Copeland Gordon: Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3176] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I begin by informing the member Hone Harawira who has just resumed his seat that this bill is not about a tax on dogs. It is about repealing and overturning the decision taken by Parliament in 2003 with the support of all parties except ACT to introduce a microchipping regime. I have already signalled quite clearly to this House that when we come to the Local Government Law Reform Bill I will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to exempt working farm dogs from the microchipping regime. In that debate and at that time I will spell out to the House in great detail the very very good and numerous reasons why that class of dog should be exempt. 
But that is not to suggest United Future agrees with a total repeal of microchipping for all dogs—with the single exception of dangerous menacing and impounded dogs—which is what Jeanette Fitzsimons’ bill would bring in. In talking about dangerous menacing and impounded dogs I must say that when I was listening to the Hon David Carter’s speech in the House I thought to myself it was a pretty menacing kind of speech. It almost got to the stage of being a dangerous kind of speech and I would say to the member that if he keeps going down that line the day will arrive when he will probably be impounded. I think he should turn down the volume a bit and actually concentrate on some facts. 
Let us now look at some factual situations. As others particularly Brian Donnelly have pointed out this all came about because of the attack on little Carolina Anderson in Auckland in 2002. In July 2003 this House with the single exception of the ACT party agreed to bring in a microchipping regime for all dogs. Why? It was with the intention of reducing and rolling back the number of dog attacks on New Zealand children. Let me tell the House that that date is now almost 3 years ago. In that time the number of dog attacks on children in this country has increased by a further 38 percent. There has been a 38 percent increase in the number of dog attack claims since we agreed as a Parliament to bring in microchipping. I tell members that if microchipping actually reduces the number of dangerous attacks by dogs on children by even one attack then I think it is worth doing. Therefore I have no hesitation at all in saying United Future will not support the roll-back of that regime. 
Let me turn to the issue that has been raised by farmers and by many New Zealanders. They say microchipping will not stop a dog from attacking a child. Of course it will not and no one has ever said it will. I was with a group of farmers the other night in Hamilton and when they pressed me on that point I said that the impact of microchipping was simply the difference between a collar and a microchip. That is the difference. Those farmers all said to me they conceded that point. 
Let me read to the House what the state of New South Wales has said. That state has had a microchipping regime for 7 years. The legislation was introduced in 1999—incidentally it does exempt working farm dogs. The Government of New South Wales said to people about microchipping: “Collars can be lost or removed and tattoos can be changed but microchipping is a once-only form of identification which is designed to last for an animal’s lifetime. The introduction of compulsory microchipping ensures that all owned animals”—with the exception of working farm dogs—“have a means of permanent identification which cannot be lost or tampered with.” This matter is simply about adopting today’s technology which is microchipping instead of yesterday’s technology which is collars. Collars can be lost dislodged and so forth. They are not as good as microchips when it comes to dog control and that is why I believe microchipping will reduce the number of attacks on children. 
Let me make just a brief comment about the politics of the issue. The Hon David Carter tends to say United Future’s vote is critical to this debate and if we dare to vote against Jeanette Fitzsimons’ bill then we are being a poodle to Labour. However we are opposing Labour in its intention to bring in microchipping for farm dogs. Therefore Mr Carter’s logic is that if we roll over and adopt National’s position somehow that does not make us a poodle to National. Well United Future is a party that is a poodle to no one. We are our own party—we have brains we can think the facts through and we can make our own conclusions. We fundamentally disagree with the position advanced in this bill; therefore we will vote against it to ensure that it does not go any further in this House.