Roy Eric: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Roy Eric: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:630;Page:2201] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I have arrived at somewhat short notice to participate in this debate but I am concerned enough about process to willingly pick up the cudgels and make some points in relation to Government motion No. 1. In reality this is a debate about whether we should have a debate. To make it somewhat absurd we really do not know the content of the debate that we are going to have if we lose the vote on this motion and the debate is agreed to. That is absolutely a travesty of justice in terms of the process of how this House normally works. We normally have a bill laid on the Table so we can read it and then debate it. 
Why are we concerned in this particular instance? The issue that I wish to pick up and highlight my concerns about this afternoon is dog control which is in the Local Government Law Reform Bill one of the bills that is mentioned in the motion to suspend the Standing Orders so we can debate them. Over the last few days we have had a number of questions to the Minister of Agriculture about his intentions in regard to the microchipping of dogs and particularly farm dogs. We had some assurances from him that he would take the matter to Cabinet. Then today in the House he said he did his best but there is to be no change to that requirement. If there is to be no change why is dog control one of the issues to be amended by the Local Government Law Reform Bill? If there is to be no change whatsoever—as we were assured today in the House—why are we doing it? 
There is a sense of concern among our team as to why that issue should be in the motion. There are some principles here about the whole issue of dog control that I think are extraordinarily important. We know that the Minister has had meetings with Federated Farmers. The organisation made the case that the proposal is a nonsense and it is a nonsense. The microchipping of farm dogs—I presume that is the issue about dog control that is in the Local Government Law Reform Bill—will do absolutely nothing to protect New Zealanders at large. 
The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) for example keeps very precise records of where the money goes. In 2002 or 2003—I am not absolutely sure of the year; I do not have my notes with me—ACC paid out to farmers musterers and people associated with farm dogs the sum of $1300 for dog bites. Four people had received dog bites. The $1300 was for medical expenses and time off work. It will cost about $1.3 million a year to microchip farm dogs. Those are the figures. I do not know what the percentage is but it is a minuscule percentile of a percentile in terms of the damage done. But microchipping will not stop dog bites from happening because the people who were bitten by their dogs were bitten for two reasons: they were breaking up fights between their own dogs so they knew who the owner was or their dogs were hooked up in electric fences and they went to uncouple their own dogs—which they knew. So the dogs did not have to be microchipped. 
This proposal is an absolute nonsense. Time after time—and when Labour was in Opposition and we were in Government—we have had members talk in this House about the cost of compliance. Yes we have to deal with the cost of compliance. Here we have a situation of an impost of another $1.3 million on one sector of the community. But it does not stop there because it is not just dog owners who will pay. There is now a responsibility upon every single local government body to have some kind of database. If there is microchipping there has to be a database and there is a cost involved in that. There is a cost involved in monitoring. I have not seen the bill that is to be introduced and I have not had time because of the short notice to look at the penalty provisions for those who do not have their dogs microchipped. 
Hon David Carter 
: There’s no bill introduced. 
ERIC ROY 
: I know that no bill has been introduced. I have some understanding of matters of dog registration. I spent 6 years on the National Hydatids Council so I know a little about dog registration and what it involves. In the late 1970s in the south Otago district an attempt was made to assess how many unregistered dogs there were. Officials went around and inspected killing facilities and dog housing and asked whether dogs were being fed frozen or treated home-kill. That is what the officials said they were doing but they were actually counting dogs. They found 1343 unregistered dogs in the south Otago district. They belonged to law-abiding good sons of the soil—southern men and cockies—who had no reason to avoid the law. If one wishes to create a system where people will break the law on more occasions over registration it would be by increasing the degree of difficulty of registration and bringing in a nonsensical law that will not solve the problem. There will be more unregistered dogs. 
The issue that keeps being raised by Government members is that they cannot tell whether or not dogs are farm dogs. That raises a very interesting issue. I am yet to have explained to me in rational terms why town dogs need to be microchipped. I ask somebody to take a call and tell me how many dogs whose owners we do not know have savaged people or children so we have some measure about whether the cost of all this is actually worth it. In actual fact we are creating some impediments that will make it even more difficult to get people to comply with the registration procedures. 
This motion on the microchipping of dogs—allowing the Local Government Law Reform Bill to amend the Dog Control Act—is a nonsense. This House should be serious about dogs attacking people. I am one of those people whom dogs bite. I have been bitten several times by dogs probably more than members of this House collectively. For whatever reason dogs bite me and I know about being bitten by dogs. I have a permanent scar on my left calf from the last election campaign from a Dobermann pinscher; I know about being bitten. We do have a responsibility to deal with that issue not by a nonsensical placebo such as placing a microchip in a dog but by getting serious about people who have dogs that are dangerous by nature—by getting serious about macho dogs dog fighting and unregistered dogs. That rather than doing something that is nonsensical will resolve the issue about people being bitten by dogs. 
I will finish on a point that members of the Government who have previously been in Opposition have made on a regular basis. The cost of compliance is an issue and this measure will impose a cost in two ways: one to dog owners and two to local authorities. In addition it will not do anything to solve the problem that this House should be dealing with. I say microchipping is a nonsense and I want to see the detail of what is in the bill which we have not seen. I will vote against the motion.