Peters Jim: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14117] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 I reiterate what I said in the debate on the second reading—that New Zealand First supports microchipping. If the members who have spoken so far about microchipping had any understanding of the rural economy and farming and the way in which these trends are developing in farming given the legislation that was passed earlier today—tracking for the dairy farmer from the shed to the consumer—then they would understand why microchipping will come in time. 
Secondly in respect of clause 15 the fact is that the bill does not provide for microchipping to take effect from tomorrow. It allows local authorities an adequate time-span to allow for the contracts and for the process to be put in place. It takes into account puppies yet to be born and allows for them to be microchipped in sequence. I am absolutely certain from the Local Government and Environment Committee’s experience of submissions made last year by such rural councils as the Opotiki District Council which has worked with this over some years and from the advice given to the committee by veterinarians and other vet groups that the process can take place and will be able to be achieved by contract at a reasonable rate. 
The issue is really whether those who own a dog realise what it means. In doing some brief calling around and speaking to councils about Part 2 I went to the Waitakere City Council and I saw there a few words in the council’s draft policy statement that I will pass on to the Committee. That draft statement starts with an excellent comment which puts us into the context of what we are talking about. First of all it asserts: “It is a privilege to be able to own a dog. Dog control problems are a symptom of community social and individual people problems. The impact of a dog on others is determined by the owner of the dog. To be a successful owner any dog owner must take a daily and active interest in the welfare of the dog with attention given to the physical emotional and mental needs of the dog.” and so on. It is a long elaborate and very carefully drawn up policy. The last bullet points of the draft foreword again assert: “It is in the interests of the community that Council’s Animal Welfare Officers maintain interaction with dog owners.” and “The ownership of a dog brings with it a twenty four hour a day seven day per week social responsibility towards other people (including their property and animals) and towards the dog itself.” If one begins with a sound dog policy as other councils have and puts the amendments to the Act in this bill in context it makes sound and reliable sense. 
To come back to the issue of microchipping it is the way of the future with regard to tracking and identifying animals. The microchipping of dogs is part of the sequence. The whole of our primary produce is dependent upon what overseas markets deem to be so not necessarily what we would wish to be so and the rural community understands more than most what tracking of animals means in terms of that community’s livelihood. New Zealand First commends this part of the bill.