Local Government Law Reform Bill

This bill, the Local Government Law Reform Bill, is the most dopey legislation we have seen come into this Parliament in a long period of time. I start by thanking Helen Clark and Michael Cullen for giving us such a defining issue so soon in the electoral cycle. Mark my words, the people of New Zealand will remember this issue when the real stench of decay from this Government finally settles and we go into a general election. The dog microchipping legislation the Government is trying to ram through tonight will be remembered by New Zealanders at the polling booth.

New Zealanders will also well remember how the political parties have positioned themselves on this issue. I note the fact that at least the Labour Government has been consistent. It has said it will be stupid, and now it is here tonight, enacting that stupidity with this legislation. We know where New Zealand First has been. It has been blindly stupid. The baubles of office were offered to Winston Peters, he rolled over like the true poodle that he is, and he took every other poodle in New Zealand First with him. New Zealand First members will support the Government.

Christopher Finlayson: Will he be microchipped?

Hon DAVID CARTER: He certainly should be.

Let us look at who has consistently opposed the legislation. The National Party has opposed this legislation from the time Chris Carter introduced it as a Supplementary Order Paper a few years ago. I pay tribute to my parliamentary colleagues who have worked the country—all the Federated Farmers meetings—collecting those 10,000 signatures on a petition in the name of Kate Wilkinson. A petition with 10,000 signatures to be tabled in Parliament tomorrow shows how much of a concern this issue is, and I thank my colleagues for their work in achieving that.

I will now look at the other smaller parties, because New Zealand voters deserve to know about them. In fairness to the Greens, they have been absolutely consistent in their opposition to this legislation. The ACT party has been consistent. The Māori Party, since it arrived in Parliament, has been consistent in its opposition to the legislation. So we are left with the one party that will determine whether this law passes tonight—that is, United Future.

I can do no better to highlight United Future’s position than to quote from a printout from my computer today. It is a New Zealand Press Association highlight of the week in politics that had this to say about that member Gordon Copeland: “They say that every dog has his day, but for United Future MP Gordon Copeland his tough talk over microchipping of dogs lasts only a few hours. In the morning”—this is from Tuesday of last week—“Copeland claims to have the Government in a corner, saying they will have to back his plans to exempt farm dogs or face total defeat. By the afternoon, Gordon Copeland rolls over and plays dead.” That was from the New Zealand Press Association—it knows how much gumption Gordon Copeland and United Future have over this issue.

Christopher Finlayson: No gumption.

Hon DAVID CARTER: They have no gumption at all, it appears. But we live in hope. United Future members changed their minds within a few hours last time they took a substantial position, and there are still a few hours to go. Gordon Copeland may be in a position where common sense will prevail. He will know that his party’s votes will determine whether this microchipping fiasco is foisted on all dog owners in this country.

National has two substantive amendments, which we will have a chance to vote on later on tonight, or maybe tomorrow, depending on how long we are allowed to have this debate. One amendment exempts all farm working dogs, and the other amendment exempts all dogs. At this stage what might happen is that the way those votes are cast will depend, at the end of the day, on United Future—Peter Dunne and his team, including Gordon Copeland. So here is Gordon Copeland’s opportunity to actually front up, stand by his tough talk of a week ago, put the Government in a corner, and let us see whether we can defeat the Government. If we are not successful, then it will be substantially because of United Future—and Doug Woolerton, but we know that we are wasting our time with Doug.

That was a close call! I thought for a minute that somebody who had not been microchipped was going to get the call. It is a real worry around here. We are all buzzing, and the only thing I can think of is that someone has tried to sing out and it did not work.

I want to make the important point that if people think that microchipping dogs will stop even one dog attack or one child from being bitten, they are absolutely deluding themselves. If they believe that microchipping will stop dog attacks, they are stark raving mad. The only thing I can think of is that if someone had a decent microchip and slammed it right through a dog’s nozzle and bent it over, then maybe—

Colin King: Through both ends!

JOHN CARTER: Well, one could stick it through both ways, I guess. But the point is that that will not happen. The sad thing is that people out there who are influenced by those political parties supporting microchipping, will think that this legislation will stop dog attacks on people, and particularly attacks on young children. I am afraid they will be sadly disillusioned. Indeed, we are seeing reports from the SPCA that it is turning dogs away, because so many owners are trying to get rid of them because they do not want to have to microchip.

Do members know what really disappoints me in this place?

Bob Clarkson: What?

JOHN CARTER: It is when particular political parties change their mind for the sake of political expediency. That is really disappointing. I look across at my friend and colleague Doug Woolerton. Three years ago he belonged to a party that had a fellow called Jim Peters. He stood up in the House and said that microchipping was nuts. He said that New Zealand First did not like it and would not support it.” That party was against the microchipping of dogs, until Helen Clark waved the microchip in front of Winston Peters’ nose. Then all of a sudden he thought: “Here’s something I like. I’ll accept this little chip.” So Winston took it. The rest of his party had to follow, and Doug Woolerton, a guy who normally stands up for what he thinks and what he says, had to roll over.

I say to Doug that I am seriously disappointed. He is the sort of guy one can sit down with and have a beer and a bit of a yarn. He is a guy who normally stands true to his word, but he backed off. He backed off, just so his boss could continue to have free travel around the world, looking at other things, and not worrying about microchips. I say to Doug that it is a real disgrace when that sort of thing happens in this Parliament. People should stand by what they think and do what they said they would do. Unfortunately, New Zealand First members have let themselves down and let the country down. That is disgraceful.

But sitting behind New Zealand First members is another party, United Future. A former member Paul Adams thought that microchipping was great. He was part of United Future. But now all of a sudden Mr Copeland is saying one thing one day, one thing another day, barking to any tune, goodness knows what, and whimpering away.

I tell Mr Copeland that the sad thing is that we could seriously make a difference tonight to the nation, if we took a sensible, rational approach to this whole issue. But what will happen, for some reason that I do not understand—there is some thinking going on, which only Gordon can explain—is that he will let the side down, he will seriously let the Parliament down, and let the people of this country down. The whole nation will be looking at Gordon Copeland and thinking: “That guy backed off, that guy let us down, that guy prevented us from stopping this silly move by an incompetent Government.”

It is bad enough that a whole lot of people down in the South Island are without power because we have a silly, incompetent Minister of Civil Defence, but now we have somebody who wants us to make people put microchips in their dogs, when we cannot even get power to people in the South Island. We have a Government that cannot look after the needs of the people, but is happy to make sure that dogs are damn well microchipped. That is just not good enough. I say to Doug Woolerton and Gordon Copeland: “You guys have really let the side down.”

The debate on this issue has been the most overblown that I have heard for a long time. Microchipping is just a better, more modern way of identifying dogs. Dog collars break, they come off; identification tags come off; and one cannot tell whether a dog without a collar has been registered. Collars get lost and they break, whereas a microchip stays put. It is there for life.

I have heard it suggested by some of the opponents to this legislation that farm dogs do not bite people. What a lot of rot. Dogs bite people. When I was 9 years old I was bitten on the face by a neighbour’s sheepdog, while I was waiting for the school bus. Now that is not such an unusual thing. To say that farm dogs never bite people is utter nonsense. To say that farm dogs never stray is more utter nonsense. To say that farm dogs never run away and worry other people’s stock is more complete nonsense. Microchipping dogs does help to get those sorts of issues under control, and that has been well demonstrated in, for example, some of the Australian states that introduced dog microchipping some time ago. It does encourage, over time, more responsible dog ownership. I think that is very worth while doing.

I know that New Zealanders do worry about the odd dog attacks, and we should do things that encourage more responsible dog ownership. Microchipping discourages the keeping of inherently dangerous and aggressive breeds of dogs, and this measure is a pretty good place to start. Before Federated Farmers got off on their annual subscription drumming-up exercise, the campaign for dog microchipping was led by dog control officers around New Zealand employed by our territorial local authorities. Those people were on the front line of trying to combat the plague of dangerous, uncontrolled dogs, particularly in our cities and suburbs, and in areas around our cities, and on farms where dogs do not so much worry people but livestock; where they are a plague on the farmer who wants to keep his stock undisturbed.

I say that this measure will help. It has arguments to and fro, but it will help. We should just get on with it.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, and that was very wise, if I may say so. The Committee has heard from the Carter twins—the rich one and the poor one—and they have brought a lot of colleagues to the Chamber. In fact, I have not seen as many people as there are on the National Party side of the Chamber, waiting to be excited, for many a long day. But, unfortunately, they are going to be disappointed.

The honourable Minister Jim Sutton is right; this is a registration method. The honourable Minister said that dogs lose their collars. He could have gone one step further, which I intend to do. Farmers do not even put the collars on their dogs, and other farmers know that. When we come to the issue of who voted for the legislation 3 years ago and who did not, I can tell members that everybody in this House 3 years ago, including the National Party, voted for it, with the exception of the ACT party. So it is not correct for those gentlemen, excited though they may be, to hop up now and say they did not vote for it.

As I said to my friends in Federated Farmers this afternoon, David Carter took an opportunity—and as a professional politician I can admire him for this—to go into this omnibus bill and ask how he could cause some mischief. What he came up with—and goodness knows how he convinced Federated Farmers of this, because normally they are sensible people—was to say that he could raise some mischief here by putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper to exempt farm dogs from microchipping. There will be a modern dog microchipping - dog registration regime, and those silly people in the National Party are saying they would exempt farm dogs. They should get with the programme. How silly is that? We have moved past the days of registering dogs on a little bit of leather, we have gone past the days of registering them on a little bit of paper, and we most certainly have gone past the days of carving a registration in stone.

But the National Party members do not know that, and they are again trying to defy gravity and deny reality. They are going down that road and, sadly, taking some of my very, very close, dear friends in Federated Farmers along with them. I look forward to the day when Federated Farmers understand most clearly that they have been duped in a most serious and cynical manner. They will feel very, very humiliated and ashamed of themselves. They will come flocking to New Zealand First by the hundreds of thousands with their votes.

I cannot close without saying that I was deeply hurt by Mr David Carter saying to me that when he had finished with me around the farming community, I would not show my face in front of Federated Farmers or at any other meeting with farmers. Well, that will be the day when I do not front up to farmers anywhere in the country, at any time. In fact, farmers and I have a mutual love thing going on. It is unseemly, but it is true. Federated Farmers will come to their senses sooner or later and, like any other jilted people, they will be very, very angry at the people in the National Party who have duped them so conclusively and cynically.

For the good of the country, for the good of farmers, for the good of dogs, and for the good of our future, New Zealand First has much pleasure in supporting this bill. We look forward to a successful dog registration regime replacing the pathetic, old, failed system.

I say for a start that bad cases make bad law. We all know how this bill arrived in Parliament: it was a reaction to the horrendous attack on Carolina Anderson, that young girl in Auckland. I also say to this Parliament that once one has sat through a select committee process on something as controversial as this, where all the evidence—100 percent—is against the notion that this dopey legislation will work, and then the Government decides to proceed with it, you do have to ask what really motivates this Government. If the answer is not politics, politics, politics, then what is the answer? The answer is politics; that is all that motivates Government members. Nothing else matters. The facts never ever get in the way of a good piece of politics, with this Government.

I say to the support parties that I hope the poodles do not have too many microchips in them, because when the Government consumes them it might choke on the microchips. That is what will happen. If members have never seen a case of Christians being fed to the lions, then it is here tonight in the House with Gordon Copeland—absolutely. He is a very good Christian, and what has happened is he has been gobbled up by the lions over in the Labour caucus tonight. I hope they do not choke on his microchip.

I say to the House tonight that this technology will not work. That is a fact. It has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that with a lot of dog breeds—not all of them, but with many of them—if we insert a microchip into a 6-month-old pup, as the law requires and as stated in this bill, by the time the dog is 18 months old, the chip will have disappeared so far into the dog’s body fat that the scanning device will not read the technology. That is what Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Green Party found out at the Local Government and Environment Committee, which is why she put forward an amendment to the bill in relation to this particular legislation.

It is interesting to see one of the Labour Government’s old dogs, Jim Sutton, over there in the back corner, yapping away. I am not sure whether he is now a lapdog or a Labrador, or where exactly he fits into it, but it is good to see him back. Why is he not on the front bench? Why is the honourable member Jim Anderton the Minister of Agriculture?

Jim Sutton said he would back the farmers, and when he had the chance in this Parliament to back the farmers, what happened? The legislation was voted down 61 to 60. Whose vote was that? With the one chance he had to actually demonstrate to the farming community he was going to back them when he had an opportunity right here in Parliament, what did he do? He voted them down. Jim Sutton is another, I think, former Christian, I could say. I am not sure; I do not want to get into that. But he is another one who has been consumed by the lions, that is for sure. So much for Jim Sutton. Out there on the hustings—

R Doug Woolerton: I’m a Christian.

SHANE ARDERN: Well, one thing that is consistent about New Zealand First members is their support for this measure. So I say to my good colleague Doug Woolerton that at least he has been consistent. He is absolutely wrong, but he is consistently wrong, so that is good. At least we know he will be wrong, and consistently wrong. I think Doug Woolerton knows this himself, without it being stated in the House, but I say to him that his party will be dog-tucker. The reality is that when the vote is counted, and as Winston disappears over the horizon somewhere—I am not sure whether it will be Canada or London, but it will be somewhere like that—New Zealand First will be dog-tucker. Poor Ron Mark is a good fighting, battling man, but potentially he will not make it over the line. So there it is. I say to the members of New Zealand First that at least they are consistent.

Coming back to the point of this legislation, I say that none of the members on this side of the Chamber really understands it—because it is wrong. We understand common sense. We understand something that people can support if it makes sense—even if we disagree with it—but this legislation makes no sense. So why would we proceed with something that makes absolutely no sense and that will not prevent one single dog attack, will not save one single child like Carolina Anderson, and will not do anything except add a whole layer of costs and compliance to the poor old mum in Glenfield with her little poodle and to the farmer out there who has 16 or 18 dogs in one dog kennel?

I also say that the members of the Green Party ought to be congratulated. Those members took a principled position.

When this issue first arose I was not overly enthusiastic about microchipping dogs. However, having read through the issues, having thought about them for some time, and having been part of the decision-making process, I can say that I accept the decision.

I have absolutely zero tolerance for any dog that would harm a person—I would shoot those dogs on the spot. Of course, the key driver for this legislation was an attempt by the Government to reduce the harm caused by dogs, mainly on humans. But, of course, there is also the ongoing and quite prevalent issue of dogs worrying farm stock, which the National Party seems to have forgotten. We had two objectives. The first objective was to try to reduce the number of horrible attacks on people—young and old, big and small—that were occurring up and down this country. In my view, if any dog were to attack a person, I would have that dog destroyed on the spot.

Hon Member: Absolutely.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: So what can Parliament do about it? Well, the Government has put forward this proposal, and there are a couple of benefits for the farming community in it. Firstly, there is the issue of reducing the number of attacks on farmers’ animals.

Sandra Goudie: Rubbish!

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Perhaps the member has been away from her farming community for too long to know that those attacks still occur. My approach, over time, would be that any dog without a microchip would be destroyed on the spot.

There is another big issue that farmers should see in this whole debate. In the long term, farmers will not be able to sell food from this country anywhere around the world, unless they can show full traceability so that the steak on a plate in the UK can be traced back to a farm somewhere in New Zealand. Currently, there are stories in most of the farming newspapers about problems around eartags, including the fact that they are dropping out and the fact that we cannot clearly identify animals. That matter is important, firstly, for the control of tuberculosis, of course, but, secondly, because the companies that kill the stock do not know exactly where that stock has come from, and they cannot show traceability down through their production chain.

I believe that before very long those European and US buyers of our meat will demand not only that the animals the meat comes from must be clearly identified but also that all animals in the food production system are to be identified—that includes farm dogs, as well—so we will have to be able to guarantee absolutely that any animal in a farm production system can be accurately identified. How should we do that?

We currently have a dog registration system—maybe the National Party will propose doing away with that; I am not sure why it would not do so, if it wanted to be consistent. Under our current dog registration system, people used to receive a collar when they registered their dogs, but nowadays they do not get one. Many farmers do not put collars on their dogs, and many farmers do not register their dogs. One either argues for the integrity of the system or one does not.

Currently, in food production systems in this country, and particularly in aquaculture, people are microchipping eels and salmon. Why? The reason is that the people involved in food production know they need to identify their animals so they can prove that the food they are selling comes from a salmon food production system. If we can microchip eels and salmon in this country, I would suggest that the cost of microchipping dogs is not too prohibitive.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next speaker, I say to members that chaos maybe fruitful in furthering some forms of management, but it will not be the parent of good order here—that is the first thing. The second thing I inform members of is that although I expect interjections, I will not allow another speaker to be drowned out. The third thing I would suggest to all new members is that they look up Speaker’s ruling 57/3 regarding interjections.

During the first reading debate in this House, Minister Burton confessed that this legislation would not stop a dog from biting a child. That is what he said. Therefore, we have to ask why we are debating this bill today. It is time in this Committee to admit we got it wrong. We have got a number of bills wrong, and we should admit that we have got this bill wrong and move on from it. It has happened in the past. We do not doubt that the bill came with good intentions. The Minister said that it was with the best of intentions that the bill was developed. We were all thoroughly alarmed about the heart-tugging case that involved Carolina Anderson, and we tugged at our heartstrings for all the right reasons. We passed the wrong legislation, and we have had time to reflect on it, so let us admit we got it wrong.

The other point is that when we get legislation wrong in this Parliament there tends to be a rising tide of opposition to it. That is exactly what we have seen all around New Zealand. Sensible councils all over New Zealand are saying that the bill is unenforceable and stupid. I ask members to guess what happens when a large proportion of society is opposed to legislation. The answer is that it does not work. We have seen that happen with cannabis and with many other laws. When legislation is widely opposed and society thinks it is stupid, it does not work.

Another issue that has not really been widely raised in this debate concerns the comment made in the last debate that National Party members should be microchipped—ha, ha! But, actually, that is not so silly, because it could be a case of dogs today and humans tomorrow—members should mark my words. This is surveillance technology. This is Orwellian technology. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I remind members about Speaker’s ruling 57/3.

SUE KEDGLEY: The technology of inserting microchips into human beings has moved from the realm of science fiction into a genuine business strategy astonishingly quickly. The technology now has high-profile supporters, such as Microsoft chairman, Bill Gates; President Bush’s former health secretary; and so forth. Manufacturers standing to benefit from the trend are now targeting workforces in the UK and USA. So we should be quite clear that once we have legitimised this practice for dogs, eels, and salmon, it will be us next. They will make it voluntary first—one cannot get insurance without a microchip—then it will be beneficiaries, and then there will be microchipping all over New Zealand.

A wider issue, though, is the question of what ever happened to the trusting, relaxed, friendly New Zealand society. We all trusted each other, but now our communities will be running around microchipping dogs. What happened? We used to be a nice, trusting society. This is just one symptom of how we seem to be fast turning into an authoritarian, Orwellian society. We are rushing around, microchipping our dogs, when we know it will not work. That is crazy stuff. The Government knows it but it will not back down.

The Minister said he had reflected long and hard about it and had come round to deciding he agreed with it. In truth, the Minister and every other member who does not agree with it—and I am sure there are plenty who do not—have been whipped into line. This has been made part of those parties’ confidence and supply agreements. I say to Gordon Copeland: “Good on you!”. He has tried and he has flailed around, but in the end he has been whipped into line because of his party’s confidence and supply agreement. That is all this is about. It is about being whipped into line. Most of those members know that it is wrong, and that it will not stop one dog from biting one child. They are putting this stupid legislation through just because they are being pigheaded and do not want to admit that they have got it wrong.

I begin by informing the Committee that I did look up the Hansard of 2003 when the amendment to the Dog Control Act came into being. As my friend Doug Woolerton has correctly stated, if we look at it and ask ourselves whether Labour voted for microchipping, we see the answer is yes. Did the Progressives vote for microchipping? The answer is yes. Did United Future vote for microchipping? The answer is yes. Did New Zealand First vote for microchipping? The answer is yes. Did the Green Party vote for microchipping? The answer is yes. Did the National Party vote for microchipping? The answer is yes. There was only one party in this House that on the third reading of that bill—[Interruption] I tell David Carter to go and look at Hansard, and he will see that the only party that voted against the bill on its third reading was the ACT party. The Māori Party was not here at that stage, but I am sure that if it had been here, its members would have been convinced by the arguments, too.

Let us put some facts on the table about what happened in 2003. Essentially, United Future has not changed its position since 2003—unlike the Greens, who have done a complete backflip. There is no disputing that they voted for the amendment in 2003, and now they are totally against it. They said we got it wrong. I do not believe we got it wrong; I believe we got it significantly right. However, I have an open mind and a common-sense mind. When Federated Farmers came to me earlier this year and made a case for exempting working farm dogs from microchipping, and I heard their figures and saw the facts of the situation—that 40 percent of all dogs are responsible for 2 percent of dog attacks—I thought that yes, they had a good case. Immediately we decided as a caucus that we would work towards an exemption for working farm dogs, and that has been our position from that day to this, notwithstanding the comments to the contrary from some of our opponents.

I will let the record show this, too. If we go back and look—and the media are quite aware of this—who do we see was the first person to suggest a Supplementary Order Paper to exempt working farm dogs from microchipping? I was. I was the first person to come up with that idea, and David Carter, who had not thought of that idea, jumped on to the bandwagon very, very quickly. So tonight I want to thank the National Party members for their endorsement of the common-sense position we initiated. Those are the facts, and those members can talk about them as much as they like, but the media are aware of that situation. We have led this issue from day one, because it does make common sense. I think the clever little slogan of “one law for all dogs” is just that—it is a clever slogan. It is a bit like a bumper sticker. It does not depend on much logic or analysis. For that reason I will be voting for David Carter’s Supplementary Order Paper tonight, and I hope that National Party members will vote for mine.

Hon David Carter: Both of them?

GORDON COPELAND: I will vote only for the first one.

So let us again put a few facts on the record. These are the facts. If any member wants to refute them, I encourage him or her to take a call, and I will be happy to hear it. New South Wales introduced a microchipping regime in 1999—at about this time of the year, I think. It has now been going for 7 years. In 1997, before that was done, there were 521 dog attacks in New South Wales. What has happened since then? In 2003, which is the latest figure we have, there were 167 dog attacks. Why? I will tell members. A lot of people have asked me how it works. It is very simple, really. In 7 years from now all the dogs in New Zealand will be microchipped—and if I had my way we would exempt working farm dogs, but it looks as though that will not happen. With that situation, immediately an unsupervised dog is found without a microchip, it is put down on the spot. That is how microchipping works, and that is why it works. Nobody here really has their mind around why it works, but it works because unsupervised dogs are put down. I tell members that once a farmer loses an expensive, well-trained dog to a .22 rifle or an injection, microchipping will take off in the farming community like we would not believe.

I am really disappointed that so many people in this House, including particularly the Labour Government, New Zealand First, and the Greens, do not become a bit more pragmatic, because the fact of the matter is that Federated Farmers have dug their toes in. They have said they will have a campaign of civil disobedience, and I for one believe them. We have councils that say they will give microchipping a low priority, and I for one believe them. All we had to do was the common-sense thing and make microchipping voluntary for working farm dogs.

Firstly, can I say that the National Party is deadly serious about dealing to dogs that savage people, particularly children. I listened with interest to the comments of the Hon Damien O’Connor and he said words to the effect that if he had his way, he would destroy any dog that bit a person. Well, I have to say to him that it is his lucky day. Earlier in the day I tabled two amendments. One of them is an amendment to clause 8A. It states: “Any dog savaging a child under 13 years of age shall be put down.” That is how serious we are about dealing with this problem.

Let me just explain about the age factor. The principal issue that brought this up was the attack on Carolina Anderson—so any child being savaged is the issue. Why 13? Well, it is an arbitrary age, but it is for this reason. If we have a companion dog that wards off someone attacking us, there ought to be some recognition of that fact. Simply, if a person is under 13 years of age, that person is not likely to be attacking other people. It is most unlikely. So this amendment—

Hon Damien O'Connor: Why not 15?

ERIC ROY: I can see that Mr O’Connor is delighted, because anybody who does not vote for this amendment says that dogs are more important than children. That is the first point I wish to make.

Hon Damien O'Connor: So a 14-year-old’s not important?

ERIC ROY: I ask how serious Damien O’Connor was on actually backing that up. That is my first amendment.

I will raise some other issues about microchipping generally before I move to my second amendment. At the introduction of this legislation and at the report back, I talked about the efficacy of microchipping. The Local Government and Environment Committee received a great deal of evidence about people who have had their dogs microchipped and the microchips could not be read a very short space of time afterwards. We heard of golden retrievers that had been microchipped before they left Great Britain and when they arrived here on the plane, those microchips were not able to be read. So there is a suspect efficacy issue around microchipping. Because I have been making these points, when I took a dog to the vet, the technician said—and I will repeat it again—that I would need to check this every year. The Government has not told people that, but there is an ongoing cost to make sure that this technology actually works. The vets wrote to me and said this was a good reason for microchipping: 30 percent of the dogs in New Zealand are unregistered, therefore, we should microchip. Well, I have to say that if 30 percent are unregistered now with the simple cost of registration, how many will be unregistered later?

Hon Member: 50 percent.

ERIC ROY: I have to say that I spent this evening with a number of farmers, and I tell members that this legislation will be largely ignored.

I also make this point. If this technology seriously worked, why are we introducing it for dogs that are under 6 months on 1 July? I have had dogs all my life. I have had a team of dogs. I currently have one dog, Kate, who is 17 years of age. I had another dog, Penny, who lived to 19. Kate had her first litter of pups at 15, and I have no doubt she will make 19. But this bill says that in the year 2025 there will be dogs still not microchipped. How good a system is that, to actually control a kind of database about where dogs are and how effective this legislation will be in identifying dogs? There will be a greater degree of disobedience about registering, and there will be such a time lag that it will not mean anything till about 2030. How effective a piece of legislation is that, to actually deal with the problem?

I have to say that this bill is nutty. Yes, we should be doing something. That is why I introduced this handwritten amendment that says that any dog savaging a child must be destroyed. That will modify the behaviour of dog owners more quickly than anything else. It does not matter whether dogs are registered or unregistered but if they attack a child the problem will be removed, and that will modify the behaviour of people who have dogs that are unsupervised or dogs that attack people.

I am looking forward to the support of the Hon Damien O'Connor, and of anyone else.

I cannot honestly support any amendments put up by the National Party, because I do not believe its members are genuine in their support of the intent of this bill. They were back in 2002, when they understood what we were trying to do. This legislation will not solve the problem of dogs savaging people; it is however the best intent of this Parliament, at this point in time, to move ahead in this very complex area. The previous speaker referred to the “simple” process of dog registration—the simple process that sees 30 percent of the dogs in this country not registered. Well, that is not simple enough, I would suggest.

The other issue is cost. I understand that it costs from $12 up to $200 to register a dog. That is no small fee for many people. The cost of a microchip is negligible. In relation to the issues raised about cost by members on the other side of the Chamber, I say that, as we have seen in every area of technology, the costs will come down, particularly as the volumes go up. I would expect that we will be paying no more than $5 for a chip. Yes, there will be a cost for putting it in place, but I would suggest that in the future the microchipping of dogs will be a replacement for registration. It will be an accurate way of identifying a dog for life.

At the moment on farms we have electronic means of identifying cows as they run through a race—the implant of an electronic tag that can or cannot fall out. It can accurately identify an animal, and the farmer, with the use of technology, can tell where that animal should be and which animal it is. I suggest that it will not be too far into the future—when this bill is passed—that a simple cost for most councils will allow them to identify accurately, from a distance, whether a dog is microchipped.

Eric Roy: That’s not a microchip!

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Oh, the members—the Neanderthals over there—think that that cannot be done. Well, I suggest that as has happened for many years now with technology and improving focus, we can do anything if we want. But what I feel really sad about in this whole debate is that both the National Party and the Green Party have fallen in.

I have to say that it has been an odd debate, to have the Green Party and the National Party cuddling up, for quite different philosophical reasons but for one main reason—political opportunism. I feel quite sad because I am a passionate advocate for farmers and for rural communities, but National members, aided and assisted by a few people at the top of Federated Farmers, have gone around and stirred up everyone.

I would like to see Federated Farmers led in a way that focuses them on the real issues—issues like farm safety. We are killing more farmers in this country every year, because of a lack of leadership—that is what I put to members. There is not enough focus on farm safety, because National members and the members of Federated Farmers are running around talking about microchipping. Well, let us get on to the real issues. What is happening about the restructuring in the dairy industry? What is happening about the wool industry? What are Federated Farmers saying about those issues? If they would get off their butts and focus on the real issues, instead of on microchipping—a cheap political opportunity—they would have the opportunity to assist in reducing the number of horrific attacks on people, be they 12, 13, or 14; 17, or 18; or whatever the age, I tell Mr Roy.

There are horrific attacks by dogs on people, and we are trying to do our best to reduce them. We are also trying to assist the farming community by reducing the attacks on farm animals, because with technology and microchipping we will be able to identify whether a dog is microchipped. I put to members that as we start with new pups on 1 July—and some farmers do not realise that fact—and as we move into a position of assuming that all dogs will be microchipped, any dog that is not should be destroyed on the spot. End of story!

I rise to speak on this Local Government Law Reform Bill, which makes me reflect that the honourable member Damien O’Connor has called this an odd debate. Yes, it is odd, is it not? It is very odd, indeed, to think that microchipping a dog will protect kids from dogs. That is a very, very odd point of view. This bill will not stop a dog from biting a child. Microchipping dogs will achieve nothing. Earlier this evening I was talking to a member of Federated Farmers, who is a farmer himself. He said: “You know, why are you people spending so much time on this microchipping of dogs?”. I said: “Well, I’m blowed if I know, but I tell you what—it is a stupid argument; it is a dopey argument.” Do members know what that farmer said to me? He said—and he spoke kind of slowly, because farmers sometimes do—“I’ve tried to look at this issue from all angles, but I just cannot see the sense in it.”

And what about the dogs in all this? It is not good enough for this Labour Government to be taxing people—oh, no—to be overtaxing hard-working, dog-loving New Zealanders, but now it wants to tax the dogs. Do members know what is worse? This new tax on dog ownership, this new proposed requirement to microchip dogs, will mean a death sentence for many, many dogs. I refer members to an item on Newstalk ZB this morning, which began: “Auckland SPCA turns away dogs”. The Auckland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is not taking in any more dogs, or puppies—little furry puppies—this week, and it is absolutely desperate to find foster families for dogs and puppies until new homes can be found for them.

Do members know why? Well, the shelter manager, whose name is Rachel Foster, has never seen so many dogs abandoned. Do members know why? OK—the reason is a combination of bad weather and the fact that dog registration, which is a cost, is due. But she tends to think that microchipping is also having an impact on the number of dogs being abandoned at the Auckland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This piece of madness has not even become law and already the dogs are paying the price.

Also, the Central Hawke’s Bay Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals chairperson, Kim Halligan, has noticed a dramatic increase in the adoption of dogs in recent months. Guess what? She thinks it is largely due to the microchipping of dogs. Worse, she also thinks microchipping could mean an increase in the number of canines abandoned at the shelter. Even worse, she says the types of people who drop off their dogs are those who—these are her words—are likely to get another puppy in order to save paying. She went on to say that this happens a lot—it is horrifying.

It is the dogs that will suffer from this legislation. This legislation will not protect a single child from a dog attack. Microchipping will not save another child from a dog attack. The local authorities will be lumbered, yet again—as is the way with this Labour Government—with another piece of legislation to enact, but without the cheque attached. So what will it mean for the local authorities?

Thank you very much; I am exhausted in just seeking the call! Let me start by putting a couple of things right for the record. Doug Woolerton has never been a man to let the truth get in the way of a good story. I looked up the voting pattern in the Committee stage of the Dog Control Amendment Bill, and I want the Committee to understand this about when the question was put on “… the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 …”. The voting pattern was: New Zealand Labour, 52 in favour; New Zealand First, 13 in favour; Green Party, 9 in favour; and United Future, 7 in favour. The Noes consisted of New Zealand National—the entire caucus said no—and Paul Adams from United Future said no, as well.

Gordon Copeland has stood up and bought into those mistruths, as well. He read out the voting patterns, knowing very well that the National Party voted against this nonsense right from the outset. Well, I say to Gordon Copeland that there is an old saying that one can be either a hydrant or a dog. The way that Mr Copeland is being treated by this Government shows that he is the hydrant.

Jim Sutton then took a call. He told the Committee that this was a registration argument—which was in stark contrast to what the Prime Minister told the House. She said this bill was about trying to stop savage dog attacks, but the former Minister of Agriculture argued that it was a registration argument. In retrospect, I say to the member that it is no wonder he lost his seat of Aoraki and no wonder he is the former Minister of Agriculture.

More mystifyingly, Damien O’Connor stood up and regaled the Committee about sheep worrying. He said the real reason this bill was brought to Parliament was to do with sheep worrying. I ask the Committee how many people around the country rose up in righteous outrage the last time four or five sheep in a paddock down in mid-Canterbury were attacked. The answer is none. But how many rose up in righteous anger when a child was attacked on a street in one of our cities? Thousands did. Gordon Copeland is voting for legislation that he knows will do absolutely nothing to fix that problem. How that man lies straight in his bed at night, I will never know.

Damien O’Connor then went on with some extraordinary argument about registering salmon. Well, I will never look in the same way at the giant salmon statue in Rākaia; I will have nightmares thinking that it is going to come after me. I will have that statue taken down the first time I am back in Rākaia. I cannot have that—I will check and see whether it is chipped in the first place—we just cannot have that.

I tell members that if a dog is worrying on my property, it will be microchipped with a .22. That is the way such dogs should be dealt with. Anyone in this Chamber with a bit of common sense knows that that is the way such dogs should be dealt with.

Let me say to members that this is not a rural problem; it is an urban problem. Savage dog attacks are out of control. Let me tell the Committee a couple of facts. In New Zealand, accident and emergency staff and general practitioners treat around 20 people each day for wounds inflicted by dogs. One person is hospitalised every day as a result of a dog attack, and many more incidents go unreported. Cross-breeds like mastiffs, Rottweilers, and pit bulls account for nearly all of those attacks. Why is that? It is because those dogs are savage. They are bred to do exactly what they do. If we were serious about dealing with this problem, we would stop importing those types of dogs, we would stop breeding them, and we would take those dogs out of circulation. How many more kids have to be attacked before we actually get off our butts—to use an O’Connor-ism—and actually do something?

I think that member over there meant to say that Doug Woolerton never lets the facts get in the way of an accurate story. Let me read this. On 13 November 2003 the vote for the Dog Control Amendment Bill went like this: New Zealand Labour, 52 in favour; New Zealand National, 27 in favour; New Zealand First, 13 in favour; Green Party, 9 in favour; and United Future, 8 in favour. So let the fact remain that at the third reading of the Dog Control Amendment Bill, National members voted for it.

This is a wide-ranging debate and there has been a lot of discussion on the issue of microchipping, but this is a particular quote that I think is most illuminating and that I think most members will be quite interested in: “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. We will then be able to find those dog owners who are irresponsible enough not to register their dogs.” That speech was made by John Carter, the National Party member. That is the kind of thing that was said some time ago and has been forgotten all of a sudden.

The Government has said that microchips in themselves will not stop dog attacks. We have always acknowledged that. However, strengthened dog control measures, including microchipping, actually give councils more power to deal with dangerous, threatening, lost, or problem animals, as well as give greater certainty about ownership by linking animals with their rightful owners. There has been much talk in the Chamber tonight about dogs worrying stock, but the mere fact of the matter is that—and I have been visited by farmers throughout the period of discussion on this particular issue—if a dog worries a farmer’s stock, the farmer shoots it. It is as simple as that. If a dog was microchipped, the farmer could still shoot the dog and could identify the owner of the dog and then claim for the damages that have been done. There has been no talk about the fact that that would be very helpful to farmers.

Microchipping also provides a safe, certain, and lifelong means of identifying a dog. I think that is really good. It links a dog to its owner and enables easy enforcement of an owner’s responsibility, and that is what this is all about. It is really a framework to ensure responsible ownership. Owners of microchipped dogs, including dogs without collars that have attacked people or stock and have been seized, can be more easily identified. I have made some comment to farmers on the benefits of that if their stock are worried by a dog. Having an integrated national dog database means councils can easily share information about problem dogs and identify roaming animals that may be from outside their area. Again, I say that this is very helpful legislation that can improve the situation. Farmers will benefit from the greater likelihood of tracing the owners of dogs involved in attacks on stock. Anecdotally, I have heard that many of those attacks involve registered dogs that are not wearing collars.

Can I just say that on the issue of microchipping and registration, members on both sides of the Chamber know that in some districts, like the Hauraki District, the cost of registration is $26 for a working dog that is neutered. So already there are ways in which local authorities have responded favourably in terms of their rural communities. It is important to note that only dogs newly registered as of 1 July will be affected by the bill. Members opposite have made a big thing of the cost but it is a very small part of the total cost.

Hon David Carter: How much?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Again, the cost to farmers is tax deductible but there is very little talk about that.

Hon David Carter: How much?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The cost ranges from $35 to $70. It is a one-off charge. Microchipping should be looked at in the context of the other measures in the Dog Control Act. Opposition members have demonstrated monumentally that they have not read Part 1 and the measures that will be very helpful in providing greater enforcement of the Dog Control Act.

Finally, the definition of “disability assist dog” is very favourable to that grouping of dogs, and I think the recommendation will be very helpful. Another useful amendment is the issuing of a warrant to enable a dog control officer to go on to a property to seize a dog. That is really important. If an officer needs to seize a dog in order to enforce the Dog Control Act, then a warrant will be needed. It must be issued by a District Court judge and the officer must be accompanied by a police officer. The bill has other provisions that will be particularly helpful.

Opposition members have tended to focus quite heavily on the claim that microchipping will not stop dog attacks. Well, the Government has already said that, but those members have made it an issue and blown it way out of proportion. They have spent more time talking about dogs than about the substantial and positive measures in the rest of the bill, such as rates rebates. That shows where the Opposition’s priorities lie.

I would like to begin by addressing the issue of support for the legislation in 2003, because back then we were talking about the Dog Control Amendment Bill. It was a large piece of legislation that contained a whole number of dog control measures, and I think it would have been irresponsible for any party to have not voted for that bill in the third reading. But that does not mean that parties supported all parts of it—in particular, the microchipping of dogs. In fact, Mike Ward spoke against microchipping and raised concerns on behalf of the Green Party during the Committee stage. To say that a vote in favour of the third reading indicated support for microchipping, is like saying that voting for New Zealand First or United Future meant that a party was supporting a Labour Government. That is not true in terms of those voters. That was just an unforeseen side effect of the package.

I think that today Minister O’Connor revealed the Government’s true objective in relation to microchipping, because he talked about eels and salmon, and how this bill was all about being able to trace the food chain in terms of New Zealand’s food exports. It seems to me that Damien O’Connor wants to microchip every damn thing. He wants to microchip cows, dogs, ostriches, pigs, hamsters, rabbits—the lot! That is what this bill is really about.

The Green Party says that it is one thing to allow microchipping of dogs, but it is quite another thing to require it. No one is opposing the ability of people to microchip their dogs, and that is what the comments of the Minister in the chair, Nanaia Mahuta, were all about. The Greens do not think that people should be required to microchip their dogs. Damien O’Connor said that microchipping is really just an up-to-date registration method. But that is not how the measure is being sold. It is being sold as a way of protecting people against being bitten by dogs. Then the Minister changed tack and said: “No, no, it’s really about dog bites on farm animals.”

Hon Members: Ah!

NANDOR TANCZOS: He said that this is all about protecting farm stock from dog bites. I say: “Come on, get real!”. That is not what it is about.

The reality is that this was sold to us as a means of protecting little children and other people from being bitten by dogs. The requirement to microchip will not achieve that purpose; it will not stop those dog attacks. The technology is unreliable. Eric Roy said it will have to be monitored every year in order to be effective. It will lead to massive non-compliance. Farmers are already saying they will run a civil disobedience campaign. Poor people will be punished by this. It will be simply another dog tax, and those of us who remember New Zealand history will know what that was about. In reality, dangerous dogs are the dogs least likely to be chipped. It is exactly the same issue with regard to attacks on stock. Sure one can shoot the dog and see whether it is microchipped, but only dogs that are owned by responsible owners will be chipped and the other dogs will probably not be. The sad fact is that the Government has backed itself into a corner and now is trying to find new excuses for why we should pass this bill. That is simply wrong.

I direct my last comment to Mr Copeland. I think he has elevated petulance to a point of principle. He says: “If you are not going to play my game, I am not going to play at all. Do it my way, or you will get nothing.” I do not understand how he justifies his intransigence in being prepared only to benefit farmers rather than all New Zealanders. That is not what farmers want. They want it to apply to all dogs. They do not want exemptions just for farm dogs. They do not want a requirement for any dogs to be microchipped. I cannot understand how Mr Copeland can justify the position that we should exempt only farm dogs. Actually, he told us. He said that it was because farmers were going to run a civil disobedience campaign. That is the reason he gave us today. He said it was that farmers were going to run that campaign.

So if we can get the whole of the population—grandma and her spaniel—to refuse to microchip their dogs, then maybe we will move United Future to change its position. That is an unfortunate attitude. What has happened to sensible policy? What has happened to treating people equally? The issue is not about one law for all dogs; it is about treating all people the same regardless of whether they live in the country or the town. That is what this is all about. It will not work for any dog. Microchipping is simply a failure as a way of protecting people from dog bites. It will be to the eternal shame of United Future if the bill is passed in its current form.

I would like to compliment all the members on the Opposition side of the Chamber on their sterling effort in opposing this ridiculous legislation. I would like to comment about Gordon Copeland, as well. I happened to be at a Federated Farmers meeting that he attended. He said he would not support any exemption from the microchipping of dogs. Now, he has done an about-face, an about-turn, or something. We are not sure what he is doing, and I am not sure whether he knows that, either.

I would like to pick up one of the comments of the Minister in the chair, Nanaia Mahuta, about the national database. In fact, we could have had a national database, as a result of dog registration, that would have served everybody’s purpose—and it is being developed right now—without any microchipping taking place. Some dogs are microchipped already. Some owners voluntarily microchip dogs right now, because they want to do it. I have spoken to people who say they will no longer do it, if they are being forced. That is what is happening around the country. People feel they are being forced to do something they might have been happy to do voluntarily, but certainly they do not want to be forced into. Feral dogs will not be microchipped, because more than likely they are not registered. The dogs that are not registered are those most likely not to be microchipped. Those owners will just replace those dogs. If a dog is picked up, they will just replace it with another one. So those owners will not get caught at all; they will fall outside the system.

I want to raise the issue of disability assist dogs. The only reason for their inclusion in this bill is that I introduced a member’s bill in which I provided that epilepsy assist dogs be included in the original disability assist dog category. That would not have happened if it had not been for my member’s bill being drawn out of the ballot; that definition would not have been put into the bill we are debating. I raised the issue with the Minister, who was very, very slow to act and support Epilepsy New Zealand. Quite frankly, that was a gross oversight on the part of the Government and the Minister. I think it shows clearly that the Government is starting to fail the people it purports to represent. It has not supported the disability sector in regard to that matter.

It is only through the actions of National that the recognition of disability assist dogs has come about. I pay tribute especially to Eric Roy, who made some very, very good suggestions at the Local Government and Environment Committee, which meant some substantial and unanimous changes to the bill. They gave disability assist dogs a new definition, and the bill now allows for other disability assist dogs to be included in the legislation by way of an Order in Council. That was a sterling effort on the part of Eric Roy, and it brings about a hugely practical and sensible change to the bill. He should be commended and acknowledged for that.

In so doing, I would like to identify an amendment to the legislation that I have put forward. It is to amend section 2 of the Dog Control Act so that we recognise the disability sector, some of the constraints it operates under, and the fact that funding can be a considerable issue. My amendment calls for at least disability assist dogs to be exempt from microchipping. I exhort all members to give that amendment serious consideration. I ask New Zealand First to support that amendment and support the disability sector in getting an exemption at least for disability assist dogs.

R Doug Woolerton: Did you think of this yourself or did somebody help you?

SANDRA GOUDIE: How heartless the member is to say, without even considering the amendment, that he would not support it.

I ask Government members whether they will support disability assist dogs being exempt from microchipping, as a way of supporting the disability sector. I see a Government member actually shaking her head. How heartless it is that those members will not even consider supporting the disability sector.

Colin King: Mean-spirited!

SANDRA GOUDIE: It is mean-spirited; the member is absolutely right. But I am sure we will be supported by the Green Party and the Māori Party, and, certainly, my colleagues will support that amendment. I can see a nod of approval from the Green Party. I thank the Green Party for that acknowledgment, and I hope it will give the amendment some consideration when it comes before the Committee.

I am pleased to take a call and remind some of the new members opposite about Carolina Anderson. When the attack happened to her, I went to visit her in Auckland Hospital at the request of her father, to start to workshop ideas about how we could make amendments to the Dog Control Act at that time—amendments that might make a difference. I must admit that in our discussion, microchipping was not one of the things we even contemplated. I did not even know the technology was there. But then when the Minister worked on a little dog control amendment bill that I proposed as a result of that—and I congratulate Sandra Goudie on getting her disability assist dog legislation incorporated into this bill—we then passed it over to Chris Carter to look at what raft of amendments we would need to make to the Dog Control Act, to make sure we could minimise and mitigate the level of attack we saw. I can remember very clearly going to the meeting when Mr Carter announced that raft of amendments, and every spokesperson for every party went there to get a photo opportunity with John Anderson and to say: “We’re with you. We’re going to support you 100 percent. We think it was a terrible attack on your daughter, and we will do all that we can in our power as MPs to make sure we mitigate future attacks.”

Well, that is what this legislation is about today. I am not going to get hysterical about it, but I say to members opposite that I remember their spokespersons going up there and being just as horrified, and saying: “Yes, Mr Carter, we want you to do all that you can in your powers.” That is why the legislation was voted on so unanimously at that time but, now that it is reality, it has sunk in. Now that Opposition members have done a bit of thinking about it, they have been caught up in the rhetoric of those who have come to them to say that it is another cost impost, but we are tired of hearing that.

I met with Federated Farmers in my community. They came to me with a one-page sheet of the top 10 issues for Federated Farmers. Do members know that they did not even have export markets for sheep and beef cattle products internationally on that sheet? I asked: “Is microchipping your top agenda item?”, and the Rotorua Federated Farmers said: “This isn’t actually our sheet, Steve. We’re a little bit embarrassed about some of the things that are on here and some of the omissions.” I thought I knew who had written that sheet for them, because the Bay of Plenty and Rotorua farmers have gone against the tide of the rest of the Federated Farmers branches in New Zealand. They are tired of dog attacks on stock on their farms. They say they support microchipping. So as a good MP—which is my position in the Chamber in relation to Federated Farmers—I held my little focus group meeting with them. I trust them, I like them, and they work well with us—and I tell members that they want microchipping.

It is very interesting, too, for those of us who have had local body experience—which I have; I used to be on the district council—that the two issues that drive councils barking mad are dogs and trees. It is the dog control officers around the country who say that every aspect of dog control in this bill—and we are hearing only about microchipping—is absolutely welcomed. Kerry Prendergast from Local Government New Zealand came to the select committee, and we were advised of the cost for some smaller areas in the country, and that there were variations. But we as a select committee were also told that the dog register of every local council and local authority in this country is already set up. So what are Opposition members talking about when they talk about a massive cost impost upon local authorities? Dog registers are currently set up.

This legislation already gives dog control officers an extension of their powers to deal with dog attacks in relation to dangerous and menacing dogs, with power of entry for officers, and provisions for feeding and sheltering dogs. They are all fantastic aspects. They are all about making sure that dog owners increase their level of responsibility and that councils do what they can within their powers to mitigate dog attacks. No one has ever said that a microchip alone will stop a dog attack.

I guess that this is an interesting debate, but microchipping is, quite frankly, nuts. This proposal, this bill, and much of the logic here have the texture, the aroma, and the chunkiness of stale and old Jellimeat. Members should smell it for a moment if they will, because that is what this bill is like. In early May, in Napier and in Waipukurau, we had the first major New Zealand protests against microchipping. On an absolutely shocking day we had over 50 people in Napier and well over 100 people in Waipukurau—[Interruption]—and if the gentleman opposite had watched TV, he would have seen that.

Bloodthirsty chihuahuas, vicious dachshunds, and apparently some dodgy eels should be shaking in their boots tonight if this proposal goes through. Law-abiding Kiwis again have to pay the price for those who choose not to abide by the laws of this country. There is double-dipping under this proposal because, first of all, law-abiding Kiwis register their dogs, look after their dogs, and have them treated at the vet. Goodness knows, the bills keep racking up. Now, if this measure becomes law, yes, they would probably chip their dogs because they are law-abiding Kiwis—and they will have to pay up twice.

There are many points of view in this debate, but I point to the advice given in Treasury papers. Members on this side of the Chamber have put up some very sensible arguments, but, again, some more Treasury advice to the Government has been rejected. Perhaps that is another ideological burp, but I would like to read from Treasury papers released under the Official Information Act. I ask members to let me quote some of the reasoning behind Treasury’s recommendation that microchipping not happen: “The size of the dog problem suggests that it is a small number of problem dogs that needs to be addressed through stronger dog control. The current information on the problem dogs is”—and I quote further—“about 6 to 8 percent of dogs are not registered and this small proportion of the total accounts for about half of the dog attacks recorded in a year, of approximately 3,500 attacks recorded by councils.” That is from Treasury. Those are the people we taxpayers pay $55 million a year to fund. It is pretty good advice.

Let me continue with some of the advice that has been rejected by the current administration: “Targeting people who already comply with the law would be unlikely to reduce the risk of dog attack. The Treasury considers that there are three options for addressing these problem dogs and to provide a higher level of public protection from dangerous dogs, etc. Microchipping is not one of those recommendations.”

Let me quote further from Treasury: “Moreover, problem dogs are unlikely to be registered and therefore not captured by the database.” That refers to the national database that the previous speaker talked so highly of. The advice continues: “If the objective is reducing the probability of dog attacks, then a more focused approach of a database of dangerous dogs is more likely to be effective.” That is incredibly sound and good logic from our friends at Treasury. Furthermore, Treasury states: “The Treasury is concerned that the transition period for the establishment of a national database will be 10-15 years. A transition period of this length is likely to increase uncertainty of registration, confusion, and higher costs.” That, again, is Treasury—learned, good, solid, sensible people giving advice that this legislation essentially smells like Jellimeat.

In summary, Treasury advises: “only microchipping dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs and the storing of this information on a national dangerous dog database, along with [whether] the owner is probationary or discretionary, or if there are infringement notices or other enforcement activity undertaken.” Essentially Treasury states this proposal will not work.

It was interesting to hear the Mayor of Wellington speak in favour, I think, of the measure referred to. Well, in heartland, provincial, and rural New Zealand, every mayor, almost to a person, I think, is speaking against this legislation. Currently we are totally swamped with various compliance measures and nonsensical legislation and regulation from the Government. I could quote the chief executive of Tasman District Council, for example.

I will take the opportunity to pull us back to the fact that this is the Local Government Law Reform Bill. I want to do that because it came through in the examination of the bill by the Local Government and Environment Committee that this is an example of the Government being very selfish. The Government has totally ignored the fact that it will not be doing the work. The Government will not be doing the policing. It will not be in front of the public when the public gives councils arseholes for this stupid bit of legislation. I say that quite sincerely because I have just had the pleasure of spending a couple of days in Hamilton at a stand where people have been queuing—they have not needed to be encouraged; they have been queuing—to sign the petition of the member Kate Wilkinson suggesting that farm dogs be exempt.

The point that seems most relevant and had the greatest impact on me is that these are people of all shapes, sizes, ages, and sexes, and every single one of them cannot come to grips with why this bill is before the House. They cannot come to grips with the fact that this bill is here. I heard many words that I would not use in this House to describe the performance of the Government on this legislation. It is very, very sad. The saddest part is that one must have a huge degree of sympathy for every council that goes out there and tries to do what it soon may legally have to do. That is very sad, because councils will get a shitload of abuse from people out in the community. [Interruption] Apologies.

Maryan Street: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I need to take exception on two counts now to language that I consider unparliamentary. I do not think it is even appropriate for National Radio.

MARK BLUMSKY: I withdraw and apologise. I was giving the House just a small taste of the language I confronted when the petition was being signed.

One of the problems I heard about when the public, and in particular kids, were signing the petition is the same problem I have in my household. Winston is a dog who regularly walks down Lambton Quay and Courtenay Place. He regularly eats and drinks in that area. Many women come up to him, and he attacks them viciously with a huge lick. Winston is my Norwich terrier. He is a lovely little dog—and I can assure the Committee that he is no poodle—named after the honourable Winston Churchill, as I am sure members have rightly recognised. One of the problems I have with this legislation is that at the end of the day my little gorgeous 2-year-old, the fluffiest wee thing, whom they just love to bits when I take him for a walk—he is the best dog to go walking with, by the way, because we get a lot of attention from people who just want to pat him—will have to be microchipped. Why on earth will I have to spend up to $100 to get him microchipped? Why will he have to be microchipped? He is the fluffiest, most gorgeous little thing. He has a collar, he is registered, and we are classed as good owners. But from 1 July all new owners of dogs like Winston will have to get them microchipped—will have to be absolutely wrapped up in the bureaucracy of the Government. I think that that is an abuse of why we are here.

When I was Mayor of Wellington I used to have to stand up and defend—even if I disagreed with them—the rules and regulations that council put out into the community. I cannot see how any member of Parliament can stand up in any community and defend ludicrous legislation that leaves many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders asking why. Remember the days of closing the windows when we thought a van with radar on its roof might come round to see whether we had a TV in the house and our mums wanted us to shut the windows because they did not really want anyone to know we had a TV in the house when the house was not licensed to have a TV? I can see us going back to those days. It is very wrong, it is very retrograde, and, as I said, it is just not what Parliament is really here for.

What we have just heard from the ex-Mayor of Wellington Mr Blumsky is an excellent example—and we should learn by it—of how to trivialise a most serious situation. It has been an exercise in trivialising things that are of concern in this country. This is exactly what the National Party has done with the debate this evening. National members are not treating it with the seriousness it deserves. We can hear the laughter and the joking. This is a joke to the National Party, because at the end of the day—and the public of New Zealand knows this—it is a political stunt on the part of the National Party.

In spite of what Mr Brian Connell said, the National Party voted for this measure. When the seriousness of dog attacks was uppermost in their minds, as Steve Chadwick said, National Party members voted for some form of sensible dog registration. But as time has gone on, at the first opportunity to overturn their decision they have done so. They have quite cynically mobilised Federated Farmers through a person called Annabel Young, who used to be a member of the National Party and of this Parliament. The influence that that woman has had on Federated Farmers is increasingly obvious day by day from its increased militancy over stupid, pathetic, small things—which are basically the only things she can understand.

We have the trivialising of a serious situation. It has been said time and time again by the supporters of this dog chipping legislation that it will not—in itself—stop dog biting. That is acknowledged, but it is a serious attempt at getting some better form of dog control. That is precisely what it is. It will be phased in, so as not to be a ridiculous impost on farmers and people who have working dogs. Not only that, but also the cost of dog control is brought into this debate as though it is something new and brought about by dog chipping. It is not. The cost of dog control is present today and has been for many years. The fact that the job is not being done very well is another thing entirely. That cost is one that has been with us for years and is not brought about by the chipping of dogs. The chipping of dogs is a one-off cost and it is not huge in the manner of farm costs today. Members heard the Minister say it would be between $35 and $75. But the cost of the chip is something like $10 or $12, or between $10 and $20 if people have the expertise to put them in their dogs themselves. This is a political stunt by the National Party.

I was almost shot down by Jacqui Dean. We had people asking what difference this was going to make to dogs and saying that it would not attend to the problem at all. Yet Jacqui Dean hopped up and said—unwittingly, I might add—that in Auckland people are already bringing their dogs along and saying they can no longer look after them. I suggest to the public that those people never could look after those dogs, but this impending legislation has brought the idea to their minds that they should either be responsible dog owners or they should not be dog owners at all. I think that points to the fact that people will be more responsible for their dogs in the cities and in the rural communities because of this legislation.

Let us sort out this thing. Mr Connell said to me that I am not a man who would let the truth get in the way of a good story. And, God bless her, the Minister put that right. National voted for this legislation 3 years ago.

I am taking a call in what I think is a vitally important debate for the nation tonight. I have come down to the House because I am particularly looking forward to the Hon David Carter and Eric Roy speaking to the amendments they have moved to this bill, and which I will be strongly supporting. I think the most important question Parliament can be asked is whether this legislation will save a child from being bitten by a dog. Will it save a child from being attacked by a dog? That is the genesis of this legislation. Mr Foss from Tukituki pointed out that 8 percent of New Zealand’s domestic dogs—all dogs—are unregistered, but cause well over half of all the dog attacks in this country. New Zealanders need to realise that problem dog owners in this country do not register their dogs now. If members talk to any dog control officers in any local authority in New Zealand they will be told that problem dogs—the dogs that are menacing, threatening, and are causing the disturbances in their communities—are by and large unregistered.

But even if they were registered, how does microchipping prevent some child from being attacked? How does microchipping stop people who are calling from door to door, from being bitten by dogs? The issue is one of owners taking responsibility for their dogs and of how authorities match owners to dogs. The dog registration system has failed with that over many years in this country and it is my view that microchipping of dogs will not fix the problem the Government is identifying. The Government thinks it is doing something that can be pointed to next time there is a bad dog attack in this country. Government members think they can say they have microchipped dogs and that will fix the problem. The fact that there will be another dog attack in this country—even when microchipping is passed—is indication that the Government’s motivation will not work.

If the Government were serious about dog control, it would be looking at providing additional powers to local authority dog control officers, it would be looking at incentives for responsible dog ownership, it would be looking at what could be done about the control of dogs in public spaces. Those would be the areas where a serious Government that wants to protect New Zealanders from threatening and menacing dogs would act. Instead, as members on the National side of the House have said, this Government is penalising the good dog owners of New Zealand. Good people will take their puppies down to get microchipped at a cost of maybe $100 a pop. Good people will register their dogs every year; in some local authority areas, it is a six-figure amount to register a dog. On top of that, owners will now have to pay for microchipping, and the good owners will do it. But the bad people—the bad dog owners, the people who do not exercise discretion over their animals—will not register their dogs and they will not microchip.

Today in this House, we have heard well-thought-out debate by National members responding to the knee-jerk reaction of a Government that thought it needed to do something to deal with the menacing dog issue in this country. Dog ownership and menacing dogs are very big issues. I have complete appreciation for those people who have been attacked by dogs; it is a dreadful experience and it happened to me when I was campaigning in the 1990 general election. The dog bit me, but if it had been the Labour candidate, it would have eaten her. The point about that was that it was an unregistered dog.

Hon Member: How did you know?

Hon TONY RYALL: I knew it was an unregistered dog because I talked to the council afterwards. The dog had no tag and no collar, but it was clear where the ownership was. I raise the point that even if that dog had been tagged, I would have still been bitten. Even if the dog had been tagged, other dreadful, menacing acts might have happened. This would apply to any other dogs around the country. The really important issue that the National Party is making here is that this legislation will not protect people. It is penalising good dog owners.

My legs are full of blood from rising and sitting down, while trying to take a call for the last hour and a half on what is an extremely important issue. All law-abiding responsible dog owners in this country are barking mad at this Government. This is another compliance cost being imposed by a Government that has lost touch with reality. It has lost the plot. All law-abiding dog owners will be forced to pay another compliance cost. We have heard the cost will be between $20, $50, $70, and $200. Let us call it $100 per dog. It is another compliance cost that is being rammed down the throats of good, law-abiding dog owners in this country.

We all know that about 200,000 dogs in this country are not registered. Their owners will be let off scot-free if this legislation comes into effect on 1 July. There are 200,000 dog owners in this country for whom this legislation will not make one iota of difference. They will be let off scot-free. Those people actually cause the harmful dog attacks in this country. Let us read some figures from the Treasury report. Eight percent of those dogs cause 50 percent of the attacks, and there are 3,500 dog attacks in this country per annum. This legislation will not stop dog attacks, but people who are law-abiding citizens will front up, as they do, at councils, pay their registration fee, and then have to get their dogs microchipped.

Let us talk about the reliability of the jolly microchip. I know of an instance of a man who was a representative of New Zealand in the dog trial team that travelled off to Ireland last year. All the dogs had to be microchipped before they got on the plane. Months and months of training took place before the team went to Ireland to represent our country. They were getting ready to go through customs, and the dogs were being scanned. Unfortunately a microchip could not be read, so the man’s dog was sent down to be X-rayed in order to prove it was microchipped. The microchip could be seen under the coat of the dog, but unfortunately that dog could not travel. So let us talk about the reliability of microchipping, because that has not been raised in the debate this evening. What about trying to read the microchips in dogs with long coats in the wet weather? There is a certain amount of unreliability in that case.

What about the costs that will actually be passed down to local government? What about those costs? It seems to be that legislation is passed in this Parliament willy-nilly, and it is left to local ratepayers to pick up the bill. This legislation is estimated to cost between $3 million and $7 million, and we all know that it will not actually reduce the number of dog attacks in this country.

So here we have Government members supporting microchipping, with the support of the two “poodle parties”, United Future and New Zealand First. The members of those parties speak tough here in the Chamber, but everyone knows that their knees go all wobbly when they are out there talking to people. When they talk on the hustings at the next election, all the voters will remember this—the two “poodle parties” that supported a Government that is out of touch and has lost touch with reality.

Let us not forget Mr Anderton. He was talking tough with Federated Farmers. He was going to do a deal and allow farm dogs to be exempt from microchipping. He has had his second big test with the rural community, and they are giving him the thumbs down now.

Hon David Carter: He has failed.

NATHAN GUY: He has failed, all right. He did not support the Green Party bill that we supported. Jim Anderton could have forced a change. The rural community has lost heart in Jim Anderton. When he heads around the country and talks to Federated Farmers, they all sit in the back row whispering away: “Let’s get rid of him; let’s get rid of him.”

This legislation will do nothing to reduce dog attacks in this country. This evening I am supporting David Carter and Eric Roy, who are putting in vital changes to the legislation, and I also need to applaud Kate Wilkinson.

The Greens have been very strong on this issue, and we have used every possible parliamentary option open to us to change the law so that the compulsory microchipping of dogs, other than dangerous and menacing dogs, is gone from our law books. We even went so far as to put in a member’s bill, which was pulled from the ballot—which was fantastic—and failed by only one vote. It was a great disappointment to us that this opportunity was lost and that United Future, New Zealand First, and Labour did not see that this was what the community wanted. Federated Farmers totally agree with our position. The Kennel Club completely agrees with our position. We have support from thousands of New Zealanders and from parties across the political spectrum that do not normally work with us, such as National. It just shows that we can work together, which is fantastic.

Hon David Carter: A great coalition coming up!

METIRIA TUREI: Ha, ha! I think it is important to recognise the principle behind the Greens’ position and why we do not support an exemption for farm dogs. I will give just one small illustration. Grandma and grandad are sitting around the fire in their old rural home. Grandma’s poodle has a microchip, and grandad’s border collie does not. Can anyone truly say that grandma’s poodle, which requires a microchip, is more dangerous than grandad’s border collie, which goes out with stock, generally ranges free during the day, and does not require one? No, it is not a principled position. That is why we will not support an exemption. There is no reason to discriminate between dogs. Dog owners across the country completely agree with us.

Because the Greens are good parliamentarians and we believe in this process, we have proposed even more changes to the legislation. We put in an amendment at the Local Government and Environment Committee, and National supported it but the Government did not. The select committee took out that amendment, which would have got rid of microchipping. We have put forward Supplementary Order Paper 46 to restore that change to the bill, so if we get cross-party support and the amendment is included, compulsory microchipping for dogs, other than dangerous and menacing dogs, will be gone.

If that amendment does not pass during this Committee stage, we have five other amendments on the Table that are all designed to find a way through the impasse—to find a way to get cross-party support. I want just briefly to go through those five amendments. The first amendment alters Minister Burton’s amendment and effectively repeals section 36A in its entirety. We certainly hope we can get support for that amendment. If that is not successful, we are looking to change the date at which newly registered dogs must be microchipped from 2006 to 2007, and perhaps even to 2008, so that there is a delay and we have more time to make the changes we need to the legislation. If that fails we have an amendment to repeal section 36A(1)(c), which requires that newly registered dogs be microchipped. We hope that that might get through. If that fails we have an amendment to section 36A(6) that removes the penalties if a person does not microchip his or her dog. The amendment retains the penalty—a very severe penalty, I must say—of a $3,000 fine if a dog is dangerous and menacing and the owner has not microchipped it, but it gets rid of that $3,000 fine if just an ordinary dog has not been microchipped. Perhaps that might help us to get some support from the Committee.

Finally, we have an amendment to change section 36A(2), which provides that owners must register their dogs. We would like to add the little paragraph: “unless the owner advises the territorial authority, in writing, that the dog provides social, practical or economic services or support to the owner, including but not limited to the purpose of herding or driving stock.” How can United Future oppose that change? That change directly addresses United Future’s issues and those of the Green Party. It takes account of United Future’s concern for working dogs and the concern of the Greens and National for grandma’s poodle. There is no reason why this amendment could not be voted for and supported by this Committee so as to change the bill. Owners would, therefore, only have to write to their territorial authority that their dog is a working dog or provide them with emotional or social support and so should not be microchipped, and they would not be required to do it.

These are the options the Greens are putting forward, because we are looking for ways to make the changes that need to be made in order to provide United Future and New Zealand First with options they can choose from. We want cross-party support for the communities those parties represent, which look to those parties for these changes and which are very disappointed that they have not had support from them. This is not about political point-scoring. It is quite true that United Future and the Greens have not always agreed on everything, but this is a time to set aside those political differences, get rid of those nagging issues between us, and really do what is best for the community. That has always been the Green Party’s purpose.

It gives me great pleasure to rise and add to the National Party’s voice. Why is it that we are all here en masse, debating the Local Government Law Reform Bill? It is because we feel very, very strongly about it. The point of this bill that we feel most strongly about is the microchipping issue. Why are we focusing on that? It is quite simple really; we have had at least 10,000 people sign petitions. National has been sent a really strong message, which is for us to get into Parliament and make sure this measure does not happen. We have worked very, very hard on it. We are very disappointed in some of the smaller parties that cannot see sense on this one.

I have a press release from Nanaia Mahuta, and I was perplexed when I read the heading: “Govt working with councils on dog control measures.” Well, I say we should ask the councils about that. They would say the Government is working against them. They would say it is an imposition of costs. The press release I mentioned states: “The government is committed to working with all local authorities to ensure that new dog control laws are phased in as smoothly as possible.” Hang on a minute! What about all the ruts they had in the road? What about all the speed humps? I can tell members that the four local authorities, the local councils, in my electorate would tell a different story. Those councils of Timaru, Waimate, Waitaki, and Mackenzie will say this is just an imposition of more cost on them and more cost, therefore, on their ratepayers.

The one law for all dogs is a law that they have microchips. It is not a law that states that they will not bite little girls and boys. Members should make no mistake about that. That is not what the law states; it states that dogs will have microchips. It will not stop them biting little boys and girls, because, as other speakers have already said, dangerous dogs will not be registered or microchipped.

I just want to cover a few points made by some of the members on the Government side of the House. Jim Anderton has in the past asked what we do not understand about No 3. Well, No 3, it would seem, would be quite a powerful position to be in on the front bench over there. Jim Anderton asked what we did not understand about the fact that he was going to take his appeal to Cabinet that there be reconsideration of the microchipping of farm dogs. But then what happened was that Labour fed him some Tux dog biscuits, which are the same dog biscuits that they keep a really good bag of for Winston Peters over on the Government side of the House. Winston jumps up on to his feet and responds to the Tux dog biscuits. We have seen that every day in the House, when the poodle extraordinaire gets up there and responds to the dog biscuits on offer.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Have you got a dog called Winston, as well?

Jo Goodhew: I withdraw and apologise.

Jim Sutton took a call tonight, as well. He was wrong on a number of counts. He said that farm dogs were part of the problem. Members should ask the Accident Compensation Corporation how many farm dogs have caused bites, and they would then know that farm dogs are not the problem that needs to be fixed. It is the unregistered, and likely to be unchipped, dogs that are most of the problem, as my colleagues have said. Jim Sutton has given up on Federated Farmers; he certainly squashed their campaign flat tonight. Perhaps the Labour Government feels it does not need Federated Farmers, or maybe it feels it has just lost them wholeheartedly. Labour has completely lost them—they have walked—and therefore it will not worry about them.

Even Doug Woolerton had a go at Federated Farmers. I wonder whether he has realised what the number of people here who are prepared to have input into this debate really means. He suggested we thought it was a joke. I ask my colleagues whether it is a joke.

Hon Members: No.

JO GOODHEW: Of course it is not a joke; we would not all be wasting time on preparing to debate this bill if we thought it was a joke.

Then we heard from Damien O’Connor, who was deluding himself that this bill would prevent attacks on stock. Again, I will say that microchipping is not a muzzle; it will not prevent any dog from attacking stock—nor from attacking children. He said a number of times that he felt sad, and he called us Neanderthals. The Minister should be sad, because he is barking mad if he thinks microchipping will actually solve the problem.

I attended Mystery Creek last Thursday, and there were two petitions there against this particular bill. There were queues for both of those petitions, and people flocked to sign them. We wished we had more boards to put the petitions on, because not everybody could wait long enough to sign the petitions. They were urban and rural people.

I have been listening to the debate this evening—

Simon Power: Rubbish!

MOANA MACKEY: I say to Mr Power that through the amazing technology of the wireless I have been listening to the debate this evening. It is hard to think of a similar debate in this Parliament that has gone more off-track than the debate about microchipping. I admit that when the issue of microchipping first came up in the last Parliament, I did not think it was a good idea. Everyone got very wound up about it. All the parties in this House that lined up to have their photos taken with young Carolina Anderson and her parents were quite happy to say they thought there was a need to bring dog registration into the 21st century, as so many other countries had done. Those parties were all happy to have their photos taken with those grieving parents—let us not forget that.

I did not necessarily think dog microchipping was a particularly good idea at the time—I did not know what it would achieve. But, unlike members opposite, I decided to go away and look at the evidence from countries that have done microchipping and say it has worked well, and from countries that believe it has reduced the number of dog attacks, not because putting a microchip in a dog will control its behaviour—unless there is something about the microchip that they are not telling us—but because of the powers that local authorities have been given to deal with their dogs across the entire region that is being looked at.

One of the big problems we have is that as soon as a dog starts to exhibit menacing behaviour it comes to the attention of a regional or district council. Often that dog will be shifted or given to someone else; it could be registered under another name, or simply moved into another regional authority district where that local authority is not aware of the dog’s behaviour in the past. Let us remember that because of all the misinformation that was being spread about dog attacks, a dog control officer in Gisborne felt compelled to come out in the media and say that about 99 percent of dog attacks happen on a dog’s property—they are not stray dogs; people stay away from stray dogs—and they often happen because a dog has been provoked.

He also said the overwhelming majority of dog attacks come from registered dogs—dogs that are known about. Stray dogs are not the dangerous ones. We need to remember that all dogs have the capacity to be dangerous in the wrong situation. A dog is a dog, and I keep having to tell my father that a dog is not another child; it is a dog. We need to remember that every dog can be dangerous, and we need to let people know that, so that when people teach children not to poke sticks through a fence at a dog, we will be likely to get fewer dog attacks.

What has been found in New South Wales is that if a dog is brought in and then gets picked up, it is compulsorily microchipped, if it has not already been microchipped. So a dog that has been picked up by a dog ranger for menacing behaviour will have its microchip zapped by the ranger, who could find out that that dog has a serious history of menacing behaviour in a different region of New South Wales. Dog rangers have had the power to have that sort of dog destroyed, which has meant that that dog was destroyed before it ripped the kid’s face off. That is why in New South Wales it is believed that microchipping has reduced the number of dog attacks. That is not the case because a microchip changes a dog’s behaviour but because we get what is essentially a criminal record of a dog so that we know where the dangerous dogs are and can stop their movement around the country, where it can be hidden. So a local authority, if it has a dog coming in for the first time, knows what that dog has done in previous regional authorities that it has been in.

John Hayes: Nonsense!

MOANA MACKEY: Well, then, John Hayes might explain why in New South Wales dog attacks have plummeted since the introduction of the exact kind of reforms that are being introduced here today. I say that as someone who did not agree with microchipping in the first place. But when I made the effort to go out and look at what has happened overseas, I realised we would not be doing the people of New Zealand a service—we would be doing them an injustice—if we did not put the stupid politics aside. Is it only because Federated Farmers do not like it that we will jump up and down—or will we say: “Hang on. Is there actually something here that might prevent dog attacks before they happen, because we have control of our dog population, and when a dog is moved across into a different council it becomes a completely different entity, and because of that we deserve to give this due consideration?” I ask members to think about it. They do not have to like it. I do not expect members to drop all party lines and say that because the evidence shows something they will change their minds. But we may well end up, if this fails, with a worse system because of the politicking.

Following on from the fine speech of my colleague Moana Mackey, I will make just three points to clarify matters, now that we are coming to the end of the night, because Opposition members have said some blatant mistruths. The first one relates to the issue of costs. There has been a lot of misinformation coming from Opposition members around the issue of costs, but the costs they could be talking about are the costs attributed to the national dog database. To implement the national dog database across all of New Zealand will cost about $1.1 million in total. So while that database beds in, the Government has agreed to meet governance depreciation and capital charge costs, which account for just over half of that amount—and that is a fact. Apart from a small fixed cost faced by all local authorities, the remaining costs of implementing the national dog database will be levied on councils, according to the size of their area’s population and the number of registered dogs they have in that area.

Universal microchipping will assist territorial authorities to impose a registration regime, to make sure all dog owners are brought into a responsible dog ownership framework. That means, generally, that smaller rural councils with fewer people and fewer registered dogs in their areas will pay less than urban councils—and that is a fact.

The next issue concerns dangerous dogs. Dangerous dogs must be classified, and existing dogs that are classified as from 2003 must be microchipped—so that is a fact.

The other issue was on the relevance of statistics, and I just want to follow up on a comment that was made previously. A survey was conducted by the Department of Internal Affairs, which is on the department’s website if people want to look at it. Thirty councils responded to that particular survey and, of those councils, 56 percent reported attacks by dogs that were registered for the period of 2001-02. So a lot of mistruths have been coming from members on the other side of the Chamber, and it is important to put facts on record in that regard.

I would like to cover a couple of issues surrounding the two handwritten amendments I have put forward in my name. I firstly respond to Doug Woolerton, who accused the National Party of trivialising the issue. I simply say that I consider it is trivialising the issue to bring in something that does not effectively do anything to stop dogs from biting people. That is the first thing. It is trivialising the issue to recognise that there is a problem with unregistered dogs that menace and bite people, but to do nothing to solve that. On the contrary, it is trivialising the issue to put in place a regime that is likely to increase the number of unregistered dogs out there.

I say to Mr Woolerton, and to those on the other side of the Chamber, that they should have a look at my amendment that will require that any dog savaging a child under the age of 13 is put down. Let us see the colour of that member’s commitment to actually deal with the problem. Who is now trivialising the issue?

The other issue I wish to bring before the Committee—and I have delivered an amendment on it to the Table—concerns the “reporting dead dogs” clause. An issue has been raised with us several times about the cost of compliance. Let us put microchipping aside for one moment and look at where this bill starts seriously to increase costs. If members look at clause 9D, which inserts new section 41A, they will see that: “(1) The owner of a dog must notify the territorial authority with which the dog is registered if the dog dies.” Well, there are several standards of untruths about dogs. There is a serious untruth, a “dog lie”, if one says that one’s dog is dead when it is not. Members can understand that that is serious if the authority is really wanting to keep its database in order.

But I simply cannot understand the logic of requiring local authorities to have “dead dog counting officers”, or whatever, to literally ensure that the authority is notified about dead dogs.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.