Wilkinson Kate: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3800] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Mr Chairman thank you very much for allowing me after 3 hours to take a call. I would like to answer the question of my learned colleague Mr John Carter which is a great question. He asked what we were doing debating this issue. I can quote from a newspaper the words of a Labour MP Mr Michael Bassett who stated: “Microchipping dogs is a political distraction to disguise the paralysis that afflicts this Government preventing it from doing anything worthwhile.” That is what this is all about; it is about disguising the paralysis that afflicts this Government preventing it from doing anything worthwhile. 
I will rebut some of the arguments. The former Minister of Agriculture Mr Sutton said last night—and it has been suggested again today—that it is easier to identify a dog through a microchip than a registration tag and collar. That is rather interesting because a scanner is needed to identify a dog by a microchip and scanners actually have different specifications depending on whether they are English or American—and no doubt in New Zealand we will have a third one as well. 
I have a further quote in relation to that from a member of the Canterbury Labrador Retriever Club which shows the absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous nature of having those microchips. The person said: “An interesting scenario happened to me earlier this year. I imported a dog from England. MAF regulations required him to be microchipped. This microchip had to be checked each time he had the various tests required to comply with entrance regulations to New Zealand. The microchip cost approximately $200. When the dog arrived in New Zealand MAF did not have a scanner available to even check if it were the dog that had had all the checks.” The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did not even have a scanner so she was able to walk out of the terminal dog in hand with a microchip not scanned. Yet Labour members are saying that it is easier to identify a dog through a microchip than a registration tag. 
The other issue I have relates to the fact that when we see a dog on the street without a collar we think yes that dog is probably not registered. If we see it with its collar and little tag we know it is registered. We do not all have scanners to see whether a dog is microchipped. 
The other falsity was to say that the microchip stays for life. Mr Sutton said that the microchip is a lifelong means of identifying the dog and as was said before a microchip involves only a one-off visit to the vet. We know about Hank; Hank is a good friend of my other colleague Mr Eric Roy. Members know about Hank who is a 70 kilogram Rottweiler. He is 8-years-old valuable and had a microchip inserted by a vet at 10 months of age. But the vet was unable to locate the microchip or get any reading on what Hank’s inserted microchip was supposed to be communicating. The vet responded by saying that microchips should be checked every year to ensure that they have not moved and that they are still functioning. That is not a one-off cost. That cost is a ridiculous tax a ridiculous compliance cost. It is not common sense— 
Hon Member 
: Dog-tax law. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: It is a dog-tax law. Then this morning on TV we heard that Mr Copeland—who holds the balance of power in this debate—takes his canine advice from his mother with the inference that all fox terriers are killers. So there we are—someone holding the balance of power in this Parliament is taking his canine advice from his mother who I am sure is lovely but he should listen to his own judgment his own common sense rather than any poodle politics. He also seemed to suggest that in 7 years all dogs in New Zealand would be microchipped. But some dogs last 14 years or even longer than that and as my colleague Mr Roy has pointed out it may be 2025 before all dogs in New Zealand are microchipped. Where is the sense in that? 
Treasury says that this legislation is stupid. Local authorities think it is stupid and farmers think it is stupid. I have a petition with over 10000 signatures of people who think it is stupid. There is a petition from Federated Farmers that says it is stupid so why is it that the only people who do not think this legislation is stupid are on the other side of the Chamber?