Turei Metiria: Third Readings 
Turei Metiria: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3868] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Who would have thought that this little Local Government Law Reform Bill—full of good words about abandoned cars national parks and littering—would be so controversial? 
I want to add my thanks to the Local Government and Environment Committee and its staff Office of the Clerk staff and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I thank my National colleagues on the select committee who supported our amendment to get rid of compulsory microchipping except for dangerous and menacing dogs. I thank Labour members of the committee as well. The process in our select committee was very constructive despite our differences—it really was good democracy in operation. I also thank Federated Farmers kennel clubs and all those in the community who have supported the Green Party position as being the most rational and reasonable response to the issue of trying to prevent dogs from biting. 
The microchipping of dogs has remained a fierce political issue since 2003 and compulsory microchipping of the general dog population will remain an issue for as long as it is on the law books. The House will no doubt have to deal with this issue again sometime in the future. I am sorry this process has been such a monumental waste of time when it really could have been sorted out properly this time. 
In the vote on the Dog Control Amendment Bill later this afternoon the Green Party will split its vote with two votes opposed and four in favour. The principled position that Jeanette Fitzsimons and I have been advocating on behalf of the Green Party is that compulsory microchipping will not stop attacks on any child stock or wildlife. It cannot in any physical or practical way stop an attack from happening. If the truth is at all important I point out that nothing can really stop a dog from attacking if it intends to do so. 
The question here is whether microchipping will save a child’s life. If the answer is truly yes then the only principled position to take is to immediately enact legislation to make sure that every single dog in this country—whether it is currently or newly registered and regardless of what it does—is immediately microchipped. But if the answer is that no microchipping will not save children’s lives then no dog should be chipped unless there is a reason to suspect that it might pose a danger—hence the amendment in respect of dogs that are classified as dangerous or menacing. That is the position we have tried to put into the law—first through Jeannette Fitzsimons’ member’s bill which was defeated by only one vote; second at the select committee where with the support of National we had the bill changed; and third at the Committee stage where we put up six amendments to this part of the bill to try to find some solution that could gain cross-party support. No other position is a principled position. 
Other positions such as the one that is supported by my four colleagues—who are here with me today in the House—might be pragmatic and I support their right to take the vote they have taken but I continue to strongly disagree with them. The amendment passed in the House yesterday will exempt dogs that are “kept solely or principally for the purposes of herding or driving stock”. Maybe there is validity in the argument that if those dogs are exempt then the system will be unworkable. That may come to pass sometime in the future but in the meantime this law is very unfair to those who have dogs as pets—whether they live on farms in towns or in cities. They will now have to bear the full burden of the cost of the microchipping regime. 
What about all those people who are beneficiaries or on low incomes? What about the elderly on superannuation who will now not only have to pay for registration and inoculations but up to $100 for a microchip? Why should those people have to pay while other people in unspecified kinds of businesses will not have to? If those people do not have their puppy microchipped they will be subject to a fine of $300 from the council and quite possibly a $3000 fine through the courts. Does this simply mean that dog ownership is now a privilege of the wealthy? 
What about dogs that are used for disability support? The exemption does not include disability assist dogs or those used by charitable organisations like the Pets for Love Outreach Programme which takes dogs into rest homes and special needs schools to provide love and companionship to people who are there. Those dogs still need to be microchipped. All other working dogs—police dogs biosecurity dogs Department of Conservation pest management dogs civil defence dogs—have to be microchipped. Where is the principled policy in choosing one subsection of working dogs but excluding all others? Dogs whose job is to protect the environment and dogs who save lives will still be microchipped. 
Maybe there is a real threat that microchipping could be used on people. Maybe this is actually the thin end of the wedge. Damien O’Connor certainly made it clear in his speech in the House that microchipping is already being used on other animals and could be extended to even more animals in this country. In the US at the moment farmers are fighting the Government which is trying to microchip every farm animal in the country. In the US and the UK the microchipping of people has the support of a number of major business leaders including Bill Gates of Microsoft. But how does excluding only dogs involved with stock provide a principled basis for a crucial opposition to the microchipping of people? 
What this House has done pleases one sector of the community. That is fine for that sector. But in the process we have created a bad law in the hope that it will achieve some other aim. That is not good lawmaking under any circumstances. Law should be based on evidence should not unduly or unfairly burden the community and must produce real identifiable outcomes. Compulsory microchipping fails this test. Exemptions for stock dogs fails this test. The law cannot and must not be based solely on hope.