Roy Eric: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Eric: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3646] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am very keen to take a call on the Local Government Law Reform Bill as well. This bill amends several Acts of Parliament—in fact nine different Acts ranging from the Dog Control Act the Litter Act through several local government Acts and the Land Transport Act—and a number of minor amendments take place. There is one exception. This bill has quite a major impact in relation to dogs which I will get on to in a moment. I have to say from hearing submissions on this bill that there are obviously some other areas that submitters were quite keen to see the Government move on as well. 
This bill does not really address the concerns of local government at large. It fritters with some of the minor areas in terms of management. It does allow for an increase in a rates rebate scheme and although that in itself is something we understand and we support for those who cannot manage their rates this bill does not make any allocation at all on the administration. Therefore it imposes another significant cost on local government. In fact that is what this bill does. It increases the costs of local government. That should be the name of the bill and I may move an amendment when we get to the Committee stage because I think that more accurately describes what this bill does. 
If this Government were serious about addressing some of the needs of local government it should have addressed issues like the Resource Management Act. It could have engaged in a number of things rather than frittering around the edges. Last week I met with my local mayors in a mayoral forum which I have on a reasonably regular basis. They asked me this question and members of the Labour Government might like to respond: “Why do you as a Parliament impose standards upon local government that you don’t do yourselves as Government?”. I said: “Please explain.” They said: “We have this consultation process coming out of our ears. We have a formula a prescribed methodology and a process of consultation consultation consultation but when Cabinet decides whether to have a tax cut it just makes a decision within Cabinet. Cabinet does not go through the process that you require local government to go through. This all adds costs and we have to rate our citizens our local people in order to deliver all of these things.” Local government is not happy with this Government and to a large extent it is not happy with this reform legislation that we are discussing today. 
Let me give a specific example. There is no better example of where this Government has lost the plot than with what it has done over the microchipping laws and the management of menacing dogs. Yes there is an issue. No one wants to see little Carolina Andersons or any other child or any adult chomped on by a dog. Let us be quite clear about that. It is inappropriate that people even keep those kinds of dogs in New Zealand. That is probably what we should be addressing. But to put in place placebo legislation and say that will fix it when in actual fact it will do absolutely nothing is wrong. 
The Minister who spoke first said that this bill will not stop dogs from biting people. Absolutely it will not. He went on to say that it gives a method or words to that effect of identifying dogs to owners. That is the first point I want to address. About three metropolitan local authorities said that they think this is a good idea. It is fine if they think it is a good idea. I think they are Auckland Wellington and I cannot remember the other one. But to each of those authorities that were supporters I asked this question during the submission process: “How many dogs that have bitten or menaced people have you not been able to identify the owners thereof?”. I thought that was a reasonable question. There was not one. No one came up and said: “We have a problem with 21 dogs or we have a problem with one dog or whatever.” When they were questioned before the select committee not one authority could say it could not identify an owner. That is the first point. 
The second point is that most people have an expectation that microchipping works. They have the view that if they see a dog and want to know who the owner is then they point a thing like a woman’s hairdryer at it and it gives a number. That is not how it works. Firstly if we have a problem identifying the owner of a dog most probably it is not registered. If it is not registered it will not be microchipped. If we are going to impose a greater cost on registration by microchipping there is even less reason to register a dog. That is a crucial point. Secondly the actual microchip reader is a little portable gadget. It is about 125 centimetres across; it is a half sphere. One can hold it in one’s hand and then get the dog to be stationary then one virtually has to hold the microchip reader at skin contact— 
Mark Blumsky 
: Above the Rottweiler? 
ERIC ROY 
: We will get to Hank in a minute. One has to virtually hold it on the dog’s skin and directly above. So the dog has to be stationary it has to be contained and the microchip is then read. [ 
Interruption 
] Let us not get ahead of the story here. 
 The other thing about the microchips is that they are 7 millimetres long and 1 millimetre in diameter. Their efficacy and longevity is another question we will come to. It is significantly harder to read a microchip implanted into long-haired dogs. In dogs with a wet coat it is almost impossible. That is where the woman’s hairdryer is needed—the menacing dog is caught dried off with a woman’s hairdryer then searched for the microchip which may or may not be viable. Why do I say “may or may not be viable”? It is for this reason—and I will give members the example of a lady who imported two golden retrievers from England to Nelson. The dogs had to be microchipped before they could travel internationally and the microchips were read as the dogs left Heathrow. But when they arrived in New Zealand one of the microchips would not work. It could not be read. 
Then there is the issue experienced by a farmer who decided that he must try this. He took his dog to the vet to get it microchipped. Immediately afterwards it could not be read. He tried for half an hour to get a reading holding the dog in all positions. Thinking the microchip was a dud another microchip was implanted and the result was that he got two readings. How reliable is that? It simply is not reliable—and I can see that the Minister is interested so he should pay attention to this. I actually conducted a trial myself. I took a Rottweiler that had been microchipped to the vet for a reading—and I have to tell members that this was some Rottweiler. It weighed 70 kilograms and was under very good control. It was not my dog; I borrowed it. It had been microchipped about 7 years beforehand. After three-quarters of an hour we could not find the microchip. I said that this brought up the matter of efficacy and the technician told me—and nobody has told members this—that if people want to be sure that the microchip in their dog is working then they have to check it at least once every year. 
We have had demonstration after demonstration all over the country by dog owners on the issues of efficacy and cost. It is not a matter of just one trip to the vet. If the microchipping of dogs is to have any effect at all we need a warrant of fitness on the microchip. That just shows what a nonsense this is. The Government ought to be listening to those people who have some practical experience. Those people are the dog owners Federated Farmers—the biggest group of dog owners in this country—and New Zealand kennel clubs all of whom have come out against microchipping. 
One of the many issues in the bill is the reporting of dead dogs clause which I will have to get into during the Committee stage. Again that clause is another nonsense. There are a number of things about this bill that will not fix the problem. If this Government is serious about menacing dogs—and it should be—then it ought to ban menacing dogs and ban people from owning them. Dogs should not be microchipped with an ineffective means of identification. This bill contains a number of things that we will get into during the Committee stage. The bill is a nonsense.