their dogs. But urban dog owners will have to front up and cough up the money it will cost in consequence of having to have their dogs microchipped.

The point is that the Government has lost out politically, and I have to say again that it is a great victory for common sense tonight. I am proud to be part of the National Party and to be one of the people on this side of the Chamber who actually decided to vote on common-sense lines.

We need to address two or three other things in this bill, including the long-term council community plans. Those plans are costing local government and ratepayers far too much money. The way in which they are being administered and delivered, as a consequence of this Labour Government, is just unacceptable. The Minister should be ashamed of himself for imposing those sorts of costs on local government.

I am pleased to follow on from my colleague John Carter, who also played an important role in what has occurred in the Committee tonight. He was extolling the rest of the team, but we should acknowledge him, too. I also acknowledge the Greens. The Greens came into the debate on microchipping from a point of principle that I totally agreed with—that microchipping is nonsense and we ought to get rid of it per se. But the Greens, instead of taking an intransigent position when at the 11th hour it looked like there would be no progress, said: “Let’s go for a small gain.”—at least some of their members said that. I acknowledge the way in which those Green members must have discussed that and come to a decision. The Greens’ principle was right: microchipping is nuts and we should have defeated it. That is the position that the Greens took, and I understand that. I also acknowledge and place on record the movement that some of the Green members made in order to make some progress.

This legislation is similar to that of an omnibus bill. It deals with a whole lot of things. Largely, microchipping of dogs has been the area about which there has been debate. That is because the Government’s position on dog microchipping has been symbolic of a lot of errors it has made in terms of local authorities, costs, and prescriptive rules that have applied difficulties to local authorities. So microchipping is perhaps not the biggest cost issue out there, but it is one that is synonymous with an infringement on cost and on people’s rights. More significantly, microchipping will not do a jolly thing to stop the problem of dogs biting people and, particularly, children.

In seeing this as a summary debate I make the following point. The Hon Damien O’Connor made a point that I totally agree with. He said we ought to be shooting or destroying dogs that bite people. He was not to know that I had a Supplementary Order Paper that proposed we should do precisely that.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: We do that now.

It would be a mandatory requirement for any dog that bit a child to be destroyed—no ifs, no buts, no maybes. If Lianne Dalziel is so enthusiastic about that provision, why did she not vote in favour of my Supplementary Order Paper? The attack on Carolina Anderson was a tragedy, and we should be doing something about it. But it worries me that after 2 days of debate and several days of hearing submissions in the select committee we have not come up with a solution that deals with dogs that savage children—we have not done that, as a Parliament. In that respect the Government must take some responsibility. It has frittered around with a microchipping bill that will not do anything to resolve the problem.

In the debates earlier on, I made a point that I want to make again. On 1 July we will start microchipping those dogs that are registered from 1 July. The life of a dog is variable. I gave examples of dogs I have had and owned that have reached 19 years of age. I currently have a dog that is 17. In the year 2025 there will still be dogs that are not microchipped in the urban area, even if we get 100 percent compliance. I have to ask how realistic it is to say this will be a tool of effectiveness.

We had a lot of examples of the efficacy of the microchip itself. People have a completely false understanding of what this is about. What we do to cattle beasts or sheep is put a transponder on their eartags. It is about the size of a thimble or a 20c piece; it is something that has a bit of substance, and, yes, it can be read from a distance. But what are the chances of finding and reading a microchip that is the size of a grain of rice—7 millimetres by 1.5 millimetres—and buried under the thick skin on a large rough of some dog? The Local Government and Environment Committee heard that some of the microchips are not reliable and do not last very long, at all. Those illustrations were given in the select committee, yet the Government forged ahead. So the microchipping of dogs was a principle around this local government law reform that just said that much of what this Government has done in loading costs and prescriptive behaviour on to local authorities is inappropriate.

I often use Garrick Tremain’s cartoons as a guiding mentor in life. I find them to be particularly insightful about what is going on in the world of politics. One of the best cartoons I have ever seen that pertains to this legislation depicted an old farm ute driving along the road with three dogs on the back. The first dog says: “We’re off to town to get microchipped, so that if we ever bite the kids in the town, they’ll know who we are.”, the second dog asks: “But when do we ever go to town?”, and the third dog says: “We go there to get microchipped.” That is how crazy this legislation was for working farm dogs that do not ever go to town, other than to get microchipped—in the process of which they might jump off the ute, bite a kid, and then get blamed for it.

I am delighted that some common sense has prevailed in this Chamber tonight. It is very unusual for that happen in this place, but it has happened tonight. We at least have a small victory. I do not understand for the life of me why Labour Ministers were hanging out so strongly to include all dogs in the microchipping provisions of the bill when it was absolute stupidity to have farm dogs included in the microchipping process.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Why did the member vote for it?

I did not vote for it.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Yes, you did.

Oh no, I did not vote for it, at all. I am one of those who believes that microchipping will do nothing for the safety of anybody.

I found that out when I learnt that, in order to read the microchip, the dog officer cannot just get the scanner, stand 20 or 30 metres back, ask what the dog’s number is, and then maybe push press a button and the dog explodes. No, the dog control officer has to hold the dog down and rub the scanner over the fur until he or she can find the chip, because the chip—as the vets told us—can move.

The vet says: “Nice pooch, nice pooch; let me find your chip.” This is a dog who has just mauled some kid in the park, ripped pieces off his or her flesh, and has blood dripping from its mouth. I can see an ordinary dog control officer saying: “Oh, yippee! I can chase another savage, savage, vicious, beastly dog across the park, hold it down, get out my wand, scan over its fur, and try to find its chip.” How stupid! No one believes that will protect children like Carolina Anderson—no one. Absolutely not!

A number of other measures could be taken that would make at least a small inroad. But I say to the Government that most legislation such as this covers law-abiding citizens, who would comply. They would all trundle off to the vet, pay their $100, and do everything they are supposed to. But it is not their dogs that are the problem. Some vicious, half-breed mongrel dog that has been kicked, beaten, whipped with a chain, badly fed, and is sitting at some Mongrel Mob headquarters will be the dog that goes out and does the attacking. And guess what? Members of the Mongrel Mob will not even know this legislation has been passed, let alone do anything about microchipping their dogs. So what are all the law-abiding citizens out there doing spending their $100?

No wonder the Veterinary Association backed this bill. Self-interest is alive and well. The Veterinary Association thought this legislation was a good idea. Why? The reason is that every dog represents $100 for vets. How good a deal is that? Laying aside all personal and private interests—not on your life! But, like the gun laws and a whole range of other laws, this legislation covers the 99 percent of people who are law-abiding and who get all the costs and all the impost. And I am yet to hear one member of the Government say how a vicious, wild beast running through the bushes in the parks of Auckland after having mauled a little girl will be stopped or how that problem will be fixed.

The first question is to ask how this legislation will stop another Carolina Anderson incident. We all know that was dreadful. We all feel badly for that family and for that girl, and we would love to do things about it. I do not think there is a member in this Chamber who would not love to do things that would prevent that sort of attack from happening again. But I say again that not one thing in this bill—especially the microchipping side of it—would ever, ever have prevented it. So now Cabinet’s No. 3, Jim Anderton, who made a promise to farmers—“Do you not understand where No. 3 is relative to No. 18?”—then comes along, buckles to pressure, and votes for it. He has actually had it completely gazumped. Government members must be highly embarrassed.

This afternoon Parliament is certainly creating a dog’s breakfast. We are passing a law that is unenforceable. We have been told by council dog control officers that distinguishing between farm dogs, working dogs, and other dogs simply will not be feasible. I predict that this issue will be back here before very long, and Parliament will be revisiting what has happened today.

I certainly hope that is so, and I imagine that is why four of my colleagues decided in the end to support the amendment to exempt farm dogs, even though none of us actually believes we should have exemptions for one category of dog and not for others. The only principled position here is that either microchipping will save children’s lives and therefore every dog should be microchipped, or microchipping will not save children’s lives and no dog should be microchipped, except for those dogs that have been classified as menacing or dangerous. One can make a case for microchipping them; such dogs have not yet done enough to deserve to be shot, but they are on notice and they need to be watched.

That is what the Green Party tried to achieve with a member’s bill, which failed by one vote. That is what we did achieve in the Local Government and Environment Committee with an amendment, which then got knocked out in the House. That is what we tried to achieve throughout the debate on the Committee stage of this bill. Only when all of those options had been exhausted and there was no possibility of knocking out microchipping for all harmless dogs did four of my colleagues decide they would go with the amendment to exempt farm dogs. It was not because they thought it was a good idea—one could argue that it was because they thought half a loaf was better than none—but, mainly, I believe, because they thought it would make the law unworkable, and we would then have another chance to knock out microchipping for other dogs, as well.

We know that having a microchip will not prevent a dog from savaging a child. We know that it will not make it any easier to find out what dog savaged the child. If people see the dog do it, they know the dog; if they do not see the dog do it, the fact that it has a microchip in it will not help to identify it. It is not a locator beacon; it will not help people find the dog. We know that we cannot distinguish between farm dogs and other dogs. But it seemed to have become an article of faith with some that once this legislation had got as far as this, it had to be driven through.

It was possible for four of my colleagues to decide to vote differently from Metiria and myself because in the Green Party, if a matter is not a policy that has been determined by the party and that members signed up to when they came here, then after a debate in caucus we are free to disagree. That is what has happened today. I do not agree with my four colleagues, but I absolutely uphold their right to vote in the way they did this afternoon.

I fear that that provision may make things more difficult for urban dog owners, because the strongest lobby group against microchipping has now been silenced. I challenge Federated Farmers to join with urban dog owners to continue to oppose this legislation, rather than their just feeling relief that they are out of jail, and never mind anybody else. However, I predict that the legislation will be back here. It is bad law, and the Greens have done what we can. [Interruption] Yes, if United Future and New Zealand First had been prepared to listen to the facts, maybe we would have had a different outcome. But this is where we are, and we have done our best.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Dog Control Amendment Bill, the Litter Amendment Bill, the Local Electoral Amendment Bill, the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill, the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill, the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, and the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2), pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 42.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.