Turei Metiria: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3650] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will be supporting the second reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill because many of the changes made to it by the Local Government and Environment Committee are very good changes in our view. Some are not however and I will deal with them in just a moment. 
One of the very good amendments inserts new clause 9B which substitutes a new section 36A of the Dog Control Act. The clause provides that only dogs classified as menacing or dangerous will be required to be microchipped. We have also inserted new clause 9G to require that any impounded dogs that are also menacing or dangerous are registered and microchipped before they are released. And helpfully—on the advice of parliamentary counsel I understand—territorial authorities will be able to recover the full cost of microchipping and registering those impounded dogs. I must say thank you to David Carter who raised this issue initially when the bill was introduced into the House and notified members that microchipping was an issue that could be dealt with. 
The Greens are enormously pleased that the National members on the select committee saw fit to get in behind the Greens and our amendment to the bill to repeal effectively the compulsory microchipping of dogs. That support from National clearly showed that the Greens provide solutions to community problems that transcend political boundaries old and useless dichotomies. We develop solutions that are rational responsible and well considered and we gather support for those solutions from across the House and the community. To that end we welcome the support of Federated Farmers for the changes we have made with the help of National to the bill. 
Compulsory microchipping of dogs is a serious issue. We must not impose on ordinary New Zealanders unnecessary costs or burdens that do not provide a demonstrable benefit to them or to their community. Despite the rhetoric from other parts of the House not one single argument during the debate on this bill or the debate on my co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons’ member’s bill clearly proved that compulsory microchipping of all dogs would prevent one more tragedy. We cannot make law based on the hope that the changes we make will work. That is very poor lawmaking indeed. 
We have repeatedly heard the arguments in favour of compulsory microchipping. One is that it forms just one part of a suite of dog control measures and without it the others will not succeed. That is demonstrably untrue. We have had a large suite of measures in place including microchipping of menacing and dangerous dogs but without compulsory microchipping for some years now. Those other measures are working to manage dogs better—absolutely they are. So where is the evidence that compulsory microchipping starting from July this year will significantly add to the existing effective measures? There is no evidence because compulsory microchipping simply will not make much difference. Microchipping will not identify a dog that has worried stock or hurt a person or a child. Microchipping will not identify or manage unregistered dogs. And most important a microchip will not and cannot stop a dog from hurting or killing a child. It simply cannot. 
But the microchipping of dogs is not the only provision in this bill. This bill makes important changes to the Litter Act to increase penalties for littering and we think that is a great thing. The provision to clarify that regional parks can be protected in perpetuity by Order in Council is welcome. It is a welcome relief for many communities. It will not resolve serious issues like those at Long Bay in Auckland but it does mean that regional parks can be protected from inappropriate development and maintained for the benefit of future generations. 
I have two areas of major disagreement with the bill. The first is the $100 fine for failing to notify a council that one’s dog has died. There has been some media coverage about this recently. The imposition of such a fine is unjust and is not reasonable. It is simply a means by which councils can make extra funds for no significant public purpose and I was very disappointed that that provision received support from members across the committee. 
Finally we are very strongly opposed to the change that allows a council to impound a car for the simple and sole reason that it does not display a current registration a current warrant of fitness or both. This is not about safety. Car registration for example is simply a car tax and there are already provisions for ticketing these vehicles—fines up to or exceeding $400. The Government’s argument is that impounding those cars is necessary to deal with abandoned cars but a car with registration is not by definition abandoned. A car might be old it might be rusty but it might be the one single means of transport for that family. This provision will allow a council to impound a car even though it obviously is being used—it might be full of groceries it might contain a booster seat and it might obviously be an essential part of a family’s asset base. Just because a family is poor and cannot afford to register their car does not mean that local government has the right to take that asset off them. That is an active attack on low-income people and cannot be justified. 
This bill has highlighted a number of issues and the debate on microchipping in particular has been a long and protracted one. There are lots of opportunities for parties in this House now to support the repeal of compulsory microchipping of all dogs. The community clearly does not want it. The farming community clearly does not want it. Not a single person throughout all of the debate has been able to demonstrate that it would protect a single child. Let us be responsible lawmakers. Thank you.