Brown Peter: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2528] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker as you will well know New Zealand First was entitled to a call earlier on in this debate but I deliberately sat it out because I wanted to hear the Hon Maurice Williamson. To a large degree and I did not know this until he spoke we share his concerns on Part 8. We have been a firm advocate of a properly constructed police force to administer traffic and roading enforcement. As a result we have real concerns about a local authority or indeed Transit taking on that responsibility. That is not to say we fail to recognise there is an area that has to be enforced and policed but we would be happier if the police had the responsibility for it. 
In addition we would prefer the traffic arm of the police to be separated from the police service proper and would prefer that there was a nationwide traffic enforcement agency. We have not lost sight of that and we hope that in the fullness of time we will get other parties to concur with that view. We know a very large number of the public concur with us. The public do not like the police themselves being traffic enforcers and would prefer that there was a separate entity. I understand from many police officers that although they cannot speak publicly about the issue they also would support that move. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee but that is not to say we have no major concerns with various parts of the bill. I have demonstrated the one concern we have with respect to Part 8 which amends the Land Transport Act. We have yet to be convinced about the argument for microchipping dogs. We have listened intently to the arguments from Opposition members that they do not agree with farm dogs—working dogs—being microchipped. Gordon Copeland who seemed to lead the attack on that issue quoted the experiences in New South Wales. He said that dogs there are now being microchipped on a voluntary basis. 
The principal reason for microchipping a dog is not to stop it from attacking people. Microchipping a dog as I think everybody will know will not stop that dog from attacking anybody if it is inclined to attack people. It is simply to identify the dog to track it down pretty quickly and to deal with it pretty quickly. We know there will be people who will not microchip their dogs. They will think it is safe to be outside the law. But when their dogs are rounded up for whatever reason they will be dealt with accordingly—and by that I mean they will in all likelihood be exterminated. 
There have been a number of cases where young children have been attacked by dogs. We have to do something to put some controls into the situation. We are told that in Australia microchipping works and that the Veterinary Association believes it is a correct measure. That association goes along apparently with making working farm dogs exempt. But it then goes along apparently with saying that even if farm dogs are exempted farmers should be encouraged to microchip their dogs on a voluntary basis. If we are to require people to microchip their dogs then there is a good argument to say we should do it once and for all and make it compulsory. As the Minister outlined a few moments ago if everybody gets in so to speak it makes the cost cheaper on an individual basis right across the board. 
Eric Roy 
: Will it fix the problem? 
PETER BROWN 
: As I have just said it will not stop dogs from attacking people. 
Eric Roy 
: Well why support it? 
PETER BROWN 
: The point I would like to make to the honourable member is that that is not in this bill. There is already legislation on that in the Dog Control Act. This bill has nothing to do with microchipping dogs. 
Eric Roy 
: But it is about controlling dangerous dogs. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not wish to have a debate with the member. I know that he is going to take the last call and he can refute everything I say. 
The point is there is a good argument for being able to identify a dog quite readily and promptly after an event. Hopefully—and there is a degree of hope in this—it will make owners take more responsibility for where their dogs go and how they are trained. I have to say that the farming community microchips cattle now as far as I am aware. Farmers microchip animals in the ear now— 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Horses. 
PETER BROWN 
: And horses so they can tell exactly where they are where they have been and what have you. Microchipping farm dogs will be a lot cheaper for farmers than microchipping cattle and horses and will comply with the law as it stands. 
In terms of local bodies I could not come to grips with what the ACT member was saying. She seemed to say that she thought local bodies should be confined to building roads and sewerage. Well I say to her that if local bodies and councils confined their activities to those areas only New Zealand would be an awfully dull place to live in. I can recall many years ago Sir Clement Freud came here when everything was closed including the hotels after 6 o’clock and on a Sunday. He said: “I called into New Zealand on a weekend but it was shut.” I think if he came and found local bodies were confined just to matters of roading and sewerage he would say: “I came but it was not there.” 
I am very proud of the local council in Tauranga where I come from. It has built a massive swimming pool which is well patronised. We have a library a theatre and parks galore. The council has enhanced the downtown area and it looks magnificent. That local body is doing what the local people want. It is now on the verge of building an art gallery and I have absolutely no doubt that it will be an asset to Tauranga. If anybody thinks the council is doing the wrong thing then can he or she tell me why just about every person and his or her dog wants to come and live in Tauranga? Why do all the people come? Because it is such a go-ahead place with such a go-ahead council. For us MPs to stand up here and take local body politicians to task because they are doing a good job is really not on. 
I will conclude on Gordon Copeland’s reference to Mana Esplanade or Paremata as he said. I had the unfortunate pleasure of driving through that place some months ago. As my wife was with me we went in the lane for cars with two occupants. But I did not realise because I did not see the appropriate sign—there were signs up everywhere telling me what this was and what that was—that we were outside the hours for that lane and people were allowed to park in it. I was behind two other cars and a truck I think when we came across a parked car. We came to a grinding halt and everything we had overtaken while in that lane overtook us and we had to sit there seemingly for ages to get out into the correct lane. I could not make head nor tail of the signs. I thought if someone had thought that situation through then that person had not done his or her homework. 
New Zealand First will support the referral of this bill to the select committee unlike the National Party which will not. But National has put in Supplementary Order Paper 22 in the name of the Hon David Carter to correct the bill. I cannot make any logic out of that either.