Mackey Moana: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3798] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I came down to the Chamber last night and made a speech that appears to have been lost on most people because what I have been hearing is so ridiculous. 
I will start by reading from someone else’s speech: “Sooner or later given the new technology that is upon us we will have microchips introduced for all dogs in New Zealand. Many local authorities in New Zealand are already starting to introduce microchips as a means of identification of dogs. It is a sensible way of identification. It is a way in which it can be done cheaply. When a microchip is put into a dog it is there for life. It would cost less than $10 per dog for the life of the dog. It is a ready means of identification.” The speech goes on to say: “I think an important thing for us in the future as the microchip is developed and as local authorities have better means of identifying the dog through the mode of microchips is that Parliament passes legislation that allows for dogs throughout the country to have microchips implanted. When that happens we will have a proper means of identifying dogs.” The person who made that speech was the honourable John Carter in 1996. I noticed that David Carter when we thought the speech was made by him hurriedly went through his notes to see whether he had made that statement—which just goes to show the absurdity of this debate. 
In the 1990s National MPs thought microchipping was a good idea and they were right. It is a sensible means of identification it is a low-cost solution and the rest of the world is rapidly heading in that direction. But of course now that those members have seen there might be a few votes to be won in opposing microchipping they have given up on common sense entirely and have gone in exactly the opposite direction. We are used to National Party flip-flops in this Chamber but this goes beyond the pale. 
Last night I referred to the experience in New South Wales and I once again say to members who oppose this bill for the reasons they have given that they should google the information on the Companion Animals Act of New South Wales. They will find some very useful information on that Act because it is pretty much the same package that has been introduced in New Zealand. The difference here is that the Government will provide far more financial support for developing the national dog database. Also we are not requiring dogs that are currently registered to be microchipped. In New South Wales people were given 3 years to have all dogs microchipped. In that state in 1997 there were 521 dog attacks. In 2001 that figure dropped to 150. 
I shall refer to the report on the Companion Animals Act which was delivered to the Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers 4 years after the Act was passed. It states that in the early days the critics were very vocal the owners would not microchip their dogs the microchip was not good enough there were no good microchip readers it would not work and the whole system was flawed. Those are the same things we are hearing at the moment. But now New South Wales is recognised as having the most effective dangerous dog provisions of any state in Australia if not the world. 
The reason the system has worked so well is not that farm dogs which comprise less than 5 percent of the total dog population are exempt—they still have problems with farm dogs that attack stock and the rural-urban divide in Australia is a lot easier than it is here—[ 
Interruption 
] Members might want to listen because they might learn something. They do not like the facts. No longer can the behaviour of dogs—dogs that are being shifted around territorial regional authorities that are having their collars taken off and that are being given to other people and registered under different names—be hidden from a new local authority. When a dog is brought in for menacing behaviour the microchip is zapped and it can be seen whether in a neighbouring territorial authority that dog had done exactly the same thing five times before. Local authorities now have the power to put that dog down before it goes on to commit a serious attack maybe on a child on another animal or on stock—we do not know. What has happened is that the number of dog attacks has plummeted because more dangerous dogs are being destroyed before they get to the point of committing a serious attack. 
At the moment when a dog goes into a new territorial local authority it is a completely new entity. That authority has no idea where that dog has come from or what it has done in its previous life because the registration system does not allow us to know that. But by microchipping the dog and bringing the system into the 21st century we will be able to track those dogs and destroy them earlier. It is quite simple really. The microchip can be inserted when the dog is 6 weeks old and has to have its vaccinations or at 12 weeks when it has its second dose of vaccinations. It would be interesting to know whether members think dogs should not have vaccinations or that those vaccinations should not be carried out by a vet. But it will be a one-off visit to the vet which can be done at the same time as the dog’s vaccination. 
It is also interesting to note that in New South Wales there have been no instances whatsoever of a dog reacting adversely to a microchip of a microchip moving in a dog or of a microchip causing any kind of medical problem in a dog.