Mark Ron: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3648] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Listening to that speech made by the honourable Eric Roy—an MP whom I do actually admire and respect for a range of reasons—is like listening to a farmer complaining about his antiquated tractor; it has only a crash gearbox he cannot change gear on the move unless he double-declutches there is no canopy no windscreen wiper no central heating and it exposes him to too much dust to plough in certain weather conditions. The answer is that he should buy a new tractor. He should get upskilled. He should upgrade with technology. If that member honestly believes that some of the problems that existed with early microchipping will still exist in 1 2 or 5 years’ time then it is time he bought some of those old magazines that could help him upskill himself in science and technology.  
Popular Mechanics 
 is the magazine he might be familiar with. 
I have here a photograph of Carolina Anderson. Lest we forget this is where it all started. This whole issue really came to a head—despite other attempts that had been made—when Carolina Anderson was mauled and seriously injured. Members should look at the photograph and remember we where started. Everyone in this House got upset. There was not one politician who did not want something done. So the Government looked at the dog registration system. It found that it was messy and non-compliant. It decided that a new system was needed and it made sense to have that new system electronically based. 
Members across this House participated in the select committee that considered the matter. Jim Peters who participated on behalf of New Zealand First was probably the most experienced local government man ever to set foot in this House. The House decided that it needed a dog registration system that was effective. It decided that the old system was rubbish and it decided that if it was to put in place a new system then it should use an electronic mechanism. 
This new system does away with the questions of ownership. We all know how that works. When a cocky’s dog slips his leash on the farm and goes straying because a bitch down the road is on heat it does not have its collar on. There starts the argument. The dog is picked up and the owner finally fronts up to get it. The dog control officer tells him his dog is not registered and out come the excuses—“Oh yes it is.”; “Oh we lost the collar.”; “Oh the tag broke.”; “Oh I did get it registered. We lost it.” The question of ownership is removed immediately with a chip and if there is no chip the dog can be shot—finish end of discussion. The point is either we have a registration system in this country or we do not gentlemen. We should make up our minds. If we are to do away with dog registration well heck stop registering marriages stop registering cars stop registering everything—because one could apply the same argument over and over again if one wanted to. Either we want a registration system or we do not and all of this House decided we did. That is the point. 
The next point is whether there should be exemptions. We say that there should be no exemptions. We say we should have one law for all. We should have consistency in law. One law applies to every human being regardless of colour race socio-economic background ethnicity or religion. It should be the same for dogs. To those who say that working dogs should be exempt I ask them which working dogs. Do we mean pig dogs? Pig dogs are working dogs. Pig hunters rely on pig dogs to earn money. Rabbiters who work for the Animal Health Board have working dogs. Will they be exempt? No we do not hear that argument. All we hear about are farm dogs. 
Well what is a farm dog? Does a casually employed farmer a person who actually lives in town and works out in the country have a farm dog if it is at home? How does one differentiate? What differentiates a huntaway from another dog found wandering around Aranui’s backstreets or in any suburb? I can just imagine Mr Roy turning up with a dog control officer to have a look at what is going on and finding a Mongrel Mob member standing there in front of the dog control officer and of course if a dog is not registered the mobster will say: “It is a working dog. It is a farm dog because in the weekends the dog is out on our farm.” Come on! Where is the explanation? How does one define a farm dog if one wants to exempt him? The bottom line is if nana’s poodle has to be chipped so does the farm dog. I say: “Get over it; get on with it; no exemptions; one law for all.” 
In terms of costs I hear Mr David Carter the multimillionaire blabbing on about cost and about his farm. I would say that Mr Carter writes off on his business expenses more on a bottle of wine on a night out with his cocky mates than he would ever pay for one chipped dog and he would zap it on his credit card and he will not even blink. He would spend more on wine in one evening than it would take to chip 100 dogs. Because that man enjoys the fine life he enjoys the best that money can buy and where he can write it off to expenses he will; and where he can get it back in GST he will. 
Mr Carter is successful in business. He has been a successful farmer because he knows how to work the system and he knows that bleating on out there on the hustings about the expense of a $50 or $70 charge is rubbish. He knows that. He is more intelligent than that he is more business-wise than that but it is a helluva political drum to be beating today is it not? But if his business is as bad as that if he is in as much trouble as that then I suggest he get out of it. Because this expense is not going to break his already overflowing bank balance or his portfolios. He knows that. Mr Roy might be having more trouble down south where it is harder to grow grass except if he is dairying. But Mr Carter knows that farmers in this country will spend 10 times the amount to chip one dog on going to a “conference” with a big dinner and where Colin Meads is a guest speaker! His talk about chipping being expensive is baloney and he will get the GST back. He will get the GST back. Do we really want to address the problems and stop more Carolina Anderson - type incidents from occurring? Yes we do. 
The Minister is quite right: putting a chip in a dog will not stop the dog attacking if it is going to. I say to Mr Blumsky that finding a stray dog that is owned by the type of person who has violent dogs that are not chipped will allow the dog control officer to kill it. End of story! Therein the problem finishes. That really is what we are after. Farmers also know that since mad cow disease and foot-and-mouth disease the Europeans and Americans have become more selective about the products they buy. They insist now on traceability of product from the supermarket shelf right back to the farm gate and through the gate. They want to know everything that is happening on that farm in the way of best practice. 
I am involved with a Maori incorporation. We are in sheep and beef. We have 7500 dairy cows. By the way 1200 of our dairy cows are chipped. That is the first process towards chipping the whole lot. We do that because we want traceability and to be able to prove to our buyers overseas that our products are good and safe. I say to farmers in the National Party that the valuable quota markets that we are attempting to access and continue to maintain want traceability from the paddock to the plate on all products. Dogs as farm animals are part of that overseas market where people want to know all about everything that happens. Members should not get wound up about not wanting to chip dogs when farmers chip racehorses pig dogs and cows and that allows us to monitor and control what we produce and to prove the quality. 
Lest we forget where this whole issue started and for those people who want to play politics purely for the gain of politics I just ask them to remember that Carolina Anderson was the starting point.