Mahuta Nanaia: Third Readings 
Mahuta Nanaia: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3863] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading debate and I want to acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I particularly want to thank the select committee clerks the Parliamentary Counsel Office and also the officials who advised on this legislation and given the decisions made last night I want to acknowledge the hard work and effort that everyone has made to get the legislation here so we can discuss it. 
There have been a lot of issues in particular relating to microchipping. As this House knows Parliament with the exception of ACT originally voted in support of the Dog Control Amendment Bill in 2003 which included the introduction of microchipping along with a range of other strengthened dog control measures. However it has now voted to exclude farm working dogs from that requirement. We acknowledge that and will move on and will work with local authorities to try to get that through. 
Let me reiterate that we will be proceeding with the dog microchipping law in the form passed through Parliament last night to ensure the safety of the public as best we can. This law will still support the wide range of strengthened dog control measures introduced in 2003. These measures which for the large majority of the dog population still include microchipping give councils more power to deal with dangerous threatening lost or problem animals as well as give greater certainty about ownership by linking animals with their rightful owners. In fact we know already that some owners are voluntarily microchipping their dogs because they are pets and if they get lost they want to be able to track them. 
Our focus is now to move forward and make the legislation as effective and painless as possible for those who will be required to administer and enforce it. Let me also say that we are committed to continuing to work closely with local authorities to ensure that they and the majority of dog owners who will still have their animals microchipped over time have good and accurate information about what is required under the latest changes to the Dog Control Amendment Act. Although any exemption is not favourable as it will add costs and have other implications for councils the reality is that over time the majority of newly registered dogs will still be microchipped. It may also be that farmers in time will see the benefit of that. In the meantime I reiterate that for the majority of dog owners who have newly registered dogs after 1 July the microchipping requirements have not changed. 
Unfortunately a lot of misinformation is still being circulated about microchipping which is not helpful to either the public or those who must implement the Act as it now stands. For one let me reiterate that inserting a microchip in a dog will not by itself stop dog attacks and the Government has never said that it would. The whole point that we have been trying to stress is that microchipping will support a raft of other strengthened dog control measures that are designed to ensure more responsible dog ownership. If we have responsible dog owners they are more likely to train their dogs so that their dogs do not act in an irresponsible way. Ultimately we want to work in that manner to create a safer environment around dogs. If we look at the example of New South Wales which has had microchipping since 1998 we see that has certainly been achieved. 
There is another misconception and this is something that others continue to get wrong but it is only dogs that are first registered after 1 July this year and those currently classified as menacing or dangerous dogs that will have to be microchipped—apart from the latest exemption for farm working dogs. This means that one’s little dog at home—Mark Blumsky’s dog or nanny’s dog at home—that is already registered which one is also proud of and fond of will not have to be microchipped unless of course it has never been registered. We are talking only about new puppies. 
The other misconception is around the issue of costs. The Government has agreed to support local councils in meeting approximately half the $1.1 million cost of introducing the national dog database with smaller councils’ costs levied according to their size. With microchipping itself let me reiterate that vets have consistently said they can provide a complete microchipping service—that is inserting the microchip and verifying it—for somewhere between $35 to $70 which will reduce if combined with other procedures such as vaccinations. This is nowhere near the erroneous figures that were referred to in the House last night. When compared with the overall costs of owning a dog microchipping is still a relatively small one-off cost. However some councils such as in Christchurch have actually embraced the new technology and agreed to offer free microchipping in order to encourage compliance with legislation. The Government is committed to doing all it can to improve dog control in response to calls from the public for improved safety around dogs. And exemptions or not we have not wavered from that commitment. We will work with local authorities to achieve that. 
I turn to one small part concerning the rates rebate scheme because although National was more concerned about dogs than people we actually believe it is important to invest in people. The rates rebate scheme was introduced in the 1973-74 financial year by the Rates Rebate Act. It gave effect to the Labour Government’s manifesto pledge at the time to provide assistance to ratepayers on low incomes who paid rates. The scheme is particularly suited to helping those ratepayers who have low incomes high rates and own their property outright. Superannuitants form a significant group within that set of criteria. Financial assistance for housing costs such as rent board or mortgage payments is also provided via the Government’s accommodation supplement administered by Work and Income. Eligible ratepayers will be able to apply to their city or district council for a rebate. The council will then process the application and deduct an amount from the rates bill. The council will then apply to the Department of Internal Affairs for a payment equal to the rebates that have been granted. This will help a lot of people; over 300000 people will benefit from the rates rebate scheme as of 1 July. It is somewhat concerning that the Opposition chose to vote against that particular part of the legislation. The fact that its members spent more time talking about dogs than people really does show where their priorities lie. 
However my final comment is in relation to the Dog Control Act. We look forward to moving on. We want to work with councils and dog owners and other relevant groups to ensure that the Act can be administered in a way that will be effective. In time farmers will see the benefits of microchipping I am sure and voluntarily microchip their dogs.