Burton Mark: Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3172] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Well there we have it. We have had two contributions to this debate so far. The first was from the member whose bill this is and although the Labour Government does not agree with Jeanette Fitzsimons on this issue I acknowledge that this bill is a genuine attempt to find a position that she believes is correct. I think that attempt is genuine; I acknowledge that. By absolute contrast with that we then had Mr David Carter’s speech. Mr David Carter is from the National Party. It may surprise many people to know—in fact it may surprise many members of the public to know—that we are not actually enacting legislation about dog microchipping in Parliament tonight. People would not know that from listening to some of the comments Mr Carter has been making around the countryside helpfully confusing people. In fact far from that being the case it may interest many members of this House to know that he was the spokesperson for one of the many parties in the House that voted for the current legislation. Even some of Mr Carter’s own colleagues—the new National members—may not know that. 
Hon David Carter 
: That’s what we said. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: That is right. I see some nervousness. There is some nervous twitching along the National Party benches. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but through the barrage of interjections I could not hear the Minister. I am pretty sure he just said the National Party had voted in favour of microchipping dogs in 2003 but I cannot hear him. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes I can confirm to the member that that is what I said but I would be happy to repeat it if you would like me to Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That is not a point of order; that is a debating point. The junior whip is making accusations in order to cast aspersions on the National Party. The barrage of interjections was coming not only in a mild form from the Opposition benches but also from the Government benches so that claim is absolute nonsense. I know that the Minister Parekura Horomia who is all smiles was also interjecting in a raucous way the like of which I have not heard before. I could not hear what the Minister was saying. These are debating points not points of order and I would ask that you rule in that light. 
Hon David Carter 
: I also take the opportunity to correct the Minister. I can assure him that all National members and myself particularly voted against the microchipping provisions in the bill. I suggest that the Minister checks  
Hansard 
. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank all members for their contributions. None of them were points of order but we will continue. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No nor are they debating points; it is a statement of fact. I see that a number of the outraged new National MPs—who were not here at the time so to be fair they cannot be held responsible—have walked out. They have left in absolute disgust. They feel betrayed by David Carter. 
The Labour Government cannot support Jeanette Fitzsimons’ bill because to take us down the track that this bill suggests would be to undermine the very intent of the original legislation. I think it is important to remind the House of that although I say again that I think Jeanette Fitzsimons made a measured and reasoned contribution. As I say I disagreed with some of it but it was measured and reasoned. 
Since then we have had the unfortunate interlude from Mr Carter which has thrown utter confusion on to the debate. So let us revisit why Parliament—by an overwhelming majority—passed the enabling legislation. We did so in the face of some horrific injuries particularly to children. Parliament considered legislation that put a number of measures in place to try to prevent such attacks. I emphasise that no one has ever suggested reasonably that microchipping per se will stop dog attacks on its own in isolation—nor is that the intent of the original legislation. There was never a belief that any single measure by itself including microchipping would reduce or would be expected of itself to reduce dog attacks. It is only when we put in such a measure in conjunction with other sensible measures such as better identification enhanced powers to seize dogs tougher penalties and the holding of irresponsible dog owners to account that the measure makes sense. But in that context it does make sense because it links the dog to an owner. If a dog is involved in an attack on a child or an attack on stock it can be identified. The owner and the animal can be held to account and that is the sensible point of the legislation. 
Frankly I am appalled at the impudence of members whose vote put that legislation in place because they saw the terrible photographs on television— 
Darren Hughes 
: Two of them are sitting over there. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
:—that is right—and in the newspapers. But when the opportunity came to jump on the bandwagon and the gratuitous opportunity to pull a few votes seemed to present itself those members jumped in behind those sloganeers who are misleading the rural community in particular for the sake of a few cheap votes. I say to those members that sometimes in this Parliament the past catches up with them and the truth comes home to roost. I say to those members who had the good sense and decency to support a sensible measure as part of a package that they should have the good conscience to continue to do so now. To undermine it for the sake of a few—they think—cheap votes does them a discredit and it does this House a discredit. 
This Parliament owes it to New Zealanders to ensure the sensible package of measures put in place by Parliament some 1½ years ago is followed through and to ensure we do everything we reasonably can to make New Zealand a safer place for our children and a safer place for farmers who do want to look after their stock. We need to use this measure alongside other measures to provide proper accountability and good safe practice.