Turei Metiria: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3750] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have been very strong on this issue and we have used every possible parliamentary option open to us to change the law so that the compulsory microchipping of dogs other than dangerous and menacing dogs is gone from our law books. We even went so far as to put in a member’s bill which was pulled from the ballot—which was fantastic—and failed by only one vote. It was a great disappointment to us that this opportunity was lost and that United Future New Zealand First and Labour did not see that this was what the community wanted. Federated Farmers totally agree with our position. The Kennel Club completely agrees with our position. We have support from thousands of New Zealanders and from parties across the political spectrum that do not normally work with us such as National. It just shows that we can work together which is fantastic. 
Hon David Carter 
: A great coalition coming up! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Ha ha! I think it is important to recognise the principle behind the Greens’ position and why we do not support an exemption for farm dogs. I will give just one small illustration. Grandma and grandad are sitting around the fire in their old rural home. Grandma’s poodle has a microchip and grandad’s border collie does not. Can anyone truly say that grandma’s poodle which requires a microchip is more dangerous than grandad’s border collie which goes out with stock generally ranges free during the day and does not require one? No it is not a principled position. That is why we will not support an exemption. There is no reason to discriminate between dogs. Dog owners across the country completely agree with us. 
Because the Greens are good parliamentarians and we believe in this process we have proposed even more changes to the legislation. We put in an amendment at the Local Government and Environment Committee and National supported it but the Government did not. The select committee took out that amendment which would have got rid of microchipping. We have put forward Supplementary Order Paper 46 to restore that change to the bill so if we get cross-party support and the amendment is included compulsory microchipping for dogs other than dangerous and menacing dogs will be gone. 
If that amendment does not pass during this Committee stage we have five other amendments on the Table that are all designed to find a way through the impasse—to find a way to get cross-party support. I want just briefly to go through those five amendments. The first amendment alters Minister Burton’s amendment and effectively repeals section 36A in its entirety. We certainly hope we can get support for that amendment. If that is not successful we are looking to change the date at which newly registered dogs must be microchipped from 2006 to 2007 and perhaps even to 2008 so that there is a delay and we have more time to make the changes we need to the legislation. If that fails we have an amendment to repeal section 36A(1)(c) which requires that newly registered dogs be microchipped. We hope that that might get through. If that fails we have an amendment to section 36A(6) that removes the penalties if a person does not microchip his or her dog. The amendment retains the penalty—a very severe penalty I must say—of a $3000 fine if a dog is dangerous and menacing and the owner has not microchipped it but it gets rid of that $3000 fine if just an ordinary dog has not been microchipped. Perhaps that might help us to get some support from the Committee. 
Finally we have an amendment to change section 36A(2) which provides that owners must register their dogs. We would like to add the little paragraph: “unless the owner advises the territorial authority in writing that the dog provides social practical or economic services or support to the owner including but not limited to the purpose of herding or driving stock.” How can United Future oppose that change? That change directly addresses United Future’s issues and those of the Green Party. It takes account of United Future’s concern for working dogs and the concern of the Greens and National for grandma’s poodle. There is no reason why this amendment could not be voted for and supported by this Committee so as to change the bill. Owners would therefore only have to write to their territorial authority that their dog is a working dog or provide them with emotional or social support and so should not be microchipped and they would not be required to do it. 
These are the options the Greens are putting forward because we are looking for ways to make the changes that need to be made in order to provide United Future and New Zealand First with options they can choose from. We want cross-party support for the communities those parties represent which look to those parties for these changes and which are very disappointed that they have not had support from them. This is not about political point-scoring. It is quite true that United Future and the Greens have not always agreed on everything but this is a time to set aside those political differences get rid of those nagging issues between us and really do what is best for the community. That has always been the Green Party’s purpose.