Ardern Shane: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9864] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I am reminded of the old cliché: “Every dog has his day” particularly when it comes to this Minister of Local Government. This Minister has chosen a very bad case to introduce some very bad law with regard to the microchipping of dogs across the whole of New Zealand. I am reminded of that old saying because despite the fact there has been concern about this dog law through about three Parliaments under this Government we are today debating this bill yet in the case of horrendous crimes against people—and 92 percent voted in the election before last for tougher sentencing—we have done nothing. When it comes to dogs and the case of the little girl Carolina Anderson who was injured we are today rushing through legislation that will result in the microchipping of every dog in New Zealand. 
In the Local Government and Environment Committee there was widespread support for most of the intent that is set out in this legislation but there was certainly no support for microchipping every dog and the cost that goes with that. This Minister under the advice that he was given said: “I’ll make a generous offer. We’ll set up the database. We’ll put up the dough for that.” It would probably have been a smarter decision for the Minister to say: “We’ll spend a bit of money on education on dogs particularly dangerous dogs and dog ownership.” Instead of that the Government has decided it will set up another INCIS computer program somewhere—another quango somewhere that is likely to end up in disaster. 
Hon Annette King 
: Who made that hash? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Listen to the interjection from the other side of the Committee! That has certainly set members on that side alight. They never learn. They should learn from the mistakes of the past. 
The Government is to set up a computer program. How will a computer program go out on the streets and prosecute and track down those who flagrantly abuse the law? How will it work? How will it actually bring to heel the dangerous dogs listed in this bill that people still keep and do not have microchipped? How will it work? What will the Government do to ensure that local authorities around New Zealand enforce the law? I appeal to local authorities up and down New Zealand that may be listening to this debate to please go out and implement the intention of this law but show sensible discretion when it comes to sensible owners who do not have their dogs microchipped or do not meet other restraints or regulations that may be placed on them in this legislation. Much has been made of the fact that it is a family tradition— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Clauses 3 and 4 are the clauses under discussion. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I am aware of that and I will come back to those clauses. Clause 8 allows microchipping. I accept that it is outside the Part 1 debate we are having at the moment but it is at the guts of—[ 
Interruption 
] Does the Minister have something to say? I did not catch that. 
Darren Hughes 
: Everyone is trying to help the member. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Yes I am grateful for that support. Surely the Minister will take a call to correct any mistakes he thinks I might have made with regard to the discussion I am involved in. I will wait for that call and listen with great interest. 
The bottom line is we are debating legislation today that will not fix the problem that is associated with the reason why this debate is taking place. Unless we have local government bodies that are prepared to go out and enforce the law and unless we have a Government that is prepared to support those people in that role then this bill will not overcome the problems we have. If members look at the various bits of Part 1 they will find that local authorities must adopt a policy to regulate the behaviour of dogs in public places. Well will they? Will the Minister make sure they do that? Will they do so in the future? There has been no evidence of it in the past. In fact if the law had been upheld in that regard the particular case in point would not have happened.