Copeland Gordon: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3651] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will be supporting the second reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill and I want to confine my remarks to just two areas: one to do with the microchipping of dogs which has been very much on the agenda this afternoon and the other one to do with the amendment to the Land Transport Act. I would like to say to Metiria Turei who has just resumed her seat and who talked about evidence that she should listen on because that is exactly what I want to do in this debate in relation to dog attacks and the impact of microchipping on dogs. 
Let us put some figures on the record to start with. Dog attacks in New Zealand both in homes and on the streets are increasing and increasing rapidly. In the 2 years to July 2003 we had 217 such attacks. In the 2 years to July 2005 we have had 300 such attacks which is an increase of 38 percent. The number of attacks on roads and streets has gone from 46 to 65—an increase of 41 percent. It is quite relevant in this debate to fix the date when Carolina Anderson was attacked. She was attacked in January of 2003. As Ron Mark has said those of us who were in Parliament at the time remember that vividly. We remember the reaction of the nation and the demand by the citizens of this nation that we as a Parliament address that problem. Since the date on which Carolina Anderson was attacked the number of dog attacks has gone up significantly. In my view Parliament would fail in its duty to communities and especially to our children were we to fail to act. For that reason United Future will continue to support a dog microchipping regime in New Zealand. 
With regard to that I want to produce some evidence that I think Metiria Turei and others should listen to very carefully regarding the situation in the state of New South Wales in Australia. Microchipping was introduced into New South Wales by an Act of its Parliament in 1998 based on the same system that we are now adopting in New Zealand—namely that puppies from 1999 onwards would have to be microchipped. So 7 years have now gone by since microchipping was introduced in the state of New South Wales. Therefore we have some evidence now as to whether it has made a difference in terms of the number of attacks by dogs. 
 What have the results of microchipping been in New South Wales? It is vitally important to have some accurate evidence on this matter because of the anecdotal evidence that has been produced by so many people without reference to any research or basis for their remarks. We have heard many of them—from both National and now the Greens—in this House today. So let us look at what has happened in New South Wales. Here are the figures. In 1997 before microchipping was introduced in that state there were 521 dog attacks. By the way there are about 1.3 million dogs in New South Wales. By 2001 when the microchipping regime was only about 3 years old so therefore only about half complete that number had dropped to 294 dog attacks. In 2003 which is the latest figure I have been able to get the number of dog attacks in New South Wales had reduced to—I ask members to listen to this figure—167. The figure went from 521 in 1997 to 167 in 2003. What a contrast that is to our situation in New Zealand. 
In New Zealand as I have said dog attacks have gone up by 40 percent since Carolina Anderson was attacked. This year alone I have seen on television at least four stories about dog attacks on children. They continue to happen. Dog attacks are up by 40 percent on the figure that applied when Carolina Anderson was attacked. Across the Tasman in New South Wales dog attacks under microchipping are down by a massive 70 percent. Attacks are up by 40 percent in New Zealand and down by 70 percent in New South Wales. The state of Victoria is now following the New South Wales example because microchipping has been proven. It works and it reduces the number of attacks including those on children. I place that evidence before Parliament today. United Future is a party that likes to base its policy position on firm evidence. We should follow evidence and not rhetoric when we come to these matters. 
Having said all that I also say—this is well known to this nation and to this House—that at the Committee stage of this bill the Hon David Carter will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to exempt working farm dogs from the microchipping regime. United Future will vote for that Supplementary Order Paper. Again let us look at the evidence to see whether there is a case for exempting working farm dogs. 
Ron Mark who is no longer with us rattled on about the definition of working farm dogs. They are already defined in the Act. The Act already states that a working farm dog is one that is kept solely or principally for the purposes of herding or driving stock. The word “principally” by the way—for the benefit of those who may not know what it means—means 51 percent or more. So Ron Mark’s story about the Mongrel Mob guy who just takes his dog on the farm at the weekends is completely invalid. That dog is not a working farm dog under the New Zealand law at the moment and nothing will change in that direction. It is quite clear to anyone with any common sense what a working farm dog is. 
There are 250000 working farm dogs in this country—40 percent of all dogs. Here are the figures about that 40 percent of all dogs. Those 250000 dogs are responsible on average for 2 percent of dog attacks in this country each year. On average that is four attacks a year. There are 250000 dogs and four attacks a year. Again that is the kind of evidence that this House should take into consideration. To put it the other way around 60 percent of our dogs the ones that are not working farm dogs are responsible for 98 percent of all dog attacks and all dog bites. Those figures are based on ones provided by the Accident Compensation Corporation. There are similar figures for the number of dog attacks where people end up going to hospital after being attacked. It will be found that working farm dogs basically do not feature at all in those figures. 
Ron Mark talked about religion. I do not know whether there are Muslim farm dogs. I do not know whether there are Muslim dogs or Christian dogs or dogs of any other sort of religion. I think Ron Mark went really wide of the mark when he came out with that very simplistic slogan invented by Nanaia Mahuta—to my knowledge—that there should be one law for all dogs. It sounds great but when one digs and gets down to some evidence one realises the slogan is invalid. Therefore United Future will definitely support the Supplementary Order Paper coming in from David Carter. By the way I will have a Supplementary Order Paper as well. If David’s does not get through there will be another chance—I hope—for Parliament in the Committee stage to vote twice on that issue. 
I also want to mention the amendments to the Land Transport Act that are also part of this bill. The amendments to the Act in this bill deal mainly with what are called “special vehicle lanes”. At the time this bill was introduced—in fact when I first heard about it—I was also concurrently aware that Porirua City Council and Transit New Zealand were working through an issue to do with the new four-lane arrangements going along Mana Esplanade through what we commonly call the township of Plimmerton. New lanes called T2 lanes have been established. They are quite complex: drivers can park there sometimes but not at other times. But essentially what has been done is to create four lanes in State Highway 1 along Mana Esplanade. People were saying we needed to have some law changes around the enforcement of by-laws for those new lanes; they are a unique set of lanes anywhere in the country as far as I know. So I immediately drew it firstly to the Government’s attention and secondly to the attention of the Local Government and Environment Committee that it would be good if we could also address that issue in this bill for the benefit of the citizens of Porirua City and indeed of all the people that go along State Highway 1. 
Unfortunately the Clerk’s Office has ruled that out of order. I do not quite understand that ruling but that is what has been ruled so it will not happen. I continue to urge the Government and particularly the Minister of Local Government to address quickly the issue that has arisen on Mana Esplanade because lives are being endangered as we speak. As I said earlier—I think in the first reading debate—it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured. We need some action to be taken regarding Mana Esplanade. Notwithstanding that it is not addressed in this bill it is an issue that still needs to be addressed. Thank you.