Foss Craig: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Foss Craig: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3745] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I guess that this is an interesting debate but microchipping is quite frankly nuts. This proposal this bill and much of the logic here have the texture the aroma and the chunkiness of stale and old Jellimeat. Members should smell it for a moment if they will because that is what this bill is like. In early May in Napier and in Waipukurau we had the first major New Zealand protests against microchipping. On an absolutely shocking day we had over 50 people in Napier and well over 100 people in Waipukurau—[ 
Interruption 
]—and if the gentleman opposite had watched TV he would have seen that. 
Bloodthirsty chihuahuas vicious dachshunds and apparently some dodgy eels should be shaking in their boots tonight if this proposal goes through. Law-abiding Kiwis again have to pay the price for those who choose not to abide by the laws of this country. There is double-dipping under this proposal because first of all law-abiding Kiwis register their dogs look after their dogs and have them treated at the vet. Goodness knows the bills keep racking up. Now if this measure becomes law yes they would probably chip their dogs because they are law-abiding Kiwis—and they will have to pay up twice. 
There are many points of view in this debate but I point to the advice given in Treasury papers. Members on this side of the Chamber have put up some very sensible arguments but again some more Treasury advice to the Government has been rejected. Perhaps that is another ideological burp but I would like to read from Treasury papers released under the Official Information Act. I ask members to let me quote some of the reasoning behind Treasury’s recommendation that microchipping not happen: “The size of the dog problem suggests that it is a small number of problem dogs that needs to be addressed through stronger dog control. The current information on the problem dogs is”—and I quote further—“about 6 to 8 percent of dogs are not registered and this small proportion of the total accounts for about half of the dog attacks recorded in a year of approximately 3500 attacks recorded by councils.” That is from Treasury. Those are the people we taxpayers pay $55 million a year to fund. It is pretty good advice. 
Let me continue with some of the advice that has been rejected by the current administration: “Targeting people who already comply with the law would be unlikely to reduce the risk of dog attack. The Treasury considers that there are three options for addressing these problem dogs and to provide a higher level of public protection from dangerous dogs etc. Microchipping is not one of those recommendations.” 
Let me quote further from Treasury: “Moreover problem dogs are unlikely to be registered and therefore not captured by the database.” That refers to the national database that the previous speaker talked so highly of. The advice continues: “If the objective is reducing the probability of dog attacks then a more focused approach of a database of dangerous dogs is more likely to be effective.” That is incredibly sound and good logic from our friends at Treasury. Furthermore Treasury states: “The Treasury is concerned that the transition period for the establishment of a national database will be 10-15 years. A transition period of this length is likely to increase uncertainty of registration confusion and higher costs.” That again is Treasury—learned good solid sensible people giving advice that this legislation essentially smells like Jellimeat. 
In summary Treasury advises: “only microchipping dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs and the storing of this information on a national dangerous dog database along with [whether] the owner is probationary or discretionary or if there are infringement notices or other enforcement activity undertaken.” Essentially Treasury states this proposal will not work. 
It was interesting to hear the Mayor of Wellington speak in favour I think of the measure referred to. Well in heartland provincial and rural New Zealand every mayor almost to a person I think is speaking against this legislation. Currently we are totally swamped with various compliance measures and nonsensical legislation and regulation from the Government. I could quote the chief executive of Tasman District Council for example.