Tanczos Nandor: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3742] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 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.