Mackey Moana: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3753] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I have been listening to the debate this evening— 
Simon Power 
: Rubbish! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I say to Mr Power that through the amazing technology of the wireless I have been listening to the debate this evening. It is hard to think of a similar debate in this Parliament that has gone more off-track than the debate about microchipping. I admit that when the issue of microchipping first came up in the last Parliament I did not think it was a good idea. Everyone got very wound up about it. All the parties in this House that lined up to have their photos taken with young Carolina Anderson and her parents were quite happy to say they thought there was a need to bring dog registration into the 21st century as so many other countries had done. Those parties were all happy to have their photos taken with those grieving parents—let us not forget that. 
I did not necessarily think dog microchipping was a particularly good idea at the time—I did not know what it would achieve. But unlike members opposite I decided to go away and look at the evidence from countries that have done microchipping and say it has worked well and from countries that believe it has reduced the number of dog attacks not because putting a microchip in a dog will control its behaviour—unless there is something about the microchip that they are not telling us—but because of the powers that local authorities have been given to deal with their dogs across the entire region that is being looked at. 
One of the big problems we have is that as soon as a dog starts to exhibit menacing behaviour it comes to the attention of a regional or district council. Often that dog will be shifted or given to someone else; it could be registered under another name or simply moved into another regional authority district where that local authority is not aware of the dog’s behaviour in the past. Let us remember that because of all the misinformation that was being spread about dog attacks a dog control officer in Gisborne felt compelled to come out in the media and say that about 99 percent of dog attacks happen on a dog’s property—they are not stray dogs; people stay away from stray dogs—and they often happen because a dog has been provoked. 
He also said the overwhelming majority of dog attacks come from registered dogs—dogs that are known about. Stray dogs are not the dangerous ones. We need to remember that all dogs have the capacity to be dangerous in the wrong situation. A dog is a dog and I keep having to tell my father that a dog is not another child; it is a dog. We need to remember that every dog can be dangerous and we need to let people know that so that when people teach children not to poke sticks through a fence at a dog we will be likely to get fewer dog attacks. 
What has been found in New South Wales is that if a dog is brought in and then gets picked up it is compulsorily microchipped if it has not already been microchipped. So a dog that has been picked up by a dog ranger for menacing behaviour will have its microchip zapped by the ranger who could find out that that dog has a serious history of menacing behaviour in a different region of New South Wales. Dog rangers have had the power to have that sort of dog destroyed which has meant that that dog was destroyed before it ripped the kid’s face off. That is why in New South Wales it is believed that microchipping has reduced the number of dog attacks. That is not the case because a microchip changes a dog’s behaviour but because we get what is essentially a criminal record of a dog so that we know where the dangerous dogs are and can stop their movement around the country where it can be hidden. So a local authority if it has a dog coming in for the first time knows what that dog has done in previous regional authorities that it has been in. 
John Hayes 
: Nonsense! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well then John Hayes might explain why in New South Wales dog attacks have plummeted since the introduction of the exact kind of reforms that are being introduced here today. I say that as someone who did not agree with microchipping in the first place. But when I made the effort to go out and look at what has happened overseas I realised we would not be doing the people of New Zealand a service—we would be doing them an injustice—if we did not put the stupid politics aside. Is it only because Federated Farmers do not like it that we will jump up and down—or will we say: “Hang on. Is there actually something here that might prevent dog attacks before they happen because we have control of our dog population and when a dog is moved across into a different council it becomes a completely different entity and because of that we deserve to give this due consideration?” I ask members to think about it. They do not have to like it. I do not expect members to drop all party lines and say that because the evidence shows something they will change their minds. But we may well end up if this fails with a worse system because of the politicking.