Hide Rodney: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Hide Rodney: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3655] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak against the Local Government Law Reform Bill and to say what a sad day it really is for parliamentary process. This bill was sent off to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Submissions were heard and they were overwhelmingly against microchipping dogs. The committee heard those submissions and recommended to the House that not all dogs be microchipped just those that were menacing and dangerous which seems sensible and common sense. But we have just had Nanaia Mahuta stand up in this House and say that what will happen now is that when this bill gets to the Committee stage the Government will ignore the submissions ignore the concerns of the people of New Zealand and with the support of New Zealand First and United Future jam through this bill against the wishes of New Zealanders. 
So the first concern that one has to have is why we have select committees at all. Why should New Zealanders make submissions when this Government just ignores them? 
There is a second concern which I will ask Ron Mark about. He spoke out wildly in support of this bill and microchipping—I think if Ron Mark had his way we would all be microchipped as well so New Zealand First could keep an eye on us. I ask Ron Mark how having all dogs in New Zealand microchipped would have helped Carolina Anderson on that day. How would it have helped in that situation at all? [ 
Interruption 
] He has had his opportunity; he can take a speech later. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to answer Rodney Hide’s question without any further allocation of time being deducted from any other party. Mr Hide has asked me a question and I am prepared to answer it if he will yield the floor. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: It is a debating point but you have sought leave. Is there any objection to leave being granted? There is. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The reality is that of course it would not have helped at all. The reason it would not have helped is that Carolina did not have a scanner. Also it is typical that when dogs bite they do not hang around lay their heads down and allow a scanner to be put on top of their heads so we can find out who they belong to. In fact we heard from Mr Eric Roy that councils have not been unable to locate the owners of dogs that have bitten people—that has not been the issue. The issue has been the dogs biting and the microchip does not stop the biting. That is the trouble. 
I also say about the farm dogs that it would be good to exclude them but the reality is that farm dogs do bite too. All dogs can bite. That is the reality of dogs anywhere in the world. They are all dogs that can potentially bite. The issue that we are dealing with here is that we want to stop dogs from biting and to protect particularly our kids but does microchipping do that? The answer is no it does not. 
Gordon Copeland 
: It has in New South Wales. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Gordon Copeland can go on about New South Wales. A typical response from the busybodies in Government is that there is a problem out there because there are irresponsible dog owners who do not take care of their dogs. There are dogs that will bite and sadly people get bitten and often badly badly hurt. The response of the Government is to come along with the idea that it knows what it will do; it will microchip all dogs. That is impossible. I can promise this House that not all dogs will be microchipped. 
Ron Mark was talking about the Mongrel Mob dogs being microchipped. Well I would like to see him and Gordon Copeland go up to the Mongrel Mob headquarters and microchip their dogs. [ 
Interruption 
] He said he would but he would not. The Mongrel Mob are not going to microchip their dogs. The problem with the dogs that are biting people is that they are not registered because the owners are not prepared to pay the money. Ron Mark is expecting such owners suddenly to come along and get their dogs microchipped and the police—who are under-resourced with Ron Mark in Government—are suddenly going to be spending their effort along with the local council going along to the headquarters of the Mongrel Mob and saying: “Excuse me! Is your poodle microchipped?”. It ain’t going to happen. 
So not all dogs will be microchipped. I can also predict that dog owners who are the problem—that is to say the fraction of dog owners who are irresponsible—are precisely the ones who will not microchip their dogs. So we will have 99 percent of dog owners having to go through the expense and trouble of microchipping their dogs and the 1 percent who cause the problems not caring less. Those are the same people who do not have a licence when they drive a car who do not register their cars and whose dogs are not registered. This Government expects that somehow those people will leap up on a Monday morning and rush off to get their puppies microchipped. It ain’t going to happen! 
I predict that the Government will not run a very satisfactory database because that has been the experience with any database that has been run by Governments. In a situation where a dog bites someone—which is terrible—I ask how microchipping helps matters. It does not. The dog will run off so that is no help. We will have a situation whereby responsible dog owners will have to pay the expense of having their dogs microchipped for no discernable gain. The Government will face the expense of monitoring who has microchipped their dogs and who has not and it will be unable to get anywhere near 100 percent compliance. Then the Government will face the expense of maintaining a database of microchipped dogs. We then have the absurdity that a dog will probably have to be killed in order to work out who it belongs to because if the dog is the rabid dog that everyone says it is I would not expect the dog control officer to wander up and stick a scanner on its head in order to find out who it belongs to. It just does not work like that in the real world. 
So what is the solution? It is not to come up with a grand Government scheme that in order to begin to work would require that everyone behaved themselves and microchipped their dogs that the database worked flawlessly and that when there was a dog attack a scanner would somehow be on hand and someone would manage to get close enough to the dog’s head—within an inch of it—in order to scan it and see who it belonged to and wow find that the dog had a microchip in it. All of those things would need to fall into place for that plan to work. 
What we need to do is concentrate on those few dog owners—and it is a few—who are irresponsible and hold them to account. Let us not yet again penalise law-abiding citizens of New Zealand whose dogs do not bite whose dogs are well behaved who enjoy having their dogs and who now have to go to the unnecessary expense of microchipping them. Auntie Flo’s poodle is not a problem yet Auntie Flo will have to go off and get her dog microchipped. But the Mongrel Mob members next door will not get their dogs microchipped. Irresponsible dog owners will not get their dogs microchipped. So once again we see the absurdity of a Government response that is costly cumbersome ineffective and fails to address the problem we have. 
In 5 years’ time the problems will still be there and I am afraid that this House will probably be addressing them again with even more draconian measures for law-abiding citizens rather than focusing its attention on holding to account those irresponsible New Zealanders who do not look after their dogs and their families and who do not care for their neighbours. Thank you.