Woolerton R Doug: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Woolerton R Doug: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3748] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 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.